my plan in the topic area I was banned from for a probation of one year two years includes:
limiting the amount of comments I make to a particular thread to one per day, two totally, including the amount of times I responded to other users' comment in the specific thread. If after 2 comments I wrote to a specific thread there is still no consensus reached regarding some content or conduct dispute, I oblige myself to use relevant noticeboards or WP:DR tools. I underline here that I was wrong and made mistake for not doing it before.
If any of above mentioned editors explicitly express concern about my conduct, I oblige myself to report myself a to relevant noticeboard.
limiting the amount of times I mention the same thing on a talk page to zero.
limiting the amount of new sections I make on a talk page to one per month, two per year
My reports to AN
In August 2016 for the first time in my life I reported an editor to ANI because they wrote a negative comment about me "as a person". The thread was closed with conclusion that I should prove they were wrong.
In September 2016 I reported an editor for violation of WP:3RR. They were blocked for 72 hours. (link)
On 4 September I reported an editor for violating WP:NPA and WP:Civility (diff). Although this violation was repeated after I advised the editor in question not to repeat such violations, they were not sanctioned, but only advised not to "insist on using the 'mentally disabled' wording" because they "are risking a block". Risking. Admin who wrote this advise also wrote one of the most motherly advises I have ever seen: "If you can get this angry people might start to wonder about your neutrality when editing Balkan topics." (diff). This was said to editor who repeatedly commented other editors as "mentally disabled" and having "problems with their brain control" because they "come from a country like Serbia, a society which is mostly famous for nationalism and propaganda."
On 13 September I reported (diff) an editor who tagged Kenneth Setton with better source tag and repeatedly marked substantial changes of text in articles with minor change tag. Since cited work had wrong year of publishing, tagging Setton with better source tag was described as "content dispute" and "simple error"
On 17 April 2017 I reported a speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of their nationality by an editor who attributed certain bad outlooks to groups of people, based on their nationality and proposed that this editor should be warned (diff). Result: Not a single admin participated in discussion nor accepted to even warn editor in question.
On 22 July 2017 I reported an editor (diff of my report) for repeated misuse of minor edit box, inspite they were warned not to do so by multiple editors. The report was closed with following words "The "behaviour" appears to have ceased. Nothing to do here."
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another