User talk:Nicoljaus

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

1RR breach

Diff 1 Revision as of 14:20, 23 April 2024

Diff 2 Latest revision as of 14:45, 23 April 2024

The above edits in the space of half an hour are a clear breach of the 1 revert rule, kindly self revert. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry. I need to bring in this area a couple of friends to make reverts instead ne. Nicoljaus (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Last chance. Zero^talk 15:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I made a counter edit and removed "Palestinian". It was your group that violated 1RR Nicoljaus (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess that's a no. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Nicoljaus. Thank you.

April 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring, and intent to game 1rr, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

In fact Selfstudier made revert instead of Zero0000, I talked about it. Anyway, okay. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

For history

I was looking for a Wikipedia account for Hiba Abu Nada to add it to Wikidata. I couldn't find it, so I did a little research. The reference in the article indicated that she participated in some WikiWrites(?) project. I didn’t find such a project, but I found the WikiRights project: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ويكيبيديا:ويكي_رايتس. It was organized by a certain Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. I read the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor article and didn't see any outside perspective, "controversy" or anything like that, just self-representation. I surfed the Internet and instantly found information that must be in the article to comply with the NPOV. I started adding [1], everything went well for two days. Then:

12:53, 23 April 2024 - Zero0000 made a complete cancellation of all additions [2]
13:14, 23 April 2024 - (20 minutes later!) Selfstudier wrote on my TP [3]
14:20 - 14:22, 23 April 2024 -‎ With two edits (first, second) I partially took into account the comment of Zero0000 about "ethnic marking", but returned the last [4].
14:27, 23 April 2024 (7 minutes later!!) Selfstudier makes a second complete cancellation of all my edits, blaming POV editing [5]
14:45, 23 April 2024‎ - I’m returning the version where I partially took into account Zero0000’s comments (removed "ethnic marking")[6]
15:10, 23 April 2024 - Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit User talk:Nicoljaus#1RR_breach
15:41, 23 April 2024 Selfstudier writes on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement [7]
16:10, 23 April 2024 (30 minutes later!) ScottishFinnishRadish issues an indefinite block [8]. No opportunity to write my “statement”, as well as an extremely bad faith interpretation of my remark as "an intent to game 1rr".
16:15, 23 April 2024 - Whitewashing completed [9]

Ramy Abdu, 8 October 2023: "Successive generations will remember you, and history will immortalize you as heroic knights who created for us pure glory, not stained with mud". [10]

Nicoljaus (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. The circumstances of my blocking are set out here: User talk:Nicoljaus#For history. Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way. Nicoljaus (talk) 9:47 am, 1 December 2024, Sunday (18 days ago) (UTC−9)

Decline reason:

There was a rough consensus at AE to decline your appeal --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:57, 1 January 2025 (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.

Courtesy ping @ScottishFinnishRadish:.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

They have a long history of edit warring, so I'd like to see that addressed rather than blaming others. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The edit war here was only on Self and Zero's side, as shown above. I was punished again for something that happened a few years ago, right? Nicoljaus (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Make the "history of edit warring" clean, again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Selfstudier Nicoljaus (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Barkeep49: in your Evidence you said: Below is a list of every AE report closed in 2024 ([11]). But you missed the report filed by Selfstudier, in your table (2nd part) it should be right between Kashmiri and Crampcomes. Here is it: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331#Nicoljaus--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: Would you please provide the exact text you want copied over? Even if this were to be granted, it's a bit hard to tell what should be copied over. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Do you mean provide the exact text of the appeal so that you can copy it to the noticeboard? (sorry, I don't remember this procedure well)? I think this text can be used:

• The circumstances of my blocking are set out here: User talk:Nicoljaus#For history. Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way.

It is also possible to simply provide the full text from the link (just remove the last part, as it seems redundant). Then it would look like this:

"The circumstances of my blocking were:

I was looking for a Wikipedia account for Hiba Abu Nada to add it to Wikidata. I couldn't find it, so I did a little research. The reference in the article indicated that she participated in some WikiWrites(?) project. I didn’t find such a project, but I found the WikiRights project: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ويكيبيديا:ويكي_رايتس. It was organized by a certain Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. I read the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor article and didn't see any outside perspective, "controversy" or anything like that, just self-representation. I surfed the Internet and instantly found information that must be in the article to comply with the NPOV. I started adding [12], everything went well for two days. Then:

12:53, 23 April 2024 - Zero0000 made a complete cancellation of all additions [13]

13:14, 23 April 2024 - (20 minutes later!) Selfstudier wrote on my TP [14]

14:20 - 14:22, 23 April 2024 -‎ With two edits (first, second) I partially took into account the comment of Zero0000 about "ethnic marking", but returned the last [15].

