Please do not assume
ownership of articles as you did at
List of state leaders in 2016. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. So you came back and just reverted all additions while blocked! cc: @
OpenFuture:, @
TracyMcClark:
Spirit Ethanol (
talk)
00:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Spirit Ethanol: This is all one big misunderstanding. The accusation that I had "reverted all changes since the last edit" is really quite a misleading one. I never reverted, neither using Twinkle nor the standard way of reverting. I used AWB, and decided to add a neutral footnote for Palestine. That was mostly what I had done, apart from a few other tweaks concerning Kosovo, et al. In my single, so-called revert, I explained to you why your assumptions and assertions were misconceptions. I actually used the edit summary in that single "revert" to converse with you. Once both you and TracyMcClark panicked and started sounding off the alarm in panic mode, I reverted the good faith edits. @ OpenFuture: Would you care to read the footnote I added? FWIW, compare these edits.-- Neve – selbert 08:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
You broke 3RR on this article on 28 March, starting with your edit of 06:47. This is a continuation of a pattern of edit warring that was previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive311#User:Neve-selbert reported by User:Spirit Ethanol (Result: Blocked). These lists of state leaders raise difficult political questions from all over the world, so admins need to keep a careful eye on them. You've made a large number of reverts at articles such as List of state leaders in XXXX. Several users including an administrator expressed unhappiness with your editing during this ANI complaint from 19 March.
A search of your last 100 contributions for the word 'reverted' gets 15 hits, although admittedly one was a self-revert. If you continue to edit this aggressively something is going to happen, and your continued work on Wikipedia is not guaranteed. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Neveselbert ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Could I please just have just one more chance? I am unequivocally very sorry, really I am. If I promise that I will not under any circumstances edit the List of state leaders in 2016 and List of state leaders in 2016 in the next two weeks, could I please just be allowed to return to editing? I shouldn't have edit-warred, I was wrong, and I forgot that I just bypassed WP:3RR. FWIW: Zoltan Bukovszky also edit-warred—yet he remains unblocked. Please cut me some rope, just this once. I promise, if I do it again, I will never ever edit Wikipedia again. That would be my pledge. Just this one last time. If I blow it, I will accept a much longer ban and leave Wikipedia for good. I was caught unaware at that article, and I reiterate my promise never to edit-war again. I promise this absolutely, without reservation. Please EdJohnston, I want to be constructive and I hate edit-warring. Something just gets over me, I have the tendency to be an obsessive editor and I suffer from this disorder in my daily life also. Had I just received a warning: telling me "If you edit-war one more time, you will be certainly blocked", I certainly would have stopped. Please, with all due respect, I need one last chance. If I blow it, god forbid, that is it for me. Just this last time. Please. Just see what happens in the next two weeks, I will not edit-war. I promise. That is an ironclad promise, as I realise this is my last chance. I will unashamedly tread carefully in future, and it is my staunch determination to resolve issues on talkpages and at WP:DRN in future. I am not a vandal, and I adore contributing to Wikipedia. It has been one of my favourite hobbyhorse for quite a while now. Edit-warring is pathetic, I know, and I was wrong to do it. I realise the error of my ways. I really wish I could just turn a fresh new page. I deeply regret my actions, that you can be in zero doubt.-- Neve – selbert 06:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
After all of the drama from your last block for edit warring, you resume the same sort of thing here? This is exactly why I made this suggestion regarding your last block, which you rejected. EdJohnston's block was relatively mild, I would've reblocked you for a month. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:23, 29 March 2016 (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.
@ Ohnoitsjamie: Please can this just be reduced to a topic ban? I regret my behaviour deeply. Unblocks are cheap and I need one last chance. If I blow it next time, you can block me indefinitely. Please, I need one last chance. Just one. I am so sorry. I suffer from a mental disorder and I can be extremely obsessive at times. Please, I didn't realise I broke WP:3RR. This is completely unfair. I promise not to edit-war again. I believe your review is absolutely cold. I need one last chance. I need it. I promise, I'll do anything. Almost literally. I'm desperate, I really am. Please. I change my mind about my rejection of your suggestion. I promise. I will consider it! I'm practically on my knees right now and I will give up almost anything to get unblocked. I promise.-- Neve – selbert 15:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Please don't take anything I say now as an attack. It isn't. This is a sympathetic, but realistic voice.
"I am at my wits' end" - I totally understand this. But you have to realize that you have, throughout all this constantly apologized for your behavior, claimed that you understand that you did wrong, and promised to never do it again. And then immediately done it all again. If you really are at your wits' end when it comes to how you should become a constructive editor, then so are we. Now the only thing that can be done from Wikipedia's perspective is to block you, for longer and longer periods, until you either change, or get permanently banned.
From my perspective your behavior look like an addict's. You know you shouldn't get drunk, but once you have a beer you can't stop yourself. You know you shouldn't edit war, but once you start editing you don't seem to be able to stop yourself. Is a topic ban going to help? Would it help the alcoholic if he switched to wine? Probably not. The only way out is to stop drinking completely. If you want to become constructive, you have to find longer wits. We can't help you, and you don't need another chance. You need to change. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 15:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
You could consider a mentor to help with your problem. --TMCk ( talk) 17:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This project might be of help to you, too. --TMCk ( talk) 17:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Neveselbert ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
In accordance with WP:0RR arbritration, this restriction can be imposed onto users at an admins' discretion. Please could an admin review this option instead of the two-week block? I am a constructive editor and I determined not to edit-war again, although this option would disable me the chance to even envisage doing so. In addition to that, could an admin please also consider a topic ban or article ban—e.g. politics-related articles, etc.? Thank-you.-- Neve – selbert 06:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
After this short block is over, by all means try mentoring, topic bans that you agree to, etc. However, your history of making the same claims repeatedly in response to blocks, and your persistent denials of facts and apparent inability to take in what is said to you lead me to the view that unblocking you now is unlikely to help. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:05, 30 March 2016 (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.
