Hello, Neve-selbert. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I appticiate your
effort in Margaret Thatcher's article. But, recently, you have shifted her birth place photo in lead section which is not okay according to me. Her birth place is completedly related to her early life. There is no reason to shift it in lead para. Don't change it again and if you wish to chage then plz discuss it on talk page at the first place. Bests Ominictionary (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I understand that "posttitle = Elected prime minister" isn't accurate I think changing the post title on those pages to "posttitle = Prime Minister after election" is better than what you changed it to "posttitle = Appointed Prime Minister". let me know what you think עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it would be ideal. Prime ministers are appointed rather than elected, although not all are reappointed after re-election.--Nevé–selbert18:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thats why i want it changed to prime minister after election which doesn't mean elected the one who is appointed is the pm after the election עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Right, but then the infobox wouldn't be consistent with other election-related articles, such as the United States presidential elections, which use "Elected President" rather than "President after election". "Appointed Prime Minister" is accurate enough IMHO.--Nevé–selbert19:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Per the notice you received above, a tag had been placed on Lock Her Up requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Please note that after review, I have removed the deletion request on the basis that the redirect was kept at WP:RFD and nothing significant has changed about the redirect or the phrase since then, so you do not need to worry about this page being speedily deleted. However, speedy deletion is not the only deletion processes on Wikipedia; my removal does not prevent users from invoking other, longer term deletion methods if it were to be re-nominated at redirects for deletion. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Iffy★Chat -- 12:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Neveselbert. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 1979 British winter, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Hello, Neveselbert. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, British winter of 1978–1979, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Hello, Neveselbert. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Winter of 1978–79 in the United Kingdom, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
I'm afraid it has always been regarded as inappropriate for the lede paragraph of current British Parliamentarians to include a postnominal 'MP'. The issue is that it is not, as required by MOS:POSTNOM, an official postnominal designation "issued by a country" but simply an unofficial custom used in addressing current Parliamentarians. As such they belong in infoboxes but not the lede. The custom is also transitory - anyone may cease to be a Member of Parliament at any time. As an example see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2012 archive#Need help on titles and honorifcs. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Sam is correct. We use MP (and similar postnoms) in infoboxes, but not in the lede. In general we do not use any postnoms that are transitory. This applies to all countries; presumably a Canadian editor has also added them without realising this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Margaret Thatcher
Hi Neve, are you still interested in starting an A-Class review for Margaret Thatcher? WP Conservatism now has A-Class review capability. I'd like to invite you and your team to nominate the article here. – Lionel(talk)07:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey Lionelt, thanks for the heads up. I've been quite busy with personal issues lately, but I'll be sure to submit a review sometime next week. Thanks.--Neve~selbert~ 22:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Self-trout Good lord, this week went pretty quickly. I'm going to have a look at the article now, copy-editing before I submit the review.--Neve~selbert20:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
What is your rationale for changing the Election box templates? I'm concerned that such widely used templates were changed so abruptly without any consensus from anyone else. Kiwichris (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my summaries, all I did was shade the cells meant to represent headers in order to contrast them from adjacent cells.--Neve~selbert07:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Kiwichris has left a message about this on my talk page. Can you please have a look at the list and self-revert the respective edits? And then work towards a consensus on the matter? Thanks heaps. Schwede6616:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
