User talk:Galexander

I have been welcomed to wikipedia.

August 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

WP:Block and WP:NPA both specifically state that blocking is to be used for prevention of disruption, not for punishment. WP:NPA was largely ignored when I was initially blocked by IP -- I received no warning, and my personal attack was not extreme (I called another editor a "dickhead" one time on my own user_talk because he engaged in textbook WP:STATUSQUO stonewalling). When I challenged my block, I asserted I should not be blocked because the admins should not encourage one editor to use blocking to bully another. I stand by that statement, but I want to differentiate it explicitly from "he started it." I am not saying why I deserve to post here, but rather why you should not, as an admin, ignore the purpose of blocking as stated in WP:Block and WP:NPA. I believe the edit history of this account shows adequately that I satisfy the conditions of WP:NPA's caution: "administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the conduct severely disrupts the project." I should be blocked if the purpose of blocks is to punish, and I should not be blocked if the purpose is to prevent an unreasonable disruption. You must decide, but if you decide the purpose is punishment I hope you will update WP:Block.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Lourdes 02:09, 27 August 2019 (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.

I am surprised to see I am accused of, "and then deleted a comment of mine on the same page". That is not factually accurate. I removed a comment I had made which could have been construed as a personal attack. I assume this is an innocent misunderstanding but I do not want to be judged for conduct I did not participate in. Galexander (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be surprised, your edit is here, made with the edit summary "remove redundant/irrelevant content which contains personal attack" That was clearly a purposeful deletion of my comment. Your statement that you intended to remove your own comment because it included a possible personal talk is obviously false, since your previous comment was, in toto "Please see IP's actual contributions to BMK's user talk page". Nothing in the statement could conceivably be construed as a personal attack.
You continue to dig deeper holes for yourself. I suggest that you stop and wait out your block instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realize we both made comments that had similar initial sentences but please click on the link you just pasted to the revision history, and examine the signature on the comment that I deleted. I deleted my own comment. Galexander (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking again, you are correct, you deleted the comment made by you editing as an IP. I was indeed fooled by the similarity of the two comments, and I apologize for my mistake. I will strike my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also struck that part of my statement on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-remove my comment on Talk:occupation of poland. I promise I won't turn you in for proxy editing for a blocked account :) Galexander (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to, as the comment is substantive, and I don't think anyone could possibly interpret it as a personal attack -- I certainly do not, and that part of the comment was directed at me. Also WP:TPO frowns on editors removing their comment once there are responses to it. If you really want some part of it removed, striking through that part is the best option. I'd be glad to do that if you let me know which words you'd like struck out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the comment I had deleted, the one which was entirely about arrogant wikipedia editors and which did not contribute content or garner responses. Galexander (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, sorry, I was being a bit thick there. I have deleted that comment for you, no problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not being disingenuous when I removed that comment or when I asked you to re-remove it. I don't understand why you continue to assert bad faith on my part and make personal attacks upon me. Is this really about improving wikipedia? Anyways, when I made my change there was 1 vote for remove because it's inaccurate, 1 for amend to advance a POV, and 1 unclear. Now there have been 4 votes for remove because it's inaccurate, 1 for amend to advance a POV, 1 for preserve because sourced, and 2 unclear. At what point can we evaluate the quality of these arguments and admit there is consensus for remove? I desire to improve wikipedia. Do you? Galexander (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry for the sockpuppeting, it was inadvertent, though clear in hindsight. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that I was being misrepresented without contributing drama to the discussion, but in hindsight I should have clarified my own identity. Galexander (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant policies are IPSOCK and block evasion. You could have stated your desire to remove your comment which was perceived as a personal attack on your IP talk page and admins would have considered whether to remove it or not. My block isn't punishment. IP block log.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:IPSOCK "Additionally, one who has an account may sometimes forget or be too lazy to sign in some of the time, or may be unable to for technical reasons, and therefore make IP edits. This is not considered sock puppetry." My edit history makes clear that for many years I only bother to login if I am unable to edit the article from my IP address. It honestly did not occur to me that my clarification would mislead anyone -- specifically, I voluntarily disclosed my dual identity to User:Beyond My Ken and would have done the same again in the talk page for occupation of poland if I had attempted to contribute to a consensus of editors. My only contribution there under my named account was to clarify a misrepresentation by BMK. As for block evasion, guilty as charged, but again, the authors of WP: articles have really thought of everything, "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption." Am I being disruptive? Both under my IP and here, my only disruptive behavior was on my own user talk page. I consider my edit war on occupation of poland to have been in good faith, as I was responding to blatant status quo blocking. Which continues, I might add -- several editors have now chimed in on the content dispute and none, not even User:Beyond My Ken, has supported the version of facts in the article. Galexander (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your referring, as Galexander, to the IP in the third person, makes it clear that you were presenting Galexander as a different person from the IP. That violates the WP:ILLEGIT sections: "Evasion of sanctions" (since you were blocked), "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts", and "Avoiding scrutiny", so you did indeed violate WP:Sockpuppet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in hindsight that could have been misleading, and I hope it did not mislead anyone. Did it mislead you? Galexander (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you had already declared on the IP's talk page that Galexander was your account, but I doubt anyone else involved in the substantive discussion was aware of that. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Incidentally, although the tag Beren Hunter posted here on your talk page says that you are blocked indefinitely, I believe that your actual block is for 1 month, the same as the IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I ... I didn't deceive you. Do you think I deceived anyone else? Galexander (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm not anybody else. But whether you did or didn't deceive anyone is irrelevant, the use of two different identities in the same discussion is simply not allowed, for the reasons I cited above. Whether you achieved success is not among those reasons.

