User talk:Galaxy21ultra

June 2023
Hi Galaxy21ultra! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Sufism several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 18:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * i understand. Thanks for the reminder. I have opened up a talk page with the said person. I just don;t understand why said person is making edits contrary to the sources and removing authentic sources. I am just trying to protect the page from vandalism and how it was before Galaxy21ultra (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Sufism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —  kashmīrī  TALK  19:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * "Users are expected to collaborate with others"
 * I HAVE LITERALLY TRIED TO TALK TO YOU ON YOUR TALK PAGE. HOW ARE YOU GAS LIGHTING ME???? Galaxy21ultra (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia as a battleground. 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:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Why have I been blocked? I have not name called anyone? Gaslighting literally means bullying. I was asking why I was being bullied? Wikipedia is literally just a place where people attack you even when you do things right, like add references, protect sources, stop edit wars but people will say you are the ones doing that and try to have you banned. The politics are ridiculous  Galaxy21ultra (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I literally asked a question? I did not make a statement. Am I not allowed express my feelings on this site? Esp when someone tries to have you blocked just because you tried to stop them from removing authentic sources? How is this not bullying? Galaxy21ultra (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree You do not even know what the full situation is? You have stated that you saw me use the word 'gaslighting' hence used it to ban me? When was happening was @Kashmiri Was trying to remove authentic sources, I kept trying to keep the page as it is and revert it back to normalcy. I kept pleading that instead of having an edit war, to talk on the talk page, which I set up on his page. He kept refusing to do so, and then put a block attempt on me (i dont know how to do so myself as I am new) for allegedly starting an edit war and was told I was not collaborating with others? when my entire point was to try and collaborate. Ofc @Kashmiri kashmiri replied on the talk page after i have been banned, hence not being able to contribute my POV now. Is this not the definition of gaslighting? And once Again I asked a question, not a statement, hence based on grammar and the rules, I should not be banned
 * @RegentsPark I hope you can understand aswell what has happened. The whole point I got angry was because I was continuously asking Kashmiri to discuss on the talk page only to get a block warning request on my account as seen above Galaxy21ultra (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the rule state the following "If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process". Instead of going down this route, why have you been so harsh to jump to a ban? Wouldn't the most sensible thing be to do this first before a straight up ban? Esp as I am a new user? This is very harsh.
 * Finally the rules say the following: 'Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, its editors, or the Wikimedia Foundation—other means already exist to communicate legal problems. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban'
 * Technically speaking I did not make a threat, I asked a question, and the question did not even use a threat or an insult, but was questioning a type of action (gaslighting). I never accused the person of being a gas lighter, I only asked the question. Hence I repeat this block seems overly harsh. Galaxy21ultra (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri Well I hope you are happy now. You got me blocked just because i tried to stop you from removing sources Galaxy21ultra (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Who on earth is Juice3kh? I literally got banned because someone removed an authentic source, I kept trying to revert it back, then said person stated I was the person changing it in the first place when it was literally them. That is the literal definition of gas lighting? How am I banned for that. Hence why I said bullying, because what is this if its not bullying? Please answer and not act like you are on a high horse now that you got your wish of having me blocked too. Am I not allowed to express my feelings? I joined wiki in good faith, it seems like instead you have a group of editors who have monopolised the platform and have a special clique where elite members cannot be questioned Galaxy21ultra (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * If you are going to use your talk page to air grievances about others rather than appeal your block, your access to this talk page will be revoked. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's my talk page? I can do what I want here, thats my right! Why does it concern you what I write on MY talk page?
 * Also how do I appeal my block? Galaxy21ultra (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * By reading the instructions already provided to you, as a first step. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest reading WP:Guide to appealing blocks before making an unblock request. RegentsPark (comment) 18:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Regents Park. Unlike the others, you have probably been the only person non condescending and fair in this entire debacle Galaxy21ultra (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll answer your question. User talk page gives guidelines for what you can do with your talk page. It isn't the case that you can do whatever you want with it. And you don't have a "right" to it. If your talk page access is revoked, then you wouldn't be able to use it at all. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'll answer your question" again, condescending tone and potential subtle passive aggressiveness.
 * And okay, thanks for letting me know, but who subsequently has the right to revoke access to my talkpage? Is it you? Galaxy21ultra (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist@RegentsParkI I would like to know on average how successful appeals are before making one? Galaxy21ultra (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How is answering your question condescending? My answer was informative and given in good faith. As to your followup question, any administrator can revoke access to your talk page. Engaging in constructive dialog about your block would prevent that.
