This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'll delete your sandbox in a few hours when I have access to a better computer (the size keeps on crashing this browser!), alternatively you can tag with {{db-u1}} and another admin will delete it. GiantSnowman 10:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Edgar Manucharyan
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Again, please do not add any content back to this article that is not directly referenced by reliable sources; please also do not remove the valid maintenance tags. GiantSnowman 18:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I was not online, and that is no "green light" to add unreferenced material to a BLP - that is basic stuff. Do NOT add the material back to the article - either find reliable sources, or leave it out. I also strongly suggest you use the article talk page. GiantSnowman 16:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Please only re-add the 'full name' if you present a reliable source at the same time. GiantSnowman 16:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You added something without a source - and the state of other articles doesn't matter. GiantSnowman 16:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion
You need to stop following me around Wikipedia, and you need to stop with your POINTy editing as it is becoming disruptive - at James Dickey you removed an infobox and sourced material! If you do not cease immediately I will report you to ANI for harrassment and disruption. GiantSnowman 20:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Removing unreferenced material is acceptable - it is NOT acceptable to target only/mainly articles I have recently edited, and it is not acceptable for you to delete infoboxes or sourced material. GiantSnowman 20:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Crow, You are removing material that shows no signs of being dubious. pointy edits will be taken as disruptive editing. Span (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Crow, you removed sourced material here (the Bibliography section?). You are either lying or you are not checking your edits - neither is good. GiantSnowman 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Because you have removed sourced material (diff above) and yet claim not to have - so that means you are lying about it, or you do not know you removed it (which means you are not checking your edits). GiantSnowman 20:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
So because I edited an article and didnt make it perfect I am a hypocrite? Pull the other one. GiantSnowman 21:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You should only re-add the challenged material if it is supported by reliable sources (per WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V). GiantSnowman 21:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You need to calm down and stop shouting. The content I removed from the Manucharayan article was unreferenced and full of POV and OR; the referenced section I removed about a birthday is trivial and unencyclopedic. GiantSnowman 21:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not encyclopedic, it is trivial. And your additions were full of POV - "At the age of 17, he was the best scorer of the club and became an advocate for the youth team of Armenia" - and the rest of your edit is full of poor English. GiantSnowman 21:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
A typo. It is you who doesn't know what he is talking about. "He obviously became the top goalscorer that year and I'll give a better word than advocate" makes no sense whatsoever. GiantSnowman 21:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Please go to WP:BLPN or WP:ANI and say that you don't want to add references to an article about a living person because the statements are "obvious" - you'll get laughed off before you've even finished typing. Of course many articles have unreferenced info, that doesn't excuse your edits in the slightest. GiantSnowman 21:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and my name is not Snowball. Show a bit of respect please. GiantSnowman 20:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Shortening your name to 'Crow' is not "messing" with your name. GiantSnowman 21:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, this was a very silly move, I have taken the matter to BLPN. If you don't stop this behaviour it will be going to ANI. GiantSnowman 22:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Arsen Beglaryan
Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments1 person in discussion
I suggest you create the article in a new sandbox, and if it appears notable I will transfer it across to mainspace. GiantSnowman 16:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Your sandbox is near-impossible to navigate and crashes my browser due to its size. Please move the relevant material on Beglaryan to a 2nd sandbox and I will be able to review. GiantSnowman 17:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
He doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL (hasn't played for Armenia senior team per NFT) and he appears to fail WP:GNG - can you find any more sources for him, which cover him in significant detail, and not just databases? I will then open up the page for creation. GiantSnowman 17:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
He has not actually played a game for the national team, and the Armenian Premier League is not a fully-professional league - he therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. If you are able to show he meets WP:GNG - and you haven't done so yet - then he will be considered notable, hence why I have requested you please look for more sources. GiantSnowman 17:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Well sourced does not mean notable - the coverage must be "significant" and not just databases etc. WP:NFOOTBALLdoes mention playing, and the Armenian Premier League is not listed at WP:FPL. GiantSnowman 18:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
