Antny08

Please read my statement on the ANI.

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

• As I pointed out later in the ANI discussion, the community supports an indef block, for WP:BLP violations, and disruptive editing on a BLP (they kind of blend here), which isn't the exact rationale you were blocked for. I would also note that there is likely a consensus that there are questions about your competency to edit here if you can't understand the real world damage these kinds of edits do. I don't think you need to demonstrate you are "here to build an encyclopedia", you need to demonstrate an ability to understand the real damage your edits did/can do, and demonstrate enough "clue" that it won't happen again. If you are unblocked, you will be barred from editing any BLP article, or any section of an article that concerns living persons, based on the trend at ANI. What we do here can cause other media to report what is being said, and spiral out of control, ruining a person's reputation, or life. You need to do more than say "I'm sorry. I understand." if you want to get back to editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do not want to get back to editing. I quit actually minutes before I was blocked, and I am not planning on coming back. I listed on the Wikipedia when I originally made the edits that it was an ALLEGATION and it was all just CLAIMS. I also stated Weingrod's side of the story. It was not done to ruin his life. Antny08 (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Having read what you have written above, I can't take your apology below seriously - you have pretty much summed up a dangerously incompetent understanding of Wikipedia policy and display a casual attitude toward real harm to real people. Acroterion (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Still now, you are justifying your actions, watering them down, and clueless as to why people are upset with you. Simply put, if you can't understand the problem, you can't fix it. Andy was correct to call you out. Granted, he can be a bit too blunt sometimes, but he tends to be correct on the merits. If you don't want to get back to editing, then it should be easy to ignore ANI and this talk page. And you wouldn't have requested an unblock above, so you're sending mixed signals here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)