And now, this discussion is over, as you're clearly not interested in doing anything but attempting to justify your actions, or find a loophole to slip through. It's not going to work with me, but, more importantly, no admin is going to be fooled by your playing innocent. So... see ya. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting bad faith on my part is unwarranted. Galexander (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this block will be subject to further review but I want to clarify that I am not suggesting that wikipedia policy constrains admins to prevent them from blocking me. I am asserting that it wisely spells out a policy of using blocks only to prevent disruption to wikipedia. The underlying disruption I am accused of is removing a factually incorrect statement from wikipedia https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Occupation_of_Poland_(1939%E2%80%931945)&diff=912380645&oldid=912380529 . Is all this drama worthwhile just to preserve a false statement? When I attempted to remove the statement, 3 had commented and none had asserted it was true. Now many more have commented and still no one has asserted the statement is true. Galexander (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted this block so that it is no longer a checkuser block since the IP information is known to other admins and they may assess the situation fairly. As BMK has pointed out, the block is for one month and not indefinitely. It is customary to double the block term when block evasion occurs so this stems from the two week block that you received as an IP editor.
This comment, "I gave up maintaining an account on here long ago because bullying is so prevalent here" is misleading because it sounds as if you didn't have an account. You admitted to having an account about twenty minutes later.
You should practice what you preach instead of making personal attacks and snide or sarcastic remarks. Your persistence that you are being bullied while failing to see how your own comments come across as narcissistic condescension won't serve you well in your endeavor to be unblocked. "I'm sorry but I don't know what I did wrong..." remains a problem for you. I also suggest that you read WP:NOTTHEM.
You will need to make a convincing appeal why the block is no longer necessary for either your account or your IP address.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Occupation of Poland (1939-1945), I repeatedly edited to remove counter-factual content, content which was not and still is not supported by any of the discussion on its article talk page. Should I not have done that? In hindsight, I should have posted my reasons for removing that content in the article's talk page instead of in User_talk:Beyond My Ken#occupation_of_poland. That was a mistake on my part. Then I was nominated for blocking by BMK, literally in lieu of substantive discussion of the content! Contrary to the assertion at the top of WP:NOTTHEM, that nomination is why I was blocked, it is why an admin decided to apply a zero-tolerance no-warning approach to enforcing WP:NPA. Now, what happened after that is the result of my continuing refusal to endorse this course of action. I disagree with the actions of administrators, and with the use of blocking as a tactic to enforce WP:STATUSQUO stonewalling. I do not need to bring this disagreement into every interaction, but if you require that I show respect for a destructive tactic when my block is being discussed, I cannot meet that requirement. BMK has demonstrated a greater interest in blocking me than in improving content, and I won't say that this endemic behavior isn't a problem.

Going forward: If someone attempts to block me in lieu of discussion, I will again describe that as bullying. If someone challenges my content changes, I will do my best to respond in an impersonal manner, and to respect consensus. You must decide if that is acceptable. Galexander (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given your above response, I have increased this account's block to indefinite. I have also revoked your talk page access for continuing to post your view that personal attacks are okay for you to continue your editing agenda. Please use Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System for requesting an unblock. Please don't try to sock or to edit while being logged out. Thanks, Lourdes 02:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]