Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 03:46, 21 December 2024

Welcome!

Hello, Steven1991! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 10:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Misplaced Pages's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I've noticed you doing the important work of adding a bunch of sources, and adding wikilinks in compliance with the MOS; you're improving the encyclopedia, and seem to be learning the arcane rules of the MOS quite quickly. Quicker than I did! Well done, and thank you for your help in improving Misplaced Pages! EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Number & quality of sources

Hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of removing the duplicated template on that discussion. One should be enough. Andre🚐 06:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, check out WP:OVERCITE and WP:CLUMP. You should trim and citebundle. 3 or 5 or 8 cites might seem informative but generally you can get by with less, and focus on the higher reliability stuff. Less is more. I once had a history professor that, when I turned in my magnum opus that was 4 pages longer than the max page limit for the assignment, she gave me a C and called it self-indulgent. It's a good lesson. Be succinct and to the point and cut and trim the fat. People will respond better and it makes for an easier to understand logical article structure. Andre🚐 06:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your humble advice. I am currently working on it with my best effort. Steven1991 (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you will. You might want to slow down and fix the problems for a while before embarking on any major new expansions. Keep in mind that other people are going to try to scrutinize and check your work. That's how it works. Thanks for being cooperative and trying to listen to feedback. That is critical. Andre🚐 07:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your excellent cleanup on Antisemitic tropes. It's a long, complex, important article and you're giving it the careful attention it deserves. Great work! Ocaasi 16:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your acknowledgement – I appreciate it a lot! Steven1991 (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Highlighting Tagged Passages

Hi Steven. I was wondering if there was a particular guideline you were using when you highlighted passages you applied maintenance tags to. I ask because I haven't seen it done before, and it seems like it could confuse the reader, but I also didn't find any guideline against it, so it makes me wonder if I'm just missing something. If there's no guideline, I'd recommend avoiding highlighting in-article and just adding a talk page post clarifying (if needed) the extent to which the passage applies. If there is a guideline or template instruction, I'd appreciate it if you could point me that way; I'm always looking to learn more!

I also wanted to say again that I'm impressed with how quickly you're picking all the wikipedia quirks up; I've been pleased to see a long string of solid contributions from you. Thank you for helping to improve Misplaced Pages! EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Noted. I will have a look as well. Steven1991 (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Apology

Per my comment at the procedural page - please accept my apology (but do read my rationale; if you intend to be active in this topic area, it is good to have the background, and understand where some folks may be coming from).

Could you fix the third article that you edited with the content we discussed (the one about the historian in question) per my previous (now archived) explanation about the issues in this (i.e. tone suggesting claims are facts)? TIA _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Apology

You don’t appear to have apologised to me either. I referred to you as the "Steven Entity" several times in 2 separate occasions, once on your talk page and once on the article's talk page, separated by the IIRC 48 hours of my block period. I thought it was all in good humor especially as a newer Misplaced Pages user who has not really engaged in discussion on an article talk page before, but since engaging with other editors I've since realized that creating nicknames for others -- only meant in good humor and not to seriously hurt other's feelings -- is an impediment to civility and consensus, and I have shed the earlier immaturity. I also noticed that you did not tell me to not refer to you in this way, so I thought it was okay to do so. In day to day civil discussion, as an example, I would expect someone to correct me immediately if I were to misgender them or mispronounce their name - in this situation I was only told by other members not to refer to you in this way, and you did not remark on it until after I already agreed to stop referring to you in this way. While it seems that this has been a major slight to you -- which is fine, you are of course allowed to feel that way -- I do get the feeling that it is being weaponized as another "point" you have in your dispute against me, in the same way your request for page protection seems to be another weapon you've decided to fire as part of the dispute rather than something you believe at a genuine level would allow for more meaningful contribution to the article. Though these points do not take away from the fact that my nickname for you was wrong. I do want to apologize to you for referring to you in this way on 2 separate occasions, and I do want to point out that I did agree to not refer to you in this way, and I have not done so since, I also want to thank you for improving my netiquette and my ability to use Misplaced Pages through engaging in our dispute.

I hope we can consider this water under the bridge now, but if you are still feeling upset about this, it may help to repost for you some reminders you have been told from an admin and another user,

If you are feeling any Misplaced Pages:Wikistress I agree it's a good idea to take a break and go out and try to focus on the real world, or at least less controversial articles. This isn't the venue to discuss behavior, so let's take that to those users'/my/yours' talk pages as necessary. De-escalation though is often a wise choice. Nothin' wrong with being a legal entity, corporations are people after all! </snark> Andre

On consideration, I suggest that you find other, less controversial topocs to edit. You will find it easier. So will others, I imagine. SerialNumber54129 Wikipedious1 (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh just to clarify since I see now that it's not apparent, I quoted Steven as saying "You don’t appear to have apologised to me either", which they said here. Wikipedious1 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I've since realized that creating nicknames for others -- only meant in good humor

It is not just a nickname. Calling a living person an “entity” is a form of dehumanisation. It’s not an isolated incident. It happened repeatedly. My perception of it being in violation of the WP:NPA is thus legitimate.