There aren't enough sources for me to feel confident re:GNG; NFOOTBALL clearly says "Players [...] who have represented their country in any FIFA sanctioned senior international match" are notable; and if the Armenian Premier League is not listed as fully-professional, then it is by default not fully professional - that is simple logic. Stop being so difficult, and please find some more sources if you wish for me to unlock the article. If he is as notable as you claim then that shouldn't be an issue...? GiantSnowman 18:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Just because something is true does not mean it is notable. That is basic, basic, basic stuff. GiantSnowman 18:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
He does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG, he is therefore non notable. A league will be considered fully-professional if reliable sources confirm that. GiantSnowman 19:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Well I disagree on the sources - why can't you find 1 or 2 more? I have asked you multiple times. If he was notable, it shouldn't be an issue. A league is considered fully-professional if every player that plays in the league is a professional. GiantSnowman 19:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I have looked at the sources - as I have stated (far too) many times, they do not meet GNG, as they are WP:ROUTINE and do not cover the subject in significant detail. For the 3rd or 4th time - are more sources available? GiantSnowman 19:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Something more than run-of-the-mill/transfer news - an in-depth piece(s) or interview in national media would suffice. GiantSnowman 19:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed it, he keeps coming back and vandalizing these pages. He keeps trying to draw me into an edit war to get me banned so i just let the mod's take care of him. Ninetoyadome (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Gegard Mousasi
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Clearly you should know by now that you need reliable sources and should be utilizing the edit summary when making edits to WP:BLP articles. I believe this is what got you banned previously. Again, I undid your edit since it lacks any reliable sourcing and all reliable sources indicate he represents the Netherlands in competition. Find reliable sources which state that he is still a citizen of Iran and/or he represents Iran in competition. This is a pattern and it looks like you are repeating it despite multiple warnings and bans in the past. Based on your past behavior, I will not bother undoing the edit if you choose to re-apply without reliable sourcing, but I will take the matter to WP:ANI instead. BearMan998 (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Provide the reliable sources that he is still a citizen of Iran. Secondly, your edit does away that he is a citizen of the Netherlands, intentional or not. Again, this is a pattern you have shown with WP:BLP articles, and I'm not going draw this out any longer than needed. BearMan998 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't mean he is an Iranian citizen. Being born in Iran doesn't grant you citizenship. Was his father born in Iran or was his father Iranian? Can you confirm that with a reliable source? And then can you confirm that he holds citizenship to this day with a reliable source? Answer that. BearMan998 (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
You better read that article on Iranian citizenship again. BearMan998 (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Re:You
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You edited two articles I had created, and they were therefore already on my watchlist. I do not really have a problem with your editing style, all I have done is copy-edit he articles - improve English, remove flowery language, make more neutral, bring up to scratch to meet MOS. Standard stuff. GiantSnowman 17:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Notification of ANI discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
It would be wise for you to review WP:STICKTOSOURCE, especially for the content you are attempting to put in the Karo Parisyan article. BearMan998 (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not a smart move and will lead to re-opening of the ANI discussion. BearMan998 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
April 5, 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BearMan998 (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Per the discussion on WP:ANI, you are hereby topic banned for the next three months from making edits related to Armenia or biographies of living persons, both broadly construed. Failure to abide by this decision will result in a block. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite to the ANI discussion however I am going to decline to participate --Cameron11598(Converse) 04:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
You can't just erase everything that happened - I suggest you just post a comment asking for it to be closed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
TSC, you may want to take a look at WP:NOJUSTICE. As you must know by now, AN is a sort of "lynch mob justice" (i.e., no justice at all). Sorry if you feel cheated, I know your topic ban was unfair. Yours truly, DanielTom (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Advice
ShadowCrow, if I can provide a little bit of advice. First, let me say that it is unfortunate that you were not pointed directly to the description of a topic ban. Although I'm 99% certain that it was linked to in the ANI discussion, you should have been formally linked to it when you were notified that the new topic ban was in effect (after all, with hundreds of links in that discussion, the important ones often get lost). You'll see when you read it that the goal is to allow you to edit the rest of Wikipedia while preventing you from editing problematic areas (or at least areas that the community believes are problematic) - yes, this may indeed be similar to the "lynch mob justice" that DanielTom refers to above. I'm sure that if you understood the "process" and "purpose", you might have a) put up a slightly different defence, and b) edited rather differently in the time since the topic ban was enacted.