14:27, 23 April 2024 (7 minutes later!!) Selfstudier makes a second complete cancellation of all my edits, blaming POV editing [16]

14:45, 23 April 2024‎ - I’m returning the version where I partially took into account Zero0000’s comments (removed "ethnic marking")[17]

15:10, 23 April 2024 - Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit User talk:Nicoljaus#1RR_breach

15:41, 23 April 2024 Selfstudier writes on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement [18]

16:10, 23 April 2024 (30 minutes later!) ScottishFinnishRadish issues an indefinite block [19]. No opportunity to write my “statement”, as well as an extremely bad faith interpretation of my remark as "an intent to game 1rr".

Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way". Nicoljaus (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You also need to decide between WP:AN, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors, or WP:AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators. The appeal can be made at either venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, let it be WP:AE. Nicoljaus (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Posted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: - You mean, I need to discuss my previous edit war blocks? Well, the last one was almost four years ago and that time I simply forgot that I was under 1RR (there was a big break in editing) and tried to get sources for a newly added map, and the opponent refused to do so [20]. As it turned out later, the true source was a book by a fringe author, which the RSN called "Usual nationalistic bullshit, no sign of reliability"[21]. Yes, it was a stupid forgetfulness on my part. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I said They have a long history of edit warring, so I'd like to see that addressed rather than blaming others above, twelve days ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Well... okay. Just not getting it because I'm not being consulted in Collaboration channel, meh. Nicoljaus (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them) -- That's why I wrote that my "so problematic edits" attracted attention only after two days, but two users appeared within 20 minutes. However, after months, a lot of data about the cooperation of these users appeared (and this is not my imagination): "While a single editor, Shane (a newbie), advocated for its inclusion, a trio of veterans including Zero0000, Nishidani and Selfstudier fought back. After Selfstudier accused Shane of being a troll for arguing for the photo’s inclusion, Zero0000, days later, “objected” to its inclusion, citing issues of provenance. Nishidani stepped in to back up Zero0000, prompting a response by Shane. The following day, Zero0000 pushed back against Shane, who responded. The day after, Nishidani returned with his own pushback. The tag-team effort proved too much for Shane, who simply gave up, and the effort succeeded: the photo remains absent" [22]. I'll add that after Selfstudier accused Shane of trolling, Zero0000 appeared on Shane's page and said: "Kindly keep your insults to yourself [...] I won't hesitate to propose you for blocking if you keep it up" [23]. <deleted>--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) upd: --16:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Hello, thank you very much for transferring my remarks, now I understand how it works. I would like to clarify the issue of meatpuppetry. You directly accused me of such intentions in justifying the block, and now this accusation has been repeated [24]. Let's figure out whether my hint that Selfstudier and Zero0000 are working too closely was so absurd? Was it really and remains so absurd that it could not be perceived as anything other than my self-exposure? I don't think so.
As for the "edit war" - I understand that edit wars are evil. In the spirit of cooperation, I tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule - I will of course avoid it in the future.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Hello, I understand your point that edit wars can be disruptive, particularly in a CTOP context. However, I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting.
Furthermore, I acknowledge your reference to the 1RR/3RR rule and my history of blocks for edit-warring. However, given the amount of time that has passed, I believe I have gained valuable insights and learned a great deal. Moreover, given this topic, I think I actually learned something unlike the other side, whose history of blocks for edit-warring remains clean.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: In response to this, I can say that I already know very well how carelessly admins impose blocks. If any further statements are needed from me, just ping me. With best regards.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize, Valereee, just once more time. When you say something like "you keep digging the hole deeper" - I’m sure that doesn’t help to convince other admins at all. It creates the impression that the guy was writing something like, "I was right, and since being right is everything, I will continue doing what I was doing!" when in fact he was writing something opposite, like: "I will of course avoid this in the future since I have gained valuable insights". With best regards.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking me to post that? If not:

I’m sure that doesn’t help to convince other admins at all. Then flippin' at least meet me halfway, Nicoljaus. I could not without looking like a fool or an incompetent post a recommendation that you be unblocked without acknowledging the fact that you seem to be doing your level best to make certain no one's first instinct will be, "Yeah, they seem to now understand the problem, let's unblock". You have continued in your responses to focus on what you see as other editors doing wrong also and admins who 'carelessly impose blocks' rather than en masse administering blocking policy in exactly the same manner every single time but who also won't change how they administer it to consider your intent when doing so would benefit you.