While it seems that this has been a major slight to you

Still, you do not appear to be acknowledging that it is inherently wrong. It is not my subjective perception but an objective fact that it is under no circumstances acceptable to be doing what you seem to have ultimately shown the slightest bit of willingness to somehow feel apologetic for.

I do get the feeling that it is being weaponized as another "point" you have in your dispute against me

Still, you are casting aspersions on me. I am sorry to say that you haven’t appeared to show the willingness to acknowledge that what has been done is inherently wrong under literally all circumstances in daily life.

in the same way your request for page protection seems to be another weapon you've decided to fire as part of the dispute

Because the issue has continued. I have been pretty patient, polite and humble throughout the process, but what did I get in return? It is hard to describe, isn’t it?

I hope we can consider this water under the bridge now

I am afraid that it may no longer be up to me to decide. Steven1991 (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear I was telling Steven to take a break for his own benefit and not because he did something wrong. I o think Wikipedious1 comment is inappropriate but I'm glad to see some attempt to apologize and reconcile... We take what we can get. Andre🚐 18:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I am doubtful if the user was really apologising. Feel free to have a look at my reply. Steven1991 (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll AGF this at face value " I do want to apologize to you for referring to you in this way on 2 separate occasions, and I do want to point out that I did agree to not refer to you in this way, and I have not done so since, I also want to thank you for improving my netiquette and my ability to use Misplaced Pages through engaging in our dispute." and to the extent that we can't AGF hypothetically remember not to feed trolls or take their food. Andre🚐 18:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I’d spend less time on the specific page and focus on several others instead. Steven1991 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I spotted that there is another account named Wikipedious which is literally identical to Wikipedious1 differed by 1 number.

I Googled “Wikipedious” and found 0 results, implying that it is a very unique username. I wonder why there would be such a coincidence. Given the series of aggressive behaviour for which Wikipedious1 seemed to have shown a bit of apologetic vibe, then turned around in the ANI to call for me to get banned over a previous disagreement with him, I am more doubtful if there has ever been any misuses involved. It is bad to speculate, but something does not seem right.

@Drmies or @Izno, may I ask if you can have a look at the two accounts as mentioned? Steven1991 (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

So now a 3rd baseless attempt at accusing others of using sockpuppets. The User:Wikipedious page does not exist for me.

@Drmies or @Izno I would appreciate if you could look into Steven1991 violating WP:FOLLOWING / WP:HA which occurred here: 1 2 3 4 . We already have a very drawn out dispute occurring over a week, see the ANI topic Steven linked to. It is not acceptable to revert my edits on articles elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. Steven has a lot of nerve asking you guys this when they are egregiously and openly engaging in rulebreaking behavior and there is already a discussion for them to have an indefinite block going on, meanwhile there is another user on their talk page @Abminor trying to help them out of kindness who they are ignoring.

I do feel distressed that Steven is becoming obsessed with me, googling my username, trying to find any means to prevent me from contributing and discrediting me, and watching my contributions, and reverting recent edits on articles that are separate from any article where we have a dispute. I fear this could escalate if there is no clear pushback.

Hounding on Misplaced Pages (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor.

The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Wikipedious1 (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not hounding when you are reminded to follow the rules. You need to stop casting aspersions and mischaracterising others’ behaviour for the sake of eliciting sanctions on them Rules apply to everyone on the platform. You cannot only enforce rules on others while using different pretexts to prevent the same from being enforced on your account. Steven1991 (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You still continue accusing me when you caused the dispute in the first place by jumping in and engaging in mass deletions without reason, then leaving offensive editing summaries, continuously dehumanising me as an entity after being unbanned etc. Rather than de-escalate and show the good will to mend the ties, you have joined a frivolous call by a totally uninvolved user for me to get banned from the platform. I can’t imagine how you are sincere in your apology. No, you are not sorry – you are angry that I tried to prevent you from vandalising the article, twisting it into something aligned with your worldview and ousting me from the realm for you to possibly achieve the aim. If you are really, return to the ANI, change your stance and write conciliatory words to put a stop to our dispute. Steven1991 (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991 I am not sure what you are asking. You want me to "investigate" an account that was made in 2010 and has never edited? You've already filed an SPI which caused a CU to look into other peoples' privacy and led nowhere, and now you want us to do more of that? That is not going to happen. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991 Filing a sock-puppetry case just because more than one editor pointed out an opinion which is against your cause might actually not be the right decision (Pinging admins is the same thing)? I think at that point where M.Bitton submitted that link at ANI, you should've restrained. Just because these noticeboards are there doesn't always mean that you should use them as a safety net to protect yourself, you'll also need to think about the patience of other users - with ANI, it's you, the person you're involved with, the rest of the community, and the admins, not just your own. Am _(Notes) 12:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also appreciate if you wouldn’t mind sharing your apology with other relevant users so that things would be fair to me. Steven1991 (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wikipedious: Creating nicknames for friends and family is one thing. Creating nicknames for people you don't know or are in a conflict with, or you interact with but are not personal friends is often a passive aggressive attempt to assert dominance - it was a habit George W. Bush used during his presidency in a mild way but the exemplar for nicknames as passive aggressive dominance can be seen with Donald Trump. See The dangerous power of Trump’s ‘fairy tale’ nicknames. Calling Steven the "Steven Entity" falls under this category in particular because it evokes the term "Zionist entity" which has long been used by some anti-Zionists in a linguistic attempt to deny legitimacy to Israel. I can see why Steven would find this nickname particularly offensive. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do not dispute you and I appreciate the insight and linking to the article. To reiterate I have since realized especially through engaging in the talk article that wikipedia and user interactions deserve more seriousness/respect, that this was not appropriate, was harmful, and I don't plan on doing it again.