My opinion here is that no med will help you unless you want it to. Ask yourself: do you want to get an editing restriction to help you to be an effective editor by keeping yourself within certain limits, or you want to be unblocked? Remember, slipping off is easy if you don't take it seriously. If so, what kind of restriction do you think will help you control yourself better - 0RR or a topic ban from anything related to P-I conflict? Each has their own pros or cons. Max Semenik ( talk) 10:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MaxSem, EdJohnston, Ohnoitsjamie, and JamesBWatson: Edit-warring is completely bad and I was a complete moron for overlooking WP:3RR. I fully regret my actions and I fully realise that I was wrong. I really don't understand why I can't just swap the block for heavy sanctions. I can't even preview edit at the sandbox! I have fully got the message and I am incredibly sorry. I want to contribute to Wikipedia constructively. Please can a topic-ban be considered? Or at least WP:0RR? I suppose WP:UB CHEAP doesn't exactly apply to most situations. I promise not to edit-war again and that is an absolute & total promise. I am extremely sorry and I deeply regret my behaviour. I regret my behaviour 100%. This site-ban is unfair in my opinion as it blocks me from editing the entire site. I only "edit-warred" on the SLBY articles. If it is possible, could I please be topic banned on that instead for the remainder of the block (similar to the sanctions on Zoltan Bukovszky)? Blocking me all over the entire site as if I am a serial vandal is quite simply unjust IMHO, and I really want to contribute constructively. I am not obsessed with pride that I can't accept that I have done something wrong. I was completely wrong and you are free to recognise this as genuine remorse. I feel deeply embarrassed and ashamed by this blocking & I will agree to any set of sanctions—within reason. Please may you just consider alternative sanctions. I am extremely and absolutely sorry and I just want to edit constructively like everyone else can. Please also consider WP:LASTCHANCE.-- Neve – selbert 10:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose an indef block (IMHO, such a block would require the community's consent) as a next step, should Neve-selbert edit-war again. We have to be careful not to cross the fine line between preventative & punitive measures. The 0RR or topic-ban from the articles-in-question, are better alternatives. GoodDay ( talk) 13:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@ JamesBWatson, EdJohnston, and MaxSem: Just for clarification, I would duly albeit reluctantly accept a topic ban from relevant articles for the duration of block (not indefinitely). I would also tolerate a 0–1RR, although I would prefer if this could either last a year or so or just apply to relevant articles-in-question. I am open fully to compromise and I seek solace in the alternatives to the present situation brought forth by GoodDay. Thank-you.-- Neve – selbert 11:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: I can give absolute certainty and confidence that I will not disrupt the flow of the SLBY articles in future. I realise the consequences and I shall always go on to the talkpage and subsequently the WP:DRN/ WP:RFC route from now on. I fully promise to abide by any such sanctions. Please can I at least edit other pages on Wikipedia for the duration of the block? A topic ban from related articles for the next 9 days seems adequately apt enough, and WP:0RR (or WP:1RR per MaxSem) for perhaps a year or longer in addition. I find it hard to cope with the present situation. Per the WP:ROPE guideline, please can I be given just one last chance? The second time I happened to edit-war I always used the edit summary, I forgot eventually that I broke WP:3RR and I deeply regret and profusely apologise for that. The proposal made by JamesBWatson is one that I can possibly adhere to. I will fundamentally be constructive from then on—please just give me a shot. I will not let you down (that I can undoubtedly promise with ironclad muster).-- Neve – selbert 12:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Please may I outline my proposal for an unblock, EdJohnston:
I would also be open to any third option in addition, I just believe that this current block is quite simply undue. I am totally unable to preview edit WP:SAND (or even my own sandbox! Of which I have frequently edited), and I am unable to fix typos and grammatical errors on Wikipedia where I spot them—FWIW, I have spotted plenty since 28 March. For the umpteenth time, I am not a vandal but it just seems that I am continually treated as if I actually were one instead of the good faith-intentioned editor that I really am proud to be. I certainly strive to be constructive and I adore contributing to the collaborative project that is Wikipedia. I realise that my behaviour was wrong absolutely, that you can be in zero doubt over. I would like to be able to start afresh. The current condition of the block renders as unmerited IMO as I believe that a topic-ban or an 0–1RR arbitration ruling should have been considered first beforehand. Please refrain from paying no heed to my apology and my willingness to any editing restrictions in future. I am losing out a load of time to spend on Wikipedia with this block and (considering my work schedule) I am unlikely to get it back after the remainder of the block. I am also totally open to any other proposals you may have for an unblocking. I deeply regret this occurrence. I aim to go straight to the WP:DRN to solve the problems I had with that other editor ASAP after any such unblocking. I aim to constructive and I realise fully the errors of my ways. Please reconsider.-- Neve – selbert 10:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@ MaxSem, EdJohnston, Ohnoitsjamie, and JamesBWatson: Would it be unwise for me to make another {{ unblock}} request pertaining to the possibility of an early unblock provided these editing restrictions/sanctions are placed into action? I have expressed my regret repeatedly on this page and I would desperately like to know if there is anything that I can personally do in order for these penalties to be at least considered within the coming days. For one, I mostly support the conditions brought forth by JamesBWatson on 1 April, and I find it hard to understand the lukewarm opposition of EdJohnston to this. The latter is opposed to me editing the SLBY articles for at least the remainder of the block—to which I say: this is where the topic ban is concerned. I understand completely that I need time to cool down from that area for the time being. All in all, these two penalties should indeed be considered and not dismissed without a thorough review. Thank-you all.-- Neve – selbert 21:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I feel that I have "made appropriate promises" and I am certainly willing to put those promises into action. You ( EdJohnston) yourself stated back then on 28 March that that there is indeed a possibility that the block could be lifted early. If you will, could you please state your conditions for an unblock in a frank and forthright manner. I am indeed sorry to bother you again—although I am unsure what further concessions you would like me to make.-- Neve – selbert 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: As I indeed quoted you above, underneath in the preceding column, the possibility of an early unblock with respect to certain sanctions should not be ruled out. If I may, could you please state your conditions as such for at least some consideration? Regards.-- Neve – selbert 13:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: I think I might just decide to wait until the expiration of this temporary situation on the coming Monday. From that day forth, I would like to accept WP:1RR for three months as both a token of gratitude and as an expression of regret. Would this be practical?-- Neve – selbert 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
For future edit disputes with a single editor not resolved by direct discussion, such as most recent one, I advise that you seek a third opinion, local first, then at Wikipedia:Third opinion before pursuing other Wikipedia:Dispute resolution routes. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 11:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@ GoodDay and TracyMcClark: FWIW, I was referring to the issue revolving around the acting leaders serving concurrently (per here around José Ramos-Horta) and not Palestine whatsoever. For all intents and purposes, I am largely finished with that whole palaver.-- Neve – selbert 13:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
According to which criteria acting heads of state not included? List series infested with "subjective classification and editorialization". Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 16:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
If I may so, on a different note, the recent merge proposal brought forth by Spirit Ethanol is quite simply disgraceful IMO and I just wanted to let you all know that I oppose his proposal absolutely and totally, perhaps more than anyone else on this matter. I cannot add my opinion for obvious reasons, although I plan to do so once I am indeed able to. Moreover, I notice that he has also added an {{ unreferenced}} tag to the article, which is similarly non-useful and I plan to get rid of it in due course as this was purely added out-of-the-blue without any thorough discussion on its suitability on the talkpage, a common pattern with this user—having also forgotten the value in the 'External links' section meant to outperform the effectiveness of footnotes, especially the Rulers citation. All in all, I believe that the user-in-question is, and I say this with slight understatement, an overadventurous editor—he just ignores the natural flow of debate and instead rushes into rash conclusions without any prior discussion thought rationally beforehand (and instead he does that afterwards when it is mostly too late to rectify anything or anyone, especially at an Rfc), in addition to failing to understand the details of these things in particular. That would be my main concern with him, although I must make clear that I do not view him in bad faith, I just view him as misguided somewhat. On the other hand: the issue of the acting presidents serving concurrently? I find it hard to get my head round a country having two presidents at the exact same time. The whole idea to me sounds nonsensical. Indeed as per WP:WEIGHT, one of which deserves more attention for its relevance. In situations where the president is suspended, I am open to the idea of including both presidents equally as long as a footnote explains the situation. It is notably different with acting leaders covering leaders merely incapacitated. There is also a consistency flaw in this, I must add. As I said previously, Reagan was undoubtedly incapacitated in 1981 and some would argue so was Hugo Chávez prior to his death in 2013. Now, in neither situation had there been an acting president covering for these temporarily incapacitated presidents. Whereas on the other hand, it is practically a necessity for there to be one in a president-is-now-suspended scenario as this directly affects their ability to govern constitutionally no matter which formality the government chooses. That being said, I would much rather remove them altogether—although I understand their semi-importance somewhat so I would give way to a compromise option of simply relegating them to footnote status. That is literally the compromise option, and one that I had tried to implement albeit prematurely and I admit unwisely last month. I look to the DRN now by Monday.-- Neve – selbert 20:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The intro criteria for acting heads of state & government on these articles, can be ironed out on a designated talkpage. IMHO, a majority carries the day, when editorial discretion is involved :) GoodDay ( talk) 19:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, quote: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." I am sure your mentor, @ GoodDay:, has some pointers.... Baking Soda ( talk) 18:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
