User talk:Monsieur Patillo

January 2017

Your recent editing history at Ottoman Algeria shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Doug Weller:.

Sorry for editing, but Surena20 is a vandale known in french Wikipedia [1]. The version who he wants to impose is note based on references specialised on the topic. So i think you have to tell Surena20 that he have to go on the talk page to explain what is the arguments for his edit. Best regards, Kabyle20 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2017 (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. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

	You are invited to participate in WikiProject Berbers, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Berbers.
	You may sign up at the project members page.

-Aṭlas (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Algero-sharifian conflicts

Hello, Kabyle20. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Algero-sharifian conflicts".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :)

Hi, I like the map that you made for the Hammadids, as it is currently in use on the English page would you be able to modify it to represent the territories they held more accurately per supported sources as they held much more than what is shown on the map please? During the reign of al-Nasir the Hammadids held Tunis, Gabes, Gafsa, all of Tunisia until Sfax and Susa and also Tripoli. Also al-Nasir penetrated deep into the Sahara and held Ouargla could you please modify the map to compliment the sources more accurately and highlight them in green rather than the dotted lines as it was indeed all held during al-Nasirs reign, also the same for Tlemcen as the Hammadids never lost it until the Almoravid invasion. The Zenata Maghrawa state also ruled the entirety of the sous and Draa. If you need any more sources let me know. Thanks :)

• “At one point during their reign they also had possession of Sijilmasa as well as a number of oases south of Tunisia which were the termini of trans-Saharan routes.^[1]”

• “al-Nasir succeeded in expanding the Hammadids' domain over the Tunisian coast (including the cities Sfax and Susa) as far as Tripoli, then penetrated into the Sahara”

• “al-Nasir pushed eastward and established influence on the coast from Sfax over Susa to Tripoli and advanced southward far into the Sahara”

• “La ville de Tunis, devenue très florissante, en raison de la masse d'émigrés qu'elle avait recueillis, imita cet exemple. Elle envoya à En-Nacer une députation chargée de lui offrir sa soumission. Le prince hammadite accueillit avec empressement l'hommage des gens de Tunis, et leur donna,pour gouverneur, un sanhadjien nommé Abd-el-Hak-ben-Khoraçan, qui devait être le chef d'une nouvelle principauté.”

Kabz15 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Lewis, A.R. (1988). Nomads and Crusaders, A.D. 1000-1368. A Midland Book. Indiana University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-253-20652-7. Retrieved 15 July 2021.

Concern regarding Draft:Muʿminid dynasty

Hello, Monsieur Patillo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Muʿminid dynasty, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Algeria. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Algeria. Skitash (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, The source is very clear: it indicates Arab-Amazigh 99%, European less than 1% My modification is therefore faithful to the source. It is you who are basing yourself on the note to mislead and make people believe that 85% of Algerians have Arab origins, which the source does not indicate in any way, it just says that a minority identifies as such (this is therefore a feeling: "only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15%"). Second, you remove an academic source that provides genetic data on the issue because it does not support your point of view (which is based on a falsification of the first source). Please do not appropriate the article. [https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/algeria/#people-and-society] Monsieur Patillo (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider reading the source again. It says that only 15% identify as Berber, while the demographics section in the article goes into further detail and supports the 85% Arab and 15% Berber figures. Furthermore, genetics are different from ethnic identity and do not belong in the infobox. The source you added pertains to the genetics of the entire Maghreb and not specifically Algeria, so that constitutes source misinterpretation on your end. Skitash (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please be specific and say which quote you are referring to in the CIA Factbook? Why not use the precise terms of the source "Arab-Amazigh 99%, European less than 1%"? Why cobble together a new synthesis based on felt identity (and therefore not a tangible fact)? We don't even know those who are outside the 15%? Are these Arabs? Europeans? Arab-Amazigh? You assume they are Arabs without formal proof.