While I'm here I'll also clarify that in my OP I used the phrase "good humor", when I actually meant humorously (I thought these meant the same thing). Wikipedious1 (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You are not sorry. If you are really sorry, you won’t turn around and call for the person you apologise to to be banned. Steven1991 (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You still continue accusing me when you caused the dispute in the first place by jumping in and engaging in mass deletions without reason, then leaving offensive editing summaries, continuously dehumanising me as an entity after being unbanned etc. Rather than de-escalate and show the good will to mend the ties, you have joined a frivolous call by a totally uninvolved user for me to get banned from the platform. I can’t imagine how you are sincere in your apology. No, you are not sorry – you are angry that I tried to prevent you from vandalising the article, twisting it into something aligned with your worldview and ousting me from the realm for you to possibly achieve the aim. If you are really, return to the ANI, change your stance and write conciliatory words to put a stop to our dispute. Steven1991 (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I responded in support on your ANI thread BTW. The Judaism-related topic is a dangerous to get involved with, and obviously it's not a nice feeling to have your additions reverted (I had some of my articles deleted and got upset by that too). What you need to be careful about though is the assumption that editors with fewer than 500 edits are not "trustworthy, established, intelligent etc", as said here. That is not necessarily a true statement, and you should know by now that edit summaries can't be changed once they're up there and visible to the public, and I assume you got stressed by the time you posted that. I think it's still possible to get you out of this situation while time is running out, so I'm willing to help you too. Am _(Notes) 10:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Steven1991 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I promised to admin BusterD that I would stay away voluntarily as he advised in exchange for non-indefinite block, which he endorsed and accepted. I hope that the block can be lifted and me be given time to cool down and re-familiarise myself with the rules of engagement for possible constructive return to editing activities. I hope that the admin team can consider the full series of events and exercise their discretion to lighten or remove the restrictions upon condition(s).

Decline reason:

If you really want to stay away from editing (as you have just promised), you can do it while blocked. There is no reason to unblock you if you will be staying away from editing. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Steven1991 (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to decline this request, but I really, really suggest you withdraw it for now. I don't want you to get into a cycle of declined block requests that become increasingly hard to come back from. You were willing to accept BusterD's advice about cooling down - go do that, while blocked. Come back in a while and try again. Right now is the wrong time. -- asilvering (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I hope that it could be unblocked. I promise to exercise maximal restraint to stay away for at least a week and not to participate in the specific topic area immediately upon return but begin with discreet editing plans on unrelated articles. I would try my best asking for sufficient opinions on associated Talk pages prior to making any editing attempts, and if an edit is made to an article, I would reply to relevant posts on the Talk page to summarise what have been changed and asked for opinions before considering further edits. I would also recuse myself promptly should a discussion show signs of spiralling into a heated argument, while taking reasonable reminders from experienced editors and undertaking appropriate actions should such reminders be received. Such participation plan would form the basis of my possible return and adhered to when possible. It may be too much to include all of these in one comment, but I sincerely hope that trust can be accorded, the plan above be accepted and an unblock be granted. BusterD for your humble consideration. You are the admin who humbly accepted my promise, would you mind providing me assistance in this case? Steven1991 (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey Steven1991, since the ban is in place (and your review request an hour or two later was rejected), please, for the sake of both our sanities, leave it alone for a few months. I'm sure we've both seen users who carried on pushing and completely destroyed their future here. You'll need a decent gap to make any sort of persuasive argument. I know you're able to do this and look forward to seeing you return! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw what happened. Going off of Blue-Sonnet, see WP:SO and WP:GAB. If there is no further evidence of block evasion or anything weird, admins are almost certain to let you off the hook and to unblock you after 2-6 months. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Before another admin issued me an indefinite ban, admin BusterD did trust and promise to give me a chance to take a short break in exchange for not being handed a ban. I hope that I could be unblocked at discretion based on consideration of the complicated circumstances leading up to the eventuality that befell me, especially the tremendous stress I faced during the content dispute which I had really tried my best to handle with restraint. I am willing to accept a time-based topic restriction in exchange for the lifting of the indefinite block. I would like to present my proposal for rectifying the user conduct issues: I strive to demonstrate my commitment to the exercise of maximal restraint to refrain from direct editing in the specific topic area immediately upon return but begin with discreet editing plans on unrelated articles. I would try my best asking for sufficient opinions on associated Talk pages prior to making any editing attempts, and if an edit is made to an article, I would reply to relevant posts on the Talk page to summarise what have been changed and asked for opinions before considering further edits. I would also recuse myself promptly should a discussion show signs of spiralling into a heated argument, while taking reasonable reminders from experienced editors and undertaking appropriate actions should such reminders be received. Such participation plan would form the basis of my possible return and adhered to when possible. It may be too much to include all of these in one comment, but I sincerely hope that trust can be accorded, the plan above be accepted and an unblock be granted by the admin team.

