User talk:Some guy/Archive 1

June 2009

{{Unblock|What is this nonsense? You are trying to prevent me from using the proper channels again. I do not believe there is any rule that lets you block me for initiating ArbCom. You never defined "forum shopping" for me. Initiating ArbCom is not inherently harassment; you could let them judge instead of preventing me from saying anything or adding diff links to the case I have already submitted. :For any uninvolved parties, I have been blocked for submitting an ArbCom arbitration request, which just so happens to prevent me from adding information to my request or being involved in the process. More information in discussion below. Some guy (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)|⟳ausa کui × 06:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)}}

Note from blocking admin to reviewers

Please note that this user was previously blocked by causa sui (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) when editing as an IP and has been pursuing a vendetta against him/her, complaining to Jimbo, filing an RFC (which appears to be farsical), ANI (forum shopping) and lastly filing a (now rejected) arbcomm case against the admin against the admin. Time to put a stop to this WP:TE. Feel free to modify - including lengthening - this block without contacting me. 05:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where the ArbCom case was rejected. Can you clarify? Tan | 39 05:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I WAS ADVISED BY RYAN DELANEY/CAUSA TO FILE AN/I. Having to constantly explain that is a single reason among many why ArbCom is absolutely necessary. Nobody ever told me what forum shopping is, so how can I protest this claim which I expect is false? My RfC was a serious attempt at dispute resolution, a step which was confirmed as a possible step by two different administrators. Some guy (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tan - you are correct. I looked at the wrong section - this request is not rejected. Toddst1 (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As for complaining to Jimbo, yes I feel it is appropriate to bypass a person who is abusing their power to silence someone. What seems to be happening here, by the way? Am I being prevented from participating in an ArbCom request I filed? Am I being prevented from adding edit diffs to better illustrate how the ArbCom case is necessary? PLEASE DEFINE FORUM SHOPPING. Your refusal to do so is another example of why ArbCom is appropriate. Some guy (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Click here Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The capital letters you keep using show that somehow you think the ANI filing is the salient issue here. It is not. You filed an RfC (a proper, if misguided, solution) and received zero support. No one endorsed your case. The RfC was a serious attempt, I agree, and I don't fault you for it. However, the community spoke - and you didn't listen. Forum shopping is taking a complaint to several different venues in the hopes that one of them will have a result you are looking for. You have not received any support in any forum you have tried - so instead of realizing that perhaps the complaint doesn't have as much validity as you thought, your solution was to escalate to ArbCom, which is the WikiEquivalent of taking an unproven misdemeanor trespassing charge to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether or not you intended it, you let this get way out of hand and ended up essentially harassing Causa Sui with your rapid-fire cases, requests, and complaints. Tan | 39 06:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The concept of "forum shopping" it completely nonsensical; ArbCom rules say you must have taken other steps first. If you take these steps first it is not "forum shopping". I considered going to ArbCom initially and deemed I had not yet suitably addressed the case. As for the analogy, I feel this is much more akin to accusing a police officer of corruption, watching his fellow officers back him up while criticizing the accuser's careful adherence to the law, and then going on to the District Attorney or whatever. Todd presented the ANI as a salient issue and I addressed it as such; I am concerned he has been ignoring many of my statements and questions. Some guy (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is far from unique; it's extremely common to have frustrated users feel like there is some sort of conspiracy. All I can tell you is that there is not; your belief in that is your choice. We don't get paid, it's far more fulfilling to actually contribute content instead of dealing with issues like this, and frankly, I have better things to do than team up with other people I've never met and rarely talk to in order to stymie you. As it is, we'll let a third, uninvolved admin review your block request, and the ArbCom case remains filed (and the RfC remains open). Tan | 39 06:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for calmly addressing me and actually responding to me. I appreciate your feedback. I already feel much calmer because I feel ArbCom will not criticize me for trying to follow policy, admin advice, and dispute resolution. Would you be willing to add to the request some links to edit diffs that I was intending to add myself? I wished to link some of the examples of administrators criticizing me for following policy. Or at least add a note that Todd blocked me for filing the request? Some guy (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I will add a note regarding the block. Tan | 39 06:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Some guy (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• He's correct that I did advise him to post on WP:AN/I, though I didn't intend for him to broadcast his RFC there. Usually AN/I is, as I understand it, the recommended forum for users who want to report abuse of administrator privileges that is in progress and ongoing, or other incidents that may require immediate intervention from another administrator. It is not the best forum for posting a notice about an admin conduct RFC, but I'm willing to take responsibility for the misunderstanding. This user is ignorant of the intricacies of Wikipedia policy and convention and I don't think his struggling to navigate the bureaucracy should be held against him. His behavior is another matter. ⟳ausa کui ^× 06:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have misrepresented yourself. Exact quote: "I'm guessing you're trying to start an RFC on my use of sysop tools. If that's the case, the best place to find people to certify your RFC would be at WP:AN/I. (Usually, that's the first place you would want to go with this sort of thing, anyway.)" Some guy (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'll take responsibility for the misunderstanding-- it was my mistake. I also am tempted to think it is a bad idea to have you blocked while the RFC is open and the Arbcom case is in progress. I'll discuss this with the blocking administrator. ⟳ausa کui ^× 06:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I was about to decline the unblock request but edit-conflicted with the on-hold. I won't do it now, but the reason I was going to use was:

You filed the arbitration request only 5 hours after you started the RFC, which is still in progress, has yet to be certified by any other users, and consists solely of you complaining and everyone else saying that you are wikilawering and harassing causa sui. You have not "taken other steps" as the other steps have not had a chance to resolve themselves. The purpose of "other steps" is not to create arbitrary forms to fill out or to provide multiple chances to get your way, but to resolve the dispute in a "lesser forum." You may be "using" proper channels, but you appear to be doing so in a disruptive manner. I would strongly suggest you stop now. Continued wikilawering will not help you. Mr.Z-man 06:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave up on the RfC after being repeatedly criticized for following another administrator's advice, for following the guidelines of the template used for the RfC, and for following the dispute resolution step Ask about a policy. I feel that these elements of the discussion unfairly tainted the discussion; additionally, most of the basis used against me was for my after-the-fact behavior which was in response to what I feel was excessive use of administrator tools; nobody even addressed my complaint that the initial page protection that started everything was in direct contradiction to page protection policy. Some guy (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take the advice I gave you, which is: "You should get back to editing, and forget about the issues with Ryan. If you do have a problem with anything he did, the first step in resolving any dispute is always to talk to the person you have issue with. Either talk to Ryan, or move on." Prodego ^talk 06:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are too many problems that need to be addressed now. Every step of this has been a bureaucratic nightmare; the system is simply too obtuse and open to vague interpretation and claims of "wikilawyering" (which according to the essay is a 'skill' best used at ArbCom). I would rather discuss problems in relation to existing policy than being openly mocked for citing or following policy. As I expressed to you earlier, I felt Ryan was openly hostile and mocked me several times and direct communication seemed unsuitable. I feel his behavior since I filed the ArbCom request has been commendable, but we cannot start using administrative actions or arbitration simply as leverage to get people to say they are sorry. I can see now that I was too hostile and threatening when I demanded Ryan to undo the block, but I was very angry at his administrative actions and the general way I had been disregarded, rather than properly communicated with. I did not think the user was that upset about my comments and I was completely shocked at the sudden page protection. It is important to attempt to address and hopefully improve these aspects of the system. Some guy (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• A couple points here:
  1. I think you're basically right that the process of filing user conduct RFCs and getting accountability for use of sysop rights is too complicated. I'm not sure what to propose as a solution to that. If someone gave you a hard time for posting the notice to WP:AN/I, I apologise for that. I don't like it when people are given a hard time for failing to navigate what can sometimes be a stifling bureaucracy, and I'm constantly arguing on the policy talk pages to simplify them (without much success, as of late) for that exact reason.
  2. I also think you're right that I was wrong to leave the user talk page protected as long as I did. Initially, I protected it to give myself time to figure out whether you needed to be blocked or not; I didn't want to respond with a block immediately, but I did want it -- whatever it was -- to stop while I looked into it. When I saw that you had followed him to the RFPP page to harass him there as well, it was pretty obvious that you were stalking him, and that the situation was going to continue to escalate if you weren't blocked. After I blocked you, I simply forgot to unprotect the talk page until a couple days later.
  3. Though I completely stand by my decision to block you, there is some plausible argument to be made that a 1-week block is a bit long.
  4. I have to point out, though, that if you had only said "Okay, I'm sorry, I was wrong, I'm going to leave him alone and it won't happen again" I would have unblocked you myself right away and none of this would have been necessary. I hope you can come to see how your own escalation of threats, crying out about injustice and how unfairly you are being treated, etc etc, has put you in the situation that you are in. You are the wrongdoer here. You could extricate yourself from this situation at any time by just admitting that and going back to working on the encyclopedia, and all would be forgiven and forgotten. I assure you I have no interest in holding a grudge. It seems that the only person here who doesn't want to move on from this is you.
  5. Instead, what you are doing now is drawing much more attention to your wrongdoing than necessary, and it's making sure that some rather powerful people get a good long look at it. I hate to say it, but that makes an impression about you.

