User talk:Antny08

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.

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]

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]

I'm also curious as to this vanishing, as I had always assumed it was only done for editors in good standing (ie: not under sanction). I guess I'm going to have to go look up some stuff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I left a message with Yahya who did the vanishing, but isn't an admin here. Considering that the editor was talking about coming back on his user page, this is obviously a bad vanishing. I had CSDed the user page (if you are vanished, you don't need a user page and "retired" banner), but restored as I'm questioning the whole vanishing thing. It shouldn't have been done to an editor fresh into a contentious unblock and community sanctioned editing restrictions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user wasn’t blocked anywhere at the time of the global rename, and the rename was done from the global rename queue. According to global policy, renaming to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct is not allowed. When renaming, to verify this, we check the CentralAuth to see if there is a block. If the account isn’t blocked anywhere and the request looks good, we approve it. It is really not possible to check edits/talk pages on every wiki before proceeding with a rename request. So, I believe I didn't do anything wrong. However, if the enwiki community/sysops wants to revert this rename, I am happy to do so. Pinging @331dot, who is an active local sysop + global renamer. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 10:27, 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]

@Dennis Brown I have reverted the action and suppressed the creation of a redirect since this is a reversion of a previous rename. Please update any pages connected with the previous talk page if needed. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 12:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:WhatLinksHere/User_talk:Renamed_user_3728482038 :) —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 12:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yahya, and for the quickness all around in your responses. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are risking my safety, I want to vanish for my own safety. I am not planing on returning. Antny08 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not planning on returning. Please reconsider Antny08 (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know about the process(I'm not personally involved in vanishing users though I am a renamer) I don't think Yahya did anything wrong per se, because as they note it would be difficult to check edits beforehand. I do agree, though, that this rename should be reversed for this editor whose conduct is in dispute and has said they will come back. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vanished for my personal safety, not to hide bad conduct. I am no longer planing on returning. Antny08 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to be on this app anymore. Antny08 (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]