User talk:Neveselbert/Archive 2

• 1
• Archive 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 10

March 2016

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: Please specify the problems you have with the edit I had made. A few points:

1. Palestine remained bolded, so this was not a POV edit. A footnote just to explain the occupation was unlikely to cause much harm.
2. Kosovo is not subject to the Rfc verdict. If you really have the urge to, go open another Rfc on the status of Kosovo.
3. Marking Israel and Palestine alongside Montenegro as a "(partially recognised state)" was unhelpful and superfluous. Besides, a consensus should have been necessary before implementing any new ideas.

You were free to edit the footnote, BTW.--Neve–selbert 00:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting all changes since your last edit is indicative of ownership behavior. Your single edit undoes many unrelated changes, introduces new ones in one shot. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sad to see that, you come out of your 3-day block and the first thing you do is to go straight back to edit-warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:18, 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)

Is it really so hard to discuss changes instead of edit-warring? Why can't you just be constructive? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: I only reverted SE once, and I tried to converse with him in the edit summary (responding to his assumption that the footnote did not abide properly to WP:STATUSQUO, per WP:BOLD). Besides, I reverted my revert anyway. To be honest, I hadn't thought a footnote would be that controversial, but of course, soon I would be damned. Oh well. Out of curiosity, do you think there's a problem with it? If the footnote was really that bad, then why couldn't SE, et al just edit it?--Neve–selbert 08:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You always have excuses and explanations for your behavior. Have you considered instead behaving in a way where that is not necessary? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Then readded Kosov entry, so you reverted at least twice. Kindly self revert and discuss on talk page.. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Spirit Ethanol: Please start up a discussion on the status of Kosovo on the talk page, please. @OpenFuture: Please answer my question about the footnote.--Neve–selbert 10:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have told you what I think you should do. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Continued edit warring on articles such as List of state leaders in 2006

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)

Concerning the List of state leaders in Year articles. You should put away the Revert button, permanently. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Absolutely. Concerning the matter I have with ZB, I hope to go the WP:DRN route. That should have been my intention. If I promised never to revert again, a "revert ban" if you will, could this be a possible route to an unblocking? I am at my wits' end.--Neve–selbert 15:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's up to the administrators. Also, it might be a good idea to 'not' mention the OCD anymore, less it be construed by others that you'll merely continue edit-warring because of that condition. Saying in effect "I can't help myself", is counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I understand. Thanks. I hope this can all be sorted out soon. I guess that's all I can do, now.--Neve–selbert 15:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think I should make another {{unblock}} request, or should I wait for Ohnoitsjamie to respond?--Neve–selbert 15:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's your choice to make :) GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it may be better just to wait for now. I'll make another request by the end of tomorrow if the situation calls for it.--Neve–selbert 15:49, 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)

@OpenFuture: You're right. I am a bit of an addict. But (then again) I need a chance to change. I need Wikipedia & the fact that I just can't edit it is absolutely devastating. I need rehabilitation, I know. But just straight-out banning me is tantamount to a cold turkey that I just wasn't even prepared for and cannot even yet envisage to handle. I am completely finished with the Palestine issue. The Kosovo issue isn't that important to me and I will let the consensus of the majority prevail once that comes. The only issue is the one I have with Zoltan Bukovszky—a sort of frenemy that I frequently come into conflict with. I want to resolve that open wound at WP:DRN and I have fully prepared the resources for doing so. But I cannot do that when blocked. I am trapped at my talk page. You know, I wish I could just get a revert-ban. I would actually accept a revert-ban (and for how long I simply don't care). It's the revert button that is the alcohol & not the editing itself. It's sort of like banning an alcoholic from drinking anything apart from water.--Neve–selbert 16:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You may have already noticed that ZB has agreed to editing restrictions if that makes you feel any better. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Well, if only that option was available to me.--Neve–selbert 06:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's up to admins, and not me. But yeah, in my opinion, a block is a chance to change. I don't think you will be able to change while you are editing. You need to take a Wiki-break. I did. In your case it's just enforced. See it as a chance to break the pattern. You think you NEED Wikipedia. It's like getting off heroin. You think you are gonna die, but actually, the effects are more like a bad flue. So believe me, you don't need Wikipedia at all. Good luck! --OpenFuture (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Staying away from the revert button, should help you. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion

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)

GoodDay has acted as a sort of mentor to me over the past few months. I'll read WP:OCDeditor in the meantime.

@EdJohnston: Would it be possible to sanction me under WP:0RR?--Neve–selbert 06:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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: I think WP:0RR would be better. I abhor this block, and I am determined not to edit-war again, this is my ironclad determination. By the way, the last edit-war I was involved in had nothing to do with P-I conflict. I am not saying I want to be subject to topic-bans and the 0RR forever necessarily, I just want to be able to edit other articles (e.g. fixing typos / mending per consistency, etc.) like any good-faith user could. I am not and never will be a vandal, I loathe those people. I just got obsessively carried away with a dispute that I am now determined to solve in a civil manner at WP:DRN. I just need to get unblocked for that. This block is really quite painful and is affecting my daily life. I overwhelmingly promise not to edit-war again as I realise this is my absolute last chance, and sanctioning me under the 0RR restriction would disallow me from any temptations to do so. I am a constructive editor that genuinely wants to be constructive. I adored the work I was allowed to do here, and I really want to contribute more for the betterment of this encyclopedia. @JamesBWatson: I really do find banning me from the entire site is really unfair. Zoltan Bukovszky also edit-warred, yet he remains unblocked and rather under some random set of sanctions. Yes, I should have kept my word last time and I was foolish not to. I am more aware of the consequences this time and I deeply regret my actions. Please, spare me the benefit of the doubt. I don't ever want to revert anymore. I have had enough of it.--Neve–selbert 08:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Zoltan hadn't just come out of his second straight block. And unlike you, he has so far actually kept his promise. So this is perfectly fair. I'm sorry I can't help you fix your issues, you'll have to do that yourself. I do predict more blocks though, you don't seem to have changed. You probably should take a Wiki-break for a half a year or something.---OpenFuture (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I withdraw my offer for help - you still don't understand that edit-warring is bad and that your block is completely justified. Max Semenik (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Such statements as "This block is really quite painful and is affecting my daily life", isn't gonna get you unblocked. Recommend you sit out the 2-weeks & then come back refreshed, minus the 'revert' button. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Plea for understanding

@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 completely understand you. But you still aren't listening. You are addicted to/obsessed with/compulsed to edit Wikipedia. You are basically now pleading with the admins you let you out of rehab so you can get another shot of the Wiki-drug. That's not the right way forward for YOU. Once again blocks aren't punishments. The block is not "unjust". The block is there both to simply prevent your disruption, but also to let you cool down and rethink. But instead of doing that, you repeatedly beg admins to give you edit access. That's the exact opposite of what you should do. Go outside. Do something healthy. Think about something else. Stop injecting Wikipedia into your veins. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• If being blocked for two weeks is really causing you so much distress, then I am not sure that taking a break of two weeks isn't the best thing you can do for your own benefit. (I wrote that before I saw User:OpenFuture's comment immediately above, but I agree with OpenFuture.) However, the job of Wikipedia administrators is to protect the encyclopaedia, not to act as therapists for editors, so I will put that consideration aside, and consider the impact on Wikipedia of unblocking you.