My edits were made both in good faith and per WP:BOLD, and honestly I don't believe they're significant enough to warrant a mass revert. Kiwichris is frankly overreacting here. All I did was shade bolded cells that are meant to represent headers. Please see this diff. Again, all I did was shade said cells unrelated to the header above.--Neve~selbert19:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Nobody is accusing you of bad faith. Kiwichris would like you to revert five specific edits; that’s hardly a mass revert. Schwede6619:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but reverting is entirely unnecessary. They asked me what my rationale for mildly tweaking the Election box templates, and I responded to them. All I did, please do bear this in mind, was shade cells masquerading as ordinary cells when in reality they were headers unrelated to the header above. These weren't significant changes by any stretch of the imagination. Unless they can give me a good reason as to why my edits weren't desirable, I really would like to discuss this issue on a talkpage rather than have to revert them, see WP:DONTREVERT. For the umpteenth time, all I did was shade a cell. Simply that, just shading a cell meant to represent a header. I literally find it incredible how this is seen as such a problem, and I cannot even fathom how one can consider this as controversial. That I need "a consensus" to make minor edits is WP:OWNERSHIP and contrary to WP:BOLD.--Neve~selbert20:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
P.S. here's a before and after of my edits, the example being {{Election box majority}}:
Before
Majority
{{{votes}}}
{{{percentage}}}
{{{change}}}
After
Majority
{{{votes}}}
{{{percentage}}}
{{{change}}}
As you can see above, there is no way my edits were significant enough to warrant a revert. That is just silly.--Neve~selbert20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The template section of WP:BOLD states that extra caution should be used for templates as it can affect a huge number of pages with only a single edit, as is the case here. It also advises to consider proposing changes on associated talk pages and notifying appropriate WikiProjects. The changes have disregarded this, so I feel they should be reverted until they can be agreed to through due process. Kiwichris (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Right, and per WP:BOLD I did indeed take extra caution. I haven't disregarded anything at all whatsoever, all I did was shade a few headers for crying out loud. Please take the time to review my edits, and please just give me an actual rational and level-headed reason why they should be reverted. Because frankly, right now, you're exhibiting unnecessarily hostile behaviour and you're essentially accusing me of bad faith. Minor formatting changes really don't need a consensus unless they cause a major disruption or change in terms of functionality. My changes haven't disrupted or changed the functionality of anything. See Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".--Neve~selbert19:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Aside from the lack of consensus my largest concern is that the altering of the shading of the cell is unnecessary. The edit summaries say it was for contrast, but I think that the contrast was already sufficiently clear by virtue of the rightwards alignment and bolding of the text. According to Wikipedia:TPEREVOKE changes that significantly affect a template's visual appearance to the reader should be made only after substantial discussion. Kiwichris (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Shading was certainly not unnecessary, it's completely imperative. The contrast wasn't "already sufficiently clear" by any stretch of the imagination. I was literally confused the other day when I noticed the lack of shading as I actually thought that there was a candidate named "Majority" in one election box. With the benefit shading, such confusion would need not occur. And again, these changes did not significantly affect the template's visual appearance. They were more accurately subtle changes. You are deliberately misinterpreting WP:TPERREVOKE.--Neve~selbert13:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
(pinged) For what it's worth, I completely agree with the changes you made. That being said, someone has contested your edit, and as a TPE it is now your responsibility you self-revert and start a discussion. I also have one question for Kiwichris: is the only reason you're contesting this because there was "no consensus"? From a readability/accessibility standpoint, this seems like a reasonable change to make. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC) (please do notping on reply)
If they'll link to me the diffs they specifically want reverted, I'll self-revert. I'm quite busy today so I don't have time to go through my contribs.--Neve~selbert16:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
It is the following templates. In all cases it is the most recent edit on 30 March 2018.
