User talk:Galehautt

January 2023

Hello, I'm Mellk. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Seven Sisters (Moscow), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Seven Sisters (Moscow). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Mellk (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Your recent editing history at Joseph Stalin 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. Mellk (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block

You have been blocked from editing List of European cities by population within city limits for a period of one week for edit warring. You cannot give up on the discussion but continue edit warring. Note that you are only restricted from the article itself — its talk page remains unrestricted, so you could still continue that discussion (@Talk:List of European cities by population within city limits#Bucharest population) at any time, if you so wish. If you wish to discuss this block further, please WP:PING me here, or reply at the ANI thread, just not my talk page, please. Thank you. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. El_C 06:40, 29 June 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'm sorry, but the only one edit warring is FromCzech. I edited the page and added an adequate citation, and he engaged in nonsensical arbitrary arguments to revert sensible changes. The only one who should be p-blocked is him. The data is not obsolete, it was collected in 2022, many other cities on the list have data going back to 2021, and hard-core census data is always the most reliable vs momentary approximations/forecasts. Not to mention, I wasn't even driven by any personal motivation but simply bringing the list to the figure listed on the city's wiki page! Another editor has also brought up this weird inconsistency a few months ago on the "List of cities in the European Union by population" talk page. Wikipedia should be consistent. There is simply nothing to discuss and FromCzech should stop obstructing. Perhaps he is Romanian and feels hurt by the results of the latest census, I do not care, ordnung muss sein! Galehautt (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:10, 30 June 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.

Block converted to site wide

Due to continued aggression and attacks during the block, from the last sentence in the above unblock request: Perhaps he is Romanian and feels hurt by the results of the latest census, I do not care, ordnung muss sein!, to some of the latest at ANI: Being right settles the discussion. That's how it works with normal people, at least. FromCzech clearly strays from normal. This isn't an acceptable manner in which to conduct oneself. I've converted your block to site wide and reset the timer. Please note that any further hostility and personal attacks on your part may result in having your access even to editing this talk page revoked (which in fact I considered doing) as well as the seeing the block possibly extended (possibly for an indefinite duration). Please follow the steps outlined in WP:DR to resolve any outstanding disputes. That's what everyone is expected to do. No one gets a special pass due to... reasons. Thanks. El_C 01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Perhaps it would be good to know that English is not my first language. I can certainly fault my native language for my blunt register as it was never my intention to offend. Galehautt (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Poland, you may be blocked from editing. Merangs (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TVP World moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to TVP World. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

= WP:BLP violation at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not poorly referenced. The image is real, the people there (among them Adam Michnik vel Szechter) have people in their family who worked for the Stalinist regime. pl:Zygmunt Gross was a party member during Stalinism and onward. Galehautt (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should read WP:RS to understand why this image [1], which you yourself uploaded on Commons and described as "own work", does not qualify as a reliable source. Who says that the people there depicted are the ones you claim? And where do you find the information on them being Jews who work for the "Stalinist regime"? Secondly, and most importantly, that biographical content is totally irrelevant on that talk page. You can't undermine a source (Gross) by describing their ethnic background (Jewish) and the political views (communist) of their parents. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is it claimed they were "Jews who worked for the Stalinist regime." They are of Jewish descent and their parents were involved in the Stalinist regime which ruled Communist/Soviet-occupied Poland between 1944 and 1956. The image is real and depicts a group known as Komandosi. I would be glad if you did not deem yourself the final judge who somehow has the right to edit war and delete neutral good faith discussions at will. That is bad faith. Galehautt (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest may be such: (1) inclination to whitewash Stalinism due to ties to the regime which existed before the deck got reshuffled in 1956, at the same time, (2) feeling unjustifiably purged as a result of yet another reshuffling in 1968 causing enhancement of nationalist (Jewish) feelings and enhancement of bias against the Polish nation which the subject considers guilty at large

All this causing a portrayal of the Kielce pogrom as above

Also, hasn't Grabowski been funded by Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor, the leader of an organization named European Jewish Congress and at the same time one of the most trusted pals of KGB-man Putin?

Galehautt (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an irrelevant and hateful WP:BLP violation. Please stop posting fringe theories about the biases and unreliability of professional historians based of their ethnicity and their parents' political views. This kind of comments are WP:DISRUPTIVE and could get you sanctioned. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same at Kielce pogrom [2] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not posting anything on the page. Only asking questions on the talk page. I have the right to do so. Piss off! Galehautt (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom 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. 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]

Blocked

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]