If you ever appeal your topic ban, the community is going to look for 2 specific things: 1) has the editor lived up to the letter and spirit of the topic ban, and 2) has the editor made very significant edits in other areas of Wikipedia without problems. Please note the word "significant" - it's important: it's hard to put a formal "quantity" on significant, but let's say that you average 100 edits to articles a day before the topic ban, you'll probably need to make at least 50 per day to other articles without any issues. I would also recommend that you not attempt to appeal a topic ban until you have met "significant edits" for at least half the time of the imposed ban - so, if you were given a 6 month topic ban, edit significantly elsewhere for at least 3 months before appealing. (Note: editing your sandbox does not count towards "editing elsewhere" - in fact, some people may look at you editing your sandbox on topics related to your topic ban as breaking that topic ban "in spirit").
Please note: this is not a hard and fast rule, it's more of a "rule of thumb", having seen and discussed numerous topic bans and their appeals. You're welcome to take this advice and toss it, or to take it to heart. However, before you toss it and say "I'll appeal when I want to, there's no risk" - we have had recent situations where a new topic ban was enacted - a topic ban that prevented the person from making further appeals of their topic ban.
One final note: if you have ever received previous topic bans, then appealing this one will basically be out the window: one of the primary purposes of blocks, bans, etc are to prevent repeat behaviour. If a block or ban was given, and months or years later another one had to be imposed, then it becomes de facto proof that the first one was unsucessful in preventing recidivism.
I do wish you luck in your editing of Wikipedia now and in the future - it's always odd when the "community" trumps everything else, which means appearance often holds more weight than logic. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:AE
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Please be aware of this report at WP:AE [1]. Thanks. Grandmaster 20:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you..
Your sandbox is in about 50 categories that it must not be in, and it is too large to edit to fix. Quale (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artur Avagyan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User:Sandstein, you were why to quick to judge a block. As you can see here, the person who sanctioned the AA ban doesn't administer a block on me for reporting someone else who broke an AA ban, similar to what's happening now. You might also want to re-read that I did not enter an AA discussion now or then. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Dennis
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User:Dennis Brown, have you been reading the discussion on Technical's talk at all? I did not like the multiple sandbox idea and was against it. I did not create any extra sandboxes, as you have accused me of. I even told Technical that it violates what you said. WHY DON'T ANY OF THE ADMINS KNOW THE FUCKING RULES!?!? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Appeal
Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I did not enter an AA discussion, as Sandstein claims. I had reported someone who was already topic banned via discussion of breaking their ban. When does it become a crime to report someone who violates the rules? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
First, I see violations of your community-imposed topic ban. Second, as you've been told and should know, no admin may grant your request because this is also an ArbCom violation block. Finally, if I see more aggressive, uncivil behavior here from you, I will revoke your talk page access. Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Insofar as it is addressed to me, I decline the appeal. Reporting others is not exempt from your topic ban. Also, at [2], you inserted yourself in an ongoing discussion, rather than reporting someone. And your recent contribution history indicates several other topic ban violations, such as [3]. Sandstein 12:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Sandstein, Double (association football) is not an Armenian, BLP, or AA article, so I have not violated anything. And no, that link you gave is not a discussion. It is another report of someone who was already banned via discussion.