In regards to Primefac's question, no the lack of consensus is not my only objection. Above I have stated that I think that the shading of the cells were unnecessary. In my opinion the rightwards text alignment, bolding of the text and spanning multiple columns already sufficiently differentiated these cells from those for candidates. Kiwichris (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Um, apparently you told Schwede66 you only wanted five edits reverted. Anyway, your argument that the shading of cells were unnecessary simply makes no sense. The rightwards text alignment hardly makes any difference. For the visually impaired, one could easily assume the unshaded cell corresponds with the shaded cell above (as I had done in the past week). The bolding of text doesn't make any difference either, since winning candidates are usually bolded in election tables. The spanning of multiple columns is also unsatisfactory, since at first glance one may not even notice the cells were spanned. The following is what I propose. I'll revert the first link, start a discussion on its talkpage and ping Schwede66 and PrimeHunter. As PrimeHunter already supports these changes, if Schwede66 consents to the changes I believe we should agree to keep the changes on a 3-1 consensus. If Schwede66 objects, I'll start a wider discussion and revert all of the edits. Does that sound reasonable enough for you? This is my attempt at a compromise here.--Neve~selbert07:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
A revert and then discussion on a talkpage is satisfactory for me. However it needs to be a wide discussion from the beginning and open to other users as well as those of us who have been involved here as consensus is not the result of a vote (see WP:VOTE). Kiwichris (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't proposing a vote, I was proposing we move forward based on a local consensus. So far, you're the only editor to have objected to the changes. "A wide discussion" is entirely unnecessary for such a minor change that likely wouldn't even result in a wide discussion, given how absolutely trivial it is. I will revert the first edit, and in the event that Schwede66 replies in opposition to the changes I shall start a discussion on the template talkpage.--Neve~selbert17:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Think nothing of it, I am very much looking forward to reverting my revert in due course. Please be patient until Schwede66 voices his opinion.--Neve~selbert19:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I've just returned from some holidays and have had a quiet spot to look at that in detail, including sandbox testing. The changes in shading appear reasonable to me. They may not be entirely necessary, but they also don't "break" anything, so I'm happy with where it's at now. Schwede6608:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Night of the Long Knives (1962) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pocahontas (nickname) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations! The article Margaret Thatcher which you nominated for A-Class has passed. This is the first article to be promoted from the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class Review. See Talk:Margaret Thatcher for comments about the article. You are now entitled to display the A-Class Award {{User A-class}}.
The problem with this edit is that you have combined refs to John Grigg's Lloyd George and Wales which are lacking page numbers, and may well be to different pages. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Why did you redirect Template:Infobox presidential administration and then proceed to make major changes to it? Having a template for premierships if fine, but there was no reason to remake the presidential administration infobox. The two polities are different enough to warrant separate templates. As such, I have restored T:IPA. Please, if you wish to experiment with design changes, do so in the sandbox. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Drdpw, what exactly do you object to, with respect to the changes? That there was no reason to remake the infobox? Hand on heart, I wanted to improve it, and I was sure not to make any large scale changes, partly because I knew you would react this way, which you have anyway. In my defence, I felt that the caption looked too cluttered with the name and office together on separate lines and, in my opinion, captioning merely the name of the president just looks neater. Their order and office were to be included above the image; it just looks more organised that way. I already experimented in the sandbox before implementing the changes. You don’t own the template, so anybody can make changes you disagree with, that’s just the very nature of this website. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 22:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Neveselbert. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Speedy deletion nomination of Margaret Thatcher/birthplace
Hello Neveselbert,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Margaret Thatcher/birthplace for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Would you care to explain your vandalism of my edits to the Margaret Thatcher article? Writing "Please see Bibliography of Margaret Thatcher" is not an explanation. I made edits to that article as well. The bibliography needed to be updated for both articles, as the third volume of the authorized Thatcher biography has just been published. If you have some grievance with whoever it was who added those comments about the "Splitting Image" TV program (it wasn't me), why don't you take it up with them? Or, failing that, why don't you simply delete those edits instead of deleting mine as well by doing a wholesale reversion? Your explanation explains nothing and is not acceptable. My edits to the bibliography of the Margaret Thatcher article were accurate and needful.