Look, the upshot of this is that it's your decision whether you want to continue on down this road. I sincerely hope you can make the right choice so we can all get back to doing constructive work. ⟳ausa کui ^× 10:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not stalking him. I did not check his contribution history to see where he had gone. When the page notified me it was protected, I went to WP:RFP and I contested the protection as inappropriate. Apparently you didn't like how I contested it. You applied the block without investigating the matter first, and it would have taken only seconds to verify his claims were false (his talk page history). You should hopefully have noticed I did not post anywhere else he is because I didn't even check. I briefly mentioned an argument on his talk page from many months ago but I removed that myself as I didn't actually know the circumstances. My points on the page protection history were valid; his claim of multiple IPs harassing wasn't true (I freely expressed I was the only IP). He went on to "justify" his actions as that he got complaints all the time for using Huggles and he's "sick of it". From his page history, I did not see evidence of his getting complaints all the time, although he did indeed get another complaint about an improper reversion after you applied the block. "Sick of it" is not a valid reason for page protection. Additionally, you keep rationalizing your actions after the fact, but if you really only intended to use the page protection briefly to assess the situation, you could have set the duration for a day, or an hour, or a minute. And you 'forgot' to remove it until after the block was overturned and I could file a complaint against you. Some guy

If you are using excessive application of administrator tools to leverage apologies, that is also misconduct. I can't find any policy page or precedent anywhere that suggests a 7-day block is appropriate for a first-time offense of this nature - I see much more serious offenses given thirty hour blocks. Blocks are supposed to be used to prevent whatever trouble for the briefest time that will suitably resolve the issue. Longer subsequent blocks can always be issued. Some guy (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that even if there were no other steps required before arbcom, the case would still likely be declined. ArbCom isn't going to spend the time to open a full case even if there was an agreement that the couple of actions being used as evidence were wrong. I can only recall one instance where arbcom did accept a case somewhat based on only a few admin actions. The result was probably one of the biggest disasters in the history of the committee. The committee would also look at the conduct of all involved parties; yours has not been entirely above-board. As for the "bureaucratic nightmare" that was only because of the path you chose to take. Rather than calmly discussing the issue person-to-person, you chose to try to fight with policy and escalated it faster than the normal dispute resolution system is intended to go. RFCs and RFARs are not resolved overnight. An RFC may run for more than a week; arbitration may go for months, which is why trying to do it all in a day just looked like vexatious litigation. Mr.Z-man 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The RfC was clearly compromised to pointlessness; most of the complaints against me were about after the fact behavior, many of them contrary to policy and critical of my attempts to follow policy as I have frequently mentioned on this page. I thought the RfC was essentially over already, as the RfC user conduct page doesn't get much attention and my AN/I was marked as "resolved".

It sounds to me as if you are just confirming the system is broken and there is no practicable way to address administrator misconduct except in the most extreme cases. How wonderful. Do you not see the major problem here that I continue to cite policy and nobody else does? But I get accused of Wikilawyering (an essay)? So that policy is considered pointless and following policy is highly frowned upon and warrants diminutive terms. Some guy (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Question: Am I allowed to add to my ArbCom request response to comments there?

When everyone tells you to stop doing something, you should stop doing it, not continue to do so while arguing that policy supports it - that is wikilawyering. This is a collaborative project, policies are not immutable laws and are to be treated with common sense. The proper way to address single issues of "misconduct" is to discuss it one-on-one with the admin and they should hopefully be reasonable and work to a compromise - remember, there is another person on the other side. If they aren't reasonable, then you may want to ask others for informal help. If that fails, then the formal processes should be started. Yes, ArbCom is only for extreme cases. You can add to the Arbcom request, but as its almost certainly going to be rejected, I doubt doing anything but withdrawing it would be a good move on your part. Mr.Z-man 19:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure (in answer to your question, edit conflict with Z-man). I'm sure you've noticed that your ArbCom request has (so far) been unanimously declined by four ArbCom members, some with admonishment of your behavior. In my opinion, I have gone to extraordinary lengths to assume good faith on your part, explain processes, advocate for you, and maintain civility. However, my patience is pretty much exhausted and it's becoming self-evident that you refuse to take the Wikipedia community's advice on how to deal with this - despite no support for your side and massive opposition to your complaints. What remains, then, is that Wikipedia is not for you. This is a private project that relies on collaboration, and you do not have an inherent right to participate - or further disrupt. Whether or not you are "right" is irrelevant at this juncture; the Wikipedia community does not support you and will not tolerate much further "legal" action on your part. Tan | 39 19:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been actively contributing to Wikipedia for 3.75 years. When I started, policy was straightforward, there was not an obtuse beuracracy. The entire system has swelled up into a wallowing mass and fallen to pieces, far more harmful than helpful, alienative of new and even long-time users. My intention is not to harm the project; I think the system should be improved, but God Forbid we do that. Some guy (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see that you've made your choice. I'm going on vacation today and won't be back for a couple weeks. I want you to know, sincerely, that if you carry on like this, you will very likely be banned by the time I get back. Please reconsider. ⟳ausa کui ^× 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with causa sui. Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

<-- Some guy, I've been trying to follow your issues as your case at ArbCom was ahead of one I was dragged in to and it caught my eye. I've tried to read as much as I can but I've probably missed bits and can't really remember what started it all off, but I think you need to take a few steps back and put some perspective on this whole issue.