2) The source Dmoh Bacha cites "Bekada, 2013" which is a genetic study on Algeria and not on the Maghreb. The source cited is "Introducing the Algerian Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosome Profiles into the North African Landscape". the genetic study of populations is part of ethnicity, at least it is one aspect of it. Unlike the note that you interpret in a new way, here these are intangible numbers. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All this tells me is that you haven't bothered reviewing the talk page and all the established consensuses and edit requests there. You also failed to read the demographics section in the Algeria article which provides several sources confirming that Arabs constitute 85% of the population while Berbers form 15%. The genetic data you're so keen to add to the infobox is irrelevant and has nothing to do with ethnic identity. Skitash (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already taken knowledge of the different sources. But the infobox highlighted a single source (CIA Factbook). Moreover, now that you highlight the demographic section, it calls for several remarks. Your approach is contrary to WP:NPOV: *

I - Section demography :

1) Encyclopedia Britanica notes that "'''More than three-fourths of the country is ethnically Arab, though most Algerians are descendants of ancient Amazigh groups who mixed with various invading peoples from the Arab Middle East, southern Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa. Arab invasions in the 8th and 11th centuries brought only limited numbers of new people to the region but resulted in the extensive Arabization and Islamization of the indigenous Amazigh population'''". The mentions in bold on the origin of the population which is Amazigh are deliberately not included in the article.

2) you only keep the mentions which arrange Arabization. Some turns of phrase are misleading (example: "Arabs and indigenous Berbers") while Britanica explains that what is perceived as Arab are in fact Arabized Berbers (and therefore not two different categories)

3)Then you claim that genetics has nothing to do with ethnicity.

a- This argument is purely opportunistic on your part, reference n°217: A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa, is precisely an article which deals with genetics and which is used to justify the 85%/15%. .. (by the way this is a misappropriation of the source)

b - You add a personal opinion that genetics has no place in the study of the ethnicity of a population. Except the article by Bekada (2013) demonstrates the opposite: the term ethnicity is used from the first line, terms like "

markers E-V65, E-M81 and J1-M267 confirm the geographic and ethnic identity of Algeria... .

". Genetics provides a point of view on ethnology (which is certainly not absolute but which is a fact). Dmoh Bacha talks to him about ethnic ancestry based on genetic studies. So the sources do use genetics to have elements to say about ethnicity and the study of the population.

II - Infobox

1) Please explain why the mention put forward by the CIA factbook ("

Arab-Amazigh 99%, European less than 1%") is ignored?

2) Why write an unpublished work of 15% Berber feeling (without specifying that it is about resentment) and claim that the other 85% are necessarily "Arabs"? On what basis? Are there also Europeans? It is in reality an unprecedented task to consider that there are necessarily 85% Arabs. Otherwise please provide the opposite mention? I already asked you for the quote, you ignored my request because it is not listed anywhere.

Temporary proposal = At a minimum we must start by adding mentions of the massive Arabization of the indigenous Berbers and the fact that the majority of the indigenous people are of Berber origin in the demographic section (Britanica: "Arab invasions in the 8th and 11th centuries brought only limited numbers of new people to the region but resulted in the extensive Arabization and Islamization of the indigenous Amazigh population"; CIA Factbook "although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab,").

Monsieur Patillo (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:Algeria, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Algeria shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skitash (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

skitash, as a bystander to all of this, this current behavior is unbecoming and frankly a little xenophobic 71.237.181.220 (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but, I didn't understand who/what is xenophobic? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i was looking at the talk page and edit history on Algeria and it appears that many people, some of whom are actually from Algeria, are being strong armed by editors who put strictly conforming to every template policy over actually putting together a good encyclopedia page. in this context i was calling the editing behavior of the other users (not you) xenophobic, which in this context means they're being hostile to another culture or ethnic group, intentionally or otherwise 71.237.181.220 (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best is to express your opinion directly in the Algeria discussion page to say which changes you agree with (or not). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

You can join the dispute resolution at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - Wikipedia concerning ethnic groups in algeria as one of the concerned parties from an earlier edit on the issue Potymkin (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Join dispute resolution for algeria ethnic groups

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Potymkin (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you can join the Dispute resolution for ethnicities in Algeria in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - Wikipedia for your contributions on 10:26, 15 August 2024‎ . Don't hesitate to let your viewpoint be heard Potymkin (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria and Amazigh

Hi, i opened a dispute resolution about the Amazight language use on wikipedia for algerian institution names.