• It is true that all your blocks have concerned edit-warring at the "List of state leaders in xxxx" articles, so a topic ban or a 0RR restriction on those articles should be as effective as a block in preventing a continuation of the problem, if you can stick to the topic ban or 0RR. Since a block is supposed to be preventive, I therefore see no justification in keeping the block if you can be trusted to stick to one of those restrictions. The one possible reason for doubt is that you have before promised to lay off those articles, and then returned to edit-warring on them. I also note that at that time you appealed for "one last chance", and you are now again appealing for "WP:LASTCHANCE". What does "last chance" mean, if it is followed by another "last chance", and how can we have faith that you won't then ask for a third "last chance"? Despite that, I suggest that we lift the block, subject to either a topic ban or a 0RR restriction, and on the understanding that failure to comply with that restriction will lead to an immediate indefinite block. My own preference would be for a topic ban for the remainder of the time of the block, followed by a 0RR on the relevant articles after that, but I would not insist on that if others prefer another option. @EdJohnston, Ohnoitsjamie, and MaxSem: Any thoughts? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:12, 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)

I'd be OK with an unblock if accompanied by a general WP:0RR restriction on all articles, plus a topic ban from 'List of state leaders in XXXX' on all pages of Wikipedia. The 0RR might be lifted or modified later by the unblocking admin if reform actually occurs. The unblock conditions would be recorded in WP:Editing restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The 0RR on all articles is a tad harsh. But as you say, it would be eventually lifted, if Neve-selbert demonstrates over a period of time, that he can comply with it. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind a combination of both measures (as in, topic ban from relevant pages for the duration of block and indefinite 0-1RR), though I'm not prepared to unblock myself. Max Semenik (talk) 20:36, 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)

I wouldn't support unblock given only this limited concession. It can give us no confidence you won't resume disruption of the List of state leaders articles. Also I don't know what '0-1RR' means. I referred to WP:0RR which is a term in the policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

0-1RR was used by me, and I meant "either 0RR or 1RR", sorry for confusion:P Max Semenik (talk) 00:15, 3 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)

Conditions for an unblocking

Please may I outline my proposal for an unblock, EdJohnston:

1. A WP:0RR/WP:1RR for up to a year (or longer).
2. A topic ban from related articles for the remainder of the block.

• Similar to the proposal brought forth by JamesBWatson, and unopposed by MaxSem. I am unsure of Ohnoitsjamie's position (as an admin).

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)

I am still against any proposal that leaves you free to edit the Lists of state leaders. If you are, I predict you will be back at the edit warring noticeboard within a week after unblocking. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I honestly do believe that any such scenario will render as highly unlikely. I am determined to sort my issues out at WP:DRN in future and I now fully realise the scale of disruption edit-warring can have on this project (of which I totally regret and I reject any such behaviour in future). A couple questions: Could it be possible if I could just be allowed to edit other non-related articles until the blocking is up? Or at least the ability to preview-edit the sandbox? Frankly, a lot of the WikiGnome-esque work I want to do elsewhere on Wikipedia is piling up on top of me as I continually have to juggle things about a lot around my calendar and this all-out ban is becoming seriously overwhelming day-by-day. All I am asking now, is for a simple unblock, i.e. a topic-ban alongside a 0–1RR edit restriction, if need be—allowing me to edit other pages on Wikipedia unrelated to the SLBY articles until the blocking is up. This seems fair enough IMHO for all intents and purposes. Besides, I unashamedly have a lot of constructive & beneficial edits I would strive to make elsewhere. Sure, my top preoccupation is monitoring and proofreading SLBY, but that does not mean that that is my only one purpose here at Wikipedia, at all.--Neve–selbert 13:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering a topic-ban, 0–WP:1RR editing restriction, or both

@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)

The possibility of an early unblock

@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)

I would support unblock if you will agree to WP:1RR and also accept a ban from the Lists of state leaders articles. See my previous comment. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: How long would the ban from those articles be?--Neve–selbert 13:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Three months. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 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)

Third opinion

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)

@Spirit Ethanol: For your information, I have already received a third opinion from GoodDay.--Neve–selbert 11:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're pointing to the recent placement of Palestine discussion. I was the third opinon. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You're aware that you're pointing to a canvassing post? Maybe not as helpful as intended.--TMCk (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I took it as being a third opinon request. I could've easily appeared at the discussion-in-question afterward, supporting Palestine's having a place of its own. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's still canvassing. What you just said can be applied to all canvassing. Don't you think so?--TMCk (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)7

If it's judged to be canvassing? then perhaps that's something that could be added to Neve-selbert's proposed self-restrictions. Anyways, I personally didn't feel as though I were being canvassed. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for adding a canvass warning to the proposed restrictions (it's only a side issue along the main problems Neve is facing). But it might be vise for both of you to become more familiar with 3rd opinion rules. E.g. see What if the respondent is not independent? in the FAQ.--TMCk (talk) 18:39, 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)

What do you mean by saying that you are "largely finished with that whole palaver" about your deleting the acting presidents from the articles? ZBukov (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zoltan Bukovszky: I meant Palestine, not that whole other debacle. FYI, I shall be taking it to WP:DRN once I am able to before long. This "deleting the acting presidents from the articles" proposition is indeed my first and foremost preferred option, although I would sit for delegating them to footnote status (so they remain mentioned) as a compromise option—also supported by GoodDay.--Neve–selbert 12:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you want to delete those presidents from the articles, and actually did so repeatedly. ZBukov (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not the presidents, the acting presidents :) GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

An acting president is a leader for the time being. Why on earth would someone want to remove them from a leader list? I can't see any reasonable logic in this.--TMCk (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

An acting president should be deleted, if there's still a president. If one performs the presidential powers & duties, while the presidency is vacant? then include. For sorting purposes, I tend to identify the latter as interim presidents. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That makes no sense. A reader looking for a country's leader in a given time period surely wants to know if there is or was a de facto leader aside from the head of state. Don't you think so?--TMCk (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: I mostly agree with GoodDay. If we have to include them? They should be tucked away neatly in a footnote. Many leaders are incapacitated without there being an acting president serving concurrently for them. Take Ronald Reagan in 1981, for instance. Furthermore, if my attempts at getting an unblock (alongside editing restrictions for the remainder) prove successful in the coming days I shall be taking this issue to the DRN, ASAP. Otherwise, there will certainly be a discussion up there after that block expires on 11 April. If you are interested in further details of this dispute and the concerns that surround it, please check this link of the original discussion that I had with ZB and GoodDay prior to this.--Neve–selbert 16:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Just saying, Raul Castro shouldn't be listed, just like GHW Bush & Cheney aren't listed - regardless of the time factor. Anyways, we won't be solving that here. PS: Neve-selbert's footnote idea, for those 'long tenured' situations, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you (both) seriously think the reader would not be interested in knowing who the acting head of state was in a given time period? Because that is truly an important criteria in an encyclopedia, right? It's aimed at readers, not writers.--TMCk (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A footnote can handle those situations. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 7 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)

There should be a criteria for which acting heads of state and/or government should be included/excluded. If only there was a place to have such a discussion, covering all those List of state leaders in Year articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't handle the main subject of an article in a "footnote". Ridiculous.--TMCk (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If either of you can find a place where we can have a discussion to establish the inclusion criteria for acting heads of state and/or government? it would be great. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 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)