Wikipedia is not perfect. The articles aren't perfect and the policies and guidelines aren't perfect. Most importantly, no user of the site is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. I saw somewhere that you said your original edits to a user's talk page were trying to be funny. Humour often struggles online in text, and I'm sure you could agree that humour without a smiling face could be considered harassment. I'm not saying it was, I haven't even looked at it, but the issue is that it's open to interpretation, and some users have interpreted it differently to you. This problem with interpretation then continues with the block to the user talk page, the block on you and all the steps through dispute resolution that you've also taken. I hope how you can see how a problem with interpretation has let this problem snowball, one interpretation added to another, different, interpretation and so on.

I am disappointed that some of the editors above seem to be encouraging you to leave, you've been around long enough to be a positive presence, I'm sure after a little break you'll come to see this as a learning experience and come back to contribute positively. And the next time you get into a dispute you'll perhaps try less humour with them and more reasonableness. Then if someone blocks the user page you might interpret that not as an offense, but as a message to let things lie. And appreciate that with the best of intentions people get things wrong. There are more important things to do than chase electronic avatars around an online encyclopedia all day but that's what you and others here have been doing recently.

I hope you continue/return to add to the encyclopedia, and interpret these words in the kind-spirited way they are intended, it took me long enough to write them... ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure what to do now; I feel like I'm crazy or something, since I was so sure about all this and not one person agreed with me. I don't know if I should continue editing if there's something wrong in my head. Some guy (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone involved would like to see you continue editing. However, we hope you are able to more directly engage people you disagree with, rather than turning the escalation dial to 11. Toddst1 (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your head. And I apologize if my comments were interpreted as encouraging you to leave - I wasn't trying to imply that. I was simply stating what appeared to be true at the moment; that perhaps this whole jungle of academic nutbaggery might not be your cup of tea. However, this can really all be forgotten in a big hurry, and we can all get on with trying to improve articles best we can. Tan | 39 22:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your kindness. Some guy (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Random section break

e/c with Tan, who rather annoyingly summarises what I've written in a more elegant and efficient manner...!

No no, I'll go and find some essays or something about it all, but for now bend your head around interpretation (I'll assume it's an article and not preview it). Two or more people can look at the same situation and see something totally different. Some people enjoy sport, some people hate it. Some people look at modern art and see beauty and meaning, others see paint splats or an unmade bed. I think you might have drifted off onto a bit of a ledge, indicated by your userpage monologue, but you're certainly not crazy. You perhaps over-reacted to what you saw as an unfair situation. Others interpreted it as unreasonable behaviour from you and it all spiralled out of control. I'm not here to pass comment on all of that, but to point out that there are other points of view and sometimes people come in to conflict over them. It's important not to blow those up in to a big deal. Possibly take a break, possibly edit a little backwater of wikipedia, perhaps find a new article to write in your userspace away from other editors. I don't know, but it seems like you need a change of scenery from all the conflict and brushing up to all the policies and guidelines that seem to be winding you up. Bigger digger (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And yes, the Spinal Tap reference is apposite, a word I will try to use more often... Bigger digger (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and kindness. Some guy (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock

It was probably just a slipup but I am still autoblocked and unable to post elsewhere. Some guy (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the autoblock. Please post any further technical problems with this here. Tan | 39 18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Some guy (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For this. I'm glad we're moving in the right direction. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future. I sincerely mean this. Toddst1 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

Ok, I've had a cup of coffee and I shall do my best to outline my concerns in a civil and polite way.

It is not, in my personal opinion, appropriate you to come in to articles and make sweeping changes without first extending the courtesy of outlining your suggestions on the talk page. Minor stuff, the addition of cited facts, etc- sure, Be Bold, go ahead. But changing an entire article's structure? Common sense and basic courtesy, IMHO, says you let people know what you're planning to do first.

Secondly, I have read through your disagreements with Nukes4Tots and Koalorka and I disagree with findings at WP:ANI, and further I agree with N4T and Koalorka's opinions on your edits. I'm sorry if you think the MILHIST project is "Elist" or "Not welcoming to new editors". There's a reason for it- we put a lot of work into the various articles there. A lot. All those in-line references and cites have to come from somewhere, and that means someone sitting in front of the computer with a reference book page-hunting, cross-checking, and then adding it into the article. There's not many of us who can be bothered doing it, which is why there aren't many firearm-related FA articles.

So, when someone who is not "recognised" comes along and starts editing articles, the Red Flags go up. As I said on the other talk page, most of those edits (not all, of course) are, well, Not Very Good and have to be reverted. That, too, is a lot of work- I've lost count of how many times I've had to revert mentions of Captain Jack Harkness using a Webley revolver in Dr. Who/Torchwood because of the Pop Culture guidelines. Personally, I'd rather leave the information in there, but The Rules say no pop culture info except for the Approved Sort, so out it goes.

Of course, what that means is that, after a while (or several years, in this case) you do end up with a core of editors doing a lot of "behind the scenes" work and I'm sure you can agree it's only natural that there's going to be an element of protectionism involved there. And I really don't care what the official Wiki policy on "Ownership" is. If you start getting snotty because people don't fall over themselves in amazement at major changes you've made after appearing out of nowhere, they're eventually going to say "Sod it, I can't be bothered" and the articles won't be maintained anymore, which leads to... well, you've been on Wiki for a while, you've seen abandoned articles that have deteriorated because no-one is maintaining them anymore.

Look, here's what it boils down to: If you're not prepared to be part of the project, fine. That doesn't preclude you from contributing worthwhile edits to firearm articles. But I think it takes a staggering amount of cheek to try and tell the project how they should be doing things, and then saying you're too good to join when it's suggested.

Surely you can see how getting two prominent editors (ie, people doing a lot of work) blocked might not be the best way to endear yourself to other editors working on the related articles? You say they were making personal attacks, I see two very frustrated editors expressing that frustration (and nothing I would consider a personal attack).

Honestly, all you had to do was say "Sorry, I didn't realise you guys took it so seriously", take a few seconds to put your name on the List Of Members, and come back and say "Listen, I've had some ideas that I'd like to share, this is why I think them, and what do you guys think?" Wikilawyering is not the answer and is just going to piss people off. As you're aware, you need to gain a consensus. And that's going to be hard to do if everyone thinks you're a nuisance.

I think you have, in short, gone about it completely the wrong way (IMHO) and I really, really, REALLY think that instead of being a dick about it and stamping your foot and beating everyone over the head with Wiki Policies, the best thing to do is to withdraw the proposal, contribute in other areas for articles (feel free to add in-line references to articles or copyedit them, check spelling, and so forth), and them come back with a definitive proposal in a couple of weeks when everyone has calmed down and people can see that you're really keen to help.

I'm sorry if I've come across as being combative or unpleasant or Elitist. I am an Elitist, unfortunately. I really don't want to be getting into fights with people- you, or anyone else. Honestly, I'd much rather spend my time working on articles. But please, try and see this from my point of view and understand why I'm unhappy about the situation. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Before this mess I have never faced any troubles over adding subsections, nor concerns that adding subsections is a "sweeping" change. It is a straightforward change to organize the article and make it easier to read and most people accept this openly.

The fact that you disagree with the administrators and agree with Nukes and Koalorka indicates to me you have a very warped perspective. Your behavior is absolutely elitist, this should not even be an issue of contention. You have made ridiculous attacks about me saying I'm "too good" to join, and then repeatedly and viciously suggested my opinion is worthless because I'm not a member of your club.

Being recognized is completely irrelevant. A core tenet of Wikipedia is that all editors are equal. I'm not sure how you justify saying my edits were generally not very good - you probably missed the fact that EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO IS NOT YOU, NUKES, OR KOALORKA HAS SUPPORTED AND AGREED WITH MY GENERAL SUBSECTIONS ATTEMPTS.

