You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Regency of Algiers. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton ( talk) 10:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pickle_Rick_02 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Canterbury Tail talk 16:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Pickle Rick 02 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I apologize, I wasn't aware of this rule. I promise that i will make sure that i don't make more than 3 reverts a day and focus more on discussing my changes from now on.
Decline reason:
As per below, you don't yet understand WP:EW and how to resolve conflicts. You should not edit again, even if the block has expired, until you do. Yamla ( talk) 17:40, 30 August 2023 (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.
So you come off a block for 3RR and edit warring and the very first thing you do is continue edit warring on the exact same article that got you blocked. You clearly haven't read through our policies as you stated you have above, or you don't think they apply to you. I'm being very generous and giving you one last chance with a temp block here. If you continue your behaviour upon return, the next block will be indefinite. Canterbury Tail talk 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Canterbury Tail talk 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Pickle Rick 02 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I would like to assure the community that I've read the policies that concern edit warring and now I'm fully aware of how harmful such behaviour is for the encyclopedia. I have no reason to continue edit warring, as otherwise, I will get blocked indefinitely and certainly that's the last thing I wish as an editor. From now on I won't make the disagreements that I'm involved in an edit war, but rather, they will be immediately taken to the talk page. I would like to add that I will engage in reporting edit warriors as I can see now this is not the behaviour that we expect from an editor of this great encyclopedia. Cheers, Pickle Rick 02
Decline reason:
I'm glad to hear that you've understood the error of your ways. That is, after all, the point of blocking users. However, part of the way that blocks accomplish that is through deterrence. Particularly for edit-warring, long community experience has shown that the best way to keep people from repeatedly edit-warring is through blocks of greater length. If this were a much longer block, or did not come immediately on the heels of a previous block, I might be inclined to unblock or at least reduce the length. But a week is not a lot of time—and at the same time, hopefully long enough to leave a lasting impression of why not to edit-war. Happy editing when you return. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 20:44, 3 September 2023 (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.
@ Tamzin: Now that my unblock request has been declined, I'm not expecting to be unblocked. If it's only for 1 week, I can wait. If you don't mind, I have a question that I asked Canterbury Tail (the admin who blocked me), but she/he hasn't answered me yet. Do old active editors have privileges when it comes to edit warring? Because when I undid M.Bitton's removal of the Turkish name that had been added by Nourerrahmane, he did the same number of reverts as me, but nothing happened to him. Again, I'm not asking anybody to block him, nor am I assuming any bad faith here. Pickle Rick 02 ( talk) 21:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Pickle Rick 02 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was blocked after a previous incident for 24 hours due to breaking the 3rr. And now I find myself blocked again, this time for 1 week, for edit warring; Initially, i reverted Bitton's removal of the Turkish name in Regency of Algiers which was added by another editor (Nourerrahmane). Afterwards I continued the edit war against Bitton which got me blocked eventually; I did 3 reverts while Bitton did 4 reverts (not in the same day though, he didn't break 3rr tbh). The block is no longer necessary; it doesn't serve its purpose anymore. I'd like to assure the reviewer that I've read the policies that concern edit-warring, and I'm no longer going to engage in such disruptive behavior anymore. Otherwise, I will get blocked indefinitely, and certainly, that's the last thing I wish as an editor here. Instead, I will always use the talk page to express my disagreements/agreements constructively. I'd like to add that I will engage in reporting edit warriors, as I can see clearly now that this is not the behavior that we expect from an editor of this great encyclopedia. Cheers, Pickle Rick 02
Decline reason:
While you seem to have a better understanding of the gravity of this matter, I think you are a. still confusing edit warring with the 3R dictum, and b. pointing at the other editor. Drmies ( talk) 01:51, 7 September 2023 (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.
Hello, just saw the discussion about the maps of the Regency in the french WP, and it seems i was right about you, you want to change material to better fit your biased-politically motivated narrative...
There are over 5 maps representing the maximum extent of the regency, drawn by confirmed geographers and mathematicians. There are other maps wich exclude some contested regions from being part of Algiers of course depending on the timeline the maps were drawn in, modern sources are not so much at odds with what's presented already, yet they don't show tha maximum extent generally, something that more than five historical maps agree on. I'm telling you this just to inform you that i won't allow any change or edit warring about this matter in this article, wether about the name, political status, flags and coas or any other well sourced subject, you pretty much don't have any previlege to judge if a source is viable or not, let alone "Sources". I will directly report you if you undertake such behavior again.
One more thing, there is no edit warring between me and M.bitton, if he removes something i edited and i chose not to contest about it, you're in no place to speak on my behalf.
