User talk:TeeTylerToe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
talk page access re-revoked. You may appeal via WP:UTRS or by emailing arbcom. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Following a discussion with TeeTylerToe on the #wikipedia-en-unblock I will unblock him per WP:ROPE, with a topic ban for the Assault rifle article and definitions of "assault rifle", including talk page discussions, for two weeks from now (by then the block would have run out anyway). I also strongly encourage TeeTylerToe to drop the stick, accept that there is no consensus for his proposed changes to that article, and find another topic entirely. If the issues that led to this block recur, and I'm more concerned about the forum shopping and accusations of bad faith than about the edit warring itself, the next block is likely to be indefinite. Huon (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

StG 44 and semi-automatic[edit]

Look, I get that this detail about the StG-44 is important to you somehow but I really feel you are putting it places it doesn't belong. What's wrong with having it in the body of the StG-44 article? Why does it need to be in the lede and at assault rifle? Is this not the same kind of behavior for which you were blocked and unblocked by Huon with a topic ban on assault rifle? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

What could possibly be more important about any military rifle than how it was used as a military rifle? Primary mode of mechanical operation tends to be a clue to me when it comes to ranking importance of the operation of machines. Was the stg-44 not fired? Was that german doctrine? Did they not issue ammunition to troops equipped with stg-44s? Was the stg-44 just a bayonet holder? If so, that seems like it should be put in the lede. Was it just used as some kind of noise maker to scare off game? To scare birds? Was it just for propaganda? Was it designed just as a stand-in for the mp-40 for PR posters? Never designed to be shot, or to go into combat? Was it designed just to confuse future historians? Like hitler's big joke? Or a face-saving thing? Like the architecture? The german army's main weapon was bolt action. Did hitler order the stg-44 so that historians digging up ww2 battlefields would find non bolt-action rifles and come to the wrong conclusion?TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
No one is arguing the things you are proposing here. The lede is for the most noteworthy facts about a subject. The StG is most noteworthy for being considered the first assault rifle. It is not most notable for being subject to orders to use it primarily in semi-auto mode. Hence why the former information belongs in the lede and the latter does not. Go ahead and try to get consensus for this edit if you like, but I don't think you'll succeed. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
That seems like an undeniably important fact that could hardly be ignored in the lede of the stg-44 article, or in the stg-44 section of the assault rifle article, if anything about the stg-44 is worth mentioning in the stg-44 section of the assault rifle article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that this is your position. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

question[edit]

If I were to design a lawnmower and call it the Grass Cutter 15, but later sold the idea to a company that took the concept and sold it to farmers as a goat milking machine and 50 years later the overwhelming majority were known as goat milking machines, could we still call it a lawn mower? Less than 5000 Armalite AR-15s were made as select fire compared to millions of semiauto only rifles that use the description. Am I making sense?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

In 1963 the Air Force made the first US military order for AR-15s. The DOD registered the AR-15 in the Federal Catalog as "Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16" FSN 1005-856-6885. To armalite and later colt, it was still the AR-15. Colt filed for a trademark for the AR-15 in 1966. As an interesting note, it seems that it was some company called eagle arms or something that made the first stab at marketing AR-15 designs to civilians. Until ~1986 the question of whether or not the ar-15 was select fire or not would never have even been considered. There were AFAIK no semi-auto only ar-15s. So, there's the AR-15 design itself, which is inherently select fire. There's the AR-15 that was offered to and accepted by the air force which was select fire, there was every ar-15 made before '86 that was select fire. There are AR-15s sold to the federation of malay, and, presumably, numerous other countries as select-fire rifles. Then, in 1989, some unknown rifle manufacturer makes the Eagle Arms EA-15. A limited version of a rifle that had been around since ~1956. 1992, colt goes bankrupt. https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/12/09/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions-1449710314128/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions-1449710314128-facebookJumbo-v6.jpg it looks like gun sales take off ~mid 2000s. So here's my point of view. The AR-15 design itself was created ~1956. That's select fire. The Colt AR-15 was trademarked in 1966. That's select fire. Every colt AR-15 made before 1986 was select fire. The eagle arms EA-15. That's semi-auto maybe. Civilian AR-15s after the start of the black rifle boom which seems to have started ~2005? Those are sold semi-auto. Do I have to bother to go to colt's ar-15 sight and see if they offer select-fire for law enforcement and military? iirc everybody and their brother does. It comes down to this. This article doesn't cover colt civilian only AR-15 model semi-automatic rifles post 2005. This article covers the ar-15 design, the AR-15s sold to malay, the ar-15s marketed and sold to the air force, and all ar-15s made up to 1986, and all of them made after '86. Are there a lot of semi-automatic AR-15 pattern rifles? Sure. Are there a lot of select fire AR-15 pattern rifles sure.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you're misinnformed on a few things. Not every Colt AR-15 made before 1986 was select fire. Colt sold the AR-15 as a semiauto only, hence the use of the trademark to differentiate the civilian and semiautomatic only AR-15 from the select fire M16. Colt would occasionally sell a full auto M16 to a Colt authorized dealer who was also an SOT (Special Occupation Taxpayer) and Colt was known for stopping sales if the M16 was not transferred to a police agency. Things were more regulated than most folks think prior to 1986. Eagle Arms never made a full auto gun. The only pre86 manufacturers who made either/or would have been Bushmaster, PWA and Olympic Arms. Form 2's made for select fire rifles cannot use AR-15 as the model and Colt never calls their full auto rifles AR-15s.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, as I said, it seems like EA started in '89, after the NFA. And it looks like colt wasn't that interested in the Armalite/AR connection for whatever reasons, so it looks like their civilian line was the R-6k "sporter" line. But it looks like you're right, colt's sporter civilian line was semi-automatic. So an article on the colt sporter would list it as a semi-automatic. It looks like only recently has colt started using the AR-15 name. Were form 2s used pre-nfa? Why not make a separate article for civilian semi-automatic ar-15 style rifles which now seems to be expanding beyond semi-automatic M-16 variants to include AR-15 lower compatible rifles such as the HK-416 and sig MCX? An article that covers the rifles that you're talking about. The EA-15, the colt SP-1, and the million other rifles that you're talking about. Because either they share the article with the '50s select fire AR-15, or they have their own article. And why would an article about the '63 select fire AR-15 list it as a semi-automatic rifle?TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
A Form 2 is what a manufacturer uses to make an NFA item, as opposed to a form 1 used by an individual or dealer. Colt has been calling them AR15s since the early 60s (the semi autos, that is). I was going to suggest a separate article "Armalite Ar-15" to differentiate between the two, because, believe it or not, I get what you're saying. I think that would be easier as this one would have to strip out all calibers other than 5.56, anything with a barrel other than 20" with a 1 in 14" or 1 in 12" twist, anything made by anyone other than Armalite (if we really want to split hairs), and of course the smg, dmr and other variants. Does that make sense?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
So presumably prenfa there would be no form 2? That's a discussion for the article talk page. I'd imagine the new page would be something like Civilian AR-15 and AR-15 compatible semi-automatic rifles, or Civilian AR-15 and AR-15 compatible rifles or maybe civilian ar-15 class rifles. If there's a good category used by the gun industry or by the gun community that would be a good choice. As there can be redirects which would redirect a search for "civilian ar-15" a longer more complete and more accurate title might be best.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Right, before NFA 1934 you could buy most of these things in a hardware store. I don't know off the top of my head what exact dates Form 2s started or the SOT system as we know it. Discussion on the other started on AR-15 talk page--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--RAF910 (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for continuous uncooperative and unproductive editing and lack of insight. The detailed reasons have been explained to you at ANI. You have been blocked without any access to means of getting unblocked. As a very last bit of WP:ROPE you have also been given another six months of probation after the block has expired. During this period of probation, any failure by you to meet the standards and guidelines of Wikipedia – especially edit warring, tendentious edits, POV-pushing, talk page filibustering and lack of insight when clearly proven wrong by other reliable sources – will result in an immediate indefinite block without further discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.  De728631 (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Block modified[edit]