"I really don't care about ownership policy" is just silly. Adding subsections is not a major change.

You continue to put words in my mouth and say that I said I'm too good to join, which is extremely immature, especially since you pretended to ask me "out of curiosity". I've never had any interest in being a member of any project; your (and Nukes' and Koalorka's) behavior does not make me excited about joining, and considering your hostitility I can't image that me joining would make anyone happy.

I haven't heard complaints from anyone but you about them being blocked. Calling me a troll is unacceptable. Calling me a novice is ridiculous. Accusing me of having a learning disability is extremely unacceptable. Nukes said "fuck you, you little shit" or something to that effect to another editor and was blocked for that behavior which was not even related to me. I actually refrained from "having Nukes blocked" because of our disagreement, and was asking a few people for advice and opinions as to whether he was displaying article ownership, before I discovered the personal attack while looking for an attempt at discussion that he deleted.

I don't kiss ass, particularly not in a situation this stupid. Excluding editors because they are not members of the project is unacceptable behavior. Actually I don't think I really need a consensus as my edits fit into the existing guidelines which state they are not rigid, but I am working on developing it anyway because of the behavior of users like you.

I'm not going to be bullied and intimidated, nor withdraw my proposal just because you disagree with it. Some guy (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[Long Some guy / Georgewilliamherbert conversation started here, moved down to separate subsection for clarity - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)]

I didn't say that your edits in particular were no good. I was attempting to provide some insight into why a "regular" editor generally goes on alert when they see "(Name They Don't Recognise) +10,286" on their watchlist in relation to an article. Because most of those edits aren't very good. Try it. Take a really popular, high traffic firearm article (not one you're currently involved with) and watch it for a month, and see how many of the edits made to it by "casual" editors turn out to be useful or worthwhile. Not many, I think you'll find.

I have already apologised for getting a little heated, but I still feel it's unacceptable for you to appear out of nowhere, demand changes (and subsections of a Prescribed Type And Length are a major change, especially for the people who have to implement and maintain them), and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of making "personal attacks".

Less than six WP:MILHIST project members have commented on your proposals (myself, Kirill, Narson, and Nukes, and maybe one or two others). That's not a consensus. Even adding in the two or three other people who have appeared out of nowhere to comment, we're still not looking at a consensus.

I can see we're going to have some fundamental differences of opinion on this whole thing. I'm prepared to try and do the right thing by not getting too bogged down in off-topic disagreements over editing style, but as a sign of Good Faith it would help a lot if you could contribute more general editing work to other firearm related articles- especially because, as a benefit to yourself, it shows you've got some technical understanding of the subject, and you really do want to improve the articles (and not just wikilawyer or be a nuisance). Commander Zulu (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not added "+10,286" to any article. Your standard of "regular" editor is your own opinion and there is no policy or guideline anywhere on Wikipedia to back it up. The vandalism or "unhelpful" edits of any other user are not in any way relevant to my edits. I appreciate your apologize, but I still am not going to back down and remove my proposal because you consider me an outsider. I have not demanded anything, I have started a discussion to establish consensus.

You are using consensus as an arbitrary standard; I doubt you will ever be satisfied a consensus has been reached as long as people are agreeing with me. Whether or not the commenting users are project members is irrelevant and you have been repeatedly informed of this. "Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." What are your reasons for why adding subsections is bad? The subsections are not of a proscribed type and length right now. How does adding subsections make the article more difficult to maintain? I will be adding the subsections myself, probably. Other users just have to take note of where some paragraphs may have been moved. I do not have to "prove" myself to you; my interest in editing firearms articles at this time is primarily in organizing them. Even if I didn't know anything about firearms, my attempts to organize the articles would reflect that the articles are not approachable for users who don't know anything about firearms. My firearms knowledge is broad, and I understand most things though I don't care to delve into memorizing all of the internal parts and how they work together - average readers will be even less inclined to do so. But placing paragraphs into sections that are labelled and inform the reader of what content is found in that section is much easier than digging through 1200 words of a single section trying to find a specific piece of information. Some guy (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, the "+10,286" comment was mild hyperbole about the sort of thing maintaining editors look for on their watchlists- "Gosh, this is a sizeable edit from someone I don't recognise. Better check it out." It wasn't about you in particular. The "unhelpful" edits of others are in every way relevant to your edits, for reasons I've already explained several times: The maintaining editors don't recognise you, don't see you on the list of project members, and will therefore default to "Alert" setting and assume your edits will be similarly unhelpful, this viewing them in a less positive light straight off the boat regardless of how helpful you are intending to be. You can complain about that attitude all you like, but that's just how it is, I'm afraid. Regardless of how you look at it, half a dozen people does not constitute "Consensus".Personally, I stay out of areas in Wiki that I have no interest or experience in- so, for example, I wouldn't contribute to a Consensus vote on changes to the WP:ASTROPHYSICS MoS, for example. And I'd like the same courtesy extended to me- if you're not actively involved in an area (project member or not), I don't think you should be given any weight in consensus discussions. Yes, that's my personal opinion and there's no formal policy to back it up, but there you go. Now, onto your proposal: My concern is that formalising an expanded list of Approved Subsections just complicates things. You should know (as you're so fond of Wiki policies, it seems) that once you create "guidelines" and "consensus" there will be people (not necessarily you) that use those guidelines to beat other people over the head with. So, if we create a MoS that says "Firearm articles should include an "Evolution" section, you're going to have incredible revert wars and fights over A) What constitutes and "Evolution" (or "Did Firearm X even evolve into Firearm Y?")and B) If said "Evolution" needs to be mentioned in the article at all (For example, I don't know if I'd consider the AKM an "Evolution" of the AK-47; they're pretty much the same gun subject to minor component differences). Also, "Postwar" is too arbitrary, IMHO. I'd prefer to see "Military" and "Non-military" use. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. To re-iterate: Absolutely no-one is objecting to having additional subsections in articles. What I'm objecting to is an expanded, formalised list of Approved Subjects. I honestly believe it's more trouble than it's worth. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you re-read my comments on the discussion carefully you might notice my repeated usage of phrases such as "if applicable", or the fact that I have been saying I think it may be more appropriate to just say that subsections are acceptable (and possibly have a words-per-section guideline). Evolution was actually based on the extremely long history section of MP 18 which has six paragraphs about the weapon's evolution/incorporation/whatever into newer firearms. "Military" and "Non-military" is not useful for articles where there are ten paragraphs on military usage. Maybe just "World War 2", "Korean War", "Vietnam War", or even "World War 2" and "Beyond WW2". Having guidelines to cite is better than being beaten over the head with baseless complaints about needing consensus to add subsections. Some guy (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert Concerns

For what it's worth - I am not CZ, Koalorka, or Nukes4Tots, and I also agree with CZ that your reorganization attempts have tended to be overly confrontational and often without merit.

You are not playing well with others on this topic. You're assuming support among the community that I do not see, in general, and this is definitely not good editing etiquette on your part.

You are attempting to work changes through proper channels - but often attempting to find alternate channels if consensus in one is against you.

