Please read my statement on the ANI.


Have a good life everyone im sorry I could not be a better editor

May 2024

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Antny08 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am here to build an encylopedia, I have not spent months and hundreds of hours and almost 2,000 non-automated edits to "not build an encylopedia". I am here to help Wikipedians not hurt, I am not perfect. Antny08 (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A minimal level of self-awareness and a significant level of ability to understand criticism are required to edit Wikipedia. I'm not seeing either. The issue is not whether you are hurting Wikipedians, the issue is that you don't understand that your edits to a biography had the capacity to amplify life-destroying allegations against a real live person on the flimsiest of pretexts. You managed to talk yourself into this. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello, Antny08,
I guess my question to you is why, when many very experienced editors were telling you to drop the stick, why you kept persisting trying to get Andy punished? Clearly, editors were finding problems with some of your edits, suggesting you back off and you still went on the attack. At that point, people begin questioning your competency because you are ignoring the advice of editors who have edited and survived disputes for decades to pursue some single-minded pursuit of your own.
This is just not acceptable on this project regardless of how positive your other contributions might have been. You have to be able to listen to criticism and be flexible enough to change your behavior instead of denying the problems others are pointing out. Heck, I've been editing here for almost 11 years and people still come to point out my mistakes. If you can't take on board what other editors are telling you and be willing to admit you're wrong, then Wikipedia isn't the place for you. It's not just a matter of saying you're sorry in an unblock request but understanding what mistakes were made and knowing that you won't make them again. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The comments you were making about a living person, based on terrible sources and a YouTube video had the potential to destroy someone's life and had to be obliterated from the page history so that no one, even admins, would ever see them. If you can't understand why that was a huge, awful mistake, then you won't be unblocked. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the full discussion on the ANI, I poined out not once, but multiple times that I was completely in the wrong and he was correct. People seen to be ignoring that. I apologized for adding bad sources mutliple times as well. I persisted my argument because I was close to leaving this site anyway and I wanted him to be punished for how he acted. But most people on Wikipedia are unprofessional hypocrites. Antny08 (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted to punish the person who pointed out you were doing something wrong. That is hypocritical. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are the hypocritcal one. You cannot only side with one person just because you believe the other one did something wrong. Use common sense and realize that guy is a jerk. Antny08 (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TO EDITORS ABOUT THE ANI

I just wanted to formally apologize for my actions. But the things people are saying about me are completely false. I am more than competent enough to edit on this app, I just do not like being attacked for stuff I should not be attacked for. I have used my time on Wikipedia to create many articles and make almost 2,000 edits (99% were non-automated, and most on the mainspace.)

I have also FULLY ACKNOWLEDGED that my actions for Herschel Weingrod were wrong MULTIPLE TIMES in my replies. People seem to be either overlooking or completely ignoring that. Many people said that I did not own up to my mistakes which I am so confused about because I ABSOLUTELY DID. I said multiple times that I was completely in the wrong and that Andy was right. But just because I made mistakes doesn't mean Andy shoudn't be punished for his. Looking at his edit summaries, he is very rude to other users. I reported him because I care about the Wikipedia community and do not want another user to harrass others. I made the right choice in doing an ANI, I just made the wrong choice in how I did it. But everyone needs to understand they do NOT understand the full context of the situation, or just don't want to. But I apologize for my actions. Antny08 (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC) M[reply]