Thanks. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 16:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Drmies: I'm not confusing edit warring with 3rr. Breaking 3rr is edit warring but it doesn't need to break 3rr to be considered edit warring. Also, i'm not pointing at the other editor i was just explaining the context of my block. Pickle Rick ✌️ ( talk) 01:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Disruption, SPA, deliberate edit warring after blocks.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Canterbury Tail talk 01:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Pickle Rick 02 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please read the whole message: Yamla, or whoever the reviewer. please review what happened carefully! the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. (I.e the block may have violated the blocking policy) and I'm going to adress the alleged reasons why I got blocked. I wasn't aware of the unblock ticket request system, and the block actually made me shocked that I couldn't even concentrate. Let alone real life problems, I was quite worried with a deadly earthquake in Morocco. I didn't know what to do and opened a new account as I couldn't make an unblock request in my talk page nor could I send an email. The new account (named "AStateOfShock!!") won't be used anymore (I don't even remember the password and I didn't add an email to it). I was blocked after I came to Caterbury Tail's talk page asking him/her what to do. User:Nourerrahmane added some sources to the Regency of Algiers that were challenged as they clearly don't support the statement that they're meant to support. In other words, he misrepresented the sources. Furthermore, a discussion about the same subject is still open and no consensus has been reached yet. I reverted his addition twice, but he added it again for the third time. I didn't want to re-revert his edit again as i didn't want to continue the edit war. I could have trapped him and make him break 3rr but I didn't do that. The next step was to ask Canterbury Tail for he/she is an admin and an experienced editor. I asked whether I can revert his addition for a third time. Afterwards I found myself blocked, for those reasons "disruptive editing, SPA, Edit warring after blocks" which literally made me in a state of shock as I wasn't expecting that at all. Also, I'm not an SPA and you can review my edits, don't be trapped by what the others say. the fact that I edit in a single article doesn't make me a single purpose account. You can check the issues of the article that I raised in the talk page, my intention was always improving the content of the article. I was blocked previously for 1 week for edit warring, I spent the 7 days reading Wikipedia's policies regarding edit-warring and Core content policies. I thought that I understand the edit warring policies and that reverting misrepresentation of sources twice won't be that bad. Now I'm really confused! Please review this case carefully, and don't make quick decisions. Please take your time. Cheers, Pickle Rick 02
Decline reason:
I think that part of being unblocked will require you to find different topics to edit about, topics that arouse less passion in you and where you will be less likely to edit war(you were even edit warring while advising people to not edit war). Possibly you will need to agree to a one revert restriction or possibly a zero revert restriction as well. I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 09:49, 14 September 2023 (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.
Pickle Rick 02 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I agree to a one revert restriction as proposed by 331dot. please read my previous unblock request for more information. Cheers, Pickle Rick 02
Decline reason:
Per below; no point in keeping this discussion going if the user is no longer interested in being unblocked. — Daniel Case ( talk) 06:27, 26 September 2023 (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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Regency of Algiers. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton ( talk) 10:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pickle_Rick_02 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Canterbury Tail talk 16:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Pickle Rick 02 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I apologize, I wasn't aware of this rule. I promise that i will make sure that i don't make more than 3 reverts a day and focus more on discussing my changes from now on.
Decline reason:
As per below, you don't yet understand WP:EW and how to resolve conflicts. You should not edit again, even if the block has expired, until you do. Yamla ( talk) 17:40, 30 August 2023 (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.
So you come off a block for 3RR and edit warring and the very first thing you do is continue edit warring on the exact same article that got you blocked. You clearly haven't read through our policies as you stated you have above, or you don't think they apply to you. I'm being very generous and giving you one last chance with a temp block here. If you continue your behaviour upon return, the next block will be indefinite. Canterbury Tail talk 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Canterbury Tail talk 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Pickle Rick 02 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I would like to assure the community that I've read the policies that concern edit warring and now I'm fully aware of how harmful such behaviour is for the encyclopedia. I have no reason to continue edit warring, as otherwise, I will get blocked indefinitely and certainly that's the last thing I wish as an editor. From now on I won't make the disagreements that I'm involved in an edit war, but rather, they will be immediately taken to the talk page. I would like to add that I will engage in reporting edit warriors as I can see now this is not the behaviour that we expect from an editor of this great encyclopedia. Cheers, Pickle Rick 02
Decline reason:
I'm glad to hear that you've understood the error of your ways. That is, after all, the point of blocking users. However, part of the way that blocks accomplish that is through deterrence. Particularly for edit-warring, long community experience has shown that the best way to keep people from repeatedly edit-warring is through blocks of greater length. If this were a much longer block, or did not come immediately on the heels of a previous block, I might be inclined to unblock or at least reduce the length. But a week is not a lot of time—and at the same time, hopefully long enough to leave a lasting impression of why not to edit-war. Happy editing when you return. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 20:44, 3 September 2023 (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.