External links not references. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Baking Soda ( talk) 15:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not exactly certain as to which article is being argued over, here. BTW, I'm not Neve-selbert's mentor. GoodDay ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
If that is so? then the references will likely remain. GoodDay ( talk) 21:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd recommend that you not contest the addition of references, Neve-selbert. My senses tell me that a majority will support their inclusion & it's quite shaky ground, to contest the addition of references to any article. Best to concentrate on the "acting head of state & government" topic. GoodDay ( talk) 21:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm assuming you meant the case to be List of state leaders in Year articles & not Zubov's talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 20:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
FWIW: I've removed List of state leaders in 2016 from my watchlist & I'm getting away from those series of articles. Fatigue factor, I reckon. GoodDay ( talk) 01:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I see that you pinged me several times during your block. Unfortunately, for personal reasons I was away from Wikipedia, so I didn't reply. As I said, I was in favour of unblocking, and if I had been around I would have continued to support you, so I'm sorry I wasn't able to. However, since the block is now over anyway, I hope you can now edit without further problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 11:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Continuing your personal attack streak is not very vise. --TMCk ( talk) 19:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You know very well there is no support for that. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 19:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Asking another editor to revert for you? Seriously? --TMCk ( talk) 21:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@ OpenFuture and TracyMcClark: So, what exactly have I done wrong? If I "canvassed" to far, I apologise. Now, can we move on to the real issue here? Per WP:BRD, the user Baking Soda should not have reverted for a second time. Now, I direct this question to you both: why is he allowed to get away with this while I am continually hounded as being disruptive? Why do you always accuse me of bad faith? Why? Just why. If anything, I feel this is bullying.-- Neve – selbert 23:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
OpenFuture (
talk)
06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Neve-selbert, rightly or wrongly, you do have a target on your head. It's the scrutiny target, which all editors get after they've been through a block or two. It's best you promise to stay completely away from those List of state leaders in Year articles at ANI, as it might be the only way you'll avoid being barred from them. The only other way out for you, will be luck in the form of a great number of editors showing up at ANI or the aforementioned articles, in support of your arguments. GoodDay ( talk) 14:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ GoodDay: I'll practically do anything not to get banned again, be it mentorship or a topic ban (preferably not indefinite).-- Neve – selbert 19:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ OpenFuture: Is there absolutely nothing I can do to avoid an indef block? Please. I will literally do anything. A topic ban, mentorship and the like. Just not a block. Why are you unable to consider anything else? I am not a vandal, yet you keep treating as one. Per GoodDay's points, I will steer clear of any controversies that may come about. This ban will be disastrous. I am such a constructive contributor that I used to spend hours upon hours proofreading and fixing errors on the List of state leaders article, and I wish to do so in future. I want to contribute to Wikipedia to the best of my ability, and your callousness in supporting an indef block really hurts.-- Neve – selbert 20:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ OpenFuture:, Neve-selbert has been indefinitely blocked. Continuing this discussion is not liable to be fruitful. Blackmane ( talk) 10:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I reverted an error. Full stop.-- Neve – selbert 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
You ask, at the beginning of this thread, whether there is anything that you can do to avoid an indefinite block. I don’t know why you are asking that question of an individual editor. You should be asking that of the community. Your fate is in the hands of the community. However, my personal thoughts follow, and I am not an administrator.
You say that you are not a disruptive editor, and that you just get carried away and need someone to tell you to stop. The first clause above is just incorrect, although you mean it to be true. You are a disruptive editor, although you don’t meant to be one.
At this point, my advice is to stop arguing over an extended block, and to agree to a one-month block, in order to give you time to calm down, because your tantrum is destroying what little credibility you have. It has gotten to that point.
At this point you appear to be finally willing to agree to a topic-ban, but I would very strongly advise you against that. The reason is that I don’t believe, at this point, that you can honor a topic-ban. If you get a topic-ban, you will somehow or other breach it, and will get a site ban. So don’t even suggest a topic ban. I can see, and some of us can, that you can’t deal with that.
The suggestion has been made of mentorship. I suggest against it, at least not until you come back from the long block. If you go into mentorship with your current mean-spirited mood, personalizing everything, your mentor will almost certainly dump you onto the community, and you will get an indefinite block or a site ban.
I will point out that you haven’t explained how you plan to contribute constructively to Wikipedia.
So there is my advice for now. Agree to a one-month block, and see if you can come back and stop personalizing everything and seeing conspiracies to get you. After coming off the block, then you might propose mentorship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
As I think you probably expect, I have blocked you from editing. The block does not have an expiry time. Any admin can unblock you as and when you indicate what you will change in your editing behaviour in order to ensure that the disruption resulting from your edits will not be resumed. I hope you understand the difference between this and being banned, you are not banned you are simply blocked until you can articulate how you will fix the problem. I do not think you are a bad person and I look forward to welcoming you back in due course. Guy ( Help!) 23:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Neve-selbert, I recommend you ask the community to present to you, what their conditions are for your unblocking. GoodDay ( talk) 02:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@ JzG: Having thought about the situation that I am currently in a retrospective manner, I have come to the conclusion that I am probably better off taking a temporary break from Wikipedia. Although I must state, an indefinite break is something that I remain reluctant to contemplate. I have made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia (and many valuable contributions that remain on hold). Yes, per GoodDay, I would like to know such conditions for an unblocking. I honestly believe that we can work this out and I will be able to edit again; I remain an optimist. I apologise for any wrongdoing that I may have committed and I will strive to be less controversial in future. Furthermore, I would also like to explain this new situation to both JamesBWatson and MaxSem (admins that I have previously come into contact with), clearly stating that this scenario is not another result of edit-warring, but rather something subtly different from that and mostly in large part a grave misunderstanding. Now, I will now try to answer Blackmane's proposed questions. Please, hear me out:
Where do you have the biggest problems?
Would you find it possible to avoid those areas?
What does your condition compel you to do?
Are you able to do something else to get around it?
Neve-selbert, stop discussing these things, Take your six-month minimum break. Add a blocker-plugin to your browser so you can't even log in into Wikipedia. Or change your password to random numbers so you have to make an email-reset to log in. Whatever. Just break away, and rethink things. Come back in 6 months. Maybe then you are ready to understand that you were the villain in this movie. Then you can perhaps try to change and contribute again. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
When you're unblocked, just stay away from the List of state leaders in Year articles. It's not a matter of who's right & who's wrong. It's a matter of there being a 'growing' number of editors being peeved with your conduct, on those articles-in-question. At this point, a 6-month break from those articles-in-question, would likely take the heat off of you. GoodDay ( talk) 11:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I would like to know whether or not the option of having this block made from an indefinite blocking to a month or six months, etc. could be considered. Thanks.-- Neve – selbert 08:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I know how hopeless things seem right now, for you. Just remember Neve, not everyone is peeved with you. GoodDay ( talk) 02:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I would like to request a further review on the block that was imposed on 17 April. It must be noted that I have both made several concessions and have repeatedly apologised for the editing behaviour of which I retrospectively regret, considerably so. I would very much like to start anew, and I believe that a indefinite block was an over-the-top sanction given too rashly and quickly without a thorough degree of consideration and review of the facts at hand. I urge any admin to please look at this case again and perhaps come up with a reasonable alternative in due course. Many thanks.-- Neve – selbert 00:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
My admin review: this block is neither over the top (your own words: If I blow it next time, you can block me indefinitely
) nor was it hastily applied, considering that it was a result of community discussion, as opposed to a unilateral action by a single admin. Next time please use {{
unblock}} if you really mean to be unblocked, however no unblock is possible unless you explain how is this going to work considering last chances wasted.