No-one owns the article, therefore it is not the case that you would be willing to give way to a compromise, but that you must - just like everybody else. And the fact that you see footnotes as the compromise is not compelling. Disputes don't have to settle at the half way point between the two opposing views. ZBukov (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And on the merit of the argument, the reason why a leader is on a leave of absence (illness, impeachment, criminal proceedings or whatever) is irrelevant because the the consequences are the same: the incumbent remains the president, but his/her duties are temporarily exercised by another person. And it's up to each country/leader to decide if an acting president is needed in a particular situation, or not. Therefore if there was no acting president for Reagan, then there is no need to invent one in hindsight. But if someone was an acting president of a country, then they should on these lists. But we can discuss the question at length later. ZBukov (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zoltan Bukovszky: Indeed, Zoltan, although I must reiterate that I disagree with your opinion that the consequences are irrelevant for reasons that I do not want to repeat ad nauseum. My points remains the same: President Reagan didn't need an acting president in 1981, so why on earth did President Ramos-Horta happen to need one in 2008? They both happened to be under a similar dose of unconsciousness, albeit the latter longer than the former. Does the duration matter? In my opinion, that would be largely irrelevant (as we have no qualms over the omission of Pedro Lascuráin in the 1919 rendition). There is certainly a major consistency flaw that we must rectify and I look forward to settling that very issue next week. On a separate note—considering your luck with a topic-ban—I'll update the SLBY articles reflecting the leadership transitions in Myanmar, etc. on Monday.--Neve–selbert 13:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Consistency considerations of how things should have happened don't overwrite history. Reagan had no acting president. Ramos-Horta had acting presidents. It's a historical fact, so it's no problem if it makes no sense to you. That's what happened anyway (whatever one might presume about their respective levels of unconsciousness). ZBukov (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The inconsistency sticks out like a sore thumb, as the saying goes. The fact of the matter is: a nation ruled by a suspended president renders practically as an oxymoron and hence the necessity of an acting president to serve on their behalf. One can indeed argue that is not identically the precise case for those presidents incapacitated, with Reagan being an example in 1981. The "end result" argument is a red herring. The inconsistency is undeniable.--Neve–selbert 19:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You're free to write the corresponding governments and lay out your "proposal" as to when they should or should not appoint an acting president but here on WP we blindly accept whatever they have decided in the past or will decide in the future. Your opinion on the other side is and will be blindly rejected now and most likely in the future unless you become a high enough ranking government official yourself. There is nothing more to say about this.--TMCk (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: Erm, I think you're a bit confused about this. There is a major consistency flaw that has to be mended, and a footnote is meant to clearly fix that with respect to other constitutional arrangements—while still maintaining a mention of these acting presidents as part of this compromise deal. Nothing will be "blindly rejected". That's complete and utter nonsense, not to mention totally unfounded.--Neve–selbert 19:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to try hard to confuse others but so far the only one showing such confusion is yourself.--TMCk (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: One does indeed wonder whether or not you actually bothered to read my 450+ word statement yesterday. I know exactly what I am talking about.--Neve–selbert 19:56, 8 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)

Verifiability

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)

@Baking Soda: Please elucidate, I am unsure of what you are trying to infer. As far as I know, there is adequate verifiability in the External links section of the articles-in-question and, if I may so, this seems verifiable enough.--Neve–selbert 19:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait a second, you changed your username! You had me, there. My dear god. Now anyway, I would like to invite you to have a look at Rulers or WorldStatesman for once. They are indeed very good sources, if I may so myself.--Neve–selbert 19:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Then links should be moved from external links to references section, see this page for example, still, article will be lacking inline citations. Baking Soda (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Baking Soda: That is a nonsense supposition on your part. You should seek proper consensus for the umpteenth time before make such rash and unnecessary changes. The references clog up the article and are totally superfluous and must be certainly removed as soon as can be possible in due course. Where on Wikipedia does it state that every single article must have a References section no matter what the situation?--Neve–selbert 19:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I leave it to GoodDay to respond to statements such as "references clog up the article and are totally superfluous and must be certainly removed"; and referencing in general. In the mean time, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Baking Soda (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Baking Soda: I am talking about this particular article, not all articles in general. Read WP:OVERCITE. What on earth is wrong with citing Rulers and WorldStatesman as reliable sources in the External links section? Answer please.--Neve–selbert 19:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

References belong in a reference section. That's how it was decided and implemented. There is no exception.--TMCk (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: And external links belong in an external link section. That is indeed also how it was decided and implemented. Sources are provided within these valuable links, rendering inline citations as superflous and irrelevant—not to mention subjective considering which source should be used over another constantly. Per WP:OVERCITE, the external links serve a clear purpose to avoid this inevitability and I am confident that the former situation will restore itself in the coming days.--Neve–selbert 19:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but your understanding of how WP works is fundamentally flawed.--TMCk (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: Would you care to explain yourself? None of the List of state leaders by year articles are referenced and (as far as I know) have not been so since inception.--Neve–selbert 19:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and they're all not up to standard. Maybe after your block expires or is lifted you could try editing some high (editor-) traffic articles to see and learn how the rest of the community is implementing WP guidelines and policies?--TMCk (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am indeed aware that most of those articles are not all "up to standard". Which I will come across and proofread accordingly in due process. Now, the sources given in those articles are implemented in the External links section. Please do not ignore this key case-in-point, it is extremely important. The links provided supersede any need for inline citations whatsoever.--Neve–selbert 20:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Find and quote me a guide or policy that says an external link section can be used to reference an article.--TMCk (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, the overwhelming majority of relevant information for attribution has been included in the External links section.--Neve–selbert 20:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, find and quote me a guide or policy that says an external link section can be used to reference an article.--TMCk (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: Lists are different from other articles, as per the point made below by GoodDay. Can you find and quote me a guide or policy that says a References section is mandatory for every single article regardless on Wikipedia?--Neve–selbert 22:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep on discussing with yourself but your soon to expire block will be reinstated in a blink if you continue your way.--TMCk (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Your consistent hostility to me is really getting irritating now. I am simply saying that the External links section merely supersedes the need for inline citations. I am a good-intentioned editor, and I intend to stay that way. Is that clear, or have you drifted off into confusion yet again?--Neve–selbert 14:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

External links not references. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Baking Soda (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Baking Soda: Adding references for every single new state leader is WP:OVERCITE. The sources are provided in the External links section (i.e. Rulers, please check the site out if you have time to). Why is this so hard for you to understand? And, another thing, could you please have the decent courtesy to calm down with your radical, opportunist approach to that particular article without discussing on the talkpage first? Now, as per WP:STATUSQUO, the references are due to be removed pending talk approval.--Neve–selbert 17:56, 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)

@GoodDay: This whole palaver now is to do with references being included on the List of state leaders in 2016 article, despite the whole series having zero inline citations, since the External links section wholly supersedes them as a reliable source (i.e. Rulers & WorldStatesman) and hence rendering the additional inclusion of inline citations edging towards WP:OVERCITE.--Neve–selbert 20:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

References tend to be books, newspapers etc. AFAIK, it's alright to include them. Though, I personally don't see the necessity for them in list articles. It depends on what the majority want, I guess. PS - If references were added to the 2016 version, then one would assume this would be done for all the other Year versions. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: If I may, could you temporarily remove the references on the article and open up a new talkpage section about it, please. This is a major change to the status quo that needs to be discussed thoroughly. For what its worth, there are also hundreds of these articles so consistency is also a key issue here. Lastly, Spirit Ethanol just changed his username to Baking Soda, so I got slightly confused over who started all this earlier on. You know, sometimes I wish that user could just take a backseat for once.--Neve–selbert 20:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be proxy reverting for a blocked editor, which wouldn't look good. Baking Soda (nee Spirit Ethanol) is going too fast, if there's such a thing on Wikipedia & I'm not overly impressed that these changes are being made while you're blocked. Once your block expires (and assuming you're not barred from those articles for 3 months), you can open up a discussion on the topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Of course, I understand. Besides, he'll most likely revert me if I myself get rid of the references for the time being on Monday, and I am due for a WP:1RR sanction for the next three months. He is on full speed ahead, absolutely.--Neve–selbert 20:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

1RR or not, all you can do is open up a discussion on that page, about why you believe the references should be removed. After that, it's in the hands of the rest of the participants. If they agree with you? the references will be removed. If they agree with Baking Soda? the references will remain :) GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Sure, but as per WP:STATUSQUO, they should be gotten rid of beforehand IMO.--Neve–selbert 20:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, per WP:SATUSQUO the additions should be reverted. Also, per WP:BRD for that matter. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The site wide status quo is to have articles referenced using a reference or notes section.--TMCk (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I doubt this is so. The External links section seems reliable enough. Perhaps an uninvolved admin needs to review this situation.--Neve–selbert 22:20, 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)