A discussion would have to have something to debate or decide over and would have to involve exchanging ideas or opinions. That was not what Proudbolsahye and my sections were about, they were simple notifications with nothing to debate. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that I have tried to give you a little rope with the sandbox, and you have spent most of your time obsessing over those edits and getting the topic ban lifted. You are still operating under the illusion that everyone is wrong except you. The whole purpose of the topic ban was to keep you from getting blocked again but as Sandstein points out, you've wandered out of the sandbox and into articles, as well as the filing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Dennis Brown I do have a bad habit of not seeing any wrong in my part, but this time I don't see where I went wrong. You, on the other hand, have bluntly accused me of something I didn't do and have yet to take any responsibility for it. And no, Sandstein didn't block me for the sandbox, he blocked me for reporting someone who should have been blocked. Wrong again Dennis. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, you are missing the point entirely. The reason I speak out about "allowing" it is to keep admin from extending your block for it. Of course he didn't block you for it. He told you why you were blocked, and he gave other examples of you violating your topic ban. And you should not have been filing there. That was a violation of your topic ban. If it were more of an isolated incident, it would be easier to stick up for you, but you keep failing to get the point here and making excuses. Until you stop that, I don't see good things happening. You haven't addressed the other link he provided. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
There you go again, changing your point entirely. No, you aren't speaking about "allowing"; you haven't said that word yet. You aren't making any sense because you're contradicting yourself. To quote you:
The whole purpose of the topic ban was to keep you from getting blocked again but Sandstein points out, you've wandered out of the sandbox and into articles
Of course he didn't block you for it.
I have problems admitting when I'm wrong, but everyone else has the same issue. You yourself said the ban went against justice. If that's the case, then in theory I'm right and it's only reasonable that I try to appeal bans and blocks. I didn't see his comment and replied to it. Once again, I did not violate the ban. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Had you not edited in violation of the topic ban, then it would have served its purpose. I've never said the topic ban was "against justice". I don't like topic bans, but it was imposed so you should follow it. If you would have just avoided all areas listed in the topic ban, you wouldn't be blocked now. That is the point that is lost on you. The problem is you, not the rest of the world. Had you not been topic banned, you would have been indef blocked by now. As long as you keep blaming others, you will keep getting blocked, until you are indef blocked. I fear that isn't far off. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Dennis Brown I tried my best to dig up the post where you said justice isn't guaranteed on Wikipedia, and therefore said my ban isn't justice, but couldn't find it. Hopefully now you remember and will admit you said that, otherwise I will go back to looking for it. But I found something else while I was looking for that though. To quote Mr. Brown, "You can create multiple sandboxes or subpages, and yes, I would be happy to show you how." UNBELIEVIBLE! You are accusing me of breaking the rules by creating multiple sandboxes even though it was entirely Technical's work AND you were the one who recommended making multiple sandboxes all along. See Dennis, you need to start admitting when you are wrong as well. You can begin to redeem yourself by accepting my appeal. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I probably linked the essay There is no justice, which is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. We don't seek justice here, just solutions. I'm out, and will just leave it to any other admin to review, although this is an ARB block, so a regular admin CAN'T just unblock you. I don't see how I can help here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Technical 13
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
User:Technical 13 Please help me. If you don't know what happened, just read the above sections. I didn't want to bother you because of the issues you said you have, but there's no one else with any influence here that I can turn to. Do you see a way out of this mess? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Technical 13 Please come here when you can. If you need time please just tell me. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)WP:GAB says clearly the way out of this mess. You're going about it exactly the wrong way, obviously. To help me to help you - don't make me go digging. 1) Show me exactly where you reported the other person (use a diff please) 2) Start thinking as per WP:GAB and WP:AAB...you could have possibly been unblocked ages ago, but you're being stubborn (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
User:BwilkinsHere. The person sanctioning the ban stopped by before Sandstein and didn't see the need for a block, so it surprised me when Sandstein did. I didn't think at all that I was doing anything that would merit a block. Here I am trying to stay away from all articles and talks that have to do with BLP, Armenia and AA2, and just when I almost make it, another block gets slapped on for reporting someone who broke the rules (who also wasn't even punished, by the way), which I'm pretty sure isn't part of AA2. I just want to edit again. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
