User Talk: Roxy the dog

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User page}}
<span class="sticky-decoration" style="position:fixed; z-index:3; bottom:{{#expr:{{#invoke:Random|number|10}}*10}}vh; right:{{#expr:{{#invoke:Random|number|10}}*10}}vw; transform:rotate({{#expr:{{#invoke:Random|number|4}}*90}}deg);" class="sticky-decoration">{{purge|link= ↗}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 15
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box|auto=yes|search=no}}

June 2026

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours''' for making personal attacks towards other editors ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks ↗, then submit a request through the unblock wizard ↗ or through [{{fullurl:Special:MyTalk|action=edit&section=new&editintro=Template:Unblock/editintro&preloadtitle=Unblock+request&preload=Template:Unblock/preload&preloadparams%5b%5d=}} your talk page].  In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)</div></div>

:Hello @Asilvering, has the editor that caused this situation received a commensurate sanction? To further explain my question, I was compared to the nastiest fascist in the UK at the moment by a thoroughly unpleasant chap who does not appear to have been sanctioned at all. Consensus on the pertinent ANI thread does not appear to reflect this lopsided outcome. - '''Walter''' Still not in the Epstein Files '''Ego''' 14:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
::If you can convince me that this was a bad block, I would be happy to challenge it. I know that this is annoying, but like many poeple with autism, I can't do anything other than follow the evidence wherever it leads me.
::* ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Report personal attack ↗
::* Thread in question: Talk:Fish and chips#Deeply concerned by editors’ behaviour regarding this page ↗
::* Related page: Tommy Robinson ↗
::* {{userlinks|Roxy the dog}} (blocked for 72 hours)
::* {{userlinks|FJLGreen}} (blocked for 31 hours. Blocked from Fish and chips and Talk:Fish and chips indefinitely)
::This looks like an open and shut case to me. An editor (with 20 edits and 1 previous block) called another editor a Nazi. The other editor (with 38,000 edits and 22 previous blocks) decided to be a jerk right back and called them them a piece of shit. The first editor got a one and a half day block, the second got a three day block. Not blocked by the same admin, BTW.
::Convince me that this was a bad block. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I wont even try. - I'm pissed though. Most of the blocks were for petty reasons and dont actually reflect my kind and lovely nature.
:::Samuel (real name) Ego alter ego was a dentist in the Midlands of the UK and my grandfather. He had three sons, the youngest my father, who died on the first weekend of lockdown, and my two uncles who both served in N. Africa during WW2. The oldest, a pilot was shot down over the desert, his navigator killed and he was wounded in the shoulder. Invalided out, people in my home town sent him a total of six white feathers. He died with shrapnel still in his arm.
:::
:::Sam Ego had cyanide tablets for his jewish family in case adolf won.
:::
:::'''Walter''' Still not in the Epstein Files '''Ego''' 20:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Really makes you think about how trivial most of our problems are, doesn't it?
::::For the record, I would not have blocked someone for lashing out after being called a Nazi, but I don't think I have enough to make a case at WP:AN for this being a bad block. I would not win that fight. But just so you know, I would go to bat for you if I thought I could win. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Since Roxy has said that he does not wish to bother to challenge it, and since it's only for 72 hours, including the Sabbath, I figure it's not worth challenging. But I'm going to say for the record that, {{u|Asilvering}}, I thought you had better judgment than this. The editor who really acted badly gets at 31-hour block, while Roxy gets 72 hours. Interesting math, but I guess the other editor's page block goes into the equation in some novel way. Oh, but I guess that actually the "reasoning" is based on Roxy being a long-time editor who has been blocked in the past. On Wikipedia, you get frequent flier miles. And when someone says something malicious to you, you are expected not to use nasty words, and just hold your head up and sniff-sniff. So here's the way to understand Wikipedia policy: if you have a history, and a minority of the WP:KNIT ↗ters at ANI want to play "I wanna be an admin!" by showing how well they can pearl clutch over rough language, the Golden Door to sticking it to people has been opened. Just get someone to take the WP:BAIT ↗, and you "win" the Wikipedia "game". Oh Roxy, you took the bait! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::That editor ''was'' blocked at the time, and Roxy left alone, so it's really quite something to act as though the other guy got off scot-free. Roxy, on the other hand, already ''had'' a recent block for PAs. (And, yes, all contributors are expected to not refer to other contributors as a "piece of shit", and there's no carve-out for "he hit me first".) I came across the situation because another editor had (in my view, somewhat unhelpfully) redacted that personal attack some days later, and not only did Roxy ''reinstate'' it, but he went to that editor's talk page to complain about how ''they'' were being rude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blue-Sonnet#Fish_and_Chips_Talk ↗. He also knew full well that's how I got there, since I responded there. I see he preferred to let the two of you believe otherwise. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you for explaining. As the author of WP:2WRONGS ↗, I can see your point about there being no carve-out. On the other hand, conduct happens in context, and whereas "piece of shit" can be quite awful in many contexts, calling a Jewish editor a Nazi is a bit like calling a Black editor by the n-word, which I think makes Roxy's reaction more understandable, if one takes the time to look beyond the block log and examine each case on its own merits. And I'm quite capable of figuring out for myself what I believe, so I'm not influenced by what someone else might "let" me believe. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Roxy's recent conduct is still unacceptable regardless of the context in which it occurred. Civility is not optional. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::So you don't care about context. Duly noted. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I do care about context. I just find the notion that context can excuse what would normally be clearly unacceptable behavior quite baffling. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::At this point, you are just grave-dancing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 (2)