Max Semenik (
talk)
05:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
If I blow it next time, you can block me indefinitelyquote, I actually meant if I edit-warred again. The third time round, I didn't edit-war and I kept my promise never to edit-war again, I just asked two other editors if they thought it would be wise or not to correct a factual and historical error that I could not revert for a second time due to a WP:1RR restriction. I agree, if I have to wait a month? I'll wait a month and I won't risk a humiliating {{ unblock}} rejection until the time passes in due course. In future, I would self-restrict myself to clear off articles that are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year. To be honest, I felt that the indefinite blocking was too rash and hasty because of the simple fact that I am not a vandal and the only substantial disputes that I have ever been involved with on Wikipedia are to do with the articles within that WikiProject and those articles only. I feel strongly that I could adhere to WP:TOPICBAN if given the chance. I realise that my edits were unpopular with the masses and I henceforth accept that—subsequently giving up on trying to convince others towards my own POV, of course. I want to edit like normal again, fix typos and update lists and the rest of it. Of course, this block prevents me from editing Wikipedia at all for an indefinite time period and doing just that. I can tell you: hand on heart, I will clear off those articles if unblocked. I can assure you that I have never made such a proposal before, as I felt it too difficult for me to personally handle, although I now feel that I have no other choice and thus I must surrender. I can be a decent editor, and I will do all that I possibly can to convince other Wikipedians just that. Regards.-- Neve – selbert 06:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@ OpenFuture: I realise that I notifying you may irritate somewhat, although I would just like to make something clear to you. If I pledged to never edit the List of state leaders in XXXX articles for an extensive, indefinite period, could you potentially help me out on eventually getting unblocked? Now of course, I won't be surprised at all if you totally reject and/or dismiss this concession—although I just wanted to seriously let you know that I am extremely sorry about any wrongdoing that I may have committed and I absolutely seriously want to start again anew and afresh. I fully acknowledge your frustration with me, but I just wanted to notify you to tell you that I am unequivocally raising the white flag right now. I surrender, literally I surrender. I will literally never even get myself involved in any dispute involving the Palestine issue ever again. I technically kept my promise on edit-warring and I can assure you that I will restrain myself to fully respect and oblige WP:TOPICBAN. If I have to take a break for six months? I will hold my head up and do just that (preferably with an assurance that I can eventually return and edit, according to policy). But disallowing me from simply editing my own userspace is really unjustifiable IMHO. Please reply. Thank-you.-- Neve – selbert 08:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of requesting that your indef-block be reduced to a 1-month block, at WP:AN. If the request is rejected? there's nothing further I can do. GoodDay ( talk) 18:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Newyorkbrad: Hi, I don't know if this is too much to ask or not but could you help me? I've been blocked indefinitely for apparently trying to game the system (which was not at all my intention) and I would like this block to be reviewed by 17 May (as that date would mark a month of being blocked). I have made several concessions and my unblock is supported by GoodDay although is opposed for mostly the wrong reasons by a couple of editors over at WP:AN#Neve-selbert.. Their arguments are mostly flawed and/or lead to a false impression. Would it be possible if you could have a look? Thanks anyway.-- Neve – selbert 14:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
If I may so, Only in death, but I believe that your arguments over at WP:AN#Neve-selbert. are rather flawed. I have not been able to edit for 22 days now and I have hence had time to reflect on my past behaviour. I realise that I was wrong and I do not "still" deny anything. I can assure you that the last time I was blocked was mostly due to a misunderstanding. If someone told me to back off or face an indefinite block? I certainly would have without equivocation. I am not a battle-prone editor intent on disruption. Not in the slightest. I realise that I became too obsessive, and the only way for me to stop this obsessiveness is to back off completely. I cannot cope halfway. I can assure you also that by avoiding both those articles (i.e. those concerning the IvP conflict) and abiding fully without any caveats by WP:1RR, I can assuredly act as a normal editor that I once was once again prior to the problems in February 2016. I should have backed away from that can of worms, that conflict. Had I had? I never would have been blocked again. I was foolish and wrong and I should have used my initiative and common sense. I fully acknowledge that I was wrong and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have, however sceptical they may be. Please reconsider your position. Look: I kept my promise on WP:EW. The last block had nothing to do with edit warring. What makes you think I can't keep any other promises?-- Neve – selbert 14:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@ OpenFuture: I am not surprised in the slightest by your opposition to an unblock, but I cannot simply standby and accept your distorting of the facts. Your claims that I am "unable to drop sticks, and unable to back down when proven wrong, and unable to listen to anyone" are ludicrous to say the least. I found it hard to understand the verdict on Palestine, I admit. I thought that the PNA was redesignated as simply Palestine in 2013, not 2012. Was I perhaps wrong on this historical case-in-point? I could seriously doubt that, but I shall refrain from doing so as it would be a waste of time. There, you see. I can let things go. I do listen—just ask GoodDay or Robert McClenon (both of whom opposed my blocking, by the way). This indefinite block is over-the-top to say the least. I have never sock-puppeted nor vandalised. This is almost tantamount to a smear campaign. I would never have expected such callousness from the likes of you. Finally, I am one person, so no need to call me "they" or "we".-- Neve – selbert 14:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Robert McClenon: I am truly sorry if you thought I was being irritable to you, I apologise without reservation for that. For what it's worth, I took a ten day break from 29 April to 9 May for the very reason because I knew that I need time to cool off. If I'm raging, I'll stop that immediately. I didn't realise that was what I was doing. I apologise unequivocally. I had assumed you opposed this block due to your opposition the first time round. Suppose I sadly changed your mind unintentionally. Please, if I promise to stay quiet for an extensive period, could you please reconsider your opposition? I can honour any opic-ban, I really can. Please spare me the benefit of the doubt. I don't want to be blocked forever. I can't even edit my own userspace. I am really quite desperate Robert, I really am. I am not a "net negative". Even if I was, please at least give me the chance of redemption. I'm sorry, I truly am, and I will never repeat the same mistakes again. I can promise this like I have honoured other promises before.-- Neve – selbert 16:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@ TracyMcClark: I am at wits' end, now. I fail to understand why you think I can't be "rehabilitated" or whatever. I never vandalised nor sock-puppeted. This is total alienation and is completely unfair in my view.-- Neve – selbert 16:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Ivanvector: I was planning to make an unblock request this time next week, although I am now in some serious doubt over the wisdom of doing so. If you have any advice on what I should do next I would greatly appreciate it. FWIW, I have not had severe OCD for over a year and I am leaning off from compulsion as each day goes by, mind over matter. I can certainly demonstrate how I shall counteract any such compulsion in future, and I believe that I have almost already done so. I have promised to wean off from the articles within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year. This is a start, I believe.-- Neve – selbert 21:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Neve, at this point in time, it would really be to your benefit to just walk away from here for a while. I would really recommend against requesting another unblock. Right now, in your own words, you're "at wit's end" and are "desperate". This is detrimental to you and is not going to lead to a productive outcome. You'll make whatever promises you think will make an unblock stick and hope to get a sympathetic admin to accept your unblock. Unblocks that are granted like this invariably do not end well. I would propose that your talk page and email access be revoked for a period of no more than 6 months, something that is normally reserved for editors who are abusing the unblock process, being generally disruptive or attacking editors. In this case, the admin doing the revoking could make a statement in the block adjustment to indicate that this TPA revocation is without prejudice to your access being restored earlier at request to UTRS. However, I honestly feel that at this point whatever you do to get an unblock will just be a really big hole you dig for yourself. Cutting yourself off would be going cold turkey for a while and hopefully will help you. Blackmane ( talk) 06:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Neveselbert ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #15791 was submitted on May 15, 2016 17:28:21. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 17:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@ TParis: Thank-you for responding to my request. I would just like to enquire whether or not it would be permissible to develop a plan of action beforehand with someone not on the list that you gave me on Sunday. For what I believe is worthy of some note, I have already agreed to many restrictions and sanctions on my editing on any future unblock with GoodDay: i.e. total ban from editing or modifying articles/sections concerning WP:IsPal & constant WP:1RR concerning all articles, etc.-- Neve – selbert 17:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to bother again GoodDay, I was just wondering whether or not you could help me come up with a plan of action of some sorts to bring forward to a mentor at WP:AAU (in order for my being unblocked eventually). As I said yesterday, involving myself with WP:IsPal and exceeding WP:1RR is already out of the question, and staying clear from those articles for around six months would not be such as bad idea. Any thoughts?-- Neve – selbert 17:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@ TParis: Just to double-check, could I perhaps have GoodDay (a member of WP:WER) as an alternative/supplement to the list of mentors you gave me?-- Neve – selbert 22:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi again GoodDay. Just would like to know whether you would mind having me as a mentee to your mentor. I cannot thank you enough for your help and understanding.-- Neve – selbert 22:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not assume
ownership of articles as you did at
List of state leaders in 2016. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. So you came back and just reverted all additions while blocked! cc: @
OpenFuture:, @
TracyMcClark:
Spirit Ethanol (
talk)
00:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Spirit Ethanol: This is all one big misunderstanding. The accusation that I had "reverted all changes since the last edit" is really quite a misleading one. I never reverted, neither using Twinkle nor the standard way of reverting. I used AWB, and decided to add a neutral footnote for Palestine. That was mostly what I had done, apart from a few other tweaks concerning Kosovo, et al. In my single, so-called revert, I explained to you why your assumptions and assertions were misconceptions. I actually used the edit summary in that single "revert" to converse with you. Once both you and TracyMcClark panicked and started sounding off the alarm in panic mode, I reverted the good faith edits. @ OpenFuture: Would you care to read the footnote I added? FWIW, compare these edits.-- Neve – selbert 08:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
You broke 3RR on this article on 28 March, starting with your edit of 06:47. This is a continuation of a pattern of edit warring that was previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive311#User:Neve-selbert reported by User:Spirit Ethanol (Result: Blocked). These lists of state leaders raise difficult political questions from all over the world, so admins need to keep a careful eye on them. You've made a large number of reverts at articles such as List of state leaders in XXXX. Several users including an administrator expressed unhappiness with your editing during this ANI complaint from 19 March.