*sigh* I didn't ask where you complained to an admin directly (which is not a formal filing, and would thus considered to be a discussion - and thus against the topic ban). I asked where on WP:AE did you submitted your formal complaint. This may see like splitting hairs, but it's a vitally important difference. Just like a topic ban against someone posting at ANI doesn't prevent them from responding on that formal noticeboard if they're the subject, I believe that you typically may report someone who is violating an AE situation but only at the appropriate formal noticeboard - in this case, AE. Posting at Sandtein's user talkpage is a discussion - not a reporting. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bwilkins I didn't submit anything to AE. I thought THAT would be a discussion. And since Sandstein ends up dealing with all AA2 violations I've seen, I decided it would be easier for everyone to just send it to him directly. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
*blink* How would filing a formal report at a formal enforcement board be a "discussion"? How in any form of logic is posting at an editor's personal talkpage ever be considered "formal"? Do you want to shake your head a little and re-think the logic you're trying to use? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bwilkins Guess I fucked up. I didn't know there was a difference and that one was ok and one wasn't though. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok then we may be getting somewhere on more than one front here. So, you understand that formally requesting enforcement against someone may be ok, as long as it's appropriately supported by evidence, and posted formally at the correct location. You understand that discussing with an admin or other editor is not ok at any time. Do you understand that adding the word "Armenia" anywhere ... even if it's a List of countries where Friends was televised is still considered to be editing about Armenia? Do you understand that at this point, even editing anything within the topic ban in your own userspace would be a realllly bad idea? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bwilkins Yes, I understand. Take all reports to WP:AE. Won't forget that. And topic ban that says Armenia articles includes everything Armenian. I'll stay away from those pages and Admin talk pages. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheShadowCrow
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by TheShadowCrow
As can be seen in the Technical 13 discussion, I wasn't aware that by partaking in a talk page discussion, I was violating the rules of WP:ARBAA2, and I also didn't know that I was only able to report others breaking rules if I go to ANI.
I'm really sorry for what I did and would like my block to be lifted now. I promise I will remember what I learned about what WP:ARBAA2 falls under. The one month block given to me has already served for over three weeks. I feel I have been patient and would like to be allowed to edit once again. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TheShadowCrow
Result of the appeal by TheShadowCrow
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Appeal
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
SC, you have to put everything you want to say in your statement above. You can't refer to other parts of your talk page. The appeal would be transferred from here to AE.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I added everything I wanted to. I was just referencing where I learned that, but I had already summarized it. The only other thing I could do is c/p it, but then it'd take up most of the appeal. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Is what I added to your appeal (discussion -> discussion link) what you wanted? If so, I felt it needed to be clarified.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, now I took out the word above (there won't be an above when it's at AE). Will it work now?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Good. Unfortunately, I have to go off-wiki and won't be able to do this until tomorrow (I don't want to mess it up). It's possible another admin will stop by and do it before I return, but otherwise you'll have to be patient again.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Your appeal has been copied to AE, and I've notified Sandstein. If you have anything further you want to say, please say so here on your talk page, and I or someone else will copy it to the appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I have granted your appeal and unblocked your account. Please be sure to read my explanation at [4] to make sure that you do not again make edits that violate your topic ban. To reiterate, you may not edit anything related to Armenia or Azerbaijan, and you may not report or comment on alleged violations of such topic bans by others, no matter on which page. If you disagree with these restrictions, you would need to appeal your own topic ban. Regards, Sandstein 06:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 25
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban violation
Latest comment: 10 years ago31 comments6 people in discussion
Note that this is an explicit violation of your topic ban. I am not sure for how long you should be blockek, and I will leave the block to some other admin, but the topic will be speedy closed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violation of your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Note the quote from Sandstein above: "you may not edit anything related to Armenia or Azerbaijan". If they clarify the quote, they may unblock you as well, I guess.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Is everyone aware that CT Cooper is away from Wikipedia for an indefinite period of time? So he may not respond to this as swiftly as some may have hoped for. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware - but still does no harm to notify them. GiantSnowman 19:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't really go into too much detail as to why Cooper is away. He has informed me privately and asked that I keep such details confidential, to which I am honouring his request. But the likelihood of him returning any time soon is very slim. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't count on this block - or your Admin position - being active when Cooper gets here anyway. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I beg your pardon! I do not recall even stipulating that I am an administrator. What brought you to the conclusion that I was? Or was that comment meant for someone else? Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It's aligned to Snowman lol. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
To the limited extent that it matters, I agree with the block, if not for the reason provided by the blocker.
