User talk:InNeed95

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).

InNeed95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been unblocked indef by User:El_C. The reason was "Edit-Warring". Hilarious. I didnt. Though it is understandable, why a person might think of it. I indeed did the same edit as prior to my recent block. Though I did it with caution. I requested that the user who reverted the Edit to join the TP. I only did that once. I did not look forward for additional edits. 1 Actually, I assumed that the reverter would revert the edit again. I wanted to use that non-cooperation behaviour (the edit) in a "protection request", "requesting for dispute solution" or starting a "noticeboard discussion".. etc.. Though now, this I am unable to do so. --InNeed95 (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were absolutely edit warring; there is no other way to describe your actions here. Since you fail to acknowledge this, I am declining this request. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Add on

I am not looking forward to find "excuses" or something similar like El_C would love claim it... I am pro finding solutions and neutral POV. Looking at my edit history it is clear that 90% of them are in favour of the points mentioned. I would request people to join the started Discussions on the TP. 1 A actual Edit-Warrior wouldnt even think of doing this. Even the prior to the recent block, I looked forward to find a solution thru discussions. El_C did fail to have a overview over the dispute and failed to find a fair solution. If the reviewing admin takes some time with this problem, he/she will surely understand. --InNeed95 (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: You re confused. I literally explained that I know it might look like edit warring. I acknowledge that I indirectly did it. I meant that I directly do it. Like on porpuse. I explained why I did revert the edit (diff given above by me). As such, I dont know what u re talking about. --InNeed95 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble parsing this comment. You state that blocking you for edit-warring was Hilarious because [you] didnt, yet also acknowledge that [you] indirectly did it and directly [did] it? In any case: Edit warring is the act of repeatedly overriding someone else's edit in order to reinstate your preferred version of a page. That is unambiguously what you are doing on Serbia, in spite of multiple blocks for it. It does not matter whether you have reason to believe that your version is the "correct" one (all edit warriors do) or whether you also participate in a talk page discussion; it is still disruptive, and it is still edit warring. I believe El C's block is necessary to prevent further disruption, and as such I stand behind my decline. You are welcome to make another unblock request (I strongly recommend reading WP:EW and WP:GAB first), which will be reviewed by someone else. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: I see. I am sorry for writing things down confusingly. I am stressed and didnt really pay attention. I know very well what "Edit-Warring" is. You dont have to repeat it to me. / I did not believe/see the version that I reverted to as "correct" nor as "prefered". The sentence, which seems to be controversial, was changed by a Sock at first (now blocked indef) and later on by another user. Both without a consense. As such, I reverted the most likely nationalistic POV changes made by those two and asked to join the TP discussion I started. One user did join after 1-2 reverts, though continued to edit the sentence in question again and again without a consense. 1 2 3 4 Unfortunatly, I fell for the provocation and also reverted his edits. 5 6 7

Since my will to resolve the dispute isnt respected (which to be fair, I myself failed to choose the right way to solve the issue thru my reverts), I will refrain from editing the Article Serbia again and also be more cautious in general, if I hopefully get unblocked.

I understand your Viewpoint on the issue User:Blablubbs. I agree, that disruptive editing shouldnt be unpunished. As such, your decline is understandable. Though I hope that you understand my explaination on the issue, too. Additionally I hope that the next Admin to review my next Unblock request does aswell. Best Regards, --InNeed95 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it says, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ups... my mistake. --InNeed95 (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

