Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Roux

Certification

This isn't certified correctly. You need to show where you've attempted to discuss these concerns with Roux, prior to coming here. Evidence of poor behaviour isn't evidence of trying and failing to solve the dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of users trying to resolve the dispute is here. --G2bambino (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is, apologies about that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bmwilkins

I'm sorry, Bmwilkins, but you showed up on my talk page telling me I didn't know what I was doing, and providing no evidence whatsoever, despite being asked to. So.. yeah. How about you provide some? [ roux ] [x] 20:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any evidence of these 'hundreds' of bad warnings, or the 'worst use of Huggle' you've ever seen.. I see one user getting warned for vandalism and content removal. [ roux ] [x] 21:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

You guys may want to look at and comment on the proposal I put up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Roux_and_User:G2bambino —— nix eagle 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin

Diffs would be good. Or are you still upset that I called your insistence that we should include Queen Elizabeth's supposed lizardness nonsense? [ roux ] [x] 16:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Future Perfect at Sunrise

The view was an interesting addition from someone who has been subject to their own RfC/U, in which they were accused of engaging in very similar behaviour to Roux. --G2bambino (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing?

I have noted that Roux has indicated on his talk page that he has left Wikipedia. I have enquired of him by e-mail, and he has confirmed that he is leaving. I will ask whether I can reproduce the contents of his e-mail, but I suspect that there is little point in continuing this RFC. Mayalld (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This RFC has been rendered moot, by Roux's departure. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that it's permanent, that is. --G2bambino (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you read the e-mail that I received from Roux (at User:Roux). It was a private e-mail to me, but I have his permission to post it. I can only say that if somebody felt it necessary to write about me like that, it isn't something that I would be very proud of. Mayalld (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference, however, is that in this case writing about me like that wasn't necessary; it was all said before, and I'm not sure what result is expected from saying it one more time. The evident paranoia, though, is something new, and it actually disturbs me more than with what is said about me. Despite what others may think, I have a heart, and I get the nagging feeling that Roux is in need of some help. --G2bambino (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As uninterested as I am in joining the conflict here, I find this comment unnecessary at best and cruel at worst. Roux's edits were pursued by G2bambino to the point where he had to stop working on articles he liked. That's not paranoia, it's the consequence of G2bambino's pursuance of this to its current and unfortunate end. - FlyingToaster 20:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. 100% completely and totally wrong. I didn't follow Roux. He showed up and started editing the articles I have had on my watchlist for years (look at who created Canadian royal symbols two years ago!). That you think my concern for his wellbeing is cruel perhaps says more about you than it does about me. --G2bambino (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phooey --Lawe (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a cynic, but wouldn't a good way to avoid impending punishments be to "leave" the project until every dies down only to come back again? The RFC should continue aslong as there is an active account controlled by Roux. Gavin (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the first four words only. There were no impending punishments for Roux. He had volunarily agreed to the most severe restrictions. Of course, they were unnecessary. He was the victim. A normal person subject to time-wasting, stalking, harrasment and baiting. --Lawe (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the light of this trainwreck, I have blocked G2bambino for three weeks, for apparent serious, long-time harassment. Please compare my outside view from yesterday on the RfC page, which apparently came too late, and my block message on his talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is welcome news. --Lawe (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May aswell close. Roux's Userpage has been deleted (at his request, via e-mail). GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]