Throughout this I've been giving you advice on how to approach the appeal to make its success more likely, most of which you ignored or dismissed. And, oh, btw, I did support your appeal. And now you're complaining about my lack of enthusiasm. Valereee (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you don’t need to post; I’m actually embarrassed to trouble you. I’m not talking about a lack of enthusiasm; I don’t understand what the benefit is of talking about "digging the hole deeper". You wrote smthg like "no one will look into it"' and I replied, "oh yes, I'm aware," and that’s all. And what do I need to do to dig myself out of this? The justification for the block included "edit warring" and "a threat to game 1RR via meatpuppetry". Regarding the first one, I have nothing to add: "I will certainly avoid this in the future" since no intentions behind the revert are taken into account, as I was told. Now do I need to confess my intention to use meatpuppetry? --Nicoljaus (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

What I wrote was that, after having confirmed that edit warring occurred, admins at ANEW may use discretion or may go straight to a block. Some will try to consider the situation, but they are in no way required to, and editors definitely should not expect them to.

But in this case it looks pretty open and shut. You're arguing that you were trying to partially address Zero's concern when you reverted them, but your edit summary was "Gaza-born" is not an etnicity. NGO monitor: "there wasn't quite enough support to deprecate". All links there there are verifiable. No censorship, please. That does not even slightly sound like trying to meet them halfway.

When you reverted SelfStudier, who in their edit summary asked you to take it to talk, you gave an edit summary of edit warring, canvassing,POV-pushing and whitewashing - is what you are doing here. Talk page discussion is welcomed. Again, not even slightly like meeting them halfway.

This is a CTOP. People have very little patience with disruptive editing.

What you need to do to dig yourself out from the edit warring is indicate:

1. You understand what you did was indeed edit warring. A defense that you were somehow actually in the right or others were also in the wrong or the admin didn't consider your intent is digging yourself in deeper because it's telling us you don't understand what you did was edit warring. This is hugely important; if you don't understand why that was edit-warring, you need to withdraw this appeal until you do understand.
2. You understand how to avoid doing it in future. This is why we need you to understand #1: Because if you don't really understand, how in the world can you possibly avoid doing it again? And believing you won't do it again is the minimum standard for lifting a block.
3. You intend to comply.

That's it.

The meatpuppetry...well, did you in fact intend to communicate that you were seriously planning to get friends to come make edits? Valereee (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That does not even slightly sound like trying to meet them halfway - In the description for the first revert, it was written: "delete ethnic marking and unreliable sources unwatch and ngo-monitor". I checked the RSN, which I mentioned in the description of my revert: "NGO monitor: "there wasn't quite enough support to deprecate"". "I also pointed out that there are direct links, and they were working (at least at that time) and confirmed what was written in the secondary sources. Then, in the next edit, I removed the mentioned "ethnic marking": [25]. This is what I call "meeting halfway". So it wasn't a complete revert of everything on my part (but I already realized that nobody cares).

did you in fact intend to communicate that you were seriously planning to get friends to come make edits? - Of course not! What a strange idea, anyway! Who would start writing about it if they truly had such thoughts?! Moreover, the context was perfectly clear – the 1RR had just been bypassed by the opponents.--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: meatpuppetry: Then you can just say that: it was a sarcastic remark.

Re: the rest: stop making these arguments. You literally are digging yourself deeper every time you do because it doesn't matter whether you then thought you were in the right, and repeating these arguments makes it seem like you still think you were in the right. You weren't in the right. You were incorrect about that. What matters is that you now understand you were in the wrong. Valereee (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm just wondering - did you initially understand what I meant when you wrote "That does not even slightly sound like trying to meet them halfway", or was there really some misunderstanding? Nicoljaus (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote:

But in this case it looks pretty open and shut. You're arguing that you were trying to partially address Zero's concern when you reverted them, but your edit summary was "Gaza-born" is not an etnicity. NGO monitor: "there wasn't quite enough support to deprecate". All links there there are verifiable. No censorship, please." That does not even slightly sound like trying to meet them halfway.

When you reverted SelfStudier, who in their edit summary asked you to take it to talk, you gave an edit summary of edit warring, canvassing,POV-pushing and whitewashing - is what you are doing here. Talk page discussion is welcomed. Again, not even slightly like meeting them halfway.

If you think I and everyone else has misunderstood something so crucially important but difficult to understand that it means you need to be unblocked immediately with apologies from all concerned, you'll have to explain in more detail. But unless that's the case, why? Why are you trying to convince a single admin who is already arguing you should be unblocked that she's wrong about something that isn't even important? WTF are you actually trying to do here? Prove you're right, or get unblocked? Because if it's prove you're right, you're on your own. Valereee (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I remember what you wrote. I was surprised that you didn't mention the very actions that I referred to as the "counter edit" and "meeting halfway", and I pointed out that these actions did take place, which seems important for my understanding of the situation. So, let me try again:

1. Yes, I have realized that my actions in the article were a violation of the 1RR. I will not do this anymore.

2. Yes, you see those actions that I meant by "meeting halfway".

3. No, these actions will not prevent a block in the future, and I fully "realize the problem".

4. It was not my intention to "threat to game 1RR via meatpuppetry", and I do not do that now, and will not do so in the future. Nicoljaus (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the very gift for the New Year! It's nice not to be disappointed in people.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)