User talk:NicolausPrime

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, NicolausPrime. Thank you for your work on Death of Igor Stachowiak. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Why deletion?

Why did You delete the article Piotr Napierała a known polish historian without any discussion? TAlbinoni (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There was an AfD discussion. The deletion was a realization of its outcome, performed by an admin, not by me. NicolausPrime (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

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.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Time to close?

Hi Nicolaus, I would have no objections to closing the discussion about your proposal to have me topic banned. If you concur, just go ahead and put in a WP:Closure request. You can refer to this message if it helps. Cheers, Thomas B (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

As you requested, I've submitted a closure request at WP:CR.

I wish you best luck with future edits. Happy Easter! NicolausPrime (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and likewise. Thomas B (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi again Nicolaus, It looks like ANI/CR is very busy. What would you say to me accepting a voluntary one-month (all of April) topic ban? That will give you and the others time to get the article into the shape you envision. Maybe I just raised the issue at BLPN too soon? Thomas B (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

PS. The way I see this working is that you would then be able to close the ANI thread as moot and I would close the BLPN thread. That would save the administrators a lot of time, since they could then just archive the threads without having to close them. Whatever issues remain in May, I think we'll be able to resolve them more constructively, i.e., with less disuption to the community. What do you say? Thomas B (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Any changes that were supposed to be made to this article as an outcome of the recent discussions have been done already. The goal of the topic-ban is to prevent you from continuing to relitigate this. A one-month topic ban is not enough for this purpose.

What you can do to improve the situation is to wait at least six months, but better more, while constructively editing other articles on Wikipedia. Afterwards, if you succeed in convincing others that you understand why and how what you were doing was wrong and that you won't be repeating it, you will have a fair chance to have your sanction narrowed or even lifted.

You need to move on. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have closed the BLPN thread as a sign of good faith.[1] You seem intent on making administrators do the work of officially sanctioning me. I'm sorry to hear that, but it is your prerogative. As is my right to appeal. Again, more work. I still say it would have been better just to ignore my BLPN thread. Cheers, Thomas B (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The sanction is necessary because you've previously said a few times that you're going to cease or reduce involvement, but failed to follow through. At this point it's not possible for me to believe that you won't re-relitigate this in the near time and thus force us to address your actions yet again. Our capability for attention is limited, and an indefinite topic ban is the right solution to preserve it.

I hope you don't think we're doing this because we hold a grudge against you. Though we could, as you've been demanding a lot from our attention spans. I wish you (and WCM) well, and I'm pretty sure others do too. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I would hardly call it re-litigating, since I haven't pursued litigation in the first place. That's something you have done by proposing blocks and bans. I have merely discussed the edits that have been proposed in various relevant forums. It is you who have demanded a lot of attention from the community.

I don't care whether it's a "grudge"; you have definitely reached a judgment about what sort of person I am. My interest is only in the quality and fairness of the Tim Hunt article. (It's one of the few reasons I've been editing at all these past few years.) This last round, as I have explained, has revealed a change in the culture at WP. I honestly did not expect your ANI strategy to work. I thought it would be summarily dismissed and we would be encouraged to pursue the traditional DR process for much longer. But suddenly I was blocked. It felt very strange, but that is how things appear to work now.

Also, I did not expect Loki's suggestion to be promoted as a "consensus" so quickly. I thought my arguments were sound and Loki's suggestion was somewhat inchoate. The discussion -- occasioned by my objections -- vastly improved the proposed change, including finding some good scholarly sources. (Puzzlingly, those sources have not made into the current version.) I thought, in accordance with BLP, that the process would remain on the talk page (where I was actively contributing) until a consensus was reached. By "consensus", I meant a version that I could consent to. (The article did change a little over those few days and I agreed to those changes.) Since this is the reputation of a real person we risked tarnishing, caution appeared in order. I still don't see the rush.

Finally, I think the current "consensus" is to ignore S Marshall's guidance about expanding the rest of the article. If I were allowed to work on the article, I would follow it; i.e., I would accept that the consensus is to have a detailed description of the controversy (though I would tell the story somewhat differently, if I could convince others) but that this requires that we expand the rest of the article, especially information about his service to science outside the lab (as a policy person and public speaker). I have lots to contribute there.

Obvioulsy, this note to you is just a preview of my appeal to WP:UNBAN, should that become necessary. And, with that, my offer to take a voluntary one-month topic-ban is withdrawn. Be well. Thomas B (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, not sure if Bbb23 is going to take that one. Consider opening the SPI again with the evidence presented as it stands now? Zenomonoz (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd be eager to pursue this, but I'm worried that SPI may fail again. I don't know how high is the bar for circumstantial evidence. NicolausPrime (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)