Steven1991

Welcome!

Hello, Steven1991! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • 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 Wikipedia 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 (Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia! 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 t | c 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 Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia 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. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(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"[1] 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. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 10:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFPP thread moved to WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy (brazen WP:FOLLOWING and WP:ASPERSIONS). Also, excess WP:BATTLEGROUND, still, and general WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. If you wish to see your edit privileges reinstated, it'll need to be with the added burden of an unblock appeal having been met. By convincing the reviewing admin that these multiple behavioural problems will not be repeated upon such a return. Thank you.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 16:29, 20 October 2024 (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).

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)

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).

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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 [2]. 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)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• I've kept this page on watchlist. Steven1991 has gone on POV-pushing on Simple Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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"[3] 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 Wikipedia for the time being and establish a longer track record of acceptable behaviour. If his Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 😅) Blue-Sonnet (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)