User talk:HumanxAnthro/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of redirect discussion

I moved an article you created, List of accolades received by folklore, to List of accolades received by Folklore. I also nominated the one with the lower case, now a redirect, for deletion. You can see the listing at today's date. Shuipzv3 (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of accolades received by Folklore for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of accolades received by Folklore is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of accolades received by Folklore until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ippantekina (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: @PaulRKil: I stand by everything that I said and will not apologize or repent. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 This is actually their second 72 hour block, for essentially the same behavior, since September. Above seems to suggest every indication we should expect more in the future. -- ferret (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ferret: My fault. I misread the block log. Thanks, Canterbury Tail, for increasing the block to indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Indef

Since your response to being blocked for personal attacks and harassment was "I stand by everything that I said and will not apologize or repent." you've made it quite clear that you are completely unwilling to abide by Wikipedia's policies and edit in a collegial manner with other editors. Since this is a collaborative project, that kind of attitude is not acceptable here. Since you've clearly stated you refuse to edit in that manner and believe personal attacks are perfectly fine, then there is no more to discuss here and you are not welcome on the project. Canterbury Tail talk 20:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The ones who refuse to follow Wikipedia's principles of "Sources write articles" as Serge and Paul obviously are should be the ones not welcome here, but of course you punish the editor who contributed so much and simply called a spade a spade. I have never vandalized one page in my life and I am the one that gets the axe. I hope you are aware what you have done. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What next? Are you going to punish users that call out editors that replace entire articles with "Atlantic Records sucks" and let the vandals off the hook because they presented the reason for their vandalism in a nice way? This is what Wikipedia is coming to and what they are doing. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm very aware of what I've done thanks. You clearly iterated you were unwilling to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and don't see anything wrong with how you treat other editors, therefore you are not are not compatible, as explained above. And this is about you, not about other people. Now I'm a firm believer in indefinite does not mean permanent, but this means you'll need to convince the community that there will be no repetition of your personal attacks, harassment or battleground mentality again before they agree to unblock you in order to regain your editing rights. Canterbury Tail talk 21:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• SIghs*.... just.... give me a couple of weeks and I'll... see if I decide to unblock request.

User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 20:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

For what its worth, as a content writer myself, I would have also been very annoyed if someone had dismembered an article I had worked on to that extent. Your first edit summary (Reverting obviously ridiculous edit. Having a lot does not mean having WP:TOOMUCH) is probably around the same tone as what mine would have been. Dude, fuck off with your bullshit. is perhaps slightly too far, but if the editor had gone to ANI based on just that, I think most would have understood you. This load of nonsense, on the other hand...

You can shake your fists all you want, but the simple fact is that your tirade was far more disruptive than the edits of the other editor, who was acting in good faith and with good intentions, however misplaced. Wikipedia exists, and continues to exists, because people decided to work together. This site is about collaboration, and if you don't want to partake in that, don't bother with the unblock request. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

To add to this, I think I was a little too harsh to this user's article contributions for Army Men: Sarge's Heroes. They weren't inherently bad, I just thought the detail could be cut down but ended up going a little overboard. I also don't usually edit videogames so I wasn't sure what their expectations are for what qualifies as a quality article. I usually edit in current events and year articles where conciseness is key more than in other communities. If @HumanxAnthro gets an opportunity to be ublocked, I support it. PaulRKil (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I know I said I would wait a couple of weeks, but I have realized the problem earlier than I thought. I have looked back at all the discussions where I got heated throughout the years, and noticed an unwillingness to talk with or help others like human beings, in the forms of assumptions of bad faith and ignorance in users (WP:AGF), as well as some pretty hostile language (WP:UNCIVIL. I have a history of it as early as 2021 and including 2022 with an unpleasant record charts discourse [1], [2] [3], and in 2023 earlier this year. Even when I was on the Admin noticeboard [4], I claimed "the right thing to do is to not respectfully converse with them, even if they are acting in good faith." Additionally, I threatened another user for simply expressing sympathy with another claim, which might have made the user afraid when they did not deserve it (WP:INTIMIDATE). It all peaked to the reason I am blocked now, where I called a user an "asshole", accused him of WP:Gaming the system, and screamed at him to "F----- STOP!", violating Personal attacks and the aforementioned WP:INCIVIL and WP:INTIMIDATE. Additionally, I had a habit of ignoring WP:Consensus I found to be wrong instead of going to a talk page (WP:CONACHIEVE, with [5] [6] and another example of hostile language.