Following an appeal to the arbitration committee, your block is modified to restore talk page access and permit appeals through normal community channels including UTRS and the {{unblock}} template. You are strongly advised to carefully consider the concerns that have been raised about his editing before attempting to appeal. This does not prohibit decline of appeals by any community mechanism or withdrawal of talk page access should problems arise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

help[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.
I'm blocked and restricted to talkpage access. I'd like to ask De728631 to clarify the block. Exactly what past edit warring, uncooperative editing, and unconstructive editing are you referring to? Could you clarify exactly what present issue blocks from ~4 years ago present. Also could you clarify the POV pushing given that many of the statements in the ani lacked even the pretense of any supporting evidence. And could you tell me what damage this block is preventing me from doing? Also could someone help me with the part of the appeal guide on giving a good reason to be unblocked. It doesn't really seem to offer any advice other than doing 2nd chance. Thanks.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I wasn't involved in the block and not taking sides now. I will not review this block or opine on the merits, and some of this advice might not apply. I don't know the particulars, I'm simply giving you general advice from someone experienced. I will say that you need to re-read the discussion [1] and remember that it isn't necessary for community members to post diffs when they are being polled to block someone. They are allowed to use their own memories and experiences, so a lack of diffs in the discussion isn't a solid basis for unblock. As far as damage being prevented, you are obviously able to argue that but I've not seen it used effectively as the entire point of the block is to prevent the same behavior/disruption that preceded it. If you feel you have never done anything wrong, then you might feel stuck in what is called the Innocent prisoner's dilemma. There is no way to successfully appeal if the community thinks you did something wrong and you do not, no matter who is correct. If you see the problem that got you here, acknowledge the problem, draw a path forward and make a pledge to not do the things that upset the community to begin with, then you have a foundation for an appeal. WP:UNBLOCK has the general info. I would strongly suggest you avoid blaming someone else (WP:NOTTHEM). If you are going to argue the discussion is faulty on technical grounds, you need to remember that we aren't a bureaucracy and small technical things won't change the status of a block. Be civil. That is all the advice I can give you. Dennis Brown - 23:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I do honestly appreciate it. The problem I'm having stems more from me having read that discussion, something that I can't advise anyone do. And while innocent prisoner's dilemma may be applicable here as well as lessons wikipedia hasn't learned from the japanese justice system, there's also a little "he who is without sin". But right now I'm groping for solid ground. I'd just like to know exactly what spaghetti stuck to the wall. What am I accused of. You mention that there doesn't *need* to be proof. I don't care, that'll just make responding to it easier. Wiki policy on appeals say you can ask the blocking admin to clarify the block. That's what I'm doing. Responding to everything brought up in that ani isn't going to help anyone. But hey. If that's what I have to do, c'est la vie. btw, I don't see anything on de's talkpage. Did you forward the message?TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)@De728631:
For obvious reasons, I'm not reviewing this block myself, but a quick note on pings: this won't work either; you have to add a signature in the same post as your ping. Details at mw:Manual:Echo. Re-pinging De728631. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
ThanksTeeTylerToe (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, I'm playing devil's advocate and not taking sides. I just like to be clear on that. I still haven't read so I don't form opinions and I'm not here to coach you through an unblock, I'm just here to explain the process. I think the first thing you do is look at the discussion, look at your self, and find those areas where you agree or you can at least understand why the community felt that way. That is the foundation. It doesn't require you agree with every finding in an ANI, but a block appeal is the wrong place to debate it. Giving you an example that may or may not apply to you: "I agree I was incivil, and even though there was plenty of incivility going on, that doesn't excuse my adding to it." If there is an area were you disagree, either say nothing, or if it is a central reason you were blocked, you have to at least address it. Another N/A example: "I don't agree that I was edit warring as I thought I was protecting the person under WP:BLP but I accept that the community disagrees, so it is upon me to change my methods" It's find if you disagree with some point, but you have to be willing to consider the possibility that you are the one who is wrong, or that you simply came across differently than you thought. This is why I said that if you feel you did no wrong, there isn't anything you can do. Often, it requires a little soul searching on your part. Does the community get it wrong? Sometimes, but seldom do they get it completely wrong, so you have to accept that you did something to piss off several people enough to block you. Identify it and find a way to not do it again, and explain in a sentence or two how you are going to avoid it. Yet another N/A example: "What I'm going to do is limit myself to 1RR per day for 6 months, and you can make that a condition of my unblock". Admin have great latitude when it comes to putting restrictions in an unblock. If edit warring was the problem, that would be a good thing to volunteer up front. You may need to take your time, think about this before you make your request. Unblock requests are best done once only. It all boils down to "Does the blocked editor really get it? Is he likely to move forward and not repeat the same mistakes?" Those are two big questions any admin will ask themselves. That is why I said you have to understand why you were blocked, and show how you will move forward without repeating the same mistakes. Dennis Brown - 01:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I should add, this is about all I can do to help. I think you have all the elements, it is a matter of applying them to your situation. Whatever the outcome, I simply wanted to make sure you have a fair opportunity to appeal your block, the same as I would want for anyone. Dennis Brown - 01:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Block appeal[edit]

could someone post this in administrators noticeboard. Would it be AN or AN/i? Is this an incident? Thanks

So, for one, per block policy, cooling off blocks strictly, explicitly against policy. So. You know. There's that. And, ya know, there's the whole, blocking is only to be used to prevent an imminent threat. It's not a punitive measure. That's policy too.