A search of your last 100 contributions for the word 'reverted' gets 15 hits, although admittedly one was a self-revert. If you continue to edit this aggressively something is going to happen, and your continued work on Wikipedia is not guaranteed. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Neveselbert ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Could I please just have just one more chance? I am unequivocally very sorry, really I am. If I promise that I will not under any circumstances edit the List of state leaders in 2016 and List of state leaders in 2016 in the next two weeks, could I please just be allowed to return to editing? I shouldn't have edit-warred, I was wrong, and I forgot that I just bypassed WP:3RR. FWIW: Zoltan Bukovszky also edit-warred—yet he remains unblocked. Please cut me some rope, just this once. I promise, if I do it again, I will never ever edit Wikipedia again. That would be my pledge. Just this one last time. If I blow it, I will accept a much longer ban and leave Wikipedia for good. I was caught unaware at that article, and I reiterate my promise never to edit-war again. I promise this absolutely, without reservation. Please EdJohnston, I want to be constructive and I hate edit-warring. Something just gets over me, I have the tendency to be an obsessive editor and I suffer from this disorder in my daily life also. Had I just received a warning: telling me "If you edit-war one more time, you will be certainly blocked", I certainly would have stopped. Please, with all due respect, I need one last chance. If I blow it, god forbid, that is it for me. Just this last time. Please. Just see what happens in the next two weeks, I will not edit-war. I promise. That is an ironclad promise, as I realise this is my last chance. I will unashamedly tread carefully in future, and it is my staunch determination to resolve issues on talkpages and at WP:DRN in future. I am not a vandal, and I adore contributing to Wikipedia. It has been one of my favourite hobbyhorse for quite a while now. Edit-warring is pathetic, I know, and I was wrong to do it. I realise the error of my ways. I really wish I could just turn a fresh new page. I deeply regret my actions, that you can be in zero doubt.-- Neve – selbert 06:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
After all of the drama from your last block for edit warring, you resume the same sort of thing here? This is exactly why I made this suggestion regarding your last block, which you rejected. EdJohnston's block was relatively mild, I would've reblocked you for a month. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:23, 29 March 2016 (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.
@ Ohnoitsjamie: Please can this just be reduced to a topic ban? I regret my behaviour deeply. Unblocks are cheap and I need one last chance. If I blow it next time, you can block me indefinitely. Please, I need one last chance. Just one. I am so sorry. I suffer from a mental disorder and I can be extremely obsessive at times. Please, I didn't realise I broke WP:3RR. This is completely unfair. I promise not to edit-war again. I believe your review is absolutely cold. I need one last chance. I need it. I promise, I'll do anything. Almost literally. I'm desperate, I really am. Please. I change my mind about my rejection of your suggestion. I promise. I will consider it! I'm practically on my knees right now and I will give up almost anything to get unblocked. I promise.-- Neve – selbert 15:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Please don't take anything I say now as an attack. It isn't. This is a sympathetic, but realistic voice.
"I am at my wits' end" - I totally understand this. But you have to realize that you have, throughout all this constantly apologized for your behavior, claimed that you understand that you did wrong, and promised to never do it again. And then immediately done it all again. If you really are at your wits' end when it comes to how you should become a constructive editor, then so are we. Now the only thing that can be done from Wikipedia's perspective is to block you, for longer and longer periods, until you either change, or get permanently banned.
From my perspective your behavior look like an addict's. You know you shouldn't get drunk, but once you have a beer you can't stop yourself. You know you shouldn't edit war, but once you start editing you don't seem to be able to stop yourself. Is a topic ban going to help? Would it help the alcoholic if he switched to wine? Probably not. The only way out is to stop drinking completely. If you want to become constructive, you have to find longer wits. We can't help you, and you don't need another chance. You need to change. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 15:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
You could consider a mentor to help with your problem. --TMCk ( talk) 17:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This project might be of help to you, too. --TMCk ( talk) 17:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Neveselbert ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
In accordance with WP:0RR arbritration, this restriction can be imposed onto users at an admins' discretion. Please could an admin review this option instead of the two-week block? I am a constructive editor and I determined not to edit-war again, although this option would disable me the chance to even envisage doing so. In addition to that, could an admin please also consider a topic ban or article ban—e.g. politics-related articles, etc.? Thank-you.-- Neve – selbert 06:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
After this short block is over, by all means try mentoring, topic bans that you agree to, etc. However, your history of making the same claims repeatedly in response to blocks, and your persistent denials of facts and apparent inability to take in what is said to you lead me to the view that unblocking you now is unlikely to help. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:05, 30 March 2016 (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.