The parable of the mote and the beam is apropos. What you've written above is simply an empty attempt to wipe the slate clean and to obtain some kind of punishment for an editor who spoke up and confronted you, rightfully, if not politely. Your acknowledgements of wrongdoing and understanding of your actions fall far short of convincing anyone that you understand the real-world impact of Wikipedia biographical content, that you understand the implications of demanding that someone you think has done something wrong must be singled out as Jewish, that you are willing to collaborate with other editors and accept criticism, and that you understand the difference between editorial misconduct and blunt communication. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't seem to be getting it. Anyone can say, I was completely in the wrong. The trouble is you've shown no evidence you actually understand how and why you were in the wrong. The last thing you said at ANI that actually dealt with how you were in the wrong was [1] which demonstrated zero understanding of how you were in the wrong. In fact it strongly suggests you do not understand how you were in the wrong at all and so are liable to make similar mistakes in the future. (To be clear the next/last thing you said at ANI was did not demonstrate any understanding on your part either [2].) Putting the BLP concerns aside, you've demonstrate post-block the same inability to understand how you are in the wrong right here since you keep saying Andy needs to be "punished" except you've already been told we do not punish people on the English Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This, and your non-apology above ("I made the right choice in doing an ANI, I just made the wrong choice in how I did it"), indicate obstinately poor insight and an inability to accept criticism or advice. Basically, a case of WP:CANTHEARYOU. When you used ANI to seek punishment of an experienced editor who very rightly confronted you, you conflated unfriendly but matter-of-fact comments and even userpage content with harassment (you got corrected about "harassment" at ANI but just repeated it above). You were told there to drop the stick, but you pressed on against the editor. Your non-apology above still insists the other editor should be punished. Insisting everyone at ANI either wrote falsehoods or doesn't understand the situation is a non-starter because it implies you didn't earn your block. At ANI, there were a few folks who supported shortening your block period, but you seem to have talked them down from that. I can't tell if you've left, or if you're going to appeal your block again. If you do, instead of apologizing any more, you might get more mileage by reflecting on the severity of your BLP edits that got suppressed (what does WP:BLP say, what does WP:RS say, and how would you feel if you were the subject?), your obstinance at ANI (interested solely in pressing your case rather than receiving the feedback for the case you filed seeking feedback), and your hyperbolic reactions to feeling insulted. This will require showing better insight, so it might take quite a bit of time. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 18:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Antny08 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Based on reading everyone's replies to me, I have now came to fully understand what I have done wrong. I committed a BLP violation by using bad sources to add (Redacted) allegations to Herschel Weingrod. When I added these allegations, I was unaware of the correct BLP policies and wrongly added unreliable sources. I apologize for my actions, and I now understand why I was wrong. Also, I should have just dropped the stick in my ANI, but I wanted to not give up and stay persistent in my case. I should have listened to the other editors when they said to drop it. To say I am not here to build an encyclopedia is completely incorrect, it has always been my goal to help others. If you look at my edit history, you will see I have made many large edits and page creations throughout my time here on Wikipedia. I understand that my BLP violations were very large due to the subject, and now know better. I should have listened to others instead of only insisting on myself that I was correct. I am hoping you can reconsider this block, and thank you for your time in reading this. Antny08 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocking per agreement to stay the heck away from the problems that got him blocked in the first place, and the topic ban to back it up. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you square all that with this potshot at other editors just now [3]? Acroterion (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just stating that he was being hypocritical because he is not understanding both sides of the story. You cannot deny the fact that Andy was indeed being a jerk, but I'm not saying that he was was wrong in what he said. I made a mistake and I understand that now. I was only trying to defend myself, but I should have listened to other editors and I reget not doing so. Antny08 (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't interested in hearing about your grudges against other editors, and can't take your unblock requests seriously in view of your continuing behavior. When a dozen or so experienced editors tell you you're wrong, it may be wise to consider the possibility that you are wrong. I don't see that in your behavior, and I don't see a remedy other than the passage of time.Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you still saying that when I keep saying I know I was wrong? I have accepted I was wrong from the dtatt yet you keep saying that im denying it. I am a human being too whether you think so or not. I understand what I have done wrong and I apologize for it. Antny08 (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a profound blind spot where Andy is concerned..You've been repeatedly told to drop it, yet you're fixated on some kind of retribution. We're not interested in hearing about your grudges against other editors. Acroterion (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I am not interested in hearing you say the same thing again and again. Get over it. I acknowledged what I did wrong, but you keep repeating the same things that I have already refuted / explained many times. Antny08 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's the BLP violation that had to be removed from your unblock request. Acroterion (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was acknowledging that I understood what the issue was. This is not his article. Antny08 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be surprised to know that BLP policies have always applied on your talkpage as well? For the dignity and protection of all including yourself? If that's news to you, please just drop your argument, don't dispute or justify or minimize this, and say something closer to "understood." JFHJr (㊟) 19:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
understood Antny08 (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please also understand this was demonstrative of why you'll be topic banned from even mentioning or editing a sentence involving a living person (BLP) in the event anyone unblocks you. WP:BLP is intimidatingly expansive, and nobody is its absolute expert; I've been editing 18 years and I still often re-read the nitty-gritty of the live version for reference. Editing BLPs does not go like this for everyone, but the specifics of your (again) redacted edits demand a higher learning curve. Time can get you there, and you may even be unbanned from BLP. Please be patient and be willing to read up on BLP policies, again and again. I am not asking for your contrition, just less obstinance when there exists a policy provision you're ignorant of. And don't touch anyone who's alive. If you want to be unblocked, you need to be able to work within parameters the community has already decided. I know you're a capable editor. Thanks for your time. JFHJr (㊟) 21:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not wrong but I think the discussion did reach a fine end with "understood" and referred to that in my message below; I saw the 21:22 message after sending mine. Asking for a simple "understood" and receiving it is rare, valuable and doesn't necessarily need any response. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No response invited or expected, just reading material for the developing. "Thanks for your time" = I'm putting on my jacket, looking at the door, and sincerely wishing a favorable outcome sooner or later. Thank you TBF. JFHJr (㊟) 21:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not make someone a hypocrite. The fact is you're still both-sides-ing it. Consensus unanimously confirms that Andy's comments were not out of bounds, but comported well with the harm you caused and resistance you posed to its remedy. You were confronted by The Grump, not customer service. You really need to confine your comments to evaluating your own behavior, nobody else's. JFHJr (㊟) 17:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. For admin consideration, how has this experience informed your intentions for self-control for the next time you feel offended by a jerk? Suggestions are: seek a second opinion on content (but not behavior, and not immediately at ANI), and intend to accept the consensus about the actual editorial topic; wait 2 hours before responding under high blood pressure (there are no deadlines here), and confine responses to the editorial topic (not behavior); do some yoga or GM between logins; establish a rapport with a long-term user not to team up but to receive and accept feedback on your own emotional behavior; the possibilities are infinite, really. FYI, I'm a real asshole and I have my own feelings about people challenging my edits, but I try not to let that leak too much here. JFHJr (㊟) 17:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i understand. Antny08 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Antny08,