NicholasNotabene (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@NicholasNotabene: Please mind your language and read WP:VANDALISM. My edits were not vandalism and you really ought to retract your allegation in accordance with WP:AGF. Your edits were not necessary. The bibliography on the Margaret Thatcher ought only to include books and journalistic works actually cited within the article. The third volume of the authorised biography is yet to be cited within the article. In the meantime, it should instead be listed on the dedicated standalone Bibliography article, where you may feel free to update the bibliography there. If indeed you are able to cite information from the third volume on the Margaret Thatcher article, then please do; but in the meantime, please avoid cluttering the bibliography section with works that are yet to be cited within the article. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) — Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
You write: "the book has been listed on its dedicated standalone Bibliography article, where you may feel free to update the bibliography there." It is listed there because I listed it there. Moore's is a three-volume biography, not a two-volume biography. As the biography authorized by Thatcher herself, it certainly should be listed as part of the article about her. And, in fact, two volumes were indeed listed. Deliberately omitting any mention of the newly published third volume gives an incomplete misleading impression to the reader — that Moore's book is simply a two-volume biography. It is not "clutter." I do rather have the impression, however, that you are simply feeling proprietary about this article. There is zero justification for omitting mention of the third-volume conclusion of a three-volume authorized biography, especially given that the biography in question is already mentioned and cited. The three volumes constitute a whole. Perhaps if you weren't so busy marking your territory you would take a moment and see things straight. NicholasNotabene (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It has been listed there since March. It doesn't matter how many volumes there are, unless the volume has been cited in the article body, it doesn't belong in that section. It's completely ludicrous to suggest the reader would be misled by its exclusion, what with the standalone article in the hatnote directly above. Prior volumes are currently included because they have already been cited in the article body. If you're so determined to include the new volume in the Bibliography section, then cite the volume within the article. Until you do so, I'm going to hide the volume (while keeping the markup ready for when the book is eventually cited) because, until such time, it meets WP:BLOAT. This has nothing to do with me feeling proprietary about the article. You are missing the point. The whole purpose of the section (as opposed to the standalone article) is to include cited works only. There is zero justification in your refusing to accept this convention. You really should take one moment out of your screeds to understand what you're needlessly upending. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 04:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Margaret Thatcher/birthplace
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
@Berean Hunter: I never used either account for illegitimate reasons. I didn't edit the articles I wasn't supposed to edit with the other account. I edited entirely in good faith back in 2016 (which is over three years ago), and this account hasn't been sanctioned ever since the unblock. @GoodDay: Can you vouch for me? I never abused anything. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 16:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@TParis: Can you please consider any action in response to the above? The charge that I abused the other account is completely baseless, and the account was only created one month before you unblocked me in 2016, for entirely uncontroversial edits to articles I hadn't been involved with using this account. This was in 2016, and I haven't edited disruptively since, and for Berean Hunter to do this at this time of year is incredibly cruel and rash. Please help. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 16:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
This is very important, Neveselbert. Have you been using both accounts, without informing anyone it was you behind the secondary account. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I should have done and would obviously make that disclosure now, GoodDay. I didn't edit the List of state leaders in XXXX using the other account and I only used it three years ago to edit pages I wasn't involved in any editing disputes, as well as pages I hadn't ever edited before. This was ages ago, back in 2016. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 17:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but that was only because my userscripts are different with each account, and it takes ages for them to load while on mobile using this account (which was one of the main reasons why I created this account). I have never edited nor reinstated edits that were contrary to consensus with either account and I've edited entirely in good faith using both of them for the past three years. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 17:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I really ought to have done, I'm incredibly sorry I didn't, GoodDay. I've had so much on my mind in the past few months, but I should have clarified that was my account also. It's mainly to do with the user-script issue, with regards to why I maintain both. This account has so many (see User:Neveselbert/common.js) that I couldn't really use it on my tablet without it crashing on me, so I decided to use the other one, which I hadn't used at all in 2017, for tablet use. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 17:49, 23 December 2019 (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).
I'm profusely sorry about creating another account in 2016. I should have waited for this account to be unblocked before creating and contributing with another account. On a personal note, I was sixteen when I created the other account and I hadn't read the policy on disclosing other accounts at that time, which I clearly should have done. Three years on, I'm nineteen years of age, and I have familiarised with these policies. Please keep in mind, when reviewing this unblock request, that I hadn't edited the articles that I had been disruptively editing with the other account, and I made sure I kept clear of them, namely the articles in Category:Lists of state leaders by year. Since 2016, I've endeavoured to edit in good faith, and I entirely regret any bad-faith and petty responses I may have made when I was a teenager. I'm begging for another chance, this has come as such a shock and I'm determined to prove to you that I can be trusted with using another account. I haven't been involved with any editing sanctions with either account since 2016, so this should be a pretty good indication that I haven't been abusively using either account. Please; and I hope you can enjoy Wednesday like I probably won't be able to, in light of all this. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 17:35, 23 December 2019 (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.