I agree that firearms articles could use being more consistent, but that does not mean you're the right person to carry the flag for a project to reorganize them. You seem to butt heads with other editors and with consensus a lot more than is helpful, and clearly more than is necessary. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I had no intention of being confrontational until my edits were reverted, I was accused of trolling and vandalism, and I was forced to start a consensus discussion to satisfy the desires of two editors who believe they represent everyone. Where do you not see support? I see support everywhere, not universal, but a clear majority. There is no "consensus" against me or my ideas. I have no interest in fighting, my goal is to improve the articles, but you might notice there are a few editors (including yourself?) who are more interested in criticizing and devaluing me than actually discussing the substance of my objectives or give any reasoning at all as to how adding subsections hurts the articles. Some guy (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not just two editors - There are quite a number of editors that have warned you or cautioned you regarding your interactions with Nukes4Tots and Koalorka. Plenty of editors have disagreed with your proposals or your approach to arguing them. If you believe a majority of "interested parties" involved with the firearms articles or WPMILHIST support you unequivocally you are grossly misreading the situation.

I am not attempting to attack you or devalue you. If I believed you did not mean well, I would have blocked you indefinitely for disruption some months ago.

I have no objection to your working with the community to evolve things. However, you have proven that you are extremely effectively baiting at least those two editors on a regular basis. This is not appropriate behavior.

I do not disagree that either Koalorka or Nukes4Tots can and has misbehaved. They have crossed the line in the prior incidents. However, that does not absolve you of responsibility for taking the tone and confrontationalism of conversations to a point that drew them across the line.

Baiting people is explicitly covered in our civility policy. When you draw people into abuse repeatedly, and they do not engage in that abuse in a regular manner with other contributors, there is a pattern there and it's hard to avoid.

You have had a tendency to antagonize them and draw them offsides and then run to ANI. I want to put you on notice, now, that next time that happens I will examine your behavior leading up to it very closely. If you have been continuing to bait them and bear some responsibility for the degradation in civil communications, you will be held equally responsible for disrupting the encyclopedia. Disruption, even if it does not violate other policies, is blockable. And baiting behavior is a violation of WP:CIVIL.

You can continue to improve the encyclopedia without butting heads with those two, or others. If you continue to act in a manner that provokes confrontations, that is as unacceptable as what they have done in response. There's nothing gained by you doing so - it introduces administrative discussions instead of focusing on article content and the value of the encyclopedia.

Please do not take this as an attack on the content improvements you want to make. I believe that you mean well for the articles. None of the proposals you have tried to make has been with any evident destructive intent.

If normal conversations with them lead to one of them being rude without you provoking them, I will not blame you for that. But you really need to avoid causing confrontations. If you have pushed a button in the conversation you will be held accountable for that. If you've pushed a lot of buttons, even if you have done so politely, you will be held extremely accountable for that.

Normal editors manage to avoid more than a rare accidental irritation or aggravation of their co-editors. That is normal human social interaction. We expect and hope that our editors here will be as responsible and respectful on wiki with each other as we expect you are in real life.

If you can live up to that going forwards, there is no issue. If you continue as you have been going, you're going to find yourself unwelcome here, as much as Koalorka and Nukes4Tots are pushing the limits on abusive behavior now. I hope and expect that you can take this to heard and avoid problems in the future, rather than chosing to walk down the path that takes you out of the community.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have an extremely distorted view of the situation. Please don't start playing the 'everyone is against you' game without backing it up - please indicate for me all of the editors who have disagreed with my proposal. Please define 'quite a number'. What did I do months ago to warrant an indefinite block? How long is a "regular basis?"

It was never my intention to bait anyone. I have bent over backwards trying to be reasonably civil and not make personal attacks, though obviously sometimes they aggravated me and I was not always extemely nice and polite. They also refused to properly discuss the situation, as they continually attacked me as an editor instead of providing reason as to why my edits were wrong. They called them confusing and said I didn't have a right to make changes, and that was about it. They ignored my requests for clarification. Please indicate to me where I have been baiting anyone.

How did I "draw them offsides"? What does that even mean? I reiterate that it was not my attention to bait anyone; I gave Koalorka a tremendous amount of patience before I finally filed an ANI due to his incessant personal attacks after I repeatedly indicated to him that I did not like being attacked. I gave him warnings on his talk page and he denied that personal attacks had taken place. He still denies it.

My only objective was to add subsections to the articles. The fact that I was viciously attacked for it and forced to start a consensus discussion was not at all my wishes. I think actually going through with the consensus discussion to comply with their ridiculous demands shows my good faith.

Why don't you go explain to Koalorka what a personal attack is, as he clearly does not understand? Why don't you go tell Nukes that reverting other people's good faith edits and then deleting their attempts at discussion, while he continues to revert them, is very bad behavior? Why don't you tell him that "fuck you, you little shit" is not an appropriate response to being told he is boneheaded for repeatedly reverting without any more reason than "you don't know what you're talking about"? Why don't you tell Zulu that an editor's opinion is not invalid because he is not a member of a Wikiproject, and that proposing changes to guidelines is not impertinence and a waste of time? Why don't you tell him that asking me "out of curiosity" if I want to join the project and then savagely attacking me for "saying he's too good to join" is baiting and uncivil?

I appreciate your clarifications that you are not trying to belittle and devalue me. I also respect the fact that you have concerns with me and you are trying to address them, but I don't like that you make it sound as if there is an overwhelmingly negative response against me and everything I've done. Obviously not everyone supports every single word and action, but that's because everyone is a different person with a different perspective, but overall everyone who has actually participated in the consensus discussion has said they agree that subsections are allowed and needed (notice that even before being blocked, Nukes and Koalorka did not participate beyond Nukes attacking and antagonizing me a little bit), and only three users that I can see have outrageous personal issues with me. Some guy (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Other administrators have already talked to Koalorka and Nukes4Tots about their behavior. I am not going to defend what they ended up saying - I agree that it was rude and abusive. I don't need to repeat warnings and blocks that others already made on them for that.

That is not the point. The point is, whether that's their way of dealing with everyone, or if it's interactions with you which are bringing that behavior out in them.

Koalorka has had a history of snapping at people on and off. But he did that roughly once every six to nine months at a "serious" level before you came along. Nukes4Tots did not have a problem with abusing people at a serious level.

Again - This is not just my opinion. A wide variety of editors are making the same observation. I have, as I stated, been assuming good faith about your contributions here, which includes not having confronted you over apparent baiting behavior in prior incidents. I believed and still believe that you have the best interests of the project at heart.

If you think it's just me, and that I'm imagining the others' comments, I think that it would be instructional to you to look back across the various policy debates and talk pages you've contributed to actively over the last three or four months, and at the talk pages of the editors you're finding yourself in conflict with. I could create a list of dozens of examples and whack you over the head with it - but I'd prefer if you go look yourself. Your perception that you're doing nothing wrong is the problem here, and you have to find the evidence and convince yourself that you may not be entirely right. The evidence is there. It's easy to find. You will benefit from taking some time off and looking at it.

If you do that for a couple of days and still believe you're doing nothing wrong - I worry about your future in the project. If you think you're not doing anything wrong, you're not likely to change your baiting behaviors, and as I said, if those continue and there's another blowup you will be held responsible for your participation next time.

I do not want to chase you out of the project. What I want is that everyone has a chance to contribute positively and feels happy about that participation. However, you are having the effect of chasing several other editors out of the project now. If that was purely due to entirely civil and reasonable behavior and they were not provoked, that would be one thing. But many people feel you're provoking responses.

If you're provoking the problem, and the problem does not go away, then you will eventually have to.

