TeeTylerToe
talk page access re-revoked. You may appeal via WP:UTRS or by emailing arbcom. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
StG 44 and semi-automatic editLook, 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)
question editIf 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)
August 2016 edit Block modified editFollowing 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
Block appeal edit
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
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)
No remorse editI'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)
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)
Admin help edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Abuse_of_the_unblocking_process TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:42, 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)
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)
Response editHi. 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)
Appeal to Jimmy edit
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)
ANI edit
|
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
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)
TeeTylerToe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (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)
TeeTylerToe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (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)
TeeTylerToe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (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)
TeeTylerToe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (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)
TeeTylerToe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (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)
TeeTylerToe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #19092 was submitted on Aug 28, 2017 00:08:30. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
TeeTylerToe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20786 was submitted on Mar 03, 2018 23:59:03. This review is now closed.