The indefinite topic ban by CT_Cooper covers "all articles, talk pages, and discussions covered under WP:ARBAA2 (meaning Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts)". Per WP:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions, the scope of the topic for which discretionary sanctions are authorized is "all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted." This means that TheShadowCrow is forbidden from editing anything related to Armenia. Now, they correctly point out that at [5], the sanctioning administrator did say "Sports men and women and other general sports articles which happen to be based in Armenia, as long as it does not concern any political or cultural controversy, should be okay although you should still exercise caution". By doing so, they limited the scope of the topic ban. The edit cited above did concern a sportsman and appears politically uncontroversial, so it is in my view not a violation of the topic ban.
But TheShadowCrow's recent edits contain many edits that do violate the topic ban because they relate to Armenia, but not to sports, e.g. their edit of Category:Russian Armenians. On the basis of these edits, the block appears appropriate. That another topic ban by King of Hearts expired on 11 July does not change the fact that the previously existing indefinite topic ban by CT Cooper remains in force, as far as I can tell. Sandstein 19:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Sandstein You mean the definition superseded - by you? And how the hell is your logic at all reasonable? Those are two separate issues. I also argue that Russian Armenians in sport related, as it was in my editing, and contains several sports related articles. Where does it say categories fall under this anyway? Russian citizens also don't have anything to do with Armenia and Azerbaijan as countries. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Sandstein Do not ignore this, you are assisting someone abuse the Admin system by doing so. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I've not changed or superseded the terms of any restriction applying to you; my comment above, in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, was based on the terms of the ban as specified by CT Cooper. However, you are correct that the ban does not apply to categories, as it was phrased as "all articles, talk pages, and discussions covered under WP:ARBAA2". Accordingly, your category edits did not violate the topic ban. Because all your other (article) edits appear to concern sports topics, I am now of the view that you did not violate your topic ban and that the block should be lifted. However, GiantSnowman is not to blame for the block, because the sports exception was not logged at WP:ARBAA2, so they couldn't be aware of it. You should ask CT Cooper to log this exception there to avoid future blocks of this sort. For future reference, the topic ban as worded by CT Cooper covers anything that is related to either Armenia or Azerbaijan.
Also, please stop throwing unfounded allegations of "abuse" around, as this only makes you appear confrontational and unsympathetic. I have no doubt that GiantSnowman acted in good faith on the basis of the information available to them, and I see no grounds on which to criticize their judgment on that basis, except that it might have been advisable to invite you to comment before applying the block. Sandstein 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
That's for GiantSnowman to decide. If they do not lift the block, you may appeal it. Sandstein 20:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
User:GiantSnowman Read the above discussion and decide on whether or not you remove the block. I will appeal it if you don't remove it or take to long to decide. It won't look good for you to be shown giving a block for "topic ban" without even knowing anything about it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Based on the edits of TSC, he has violated not only the spirit of the topic ban, but also the letter of it. Fricking ridiculous, and unbelievable. As someone who went to the mat for this editor, I would encourage that this block not be lifted until it formally expires. I'm also surprised that this block is not for longer than the last, based on the escalating nature of the block process. His threats about someone's admin status "not being here" are red-herrings because he got caught, and are behaviour that should not/cannot be permitted on this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
TSC, despite you continually notifying me, insulting me & threatening me - no, I will not remove the block. Please appeal it and let an uninvolved admin decide. GiantSnowman 20:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bbb23 I would really appreciate it if you'd review this. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Formally, the following are all violations of the topic ban:
(del/undel) 22:32, July 24, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+33) . . N French Armenians (←Redirected page to Armenians in France)
(del/undel) 20:49, July 24, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+19) . . N Garni, Armenia (←Redirected page to Garni)
(del/undel) 20:47, July 24, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+81) . . N Category:People from Garni (←Created page with 'People from Garni, Armenia. Garni'
(del/undel) 20:43, July 24, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+22) . . N Tsovasar, Armenia (←Redirected page to Tsovasar)
(del/undel) 20:39, July 24, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+89) . . N Category:People from Tazagyukh (←Created page with 'People from Tazagyukh, Armenia. Tazagyukh')