There are other example diffs I could cite, but I know the page on Unblock requests requires concision, so not all of them are cited here. Honestly, all of this blackened my soul and made it more difficult to appreciate editing here and the goal of the site. There is a reason why being collaborative is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Wikipedia is for the crowd to edit, and being a part of that crowd means working with, listening to and helping others. Even if a person has a very low amount of knowledge on something, whether it be on a topic or policy, does it really help to kick that person down? The reason I make this unblock request is this: I will absolutely never, never treat anybody here the way I did in the above examples ever again. I have slashed my claim that I "do not" regret or apologized for what I did; I absolutely do. Thanks. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

In the future I may point to this as a master class in how to write an unblock request. In doing so, though, I'll have to disclaim that I can't in good conscience ask a blocked user to reach the same emotional depths you have here. You've done something really honest and difficult, above and beyond what I'd expect from an unblock request.

That may put a bit of pressure on you, in that it will be very disappointing if we wind up back here in a few months, and then I won't be able to point back to this as a great unblock request. Hopefully it's a positive pressure. I like happy endings to stories.

So I've bumped this down to two weeks from time-of-block, i.e. ending about 6 days from now. The reason I haven't unblocked outright is because, as I say below, escalating blocks are our go-to approach to repeated misconduct, and I think there is still a deterrent benefit in letting this run out to a plausible tempblock length. Happy editing when the block expires. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Having blocked HxA as a result of the AN discussion alluded to, I've been following along, and am very pleasantly surprised by the tenor of this unblock request. It's difficult to analyze one's own mistakes, and HxA has gone above and beyond at looking at a series of unacceptable remarks, identifying the problem, and committing to no recurrence. And, in the circumstances that immediately led to this, I do have a bit of sympathy, along the lines of what AirshipJungleman said above: Many users would react poorly in this situation, probably including myself; the issue here is the extreme degree it went to. That said, we are still talking about two blocks, 3 months apart, for very similar behavior, and the way we usually deal with that is escalating blocks. @Canterbury Tail: What would you say to commuting this to two weeks from time-of-block, with the understanding that any future block for incivility or personal attacks will likely be indef, and will likely not be so easily appealed? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I have a personal policy of always letting other admins handle unblocks as it gives another perspective on things that I don't wish to muddy. As I've mentioned previous and been very vocal about, I don't believe indefinite blocks are permanent if the editors in question can genuinely look at why they were blocked and understand why the behaviour was unacceptable. I was personally gladdened to see the above unblock request. I leave it entirely in your hands Tamzin and I pass no judgement on your decision. Canterbury Tail talk 03:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, CT. Given that a commutation today has the same effect as a commutation a few days from now, I'll give this a day or two more in case anyone else would like to comment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• A very good unblock request, all things considered. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• I wanted to add my point of view in this thread as well as I was the one who initially reported the user. I admit think I was a little too harsh to this user's article contributions for Army Men: Sarge's Heroes. They weren't inherently bad, I just thought the detail could be cut down but ended up going a little overboard. I also don't usually edit videogames so I wasn't sure what their expectations are for what qualifies as a quality article. I usually edit in current events and year articles where conciseness is key more than in other communities. If HA gets an opportunity to be unblocked, I support it. PaulRKil (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Since your unblock request above has been accepted I just wanted to add this commentary. You stepped back and actually did appear to realize what you did and why it was not acceptable. Very few people are capable of such introspection. As a result I fully support this unblocking of you and a resumption of your editing in the new year. I hope you understand now why I took the action that I did, and I hope this makes you a better editor in the future. Happy holidays and new year. Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)