 * A successful appeal demonstrates that the appelant has read and thoroughly comprehended WP:Guide to appealing blocks. It explains your understanding of why you were blocked, and what you would do differently if unblocked. In your case, a reading of WP:NOTTHEM might be helpful in formulating your appeal. Basically you need to convince any random reviewing administrator that unblocking you would be a net benefit for the Wikipedia project.
 * Bear in mind that a reviewing administrator doesn't care about how correct you believe your actions were. The job of an administrator is to preserve the stability of Wikipedia by stopping or preventing disruption. To do that, they employ various tools such as protecting pages, issuing topic bans, and blocking editors who have demonstrated disruptive behavior. WP:Disruptive editing includes spamming, vandalism, edit-warring, promotional activity, battleground mentaility, and other things that prevent other editors from improving Wikipedia articles. You must convince an administrator that unblocking you will be a net benefit to Wikipedia.
 * Good luck. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions or need further advice. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info appreciate it. I am just confused about 2 things.
 * The first being why I was initially given a block warning by the person who was trying to remove authentic sources? This entire debacle occurred because another experienced user was changing information, and refusing to engage on the changes he wanted to make on his talk page. He then used his power to try and block me. Considering I am a new user and I don't know how to block request someone myself, how was this fair? Was this not abuse of power?
 * Secondly, I am still confused what I was officially blocked for? Was it for reverting the page back to normal from the disruptive edits far too many times or was it to do with asking is someone was gaslighting me? If its for the latter, the rules clearly state if I accuse someone. I did not accuse anyone but merely asked a question. Based on this technicality, surely the blocking on this ground was a mistake?
 * Thanks for engaging Galaxy21ultra (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also how do I ping you? Again I am a newbie my apologies Galaxy21ultra (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your block message above says you were blocked for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. I have no opinion on the "authenticity" of sources, but apparently another editor found them unreliable, unnecessary, or perhaps primary (we prefer secondary sources, like what scholars have to say, rather than primary sources like religious texts or judicial opinions). As far as I can tell, you engaged in edit warring, trying to restore your preferred version of the article rather than stepping back for a few days and waiting for replies on the talk page. The WP:BURDEN to support an edit is on the editor who wants to make that edit, and although it isn't a policy, WP:BRD is a "best practice" that experienced editors try to follow. Someone else setting a bad example isn't a reason for you to do the same.
 * The editor with whom you had a disagreement didn't get you blocked. He may have reported you, but in the end, an administrator is someone who the community trusts to exercise good judgment, and an administrator decided that stability of Wikipedia was served by blocking you.
 * To ping someone, you use the ping template. I'm answering here because I saw your talk page come up on my watch list, but if I miss it, you can ping me by preceding your comment with the tag . You can also just link to someone's user page (as you did in a comment above) and that also serves as a ping. A notification appears for the targeted editor when you do this. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Anachronist, once again thanks for the reply.
 * The source that was being removed was from the Cambridge Companion for Islamic Theology, which is probably the best secondary source on the topic. All I was trying to do was keep the source, hence the multiple reverts. I understand I got angry after @Kashmiri was refusing to engage in the talk page I opened on his profile to try and get to some sort of agreement; and then more angry again for when he reported me, instead of responding to the multiple requests of mediation that I was asking for. Thats why I mentioned 'gaslighting', because from my position, I was trying to fix the situation with good faith and keep the page how it was, instead I got reported for allegedly starting the edit war&lack of collaboration, when infact it was the other person who started it the edit war (You can check on the Sufism history who started it) and the other person for refusing discussion which I tried to initiate the process multiple times.
 * But Once again, I do admit, I did get angry as a result of what happened, which I would like to apologise for. I should have been more patient.
 * Anyway how, I am still deliberating if I want to try and come back to this community, especially regarding this point you mentioned earlier (I appreciate your honesty and heads up for this):
 * "Bear in mind that a reviewing administrator doesn't care about how correct you believe your actions were"
 * For me that doesnt sound very fair does it? I don't think I would like to be part of a platform or community that doesn't care if someone was in the right or wrong. It's these conditions that allow for a culture of bullying, gaslighting and abuse of power to occur on this platform. Wiki and its user, inlcuding all of the people above, need to have a deep reflection on what type of platform you want.
 * You cannot claim to want a cohesive community but block people who try to uphold that value, and subsequently ban them when they call out other users out for not doing so.