@GoodDay: The question is: which references are to be added? It depends, although adding a reference for every new leader in 2016 is really unnecessary. Rulers.org provides this information anyway. Now having said this, I will strive to be in the backseat on this particular issue, and I will focus the majority of my attention to the "acting head of state & government" topic.--Neve–selbert 22:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

DRN

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)

@GoodDay: Ah, yes. My mistake, sorry.--Neve–selbert 21:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Giving it further thought. It might be better to open up a discussion on that topic at the List of state leaders in Year articles, themselves. Thus letting others to be involved. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 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'm sorry to hear this. I wish you good luck elsewhere.--Neve–selbert 18:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Belated response to pings

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)

Thanks, JamesBWatson. I really appreciate it.--Neve–selbert 18:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

NPA

Continuing your personal attack streak is not very vise.--TMCk (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: How was it a personal attack? I simply stated fact.--Neve–selbert 19:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop unbolding Palestine

You know very well there is no support for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: I have no idea what you are on about. I haven't unbolded Palestine ever since you posted me that unpleasant message on my talkpage on 11 April.--Neve–selbert 19:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I just realized that you not only unbolded Palestine, but moved it to be a sub-entry under Israel. That's nothing but pure vandalism. [1] --OpenFuture (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: You're talking nonsense. Prior to 2013, the UN did not recognise the State of Palestine. Comprende? Read this for more information.--Neve–selbert 19:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand perfectly, and will reiterate my previous statement for clarity: This is vandalism. Stop it. You will not get more warnings from me, I will ask for administrative help if you continue to vandalize these articles. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not vandalising! What on earth are you talking about?! That is an insane insinuation and one that I certainly will not stand for.--Neve–selbert 19:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You know what I'm talking about. Stop playing stupid.1, 2 Even if you truly don't realize that they violate the outcome of the RfC, you still know these edits are at the minimum controversial, yet you do not make any attempt of even discussing them, and instead just hope the fly in under the radar. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Per WP:CYCLE, he should have discussed his proposed changes beforehand. I abided to policy and he did not.--Neve–selbert 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit, we just had an RfC about this, you just came out of several blocks for revert warring on these issues, you know damn well you should have discussed it if it was unclear to you (and I don't think it was, considering your previous behavior). --OpenFuture (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Mind your language. This is all claptrap, I perfectly knew the result of the Rfc and I abided to it duly.--Neve–selbert 20:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the RfC was not about "The State of Palestine after 2013". You can read. You know that. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, the Rfc was about "The State of Palestine in 2016". You can read. You know that.--Neve–selbert 20:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No it's not. Also this thing is not OK: [2] --OpenFuture (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You're continually missing the point. The status of Palestine as a State at the UN changed fundamentally in 2013. You know, I think this is all down to a whole lot of confusion. Please read the following carefully: you see, the UN passed the "Palestine is now a State" resolution back in 2012—although this did not come into full effect until January the following year, i.e. 2013. Now, I honestly believe that Spirit Soda has simply got his facts messed up. If you could tell him this, OpenFuture (as he usually turns a deaf ear to me and archives my concerns on his talkpage prematurely), we would certainly be one step closer to solution. A great misunderstanding that can be rectified, I reckon.--Neve–selbert 18:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing

Asking another editor to revert for you? Seriously?--TMCk (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: Yup. WP:BRD is being violated by another editor.--Neve–selbert 23:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

An essay is a bad excuse when violating policies and guidelines.--TMCk (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Baking Ethanol has total disregard for that.--Neve–selbert 21:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It's you, Neve. You are citing an essay to excuse a guideline!--TMCk (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: What are you on about? Which guideline do you accuse me of excusing?--Neve–selbert 21:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

See section title above: wp:CANVASS.--TMCk (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: Why is everything always framed around me doing something wrong? I have stated why I reverted that user on the premise that he was wrong with the facts. Ignoring BRD, he stubbornly reverted me. He is without a doubt a masquerading dictator, that there can be no doubt. He could even add Scotland as a independent country on false premises and still I would be unable to revert him. Every edit has to be approved by him for some reason. Any BOLD edit he makes must not be reverted, that seems to be the consensus among others.--Neve–selbert 21:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Understanding and the lack thereof

@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)

No sense in responding further since you remove what doesn't suit you.--TMCk (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: Indeed, as does Baking Soda. Yet he can get away with anything, can't he? I'm the bogeyman, got it!--Neve–selbert 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are, because you continue to POV-push and you continue to violate Wikipedia policy, and you never listen to what anyone tells you. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Total nonsense. I find it amazing how you turn a blind eye to the misbehaviour and even delinquencies of and made by Baking Ethanol. Does he violate Wikipedia policy? Yup. Does he ever listen to what anyone tells him? Nope. Now, onto me, read carefully: the user made a historical error, and yet you continue to ignore this. Besides, you stated that you have a busy day today. I'd recommend you be nicer to people on your journey this morning and set an example for yourself for any such future dealings with me. I will not tolerate unjust rudeness and intimidation on my own talkpage.--Neve–selbert 05:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

1. He doesn't actually, but you do. 2. This isn't about him, it's about you. Other people violating Wikipedia policies does NOT give you the right to do so. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This is nothing short of a witch hunt. You have taken an immediate disliking of me, with a total disregard of the wrongdoing of others. I apologise for my shortcomings, that I will do so profusely.--Neve–selbert 19:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

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)

Walk away from those articles, while you still can

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 will do anything not to get blocked. I'll back off, absolutely (if it means otherwise I'll get banned).--Neve–selbert 19:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Recommend you state this at ANI & hope for the best. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, too late at this point to pledge backing off state leaders list. I advise you to seek mentorship, and indicate that you are willing to do so at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Baking Soda (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Baking Soda: You probably want to get rid of me anyway. I am reluctant to even consider your advice. You made a mistake on the article and I tried to explain why and you refused to listen. And we are here.--Neve–selbert 19:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mentorship, is a route that you may want to consider. Particularly, if it'll take the heat off of you. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Neve-selbert, that's what you said last time. And the time before that. Your pledges to behave really isn't credible any more. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't want to even consider WP:TOPICBAN. Nope! You just think of me a nuisance and want me out. I get it now.--Neve–selbert 19:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A topic ban is usually necessary, when there's a lot of edit-warring. You may want to go the mentorship route. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't want you out. I want you to listen, change and become a constructive contributor. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:47, 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)

How about following Wikipedia policies, listening to other people and discussing controversial changes? Why don't you try THAT? Why are these things not included in the "practically anything"? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"Discussing controversial changes" That is exactly what I want in future! Exactly the opposite of what Baking Ethanol is doing! Do I follow policy? Yes, per WP:STATUSQUO. Do I listen to other people? I am open to doing so. Your attitude towards me remains disgusting and foul and I really would like you to clear away from this talkpage in future.--Neve–selbert 19:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You still do not understand/accept that you are at fault here. And despite your constant "I know I did wrong and I will never do it again"-pleas on earlier blocks, you still do not understand/accept that you did wrong then either. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Alright, then! I am at fault. Please, an indefinite block is insane! Why you would support such a ban is beyond me. I can't believe it. If I knew it would come this far I never would have asked those two other editors to revert. I am truly sorry. Your sheer coldness is beyond painful.--Neve–selbert 20:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, just wait

@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)

I'm not an admin, it's not my decision. I don't know if you are intentionally vandalizing or if you have mental illnesses that compel you to do it, but it doesn't really matter from Wikipedias point of view. You need to be stopped. I can not see how a topic ban or mentoring will prevent this. Mentoring is clearly pointless, you treat anyone who corrects you as an enemy. Topic bans are for POV pushers who are unable to behave rationally and seriously on a specific topic, but can be rational otherwise. You claim this is not the case. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not claim any of that. I can behave rationally. I do not treat anyone who corrects me as an enemy, that is totally false. I am open to constructive criticism absolutely. I am not a vandal, that is a slanderous allegation and that I cannot stand for. I love contributing here. You openly want to get rid of me permanently, hence the indef block.--Neve–selbert 20:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can behave rationally, why don't you? Yes, you do. No, you do not listen to anyone or anything, and that includes constructive criticism and logical arguments. I do not want to get rid of you, I want you to change. I don't think you can. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: You won't even let me change, hence the indef block. If you really wanted me to change? You wouldn't support getting rid of me forever. That is a total oxymoron and you know it.--Neve–selbert 20:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite is not forever. I still hope you can change. I am however now convinced that it certainly isn't a matter of days or weeks that is needed. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: You really are sadistic, aren't you? If I do come back in future? There is no doubt in my mind that I will inevitably be accused of being a sockpuppet. You know that.--Neve–selbert 20:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

