User talk:Horse Eye's Back

  1. Home
  2. Wiki



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

ANI Discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. jolielover♥talk 17:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back, I have just closed the ANI thread. In that discussion, the community agreed that a formal warning was warranted. Specifically, the consensus is that you've engaged in a pattern of incivility and uncollegial behaviour and that further instances of subpar conduct on your part should lead to escalating blocks. Salvio giuliano 17:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio giuliano: can you clarify whether this is a formal warning or a final warning? You use both terms but the consenus seems to be for formal but against final. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's both, it's a formal warning that further misconduct will lead to increasing blocks, in that sense it is final, meaning that the next time you will be blocked rather than warned again. But it does not mean that the next block will necessarily be indefinite, if that is what you fear. —  Salvio giuliano 18:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio giuliano: Consensus appears to be explicitly against it being a final warning, the entire concept of a yellow card goes against the concept of a final warning as the proposer and many others have explained. I accept a formal warning and acknowledge that my behavior has been subpar, but there is no consensus for a final warning of any kind so I must challenge that as a good faith editor. I will be absent from my computer for at least the next two days (I honestly shouldn't even be responding here now... I should have left a half hour ago), I will be able to read any further responses but not respond to them. Please seek clarification elsewhere if need be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have explicitly chosen not to use the term "yellow card" because I found it would be vague and unhelpful, but if we look at football's rules, after you've been booked, a second yellow card means that the player will be sent off. So a yellow card *is* a final warning. I do not think that my close misrepresented the result of the discussion, but clearly I have not objection to you contesting it at WP:AN. —  Salvio giuliano 19:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio giuliano: A second yellow card within the same game gets the player sent off, but if the second yellow card comes in a subsequent game the player doesn't get a red card meaning that a yellow card is not a final warning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HEB, there will be no value in wikilawyering the exact definition of the warning/closure. Small differences won't matter in an environment where consensus changes anyway, and there isn't even a need for a warning to get a block. The practical result is in any case the same; a note for more pre-awareness of potentially combative behavior. CMD (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The practical result of a formal and final warning are not the same, nor is it really a small difference. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know you really but it's been pleasant when we crossed paths. As someone who was also tossed up on there (for apparently substantially... less, and the entire mess boomeranged at people left and right with me finally just stuck as a the fourth opening band or so)... lay off when you get back. Just let it go more often. If you can't get the edit you want today, figure out a way later (months, years, whatever) that is so airtight that all anyone can say is "fuck!".
Just be more chill. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HEB, some friendly, unsolicited advice: don't make the mistake of escaping the lion's den and going back for your hat (quoting Australian judge Michael Lee paraphrasing Jon Klassen). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No intention of going back into the lion's den, but I will send the lion a few messages to see if they will ship me my hat at their own expense... If not nothing lost beyond the hat. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well "Fuck" and then come into an ANI discussion years later and try to have me indeffed on bad evidence... What you're describing is literally what happened with the roads editors, that took place over five years or so (well my part, overall the conflict was going on for 15 years at least). Its hard for me to get my head around because I don't hold grudges and try to meet editors where they're at, see my discussion with LilianaUwU for a clear example of that [1]. Its hard to get where people are at when in one interaction they're saying "I don't know, man. Things aren't going well for me, and for some reason I thought it was a good idea to lash out against someone who didn't do anything. I'm sorry." (clarifying that "I tend to be sarcastic, but yes, this time it's sincere.") and "I don't know why I'm defending that when I would be reverting the same type of writing from all the other subjects." and in the next arguing for an indeff based on that actually being something wrong. One of the great ironies is that some (admittedly not most) of my best "wikifriends" on here have been made though conflict, Levivich and I for example first interacted in a series of arcane Judaism topic area content disputes in which we were on opposite "sides" but which left us both with a deep respect for the other's good faith and scholarly abilities. Overall this process has been enlightening in understanding the wide range of community understandings around AGF and civility, although many aspects remain a bit muddy just based on the conduct which was tolerated within the discussion (it would seem for example that insinuating that all the editors in a discussion are "assholes" is kosher, albeit that is something I would never have done and do not intend to do). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has reached the point of diminishing returns. I still believe that, reading through the entire discussion, the consensus was clear that the community intended this to be a final warning.
The very proposal was worded as follows: [t]his is a formal warning by the community that their behavior is subpar and the continuing problems will result in sanctions.
Various editors made reference to the fact that the support was a second choice to a block, one supported a Blue card, indicating a 10-minute penalty and a "good talking to".
Another said [f]ar better to warn that this type of thing should be the last warning before leading to blocks in the future; another still, HEB needs to know that the colour of the next card is likely to be red, and another supported what is effectively a restriction.
I also took into account that there was substantial support for a block. There was no consensus for an indefinite block and the assessment concerning a shorter block was more complex and nuanced, but that certainly contextualised the proposal. For these reasons, I will not amend my close and will not engage further here, because I'd feel like we would be rehashing the same arguments. You are free to challenge my close, however, if you want. —  Salvio giuliano 18:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio giuliano: The proposer wrote "In association football this is a yellow card. Multiple yellow cards can get you disqualified." note the use of "can" indicating that there are contexts where it results in disqualification and contexts where it does not. They also later clarify that "This is a formal warning, no more, no less." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano I may note that there seemed to be a number of remarks that--if--HEB escalated to yellow #2=red, it wouldn't be an indefinite, but the sort of escalating returns upon them. I read it as:

  • HEB has the slow burn tendency to prickly escalate interpersonal debates to the personal level.
  • HEB has a tendency to not let things go/drop/move on.
  • Intersections of above.
  • Next yellow = can lead to some shorter term (days? Week?) block.
  • Next yellow(s) = progressively longer blocks.

Which seemed fair, for a long-term slow burn years-long matter? Do any of you disagree...? It may be helpful to make that clear here in your formal position as closer "for the record". That is, if my interpretation of concensus there is accurate. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already replied above, I think, where I said [b]ut it does not mean that the next block will necessarily be indefinite, if that is what you fear. And I stand by that. The proposal was clear: further disruption will lead to escalating blocks and my close mentioned that as well. Now, I don't know how long a hypothetical block would be; sincerely, I hope there will be no need to impose any, but if necessary I presume it'll depend on the specific circumstances. Salvio giuliano 19:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good! I just thought given the extreme rambling nature of that massive wall of ANI, that it would be helpful to make it ultra-super-duper clear on the above point. Thanks! — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, what is with the page moves here?

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Network_of_the_Department_of_Government_Efficiency#It_got_moved_again%2C_what_is_the_name_to_be — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this querry on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond. Czarking0 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarking0: Thank you, my experience with AfD has been overwhelmingly positive but I will take this survey. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]