@NinjaRobotPirate: Okay, I can certainly take this up. But can you please clarify two things: (a) would you be able to unblock both accounts after six months and (b) does this mean I can't edit any pages on Wikipedia whatsoever for any reason (such as reverting vandalism, or correcting mistakes such as spelling and citation errors)? Thanks for answering this request and I'm sorry for everything. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 18:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
In previous cases, people have been unblocked after six months with a restriction on using a single account. See, for example, WP:RESTRICT#Final warnings / Unblock conditions. Once you are unblocked, you might convince a checkuser that you need an alternate account for the purposes of mobile editing, but it would have to be named something like "Neveselbert (mobile)" per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. And, no, you can't edit English Wikipedia for any reason until you're unblocked. Being blocked means no editing at all. That's kind of the point of the standard offer – you're supposed to show that you can follow that one simple rule. If you get bored, you can edit any of the sister projects, including Simple English Wikipedia. You should be aware that they have a 1-strike rule, though. You can also edit TV Tropes, any wiki on Wikia, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Okay, I'm going to take that break. @NinjaRobotPirate: Would it be OK for me to make edit requests, which other uses can fulfil for me? It's just that I use Wikipedia every day, and when I see a mistake, it's hard for me to just ignore them. Also, can you please allow me to edit my own user space, so I'm able to edit my drafts? They're my life's work and I've been working on my User:Neveselbert/sandbox draft for years and I really need to update it within six months. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 18:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I could bring this up at ANI & ask the community if your block should be lifted. But, I think you know what the result would be. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I cannot unblock because this is a checkuser block. Only a functionary (Checkuser/oversight), Arbcom, or consensus at an admin noticeboard can unblock. I typically would be willing to make an argument on a noticeboard concerning process if there was such a concern. However, using this tool, it's clear there was quite a bit of overlapping in edits which, even if nothing nefarious was intended, gives the appearance of consensuses when they are none. I'm sorry, but the standard offer appear to be the best option here.--v/r - TP19:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The process set out in WP:SO is that you will remain blocked indefinitely, and may present an appeal to the community in six months, not that you will be automatically unblocked at that time. While you remain blocked you are not permitted to contribute to Wikipedia, neither in your user space nor through requesting that other users edit for you. You abused multiple accounts to evade scrutiny for three years, you will find there is very little appetite here to make special accommodations for you. Stop asking, or your talk page access will be revoked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Ivanvector, like I said, I'm extremely sorry for what I've done, and it certainly wasn't my intention to evade scrutiny nor to abuse multiple accounts, given the fact none of my edits using the other account were used to circumvent the reason why I was blocked using this account in 2016. I'm a different person from what I was three years ago, and I've learnt from my mistakes. I'm not going to continue to edit Wikipedia, as hard as it will be, until June 2020, although I fully intend to remain active on sister projects in the meantime. Again, I'm sorry, please understand that I'm genuinely sorry about all of this. I suffer from ASD and OCD, and there are times when I'm prone to making mistakes, and this is one of those times. I feel terrible about this. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 21:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it was to avoid scrutiny as you created the account during a block for the purposes of evading it. You were socking with edits such as this even as you were discussing your behavior and trying to be unblocked on this talk page. In September of 2016, you created the impression that you were another editor with this reversion of your main account while responding to yourself. Anyone looking at the history of that article will see you socking until most recently so this has nothing to do with you being young three years ago. Look at thisrecentsequence on the Boris Johnson article where you revert other editors citing that they have no consensus to change while you and your sock were making the same basic edits. I forgot to put it in the report that you were making logged out edits and a more thorough investigation into your history may be needed but I had to get things prepared for the next couple of days. You will need to explain the sockpuppetry policy before you are considered for unblocking.
