User talk:Pickle Rick 02

August 2023

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)[reply]

3rr block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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

Canterbury Tail talk 16:58, 30 August 2023 (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).

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)[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 were warned and pointed to the edit warring policies on the 28th. You would have read it them and therefore you are aware of the rule. If you choose not to read about our edit warring policies after being informed of them, that's on you. Anyway your promise to just not do more than 3 reverts a day is not convincing that you will not edit war again. Canterbury Tail talk 17:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. However i was more busy reading other Wikipedia policies such as those which concern reliable sources and verifiability. Of course i intended to read the edit warring policies as well, i just didn't have time. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I think i have now a general idea about the edit warring policies that will save me from getting blocked. Also i'm aware now of the importance of discussing changes. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not enough. Once you have a clear understanding, though, you are free to demonstrate your clear understanding in a new unblock request, which a different admin would review. --Yamla (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair to me. Thank you. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war block

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)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: My recent edits weren't about the same thing though. First i was editing about the Arabic name now i reverted M.Bitton's deletion of the Turkish name which was added by another editor. I didn't touch the Arabic name today. Also what makes M.Bitton so better than me that he didn't get blocked as you did to me? Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And look he reverted my edit again. He did the same number of reverts as mine. Even though he know he's facing two editors who agreed about the addition of the turkish name. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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

Canterbury Tail talk 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so you came off a block for 3RR and edit warring and the first thing you do, literally the first thing, is to revert someone else again. Then when they undo you continue to revert. This is the textbook definition of edit warring. It doesn't matter if it's a different topic, you were edit warring. This isn't about other people, it's about you and if you continue to make it about other people, well you'll not be unblocked. You are free to make an unblock request and another administrator will review it (not me), but I'd advise you to make your case not about other people. Canterbury Tail talk 14:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether he's blocked or not. I just want to understand what was the difference between my edit warring and his edit warring as i see no difference. Why mine got me blocked while his edit warring was fine. Don't get me wrong, i'm not assuming any bad faith here. Also, thank you for the advice. I will make an unblock request soon and i won't make my case about other people. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention you @Canterbury Tail. My bad. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t edit in this article ever again, you’re assuming bad faith from the start, your motives are obvious, and you won’t change anything without proper sources.

I have been working on this article for a while now and I provided academic as well as primary sources to support content.

Trying to deny Algerian statehood in early modern period is a lost case, i suggest you read the article and understand what the Regency of Algiers is and what was created for in the first place.

Being Ottoman and sovereign at the same time is part of the political, cultural and society history of the modern Algerian state which came to life thanks to this Turkish-moorish Islamic mix with its unique Corsair foreign policy that played a big part in Mediterranean and European even American history of that period, let alone it was the strongest of the Barbary states as stated by every contemporary author.

Edit warring is of no use to you, instead try to improve the Moroccan history content on Wikipedia.

Trying to downgrade others won’t bring greatness, it only exposes inferiority.

Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own the article and generally you own nothing in Wikipedia. So don't ever dictate to me where to edit and where not to.
Honestly, i find it so hard to understand your points you in particular. For example, you say that i'm denying "the Algerian statehood" mostly because i changed دولة to إيالة while in the same time you say that إيالة can mean state or kingdom (and i didn't disagree with you)
You said that "Trying to downgrade others won’t bring greatness, it only exposes inferiority." Which means you're assuming bad faith with me.

Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1- I’m just giving you advice so you won’t get a permanent block, and I literally wrote this article from start to finish giving proper RS with adequate chronology. You’re not informed on this subject and therefore you’re not fit to change anything in it. (Or edit war/3R)

2- true, but you trying to remove the word *State despite its sources and obvious use exposes your bad faith.

3- as said above.