Decline reason:

The block was manifestly correct. Per the several comments below, the best thing you can do is have a break for a couple of weeks and then submit a request for unblock. Removing this block right now would not be the right thing to do, for either you or the project as a whole. Daniel (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Advice: Hello Steven1991. I'm not going to be reviewing this unblock request for various irrelevant reasons. However I have some advice, based on years of experience of seeing people blocked in similar circumstances. You should step away from the computer for at least a few days, like literally, like now. An unblock for a 'stressed' user on the day of their block is just not likely. Whether you remove the second unblock request before it's declined (it's a bad look), and add it after a few days is up to you, but that would be my advice. -- zzuuzz 20:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991 DUDE STOP, please! I'm genuinely worried you'll lose your talk page access soon! I won't post to you again (unless you specifically want to talk to me) but please close Misplaced Pages down and go play a game or watch TV or something. Baldur's Gate 3 is awesome, go play that. This block isn't shifting. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of making things worse by a pile-on especially since I was involved in the original thread where I raised concerns over your behaviour; I suggest you re-read BusterD's comments carefully . In particular the part "I see a wikipedian who needs to put a wikibreak notice on their talk page, step away from the keyboard, and not log in for a few weeks. If Steven1991 can themselves step away voluntarily, I'd be somewhat impressed and extend them some patience."

While I'm not BusterD, I think it's fair to say that any edits by definition not complying with this suggestion. While your 2 posts to ANI after weren't that bad, they clearly weren't stepping away from the keyboard and not logging in. In fact, even your posts on BusterD's talk page weren't that either although perhaps that's one thing that maybe wouldn't have affected how impressed anyone was with ability to follow the advice given. Your two unblock requests are definitely not that.

As others have said there's no reason you have to be unblocked if you're going to stay away. Yes technically it's not voluntarily but trying to convince admin to unblock you just so you can demonstrate you can voluntarily stay away isn't likely to happen and your efforts to do so are more likely to count against you in any future unblock request. Perhaps you really will completely step away once unblocked, but I think to most of us, it looks like you still cannot stay away even when yo recognise there is a problem and are saying you will. At the very least, it looks like you can only stay away if you do so exactly on your terms which still isn't a good thing.

I appreciate you're stressed but you have to look at things from our PoV. While plenty of good editors have made mistakes when stressed before, ultimately we all need to be able to participate in a collaborative project without needing to deal with mistakes other editors make due to stress too often. This means editors do need to be able to manage the situation by themselves most of the time to edit here. Sometimes this might be by stepping away voluntarily and unfortunately so far you've shown no ability to do so.

I appreciate there is some irony in asking you to remove your so far unanswered unblocked request when suggesting you need to completely stay away but since you already made that IMO mistake, it's the one and IMO only thing you should do before you step away for a few weeks.

That said, even if you don't do it in time, or have already logged out as part of staying away completely, it IMO isn't that bad. But a third unblock request or even extensive talk page followup without making a specific unblock request would definitely be a bad look. Or likewise any followup which isn't removing an answered unblock request.

Also if this helps while I was concerned about your behaviour before I did see the thread proposing an indef well before you were unblocked and didn't comment in part because it has escalated a lot and I wasn't sure if that was quite necessary. I did feel given you posted the exact same message 6 times or something there was a risk it was heading that way but that didn't need me to say anything. My thoughts when posting before that happened wasn't an indef, had instead been that an admin might want to consider an A-I topic ban.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To prevent potential rule violations in the future, I would like to present my proposal for rectifying the user conduct issues that caused my ban: I would demonstrate my commitment to the exercise of maximal restraint to refrain from direct editing in the specific topic area immediately upon return but begin with discreet editing plans on unrelated articles. I would try my best asking for sufficient opinions on associated Talk pages prior to making any editing attempts, and if an edit is made to an article, I would reply to relevant posts on the Talk page to summarise what have been changed and asked for opinions before considering further edits. I would also recuse myself promptly should a discussion show signs of spiralling into a heated argument, while taking reasonable reminders from experienced editors and undertaking appropriate actions should such reminders be received. Such participation plan would form the basis of my possible return and adhered to when possible. It may be too much to include all of these in one comment, but I sincerely hope that trust can be accorded, the plan above be accepted and an unblock – be it conditional or unconditional – be granted by the admin team.