My opinion here is that no med will help you unless you want it to. Ask yourself: do you want to get an editing restriction to help you to be an effective editor by keeping yourself within certain limits, or you want to be unblocked? Remember, slipping off is easy if you don't take it seriously. If so, what kind of restriction do you think will help you control yourself better - 0RR or a topic ban from anything related to P-I conflict? Each has their own pros or cons. Max Semenik ( talk) 10:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@ MaxSem, EdJohnston, Ohnoitsjamie, and JamesBWatson: Edit-warring is completely bad and I was a complete moron for overlooking WP:3RR. I fully regret my actions and I fully realise that I was wrong. I really don't understand why I can't just swap the block for heavy sanctions. I can't even preview edit at the sandbox! I have fully got the message and I am incredibly sorry. I want to contribute to Wikipedia constructively. Please can a topic-ban be considered? Or at least WP:0RR? I suppose WP:UB CHEAP doesn't exactly apply to most situations. I promise not to edit-war again and that is an absolute & total promise. I am extremely sorry and I deeply regret my behaviour. I regret my behaviour 100%. This site-ban is unfair in my opinion as it blocks me from editing the entire site. I only "edit-warred" on the SLBY articles. If it is possible, could I please be topic banned on that instead for the remainder of the block (similar to the sanctions on Zoltan Bukovszky)? Blocking me all over the entire site as if I am a serial vandal is quite simply unjust IMHO, and I really want to contribute constructively. I am not obsessed with pride that I can't accept that I have done something wrong. I was completely wrong and you are free to recognise this as genuine remorse. I feel deeply embarrassed and ashamed by this blocking & I will agree to any set of sanctions—within reason. Please may you just consider alternative sanctions. I am extremely and absolutely sorry and I just want to edit constructively like everyone else can. Please also consider WP:LASTCHANCE.-- Neve – selbert 10:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose an indef block (IMHO, such a block would require the community's consent) as a next step, should Neve-selbert edit-war again. We have to be careful not to cross the fine line between preventative & punitive measures. The 0RR or topic-ban from the articles-in-question, are better alternatives. GoodDay ( talk) 13:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@ JamesBWatson, EdJohnston, and MaxSem: Just for clarification, I would duly albeit reluctantly accept a topic ban from relevant articles for the duration of block (not indefinitely). I would also tolerate a 0–1RR, although I would prefer if this could either last a year or so or just apply to relevant articles-in-question. I am open fully to compromise and I seek solace in the alternatives to the present situation brought forth by GoodDay. Thank-you.-- Neve – selbert 11:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: I can give absolute certainty and confidence that I will not disrupt the flow of the SLBY articles in future. I realise the consequences and I shall always go on to the talkpage and subsequently the WP:DRN/ WP:RFC route from now on. I fully promise to abide by any such sanctions. Please can I at least edit other pages on Wikipedia for the duration of the block? A topic ban from related articles for the next 9 days seems adequately apt enough, and WP:0RR (or WP:1RR per MaxSem) for perhaps a year or longer in addition. I find it hard to cope with the present situation. Per the WP:ROPE guideline, please can I be given just one last chance? The second time I happened to edit-war I always used the edit summary, I forgot eventually that I broke WP:3RR and I deeply regret and profusely apologise for that. The proposal made by JamesBWatson is one that I can possibly adhere to. I will fundamentally be constructive from then on—please just give me a shot. I will not let you down (that I can undoubtedly promise with ironclad muster).-- Neve – selbert 12:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Please may I outline my proposal for an unblock, EdJohnston:
I would also be open to any third option in addition, I just believe that this current block is quite simply undue. I am totally unable to preview edit WP:SAND (or even my own sandbox! Of which I have frequently edited), and I am unable to fix typos and grammatical errors on Wikipedia where I spot them—FWIW, I have spotted plenty since 28 March. For the umpteenth time, I am not a vandal but it just seems that I am continually treated as if I actually were one instead of the good faith-intentioned editor that I really am proud to be. I certainly strive to be constructive and I adore contributing to the collaborative project that is Wikipedia. I realise that my behaviour was wrong absolutely, that you can be in zero doubt over. I would like to be able to start afresh. The current condition of the block renders as unmerited IMO as I believe that a topic-ban or an 0–1RR arbitration ruling should have been considered first beforehand. Please refrain from paying no heed to my apology and my willingness to any editing restrictions in future. I am losing out a load of time to spend on Wikipedia with this block and (considering my work schedule) I am unlikely to get it back after the remainder of the block. I am also totally open to any other proposals you may have for an unblocking. I deeply regret this occurrence. I aim to go straight to the WP:DRN to solve the problems I had with that other editor ASAP after any such unblocking. I aim to constructive and I realise fully the errors of my ways. Please reconsider.-- Neve – selbert 10:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@ MaxSem, EdJohnston, Ohnoitsjamie, and JamesBWatson: Would it be unwise for me to make another {{ unblock}} request pertaining to the possibility of an early unblock provided these editing restrictions/sanctions are placed into action? I have expressed my regret repeatedly on this page and I would desperately like to know if there is anything that I can personally do in order for these penalties to be at least considered within the coming days. For one, I mostly support the conditions brought forth by JamesBWatson on 1 April, and I find it hard to understand the lukewarm opposition of EdJohnston to this. The latter is opposed to me editing the SLBY articles for at least the remainder of the block—to which I say: this is where the topic ban is concerned. I understand completely that I need time to cool down from that area for the time being. All in all, these two penalties should indeed be considered and not dismissed without a thorough review. Thank-you all.-- Neve – selbert 21:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I feel that I have "made appropriate promises" and I am certainly willing to put those promises into action. You ( EdJohnston) yourself stated back then on 28 March that that there is indeed a possibility that the block could be lifted early. If you will, could you please state your conditions for an unblock in a frank and forthright manner. I am indeed sorry to bother you again—although I am unsure what further concessions you would like me to make.-- Neve – selbert 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: As I indeed quoted you above, underneath in the preceding column, the possibility of an early unblock with respect to certain sanctions should not be ruled out. If I may, could you please state your conditions as such for at least some consideration? Regards.-- Neve – selbert 13:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: I think I might just decide to wait until the expiration of this temporary situation on the coming Monday. From that day forth, I would like to accept WP:1RR for three months as both a token of gratitude and as an expression of regret. Would this be practical?-- Neve – selbert 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
For future edit disputes with a single editor not resolved by direct discussion, such as most recent one, I advise that you seek a third opinion, local first, then at Wikipedia:Third opinion before pursuing other Wikipedia:Dispute resolution routes. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 11:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@ GoodDay and TracyMcClark: FWIW, I was referring to the issue revolving around the acting leaders serving concurrently (per here around José Ramos-Horta) and not Palestine whatsoever. For all intents and purposes, I am largely finished with that whole palaver.-- Neve – selbert 13:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
According to which criteria acting heads of state not included? List series infested with "subjective classification and editorialization". Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 16:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
If I may so, on a different note, the recent merge proposal brought forth by Spirit Ethanol is quite simply disgraceful IMO and I just wanted to let you all know that I oppose his proposal absolutely and totally, perhaps more than anyone else on this matter. I cannot add my opinion for obvious reasons, although I plan to do so once I am indeed able to. Moreover, I notice that he has also added an {{ unreferenced}} tag to the article, which is similarly non-useful and I plan to get rid of it in due course as this was purely added out-of-the-blue without any thorough discussion on its suitability on the talkpage, a common pattern with this user—having also forgotten the value in the 'External links' section meant to outperform the effectiveness of footnotes, especially the Rulers citation. All in all, I believe that the user-in-question is, and I say this with slight understatement, an overadventurous editor—he just ignores the natural flow of debate and instead rushes into rash conclusions without any prior discussion thought rationally beforehand (and instead he does that afterwards when it is mostly too late to rectify anything or anyone, especially at an Rfc), in addition to failing to understand the details of these things in particular. That would be my main concern with him, although I must make clear that I do not view him in bad faith, I just view him as misguided somewhat. On the other hand: the issue of the acting presidents serving concurrently? I find it hard to get my head round a country having two presidents at the exact same time. The whole idea to me sounds nonsensical. Indeed as per WP:WEIGHT, one of which deserves more attention for its relevance. In situations where the president is suspended, I am open to the idea of including both presidents equally as long as a footnote explains the situation. It is notably different with acting leaders covering leaders merely incapacitated. There is also a consistency flaw in this, I must add. As I said previously, Reagan was undoubtedly incapacitated in 1981 and some would argue so was Hugo Chávez prior to his death in 2013. Now, in neither situation had there been an acting president covering for these temporarily incapacitated presidents. Whereas on the other hand, it is practically a necessity for there to be one in a president-is-now-suspended scenario as this directly affects their ability to govern constitutionally no matter which formality the government chooses. That being said, I would much rather remove them altogether—although I understand their semi-importance somewhat so I would give way to a compromise option of simply relegating them to footnote status. That is literally the compromise option, and one that I had tried to implement albeit prematurely and I admit unwisely last month. I look to the DRN now by Monday.-- Neve – selbert 20:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The intro criteria for acting heads of state & government on these articles, can be ironed out on a designated talkpage. IMHO, a majority carries the day, when editorial discretion is involved :) GoodDay ( talk) 19:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, quote: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." I am sure your mentor, @ GoodDay:, has some pointers.... Baking Soda ( talk) 18:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