InNeed95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I took a distance from wikipedia and senseless unblock requests as a gesture of goodwill. It has been 2 Months by now. I would ask the reviewing Admin to read the last conversation on the TP, because I dont think that any adjustment is needed to it and what I wrote does show my regrets quiet well in my opinion. Maybe I might add that I will be relativly inactive and probably will change only a few things if needed. If something is unclear, feel free to ask on my TP. Best Regards, --InNeed95 (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining this, mostly so it doesn't stay open while you review WP:DR which I think will help you. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You say you will refrain from editing the Serbia article, what edits will you make if unblocked? 331dot (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Id say, mostly small changes in Articles related to the Balkans. Id like to add, that there wont be a lot of activity, because of not having time due to work and more. --InNeed95 (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Sorry if I am bothering you. I was just wondering on how things are looking? I have been blocked from the 18th November 2021, which means roughly ~3,5 months ago. I requested a unblock on the 25th January 2022, which means roughly 1 month and ~1 week ago. Thats quiet some time for a request to be viewed. I do not want to rush things here. I assume that you're a Admin since you were the one that commented here about my UB-request. As such I assumed asking you may be a option. Overall, asking doesnt cost, or does it? :D Best Regards, --InNeed95 (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Do you understand upon reflection that you were edit warring, and what will you do to avoid that in the future? Specifically, how will you handle an editing dispute? (which are not always avoidable) 331dot (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: No Problem. Yes. I did edit war. Not on purpose though. As explained above, I tried to follow the rules and start discussion on the TP's of the articles. But the counterparts didnt agree do this. I unfortunatly fell for the provocations(reverts). I am not sure on how to deal with those edit warriors. Since TP discussions dont work, the only way to counter them is by directly asking a Admin to view the situation. I would appreciate a tipp from you side if u dont bother. --InNeed95 (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

InNeed95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As per my discussion with 331dot and his help to understand the problem better, I come to the conclusion to rewind WP:DR and follow it's steps to enable a clean process of solving disputes.--InNeed95 (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 see no reason you wouldn't continue causing disruptions if you were unblocked. Just look at your little Reddit rant (Redacted). This clearly shows that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia and contribute in an objective and impartial manner, but rather to right great wrongs and push your own POV. Judging by your recent Reddit comments, you are still of the same reactionary mindset you were in October, and that doesn't bode well for the stability of this project. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanuensis Balkanicus:

1. I clearly acknowledged my wrongdoings, which is why I requested a Unblock. I've had conversations with 1-2 Admins on this matter.

2. My POV? What a joke. Majority of my edits were neutral. I was always looking forward to solve disputes thru conversations on the Articles TP's. Thats the mistake I have done. The others didnt want to do so and I didnt really have knowledge of WP:DR at that time. But now I do. Now I know what I have to do if the other editors dont want to cooperate.

3. From where do you want to know that the reddit Account is mine?

4. Never did I use any kind of insult on Wikipedia. What has been writen on other pages is something different. On Wiki my choice of words is neutral and not offensiv.

5. That reddit post is 4-5 Months old. Quiet a time.

6. "you are still of the same reactionary mindset you were in October" - Throwing in claims huh? How re u going to back this hilarious claim up? --InNeed95 (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanuensis Balkanicus: what's this business of WP:outing a user? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Can I report him for it? I kinda feel stalked and harrased. Or is there no need for that anymore? --InNeed95 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discuusion

Inclined to unblock, but not on my own. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Greetings, sorry to bother, but the UB-Request takes a questionable long time... may I ask for an Update? --InNeed95 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I expected more input, feedback, comentary. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot and El C: have the lead on this. If they say, "OK". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed at this time. Subpar unblock requests. El_C 16:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really convinced yet, though I personally don't wish to stand in the way. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: What am I supposed to do to change your opinion? Really confused at the moment. 4 Months of blockage... acceptance of the wrongdoings... acknowledging of ways to find proper solutions... did I miss something? --InNeed95 (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't wish to stand in the way of you being unblocked. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I won't unblock without the blocker's assent. @331dot and El C: On a separate but equal note, I don't know what to do about the outing and harassment by Amanuensis Balkanicus above. Primefac did stop by and OS it. I'm just not used to such outrageous behavior from "constructive" users. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh, I dont want to sound biased, but my relation with El_C aint really good. Unlikely that he will give a "OK". I thought a Unblock Request is handled by a thrid Party Admin and not by the one that blocked a User in the first place...? --InNeed95 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, unless the block is egregiously incorrect, few if any admins will unblock against the wishes of the blocking admin. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra Policy states that outing is "sufficient grounds for an immediate block" but IMO it's probably too late now, so I will issue a only warning-type warning to them. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only a simple warning? He literally attacked my privacy. And that on the internet... --InNeed95 (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I will never get unblocked if it comes to el_c... --InNeed95 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra, @331dot, @El C - while I'm not wildly convinced either, I also think there's the possibility. Given the mix of views, my proposal is that we take it to WP:AN for a community review. For IN95's knowledge, that's a public conduct board where the community (both admins and non-admins) would review, you'd write an appeal here and we'd move it across, along with any follow-up answers to questions asked/answered. It does come with the key note that should your appeal be declined, the block would become a ban, meaning that only the community could remove it in the future (as opposed to an individual admin). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is the next step here. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
InNeed95, if you put together an appeal for the community, I'll go ahead and post it. I will highlight the general advice that it's far better to admit the negatives in the application than have to have someone drag them out in the process. Include the normal appeal stuff, including what you would edit if unblocked. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, appealing in any forum is fine with me. Again, I found the 2nd unblock request (and discussion above it to which it refers), like the first one, to have been subpar. My read is that it shifts much if not most of the blame to the misconduct of others while at the same time not offering much in the way of assurances. They say they'll 'contact an admin,' but content WP:DR isn't distinguished from conduct, and I generally find it too vague, too terse.