Decline reason:

Battleground behaviour continues in the replies to this unblock request. You've got to learn to let things go. -- asilvering (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I've kept this page on watchlist. Steven1991 has gone on POV-pushing on Simple Misplaced Pages around same areas immediately after block, and it's possible he used a sockpuppet in the immediate aftermath of his block. I don't think this unblock request should be honored. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Please avoid making personal accusations without proper evidence. You cannot call something “POV pushing” simply due to disagreement. Rather, it is reasonable to think that it is wholly inappropriate to exclude or seek to exclude others from participation on such basis. The same argument can be applied to anyone, including you or any other users sharing similar views on any issues – I am sure that you wouldn’t want this to be the case if you were the one requesting removal of any potential sanctions.

2. I presented a comprehensive plan on how the previous issues of concern could be avoided in the future, which can sufficiently show my commitment to abide by relevant rules or expectations in case of unban request approval. If I had never thought that I made serious mistakes, I wouldn’t have come up with it in an unban request.

3. I didn’t use any sockpuppets. I can present IP addresses, as I did before and which were in retrievable admin archives accessible by them, to prove my innocence in this regard and that allegations of sockpuppetry are not only meritless but have been disproven repeatedly. Steven1991 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

My recently used IP address 1

My recently used IP address 2

Feel free to check with relevant tools. Steven1991 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the fact that his response above, particularly point 1, is excessively defensive, looking over Steven1991's contributions to the Simple Misplaced Pages, he has not triggered any temporary blocks or serious warnings or had any conflicts that I could find. He has been advised to "be careful about balance" but hasn't actually been formally warned. It's only been a month since his indefinite block here so lifting it may be somewhat premature. I would like to see him continue on Simple Misplaced Pages for the time being and establish a longer track record of acceptable behaviour. If his Misplaced Pages block is lifted I think a topic ban from I/P articles should be implemented for the time being until he has established a record of good behaviour on Misplaced Pages where scrutiny and enforcement is somewhat more vigorous and disputes are more contentious. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

:I hope it's ok for me to chime in, since I spoke to @Steven1991 a bit during the original block. I just want to say that I'm really happy to see how well he's doing on Simple Misplaced Pages, I can see lots of great edits and no disputes! It looks like he's gradually moved away from the topics that were involved in the disputes over here, which is a really good sign.

I'm still learning how things work here, but I do wholeheartedly agree with you that it'd be good for @Steven1991 to wait a little bit longer and build more experience in general topic areas (Steven - I'm doing the same by sticking to basic ce & typo correction until I'm sure I won't cause trouble for others) so patience is key! Besides, the likelihood of encountering a dispute situation in only a month isn't high, so a longer gap will also be good evidence of dispute avoidance and management.

I also don't want it to look like there's pushing via multiple unblock requests as it might give admins the wrong impression, so 2025 would be a good time to revisit this request (if it's not accepted or Steven reads this and decide to withdraw it for a bit).

TLDR: Good job @Steven1991, please keep it up - I'm rooting for you!

(BTW Steven, your IP links are blank so I had a mild freakout thinking you lived across the road from me when I accidentally tapped on one 😅) Struck out, I no longer feel this way. Please see ] Blue-Sonnet (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input. I appreciate it a lot. Steven1991 (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as a user who was on the receiving end of Steven1991's poor behaviour on Misplaced Pages I don't believe this ban should be removed for several more months if not a year at least. From my POV he has yet to show any change in his attitude towards other users particularly his inability to engage in WP:AFG and as evidenced in the first response above he still has a habit to jump on other users in a Battleground fashion which is why he was banned.

He was extremely hostile and combative during the administrator noticeboard incident showing little respect for other users, he's repeatedly asked for his ban to be removed from the first instance of it occurring and has yet to show he respects the decision the admins came to last month. I'm going to tag @Asilvering and @Grandpallama as more experienced users who were familiar with this case to ask what their opinion is. Galdrack (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Galdrack, being blocked for a year without appeal would be very harsh. The standard offer is six months. And no one told this editor to take the SO either. -- asilvering (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering thanks for clarifying I wasn't aware six months was the standard and thought a year may be. I think 6 months would be fair however in my opinion given his behaviour this would require no more requests for an early unblock as he has already made several which signal to me a lack of will to change. Thank you for the quick response. Galdrack (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the standard offer would mean no early unblock requests - it's no edits of any kind whatsoever, with no hint of block evasion, for six months. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

When someone alleged that I engaged in “POV editing in another Misplaced Pages” and “sockpuppetry ” – a serious allegation – without credible evidence, I don’t see how I cannot present my evidence to prove my innocence. Self-defense doesn’t constitute “battleground behaviour”. The way it was phrased appears to be a mischaracterisation. Rather, the use of unsubstantiated allegations can be considered as a form of personal attack under relevant policy. I am not claiming any violations on your part but find the need to respond to or clarify on something that don’t seem to be the case to facilitate a better understanding. Steven1991 (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the type of behaviour I'm describing and absolutely does fall into Battlegrounding, if someone has a critique of you ask for them to clarify the point do no go on the attack immediately as you have now done twice in this post which is a request to remove a block which was placed on you for combative behaviour.