Anything to say about those edits, TSC? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Just categories and redirects. We've been over this. In the words of Sandstein, "all articles, talk pages, and discussions covered under WP:ARBAA2". You sound incredibly bad in faith. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Considering how much Bbb and I worked to get you unblocked, your accusations of bad faith are simply...bad faith. You've blown it; badly, and you're going to find yourself with less support than you did a day ago (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
You sound visibly aggressive. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
"You sound visibly aggressive"? Did that sentence sound at all like it made sense before, during, or after clicking "save"? I don't just mean does it even remotely appear to be my frame of mind based on what I typed, but more importantly "grammatically" or "logically" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It made no less sense than topic bans having spirits. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheShadowCrow #2
Latest comment: 10 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion
I have moved the request to WP:AE. Sandstein 19:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Sandstein Assuming the appealer and imposer (me and Snowy) can't vote, it's a unanimous 4:0 vote to unblock me, all by Admins. Can it be done by tomorrow? It's a shame this amateur block even lasts two days. But thank you very much for your work to resolve it. Would probably be ignored for at least a week if you didn't move it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way. Besides, it's not "unanimous" now (to the extent it was before). And stop with the crap like "amateur block".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Why, what happened? And I'll stop, but come on, the block wasn't expertly if it's being removed right away. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Yup. More comments like "amateur block" will lead to this talkpage being locked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Wilkins, you cannot "speak as the editor who pushed for his unblock a handful of days ago", you had absolutely nothing to do with that. Your rant had no logic behind it. You say there's "no doubt" I knew I was violating the rules? As much as I'd love to not edit Wikipedia after waiting three months, all of your colleagues disagree with you. Perhaps you just want to see me banned at all costs - like GS. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
User:SandsteinUser:Bbb23 How much longer must this hiatus be? Everyone keeps talking about the AA@ ban, but let me remind you all that this block resulted from a ban that expired over two weeks ago, which Snowy didn't even bother to check. Sand thought I violated AA, then admitted I didn't. It's irrelevant to this now. So while you debate about AA2, the block from an expired ban should be removed ASAP.
As I understand it, the block is from the indefinite ban and will not be removed unless there is a decision to do so at AE or GS wishes to lift it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bbb23User:Sandstein Then you have misunderstood. Look up. Ymblanter thought it was "the ban Sandstein gave", which expired. And then Snow just rushed in to apply a block, not even bothering to see if what Ymb said was true, not even bothering to look up what ban it was, clearly just motivated by a desire to block me at all costs, not unlike Mr. Wilkins. If Wikipedia has a shred of democracy, they will accept my soon-to-be-made request to strip him of his powers.
But as you can see, this has nothing to do with the indefinite ban. While you guys play "Does it really need to be lifted or does it really, REALLY need to be lifted?", in the meantime this block should be removed NOW. This block was from the expired Armenian and BLP ban. The one being discussed now is a different issue, which wouldn't even exist if not for a suspicion by Sand, which he admitted to being wrong about. TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Riiighhhtt...I appealed for your unblock in your last AE request, but now I'm in a "rush to block"? I'm starting to think that Wikipedia - indeed, any collegial environment - is not for you. You'll want to rethink how you interact with humans on Wikipedia - especially those that have put their reputation on the line for you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Who the hell are Moe and Ron? You make less and less sense every time you click "Save page". And stop saying you appealed for me. You didn't do jack. TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I was obviously mistaken in my appeal on your behalf. Good luck - you're clearly going to need it. Even if this specific "appeal" is successful, you'll be indeffed in less than 2 weeks because you have no clue how to be collegial whatsoever (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bwilkins Oh, it was after it got moved to AE. Yeah, I remember Bbb saying something, went to bed, woke up, appeal accepted. I also remember you ignoring my calls on my talk. Anyway, don't know why you won't support me again. Sandstein and Cooper have never loosened my noose before, yet look at them now. I wish you'd just tell me why you don't support the lift and stop making things up like spirits and letters. If you honestly think I knew I was violating a ban (I wasn't) you must... can't even think of a metaphor for how ludicrous that is. TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
