User talk:Galehautt

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. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaged in an edit war. You are also Jewish. I am Polish. I am accusing you formally of anti-Polonism right now (see: Gross wiki page Controversies section). There is no BLP violation. Piss off. Galehautt (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:17, 24 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Writing "piss off" at my own talk page is not a personal attack. Compare IceWhiz and his harassment campaigns against users like me. I have not done anything wrong on the Stalin page and racked up enough support on the Talk page to carry out at least the minimal edit that I applied which just fixes the flow of the first paragraph and deletes the euphemistic formatting of the hyperlink to the

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Mellk is engaging in an edit war to whitewash Stalin contrary to the wishes of users on the talk page. I am being harassed and just defending myself. Galehautt (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

Your conduct, both in personal attacks, and on articles and Talk pages, is unacceptable. Whether you were harassed by IceWhiz or not is irrelevant, but you are not being harassed here. It is you who is doing the harassing. Be careful: if you make another unblock request or continue to make comments on this Talk page that accept zero responsibility for your actions. If you persist, you may have Talk page access revoked. Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 24 July 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.

"Piss off" may not be, but accusations of anti-Polonism, Stalinism, and harassment campaigns are personal attacks. You might have a point about the content, but it is your conduct--in particular your

WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality--that has you blocked. Unless you address that conduct and explain what you will do different and better in the future, it is unlikely you will be unblocked. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

What am I supposed to do when the Talk page on Joseph Stalin has been open for the whole past month and already 2 users Support the point (and my edit isn't even as far-going as the one Supported in Talk, it's just Wikipedian formatting cosmetics) and it's just getting repeatedly rolled back by one and the same user? There's also a topic started by another user with I think all users agreeing that the current pic of Stalin in the article is presenting him as a "folksy" type and cultivating the cult of personality rather than showing him as the war criminal he was. Someone has been behind this, I don't know who. But Mellk has been adamantly forcing through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact -> (generic) non-aggression pact euphemism. This is actual propaganda revisionism of the Russian state today. Hence my accusation (not a personal attack). As for anti-Polonism accusation, this is not a personal attack, it is an accusation like antisemitism and Wikipedia has hosted

Anti-Polonism accusations since its creation. Furthermore, what concerns that case aren't even edits, just my questions on the Talk page (!) that keep getting deleted and silenced. This is absurd. I have not met with such absurd and arbitrary behavior on Wikipedia ever. I am blameless here, everything I do is good faith and not trying to attack. Merely defend against the silencing campaign targeting me and not attacking but accusing, which I am allowed to. Galehautt (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Bbb23 Just asking a question here, not forwarding a discussion about my blame: what precise counter-arguments are you using/what precise rationale are you following in your decision to decline my unblock request considering the lengthy statement presented by me above? I just want to know, I am trying to follow good faith and want to know how to be the best version of myself and a good Wikipedian, please help a brother out! Galehautt (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Jonathan Swift's Thoughts on Religion? I read your u/p and a certain line might be of interest to you: Violent zeal for truth hath an hundred to one odds to be either petulancy, ambition, or pride. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a violent zeal. I am a skeptic. I do acknowledge things like objective truth and objective reality though. I am also a fan of objective morality but that's a murkier subject, I know. That's all. Truth exists. Philosophically, I subscribe to Plato. Have you read the Republic? Galehautt (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hazard a guess that doing the opposite of

WP:GAB has something to do with it. Jay D. Easy (t) 22:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I’m not exactly sure what happened since I haven’t read through the whole thing on the Stalin talkpage & I’m just browsing as a bystander, but from what you say here, “What am I supposed to do when the Talk page on Joseph Stalin has been open for the whole past month and already 2 users Support the point (and my edit isn't even as far-going as the one Supported in Talk, it's just Wikipedian formatting cosmetics) and it's just getting repeatedly rolled back by one and the same user?”, I think a course of option would be to create a

WP:RFC or to report their behavior if you found it rule breaking. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 08:06, 25 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I acknowledge the certain excesses mentioned and apologize for them at the same time standing by my edits and highlighting the support I have on the Talk page for more severe edits than the one I applied. I promise to be a fully exemplary Wikipedian from now on and expect the same of others while requesting a lifting or at least reducing of this severe punishment I have received. Thank you. Galehautt (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Galehautt (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blocks are not intended as a punishment, but are a means to prevent and stop disruptive actions. We don't need you to be a "fully exemplary Wikipedian", we just need you to stop the personal attacks. This request doesn't convince me that will happen. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 25 July 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 accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I called the indefinite block a severe punishment, nothing less, because a temporary block would act in my view most justly as a means to prevent and stop my disruptive actions, and let it be known that there is no disagreement between me and the administration and I trust your (the administration's) judgment fully. And yes, *by fully exemplary I mean one who stops the personal attacks.* I apologize for any past personal attacks carried out by me. With the misunderstandings cleared, the rest of my message is as in the last one and I beg for mercy. Galehautt (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