Jumping to attack others or making claims of "mischaracterisation" rather than asking for them to provide evidence or clarification will only drag out these posts and lead to further conflict as it further obfuscates the critiques rather than clarify them, if they are baseless as you say then it will be shown when the accuser does not provide evidence. As it stands my opinion hasn't changed and your manner here has only further solidified my initial POV, that doesn't mean it won't change but if your attitude doesn't then my opinion won't either. Galdrack (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I am exactly making clarifications and explanations on why a certain claim is not representative of truth. It is neither an “attack” nor “battleground” to do so when it is done to illustrate fact-based information of which other users may not be aware. To me as a receiver, the specific claim does come off as a mischaracterisation or an unfounded allegation to which I am entitled to respond appropriately. I would appreciate if you can consider refraining from assuming bad faith and writing anything more that may appear to be what have been described. If you have already made your point, it may not be necessary for you to repeat in a stronger tone. Steven1991 (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991, your unblock request says to refrain from direct editing in the specific topic area immediately upon return but begin with discreet editing plans on unrelated articles, which I understand to mean that you are suggesting a voluntary TBAN. I don't think a promise to avoid a particular topic area is a good idea when we're looking at a case involving battleground behaviour, harassment, etc. I think it really ought to be a formal unblock condition (eg, a TBAN from I/P articles, appealable after some specified amount of time). Likewise, since there's edit-warring involved, a WP:1RR restriction might be a good idea. What do you think about these? -- asilvering (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. You are right. Steven1991 (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

New unblock request

Steven1991 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

• To prevent potential rule violations in the future, I would like to present my proposal for rectifying the user conduct issues that caused my ban: I would demonstrate my commitment to the exercise of maximal restraint to refrain from direct editing in the specific topic area immediately upon return but begin with discreet editing plans on unrelated articles.
• I would try my best asking for sufficient opinions on associated Talk pages prior to making any editing attempts, and if an edit is made to an article, I would reply to relevant posts on the respective Talk page to summarise the changed and asked for comments before considering further edits. Such participation plan would form the basis of my possible gradual return.
• I have presented evidence to prove that I had not engaged in sockpuppetry and demonstrated sincerity in agreeing to a WR:1RR restriction, or voluntary TB, as proposed by another user if unblocked.
• On top of the previous Barnstars given to me by other users, there are other two users, who made relatively positive comments about my contributions to another Misplaced Pages, agreeing with my proposed conditions for a possible gradual return to editing in accordance with this Misplaced Pages’s relevant rules.
• I am open to accepting any other returning conditions deemed necessary.
• May I humbly request (a) previously uninvolved admin(s) to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the details, propositions and unique circumstances surrounding this to reconsider my unblock request? Thank you so much.

Decline reason:

I am extending you the standard offer. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• It's disappointing that Steven deletes comments about his unblock request rather than reply to them. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It is only a single comment that I deleted as I don’t feel comfortable with its wording. I am also advised not to respond unnecessarily, so I try taking their advice as well. Under relevant guidelines, a user has the right to remove content from his or her Talk page as long as it is not an administrative message that must be kept in place until the end of a formal process, if I have not misunderstood it. Steven1991 (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's within your rights, but it's a bad look. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

asilvering, Blue-Sonnet, I disagree: I think that comment adds nothing at all, and the editor is continuing to post here when I'm sure there are better things to do, and that's what I asked them to do. Please don't hold that removal against them. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies I understand, I wasn't sure whether it was anything to worry about and was therefore trying to reframe it as an opportunity - you've also provided useful context that I wasn't aware of earlier, so thank you! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if it's technically allowed, deleting criticism does look a bit like you're either ignoring negative feedback or trying to change the narrative in your favour (whether warranted or unwarranted, just playing devil's advocate for a bit). I'd have preferred you to reply to explain why you didn't agree or include it in your edit summary, otherwise someone could take it the wrong way?

You're going to have people disagree with you and it would have been a great example of how you can interact with critics in a positive way. As mentioned originally, I think should take a little bit longer before asking to return after a declined unblock that specifically asks you to let things go (I'm not sure if declined unblock requests might influence an admin's view of future requests?). As someone who's interacted with you positively before, I'd suggest reinstating the comment and clearly, politely and concisely explain why you disagree (or better yet, acknowledge why someone might feel that way and what you might be able to do to prevent that going forwards). I won't write more since I just wanted to include my current opinion as one of the two relatively positive comments mentioned earlier as evidence for unblocking and I wanted to respond with my thoughts. (redacted as Steven has explained that I've misunderstood this part, so please accept my apologies for any confusion) Blue-Sonnet (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991 Thank you for your many emails, but I don't think we're getting anywhere.