*Sigh* Only if you come back as a sock-puppet. So don't do that, that would be block-evasion, and that's against the rules. Why is breaking rules always your first mode of action, and listening to others the last? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: You won't give me a chance, will you? You want me banned from Wikipedia for as long as a piece of string. I should listen to others, its just my compulsiveness that is always my own worst enemy. If you sent me a warning stating "If you continue your current streak, I will campaign to get you blocked", I would stop and think again. I need help and just throwing me out is not helping me at all. I wish you could reconsider. I doubt you will, though.--Neve–selbert 21:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

1. I *did*. [3]

2. Why do I have to warn you? You should edit in a constructive manner WITHOUT the threat of being blocked. Warnings are for new editors who do not know that they are doing wrong, and who does not know that they can be blocked. You know this already.

3. I have given you chance, upon chance, upon chance. You have failed me every time. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "vandalism". I am not a vandal, OpenFuture, that is unfounded slander on your part. I am a constructive contributor that happened to correct a historical mistake and was thus reverted for doing so. Have I done something wrong? Probably, yes, although I must state that I am taken aback by this sudden bounty. In many ways, I am a new editor. I've been editing since July last year. You have been editing since 2008. You do want to get rid of me. If you didn't, you would adopt a similar approach to that of GoodDay. This is sheer callousness.--Neve–selbert 21:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"that happened to correct a historical mistake" - By now you must know that this is not true. What is the point of me talking to you when you are still not listening and you still don't understand and accept that you did wrong, despite saying that you did. But that was a lie, wasn't it? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I did correct a historical error. I don't want to get blocked again. If I did something wrong, I did something wrong. You are resorting to bullying tactics now, OpenFuture.--Neve–selbert 21:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

As I have now pointed out multiple times: You reverted implementations of the RfC about Palestine. You did not correct any error. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: I didn't "revert" anything, I simply restored the status quo via a revert. Prior to 2013, the UN did not recognise the PNA as the State of Palestine. Yes, the resolution came in 2012 (hence the confusion) although it did not come into full effect until 6 January of the following year. That was the mistake made by Spirit Soda and I proceeded to fix the historical inaccuracy that he had made. Yes, I am largely done with that issue, but I want further clarification. I currently have my sights set at WP:DRN#List of state leaders which I really want to concentrate the majority of my attention to. A block is too far and an indef block is overwhelmingly too far. I realise the error of my judgment and I want to move on from that. Both GoodDay and ZBukov chose not to revert. This must be taken into consideration. I was wrong and I realise that. I am not a disruptive editor. I just get carried away and I need someone to tell me when to stop. You need to realise that I am "redeemable". You have absolutely zero patience.--Neve–selbert 21:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No, almost all of that is incorrect. Sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

How is THAT incorrect? Explain yourself. And spare the sadistic "sorry's" at the end.--Neve–selbert 22:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, most importantly, as I have now pointed out multiple times: You reverted implementations of the RfC about Palestine. You did not correct any error. That's a fact. You keep claiming you fixed an error, but that's wrong. You can claim that until the cows come home, it is still factually incorrect. How do you expect to be a constructive editor when you are unable to understand what people tell you? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:26, 18 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)

It never was, but one can always hope. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I reverted an error. Full stop.--Neve–selbert 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. Full stop. --Tarage (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

And I relatively regret that. The buck stops here.--Neve–selbert 07:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Response

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)

@Robert McClenon: Tough words, although I would agree to that. Please could you make the proposal at WP:ANI#Neve-selbert asking others for proxy-edits to go around 1RR rule? Thank-you.--Neve–selbert 22:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

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)

@JzG: I will try not to overreact, although suffice to say I am somewhat disappointed. I did wonder whether or not it would be possible to make this a one-month block per Robert McClenon's suggestion. Moreover, to be honest, I'm not sure exactly what to do now. Thanks for being considerate in your message though, I duly appreciate it.--Neve–selbert 00:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The thing about a one-month block is that it expires with time, whereas the problem here is with your appreciation of policy, and that tends not to be time-related. You could actually be unblocked much sooner if you propose an action plan to fix the core issue. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 18 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)

Actually, @GoodDay:, it would be wiser if Neve-selbert spent some time thinking over what conditions they could offer to the community. Neve, I left a comment on your page about a month back just before Easter but subsequently was away for the long weekend and as your ping was mis-formatted I did not see it. (To make a ping work, you need to add the ping template, do your edit and sign to make it work. Changing or adding the ping in a subsequent edit does not work.) As Guy has said, this is an indefinite block and while you would like it to have been a 1 month block, at this juncture only you can make it such. The block does not prevent you from using the email function or from posting to your talk page, but excessive use of either to plead your case will lead accesses being revoked leaving the UTRS and ArbCom your only remaining options. If Wikipedia is that important to you then consider what you can offer to the community. 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? These may be some of the questions that you need to answer before formulating something the community may accept. Blackmane (talk) 03:18, 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?

  Mainly, the articles within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year. FWIW, I have only (as of yet) managed to edit/proofread those within the 21st century (FYI: I plan to make the blueprint for the others in the coming days, while probably remaining blocked). Apart from this, there are currently three issues that I still feel compelled to sort out:

  1. The inclusion of Palestine on List of state leaders in 2012 and List of state leaders in 2013.

     AKA The issue that I was actually blocked for. That is, the situation of Palestine being a state recognised at the UN instead of the entity PNA prior to 6 January 2013. I have tried to reason with the likes of OpenFuture and Baking Soda, although they continue to refuse to listen. They accuse me of "vandalism" and "POV-pushing", which could not be anything further from the truth. The truth was, Soda made an erroneous edit and I proceed to revert him per WP:BRD on the premise included in my edit summary. He ignored my edit summary with a simple "respect the Rfc result!" without fully realising the minor details. I asked two editors if they could potentially revert per WP:STATUSQUO. Do I regret this? Absolutely—now that I am being blocked without expiry for it. You see, I just wanted them to potentially review the situation. Moreover, they both were not "any old editors" but rather both experienced and involved editors that were also participating at the WP:DRN with another issue (3.) with me.

  2. The inclusion of a References section on List of state leaders in 2016.

     I haven't actually got round to pressing this issue yet, although I do plan to discuss it. The simple fact is, none of the other State leaders by year articles have a References section and a such a need for one is superseded with the External links section. All new leaders of states and/or governments are sourced in both Rulers and WorldStatesman. Again, Baking Soda forgot this little "triviality", if you will, and went on the proceed and add references and add the template {{Refimprove}} not for any pieces of misjudged information he may have issues or doubts with, but for almost every newly-inaugurated state leader since last March. This renders in my mind somewhat as a rendition of WP:OVERCITE, and that is something that has been plaguing my mind for the past few weeks.

  3. The inclusion of acting leaders serving concurrently on several of the List of state leaders lists.

     This is already a rather long story, I have already explained it in clear-cut detail at WP:DRN#List of state leaders (or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 136#List of state leaders) and at User talk:Zoltan Bukovszky#José Ramos-Horta.

• Would you find it possible to avoid those areas?