I hope you can contribute with your opinion: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Algeria Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Algeria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Algeria. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You are appropriating the Wikipedia article and preventing any improvement of the article. The improvements were planned during our previous discussion. Indeed the details were reserved for the section (and not the infobox). Now you are blocking it on an unpublished work. So I will have to start a discussion again on the talk page because you are not reasonable in your way of interacting with other contributors and preventing them from contributing. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	You are invited to participate in WikiProject Berbers, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Berbers.
	You may sign up at the project members page.

TahaKahi (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Skitash (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia as a battleground by persistently unnecessarily personalizing content disputes.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't understand the blocking decision. The administrator ToBeFree decided to block it indefinitely, without a contradictory version and on eccentric grounds: for example in the qasahbia talk page a sentence like @SkitashCan you explain your revert and the restoration of source misappropriation. In particular to bring evidence/citations on the restoration of the Arab origin when reference n°2 makes no mention of it? is classified under the "personal attack" tag even though it does not contain any... or a personalization of the dispute ? This decision aims to eliminate any editorial contradiction. I am even prepared to submit to arbitration if necessary. I have labeled several articles and I am not a WP:BATTLEGROUND or a solo-topic contributor, these accusations are unfounded and they were first rejected in an incident ticket where it was stated that the difference with Skitash is purely editorial and not behavioral. This indefinite blocking without prior temporary blocking is inexplicable by its severity (for a simple presumption of personal attack it is unheard of) and especially after 10 years of encyclopedic contribution.

So I ask that other administrators look into this decision, especially since a DRN is in progress.

Decline reason:

There is no requirement for a block with an end date before a block without an end date; it depends on the situation. Indefinite does not mean forever, it means "until the user convinces an admin to remove the block". This request doesn't do it for me. I think you will need to agree to find other topics to edit about, ones in which you are less personally invested(to the point where you are making disputes personal). I'll leave it to the next admin if they feel that should be a formal topic ban or something less formal. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2024 (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 request has already been filed by Skitash on the admin noticeboard, it was concluded that there was not really a behavior problem but an editorial difference. The blockage is therefore a denial of the first administrative request which had prompted the resolution of the editorial dispute (which I did via DRN which Skitash carefully avoided). I have initiated a request for a DRN to resolve this difference. and I have always favored the talk page over direct editing, I have not violated any 3RR. Can someone give me an example of editorial "battlefields"?

On the qashabiya article, the simple fact of asking Skitash for sources was put under WP:NPA tag by him. He himself violated the 3RR, not me, and he validated a misappropriation of sources. I did not even force it into the editorial space.

Yesterday for the same reasons during the night, with the same diff as what was rejected in the first request to the administrators [2] it is back to filing a second request on a fallacious ground of vandalism? Tell me on which article I carried out "vandalism", I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2008, if I were a Vandal it would be known ... Skitash continues to eliminate others editorial opponents under the same motive here: [3].

The speed with which the administrator blocked me, without hearing my version and without looking into the subject is unusual, and the severity of the sanction even more so.... without proof that especially since the first noticeboard incident which had concluded with an editorial disagreement I have taken care to avoid what I am accused of and there has been no proof since then of 1) personal attack (even more so since the noticeboard incident, I am very careful not to talk about the person but about his contributions) [4] [5] 2) or battlefield because I have always engaged in discussion on the talk page to collect his opinions and sources 3) ignoring my desire to resolve the different in DRN or in talk, I am not factually someone who pushes through ... even though Skitash has maintained blatant misappropriation of sources I have always been patient on the talk page.