So. That's two slam dunks on stating why the block was incorrect. Isn't this going well?

How's this for a third. I should point out that it's wikipedia policy that after a block has been lifted, it is stated explicit wikipedia policy to generally consider the matter settled, and not to be used in further discussions such as this one.

This was ignored the first time around. But here we are by your choice. I'm beginning to think this wasn't all one big joke.

User raf910 claims that on july 2 I misrepresented this edit. He says I claimed that it had consensus. My edit summary was "changing the intro per talk page discussion". He also claims the edits were unrelated to talk page discussion. The intro was a matter of talk page discussion. It was a very restrained edit focusing on non-controversial wording. The edit summary was just pointing to the talk page discussion to explain the edit.

raf910 makes another claim. "he repeatedly claimed that "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first assault rifle. Not, the Sturmgewehr 44 that the article credits. His ideas were rejected by his fellow editors, as the article is full of reliable sources confirming that the Sturmgewehr 44 was the first assault rifle. TTT did not listen."

First. I did listen. Second, my ideas weren't rejected by my fellow editors. Over iirc 3 days I discussed the matter with Herr Gruber and we developed a consensus. RAF910 iirc choose not to participate. Third, it's not my claim. If you ask me the first AR was probably the thousands of select fire intermediate cartridge M1907s used by french forces towards the end of ww1. But I had 14 reliable sources stating that the infantry version of the iirc winchester m1917 was the first assault rifle. So I argued that that should be mentioned in the article. I don't care too much how many superlatives are heaped on the stg-44. I do worry about balance a little but not enough to bother going facing stuff like this travesty.

Raf910 said "On July 4 2016, TTT added a requested comments from other editors for this discussion on the History and geography project [61] the only editor to respond User:Skyring who created an WP:RFC Was the StG-44 the first assault rifle, designed and employed as such? Skyring then completely rebuffed TTTs position. TTT did not listen." That is false. Fountains of Bryn Mawr posted and the rfc was eventually closed in my favor. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assault_rifle&diff=729346069&oldid=729340474 <- fountains of Bryn Mawr's post

Then raf910 mentions my post to the reference desk. I think that's quite a biased way of putting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=728694610

raf910 accuses me of forum shopping on the npov noticeboard. I posted it there but no uninvolved editors posted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=730936377#German_virgin_birth_POV_violations_on_Assault_Rifle_article

raf910 says "TTT then forum shopped for the third time when he created a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Assault rifle page. This request was denied within 30 minutes. TTT did not listen."

The rfm was denied because there was an active rfc. Could someone tell me what raf910 means when he says "TTT did not listen"? But I guess it's my fault because I sought mediation? Because wouldn't THAT have been a hassle for everyone. It would have been such a waste of so many people's time.

raf910 says "TTT then started to add random tags to the assault rifle article. Which were again reverted. And, he forum shopped for the forth time at the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [67] Where User:Scoobydunk told him..."Whatever you do, don't edit war to get the tag put in." And, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris told him..."Most of the time it means that you should accept that you are wrong, and should retire with grace. See WP:1AM (which has nothing to do with late-night hours)." Again TTT did not listen."

None of the tags I added were at all random. They were all legitimate tags. But the tags I put up indicating that the article was being discussed on the NPOV noticeboard with the instructions "do not take this tag down until the conditions have been met" kept getting taken down before the conditions were met. I did take their advice and I did drop the issue of people taking down the NPOV notice. Which eventually led to no uninvolved parties participating in the NPOV discussion on the NPOV talkpage.

raf 910 sas "TTT continued to add random tags to the article which were reverted by myself and other editors. User:Skyring then filed an complaint at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Which resulted in TTT being blocked for two weeks. [68] Once again TTT did not listen."

None of the tags I added were at all random. They were all justifiable. I didn't make any reverts.

raf910 says In fact during discussions on User talk:TeeTylerToe regarding the block not only did TTT continue his tenacious editing he again refuse to listen, resulting in a lost of his talk page access. He also, admitted that he was trying to trick his fellow editors into and edit war. To quote the discussion..."@Boing! said Zebedee: Not only was TeeTylerToe edit warring...If you read in between the lines of his own statements, he was trying to trick is fellow Users into an edit war. And, then claim that, "I wasn't edit warring, I was just adding tags to the article. Its those meat puppets that are edit warring by removing the tags." This behavior is intolerable on Wiki and I recommend a permanent block.--RAF910 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)...Thanks for explaining that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)" [69] Again TTT did not listen.

Presumably he means tendentious? And I assume my tpa was revoked because I kept basically making the same unblock request changing it to address the feedback I was getting through the only way I could really get feedback. Let me note that some admins were a little more helpful on the feedback front than others. "admitted that he was trying to trick his fellow editors into and edit war." that's false. iirc he's referring to this which is me sarcastically agreeing with the accusations he was making against me. He actually quotes it... Is this performance art or something? He left out the ping part? raf910 pinged boing, and then he quoted it leaving off the ping making it seem like boing might have said it instead of raf910?

raf910 said "TTT then manage to get User:Huon to lift the block. However, Huon maintained a two week topic ban on the assault rifle page. [70] TTT continued his tenacious editing and spent that two weeks accusing his fellow editors of wrongdoing, socking, meat puppetry, etc."

It was an abstract discussion. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I was trying to figure out what was and what wasn't tag teaming. You would think that it would be simple. "Hey admin, what actions qualify as tag teaming" "Oh, this this this and this" "thanks".

raf910 said "After his two week topic ban was lifted. TTT return to tenacious editing this time on the StG 44 page where he again claimed that the StG 44 is not assault rifle and again made unreferenced edits to that article. Those edits were again reverted by myself and other editors. On that article talk page discussion once again he accused and tried to trick a fellow editor into an edit war. Another editor told him..."Very well colleague, I will cut to the chase. You have just come off a two week block for tendentious editing on this very subject. Now you are straight back. The issue here is not how this bloody chunk of metal was used, but your behaviour pattern. Drop it. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)" [71] This time he listened perhaps realizing that he could not win this fight, so soon off a two week block."