Berean Hunter, User:AlbanGeller is literally the only one. My intention was never to evade scrutiny, since the articles that I edited all those years ago were articles that had nothing to do with the block of this account for disruptive editing. Regardless, I'm incredibly sorry that I appear to have evaded any such scrutiny during this time. I shouldn't have created that account during the block duration, and I fully admit to my wrongdoing. With respect to those diffs, the first one was to Margaret Thatcher, an article that I hadn't been involved in any editing disputes, but which I obviously wouldn't have made with the benefit of hindsight. I'm sorry for creating the impression that I was another editor in September 2016. Having looked at that edit and jogged my memory of events in 2016, I must have been annoyed with myself for making an edit that I felt silly for having made, so my revert of myself was more of a Self-trout than anything else. My familiarity with Wikipedia policy on socks had clearly been inadequate. I was of the impression that you didn't need to disclose alternative accounts so long as you didn't use other accounts to circumvent or undermine consensus, or to reinstate reverted edits. Clearly I was wrong. With respect to the edit on Boris Johnson, my revert using the other account was to an unexplained edit, without an explanatory summary, that removed information without reason. To reiterate, all of my edits made since 2016 were done in WP:GOODFAITH. I'm certainly going to try and explain the sock policy before such consideration, which is why I'm familiarising myself with it at this time. Again, I'm sorry for these actions and I deeply regret having done all this in 2016, when I was indeed much younger and less experienced. Clearly, I still need more experience, which is what I'm going to try and prove to you. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 00:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter, NinjaRobotPirate, and Ivanvector: Hi, and Happy Christmas. Can I just ask whether there is anything at all that I can do, for you to maybe think about unblocking my account sooner than six months, such as three or four months? Like I said above, it was never my intention to abuse multiple accounts, although I fully concede that this was the effect of my behaviour. On another note, I've been familiarising myself with the multiple-account policy over the past 48 hours, and I'm willing to explain that and the WP:SOCK policy to each of you at the earliest opportunity. To reiterate, I deeply regret the fact my actions undermined the Wikipedia policy on using multiple accounts, and I would do anything to convince each of you that I can be trusted in future. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 20:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, I didn't mean to badger you or anyone. If and when you find the time, can you please enlighten me as to how you are able to reconcile WP:NOTPENAL with the circumstances surrounding this block? I've said I'm sorry repeatedly. I'm never going to edit with another account without permission. Just how does this block benefit Wikipedia? How does banning me from the project entirely for six months without exception benefit anybody? How have I broken any other Wikipedia policies in the years since 2016? And finally, out of all my edits with either account since 2016, how many of them were actually disruptive? I'm not a bad-faith user, I'm not here to upend consensus, and I'm not here to abuse multiple accounts to that end. I'm genuinely here in good faith and for the greater good. I don't mean to call the actions of Berean Hunter into disrepute, but I honestly find it difficult to understand why they couldn't have simply blocked the other account (the only other one I have created), and warned me that, if I created another one without permission, this account would be blocked also; and I would entirely understand and apologise accordingly. But I just find it hard to appreciate why this course of action was necessarily the best out of all to take. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 23:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
You've been told repeatedly about the standard offer. You don't like the standard offer? Fine. Do whatever you like. But you've now lost access to your talk page. You can file an appeal whenever you like via WP:UTRS. Do it in five minutes, do it in three months, do it in six months – I don't care. But you're not going to be pinging any more admins and demanding that they justify to you why you're blocked. You've had this repeatedly explained to you. If you still think the block is against policy, you can appeal to Arbcom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm unable to get to my email write now, but that seems to be the gist of it from the notification. Short answer-- no. Just skimming a couple of lines of your talk page, I believe this has been discussed exhaustively. Once again, 6 months down the road from today is likely the best answer you will get. This is a checkuser block, so I cannot unblock you in any event. Please read the WP:GAB for further options. Please do not send further emails about this as you may well lose email access as well. -- Deepfriedokra04:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I've restored your TPA so you can appeal on-wiki. @Berean Hunter and NinjaRobotPirate: I don't think either of you would mind it being 9 days early. I was already in the CU data for a somewhat related reason involving another SPI, and didn't think going through the bureaucracy of another CU doing the same work before restoring talk page access made much sense. For reviewing admins, this isn't the "CU gives permission" bit yet, but I did want to allow an on-wiki appeal so someone could comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd give them a day or so to reply and if they don't, I think you're good to make an appeal. Just more of a courtesy thing than anything else. Sometimes people feel stronger about the 6 months exact thing we hold people to, so I usually like to get their feedback first. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Neveselbert, we're working on fixing that. For what it is worth, I'm fine saying that I see no indication in socking in the CheckUser data, and that an administrator can unblock you if they are satisified with your appeal. If something happens at that SPI that I didn't see, I'll just comment here again, but looking at your CU data right now, I do not see any current evidence of socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I suspect Neveselbert has been evading his block via IP socks. I want to be clear that, to the best of my knowledge, I've never run a check on any of Neveselbert's accounts. This is just something that I noticed while checking through diffs and contribs (in other words, it's just speculation on my part).