I'm sorry that you feel I'm being too critical or have contributed (directly or indirectly) towards any bullying or harassment, but I've spent literal hours rewriting my earlier post to be less critical, as you've made it clear that's how you originally perceived it to be. I've also apologised to you several times both on email and in my strikethrough above. I'm afraid that I don't know what else I can do for you other than to cut off contact.

No, I'm not going to delete my comment. It was made sincerely and with good intent as I've already explained.

You keep saying that you're not going to message me back so I'm surprised to see another email each time and I don't want to continue.

It looks like I'm just upsetting you whenever I try to respond to your messages & questions, so I'm going to draw the line here.

I'm also becoming upset that you feel that I'm making things worse for you or might have any ill intent.

To be fair you haven't explicitly said that, but that's how it feels several emails in where you've not acknowledged a single concession, explanation nor apology of mine.

I should not have let it get that far.

I'll reiterate for one last time - I did not hold a single ounce of ill-intent towards you. I sincerely, honestly, wanted to help you. I've never intended anything else.

I've done all I can do. I even offered to vouch for you if you followed the Standard Offer, but I can't do that anymore. I can't do this anymore, I get that you feel aggrieved but talking to you is just too stressful for me.

I'm going to withdraw from this situation for both our sakes.

In your last email you wrote: "More importantly, every user is entitled to his or her right to well-being."

I agree.

I'm done.

Of course, it's up to you how you respond to this comment, whether you remove, ignore or reply to it. It's your right to do any of these things. Just please don't email me again.

Again, I wish you well going forwards. I'm sincerely sorry that I couldn't help you. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that someone blocked for harassment is emailing other users, especially multiple times, to the point that they're begging for it to end. @El C, I'm going to revoke email access. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to explain the reason for emailing: Because there are some private matters that I cannot mention in this public thread as a matter of privacy/safety. The email correspondence was mutual, i.e. the user responded, I responded etc. it was not one-sided and did not involve unwanted elements. I also clarified any points of misunderstandings politely (cannot be disclosed for the above reasons). Steven1991 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD @Drmies @Bishonen Would you mind weighing in? I am afraid that asilvering misjudged the situation based on very limited information. I explained as above, and could further clarify if needed. Steven1991 (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991, sorry, but I would have to really refresh my memory about your case and your block, but I do remember I thought it was an enormous investment of time. I also know that saying stuff like "asilvering misjudged the situation" is a really bad way to try and get unblocked. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input. I am not doubting the professionalism of asilvering. I respect asilvering as an administrator and her contributions to the site. I tagged you because I would like to have someone else in a similar position as her to have a look so as to clear any possible misunderstandings. I am sorry if it looks odd. Steven1991 (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, did you mean to remove the other comments on this page or was that just an edit-conflict accident? To be clear, if anyone thinks I've misjudged I'm happy for them to reverse the email block. But The email correspondence was mutual, i.e. the user responded, I responded etc. it was not one-sided and did not involve unwanted elements. does not contrast favourably with Blue-Sonnet's description of the incident above, to a degree I find alarming. -- asilvering (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

asilvering, I'm going to go with edit conflict, but I think you saw I am somewhat critical of that editor intervening here. As for Steven1991, I had a quick look at their edits again to refresh my memory, and I find it hard to see the positives here--the AN complaints, the flooding of talk pages, the edit warring, the SPI. I do, however, appreciate the amount of time and energy you have put into this case: you have more patience and good will than I do. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind blanking my User page? I no longer find the content I input there necessary. Thank you so much. Steven1991 (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Best wishes. -- asilvering (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason I discussed with the user via the email function, though not an ideal option, is that there are some private matters I am afraid of mentioning in this public thread due to privacy/safety concerns (and fear of misinterpretations by other users) as well. The interactions were largely cordial and friendly, and I respect the user’s decision not to continue the correspondence given that I don’t know the user in person and that everyone is only a volunteer on this site. I tried my best to be respectful in every part of the interactions. Steven1991 (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe you - really. I don't think you're trying to hurt anybody. But it looks like that's what keeps happening, despite your intentions. -- asilvering (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

For context, I did reply to the first two emails. They were basically doubling-down and it felt like I couldn't do anything right now matter how hard I tried, so I couldn't face carrying on with it.

I've had a total of five emails from @Steven1991, two were to my personal email address after my last post asking for no more emails & email access was revoked (I didn't realise my personal email address would be visible if I replied, so that's my fault for not reading instructions!).

The first email was an apology, the second is a request for me to explain things so they can have access to email again.

I understand Steven feels they cannot explain things properly on here and wants to use email for this purpose.

I'm happy to discuss further here or in private if anyone wishes (except Steven, thank you for the apology but I need to take a step back from you for now, I let things get too far yesterday). Blue-Sonnet (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering I also agree that it's not intentional, but my concern now is that doesn't change the effect it's having on others. I find it hard to believe that @Steven1991 meant to hurt or upset me, but it still happened.

In real life I deal with complaints on a daily basis so I didn't expect my reaction yesterday, but I'm realising that the difference is that we're talking about me as a person, rather than a company I work for.