I quoted the department of the army which said that the stg-44's primary use was as a semi-automatic weapon and that select fire was to be used only in emergencies. Maybe the department of war should be indef blocked with no appeal? I'm not 100% sure what Irondome's objections were. I was using BRD. I have noticed that BRD tends to break down in articles under the umbrella of a few of the more active projects. That's something that seems to be quite harmful to the project overall.

raf910 said "TTT then move on to the Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16 where he again tried add unreferenced info claiming that the StG 44 was not the first assault rifle, which I again reverted. [72] Then he did it again [73] Also see talk page [74] Then he tried something different. He took an existing reference in the article and cherry picked a quote out of that reference. He then altered the quote to fit his needs. He also took another reference and took a quote from that article that repeated info that was already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. I was then forced to revert his edit add the full quote to the article once again refuting his position. [75]"

I made iirc 3 edits to that article. None of the adding new material that would necessitate adding new references. In one case I simply changed the text to better suit the actual text of the reference. raf910 said "tried add unreferenced info claiming that the StG 44 was not the first assault rifle". the stg-44, as raf910 clearly knows, was the product of the mk-42 contest. The -44 is a minor modification of one of the rifles entered into that mk-42 program. the -44 as raf910 well knows is a minor modification of the haenel submitted to the mk-42 competition. I made one edit stating "An StG-44 prototype, the Mkb-42(H) may have been the first rifle to combine a pistol grip with both a straight stock, and the over the barrel gas system" ffs indef me with no appeal right now. I confess.

raf910 said "TTT has now moved onto the Colt AR-15 where he insists that the Colt AR-15 has select fire versions. Which any knowledgeable person knows is not true. Where he claims that the Colt AR-15 is "A minor product line in the civilian ar-15 ecosystem." Even tough it was the first and only AR-type rifle for decades. And, by his own admission he was completely unaware that the Colt AR-15, Sporter, and SP-1 are the same semi-automatic rifle. [76] Also, he is again forum shopping this time on the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team trying to get a consensus delete the article altogether or combine it with the M16 rifle page instead of the articles talk page where he knows he will lose. title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&action=history He clearly believes that the ArmaLite AR-15, the Colt AR-15 and the M16 rifle are the same and again refuses to listen."

The first AR-15s sold (before the idea of an m-16 existed) were select fire and were sold to the federation of malay by colt. Colt sells select fire ar-15s today under a different name. The colt sporter SP-1 line introduced in iirc '66 was a minor product line in the civilian ar-15 ecosystem. The Colt Sporter SP-1 is a civilian semi-automatic model of the AR-15.

"Also, he is again forum shopping this time on the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team trying to get a consensus delete the article altogether or combine it with the M16 rifle page instead of the articles talk page where he knows he will lose. title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team&action=history" the AR-15 page had radically changed to focus on just the colt civilian line of rifles rather than all AR-15s. I suggested to the editorial team that they remove the new ar-15 article and replace it with the m-16 article for obvious reasons. Lock me up and throw away the key.

raf910 said "TTT has repeatedly shown a lack of basic firearms knowledge on almost every firearm page that he edits. Yet he refuses to listen to his fellow editor and continues to edit said pages. This forces knowledgeable editor to waste their time and efforts to correct his mistakes. Mistakes which he refuses to acknowledge and continues on the next article."

No diffs. My knowledge isn't perfect, but I don't think it's been demonstrated that it's a problem.

raf910 said "TTT has displayed this behavior on almost every article and User talk page that he edits. He has generally annoys and vexes every editor that he has makes contact with. He likes writing walls text where he asks multiple repetitive questions for which the answers are obvious.[77] And, which make it difficult for other editors to understand what he is talking about.[78] He comments on talk pages frequently go off topic. He demands that others answer his questions which he has no intention of listening to, causing others to waste their time and effort.[79] He make no effort to gain real consensus, he simply bulldozers the conversation until other editors give up.[80] He accuses other of wrongdoing when they disagree with him.[81] He refuses to accept any reference but his own.[82] Yet, he rarely includes references with his own edits. He dares and tricks others into edit warring.[83] He is not here to help, he is here to push his POV at all costs."

I try to be polite in my interactions. Testimony was made at the ani that I do collaborate. "I did not find the editor that difficult to work with" Also I have a long track record going back years. I also generated consensus on the assault rifle talk page with Herr Gruber.

I am very quick to compromise.

"He make no effort to gain real consensus, he simply bulldozers the conversation until other editors give up." That is false.

I should note that many of the diffs raf910 posted are non-sensical. This was brought up in the original ani but nobody cared.

katie accuses me of being a serial edit warrior. I'd like her to provide diffs. I've been here something like 6 years and I was ip editing before that and there have only been two instances.

katie said that I think that I'm always right and everyone else is always wrong. This is demonstrably false. But when I have 14 reliable references that contradict something, "because I say so" isn't a convincing counterargument.

I should note that in the original ani katie said "If he's causing problems again after Huon unblocked him, maybe it's time for a topic ban.". Rare restraint in an ani thread it seems.

laserbrain said "I concur with KrakatoaKatie. The OP was a bit of an effort to get through, but it does outline a pattern of serious behavior including edit warring and refusal to listen to other people or back down once it's clear they are in the wrong. I'd support a topic ban from firearms, broadly construed." I believe I've responded to most of that.

kudpung couldn't understand why even with his earlier interventions, "no amount of advice is going to improve his collaborative skills." "With only 718 edits to mainspace stretched over a very long time you have an impressive block log already and not learned much rom it. I see no eason why you should not sit out this latest, appropriate block." "Recommending that the next admin here consider withdrawing TPA due to abuse of unblock requests. Also, user is heading fast for an indef." But generally he just seems to be hand waving to my block log and contributions, which I don't think he understands thoroughly.

irondome said " There is no compromise with this editor, which make collaboration impossible at this stage in the editors development here. " which is directly contradicted by his recent experience with me, among other things. I'd like to note that irondome also said "Is there any scope or room for mentoring here?" but that seemed to be ignored.

huon said "TeeTylerToe spent most of those two weeks arguing on my talk page about the other editors. He has since brought the case to the ArbCom talk page and asked about his problems in the current RfA. He has also expanded the scope of his campaign to downplay the role of the StG 44 to various related articles. I do not see that the problematic behaviour would stop for anything short of a topic ban or a block, and I fully expect that if TeeTylerToe were to switch to some other topics, the same issues would recur there. Thus I unfortunately have to support a block. I wouldn't mind a "no appeals for six months" rule, but I don't think this requires abandoning all hope of him ever becoming a valuable contributor."