OK. I'll assume good faith and unblock. Of course we'll be noticing if any of the nastiness resumes. Attack ideas all you want; don't attack other Wikipedia volunteers. ("Piss off" isn't what got you blocked, by the way.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you weren't blocked for "piss off". You were blocked for comments like this. I said "don't attack other Wikipedia volunteers", and I meant it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks toward what users? Beg your pardon? You told me to attack ideas. I request a return to the previous stage. I'm a man of my word. Galehautt (talk) 18:17, 26 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

What personal attacks toward what users? Beg your pardon? You told me to attack ideas. I request a return to the previous stage. I'm a man of my word. Galehautt (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Calling people names is not acceptable. You've been given several chances now, but if you can't work with other people without resorting to name-calling (e.g. fanboys, tankies) then this isn't the project for you. – bradv 04:09, 27 July 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.

Galehautt (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't think that calling other volunteers as "Stalin fanboys" constitutes a personal attack, then there's really nothing else we can do. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't that attacking ideas? Personal attacks by definition are... personal. Am I not allowed to say for example that Hitler fanboys are bad? Or is fanboying Stalin allowed? Weird double standards. Galehautt (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would think I would be allowed to be outraged that someone fanboys Stalin. Without even naming names, just the mere thought of it. Doesn't that outrage you? Galehautt (talk) 03:33, 27 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Which people am I calling names now, I'm confused? I criticized the idea of being a fanboy of a war criminal. And I noted that the article doesn't seem to garner interest of a diverse group of editors. Admin Jpgordon told me attack ideas all you want. I'm a man of my word, there is some confusion here. I received Jpgordon's word and keep mine... I sincerely, politely request unblocking as there does not seem to be grounds for my block. Galehautt (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am thinking that the only way out of this is for a topic ban from making edits related to Stalin; I hope a broader one is not needed. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 27 July 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.

Please place new posts at the bottom for proper discussion flow. The Reply function is not designed for making unblock requests(certain formatting issues are introduced like duplicating your signature), it would help if you opened the edit window directly. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 331dot, before Gordon's block, he posted screeds against multiple reputed Polish historians accusing them to be unreliable/biased because their ancestors had collaborated with Stalin. A Tban that goes "Stalin and broadly construed" is infeasible due to its sheer breadth and will lead to a lot of wikilawyering in edge cases. We have someone with a profound lack of situational awareness and that is not a good trait, independent and irrespective of the area they edit. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I did not mean to suggest that should be the only prerequisite, just that it should be part of it IMO. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I asked questions in the Talk pages of two articles. I thought that was allowed but apparently not. Once some nebulous RS Council that doesn't exist decides that something is RS, it cannot be questioned. Sure. Well I question them, and am allowed to do so, and you're not allowed to silence me. Galehautt (talk) 19:10, 27 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have still not received a reasonable explanation for my indefinite block. I did not personally attack anyone in particular. I followed Jpgordon's recommendation of attacking ideas to a T. I'm a fully exemplary Wikipedian now and request unblocking, no particular person can feel attacked. Galehautt (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's no chance unblock requests like this will succeed. Yamla (talk) 20:43, 27 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry. There must be some kind of inconsequence here. Either on my part or on part of the administration, some kind of goalpost-moving. I was blocked after I did personally call out the user Mellk. I was unblocked after a while for reasons visible above. Jpgordon told me to attack ideas, not people. I was unblocked and did not call out any single person since and have engaged in meritocratic arguments and nothing else. Unless a new explicit guideline is highlighted that I will have to stick to from now on, assuming everyone else does too, isn't my word that I shall keep to the guideline provided by Jpgordon enough? I request to be unblocked based on Jpgordon's guideline and my keeping with it, otherwise I request to be provided with a new guideline I will have to stick to to be unblocked and stay that way. Apologies for any misunderstanding that may have arised. Galehautt (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a feeble attempt at sophistic wikilawyering. Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 28 July 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.

There's no misunderstanding. As I said before: If you don't think that calling other volunteers as "Stalin fanboys" constitutes a personal attack, then there's really nothing else we can do. You don't have to say XXX is a Stalin fanboy; it suffices to say "the people who I disagree with are Stalin fanboys". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps time to revoke t/p access and shunt to

UTRS. I'm a fully exemplary Wikipedian now and request unblocking, no particular person can feel attacked is trolling. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't call other particular volunteers Stalin fanboys. I attacked the very idea of being a fanboy of Stalin and noted that it just appears that the article attracts mostly (notice this word, mostly) their attention and not a more diverse group's of editors. That is a valid remark and I don't know how you can claim otherwise, it's what Wikipedia needs, a diverse group of editors of different backgrounds. This is speech that is legal. Galehautt (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever heard a worse case of

WP:IDHT

. Talk page access revoked. Enough is enough.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]