Your response to me above indicated that you are by and large taking my comments here as some form of personal attack. I find that unfortunate. I am trying to treat you as an adult, to lay out the situation and the policy and show you where the conflicts are with the rest of the community. Administrators and editors are supposed to assume good faith, even of those who are apparently causing problems. In situations like this, we try and talk to the parties and give them plenty of information, feedback, and opportunities for them to correct the behavior problems. I cannot make you take this advice and feedback positively, but I hope you do so. I am trying to treat you as an individual and a responsible human being, and I'm specifically trying to avoid the content disputes and focus on behavior.

If you just get defensive and don't listen, it doesn't help you. Try to resist that, and listen to what I have had to say, and look around at other editors' comments on your participation.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)

Nukes had a block history of multiple blocks for personal attacks. "A wide variety of editors are making the same observation" - please indicate who. You keep making these claims without backing them up.

I know I don't do everything right and the problem I had with the administrator was an absolute fiasco which I guess was entirely my fault, since it is actually true that not a single person agreed with me at all on that matter. Other than that I honestly don't know what you are talking about and I do not appreciate your broad and unsubstantiated claims. You could very well be right but you're going to have to show me where.

I did not intend to chase anyone out of the project; I was hoping they could learn to cooperate with other editors and I even asked several administrators to more clearly explain various policies to them since they did not seem to understand and clearly were not interested in listening to me. Nukes is still here unless I missed something, and Koalorka said he would leave of his own decision due to multiple block extensions that I was not even involved in.

You comments do feel like personal attacks until you back them up with actual evidence. I could accuse you of pretending to be polite while baiting me, though I hope that isn't true.

I just thought of the thing with Watchmen - you might notice is an extremely similar situation where a single editor, Erik, has decided he is the last word on the page and continually reinserts text that others are removing. The majority of the people who responded agreed with me that the text should be removed. I became extremely angry at Erik's stubbornness and eventtually withdrew from the discussion and stopped editing for a while. It is extremely frustrating and angering when a single user (or two users) fights with rock-hard stubborness against change despite clear majority consensus against his/their views.

If you have any other examples, particularly regarding the current situation, I expect you to cite them - one again I don't appreciate the "most people consensus disagree with you but I'm not going to tell you who". Some guy (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you because you looking for them is an important part of the educational process.

I just perused five pages in the list I gave you above and found five such comments. It took me five minutes.

If you aren't willing to invest five minutes in educating yourself on how you are perceived on Wikipedia, this will be a short trip for you and end in dissapointment. Spend the five minutes, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What list did you give me again? I can't find a list. Please stop at once. You are making me angry unnecessarily. I have given you good faith until this point but I find your behavior to be antagonistic and I can't shake the feeling that you are baiting me. You have made your point, you disagree with my behavior. I will not respond to any more comments until you back up your words with examples. If you continue to post unsubstantiated claims, I will consider this harassment. Some guy (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved (in the content dispute) administrator trying to work constructively with you on this problem. I have been dealing with problem users for some time, wrote the current best practices essay on how to deal with people who are uncivil or abusive in a constructive and respectful manner ( Wikipedia:Civility warnings ), and have repeatedly been congratulated for engaging with extremely upset or abusive editors in a way that respected them as an individual human and worked with them to calm the situation. Please believe me that I am not trying to provoke you or bait you.

If you feel that way, that is unfortunate. This is probably close to the most polite criticism you will receive from anyone on Wikipedia, and if you cannot deal with that then you need to consider if your personality and emotional insight and communications approaches are appropriate for the project.

My recommendation for where to go was in this paragraph above, with time tag of 00:30 on July 9:

"If you think it's just me, and that I'm imagining the others' comments, I think that it would be instructional to you to look back across the various policy debates and talk pages you've contributed to actively over the last three or four months, and at the talk pages of the editors you're finding yourself in conflict with. I could create a list of dozens of examples and whack you over the head with it - but I'd prefer if you go look yourself. Your perception that you're doing nothing wrong is the problem here, and you have to find the evidence and convince yourself that you may not be entirely right. The evidence is there. It's easy to find. You will benefit from taking some time off and looking at it."

The policy debates on WP:MILHIST talk page, the talk pages of articles you've gotten in disagreements over, and the user talk pages of those you've been in conflict with are the ones I recommend you go read, going back some months. Again, the first five examples I found of others criticizing your conduct were on the first five pages I checked, out of that list, and the check took five minutes.

I am not asking you to spend several hours. I'm asking you to spend a few minutes. If you aren't willing to spend a few minutes, I believe that there is a more serious problem. Please take the time. Me providing those diffs will not make nearly as much a difference to you as what you'll find looking back at those discussions.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not been arguing these issues for months and I have no reason to go and find some consensus against me that supposedly took place before I said anything. If you pay areful attention, you will see that there have been three users that seriously disagree with me, whom we have already acknowledged: Koalorka, Nukes4Tots, and Commmander Zulu. I am very angry that you are actually making me waste my time counting people.

(undent)

• MP5 Talk:
  • For: Some guy, Australian Rupert, Sifaka, Thumperward (partial)
  • Against: Koalorka, Nukes4Tots

• SG 550 Talk:
  • For: Some guy, Australian Rupert, Sifaka, Leivick, Sandstein (partial)
  • Against: Koalorka, Nukes4Tots

• WP:MILHIST Discussion:
  • For (to varying degrees obviously): Some guy, Ranger Steve, Berean Hunter, David Underdown, Kirill, Sandstein, Commander Zulu (sometimes)
  • Against: Nukes4Tots, Commander Zulu (contradictory)

• WP:GUNS Discussion]]
  • For: Some guy, Thumperward
  • Against: None

• TOTALS:
• For: Some Guy, Australion Rupert, Sifaka, Leivick, Thumperward (partial), Ranger Steve, Berean Hunter, David Underdown, Kirill, Sandstein, Commander Zulu (sometimes)
• Against: Nukes4Tots, Koalorka, Commander Zulu (contradictory)

Several users have cautioned me about my behavior (Kirill, Berean Hunter, Thumperward, yourself) while other users outright hate me (Koalorka, Nukes4Tots, Commander Zulu). Several users have advised Koalorka and Nukes4Tots that their behavior is unacceptable (myself, Sandstein, Toddst, Daniel Case, yourself.

I see a lopsided equation here. Equal complaints of misbehavior on both sides, though I would go so far as to say I haven't accused anyone of having a learning disability, told anyone "fuck you", or even told anyone that their opinion is worthless and they have no right to speak. Very one-sided support for subsections and modifying or clarifying the existing guidelines.

I will repeat, any more unsubstantiated claims will be considered harassment. Any further attempts to make me "research" things for myself will be considered harassment. I feel that you are attempting to aggravate me and waste my time. Some guy (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not about your various proposal's content. I was very specific that this is not about your proposals content. This is about multiple editors being concerned about your editing style and how you engage in discussions with other editors. Who agreed or disagreed with your various content proposals has nothing to do with the problem.

Please focus. This is important. Counting something unrelated to the problem is not relevant to the problem.

Review pages again, looking for comments about your editing style and what people think about how your participation makes others feel. Those four pages above are not bad places to look, but you need to also look at the user talk pages for the users you've been in conflict with, and on ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will quote you. "Plenty of editors have disagreed with your proposals or your approach to arguing them. If you believe a majority of "interested parties" involved with the firearms articles or WPMILHIST support you unequivocally you are grossly misreading the situation. " I already said not everyone agrees with me on everything because they are different people.