  To be frank, it would be very hard for me to do so, although it would not be impossible. You see as an OCD editor I find it hard to not get obsessive and compulsive with the minor details with things, so hence I have a hard time having a "hands-off approach". I enjoy editing the List of state leaders list articles for many reasons, I have spent hours on end trying to improve each one since 2001. Sometimes I can spend practically seven hours on one piece of work proofreading and scanning for minor errors, without a break! Many describe in real-life as quite a dedicated person in both good and bad ways. With Wikipedia, it can be a mixture. The fact is, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and I have to learn to agree to disagree and sort out compromises. The first major dispute I had was with the editor Zoltan Bukovszky on the issue of how to gender-neutrally designate Queen Elizabeth II's representative in the Cook Islands. This dispute lasted for about a month and in the end I found that Zoltan's compromise idea (which I despised) was gaining a bit of traction, so I decided to pull the plug on the dispute and go with the majority, i.e. those supporting the status quo. That was my very first substantial dispute that actually led to nowhere in the end. You can find more details at Talk:List of state leaders in 2015/Archive 2. So, in a direct answer to your question, I would say that I am indeed up to the challenge—although I am unsure whether or not that challenge can be forever or not. These issues just stick to my mind like glue, and I find it hard to let go of something I haven't settled or sorted out.

• What does your condition compel you to do?

  It isn't debilitating per se—although I must note that I do not have much of a social life at all. Wikipedia is and has been my hobbyhorse for quite some time. I am totally dedicated to the List of state leaders list articles and I usually take a perfectionist approach to it. I regret this. When the Palestine issue first came up in January of this year, I was caught totally unaware. I spent the whole Rfc arguing for the status quo without actually considering the arguments in detail, I just felt that I should and must be on the defensive for one reason or another for something that I had thought hitherto there was no problem with. It should also be noted that the user who started that Rfc did not discuss the issue on the talkpage beforehand—so this did not really help matters and likely made them worse. I can be an understanding editor that respects consensus once someone fully clarifies a situation for me. However, with the majority of the time, my condition compels me to defend the status quo of an article, i.e. no substantial layout changes & just updates. I usually find the alternative harder to adjust to.

• Are you able to do something else to get around it?

  You know, I actually believe that I can get around it. Per WP:DEADLINE, I want to discuss and not cause any editing that may or may not be construed as being "disruptive". The problem is, the user Soda is really quite an overly WP:BOLD editor and I usually lose my patience with him. Per WP:BRD, I revert him once, and then he proceeds to revert me again and does not help matters. He gives a simple edit summary of "feel free to discuss my changes on the talkpage!" without realising that the situation really should be the other way round. To answer your question? Yes, I really do need to avoid that editor. I find it hard to control my temper with him. He is, in my opinion, is a disruptive editor. He ignores and dismisses and deletes messages (and the like) that I try to send him in order to explain why he was wrong to make the edit that he made. Although of course he manages to get around that. I, however should like to choose the more honourable path and discuss more often directly with users in future.

All in all, I need a break from interacting with users on Wikipedia, absolutely. That is exactly why I haven't made an {{unblock}} request. But, that being said, I look forward to being unblocked eventually. I have so much to give to benefit and I leave this message in confidence that I will do so in the near future. Thank-you.--Neve–selbert 23:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Gonna be honest with you Neve–selbert, with the above attitude, you will never be unblocked. Everything you just said is "Yeah but...". You are fully admitting that if you were to be unblocked, you would be compelled to continue doing everything you were doing before you were blocked. I'm not sure how you don't understand it at this point. You may not think you are wrong, but you are wrong. Get over it. Stop saying "Yeah but...". You were wrong, you will not be right by continuing to try to do what you want. Until you admit that, you will never edit Wikipedia again. Find another hobby. --Tarage (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tarage: I was trying to be honest. If the above was too much? I regret what I said. I would at the very least like the block to be shortened from indefinite to perhaps a month. I realise that I was misguided in my editing, I do. This is a sorry state of affairs, indeed. If an admin would list the conditions for an unblock, I would strive to abide to them. The fact is, no admin has given out conditions yet. I anticipate those conditions. This cannot simply be the end and that is that. This block still remains an open book.--Neve–selbert 07:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your honesty is not the problem. Your unwillingness to stop your behavior is. Looking at at the comments above, where editors are flat out telling you that what you did was wrong, and you reply "I was fixing an error." You were not. No matter how hard you believe you were, you were not. If everyone in the room is telling you that you are wrong, guess what? You are wrong. You don't get to decide you aren't. That is literally the crux of why you are banned. You refuse to listen when people tell you that you are wrong. Frankly, I don't care what your argument is that you aren't wrong. It's completely worthless because as a community, we have decided that your argument is invalid. Yes, this is simply the end and that is that. Until you drop it, you will never edit again. Period. Full stop. --Tarage (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tarage: Alright, fine, sure. And besides, what is done is done anyway. Okay, I was wrong. I privately disagree strongly with that assertion, but to quote the defeated USA VP Al Gore "I accept it". I would like to start afresh and on a clean slate. Can you help me do this?--Neve–selbert 07:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the first step. It'd be better without the snide "Well I still disagree" bit. You are going to have to convince the admins that you won't do what got you banned in the first place again. That's going to be a stretch considering what you've posted above. Your best bet, to be honest, is to accept a topic ban on the places you've edited. Accept that you will never change them, and edit somewhere else. And to be perfectly honest, it sounds like you should try to get some help outside of Wikipedia first. Your mental health is far more important than editing this encyclopedia. --Tarage (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tarage: Sorry, just following Gore's lead. Anyway, nothing should be ruled out. A topic-ban "sentence" can be considered.--Neve–selbert 07:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

@OpenFuture: I am not a villain. Calling me a villain is like calling someone like Margaret Thatcher a villain. I concede, I can be antisocial at times. I hate that part of my personality and it is a battle that I fight with myself each and every waking day. I want to discuss and clarify things with people. We shall agree to disagree, so to speak. Anyway, I think 6 months could be an option on the table, absolutely (as a last resort). I would much prefer a shorter block, though.--Neve–selbert 07:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, reverting the truth doesn't make it go away. Secondly, I'll make one last attempt to explain here. I promise that this is my last attempt, I won't nag any more. Here goes:

There are multiple levels of "wrongness".

1. Being factually incorrect: "The moon is made of cheese, I'll change Moon to say that".

2. Against reliable sources: "Scientist say the moon is made out of cheese, but I know it's rock, so I'll edit the article to say that." (Notice how this standpoint is factually correct, but from Wikipedias standpoint, still wrong).

3. Against consensus: "The Wikipedia consensus is that the moon is made of cheese, but reliable sources say it's rock, so I'll edit the article to say that." (No, don't do that).

4. Disruptive editing: "The Wikipedia consensus is that the moon is made out of cheese, but it's not, so I'll spend all day being disruptive in various ways instead of discussing this constructively".

5. Inadvertent rule-breaking: "I wasn't intentionally disruptive but I broke rules by mistake and got blocked".

You think that you are a #5. You think you are factually correct, that sources support you, that you don't edit against consensus, that you discuss in a reasonable constructive way, but that you are over-enthusiastic and break rules by mistake and get blocked.

But you are actually wrong in ALL the above ways! But you don't listen, so you never understand that you are wrong. You are so convinced you are right that you don't even ask yourself "What if I'm wrong?" And you have to ask yourself that. All the time. Please take your time to learn how to do that. Then you can come back.

