User talk:TeeTylerToe

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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 - 2¢ 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 - 2¢ 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 - 2¢ 01:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)