Nukes4Tots and Koalorka have two major complaint against me: 1: I am a vandalistic troll with very bad faith and a history of worthless edits. 2: I am "stirring the pot", in other words that I am looking for change. They have later bandwagoned onto every single complaint or criticism anyone else has suggested but that was after they were blocked for their behaviors (Nukes' block was not related to me and he was not blocked for attacking me.) Commander Zulu has one major complaint against me: I am not a member of Wikiproject Firearms or Wikiproject Military History, so my ideas are invalid, my proposals are an impertinent and a waste of time. After that argument completely fell through, he started riling up Nukes and Koalorka and joining them in bandwagoning.

I have responded to other editors' criticisms of my behavior and most other involved editors have been trying to help resolve the situation. You have been the most irrating and least helpful person with complaints about my behavior; you have made me jump through ridiculous hoops and persisted in annoying behaviors after I asked you to stop. I do not wish to discuss anything with you at any point from now on. Please stop posting comments on my talk page. Some guy (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We can take this up tomorrow, but - I would really rather discuss this with you constructively and civilly rather than have to indef block you for disruption.

It is really important that you understand that this is a serious situation and that your cooperation in avoiding further conflict is necessary.

You are clearly not getting the point I am trying to make about what issues other editors have with your behavior. Again - this has nothing to do with the content of your proposals, or the attacks others have made upon you. This is entirely about how you are interacting with the editing community as a whole.

Even if we entirely exclude any complaints made by those you are in direct conflict with, many longtime contributors to WPMILHIST and WPGUNS who do not get into personal arguments with anyone have made complaints that they think you're trolling by baiting people.

I am sorry that you are not taking my engaging here with you well. However, I am an administrator, I do see a problem, I have evidence and comments from other uninvolved parties, and given the severity of the ongoing situation I have to do something about it.

I want to give you every chance and opportunity for that something to be working cooperatively with you.

I am extremely concerned that you seem to be avoiding looking for the information I asked you to, and using unrelated excuses. I was as clear as I can be about what you need to review, without diffs. That is apparently not working. You posted several times today right next to the comments I'm referring to, which makes it very confusing that you cannot find them on your own.

That you either cannot or will not find them on their own indicates one of three things to me:

1. Either the others' who think you are in fact just here to annoy people are right, and you're intentionally evading my effort to work with you,
2. Or, possibly, you are too frustrated at the moment to cooperate in this, and you can do so reasonably if I let you calm down a bit until say tomorrow, or
3. Finally, you might not understand how to communicate at this level for some reason (I could hypothesize you are very young, a non-native english speaker, or something like that, but I fundamentally do not know).

I am going to continue to assume for the moment that the first is not true. I hope the third is not true. I am working under the assumption that it is the second. That's why I'll come back tomorrow.

If you really cannot find the examples I am suggesting, of other editors who are concerned about your baiting people and behaving badly in debates, if necessary I will provide diffs tomorrow. However, if I have to do that, it strongly suggests that the third case (you don't understand how to communicate at this level) is true. If that's true, it may be time for you to leave Wikipedia - we really cannot handle people in the community who have communications problems and end up disrupting the environment that badly, even if they would like to contribute positively and have good intentions. We cannot handle sigificant levels of disruption whether it is malicious or not.

Even if I have to provide diffs, I will continue to assume good faith and try to work with you. If you're frustrated tonight, I suggest that you not even think about replying tonight, come back tomorrow and say whatever you think at that point after sleeping on it.

Please do not freak out over this and push me away. I am trying to help you, and the encyclopedia. If this is frustrating I regret it, and I will attempt to avoid doing so, but some things need to be done and said. Please take time if you need it to calm down, but re-engage here to try and avoid something permanent having to be done to your editing privileges.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see: WP:ANI#Some guy where I have redirected the detailed discussion including diffs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

friendly cease & desist

Please stop edit warring. Pick ONE page to open the discussions about changing the section headers and then enter into a discussion without reverting anything else. Solve it through discussion. This message is a friendly reminder to avert the three revert rule. Better to discuss. Please don't shoot the messenger...leaving this for all involved parties. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where is the most appropriate location to have the discussion. Very few people have expressed their opinion on this matter; except for the two editors who keep reverting me without really discussing the matter, there have been five editors across different talk pages who have expressed agreement with my general efforts to improve structure, at least at the MP5 and SG 550 articles. User:Nukes4Tots has made no effort to discuss anything with me, and User:Koalorka has been extremely hostile and made several personal attacks on me.

My feeling is that repeatedly reverting my obvious good-faith attempts to improve the article by adding subsections (which are supported by the existence of the subsections template, WP:MTAA, and MOS) should be considered an act of vandalism. It seems to me that it is extremely inappropriate to revert instead of attempting to improve upon my edits. Do you feel it would be appropriate to file an ANI if the editors continue to revert my edits without discussion? Thanks for your input, regardless, and of course I will not shoot you. Some guy (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't escalate this to ANI just yet. I've been looking at some of the exchanges but haven't seen all of them yet. Give your postings at WP:GUN and Milhist time...it may take editors a while to comment if at all. I would suggest carrying the discussion between parties at WP:GUN. I don't have any comment yet about the structural differences and still paying attention to the various parties involved. If everyone can keep the discussion in one place it would help. I have to sign off soon (1:30am here) but will try to follow up tomorrow. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks. A major problems is if I move some obviously misplaced text between paragraphs or add links to words that were not linked, and my edits are blanket reverted, I have to go through and make these changes again regardless of the use of subsections. As for discussion, there is Talk:Heckler_&_Koch_MP5#Excessive_lead.2Farticle_organization (and the section below it) and Talk:SIG_SG_550#Structure (and the section below it), Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Comments_needed_on_structure_of_firearm_articles and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Article_Organization, though I see you've already looked at some of these. Some guy (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that User:Nukes4Tots deleted both of our comments from his discussion page and went ahead and reverted most of my work again anyway. At what point does ANI become appropriate? Some guy (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly alright for him to delete messages from his talk page. I'm confused a little because I currently see some of your structural changes are in place without them necessarily having reverted you (such as your changes on Heckler & Koch MP5). There appears to be some acceptance of your changes. Recommendation: I would alter your request to something more fundamental & shorter in nature so that you might illicit more input. It is possible that editors are not engaging because of WP:TLDR. I would suggest something along the lines of the short question, "Are the section titles listed in WP:MILGUN absolute or may some liberty be taken with them?"

I'm hoping to see Nukes4Tots or Koalorka state their reasons more articulately because there may be good justifications. If you repost, you might try inviting them to the party on their talkpages to a singular locale (your post) to try to isolate this discussion. They may or may not respond but you will have done everything correctly according to WP:BRD.