"He has since brought the case to the ArbCom talk page and asked about his problems in the current RfA."

That's false. People were suggesting limitations on appeals. I asked on the arbcom talk page if, under such circumstances I would appeal to arbcom.

"He has also expanded the scope of his campaign to downplay the role of the StG 44 to various related articles." I mentioned that earlier. Those accusations are overblown imo.

"I fully expect that if TeeTylerToe were to switch to some other topics, the same issues would recur there." I've been an editor for ~6 years iirc and I edited by IP before that. Given that track record why would you expect me to go on some sort of disruptive rampage? And he later says that hope shouldn't be abandoned. What would prevent this putative disruptive rampage? A 6 months I just want this to go away block?

llywrch pointed to huon's unblock that said forum shopping and accusations of bad faith might lead to a quick indef


And here I am. Stuck in the middle with you. Back where we were a month ago.

The major complaints that seem to hold the tiniest bit of water seem to generally be problems with collaboration.

Finally. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Here are some ideas. Maybe irondome's mentorship proposal has some legs. Maybe a 1rr restriction. Maybe some cooling off topic bans. Would an interaction ban with raf910 get him to stop calling me a troll everywhere and asking me to be indef banned in every forum he can find?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and could someone ask that people making claims about my behavior include diffs or retract their statements?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Also I'd like my block to be modified so that I am allowed to post on whatever forum is chosen for this to be discussed on. Just that one page. Block modifications like this are allowed per policy.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You should use the following template to appeal your block right here on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} . I recommend you trim your argument back before doing so, though. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
You might also find WP:GAB to be a helpful resource. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
An admin told me that you cannot appeal a community/ani block via the unblock template and it can only be addressed by the community at AN/ANITeeTylerToe (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not getting involved in reviewing the block. But here's some general advice: when I changed your block, it came with the following message: You are strongly advised to carefully consider the concerns that have been raised about his editing before attempting to appeal. We meant it. Take some time to think, ask questions if you want, but posting enormous unreadable tl;dr and being unwilling to recognize your own mistakes are things that people found frustrating about interacting with you. If you don't fix that behavior in the appeal itself, you're unlikely to convince anyone you should be unblocked. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It's been ~28 days? If someone can tell me what I did wrong and give examples, that's great. I've asked for that. It hasn't been forthcoming.
That doesn't leave me a lot of options. So I tried to address the issues that were brought up at the ani. As I said, I recognize that people seem to have issues that they choose not to explain about my editing and collaboration. Irondome brought up the idea of a mentorship. I suggested 1rr restrictions, a cooling off topic ban, interaction bans, and said that I was open to other remedies. I'm trying to do everything I can to get unblocked. But it seems as though the situation is exactly like it was a month ago. The problems ani had a month ago are exactly the same. As forums go, ani is a bad one. It's broken.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Yet it is the only venue that can get you unblocked: No single admin can. Admittedly, I didn't read all of your post above. Honestly, no one else will either, very much in WP:TLDR territory. Appeals aren't for rehashing the discussion, nor a blow by blow account of why people are wrong. You don't change people's minds about why you were blocked in an appeal. All you can do is change their minds about whether a block is still needed. Anything else wastes your time and the community's and again, they simply won't read it. Or they will simply vote to keep the block because they don't like the fact that you couldn't shorten it up. No one said ANI is fair, but now you know. Dennis Brown - 21:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
No change from the first time around. A block was never needed. The block had done nothing. Prevented no damage. Done no good. I've argued that it goes against policy on two or three grounds iirc. The block serves no purpose. People were throwing accusations at me in the ani thread like rice at a wedding. So how do I respond? They found me guilty, but they never bothered to figure out what I was guilty of. Which I think is one of the reasons for the no appeals thing.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, well, I am willing to post your appeal to AN/ANI, but I strongly suggest paring it down first (especially the parts that are WP:NOTTHEM). I realize you haven't asked me for advice, but there is it anyway. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
If I were to come to them groveling, hat in hand it would just be history repeating itself. I was damned on superficial grounds the first time round. Apparently with my block log I'm worse than hitler. Then again it's not like they listened or cared when I tried to plead the facts. la plus ca change. Post it.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, well I guess just let me know when you're ready for it to go over there. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Please send it. Thanks.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No remorse[edit]

I'm not seeing any expression of remorse for the timewasting, no acceptance of error, no promise to do better in future. In fact, we've been down this same road a few times with different topics, and it's always the same. Some outrageous claim completely against consensus, little or no reliable sourcing, no acknowledgement of the positions of other editors, misunderstanding or misreading of policy, long screeds attacking everyone else for being blind, biased, malicious idiots, the whole system is against the honest truth-seeker and on and on and on.

The last episode was the bogus claim that a WW1 anti-aircraft gun was the first assault rifle, just because it had "assault" in the brand name. This guy likes having others pay attention to him, simple as that. A little maturity is the answer, and I suggest returning in about twenty years time.

TTT, you were listened to politely, you were found wanting, you went through the procedure, you got blocked. ANI isn't the answer here. Apply to ArbCom, if you wish. They have strict procedures, they do listen, they ensure a fair outcome. But, be warned, do not waste their time. --Pete (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I shouldn't respond. I didn't start the ani. If you think I erred, provide diffs. Where is "assault" in the burton balloon buster? Or are you talking about the assault phase rifle which wasn't an anti-aircraft gun? What brand?TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd have to look up the discussion for the details. And that long and pointless discussion merely illustrates the behaviour problem. If you want to stick around here, you must acknowledge and deal with that. As I did. Otherwise, you seem to be in for nothing but pain and stress. I'll leave you alone now. Any response is merely playing your game, unless you find the self-realisation to acknowledge and deal with your behaviour, and in that case you won't need me to tell you what you've already discovered. Good luck! --Pete (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This is like 1984. No-one will tell me what crime I have committed, only that I am guilty. That can make the whole remorse thing a little complicated.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

break[edit]