 * All the best,
 * Galaxy21ultra (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You were not blocked for adding a source. You were blocked for your behaviour. The platform has its policies, if you don't like them, go and discuss them at the appropriate place (i.e., Talk page of the said policy). — kashmīrī  TALK  08:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You should be blocked for removing authentic sources from the Cambridge Companion, refusing to collaborate on your talk page, starting an edit war, and when being called out on it, falsely accusing your opponent of being a 'sockpuppet' and later on attempting to have them banned.
 * Why? All for calling out your disruptive edits and removal of authentic sources (Cambridge Companion for Islamic Theology) in the first place. Galaxy21ultra (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "The platform has its policies, if you don't like them, go and discuss them at the appropriate place (i.e., Talk page of the said policy)."
 * Well I can't now that I am banned thanks to this mess YOU caused by removing authentic sources and starting an edit war. Galaxy21ultra (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , you've been here for a month and have made about 100 contributions. Now please have a look at your contribution list:
 * 
 * My impression when looking at it: A bull in a china shop. Storming inside, throwing accusations of vandalism around, shouting at people, starting more conflicts than others do in ten years with tens of thousands of contributions. Seeing a mistake in your own actions is clearly not an option; the block must be a mistake too. Others are "gaslighting" you.
 * In a nutshell, a collaborative, calm environment to build an encyclopedia benefits from the block. That's why I made it. And without at least a topic ban from the topics that upset you so much, I personally see no hope of this changing.
 * Pinging can be done using . The tildes are important but can be anywhere in the message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your impression is wrong. I admit I got angry, which I apologise for, but it was after another user removed authentic sources from the Cambridge Companion of Islamic Theology, and then 'accused me of lack of collaboration' when infact it was me who was constantly trying to collaborate with said person on his talk page but was being ignored. This is the literal definition of gaslighting someone. (Saying they are not collaborating, when all the evidence point to the opposite and show that you were trying to collaborate (their talk page) but said person was refusing to engage, instead trying to have you reported).
 * Please read the rest of the discussion [ Galaxy21ultra (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)] earlier on the page, where I respond to your points fully in more detail with Anachronist.
 * @Galaxy21ultra I suggest you reflect on your behaviour instead of throwing accusations. People really don't have time to be wasted on pointless discussions. Re. your edits, you brought sectarian overtones to the very first sentence of an article, this was opposed as WP:UNDUE and also not confirmed by the cited source. But instead of discussing the matter on Talk:Sufism as is the normal process – see WP:BRD – you kept edit warring beyond the WP:3RR limit, and then went to challenge people on their personal Talk pages. This is as far from collaborative spirit as it gets.
 * Can't you get how disruptive you have been? Even here in this discussion, you keep attacking people for explaining you basic stuff and accusing them of "gaslighting", being "condescending", having "wrong impressions", etc.
 * People come here to edit collaboratively. They owe you nothing. If you continue attacking them, accusing of malice, playing a victim, and other such immature behaviour, your Talk page access will simply be revoked. — kashmīrī  TALK  07:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Kashmiri, YOU were the one who started the edit war, the intro was fine how it was for MONTHS. No one made it sectarian, both sects of Islam is clearly mentioned in the introduction. YOU removed an authentic source from the Cambridge Companion and it was ME who tried to collaborate with you by opening up a section on your talk page which you chose to ignore, and then have me banned, whilst also reporting me for being a sockpuppet (whatever that is)?
 * So please don't talk about playing victim. I was pleading with you throughout the Edit War to collaborate. You then conveniently reply on your talk page to my points AFTER I was banned. Galaxy21ultra (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, page history contradicts your claims (in fact, you undid an edit by @Agrso), while edit warring is always an unacceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. I see no way for your account to ever be unblocked as long as you fail to understand what you did wrong and instead keep blaming others. It's immature, and I'm ending it here. — kashmīrī  TALK  10:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If I undid something, how does that make me START an edit war? Can you see how illogical you sound? Espeically when if one looks deeper, I wrote to @Agrso on his page about the edit - which funnily enough he also failed to respond to after making an edit without consulting with anyone.
 * Also Its funny how you keep avoiding the point of removing sources from THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION. Its also funny that you are choosing now not to engage - clearly showing you do not have a leg to stand on.
 * @Kashmiri before you go, I would like you to answer 4 questions. You can then understand I got so angry.
 * 1) How are you accusing me of starting an edit war, when it was you and @Agrso who first changed the page? If you both wanted to make a change, you should have followed your own advice, and start a section on this on the talk page.
 * 2) Why did you subsequently refuse to engage on your talk page, when I opened up a section on Sufism to try and collaborate on the matter?
 * 3) After refusing to engage in collaboration, why do you instead falsely report me of being a 'sockpuppet', as well as attempting to ban me?