I therefore ask that I be given concrete elements of the accusations and what I should have done in this case because I have tried everything (even a DRN to find common ground).

that if there is a sanction it be proportionate to my seniority (2008, and 2014 on wp:en) which invalidates the accusation of vandal "with a single topic"
to realize that the request and this hasty sanction which aims to favor Skitash editorially by eliminating any contradictor is therefore canceled or modified. I also ask to be subject to a dispute resolution process. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend this as a unblock request, you need to format it as one, otherwise no one will see it. Sanctions are not based on "seniority", but on what is necessary to end and prevent disruption. If you feel admins aren't capable of reviewing this matter fairly, you can go to ArbCom. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is allowed to file a second request for unblocking with more clarification. This is indeed my wish, but I want to respect the rules and not saturate the administrators. I am not criticizing all the administrators, on the contrary, at the beginning they clearly detected the editorial and not behavioral nature. I did my best by filing a DRN request to be supported in the editorial resolution with Skitash in line with what had been said by the administrators.

But yesterday on a report of vandalism (unfounded accusation because I did not vandalize any page and remained on the talk page when my modifications were contested), only one administrator, ToBeFree, decided to block me indefinitely following a simple ticket and in the very short time when the report was processed, without taking into account the editorial elements, the fact that I did not vandalize and the context (request from the previous administrators to go through mediation). I don't know if I can request ArbCom as a blocked person, I'm not used to it. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once your request was declined, you may make another. You just have to leave the prior request in place.

You may communicate with ArbCom via email(see WP:ARBCOM. ArbCom should be your absolute last resort, though. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for informations. Best regards Monsieur Patillo (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Monsieur Patillo (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 appeal my blocking for several reasons:

procedural irregularity:

my blocking was decided unilaterally following a request for a ticket for vandalism in progress [6] (without any vandalism in progress) at 1h58. this request made the administrator ToBeFree to take charge of the request and bypass the requests to administrators in progress on the noticeboard. The AIV page is reserved for: "The edits of the user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam". (read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism) Hence the surprise of other administrators like Andrevan to have requested this kind of appeal [7]. The blocking was formulated on my page at 2:48 a.m., within a very short time frame that did not allow for an in-depth analysis of the editorial dispute, and without me being guilty of any forced entry or vandalism.

editorial :

While we have already conducted a DRN with Skitash and following a noticideboad incident ticket it was suggested by the administrator Liz to move to another DRN [8], which I tried [9]. In a very short time the AIV ticket was processed by ToBeFree after what he himself called "a quick isolated look at a specific user's" [10]. He could therefore have had no view of the context, nor justify a page where I would be actively involved in an alleged vandalism. Without having followed the advice of the other administrators who see an editorial difference [11], and without having therefore taken note of the case, ToBeFree decided on a unilateral and brutal block because it was indefinite.

While the mediation had concluded (9th statement) that "we agreed that the body of the article will contain both sources," [12], that faced with the refusal I initiated a discussion in Pdd in Algeria. This is the opposite of vandalism which was never my wish.

I therefore ask that my case without doing a personal attack (especially since the first incident report or vandalism). I request that a collegial review of my blocking with a view to cancelling this sanction be made by the administrators, taking into account my seniority (which invalidates the thesis of a single-subject vandalism), and my ability to discuss (attempted DRN and launching of the talk page by me while always respecting the 3RR). We must also be attentive to this kind of abusive procedure to silence an editorial contradiction: because a similar one was filed by the same applicant against TahaKahi [13]. Therefore, without real and serious reason, how can we demand an improvement in my behavior or make me believe that the blocking is not definitive when I have not committed any vandalism? I also request a measure that allows me to honor the DRN that I wanted to launch on the subject.

I therefore request:

to declare my appeal well-founded
to apply what had been decided in the previous incident tickets that what opposes me to Skitash is not behavioral but mainly editorial (to be resolved by editorial mediations)
to note that the accusation of Vandalism, or of edit war is null and void, contrary to my real and serious will to discuss on the basis of the sources.

If there is a mistake that I made I am open to correcting my way of doing things if I am informed of when I made a mistake. In other words from what moment can my search for discussion be perceived as an attack or vandalism ? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked per the discussion below and Special:Diff/1250882881. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Monsieur Patillo,

Regarding the procedural concerns (report made at AIV during an AN discussion, isolated look): This is not a court and the block is about your behavior, not others'.