Also, while a blocked user is entitled to remove anything they want from their talk page (save for a declined unblock request while they're still challenging a block that's in effect), including the original block notice and following discussion — I'm also entitled to object to an unblock on the grounds that doing so makes it needlessly difficult for a reviewer to, well, review. I don't like how everything pertaining to the block/s isn't on display atm here. Whatever the intention might be, it's a fractured presentation.

Anyway, so yeah, appeal wherever, whenever. It's all the same to me, as these issues I've outlined remain unchanged regardless of venue. El_C 10:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN OK. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I dont really see the point in more parties to be included. There are now without counting me, ~5 Parties active on my TP, out of which, 3 (maybe 4) had nothing to do with me or the issue prior. Additionally not sure if I understood correctly, but if for some reason my appeal on WP:AN gets declined, I get a ban instead of a block? Is that correct? --InNeed95 (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What "Negatives" did I miss to admit? I thought I made my mistakes clear...--InNeed95 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made no judgement as to whether you had included all your negatives, or not, I give the same advice generally.

In terms of why you'd go ahead, it's mainly because the admins on your TP have not been able to come to a clearcut position, which makes them reticent to either formally accept it or specifically turn it down. Expanding the participant base is the standard Wikipedia method of resolving absences of consensus in small groups. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: . Thanks. I thought it was late. I see he did not respond to my expression of concern.21:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Duly noted, won't happen again. I was under the impression that referencing off-wiki activity was fine as long as it didn't include or lead to the person's real identity (the Reddit account doesn't). That assumption appears to be have been wrong. Sorry for the late response. I usually edit on weekends. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

InNeed95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Its been a long time since the Block. As per comments I made in the discussion from back then, I request a unblock. If the reviewing Admin has a question about the matter, he/she should feel free to comment/ask. Best regards --InNeed95 (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Time since the block is not a sufficient ground for lifting the block. You need to address the concerns that lead to the block. Yamla (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Yamla: Sorry but, it seems like you didnt really spend any time on the matter. I didnt just write about the time. I also stated that "as per comments above". You seem to have overlooked that part.

You could ve asked me in advance instead of declining the unblock-request.

But ok, I'll try to hold it short an make a rewind on the matter. I was blocked for "Edit-Warring". Which is fine. I kinda did it. I acknowledge that. And in the future I'll try to minimalize "rulebreaking". I'm barely online anyways. The only things I'd edit would be small mistakes (for example grammatical ones) that I may be seeing while reading a article.

I hope thats enough. I'll certainly answer any further questions of yours. --InNeed95 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: So?????? --InNeed95 (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request 05/2024

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).

InNeed95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As per Comments/Discussion above. Any questions? Feel free to comment (before declining like one Admin did once) Best regards --InNeed95 (talk)

Decline reason:

I'm going to read your entire talk page just to find your real unblock request. Summarize your thoughts concisely and put them in an unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.