 * 4)Why did you remove an authentic source from the Cambridge Companion of Islamic Theology?
 * To me it seems like you were caught red handed in your disruptive edits and was called out for your refusal to collaborate, and instead of owning up and taking responsibility of removing authentic sources, you attempted to falsely report said person for being a 'sockpuppet' aswell as attempting to ban them. As the person was a new user and has little knowledge of how the mechanisms work on this platform, you used your power of being an experienced user to have said person banned once it was known that you removed authentic secondary sources from the Cambridge Companion.
 * @Anachronist @ToBeFree @RegentsPark, I would like you guys to be witness to the answers @Kashmiri gives - including if he refuses to do so, which will speak further volumes it itself.
 * PS @Completely Random Guy can attest to my collaborative nature earlier on the page as he thanked me for my edit after speaking to him about something similar that happened earlier. Galaxy21ultra (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to entertain arguments about who "started" an edit war, or about others' behavior. There is also no formal questioning procedure that would require anyone to provide answers you demand from anyone except me for administrative accountability reasons.
 * As this all remains pretty unproductive after an explicit warning (04:12, 14 June 2023), I'll remove any further messages that contain neither the unblock request template nor a question directed at me about my blocking action. When an unblock request is open, discussions about that request, about your behavior and about the block are fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Where do YOU have the right to police my talk page? I am talking in good faith, what happened to free speech? What happened to open dialogue? Why such censorship? Why are you not letting @Kashmiri answer my 4QS?
 * Despite all of this, my comments are still within your conditions as it relates to unblocking. If it is established my blocking was overly harsh, it would mean being unblocked. Galaxy21ultra (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia. I'm not questioning your good faith; you're acting disruptively in good faith. Regarding "free speech" / "open dialogue" / "censorship", Wikipedia is not the government. Regarding your questions, because your block is about your behavior, not the behavior of others. This was pointed out multiple times above, for example with a link to the explanatory WP:NOTTHEM.
 * No, "seeking a ban" isn't about my blocking action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @ToBeFree,
 * I don't think you are understanding my argument pertaining to unblocking. If it is proven that @Kashmiri engaged in bad faith and tried to have me wrongly banned for being a sockpuppet, it can show why I was angry in the first place. How is it fair by Wiki standards, if you disagree with someone, you can just accuse them for being a sock puppet? Galaxy21ultra (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not an argument worth spending more time on than is needed for writing "WP:NOTTHEM". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But how can you decide what argument I can use and what argument I cannot use? Galaxy21ultra (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You can write in your unblock request whatever you like, and it will be reviewed by someone else than me. If it's not convincing, it will be declined.
 * The reason you can still edit this talk page is primarily to allow you to create such a request, not to continue using Wikipedia as a battleground or a web hosting platform for your "free speech". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not a confrontational person, and I have to admit I only read the first half of this discussion because of my attention span, but an outsiders opinion? I feel as if the cards might be stacked against @Galaxy21ultra, and I ask everyone to please hear him out and give him a chance. I have not had a problem with him, Wikipedia is a collaboration! Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * With due respect, but this was your only interaction with Galaxy21ultra. Wikipedia is a structured, collaborative project that is governed by certain rules; it's not a social network where users are only expected to be nice to each other. Galaxy21ultra has been offered plenty of chance, plenty of opportunities, lots of good advice. Did they take any? — kashmīrī  TALK  08:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Policing my page
@ ToBeFree I would like to know where in Wikipedia it gives you the right to police my talk page? Galaxy21ultra (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I would like there to be another arbitrator as @tobefree is being biased. @Anachronist, @RegentsPark, I would not mind if either of you could take over or also intervene. Galaxy21ultra (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have removed a message in this section for already-stated reasons. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk pages are public. When I make an edit to one, it is automatically added to my watch list. It appears in my watch list whenever someone edits it. That is not "policing".
 * I encouraged you to read WP:NOTTHEM. I also warned you that your contributions on this page, during your block, should be about your block, and not about others. Instead, you have thrown around more accusations. As a result, your talk page access has been revoked. During a block you should focus on appealing it and nothing else.
 * Now that your talk page access has been revoked, your recourse is to appeal your block via WP:UTRS. See the block message below for instructions. I caution you to take advice I and others have given you into account, mainly: focus on yourself, what you did that resulted in your block, be mindful of guidance given in WP:NOTTHEM, and formulate a good appeal in accordance with WP:Guide to appealing blocks acknowledging your actions and describing what you would do differently in the future. All the information you need for an excellent appeal is right here on this talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023
 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] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)