Please go somewhere else. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nourerrahmane with all due respect, you don't get to dictate what articles someone can and cannot edit. You having written the article doesn't mean you can indicate who is allowed on the page. Anyone can edit as long as they are doing it constructively. If it's constructive, then that's fine. If it's unconstructive then it will be dealt with. Canterbury Tail talk 02:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely and i apologise. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail please answer my questions. As i said i'm not assuming any bad faith here. Do old active editors have privileges when it comes to edit warring? I need to know.Also, whethher you answered or not and whatever was your answer i'm not waiting for you to unblock me (I will make an unblock request soon)Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2023 (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).

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)[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.

A question that has not been answered yet

@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)[reply]

There is no privilege for seniority, but, in deciding whether to block someone for edit-warring, an admin may take into account the totality of the circumstances, particularly in a case like this where the three-revert rule was not broken. Since you were returning from an edit-warring block on the same page and M.Bitton was not, it makes sense why you were blocked and he wasn't. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Doesn't make sense to me as i reverted M.Bitton's reversal of Nourerrahmane's edit (another editor) which means he did 4 reverts (not in the same day though, he didn't break 3rr tbh) as for me i did 3 reverts. In this situation he wasn't any better than me. As for my previous edit warring, I got what I deserved, I was blocked for 24h. In any case, thank you for answering :) Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin @Canterbury Tail Oh also check this out he got blocked many times for edit warring and for breaking 3rr. So please tell me why his edit warring didn't got him blocked this time? Is it because he was the reporter? What if i reported him first? Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please stop pinging me. 2) You got blocked because after returning from a block you immediately got back into an editting warring situation. You were the one blocked because you were the one insisting on edit warring to reinstate information that wasn't sourced. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail Is it all about sources? You should have said it from the beginning. Of course the name that I re-added (since it was added by another editor first) is supported by reliable sources. Shall I cite them now? Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about sources, it's also WP:BRD. When you insert something into an article, if someone removes it you need to go to the talk page and obtain consensus, not add it in again. Since you're the one repeatedly re-adding items that don't have consensus the onus is on you to get the consensus on the talk page. When you keep re-adding material others have removed, you are edit warring. And this is what you keep doing. Canterbury Tail talk 15:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now i understand. Thank you very much. Though, if you don't mind, I still have a question. Wasn't this situation different a bit? As i said before, the information wasn't added by me but by another editor. Which means M.Bittons was in an edit war against two editors. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What positive direction, exactly, do you see this conversation going? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's moving in the direction of improving my comprehension on how Wikipedia works. This was somehow an exceptional case that wasn't treated by WP:EW.- - Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you're asking was answered in my initial question: in deciding whether to block someone for edit-warring, an admin may take into account the totality of the circumstances. This was not an exceptional case. Based on the totality of the circumstances, your conduct was more disruptive than M.Bitton's. If you can't see that, well, another good reason to step away for a week and clear your head. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who was more disruptive, edit warring is edit warring, and Bitton's editing doesn't align with either of these exceptions:

1.Reverting vandalism is not edit warring.

2.Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring.

3.Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring

4.Reverting edits in one's own user page is rarely edit warring.- - Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2023 (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).

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)[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.

About your BF on the Regency of Algiers articles

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)[reply]

@Nourerrahmane: You should read WP:PST. The Tafilalt region was never a part of the Regency of Algiers. And certainly, the Regency had never bordered the Atlantic ocean.

Fortunately, we have reliable modern sources that provide reliable historical maps. E.g The Atlas of Islamic history.

And rest assured i never spoke on your behalf (I was expecting that you'll say that to me tbh). Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was under the influance of the Algerian Awlad sidi cheik tribe wich reported to Algiers, it's a big tribal confederation that owed alliegence to the dey, sure their were no janissaries there as janissaries were stationned in major towns only in few numbers, they were never a massive host after all, yet you should give a look to the Makhzen tribes, confederations that still formed part of the sovregnity of Algiers.

and great, then don't mention my name regarding your issues with other editors anymore please. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nourerrahmane: I strongly insist that you should read WP:PST as well as WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Also, as i said, Tafilalt (where the Alawits of Morocco originated) was never a part of the Regency of Algiers, nor did the Regency border the Atlantic ocean. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can always try to contest all those maps in the talk page. then i'll be happy to teach you about the Awlad sidi cheik and the makhzen tribes of the regency in general.