Good luck, and have a nice six months. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:41, 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)

Need some clarification here

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)

You can apply for an unblock in six months if you like. However, having looked at your recent editing history, I reckon you will need to do some pretty good persuading if that unblock request is to have much chance of success. I see personal attacks, WP:IDHT, refusal to follow policy, attempts to evade policy by getting other editors to make proxy edits for you, editing to promote a point of view and to suppress content inimical to that point of view, persistent perception of all problems as being because others are at fault while you are an angel, and so on and so on... You also show an astonishing inability to see the logic of what you yourself are saying: for example, "I didn't "revert" anything, I simply restored the status quo". What on earth do you think "revert" means, if you think restoring an earlier situation isn't reverting? During your last block, you were full of promises about how you would be better after the block, but the reality has been totally out of line with your sweet promises. As I said, you can apply for an unblock in six months if you like, but my advice is that six months may be too short. I don't know how old you are, but if you are fairly young, you may mature as you get older, so that you can then edit constructively, but it's more likely to take a year or two than six months. I was all in favour of giving you another chance during your last block (probably more so than anyone else who took part in the discussions) but you have now had another chance and shown that you are unable to make good use of another chance. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: If I pledge to never edit the List of state leaders articles again, could I potentially be unblocked earlier? I have slept on it, and I have decided that I have just had enough with those set of articles. I would abide with GoodDay's proposal of staying from those articles absolutely. I could still give my advice from time to time, but I would have no executive function on those articles any more. The three blocks I have been involved with were all to do with those set of articles. If I start anew and shun those articles? I can be a normal editor just like everyone else. I don't have to edit those articles to my arbitrary perfection (and I have just now realised that once unblocked I can duplicate an article or two into my own userspace, which would be a fantastic and liberating thing for me to focus on, instead). FWIW, the main catalyst for my decision is this edit, which I vehemently oppose and disagree with, but would be an almost impossible task of undoing. Please, I would like to make an {{unblock}} request on the premise that I will never edit those articles for an indefinite period. Would it be wise to make such a request? Please answer. Many thanks and kind regards.--Neve–selbert 06:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several things I could say in answer to that, but it would almost certainly be a waste of time, as it would all be minor variations on things that have already been said to you, and that you seem incapable of understanding. However, the real bottom line is something that OpenFuture said to you on 29 March:"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." Since then, you have again repeatedly promised not to do various things, and then gone ahead and done them. On the first of April I suggested an unblock conditional on a topic ban, but your actions since then have made it clear that is not a viable option. In the same message, I also wrote "What does 'last chance' mean, if it is followed by another 'last chance', and how can we have faith that you won't then ask for a third 'last chance'?" You've had too many last chances. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A 6-months block is too harsh for an editor who hasn't been vandalizing articles or socking. If Neve-selbert stays away from those articles & their talkpages? there's no reason why his current block shouldn't be lifted. What's the worst that can happen? he goes back on his promises & ends up topic-banned, which creates a condition of longer blocks per every breach. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay, I really appreciate your understanding. One can only wish others would reciprocate. @JamesBWatson: I can make an absolute ironclad and binding pledge that I will never, I repeat never, edit articles and/or get involved in any dispute whatsoever with the articles within Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year from the day of the unblock for an extensive and/or indefinite period. I would of course prefer to only be banned with the articles that I have had been involved in a dispute with, i.e. List of state leaders in 2012, List of state leaders in 2013, and certainly without a doubt List of state leaders in 2016, but I would duly oblige with any option or consideration on the table in order for an eventual unblock, asterisks and all. I do hope this option could reach the table in due course.--Neve–selbert 06:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with what GoodDay says if the edit-warring on those articles were still the only problem, but it isn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I included restriction from the talkpages of those articles-in-question, as well. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, there is much concern that a narrow topic ban w/o changing their ways will only shift the problems to other articles.--TMCk (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It will be up to Neve-selbert to show that he won't edit-war, forum-shop or overly pressure others to agree with him, in content disputes. As I understand it, many editors posting here became aggravated with Neve-selbert's behaviour at the List of state leaders in 2016 Rfc, concerning the placement of Palestine. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I can assure you that I will certainly oblige with the conditions set out by GoodDay. I just want to edit other pages on Wikipedia again, pages that I have never been involved in a dispute with. I feel that this block is overly harsh as it stops me from editing articles that I am extremely unlikely to "disrupt" so to speak. I have now, with indeed a heavy heart, decided to let the Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year go. It pains me to say it, but I cannot let sentimentality overcome my own rationality. I confess that I have made too many opponents on those articles. I honestly believe that it is time for me to let go—having done some soul-searching for the last few days. I am terribly sorry for asking two other editors if they could revert for me, I am truly sorry. I did not mean to "game the system" at al, I just wanted them to make a decision as to whether my query to them was justifiable or not. It was entirely their call and I entirely appreciated and acknowledged that. Having said this, would it be wise to make an {{unblock}} request on the basis that I will not edit the articles within that WikiProject for an unspecified/extensive period of time? I strive to be constructive and this block continues to be really quite personally disconcerting for me. Thanks again and regards.--Neve–selbert 02:18, 23 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)

I think the comment from User:TracyMcClark (who signs as "TMCk") essentially sums the matter up. At the time when I was commenting on your last unblock request, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and give you a chance to edit as long as you kept off the one problematic topic. Since then, however, you have done various things which strongly suggest that your whole approach to other editors with whom you disagree is problematic, so that that it is likely that the problems will continue, no matter what topics you edit on. I will also just once more point out that you have previously asked for one last chance, and then one more last chance, and there has to come a time when "last" means "last". You are free to post another unblock request if you like, but I wouldn't bet on any administrator accepting it. "Wait at least six months" is advice, not an instruction, but it really is my advice to you. I think that I have really said all that I have to say to you, and I don't wish to continue repeating the same points which have already been made to you repeatedly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Could I at least edit my own userspace? I am currently only able to edit my talkpage. The fact is: the second time that I was blocked I merely asked two other users if they could potentially review the situation-at-hand and potentially revert if they felt it was so necessary. That was the reason why I was blocked for the third time on bad-faith accusations of "meatpuppetry". I kept my promise on edit-warring. Why would I be so unable to keep a promise on steering clear from those articles-in-question as well? Indeed, this really is quite a miserable situation that I find hopelessly unfair.--Neve–selbert 21:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Sorry to bother again, although I just wanted to know your opinion as to whether an {{unblock}} request would be unwise or not. I'm currently pondering at the moment, having considered the advice made above by JamesBWatson. Thanks again.--Neve–selbert 00:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

An unblock request wouldn't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Is there any admin you may know that could review this case beforehand? You mentioned Newyorkbrad once before.--Neve–selbert 10:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, Resolute, Djsasso, Alison, Bishonen are the only ones I know of, off the top of my head. GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Reconsideration and hence a further review

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)

(Non-administrator comment) Neve-selbert — To request an unblock, please read the Wikipedia:Appealing a block guide and use the {{Unblock}} template on your talk page. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 02:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Arriving due to GoodDay's ping. I have no direct knowledge of your history, but based on what JamesBWatson described above and a quick read of the ANI thread, I would say that an unblock request right now would be doomed to failure. If your hope is to be unblocked in a month, then you would be better off waiting that month before placing the request. Even then, you will have to be prepared to explain what got you to this point, and what you will do to avoid repeating that behaviour in the future because it seems clear that you will have to convince a few people that unblocking you in even a month is viable. And as some quick advice there: choosing to stay completely out of areas that get you into so much trouble, like the Palestine-Israel area would be incredibly wise. In fact, based on the ANI thread that led to this, I would probably suggest a formal topic ban in that area may be warranted as a condition for unblocking. Resolute 13:30, 25 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)

@Resolute and MaxSem: I would entirely vie for a topic-ban, absolutely (and I honestly want nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict on Wikipedia in future). Commenting on my own If I blow it next time, you can block me indefinitely quote, 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)