Regarding your behavior: It's probably not vandalism, but it's disruptive. I've had a look at [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] and your list of contributions and came to the conclusion "using Wikipedia as a battleground by persistently unnecessarily personalizing content disputes".

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for providing the clarifications you deem necessary.

The problem is that most of the diffs you mention have already been examined in a request before the administrators, and it was then stated that the difference was mainly editorial and not behavioral [23]. Once again we are not in a court but I think that consistency is not reserved only for courts and that when your fellow administrators have noted an editorial difference it is curious that on the basis of an AIV report you take a fundamentally different view, for the reason "they usually describe actual disruption that someone is frustrated about and needs help with" [24]. By doing this, your decision to block me has compromised what had been agreed to return to DRN and that I had requested to comply with the administrators' recommendations [25].

Since 2014, I find it inconsistent to have to be blocked indefinitely because I would have become a disruptive element.

The page Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, indicates that disruptive behavior only concerns the editorial space, so I do not understand why you cite talk pages.

It also states "Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research.". During my participation in the DRN, the talk page, and my request for a second DRN, I precisely avoided doing 3RR, I was careful to return to sources.

How is it disruptive to say that a contradictor practices cherry-picking [26], I am not talking about him (personal attack) but about his contribution. For example, you criticize me for citing my grievances about Skitash on the administrator page [27], but complaining about the attitude of a contributor is not disruptive behavior. I even asked Andrevan [28] if opening a section was necessary to not disrupt the administrator page. Resolved within the framework of DRN/RFC (no exceeding of 3RR and participation in mediations) so nothing disruptive: [29], you take as personal attacks the remarks of the DRN which were not noted as such by the mediator [30]

Since 2014, I have not only contributed on this subject, my interactions that you qualify as "persistently unnecessarily personalizing content dispute" are in a very restricted window of my contributions so blocking my entire account indefinitely is disproportionate. Especially since my requests for mediation are proof [31] that I do not want to get locked into a personal dispute with a particular person. I understand your concerns (being more diplomatic on the talk page, less insistent, etc.) and I am willing to give you satisfaction if you give me another chance to prove my good faith and change your decision. I am not a troll and on several Wikipedia projects I have even participated in tagging articles: Casbah of Algiers, Béjaïa, or Kingdom of Beni Abbes. I have even created articles on wp:en so I would like my work to be taken into account also in your decision to bring content to wp:en.

Thank you for your attention to my arguments,

Best regards Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI thread at your first link ([32]) was archived because it turned into a two-person discussion with walls of text. I won't let this here become another one. The idea that "disruptive behavior only concerns the editorial space" is absurd. [33] was unsuitable for a talk page; have you addressed this concern somewhere already? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The message left by Liz indicates that this is a dispute that probably needs to go through another DRN [34]. I assure you that I do not want to make a text wall, but try to understand my difficult position too. Also I try to explain as best I can with my English which is not perfect

I am sorry for [35] but I reacted to the message that I myself found virulent. But if we consider this clumsy message, that I should not have written in this way, is the sanction not too severe?

I looked for a way of mediation [36] (which had been suggested by Liz). My request followed the first DRN: which had resulted in an RfC and had ruled that for the body of the text it was necessary to include both types of sources : "genetic"/"ancestry" vs "feeling of ethnicities" (9th statement) [37] and for a "neutral" infobox (option that I also defended contrary to my opponents for information). As in the editorial space my additions were refused I opened another section and then requested another DRN.

I really ask you to review the sanction because the goal is not to disorganize wp:en and I think I do not enter into the framework of WP:POINT. I commit to also be much more polite on the talk page. I understand that I may not have given a good image with certain excessive formulas but since 2014 if I were a disorganizer I think it would be known.