Btw, secondary sources are diverse and some have their own biases (not speaking about this particular one), this something that Algerian historians like Saidouni and Yahiya bouaziz pointed out - sources like the Ottoman hating Abu nasr that claimed that the war between Spain and Algiers was a stalemate despite the fact that Spain lost its last Algerian holdings and payed 1 million pesos in addition to a yearly tribute of 48,000 dollars in exchange for some commercial previleges that were nowhere near the British or the french ones, or Bernard Lugan that claims that Algiers was not a state since it was ruled by an ethnically turk military elite, as if they were neither politically independent with a clear internationally recognised political structure nor he had any knowledge of how the regency was formed in the first place (that's why you were so much against Algerian and other sources, i was waiting for you to present those listed sources above, anyways...) Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the real biased/disruptive editor? 🧐🤔 Is it:

a. The one who follows Wikipedia's policies regarding WP:RS, WP:V and WP:PST.

b. The one who always refutes reliable historians and calls them "Biased" or "Ottoman hating".

If you aim to reach the level of refuting reliable historians, you certainly need a PhD in History. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You (for the reasons shown above), i'm perfectly fine with other arguments as long as they are presented in a manner that respects WP standarts and decency in general, looking at your past contributions, it says a lot.

Those historians are reliable to you, not to me and neither to Algerian historians, if i present their views in an article regarding Algeria, then be sure i will present other historians that contest their claims.

anyways, good luck removing sourced materials regarding this article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres has already explained that you're totally wrong about Abun-Nasr. I've seen the discussion. Stop your nonsense. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say that, he said that's i'm free tp present historians that contest his claims, he never said i was wrong about abu Nasr, sure he's right about the fact that WP is not the place to judge if a historian is wrong or not, and we didn't speak about Bernad Lugan (you seem to like him (Hey it's your right)). Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not speaking about Bernard Lugan, he might not be a reliable historian (I'm not sure, i never read his books, but i heard a lot of controversies about him). I'm speaking about the other historians/sources who share the same opinions as Abun-Nasr's. :) Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah well as the many historians that spoke about the Spanish Algerian ( and not the Spanish Ottoman) war in the 18th century, its issue cannot be called a stalemate. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly insist that you show a bit of honesty when agree with me that Algiers was a geopolitical entity when in the french Wiki you hardly do so with other editors, i call this (WP:ABF). Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nourerrahmane, I think it would be wise to stop this discussion here and continue it on the talk page after the editor's block runs out. If the disagreement is about this, you can start an WP:RFC, and that can go one of two ways. Either the editor is alone in their opinion and a consensus builds quickly, supported by some evidence of course, or there are others, and then more evidence and arguments will likely be necessary for a consensus to form. If it's the first, the editor is the only one, then one need not be as exhaustive in one's research as in the other case, though I should point out that an RfC requires more than just a majority of votes. But you probably know this already. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies WP:RFC seems to be a great idea, thank you for letting me know about it. Also, I've been waiting for some admin to answer my latest request for unblock. Could you please review it? Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is already a consensus about this subject, we’re pretty much 4 editors against 1 at this point in the talk page, this discussion is about his edit warring and WP:PA as well as WP:ABF regarding this article in the French and English Wikipedia. I’m just letting him know that removing sourced content will get him blocked. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself admitted that إيالة is a common name. You haven't answered my question yet. Why do you prefer دولة instead of إيالة? Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You allegedly tried to remove the word "State" and WP:EW about it which caused a first block, regarding the word "Eyalet" M.Bitton removed it and i don't object that, the word state "dawlat" is native, precise and common, it specifies that Algiers was a state for arabic readers as it was commonly called in Algeria back then and as shown in other sources (primary and secondary), other editors have come to a consensus, you're pretty much alone at this point, and contesting such obvious matter as "the statehood of Algiers" is pretty much doomed cause. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