@ Tamzin: Now that my unblock request has been declined, I'm not expecting to be unblocked. If it's only for 1 week, I can wait. If you don't mind, I have a question that I asked Canterbury Tail (the admin who blocked me), but she/he hasn't answered me yet. Do old active editors have privileges when it comes to edit warring? Because when I undid M.Bitton's removal of the Turkish name that had been added by Nourerrahmane, he did the same number of reverts as me, but nothing happened to him. Again, I'm not asking anybody to block him, nor am I assuming any bad faith here. Pickle Rick 02 ( talk) 21:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Pickle Rick 02 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was blocked after a previous incident for 24 hours due to breaking the 3rr. And now I find myself blocked again, this time for 1 week, for edit warring; Initially, i reverted Bitton's removal of the Turkish name in Regency of Algiers which was added by another editor (Nourerrahmane). Afterwards I continued the edit war against Bitton which got me blocked eventually; I did 3 reverts while Bitton did 4 reverts (not in the same day though, he didn't break 3rr tbh). The block is no longer necessary; it doesn't serve its purpose anymore. I'd like to assure the reviewer that I've read the policies that concern edit-warring, and I'm no longer going to engage in such disruptive behavior anymore. Otherwise, I will get blocked indefinitely, and certainly, that's the last thing I wish as an editor here. Instead, I will always use the talk page to express my disagreements/agreements constructively. I'd like to add that I will engage in reporting edit warriors, as I can see clearly now that this is not the behavior that we expect from an editor of this great encyclopedia. Cheers, Pickle Rick 02
Decline reason:
While you seem to have a better understanding of the gravity of this matter, I think you are a. still confusing edit warring with the 3R dictum, and b. pointing at the other editor. Drmies ( talk) 01:51, 7 September 2023 (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.
Hello, just saw the discussion about the maps of the Regency in the french WP, and it seems i was right about you, you want to change material to better fit your biased-politically motivated narrative...
There are over 5 maps representing the maximum extent of the regency, drawn by confirmed geographers and mathematicians. There are other maps wich exclude some contested regions from being part of Algiers of course depending on the timeline the maps were drawn in, modern sources are not so much at odds with what's presented already, yet they don't show tha maximum extent generally, something that more than five historical maps agree on. I'm telling you this just to inform you that i won't allow any change or edit warring about this matter in this article, wether about the name, political status, flags and coas or any other well sourced subject, you pretty much don't have any previlege to judge if a source is viable or not, let alone "Sources". I will directly report you if you undertake such behavior again.
One more thing, there is no edit warring between me and M.bitton, if he removes something i edited and i chose not to contest about it, you're in no place to speak on my behalf.
Thanks. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 16:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Drmies: I'm not confusing edit warring with 3rr. Breaking 3rr is edit warring but it doesn't need to break 3rr to be considered edit warring. Also, i'm not pointing at the other editor i was just explaining the context of my block. Pickle Rick ✌️ ( talk) 01:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Disruption, SPA, deliberate edit warring after blocks.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Canterbury Tail talk 01:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Pickle Rick 02 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please read the whole message: Yamla, or whoever the reviewer. please review what happened carefully! the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. (I.e the block may have violated the blocking policy) and I'm going to adress the alleged reasons why I got blocked. I wasn't aware of the unblock ticket request system, and the block actually made me shocked that I couldn't even concentrate. Let alone real life problems, I was quite worried with a deadly earthquake in Morocco. I didn't know what to do and opened a new account as I couldn't make an unblock request in my talk page nor could I send an email. The new account (named "AStateOfShock!!") won't be used anymore (I don't even remember the password and I didn't add an email to it). I was blocked after I came to Caterbury Tail's talk page asking him/her what to do. User:Nourerrahmane added some sources to the Regency of Algiers that were challenged as they clearly don't support the statement that they're meant to support. In other words, he misrepresented the sources. Furthermore, a discussion about the same subject is still open and no consensus has been reached yet. I reverted his addition twice, but he added it again for the third time. I didn't want to re-revert his edit again as i didn't want to continue the edit war. I could have trapped him and make him break 3rr but I didn't do that. The next step was to ask Canterbury Tail for he/she is an admin and an experienced editor. I asked whether I can revert his addition for a third time. Afterwards I found myself blocked, for those reasons "disruptive editing, SPA, Edit warring after blocks" which literally made me in a state of shock as I wasn't expecting that at all. Also, I'm not an SPA and you can review my edits, don't be trapped by what the others say. the fact that I edit in a single article doesn't make me a single purpose account. You can check the issues of the article that I raised in the talk page, my intention was always improving the content of the article. I was blocked previously for 1 week for edit warring, I spent the 7 days reading Wikipedia's policies regarding edit-warring and Core content policies. I thought that I understand the edit warring policies and that reverting misrepresentation of sources twice won't be that bad. Now I'm really confused! Please review this case carefully, and don't make quick decisions. Please take your time. Cheers, Pickle Rick 02
Decline reason:
I think that part of being unblocked will require you to find different topics to edit about, topics that arouse less passion in you and where you will be less likely to edit war(you were even edit warring while advising people to not edit war). Possibly you will need to agree to a one revert restriction or possibly a zero revert restriction as well. I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 09:49, 14 September 2023 (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.
Pickle Rick 02 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I agree to a one revert restriction as proposed by 331dot. please read my previous unblock request for more information. Cheers, Pickle Rick 02
Decline reason:
Per below; no point in keeping this discussion going if the user is no longer interested in being unblocked. — Daniel Case ( talk) 06:27, 26 September 2023 (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.