External links not references. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Baking Soda ( talk) 15:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not exactly certain as to which article is being argued over, here. BTW, I'm not Neve-selbert's mentor. GoodDay ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
If that is so? then the references will likely remain. GoodDay ( talk) 21:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd recommend that you not contest the addition of references, Neve-selbert. My senses tell me that a majority will support their inclusion & it's quite shaky ground, to contest the addition of references to any article. Best to concentrate on the "acting head of state & government" topic. GoodDay ( talk) 21:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm assuming you meant the case to be List of state leaders in Year articles & not Zubov's talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 20:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
FWIW: I've removed List of state leaders in 2016 from my watchlist & I'm getting away from those series of articles. Fatigue factor, I reckon. GoodDay ( talk) 01:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I see that you pinged me several times during your block. Unfortunately, for personal reasons I was away from Wikipedia, so I didn't reply. As I said, I was in favour of unblocking, and if I had been around I would have continued to support you, so I'm sorry I wasn't able to. However, since the block is now over anyway, I hope you can now edit without further problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 11:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Continuing your personal attack streak is not very vise. --TMCk ( talk) 19:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You know very well there is no support for that. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 19:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Asking another editor to revert for you? Seriously? --TMCk ( talk) 21:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@ OpenFuture and TracyMcClark: So, what exactly have I done wrong? If I "canvassed" to far, I apologise. Now, can we move on to the real issue here? Per WP:BRD, the user Baking Soda should not have reverted for a second time. Now, I direct this question to you both: why is he allowed to get away with this while I am continually hounded as being disruptive? Why do you always accuse me of bad faith? Why? Just why. If anything, I feel this is bullying.-- Neve – selbert 23:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
OpenFuture (
talk)
06:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Neve-selbert, rightly or wrongly, you do have a target on your head. It's the scrutiny target, which all editors get after they've been through a block or two. It's best you promise to stay completely away from those List of state leaders in Year articles at ANI, as it might be the only way you'll avoid being barred from them. The only other way out for you, will be luck in the form of a great number of editors showing up at ANI or the aforementioned articles, in support of your arguments. GoodDay ( talk) 14:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ GoodDay: I'll practically do anything not to get banned again, be it mentorship or a topic ban (preferably not indefinite).-- Neve – selbert 19:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ OpenFuture: Is there absolutely nothing I can do to avoid an indef block? Please. I will literally do anything. A topic ban, mentorship and the like. Just not a block. Why are you unable to consider anything else? I am not a vandal, yet you keep treating as one. Per GoodDay's points, I will steer clear of any controversies that may come about. This ban will be disastrous. I am such a constructive contributor that I used to spend hours upon hours proofreading and fixing errors on the List of state leaders article, and I wish to do so in future. I want to contribute to Wikipedia to the best of my ability, and your callousness in supporting an indef block really hurts.-- Neve – selbert 20:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@ OpenFuture:, Neve-selbert has been indefinitely blocked. Continuing this discussion is not liable to be fruitful. Blackmane ( talk) 10:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I reverted an error. Full stop.-- Neve – selbert 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
You ask, at the beginning of this thread, whether there is anything that you can do to avoid an indefinite block. I don’t know why you are asking that question of an individual editor. You should be asking that of the community. Your fate is in the hands of the community. However, my personal thoughts follow, and I am not an administrator.
You say that you are not a disruptive editor, and that you just get carried away and need someone to tell you to stop. The first clause above is just incorrect, although you mean it to be true. You are a disruptive editor, although you don’t meant to be one.
At this point, my advice is to stop arguing over an extended block, and to agree to a one-month block, in order to give you time to calm down, because your tantrum is destroying what little credibility you have. It has gotten to that point.
At this point you appear to be finally willing to agree to a topic-ban, but I would very strongly advise you against that. The reason is that I don’t believe, at this point, that you can honor a topic-ban. If you get a topic-ban, you will somehow or other breach it, and will get a site ban. So don’t even suggest a topic ban. I can see, and some of us can, that you can’t deal with that.
The suggestion has been made of mentorship. I suggest against it, at least not until you come back from the long block. If you go into mentorship with your current mean-spirited mood, personalizing everything, your mentor will almost certainly dump you onto the community, and you will get an indefinite block or a site ban.
I will point out that you haven’t explained how you plan to contribute constructively to Wikipedia.
So there is my advice for now. Agree to a one-month block, and see if you can come back and stop personalizing everything and seeing conspiracies to get you. After coming off the block, then you might propose mentorship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
As I think you probably expect, I have blocked you from editing. The block does not have an expiry time. Any admin can unblock you as and when you indicate what you will change in your editing behaviour in order to ensure that the disruption resulting from your edits will not be resumed. I hope you understand the difference between this and being banned, you are not banned you are simply blocked until you can articulate how you will fix the problem. I do not think you are a bad person and I look forward to welcoming you back in due course. Guy ( Help!) 23:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Neve-selbert, I recommend you ask the community to present to you, what their conditions are for your unblocking. GoodDay ( talk) 02:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@ JzG: Having thought about the situation that I am currently in a retrospective manner, I have come to the conclusion that I am probably better off taking a temporary break from Wikipedia. Although I must state, an indefinite break is something that I remain reluctant to contemplate. I have made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia (and many valuable contributions that remain on hold). Yes, per GoodDay, I would like to know such conditions for an unblocking. I honestly believe that we can work this out and I will be able to edit again; I remain an optimist. I apologise for any wrongdoing that I may have committed and I will strive to be less controversial in future. Furthermore, I would also like to explain this new situation to both JamesBWatson and MaxSem (admins that I have previously come into contact with), clearly stating that this scenario is not another result of edit-warring, but rather something subtly different from that and mostly in large part a grave misunderstanding. Now, I will now try to answer Blackmane's proposed questions. Please, hear me out:
Where do you have the biggest problems?
Would you find it possible to avoid those areas?
What does your condition compel you to do?
Are you able to do something else to get around it?
Neve-selbert, stop discussing these things, Take your six-month minimum break. Add a blocker-plugin to your browser so you can't even log in into Wikipedia. Or change your password to random numbers so you have to make an email-reset to log in. Whatever. Just break away, and rethink things. Come back in 6 months. Maybe then you are ready to understand that you were the villain in this movie. Then you can perhaps try to change and contribute again. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
When you're unblocked, just stay away from the List of state leaders in Year articles. It's not a matter of who's right & who's wrong. It's a matter of there being a 'growing' number of editors being peeved with your conduct, on those articles-in-question. At this point, a 6-month break from those articles-in-question, would likely take the heat off of you. GoodDay ( talk) 11:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I would like to know whether or not the option of having this block made from an indefinite blocking to a month or six months, etc. could be considered. Thanks.-- Neve – selbert 08:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I know how hopeless things seem right now, for you. Just remember Neve, not everyone is peeved with you. GoodDay ( talk) 02:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I would like to request a further review on the block that was imposed on 17 April. It must be noted that I have both made several concessions and have repeatedly apologised for the editing behaviour of which I retrospectively regret, considerably so. I would very much like to start anew, and I believe that a indefinite block was an over-the-top sanction given too rashly and quickly without a thorough degree of consideration and review of the facts at hand. I urge any admin to please look at this case again and perhaps come up with a reasonable alternative in due course. Many thanks.-- Neve – selbert 00:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
My admin review: this block is neither over the top (your own words: If I blow it next time, you can block me indefinitely
) nor was it hastily applied, considering that it was a result of community discussion, as opposed to a unilateral action by a single admin. Next time please use {{
unblock}} if you really mean to be unblocked, however no unblock is possible unless you explain how is this going to work considering last chances wasted.