In closing this discussion ↗, I am warning you on behalf of the community that your response to the OP was unacceptable, despite the provocation. You would be well advised to exercise further caution in your responses to other editors. Given your own block history, and this now also on the record, it is likely that a future re-occurrence will not result in yet another warning. Mfield (Oi! ↗) 17:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:I find it somewhat amusing that the community find that calling somebody who compared me to the nastiest fascist in the UK at the moment a piece of something you pick up on your shoes on the Parisienne pavements. It's a shame that the community can be that unsupportive. there are nice people around though. - '''Walter''' Still not in the Epstein Files '''Ego''' 18:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::@Roxy the dog If you want the opinion of a less involved editor; how I see it is this: many editors agree that your response to FJLGreen under him comparing you to the neo-nazi was warranted '''by itself''', but that compounded together with your previous history is what led to the consensus to warn you. The warning notice reads to me as more "just be cautious not to overstep in the future even if some agree it was warranted in this case". Electricmemory (talk) ''In solidarity ↗'' 22:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:Warned for Wikipedia:Gravedancing ↗ --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::I'm confused Guy. Was I warned? - '''Walter''' Still not in the Epstein Files '''Ego''' 18:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:::{{eC}} No. I warned Mfield on their talk page, using the same language they used on you. You were warned at the time of your block. I don't agree with the nature of the warning or with the block, but a minor "please stop doing that" warning would have been appropriate. Yes, you shouldn't have responded by saying out loud what everyone was thinking, but no, acting as if you committed the crime of the century rather than a minor infraction was not appropriate, and piling on with Yet Another Warning ''after'' the block expired and we are all supposed to move on was completely over the top grave dancing. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::::The community consensus of the discussion was for Roxy to receive a warning. That is what the above notificatin represents. It is not a warning from me, it is a warning from the community. I am very surprised that someone with your edit count would think it was appropriate to warn me for that as an uninvolved closing admin? Mfield (Oi! ↗) 18:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I hope @Guy Macon is just confused and has somehow mistaken my admin closing of the AN/I discussion and notifying you of the community outcome for some kind of gravedancing, which they then took it upon themselves to warn me for. Makes no sense to me other way, and even then not much sense. Mfield (Oi! ↗) 18:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} I am not confused at all. I think you were out of line. The close was fine, the closing comment was fine, posting a warning on this talk page for behavior that the user had already been punished for was not OK. Clearly you do not agree, but I stand by my decision to warn you. I suggest that we end this discussion here. Nothing good will come from you repeating that you didn't do anything wrong or me repeating that I think you did. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Guy, I'm sorry, but it's not gravedancing to implement a consensus found at ANI. It's what we ask admins to do. As I've already said just below, I disagree to some extent with that consensus, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the consensus. I criticized someone in the talk section just above for ''actual'' gravedancing, but this isn't that. I think you are misreading the emotional content here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Excuse me, but politely pointing out less-than-ideal behavior is not gravedancing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::There's a difference, but you're excused. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, I think Guy misunderstood what is going on, and I don't blame Mfield for this in any way, as it's a reasonable reading of the ANI discussion, which I'm very glad is now closed.
::::Roxy, I'm sure you know what I said at ANI, and I stand by everything I said. I've made it very clear that I think your block was a bad block, but that's Wikipedia. I don't have a problem with what Mfield said in the warning, other than that it is superfluous with the block – and a warning like that, but ''without'' the block, would have been OK with me. The other person, who is now quite properly indeffed from this site, got something much harsher than what you got, so there's ''some'' balance in that. Strictly speaking, you could have chosen not to take the bait, no matter how bad the provocation was. And as a practical matter, making an effort in the future to not take the bait would be a prudent choice for you to make. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::This isn't a reply to Tryptofish in particular, but to any lurkers who might have an opinion. Given my propensity to call a spade, and the circumstances that a nothere unpleasant editor was attacking me, was I right in my approach to not comment at all at the ANI. (Do you realise how effing difficult that was ???) '''Walter''' Still not in the Epstein Files '''Ego''' 18:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I'm a lurker who always seems to have an opinion. I think it would have depended on what you would have said there. If you had commented in anger, it would have made things worse for you. If you had commented politely, and explained why you were offended by that (offensive) remark, it would have helped you. On the one hand, there's a tendency to regard non-participation as the WP:ANI flu ↗, but on the other hand, anything that you say can be used against you ↗. And yes, I realize how difficult it was, but there are times when self-censoring is a very practical choice to make, and explaining how you had been wronged could have gotten you some sympathy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Despite my inviting them --twice-- to simply end a discussion on something we will clearly never agree about, Mfield decided to continue the dispute on their talk page, so to avoid duplicate discussions these are my last words in this thread. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

