Roxy the former dog

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
Post Reply
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Roxy the former dog

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:53 am

Apparently, because well, why wouldn't you, the Wikipedia user Roxy the dog named himself after his actual dog. Said dog is now dead, due to cancer. Which made me wonder, given how his owner behaves toward other people on Wikipedia......

Karma? :shock: :lol:

Or maybe the poor dog just didn't want to live anymore. Although apparently the sad looking dog whose picture is displayed on Roxy's user page is not Roxy, but belongs to Smallbones. Who is, of course, also a fucking asshole.

Dogs pick up on the subtle cues of their human owner's behaviour very easily. Perhaps PETA need to be informed, having an owner who is a veteran Wikipedia editor is likely to be damaging to the health of the dog.

For those wondering, I am of course, a cat person. It seems to me to be almost cruel to prey on the pack instincts of a lesser lifeform so as to provide yourself with emotional enrichment. Just like it seems inarguably cruel to use your superior knowledge of the inner workings of a website to prey on other other humans in a sick game of capture the flag. But that's just me.

HTD. For the sake of all dogs everywhere.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Roxy the former dog

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:52 am

Blocked and unblocked for an episode of epic immaturity, during which he merely whined about how the blocker was wrong to take his block log into account because it misrepresents him. Quickly unblocked by Doc James, obviously because Roxy is anti-"woo", but officially because he promised to stop being disruptive. Which he technically didn't.

Well, as he requested, I looked into the circumstances of his blocks, picking May 2017 and September 2018 since they were both pertinent as having been lifted on the strength of his supposed reticence and reformability, and gee whizz, I was not in the least bit surprised to see they too were incidents where this guy did an immature thing, got blocked, and after much more immaturity, finally apologised and promised not to do it again.

He may be sincere, or he may be playing the game. What is clear is that this isn't going to stop. Not when he keeps getting unblocked without admitting what his problem actually is, namely immaturity.

Unsurprisingly, because it is quite a good predictor for immaturity, three days ago he told a vandal to fuck off. As part of the recent incident that saw him blocked, he told Andrew Davidson that he was a "piece of work". As is normal for Wikipedia's system of governance, he is only getting blocked for perhaps 1 time in a 100 that he is actually being disruptive.

Even after unblocking this time, he asked anyone who would listen, why Jytdog was able to manage what he had not. This was not a question a mature person would have asked, since it illustrated he either genuinely doesn't know the difference between disruption and normal editing, or he is asking the question as an attempt to justify the disruption he has since apologised for, sort of.

It seems Wikipedia is doomed to keep pretending these manchildren are valued assets. The effect, it seems, is that it is incredibly hard to even spot an adult on Wikipedia anymore.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Roxy the former dog

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:30 am

Regardless of the matter at hand, I don't see how Roxy the dog's "Grow up, and grow a thicker skin" is a helpful comment, or even an acceptable response to a complaint about personal attacks. Bradv 18:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
On boy. If we go by the Tarage noticeboard trolley is not allowed precedent, Roxy the diseased dog is going to be blocked three months from now. He has had warning number 1. Now we wait for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Roxy the former dog

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jan 03, 2019 1:12 pm

Definitely the Tarage playbook. After following up on the above unacceptable comment, an Administrator finds a month long record of similarly combative conduct from the diseased dog, and all he can think of doing is politely requesting he not do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =876597060

And people wonder why Wikipedia still has a problem with its toxic environment. What's to wonder about? They are simply far too tolerant of established users breaking the rules. It is approached as if it is an optional thing, a lifestyle choice.

"May I ask if you could be slightly more mindful?".

Pathetic.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Roxy the former dog

Post by Graaf Statler » Thu Jan 03, 2019 1:47 pm

CrowsNest wrote:They are simply far too tolerant of established users breaking the rules. It is approached as if it is an optional thing, a lifestyle choice.

Our Mies, Drmies aka Natuur12 is the best example. Sysop and formal Arb on both WPNL and WPEN. Trolling around, fixing even a SanFanBan. A friend of the woman who is in general pestling them by flaming there most times wiki-gender nonsens. No woman in this world will ever be helped by that.
"Helping" backward guys as he did with that "Ymnes" with that Global Lock of me. In short a huge troll.

He socks, he uses multiplay amount with acces to crap editors, he is flaming and gaslighting. Ok, they have sinked him this time as a arb.
But how many years is this going on? Covered by his wiki friends and WMF?
And what will be the result at the end, a better Wikipedia? Do you really think so?

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Roxy the former dog

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:31 pm

Get lost.
Go away and learn WP:PAG
Fuck off
Doubleplus fuck off
Really fuck off
fuck off. you are banned [from my talk page]. can't you read?
:o :shock: :? :oops:


Wow. What was this all about then?

THIS....
Swanmore College

Alumni
* Amanda Holden[citation needed]
No, the rabid dog wasn't adding the [citation needed], he was removing it. Oh, and of course he had good reason......
If my colleague is correct about a citation being needed, which they are not, then I could spend the rest of my life adding citation needed tags on Alumni lists, and still not finish the job It was just such a stupid thing for them to insist on, so ... -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
:roll:

Fucking plank. Policy is not on his side. Common sense is not on his side. Common deceny is nowhere to be seen.

And yet still no warning, much less a block. This is the sum total of Administrator intervention.......
User:Roxy the dog reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Woof)

Declined I think this is stale; Roxy has stopped editing the article now and moved onto other things, so I don't think any administrator action is required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about you Roxy, but I find if somebody doesn't respond to being told to fuck off twice, the best course of action is probably not to tell them to fuck off a third time
What I find is that lists like "alumni", "notable people" and especially "in popular culture" etc. have an irritating tendency for people to just wander up to them and put in any old thing, irrespective of whether it actually benefits the reader or not. A citation next to an entry at least signals "we've checked this out" as a kind of sibboleth, if you see what I mean.
As was pointed out, but not acted upon, he has indeed moved on, just to another edit war. Super ironically, at the article on Power posing

This particular toxic user has been blocked five times, an average of once a year. The Administrators who unblock him include former Arbitrator Drmies, and Board member Doc James. So it can hardly be claimed letting this dog piss and shit all over the place, is an aberration of their preferred means of self-governance in action.

For Wikipedia, this is sadly normal. The person in receipt of all this abuse, despite having done nothing wrong, is more likely to be sanctioned than the dog. The theory there goes that people are meant to disengage with psychos like this and seek help, even though a psycho like this shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. It's good advice, but there will always be scenarios where that advice is not followed, especially in cases like this, where the first initial going faith contact, albeit a template warning, is greeted with "get lost".

On Wikipedia, while you can certainly aim for best practice, when it comes to ordinary editors, you absolutely need to ensure minimal standards. Best practice is approaching users with personalized messages and disengagement when greeted with abuse, but minimal practice is not abusing people.

I hope the message contained in FRAMBAN means this dog gets a much needed bullet to the head soon. Speaking strictly veteranarianologically, you understand.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Roxy the former dog

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:51 am

A certain doggie is well overdue a lethal injection.

Amazing what the protection of Queen Bishonen can prevent.
Fuck off from this page.Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Haha, that's hilarious, you little shit. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Now fuck off from this page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry though, one of their best is on it......
I agree that Roxy the Dog has not yet contributed anything positive to this discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
...so he's absolutely nailed on to live for as long as his diseased body will allow.

:roll:

Dude should probably run for RfA. Would probably even pass. Not one of their best, but bang average, certainly.

Post Reply