Max Semenik (
talk)
05:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
If I blow it next time, you can block me indefinitelyquote, I actually meant if I edit-warred again. The third time round, I didn't edit-war and I kept my promise never to edit-war again, I just asked two other editors if they thought it would be wise or not to correct a factual and historical error that I could not revert for a second time due to a WP:1RR restriction. I agree, if I have to wait a month? I'll wait a month and I won't risk a humiliating {{ unblock}} rejection until the time passes in due course. In future, I would self-restrict myself to clear off articles that are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year. To be honest, I felt that the indefinite blocking was too rash and hasty because of the simple fact that I am not a vandal and the only substantial disputes that I have ever been involved with on Wikipedia are to do with the articles within that WikiProject and those articles only. I feel strongly that I could adhere to WP:TOPICBAN if given the chance. I realise that my edits were unpopular with the masses and I henceforth accept that—subsequently giving up on trying to convince others towards my own POV, of course. I want to edit like normal again, fix typos and update lists and the rest of it. Of course, this block prevents me from editing Wikipedia at all for an indefinite time period and doing just that. I can tell you: hand on heart, I will clear off those articles if unblocked. I can assure you that I have never made such a proposal before, as I felt it too difficult for me to personally handle, although I now feel that I have no other choice and thus I must surrender. I can be a decent editor, and I will do all that I possibly can to convince other Wikipedians just that. Regards.-- Neve – selbert 06:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@ OpenFuture: I realise that I notifying you may irritate somewhat, although I would just like to make something clear to you. If I pledged to never edit the List of state leaders in XXXX articles for an extensive, indefinite period, could you potentially help me out on eventually getting unblocked? Now of course, I won't be surprised at all if you totally reject and/or dismiss this concession—although I just wanted to seriously let you know that I am extremely sorry about any wrongdoing that I may have committed and I absolutely seriously want to start again anew and afresh. I fully acknowledge your frustration with me, but I just wanted to notify you to tell you that I am unequivocally raising the white flag right now. I surrender, literally I surrender. I will literally never even get myself involved in any dispute involving the Palestine issue ever again. I technically kept my promise on edit-warring and I can assure you that I will restrain myself to fully respect and oblige WP:TOPICBAN. If I have to take a break for six months? I will hold my head up and do just that (preferably with an assurance that I can eventually return and edit, according to policy). But disallowing me from simply editing my own userspace is really unjustifiable IMHO. Please reply. Thank-you.-- Neve – selbert 08:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of requesting that your indef-block be reduced to a 1-month block, at WP:AN. If the request is rejected? there's nothing further I can do. GoodDay ( talk) 18:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Newyorkbrad: Hi, I don't know if this is too much to ask or not but could you help me? I've been blocked indefinitely for apparently trying to game the system (which was not at all my intention) and I would like this block to be reviewed by 17 May (as that date would mark a month of being blocked). I have made several concessions and my unblock is supported by GoodDay although is opposed for mostly the wrong reasons by a couple of editors over at WP:AN#Neve-selbert.. Their arguments are mostly flawed and/or lead to a false impression. Would it be possible if you could have a look? Thanks anyway.-- Neve – selbert 14:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
If I may so, Only in death, but I believe that your arguments over at WP:AN#Neve-selbert. are rather flawed. I have not been able to edit for 22 days now and I have hence had time to reflect on my past behaviour. I realise that I was wrong and I do not "still" deny anything. I can assure you that the last time I was blocked was mostly due to a misunderstanding. If someone told me to back off or face an indefinite block? I certainly would have without equivocation. I am not a battle-prone editor intent on disruption. Not in the slightest. I realise that I became too obsessive, and the only way for me to stop this obsessiveness is to back off completely. I cannot cope halfway. I can assure you also that by avoiding both those articles (i.e. those concerning the IvP conflict) and abiding fully without any caveats by WP:1RR, I can assuredly act as a normal editor that I once was once again prior to the problems in February 2016. I should have backed away from that can of worms, that conflict. Had I had? I never would have been blocked again. I was foolish and wrong and I should have used my initiative and common sense. I fully acknowledge that I was wrong and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have, however sceptical they may be. Please reconsider your position. Look: I kept my promise on WP:EW. The last block had nothing to do with edit warring. What makes you think I can't keep any other promises?-- Neve – selbert 14:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@ OpenFuture: I am not surprised in the slightest by your opposition to an unblock, but I cannot simply standby and accept your distorting of the facts. Your claims that I am "unable to drop sticks, and unable to back down when proven wrong, and unable to listen to anyone" are ludicrous to say the least. I found it hard to understand the verdict on Palestine, I admit. I thought that the PNA was redesignated as simply Palestine in 2013, not 2012. Was I perhaps wrong on this historical case-in-point? I could seriously doubt that, but I shall refrain from doing so as it would be a waste of time. There, you see. I can let things go. I do listen—just ask GoodDay or Robert McClenon (both of whom opposed my blocking, by the way). This indefinite block is over-the-top to say the least. I have never sock-puppeted nor vandalised. This is almost tantamount to a smear campaign. I would never have expected such callousness from the likes of you. Finally, I am one person, so no need to call me "they" or "we".-- Neve – selbert 14:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Robert McClenon: I am truly sorry if you thought I was being irritable to you, I apologise without reservation for that. For what it's worth, I took a ten day break from 29 April to 9 May for the very reason because I knew that I need time to cool off. If I'm raging, I'll stop that immediately. I didn't realise that was what I was doing. I apologise unequivocally. I had assumed you opposed this block due to your opposition the first time round. Suppose I sadly changed your mind unintentionally. Please, if I promise to stay quiet for an extensive period, could you please reconsider your opposition? I can honour any opic-ban, I really can. Please spare me the benefit of the doubt. I don't want to be blocked forever. I can't even edit my own userspace. I am really quite desperate Robert, I really am. I am not a "net negative". Even if I was, please at least give me the chance of redemption. I'm sorry, I truly am, and I will never repeat the same mistakes again. I can promise this like I have honoured other promises before.-- Neve – selbert 16:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@ TracyMcClark: I am at wits' end, now. I fail to understand why you think I can't be "rehabilitated" or whatever. I never vandalised nor sock-puppeted. This is total alienation and is completely unfair in my view.-- Neve – selbert 16:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Ivanvector: I was planning to make an unblock request this time next week, although I am now in some serious doubt over the wisdom of doing so. If you have any advice on what I should do next I would greatly appreciate it. FWIW, I have not had severe OCD for over a year and I am leaning off from compulsion as each day goes by, mind over matter. I can certainly demonstrate how I shall counteract any such compulsion in future, and I believe that I have almost already done so. I have promised to wean off from the articles within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year. This is a start, I believe.-- Neve – selbert 21:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Neve, at this point in time, it would really be to your benefit to just walk away from here for a while. I would really recommend against requesting another unblock. Right now, in your own words, you're "at wit's end" and are "desperate". This is detrimental to you and is not going to lead to a productive outcome. You'll make whatever promises you think will make an unblock stick and hope to get a sympathetic admin to accept your unblock. Unblocks that are granted like this invariably do not end well. I would propose that your talk page and email access be revoked for a period of no more than 6 months, something that is normally reserved for editors who are abusing the unblock process, being generally disruptive or attacking editors. In this case, the admin doing the revoking could make a statement in the block adjustment to indicate that this TPA revocation is without prejudice to your access being restored earlier at request to UTRS. However, I honestly feel that at this point whatever you do to get an unblock will just be a really big hole you dig for yourself. Cutting yourself off would be going cold turkey for a while and hopefully will help you. Blackmane ( talk) 06:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Neveselbert ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #15791 was submitted on May 15, 2016 17:28:21. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 17:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@ TParis: Thank-you for responding to my request. I would just like to enquire whether or not it would be permissible to develop a plan of action beforehand with someone not on the list that you gave me on Sunday. For what I believe is worthy of some note, I have already agreed to many restrictions and sanctions on my editing on any future unblock with GoodDay: i.e. total ban from editing or modifying articles/sections concerning WP:IsPal & constant WP:1RR concerning all articles, etc.-- Neve – selbert 17:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to bother again GoodDay, I was just wondering whether or not you could help me come up with a plan of action of some sorts to bring forward to a mentor at WP:AAU (in order for my being unblocked eventually). As I said yesterday, involving myself with WP:IsPal and exceeding WP:1RR is already out of the question, and staying clear from those articles for around six months would not be such as bad idea. Any thoughts?-- Neve – selbert 17:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@ TParis: Just to double-check, could I perhaps have GoodDay (a member of WP:WER) as an alternative/supplement to the list of mentors you gave me?-- Neve – selbert 22:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi again GoodDay. Just would like to know whether you would mind having me as a mentee to your mentor. I cannot thank you enough for your help and understanding.-- Neve – selbert 22:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)