:Looking at this again, I appear to have been sanctioned twice for the same thing??????
:What am I not getting, particularly as the ANI consensus was a warning, rather than a three day block from the project, asilvering, thx. '''Walter''' It's my 70th birthday '''Ego''' 08:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
::I have no involvement in the ANI discussion. You have not been sanctioned twice for the same thing. You were sanctioned once, by me, for the reasons already described. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
:::In the notice it only say's for making personal attacks, which doesn't actually tell me anything. Poor adminning there. - '''Walter''' It's my 70th birthday '''Ego''' 16:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
::::My apologies. If I ever have cause to block you for personal attacks again, I shall be sure to provide an exhaustively detailed block log. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::How long have you been an admin. I still dont know what I was blocked for, because I'm pretty certain I've made no personal attacks recently, bearing in mind the ANI thread dontcha think??? Do better please. - '''Walter''' It's my 70th birthday '''Ego''' 17:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I have been an administrator since 6 September 2024 ↗. I have explained what you were blocked for both above and here ↗. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Nope, your link "here" makes no mention of a block, and there is no explanation on ''this'' page either despite what you say. Do (much) better in future please, or consider handing back the mop. Thanks. '''Walter''' It's my 70th birthday '''Ego''' 18:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Alright, let me be extremely crystal clear here. You called another editor a piece of shit. If I'd seen that at the time, I would have blocked immediately, as that is a clear personal attack. I did not see it then, so I did not block. However, I ''did'' see you telling off another editor for redacting that personal attack, and found that you had not only done that, but also ''reinstated'' the personal attack. That was ''three'' times where you should have stopped and thought "should I really be doing this? is this promoting a collegial atmosphere of encyclopedia-building?" You did not. It should go without saying that you cannot call other editors a piece of shit. It apparently did need saying. I said it, with a block. Don't do that again. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::{{Ping|Asilvering}} I'm sincerely puzzled by what's going on here. I've interacted with you multiple times in the past, and until now, I've found our interactions to be entirely excellent. This just doesn't sound like you. When you said {{tq|I shall be sure to provide an exhaustively detailed block log}}, that was snarky, and it implied that you blocked Roxy as much for past events as for anything here. All of this strikes me as very much out of character for you. On the merits of this case, I don't think it's reasonable to treat what happened at Blue-Sonnet's talk page as something that occurred completely independently of what happened at ANI, and for an admin to imply that they were unaware of what was going on at ANI is unconvincing. There was a consensus at ANI, such as it was, to warn Roxy, but I think the sentiment in the discussion was clearly contrary to a block. Wikipedia, of course, is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY ↗, and I can accept the idea of an admin issuing a block on their own authority, despite the ANI discussion, but not as if it had not happened. This isn't like you, and I don't get it. (Roxy, happy birthday, if that's appropriate.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I made the block independently of the ANI thread. You can choose to be convinced by that or not, but it ''is'' the truth. Personally, I'm surprised that ANI had such trouble with the situation, but I suppose I shouldn't be; this is why cases like M.Bitton and SchroCat end up at arbcom instead of being dealt with earlier, when they should have been. When those cases ''do'' get to arbcom, there's always some degree of "but why wasn't this handled sooner?!" This is a pretty good case study in why individual admins don't stick their necks out to block for incivility when they see it. Roxy called someone else a piece of shit. That's not acceptable, and it has never been acceptable. We don't need arbcom, or even an ANI thread, to block for a PA like that. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, that's an argument that I can accept, but I still feel like the snarkiness isn't you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::For that, I can apologize. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks. Wikipedia can be a very tense place, sometimes. Everyone, be well. Roxy, the block is over, and happy birthday. I hope we can all move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Reply (2)