The appeal looks generally fine to me; the discussions around it are less ideal but seem to have concluded in a way that makes the previously unproductive discussion valuable to have had. Your request doesn't explicitly/specifically say how you'd like to continue after the block, other than continuing to build an encyclopedia. If I understand correctly, the easiest way to alleviate the "not here to build an encyclopedia" concern would be an unblock under two conditions:

We'd additionally need an okay from Drmies before this can be done, in case you agree.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree to those conditions. Antny08 (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:ToBeFree, I don't know why I am pinged but I'm guessing the as-to-be-expected drama on ANI led to some reconsideration that I guess is fine. Like, I block someone for blatantly disregarding the BLP but if they do some yoga it'll be aight. Seriously, if this user has read up on the policies and shows contrition and all that, why even have an editing restriction? Just let em come back and see how they do. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, thanks! I think the block was a good decision and had the needed effect together with the unblock discussions. You were simply pinged as the blocking administrator. I personally wouldn't have unblocked Antny08 without the restriction Hammersoft thankfully placed below, and I'm happy to see that SarekOfVulcan already did the paperwork. I understand the (perhaps WP:ROPE?) idea of unblocking without an restriction, but it wouldn't have felt appropriate to me at least in response to an unblock request that didn't specifically propose any edits. It would perhaps have resulted in a re-block after more problematic BLP edits, and then I'd have felt partially responsible for letting these happen so early after an indefinite block that was meant to prevent them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban enacted

I have enacted the topic ban as written, and it has been dutifully logged. Effective immediately, you are topic banned from editing any content in any article that regards a living person, appealable in six months and once every six months thereafter. As ToBeFree notes above, you should consider that this will be broadly construed. Please do not attempt to skirt around the edges of this. Plenty of editors before you have attempted to do so with topic bans and eventually ended up being banned from the site entirely. I strongly urge you to consider what has happened and how best you can avoid getting into such a quagmire in the future. Most emphatically, I encourage you to reconsider casting aspersions such as "hypocritical" and "jerk" at any editor here, regardless of how justified you think such insults are. Please carefully read, understand, and embrace Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Understand; insults cast at someone here strongly reflect on the person making the insults, and have little or no effect at all on the target of such aspersions. You would be well advised to amend your behavior here. You are now on a slippery slope. Now is a golden opportunity to set things right. I hope the voice of the community has been crystal clear. However, if any of this is unclear to you, by all means ASK. Continuing as you have been is simply not an option. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you Antny08 (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy vanishing

Hello, Antny08/Renamed user 3728482038,

I'm surprised that your response to the ANI and being blocked is to try to do a courtesy vanishing. Your User page implies you will continue to edit so know that your topic ban still applies to you, this account and any other new account you might try to create. You made a big mistake and changing your username doesn't change the repercussions. I think it would have been wiser for you to continue to edit under your topic ban and eventually appeal it rather than try to disappear but it's your choice. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya No, it's not about you doing anything "wrong" and I'm not concerned with fault anyway. Stuff happens. They simply don't qualify for vanishing according to our policies, as they weren't in good standing. I'm not sure what all checking is done, or what could be done, so I don't assume, but you can see why some of us are a bit surprised to see it happen in the middle of sanctions being formalized. My goal is getting the renaming reversed, due to the both the existing ongoing sanctions, and the editor's own admittance that they aren't likely to actually "vanish". Otherwise, this would be using Vanish as a way to evade sanctions. I would ask you reverse the name change because of this at your earliest convenience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More