NinjaRobotPirate, I haven't edited Wikipedia whatsoever in the past six months, and I don't know why those IPs have been adding the images I uploaded to Commons in the meantime. Possibly this has to do with my adding the photos to Wikidata, which then show up on other wikis, leading certain IPs to add the images here. I don't know. As with the SallyWho (talk·contribs) allegations, it's likely this IP could be one of Marquis de la Eirron's many socks. I've had several interactions with this user on both this site and Commons, which got heated on the latter site, and it's bizarre how it seems as if they're following my edits to adapt them here, and indeed frame me as being them as they sock away. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 02:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I reported this user twice, on Commons as well as here. They're heavily involved in many of the same images (from similar sources) I've been involved with. (I've flagged dozens of their images for copyright violations in the meantime on Commons.) @NinjaRobotPirate: they also seem to have added the photo File:James Callaghan (1974).jpg to James Callaghan in the most recent edit to that article, which I uploaded on Commons. This is utterly bizarre and I think it's possible the user in question has something to do with this. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 02:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm really trying to stay calm here, and not descend into panic as a result of being constantly accused of being another person and continuing their abuse, but this is absolutely insane. I have literally reported them twice (see Special:Diff/928505179 and c:Special:Diff/360563833). @TonyBallioni: I don't mean to badger but I don't know how much of this I can take. Can you please help me? Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 03:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
CheckUser has you in a different country than the recent confirmed socks of that sockmaster. Let's wait for Bbb23 to comment. I know this can be stressful but the best thing to do now is just wait. I can't really do much more. Unblocks are a consensus based process, like most of Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: thanks for telling me this. To clarify, it would be best for me to wait until my SPI case situation has been resolved? Do you think this might happen before the end of the week? (Thanks again for helping me with my concerns, I really appreciate it.) Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 22:09, 15 June 2020 (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).
Hello. I'm asking for my block to be reviewed in accordance with WP:SO.
It's my understanding that my account was blocked because it was found that, because I had wrongly created another during the course of a block over four years ago (in 2016), my maintenance of more than one account was in serious breach of Wikipedia policy on maintaining more than one account. Regretfully, I failed to even notify an admin that I would continue to use another account by reason of mobile use, the reason being that the userscripts on my main account often cause my tablet to significantly slow and sometimes crash during editing in the Safari app (on an older iPad that runs an older version of iOS). I obviously ought to have been upfront about my usage of both accounts, and I unequivocally apologise for the disruption caused as a result of my actions, of which I take full responsibility.
You can hold my feet to the fire on this, I promise never to operate more than one account in future without the express permission of another admin, and that I will strive to competently uphold the Wikipedia policy on the use of multiple accounts to the best of my ability. It's with good faith that I ask for the opportunity to redeem myself in the eyes of the community, and to work with the community, to help improve Wikipedia in the spirit of collaboration and goodwill.
Sincerely, I feel able to say I've since learnt from my mistakes and, in these six months, educated myself on Wikipedia policy to avoid being in a situation like this ever again. Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 02:09, 16 June 2020 (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.
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
I have declined your UTRS unblock appeal. The recent use of Digital Ocean and OVH proxy servers to connect to IRC, in combination with the behavioural similarities mean we continue to believe you to be connected to Marquis de la Eirron. This behaviour would be in contradiction of parts 1 and 2 of the Standard Offer. We also feel that the continuing pestering has created an extraordinary reason why the Standard Offer is not appropriate at this time, as outlined in part 3 of the Standard Offer. We believe, sadly, that you fail to meet any of the three key requirements for the Standard Offer and will not be unblocking your account at this time. Your next options are to wait for another six month period, this time without breaching the three parts of the Standard Offer, or to appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee.
-- Nick (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}