Best regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You became active in August 2024 after years of inactivity, so I'd like to ignore the account age argument. Regarding the linked message, thanks for addressing this. The next one in the list was [38], which you describe as "not disruptive behavior" while it fails to focus on content. The following sentences are unhelpful in an article discussion:

"Skitash practiced cherry-picking."
"It is regrettable that Skitach, having nothing to offer, started to pick up this kind of source."
"Skitash removed the mention of Berber under the pretext of WP:OR"
"he tried to catch up with a late poor quality cherry-picking"

Yes, this is disruptive. As is "you are not chief lawyer" and accusing others of pushing a point of view.

If you were unblocked, what would you do next? Can you disengage from this dispute, and how? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1st and 2nd sentence) I'm sorry but the term cherry-picking(fr) didn't seem offensive to me (it is used in French quite commonly as a loan from English). I simply wanted to describe the idea that we had an editorial disagreement with Skitash on the origin of the clothing. From the beginning it is claimed that the sources are already in the article [39], but in the end we are answered on the talk page with these sources that were not in the article but added late (without looking at their reliability in my opinion) [40]. My goal was not to attack him personally.

(3rd sentence) "Skitash removed the mention of Berber under the pretext of WP:OR": I wanted to cite a fact: his comment from prev: [41]

(4th sentence) "he tried to catch up with a late poor quality cherry-picking" also insists on cherry-picking, but the formula is really excessive indeed I agree.

The formula "chief lawyer", did not describe the role on Wikipedia, but the interpretation of the Algerian constitution. It is indeed an unnecessarily abrupt turn of phrase, I apologized to Mr. Bitton [42].

If I am unblocked, I think it is better to let one person (mediator) lead these pages. I think I may have gotten too involved, but I would respond if I was asked for my opinion in a dialogue. Otherwise I think I would be more useful transcribing labeled French content on articles here.

I understood that beyond the method, the form (no offensive messages) is also decisive. I did not want to attack my interlocutors, I will avoid any form of irony in the future. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Cherry-picking is a behavior, doing something under a "pretext" is a behavior; focusing on behavior in an article discussion is usually unhelpful because it distracts from the content a consensus needs to be found about.

In response to [43], an acceptable talk page response would have been "the content removed in Special:Diff/1198270860 is verifiable and directly supported by the sources [1] and [2]". There is no need to mention a username at all, and the easiest way to disprove a claim of original research is to provide reliable sources directly supporting the content.

I do think that you've gotten too involved in that dispute and that especially your interactions with Skitash had become a problem before the block. If you agree to stay away from this and find something else to contribute about, such as transcribing French content in articles unrelated to this dispute, I'll unblock. "Indefinite" is neither meant to be a punishment nor brutal; all I wanted to make sure is that instead of waiting until the block expires, we can reach an agreement that something needs to change.

There are many, many eyes on WP:AN and Skitash's behavior. There are not enough eyes on most of the articles. Your contributions to these articles would be welcome, and others will deal with the mess at WP:AN. Is this okay? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I should explicitly note that you are not required to agree to this especially if you believe the block itself is unjust enough to be overturned by an independent reviewer. As the blocking administrator, I can not decline, only accept your unblock request. If we disagree, someone else will decide, and it is perfectly fine for you to request this.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first points about the wording. Indeed I think I may have gotten carried away in my wording and will be careful not to cite another contributor in my answers in the future (which will avoid a good part of the problem).

I understand your approach, I apologize if the words on the sanction were inappropriate with regard to your will. If it is necessary to stay away from the articles I can accept it, but will an impartial mediation be conducted to bring the discussions to a conclusion or will the articles be left as they are? In both cases I think that a form of detachment on my part is inevitable because it will necessarily recall the problems that I have just had on the talk page. I just hope to still have the right to give my opinion or participate in RfCs if they take place on these articles. I am not trying to pass my request to another administrator, I respect your approach. Thank you and have a good evening. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have unblocked you without formal restrictions. You can provide your opinion and participate in RfCs. I have no answer to the mediation question. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your understanding.

Best regards Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Extreme Maghreb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Left.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Lewis, A.R. (1988). Nomads and Crusaders, A.D. 1000-1368. A Midland Book. Indiana University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-253-20652-7. Retrieved 15 July 2021.

[1]