@De728631: You blocked me for six months based on a wall of text tldr ani. I asked you to give me something manageable to appeal. You didn't. What other option do I have? Nobody gave me a decoder ring that tells me which of the multitude of accusations I was blocked for. You have problems with my editing. I need a little more to go on than that. So here we are.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been explained to you multiple times at this talk page and in the original ANI thread, so I didn't think I had to answer your requests for clarification. I'm also not going to go into details here but maybe I can help you understand by providing a few examples: The block was enacted because there was consensus among multiple editors that your style of editing and your behaviour in general had become too disruptive and uncooperative to be beneficial for the Wikipedia project. What does this mean? The contributions and discussions you made on topics like assault rifles and especially the StG 44 article, but also during this whole block/unblock process show that you do not seem to be capable of accepting that your opinion may have been wrong and that factual evidence gathered by other editors may have proven you wrong. You already had been blocked extensively and even indefinitely for edit-warring and were put under a topic ban concerning assault rifles. Shortly afterwards, you resumed editing the Sturmgewehr article in a manner that was perceived to only match your personal standards. This may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of editing, but the ANI discussion showed that people simply do not trust you any more to add any productive edits to this encyclopedia. This is all I can and will say in terms of explanation because anything else has already been explained to you. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@De728631: where has it been explained at this talk page. Where was it explained in the original ANI thread? I have no problem admitting when my opinions are wrong. I have no problem admitting when I got facts wrong. I have no problem admitting when my actions were wrong. This probably isn't going to help my case, but the rfc exonerated me. My opinion? The M1907 or something earlier was probably the first AR. Do I try to insert that into articles? No. I can't support that. Could I be wrong about the m1907? Sure. I'm not invested in the m1907 or which rifle was the first AR. The thing is, I had 14 unimpeachable reliable sources saying that some people think the stg-44 wasn't the first. And the rfc supported me. I had developed consensus with herr gruber along those lines iirc. I inserted it into the article. It was contested. Then I stopped trying to add it to the article. I long since dropped it. On the stg-44 page I objected to the wording that the stg-44 introduced the over the barrel gas system, and I also inserted a well supported reference saying that the german army primarily used the stg-44 as a semi-automatic weapon. It looks like the assertion that the stg-44 introduced the over the barrel gas system hasn't been re-added, because, you know, there were russian rifles with over the barrel gas systems before it provably. The other thing that I added to the article is still there as well, although the primary mode of mechanical operation of the subject of the article doesn't get top billing apparently. That's another example of me bowing to consensus. So what damage did I do to the stg-44 article? How exactly did I pursue whatever agenda you seem to be projecting on me? It would seem to me like I actually improved the stg-44 article. Not only that, while maybe my actions were not that of a perfect model editor, I did it with relatively little conflict. It would seem that rather than my actions on the stg-44 article damning me, it would seem that instead they exonerate me. Also, I was not blocked indefinitely for edit warring. I was already blocked at the time that I was indefed. I was indeffed for presenting evidence of reverts and arguing that the evidence constituted edit warring. That indef block was lifted, and, per wikipedia policy, the matter is considered settled. Where have I shown that I refuse to accept that my opinion may be wrong or that I may be wrong on factual grounds? Where has it already been explained to me. Per blocking policy I'm allowed to ask the blocking admin to explain the block, and per blocking policy it's the blocking admin's obligation to, within reason, explain it. I can quote you chapter and verse. Did I, for instance, drag the stg-44 argument, or drag the editors involved to ani and post a 17 paragraph screed trying to get that editor blocked? Just as a completely random example that has no real world parallel.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@De728631:"you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them, though first you have to read the policies they have linked as the reason for the block. If you need to attract the attention of an administrator, you can write @UserName: in your comment and they will get a notice." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Before_you_request_unblock
What are my options here? Use the admin help tag or what?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Wait out the duration of the ban or keep arguing and get your talk page access revoked again. Those are your options, even if you refuse to see them. Those that have tried to explain the block to you have been argued with to the point where they no longer wish any contact with you. Stop endlessly pinging people. Stop arguing your block. Stop typing. Go do something else for six months. You will not be unblocked. --Tarage (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy states that I can ask for clarifications and the blocking admin is expected to answer. De said, for instance, that my actions on the stg-44 article were the "last straw". Wiki policy clearly says I am entitled to ask De to clarify that. To ask De what actions in particular on the stg-44 page were the last straw, and De is expected to answer. Failing that I suppose I have to resort to admin help.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a bit different than an admin block, it is a community block. Kudpung's role wasn't to decide you needed to be blocked, it was to close the discussion, read the consensus and use the admin tools only to enforce the will of the community. It is entirely possible that he disagrees with the conclusion, and we've all closed cases where we would have chosen differently than the community. Of course, if we feel strong enough about it, we would just participate instead of close. In these cases, his accountability is limited solely to whether or not he accurately read the consensus and acting in accordance with it, using policy as a guide. You can't hold him to account for the votes of the participants, only for his read of those votes. Dennis Brown - 08:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
What Dennis said. The community decided we don't want to hassle with this any longer. You can be upset by it, you can try to argue as much as you'd like, but your options are still what I stated above. Continue arguing and pinging people endlessly and your talk page access will be revoked. Or wait six months to a year, learn not to be so argumentative, and perhaps you'll be allowed to come back. You dug this hole, and now you have to decide if you want to climb out of it, or bury yourself in it. --Tarage (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin help[edit]

{{Admin help}} Could an admin please modify my block per block policy so that I can respond on the ani page?TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You can only write on that page if unblocked, there is no part unblock facility. User:Starke Hathaway offered to post your request there if you format it on this page. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, thanks. And maybe change the appealing blocks page text. "Upon a request to seek arbitration, editing access may be restored to a limited number of other pages (such as those connected with their appeal) pending the formal decision, so that the matter (and any evidence, facts, mitigating circumstances, or corrections) can be presented as well."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Abuse_of_the_unblocking_process

TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • This isn't Arb (arbitration), this is ANI, so unblocking to respond isn't likely. You may ask an uninvolved editor like Starke to copy/paste any reply, but the decision to do so is up to them. This is one of the few types of proxy editing we do allow. Dennis Brown - 01:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • One last note (I keep saying that a lot), I strongly recommend against replying to every comment there. First, you need someone to copy/paste, and that is beyond my role here. Second, you already put up a wall of text there and adding to it unnecessarily will reflect poorly on you. Dennis Brown - 01:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI responses[edit]