To reiterate, I'm pretty certain* that Steven is not doing any of this intentionally, but they need to learn that constantly pushing and not thinking about the other person's feelings or point of view can be distressing in itself, especially when it doesn't stop. If Steven can learn this one single thing and can show an ability to step back & let things go (no matter how strongly you feel, you have to admit defeat and do this sometimes, even if you're right), I think they've got the potential to be an incredible editor!

_{*This is the internet so I'm loathe to say anything for certain about someone I've never met, but I'm as sure about this as I can be.} Blue-Sonnet (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that nothing critical of you was made in any part of the correspondence. All of it was politely and decently phrased. What I did was explain the issues (and difficulties) that I couldn’t do it here because of the reasons mentioned above. Also, because I don’t know you in real life, it is extremely hard for me to judge how you may perceive a specific phrase or sentence. If the other side doesn’t express it clearly, the communicator would not always notice an issue, so it doesn’t seem to be fair to place guilt on the communicator when they aren’t given the information at the right time. It is practically impossible to read the mind of someone one doesn’t know and adjust immediately to ensure the total absence of misunderstandings. Everyone can try their best avoiding upsetting anyone, but it is not a total guarantee, and any mistakes should not be automatically assumed as a flaw in personality. I hope that this provided better context and reduce any misunderstandings. Steven1991 (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to reply directly just once, because again I want to draw a line into this. I've said explicitly they you've not said anything specifically critical of me and you didn't mean to whatsoever.

My problem was that I was trying to appease you repeatedly and getting nowhere. You continued to send me complaints and didn't acknowledge what I'd done and TBH it felt rotten.

The only time you acknowledged that I'd tried to help or said anything positive was when I posted here publicly. I explicitly asked you not to email me but you did it twice more (the first was an apology so I don't mind that, but then you did it again asking me to amend/clarify a post, your first email was asking me to remove/edit another post).

You're right that you can't tell how someone else is feeling, but that's something you need to remember when someone is apologising and trying to reach a compromise with you.

You mentioned some other things that I'm not going to go into, I'm only discussing our interactions - if you did want to share our emails with an admin I'm more than happy to do that and if I've overreacted in any way I will formally apologise as that's unfair to you.

But I want to make it clear that this isn't about any specific statements (I've said this in my last post), it's just how I genuinely felt at the time about the overall interaction.

If you check the Talk page history, you can see how much I've tried to be positive here, but there's a limit for me to do that without either censoring myself or not being honest about my perception of things.

We clearly both have different perceptions of our discussion and that's absolutely fine, but I still think you need to work on noticing when the other party is genuinely trying to help and acknowledging that. If you don't, it can feel like they're not good enough for you & it's not a nice feeling. Again, I don't think you meant or thought that at any point, but it gave me that impression yesterday.

Misplaced Pages is collaborative and all we have is what we write here, so it's that much more important to make sure that you're understanding the other person as much as a possible and assuming good faith (which I've tried to do from the start).

Again, you've not said anything bad about me whatsoever, this was just the overall impression I was left with at the time because it felt like I wasn't being heard or acknowledged by you at any point, including when I asked you to please stop emailing me. Even now, you're focusing on how you read our exchange, but that doesn't mean the recipient will feel the same way. These can be two different things.

I know that you didn't mean things in the way I received it, but I ask you to please look at this from my point of view. Lol at it chronologically - my first edit, your reply, my amendment and reply, yours and so on.

Try to see how it might feel to be on the other side. You don't know if the other person is having a good or bad day, if they're sick or vulnerable. The more you interact with someone, the more you write, the more care you will need to take (this last part is purely my opinion though, not any sort of rule!). _{For context, I was in hospital having tests when I was speaking to you, but you had absolutely no way of knowing that.}

If you can just take this message on board and come back in a few months with a clean slate, I'll be incredibly happy to see you again and one of the first to welcome you back. I promise. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your in-depth clarification. It pointed out something I had not been aware of and I am grateful for your initiative. Nevertheless, due to privacy/safety concerns and the sensitive nature of the matter, I would appreciate if no emails would be shared with any third parties. Steven1991 (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I have just deleted them. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

For your reference: 1 2. I would appreciate if you reconsider. Steven1991 (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Steven, as someone who came back to Misplaced Pages several years after a long-term block and has edited without incident since my return, my advice is that the best thing you can do is to completely step away - no behind the scenes campaigning- no repeated appeals - no posts to your talk page - (and no deletion of other people's comments) - no editing as an IP (I'm not accusing you of this, just saying it's a temptation. Just walk away for 6 months or a year, forget Misplaced Pages exists, and then if you are still interested in the project ask for a fresh start and then avoid all the behaviours that got you in trouble in the first place.

And just because something is permitted doesnt mean it's a good idea. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No behind the scene campaigning

Sorry, I don’t understand what this means. Would you clarify? Steven1991 (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Emailing people with pleas. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I see. The relevant private correspondence was different from that. There is a lot I cannot disclose due to privacy/safety concerns. I appreciate your feedback though. Steven1991 (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)