A concern: when you are changing section headers, are you checking for orphaned links?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots reverted my changes at M1 Garand, Thompson M1, and Steyr Aug. The two of them don't have any valid concerns beyond 'change is bad', which is why they are not discussing anything in depth. Should I delete the previous organization request section, create a new one, or what? Some guy (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Post a new one. I changed the Garand article back to your structure (I think) but I'm not looking to simply revert all such changes (Thompson, Steyr)...I'm hoping for dialog that will be productive. Personally, I don't feel that we should have completely rigid section titles but I remain open to what they have to say. De-escalation is always the better way to go. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks. You did change the Garand article to my structure. I forgot to mention I've been mostly inserting subsections and moving paragraphs, rather than renaming existing sections, so there shouldn't be a big problem with broken links, but I'll try to check that later. I have to leave for work but I'll start the new section when I get back. Thanks again. Some guy (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka came back and reverted most of the rest of my work, and Nukes4Tots got the Garand article again. I am posting an ANI as they are not actually dicussing the situation and the personal attacks on me are making me outraged. Some guy (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

bedside reading & tea

Take several deep breaths. Then read WP:KEEPCOOL and WP:TEA. I've just poured you the glass. I think I hear the kettle...8^D
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am doing my best to keep cool, thanks. This behavior [1] is absolutely unacceptable. Some guy (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

tip

I noticed that you started an entry on the MILHIST talk page with ..."I tried to get this in but you edit conflicted me so now it's broken up."

If I've written a post of any significant size (3+ lines) then I highlight the text and hit CTRL-C to copy the text to the clipboard. If there is an edit conflict then you will be able to easily paste it into the edit box with CTRL-V.

Happy 4th of July!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The problem was I wrote the one line that was kind of an attack and submitted it, then I realized it was and I started editing again to write the rest and maybe tone that down, but the other guy already responded to it so it was too late to change the first comment. Some guy (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Structure of WPGUNS articles

I removed the structure section you added to the Wikipedia Firearms project page, as it didn't appear to have anything to do with Firearms, being linked to something that was more about military bases. Not sure what you were trying to do, but perhaps you linked to the wrong place? Thanks. Yaf (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You looked at the wrong section. THe one about bases is below the one about firearms. It's called milGUN because it's about guns. Some guy (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. For some reason, when I clicked on the link, it jumped to the next section. No problem. However, WikiProject Firearms articles include many non-firearm articles. Have tried to incorporate the pertinent content here. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, no problem. I've had that happen before, where it kind of scrolls incorrectly when following a link to a specific subsection. The MILHIST guidelines states "The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article; they are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics a fully developed article will discuss", would you like to add something to that effect to the firearms project page? Or is that what you mean by "In general, WikiProject Firearms goals are to work on improving the quality of project-tagged articles without imposing WikiProject Firearms guidelines as mandates"? Either way, thanks for your assistance! Some guy (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

nukes4tots

check out his sockpuppetry/checkuser case for some more background about his abuse. also, search the ANI page for nukes4tots and koalorka to see a history of the purported abuse. you were not the first to run into problems with these users, and i think you are absolutely right and they are absolutely wrong. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Some guy (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

H&K MP5

response to your message to me. I'm sorry that you feel that the redirect from H&K MP5 to MP5 was not needed. FYI, they are not the only manufacturer of the MP5. In fact, all around the world there are others: Vector Arms, Specialty Weapons, B&T, GSG, etc. MP5 should not be classified as belonging to H&K when in fact it doesn't. 72.129.127.164 —Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

(drive-by) ...but the weapon was designed and attributed to H&K. A section about other manufacturers could be included within the article, however.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Since H&K designed the MP5, I would expect it does indeed belong to them and other versions are manufactured under license or are just knock-offs. There are plenty of knock-offs of the Colt M4 Carbine and Colt 1911, for example. Some guy (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mammal Paleogene zone 5 is commonly abbreviated as MP 5. It would not be important to a shooter or hunter, of course, but neither would a gun be to a scientist. Mammal Paleogene zones are used commonly in scientific literature, and it's important for someone to be able to figure out what time period that refers to. Unfortunately, the only other place I have been able to find an definition of each zone is in a location not searchable on most search engines within a large database. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not such an article yet. I'll see what I can do about that. I've got a couple sources I can work with, and I do feel it's important to have the topic in the wiki. I'm actually beginning work on my own project to make sure all the common time charts are included or at least mentioned in Wikipedia. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Computer icon

Your content removal does not appear constructive. Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Computer icon, you will be blocked from editing. --Hm2k (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting improperly sourced material is constructive. Some guy (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Having just reviewed the edit history of the Computer icon article, I feel that Hm2k should withdraw this "warning" as it was unnecessary. JBsupreme (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

When is it acceptable to source material to a primary/self-published source? Take a look at this for example. [2] JBsupreme (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that you just won the Emu War

Thank you for your work in developing the Emu War article from a silly article on a silly topic to a good article on a silly topic. Nick-D (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I originally awarded you a barnstar, but just saw on your user page that you don't like them. Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad to have improved it. And thanks for respecting my opinion on barnstars - I've seen them given out for such ridiculous reasons that I don't see any merit in them. Some guy (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

please strike through your error

you said on ANI that i baited koalorka. please strike through that. i did not interact with him at all. i was complaining about georgewilliamherbert's bad unblock because i don't have faith in his ability to be a fair admin. i never spoke to koalorka. please look into this and either strike it out or provide a diff that shows where i baited him. this is a serious accusation and i've been blocked for 30 days previous by georgewilliamherbert for 'baiting,' so i don't want people getting the wrong idea from a mistake you made Theserialcomma (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your dislike of George is absolutely tied into your dislike of Koalorka and Nukes and the reason that you were complaining was because you don't like them. You're trying to use technicalities here. Some guy (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No. you are wrong. my dislike of george's 30 day block on me for 'baiting' nukes4tots was excessive. nukes is a serial abuser, with 10 blocks, and i had none. and then george gave me 30 days for 'baiting'. previous to that, george once warned me for 'edit warring' with nukes, about 6 months previous, when nukes was edit warring and not me. i knew when he blocked me where his sympathies lie. george then went unblocked koalorka with the same bad admining he used against me. my comments were always about george, not them. they were just examples of george's poor admin behavior. the conclusion i made was that people should look into george's history as an admin and look for more evidence of this type of tool misuse. if you don't believe me, that's fine. but i am telling you that i literally had no intention of ever interacting with koalorka at any point in that conversation on the admin's page, and he showed up only to attack me. read it yourself. it was unprovoked and i did not bait him. i ask once more that you strike through your vicious and false claims of baiting OR show diffs and defend your claims. you are wrong here, so either defend your claims vehemently with diffs and evidence, not speculation, or strike through them. you are out of line to attack me without defending your attacks with diffs. strike through what's unsubstantiated and wrong or defend your claims with evidence. that is fair. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

These seem like technicalities to me, but if that's how you feel you should explain your feelings in detail at the ANI. From what I've seen you, it feels to me that you are just careful to manipulate a situation so there is no concrete evidence of wrongdoing on your part. Either way, I'm done with my involvement, but I won't strike out my comment at this time. Some guy (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

listen, if you're unwilling to back up your accusations with diffs or evidence, then you seriously need to stay away from me and anything to do with me. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you got what you wanted. I think the topic ban proposed by George is a good solution which will prevent you and Koalorka from fighting and I suggest you accept it. Some guy (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

i really have no problem staying away from koalorka, as i have for the past 6 months. however, if he is abusive, according to the topic ban, i'm not allowed to report him. okay. all because he attacks me out of nowhere when i complained about georgewilliamherbert being a bad admin, and then GWH uses your unsubstantiated attacks on me as 'community support' for his COI-tinged decision to topic ban me. no one has yet to provide diffs of how i baited koalorka. i was only interested in getting more people to scrutinize GWH's abuse as an admin - dont care about koalorka at all.Theserialcomma (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's what that was about. Somebody else posted a broken birthday template and I thought it was just a random editing mistake - I hadn't even realized it was my WikiBirthday. Thanks! Some guy (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)