@Starke Hathaway: Sorry, do you mind posting this? tldr; I'm demonstrably happy to address any specific concerns anyone has with my editing history. What transgressions do I stand accused of that anyone cares enough to argue, provide diffs? I've been a productive editor for 6 years. This block violates basically all block policy. This block serves no purpose, prevents no damage, and does no good. Admins who voiced their displeasure with me on ani might be surprised to hear that I do have a track record of working well with other editors and with developing consensus with editors. What purpose does this block serve? What does it teach me? How does it improve my collaboration skills? What damage was I doing when the block was imposed? What damage has it prevented? Someguy1221 if you can post an edit where I violated NPA post it. I'll mea culpa. If I violated 3rr post it. I'll mea culpa. If I violated policy somewhere post it. What do you want me to mea culpa? What do I stand accused of, and on what evidence?TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
ThanksTeeTylerToe (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

round 2[edit]

@Starke Hathaway:@Someguy1221:@NinjaRobotPirate: Sorry Starke, do you mind posting this? NPR, what else do I have to work with? It's easy to say TTT "doesn't get it", and it's easy to say he should know why he's blocked. It's easy to say his appeal sucks. I've been asking for a month for people to give me solid accusations that I can respond to. Guess what answers I got? "you just don't get it." "indef him because he doesn't get it" What I didn't get? You broke 3rr, here are the diffs. I didn't get, you broke npa, here's the diff. See my problem? Everybody's telling me how easy it is to see what I did wrong... Nobody's actually telling me what I did. Everybody's telling me I'm guilty. Nobody's telling me what I'm guilty of. "just confess". Yea, thanks. What else can I do? I guess somebody has to entertain the circus. What I'm not trying to do is win any old battles as you, NRP seem to be accusing me of doing. When I was blocked I wasn't waging any battles. I haven't started fighting any old battles. raf910 posted an iirc 17 paragraph screed accusing me of basically everything under the sun on an ani. That led to discussion. But none of the discussions had any specifics. There was no, this diff that diff the other diff. There was no "he's violating 3rr in slow motion." With no specifics where does that leave me but to rebut everything?

Someguy1221. I have no problem admitting that my opinion was wrong, or that I was wrong about a fact. I wrongly referred to the federation of malay as the kingdom of malay. I was wrong. I was wrong about the sales of select fire rifles before the ban. I thought they were common even with the tax stamp. Someone corrected me. I was wrong. I thought the colt sporter SP-1 was a separate line from the colt AR-15. Someone corrected me. I was wrong. I think the m1907 was the first assault rifle, but here's the thing, that's my opinion. So I don't insert my opinion into wikipedia articles. I never make the argument "because I think the m1907 was the first AR". Now, I have 14 unimpeachable, reliable sources saying that some people say that the burton rifle was the first AR. That could be wrong. One of the sources is a book. It was brought up that the author of the book source worked for a winchester museum. Someone said, well, he's a winchester employee working for a winchester owned museum so that would be a primary source. Let's say the book was my only source. Sure, let's look into that. Well, the winchester museum isn't owned by winchester, it was named that presumably to commemorate donations made by winchester. The museum itself is independent. In fact, it's name has changed to the wild bill museum of the west or something. But I'm open to argument. I'm willing to admit when something is shown to be wrong. And even with 14 unimpeachable reliable sources, I recognized consensus, and dropped the stick. Consensus was against me and I dropped it. And then a few weeks later I was brought to ANI and a week or so after than I was blocked without appeal for 6 months. And now you're telling me I should be indef blocked because I can't collaborate in the face of disagreement. What can I do Someguy1221?TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Starke has been online in the past 24 hours. I can copy it for you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
ThanksTeeTylerToe (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Response[edit]

Hi. I've closed the review on ANI as there is a clear consensus to not unblock you at this time, and additionally there is a weaker consensus to change your block to an indefinite duration, which I've also done. Sorry. The best advice I can give you is to have an extended break from Wikipedia, then take the standard offer. I would also like to emphasise Dennis Brown's comments upthread that closing administrators have no involvement with the original discussions, but simply sum up what everyone else thinks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Where I'd have to come back to ani and plead my case again. Is that a joke?TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Things might change if you give it enough time, such a change of opinions has happened before, more than once. You would probably have to wait a year or more, though, before trying again, in spite of what the standard offer says about waiting six months before asking for another chance, because of the negative feelings here, caused by your apparent inability to see/understand that the current situation was caused by your actions, not because of what others have done. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Appeal to Jimmy[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.
Hexafluoride I request that you not edit my talk page. I'm blocked and this is an appeal to Jimmy. Please post this on whatever his talk page is. fwiw as I was indefed by the "community" I don't really know for sure if I'm considered blocked or banned, and if I can't appeal this block if I'm blocked, or this ban if I'm banned I'd like to appeal arbcom's decision not to hear my appeal to arbcom, and at least that one does explicitly qualify for appeal to Jimbo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal_of_decisions
To Jimbo Wales:Yea I'd like to be unblocked, I think it's patently ridiculous that I was blocked in the first place for, among other things, being accused of asking the 1.0 editorial team to somehow delete an article... When I... obviously... didn't ask them to delete an article, and instead notified them that an article in the 1.0 project had been turned into a disambiguation page and suggested that they adopt one of the spinoff articles instead. I'm still trying to figure that one out honestly. But more important than my appeal I think is to bring two issues closer to the front burner for you, and for the wikipedia community, as I believe that both issues deserve more discussion.

First. ANI is a joke, and it doesn't represent the community, even though, it seems to operate under the delusion that it does. Plain and simple. I'd call for it to be disbanded, and for arbcom to give a roberts rules lashing to basically everyone who's ever posted on it, but as irresponsible and broken as ANI is, I'm sure it does perform some functions. And who knows, it may be right as often as once a day.

I thankfully can't claim deep knowledge of ani. But from my limited interactions with it, see it as a forum where bored people espouse half cocked opinions about things they don't put any effort or diligence into. So, if there's a need on wikipedia for a forum where bored people throw out uninformed opinions about things they don't care about, ANI has that covered. Maybe, for instance, it could serve as triage. Obviously, the problem is that at some point someone mistook ani for something other than a bar crowd yelling out the first thing that pops in their head.

Take the example that I have a little familiarity with. ANI blocks, and ani block appeals.

Both seem to be unabashed comical farces, with no pretense whatsoever of any attempt for any legitimacy. It seems to be nothing more than the results of a hasty, ad hoc/impromptu straw poll of uninformed admins and nonadmin busy bodies who want to feel like they accomplished something without putting in any semblance of effort.

And the appeals process is just absolutely worthless in every possible conceivable way.