when literally the Beys and Deys calls their State a "State" or "Dawlat", don't tell me that Arabic wikipedia said or Bernard Lugan said, sources are clear. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once i'm unblocked. I'll try to start an WP:RFC. This will fix problems, i believe. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you’re taking this personally, good luck proving Algiers was not a state. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?? Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking things personally. WP:RFC means that i will request comments/opinions from other editors. That's it! Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are, I’ll make sure to point that out along with your previous attempts to vandalise WP articles relating to Algeria. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nourerrahmane, just stop it, OK? I don't even know what the cause is, but you are not helping it. I'll just point out that false accusations of vandalism are blockable. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should give a look at previous edits on the regency of Algiers article. Removing sourced content and sources alike is called vandalism if I’m not wrong.

This editor is literally in an active campaign to remove sourced materials in both English and French Wikipedia, fact is he’s been blocked twice.

I also invite you to check the discussion page since a consensus has already been reached regarding his issue.

So all in all, he’s trying to undermine the development of the article with endless WP:EW and discussions about sourced materials since et hey don’t fit his narrative regarding the Algerian content. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it to ANI, and don't use a new paragraph for every single sentence. It smells of rhetorical overkill. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got no problem. He can report me to admins if he wanted. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My request for unblock was declined by Drmies

@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)[reply]

Well, I'm glad we got that thing straight. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies: Indeed, i had no idea how to prove my point using reliable sources. But that doesn't mean i can't provide them. I said that because Google Ngram Viewer doesn't support Arabic. Moreover, even if it does, Dawlat literally means 'state of', which means comparing the the two terms is totally unfair. However, I believe I know how to prove it now. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies Now that you closed the discussion, shall i just follow your advice and start an WP:RFC? I haven't shown any sources yet. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure you can, but I don't think you have much of a chance to sway those editors, esp. since you already indicated that sourcing is a problem. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I plan to present well-known Arabic sources related to the Regency of Algiers that use إيالة الجزائر to refer to it. I hope that everything goes right. Thank you for answering. :) Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indef

Disruption, SPA, deliberate edit warring after blocks.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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

Canterbury Tail talk 01:52, 10 September 2023 (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).

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)[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.

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).

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)[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.

Note: The one revert restriction won't stop the disruption (as can be seen on the article's talk page). Daniel Case summed up the tendentious attitude very well on 3AN. M.Bitton (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I think your comment here is a WP:GRAVEDANCING. In any case, What kind of disruption are you referring to? Do not forget the fact that I invited to collaborate instead of fighting for no reason. However you seem to prefer the latter option. Cheers, Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nourerrahmane, You should have simply asked me (I don't mind it, this is my talk page after all). "Avant 1830, les Touatiens payaient l'impôt aut dey d'Alger. On comprend que pendant les guerres d'Algérie, cet impôt ait cessé d'être payé, mais il reste là un indice de nos droits sur ces régions, puisque notre pouvoir s'est substitué à celui des anciens deys." If you see this as a neutral statement then idk how to convince you! That was just one of the most pro-French colonial statements I've ever seen in my life. Cheers, Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, I agree to your proposal, review my unblock request please. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not making a formal proposal, merely offering a possible way forward. Someone else will review your request and make a determination. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As @M Bitton said, this SPA just doesn't know when to stop his disruption/edit-warring, again done here in Wikidata. This user is a highly disruptive editor in English and French Wikipedia, he keeps on reverting sourced content to what personally suits him. aside from his WP:PA and the tendentious attitude, none of his contributions are educationally useful or accurate, as they appear to push a nationalist agenda. The history of this user contributions and his passion for the the same subject, just show that the SPA clearly doesn't know what he's doing, even after three blocks he doesn't even respect what he just said he's going to agree on, He's not here to build an encyclopedia.

@Nourerrahmane: The real disruptive editor is you. You transfromed the article of the Regency of Algiers to a mess that contains a lot of violations and you always act like you own the article, you actually don't. The admin of French Wikipedia, Alaspada, has already pointed out that you are a POV-pusher and you soon will be exposed here as well (as well as some other editors). When that happens, I'm no longer interested in getting unblocked.Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]