The problem as I am seeing it is you are doing everything you can to make an unblock request without actually making an unblock request. Numerous editors have told you to take your six months and come back. At this point, the biggest way you can prove to folks that you have enough self control to abide by what you are saying is to step away from Wikipedia and not edit again until those six months are up. All you are doing now is showing that your obsession with editing is not controllable by yourself, and that this block is as much preventing you from doing more harm to Wikipedia as it is doing more harm to yourself. I'm not an administrator, but this is my observation. --Tarage (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tarage: But, I'm not really asking for an unblock at all—at the moment. I really would just like to have this block shortened from indefinite to six months, at the extreme maximum. The reason why I'm not making such an unblock request is precisely because of that very reason. I fully realise and acknowledge that an unblock right at this moment in time would be subject to extravagant scrutiny, so hence an unblock request right now is not my intention, preventing any potential humiliation. All in all, I would just like to get some advice from admins about what to do and how to go about this block. I certainly would not mind if they could voice their opinion on it and/or perhaps have second thoughts about it (e.g. Resolute & MaxSem) either. I am anything but a malicious editor—as such intent would be entirely against my principles—and it pains me to even have to confirm this without it already being a given. I must reiterate that I always act in good faith and I want other users (and more specifically admins) to become more properly aware of this. I just got caught up in a web that I should have in hindsight avoided and managed to get myself tangled inside it. It is now my intention to get myself out of it and not sit by and give up. I remain strongly of the opinion that this block is entirely undue and is in urgent need of a thorough review.--Neve–selbert 06:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You really have no understanding of how the standard offer works do you? I've run out of patience. Do not ping me again. --Tarage (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Please Tarage, let's start again. Now, as I understand it, the standard offer is the only way out of this hoo-ha. Am I right or could there perhaps be another alternative? Please confirm. To be frank, if you cared to realise the actual caveats of my block situation, you would seriously reconsider your patience.--Neve–selbert 07:40, 29 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 neither can, nor want to. You are still in denial. You are still not listening. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really find it hard to fathom as to what you mean exactly by "denial" and me "not listening". I take full responsibility for my actions, and I have listened to both GoodDay and Resolute on staying clear from that topic and the articles-in-question.--Neve–selbert 23:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Indef & 6-months is too harsh, IMHO. After 1-month, there's no reason why you shouldn't be unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 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)

Thank you, GoodDay. I am humbly in your debt.--Neve–selbert 23:01, 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)

Interregnum prior to 17 May

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)

Everything I say is true. Don't ping me again until you have realized that. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If I do realise that, OpenFuture, what good would that do? Would your opinion of me stay the same?--Neve–selbert 16:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Then you can change. Also, please note that with the template you now used, I get a message. That is just as annoying as if you use the ping template. So I will modify what I said above. Please don't ping or mention me ever again. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 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)

I don't understand your comment about your user space. You are blocked. A blocked editor may edit their talk page, and nothing else. I don't know any valid reason for you to edit your user space, except to express opinions, and the only opinions that you are allowed to express are those about your unblock, on your talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You are going on and on about conditions under which I will support your unblock. The longer you go on, the less likely I am to support your unblock, because you are just doing what you got blocked for, going on and on, typically about the inconsequential. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Do not make grandiose promises, such as that you will never repeat the same mistakes again. I know that you will do your best, but saying that is a grandiose promise that you cannot be sure of keeping. Just stop making grandiose promises. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You say that you are not a net negative. I know that you don't mean to be a net negative. But you are one now, while blocked and complaining at length, and you have been sometimes in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. You say that you can't accept half-way measures. But at the same time you plead at length for any possible topic-ban, which is a half-way measure, rather than to serve your block silently. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite is not infinite. You are blocked indefinitely. You are not banned. The more you continue to protest about your block, and I originally supported a timed block, the less likely we are to unblock you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that the community is listening, but my own advice would be for you to request and for the community to give you an absolute block, even from your talk page, for one month, until 10 June. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 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)

I can't respond to that question b/c it assumes something I haven't said nor thought.--TMCk (talk) 17:18, 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)

I don't know much about your situation here to be fair, and I certainly don't know anything about your condition. I definitely agree that if there are topic areas here that you know trigger your compulsion, and you know that leads to disruption, you should certainly stay away from those areas. And be honest with yourself and with us: do you think that is enough? Only you really know. Regarding your block, if you are not ready to compose a formal unblock request now, then stop editing this page until you are ready, there's not really any more you can do here. You really can post an unblock request any time, but if May 17 is a date that you prefer for whatever reason, then just wait until then and then post your request. There really isn't any sense in "shortening" your block because it doesn't have a set length to begin with. Your block isn't meant to punish, it's just our only way of preventing ongoing disruption. When you can demonstrate that the disruption will not continue, then there's a pretty decent chance that your block will be lifted. But of course that's not up to me, it's up to the community. And I really mean be honest with yourself: if you convince us that you can be unblocked, and you fail to prevent your own disruption in the future, it's very very likely that your next block will be absolute. I do hope this helps. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:13, 11 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)

Thanks a lot for the advice, Blackmane. If I may, I was just wondering whether or not it would be too much to ask if I could edit just within my own userspace (i.e. creating a custom article and/or editing my sandbox)? I understand that a complete site-ban until October may be wise, so I am seriously considering making such a request on 17 May with a heavy heart. One just wished things never got this far. Moreover, I am still not 100% certain as to the exact reason why I was blocked most recently. That was mostly what I meant by "misunderstanding", as nobody ever took my initial explanation into account. Simply put, I reverted an editor on the premise of his historical error and he proceeded to revert me back. I asked two other editors if they could revert him again instead of oneself as I both wanted to adhere to WP:1RR and avoid WP:EW. I was then accused of violating WP:GS and hence blocked without expiry. Sometimes, it is hard not to feel a sense of rash judgment that has taken place.--Neve–selbert 14:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would be outside the bounds of the block. A block prevents an editor from editing all spaces except their own talk page. Talk access being revoked would mean you would be completely cut off from Wikipedia. The only avenue would be for you to contact UTRS or Arbcom, but a voluntary request to revoke talk page access for an extended period would, in my mind, be good for you. Blackmane (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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)

Plan of action

@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)

If the person who agrees to mentor you also agrees to follow Goodday's plan of action, I'm perfectly fine with that. But I also want to see some kind of plan to familarize you with core WP policies. This block seems to have been contributed to by your lack of knowledge of WP:CANVASS. I'd like to see you avoid blocks in the future simply caused by you not encountering a specific policy or another.--v/r - TP 19:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Are there any policies in particular you would like me to read and familiarise myself with? I have now read most of WP:CANVASS and I should state that I have been mostly obliged to this policy in the past. Just to summarise what had actually occurred, TP, I tried to persuade the editor that I originally reverted that he was wrong in his edits—based on historical accuracy. Obliged to WP:1RR, I notified GoodDay and Zoltan Bukovszky (users that I have been previously involved with in several disputes) to find out what they thought of my edit being reverted. I told them that I would appreciate if they could revert his edit if they felt it was necessary to do so (neither did so, by the way). I did not dictate to them or engage in WP:MEAT. Had I known such actions were out of bounds? I would not have taken such a course, without doubt. Retrospectively, I entirely regret doing so.--Neve–selbert 19:57, 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)

Indeed, stay entirely away from those articles-in-question for 6 months & stick to 1RR. IMHO, those are acceptable unblock conditions. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 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)

Yes, you can have any established editor (2000+ edits, 1 yr of activity) mentor you. The list provided are simply folks who've volunteered. But I would like to see something that covers basic knowledge of Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Conduct and Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Behavioral--v/r - TP 22:29, 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)

If it's alright with others, then sure. PS - I would recommend an editor who's got no blocks in their history, however. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No one cares about your blocks, GoodDay. You've been an editor in good standing for over 2 years.--v/r - TP 23:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If nobody objects? then I've no problems with taking on the mentorship role. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked

• I've unblocked this account per the agreement by User:GoodDay to mentor you. Please be sure to read the behavioral policies and guidelines linked above. And be sure to bring issues that arise in your editing to your mentor's attention so they can discuss with you an appropriate way-ahead.--v/r - TP 23:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh my! Thanks a million, TParis, really thank-you. I will certainly read the behavioural policies and guidelines that you have linked in due course.--Neve–selbert 17:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)