I think any honest person will agree that there needs to be a rigorous, formal way of appealing an ani block, and, honestly, I don't think ani should be allowed to hand out blocks. I think that's patently ridiculous. If ani was an appropriate forum to hand out blocks, they wouldn't have blocked me on the ridiculous accusations made against me, and, when I appealed, they wouldn't have upped my 6 month block to indefinite because they happened to feel, without giving my appeal even a cursory examination, that they wanted to "vote [me] off the island."

It's ridiculous to tell people to appeal ani to ani.

Which seems to be in line with the rest of the wikipedia block appeals process, which is the other topic that I think deserves more attention.

Again, the wikipedia block appeal policy is broken, but not quite broken enough to be completely useless.

The most important thing that I'd like to address about block appeals is something that I've brought up before. That outside of IRC block appeals, two way communication is either strongly discouraged or impossible. It's similar to ani in that two way communications is more effort than participants in ani block appeals are willing to put in.

I, as an example, don't really participate in the wikipedia community. I don't go to wikipedia meetups, I don't talk on noticeboards or project pages, and if I'm talking on an article talk page or user talk page, it's probably going to be about a specific issue I have, with an article, or an issue someone else has with me. I know almost nothing about community norms. So when I talk to an admin about a block, the admin and I are operating on two completely different frames of reference.

And beyond that, as happens in almost every interaction between any two people, people have different reactions to different things, and, on top of that, in the hypothetical of me appealing a block, it's an almost certainty that the admin and I are operating off different information. I, for instance, will usually know more about the context of the problem than the admin, as, presumably is common in all block appeals.

All of these things make two way communications vital to any but the most superficial block appeal.

And yet wikipedia block appeal processes are built to discourage two way communications, both the talk page block appeal, UTRS appeals, and, because of apathy on the part of ANI participants, ani appeals.

In contrast, though, for people, blockees and admins, who have experience with IRC block appeals, IRC block appeals allow two way communication.

Where an admin may be forced to make assumptions in a talk page or UTRS block appeal, in an irc block appeal the admin can ask the appellant to clarify things. The admin can bring up issues that the appellant didn't address, giving the appellant a chance to address them. Any given admin may have their own particular concerns about any particular block appeal, and IRC block appeals allow those admin specific issues to be dealt with.

But IRC is not the only means of two way communications on the internet. Although I will point out that, though emails are two way, email communication doesn't seem to be nearly effective as some form of instant messaging, and, seems to be more akin to the sort of two way communication offered by postal letter writing, rather than a phone call or instant messaging.

So, I hope that at least some discussion about these two issues, which I feel are underappreciated will come out of this insulting and wasteful process.

Oh yea, the ban appeal subcommittee was disbanded, and arbcom seems to have washed it's hands entirely of non-arbcom block block appeals. I've looked at the arbcom ruling/discussion and iirc it seemed to point to the BASC basically not really doing it's job or something maybe, but I remember not seeing any real explanation about the circumstances that led to it, or any reason behind the ruling other than arbcom didn't want to hear block appeals, but imo wikipedia needs something like the ban appeal subcommitte, so I think the ban appeal subcommittee should be dis-disbanded.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This is how you get your talk page access revoked. --Tarage (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Your appeal to Jimbo. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 11:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Help templates abuse. The thread is TeeTylerToe is abusing the help templates after indefinite block. Thank you. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 07:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

To get it out of the way, while I suppose notifying me about your ANI post is fine, I did quite clearly request that hexaflouride not post on my talk page, so please hexaflouride don't violate that again like you did here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TeeTylerToe&diff=750017881&oldid=750002264 Second, can someone explain how hexaflouride can accuse me of excessive use of the help tag when it was hexaflouride himself that twice nullified my help request, and nothing else? If anything, it seems like hexaflouride is in the wrong for just that, and why is hexaflouride responding to admin help requests? I remember a time when you could easily tell who was an admin and who wasn't. Hexaflouride is acting like an admin, but I don't see anything on his user or talk page that would indicate that. So, if anything, maybe someone should ask hexaflouride not to play pretend admin. Not to mention that it's skirting NPA. Is kicking people when they're down in vogue?
block/ban policy could be a lot more clear, but, my block seems to fall under the category of community ban. I could be wrong but I believe one avenue for appeal for a community ban is appeal to Jimbo. If not, I'd like to appeal the decision of Arbcom to refuse to hear my block appeal. I'm quite certain that appeal to Jimbo is explicitly allowed to appeal arbcom rulings, and I have only a short time window to do it. I'd ask katie, how exactly have I been "warned"? And could someone point me to the policy that says blocked users can only use their talk page for block appeals? Exactly how is what I posted "disruptive"? And De728631 how is this "abuse"?TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
A point I forgot to bring up is that one thing that I found was that the procedure for closing an ANI community ban/indef block may be different from the typical ani close, as, I'm sure De728631 knows, and that rather than the typical ani close, which seems to be some self-appointed person taking an informal tally, drawing an arbitrary conclusion from that informal tally and then closing on those grounds, instead community block policy states clearly that the closing admin's role is a much more active role where they have to judge the merits of all the arguments. It's not a rubber stamp. The final decision and judgement rests on the closing admin, De728631, which, iirc, is quite in contrast to some of the remarks De89328 made on closing. I'll look up the exact text in a bit.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You want to know what you did to deserve a community ban? Literally this. What you are doing right now. Refusing to stop arguing when the point has long since been lost. Writing page after page of nonsense trying to wikilawyer your way, refusing to understand consensus. The community decided that we have no further time to waste on you, and yet here you are, wasting our time again. You REALLY want your talk page access to be removed don't you? --Tarage (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You're kind of making my point for me. You don't seem to have bothered to read what I wrote, so I assume you didn't read it the first time either. Not to mention the whole logic of "you're guilty because someone forced you to defend yourself."?TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, TeeTylerToe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

TeeTylerToe (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribsabuse filter logcreation log change block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #17636 was submitted on Feb 28, 2017 09:03:37. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

TeeTylerToe (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribsabuse filter logcreation log change block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #17778 was submitted on Mar 14, 2017 16:07:53. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

TeeTylerToe (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribsabuse filter logcreation log change block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #17783 was submitted on Mar 14, 2017 23:32:31. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

TeeTylerToe (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribsabuse filter logcreation log change block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #18106 was submitted on Apr 22, 2017 22:01:20. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

TeeTylerToe (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribsabuse filter logcreation log change block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #18593 was submitted on Jun 27, 2017 01:35:03. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)