About unbolding at ANI, I'll reply here, because I don't want to reply there. It doesn't matter much, up to you. It's more like I was trying to nip the process in the bud, but it was nothing personal about what you said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Behavior

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_of_Ayush&diff=prev&oldid=1362685041 ↗

What you had previously written was obviously snarky, we don't do that on Wikipedia. I hate pseudoscience probably even more than you do, but self control. Also you're pushing twoards edit warring. There's an ongoing discussion on the talk page that you should be participating in. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

:'''Could either of you please explain to me why you are unwilling or unable to simply follow WP:BRD ↗?''' I expect this sort of shit from the quacks who are promoting fake medical care, but both of you should know better.
:Don't make me pull this encyclopedia over. I will do it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
::I did, and don't imply that I seem like a quack. Avoidable edgy talking, why grapesurgeon (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
:::I agree with Guy. I think both Roxy and Grapesurgeon made edits with less-than-ideal wording, that was improved by subsequent edits by other editors. The problem with Roxy's wording was that "In other words..." comes across as lecturing the reader, and the problem with Grapesurgeon's wording was that "have been described as" is WP:WEASEL ↗ wording, whereas "are" is much better. (And I think the subsequent move to the third paragraph is reasonable, in terms of flow, and there is no loss of clarity.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
::::To be clear, I'm happy with the further changes to what I did. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::When you wrote "I did" are you implying that you followed the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle ↗ (BRD) and that you didn't WP:EDITWAR ↗? Because the recordhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_of_Ayush&action=history ↗https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ministry_of_Ayush&action=history ↗ clearly shows '''BRRRR''', not '''BRD'''. You both reverted twice, and neither of you initiated a discussion on the article talk page.
:::::I have a serious concern that you may not understand Wikipedia's policies on reverting. Note: becoming aggressive and threatening me with ANI (again) is unlikely to reduce my concerns. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Did you look at the talk page of that article? I was participating there. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Also the ANI threat was due to the mocking thread; '''questioning whether I followed BRD is perfectly ok'''. By all means question that to anyone.
::::::I don't think you grasp why I threatened ANI; it's because of your needless toxicity otherwise. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::'''Report me at WP:ANI ↗ or drop the WP:STICK ↗.''' Accusing another editor of wrongdoing on multiple talk pages without filing a complain at the one place where such accusations are allowed and on-topic violated Wikipedia's policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::...? We're allowed to discuss behavior on user talk pages; that excuse doesn't work, you also accused me of wrongdoing here, shouldn't you have immediately gone to ANI by that logic? You're just as guilty then. This is a reach.
::::::::I'm done pursuing this anyway though, I think it's clear what happened. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi

Hi you reverted my edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amazon_Prime&diff=prev&oldid=1360325978 ↗ which I think was due to an error by me. I was implementing a COI edit request left on the article's Talk page but apparently deleted the sig line of the requestor when I responded to the request which may have made it appear that I was the requestor, not the reviewer. Anyway, apologies for the confusion.

I didn't find anything particularly problematic about the content of the request and feel like it could be readded but let me know if you feel differently and I'll defer to you. Best - RedBaron214 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)