"Ignoring your calls"?? WTF do you think I was doing in the background in my discussions with Sanstein et al? Nothing? And my comment in AE meant nothing towards getting you unblocked? Well, f-you then. Without those things, you would never have been unblocked the first time. So no - this time, you totally fucked up and violated your topic ban - pure and simple. There's zero doubt, and may you rot in the hell that is eternal block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bwilkins Fuck me? Rot in hell? Pretty sure those are insults. I should report this... Nah, it'd be a waste of time. Admins decided when a personal attack is and isn't punishable, and you are, after all, an Admin. By the way dullard, I was taking back my statement about you having nothing to do with the lift. I clearly said I didn't go check AE. I can't comment there and it was already lifted anyway. I was trying to recoil with you and you've blown me off. You're the real jerk. No, I didn't violate anything, everyone in your gang disagrees with you there. I'd like for you to calmly go into details and stop saying shit like bans having spirits. TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not helpful. Both of you, please stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bbb23 I'm pretty disappointed the discussion got frozen, and now I suffer for it. I love how its as if the expired block was never appealed. Cooper wanted The Blade of the Northern Lights to comment, but he hasn't done anything despite being notified. I wish you and Sandstein would comment on my earlier point about this block being from an over two week expired ban. That's just bullshit. I think it should be lifted now, and the AA2 discussion be treated as a separate issue. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion isn't "frozen". It just hasn't attracted any attention since BWilkins's contribution. It is the weekend, and that sometimes slows things down. Unless you want to raise something truly new, please stop pinging me. I've already said what I have to say, and I don't enjoy going in circles.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bbb23 Here's something new: You said It doesn't work that way. about how the appeal works. What more needs to be said? EdJohnston and Gatoclass are two more names added to the list. It's only Wilkins, who's just thrown his credibility out the window, and Snowy. You guys keep coming up with this bull about how he couldn't have known about the sport exemption, but he simply didn't even know what the ban was. And considering he doesn't now see the need to remove it, means he can't be forgiven in that case anyway. There's no conspiracy, he's just a shitty Admin. TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Gatoclass
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User:Gatoclass Actually, this has nothing to do with the ARBAA2 ban. Ymblanter suspected the Hovhannisyan edit was a violation of a different ban (not realizing it expired two weeks ago) and Snowman, not even bothering to see if there was any truth to the lie, eagerly put down a block. Sandstein suspected it was also a violation of ARBAA2, but soon admitted he was wrong. Yup, that's right, this block is for a ban that's over two weeks gone. TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
User:EdJohnston
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User:EdJohnston Why exactly does the sports exemption need to be removed? I hope at least you realized (no one else did) that this block is the result of one admin mistakenly... fuck it I'm not explaining it again. Just look up.
And thank you for showing a desire to close this. TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Appeal #2 granted
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
TSC, I have closed the discussion at WP:AE and unblocked you. Please read my comments so you understand the details of the disposition of the appeal. I'll repeat a few things here, though. The ban as originally issued by The Blade remains in place indefinitely. There is no sports exemption. The ban does not include categories. I now "own" the ban. If you have any questions, please let me know. I think you know how to ping me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Bbb23...and a re-block perhaps for the line "There's no conspiracy, he's just a shitty Admin." (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
What would be the basis of the block?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's say I just finished a four day block for it and pretend I didn't just get a four day block over a two week old ban. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Warning
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
This is your only warning. If you disruptively edit another user's talk page as you did here or if you personally attack another editor as you did above ("shitty admin"), which is not the first time you've done this, you will be blocked. It will not be pursuant to your topic ban. It will be a standalone block for disruptive behavior. You apparently cannot control your actions and you persistently exercise poor judgment in your comments and edits. You need to revise your expectations as to what my or any other administrator or editor's obligations are to you. Editing is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege will be revoked if you continue to abuse it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Warning. The only reason I'm not blocking you is because you are disrupting my talk page. That said, if you do it again, I will request a block from another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bbb23 You are fucking crazy. It's a talk page. It's for talking. This is not pointless repeated questions, no one ever gave a damn reason for the removal. It made completely no fucking sense. Again:
Why did my last 'block' result in losing the sport exemption even though it had nothing to do with AA2? What do sports have to do with the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict? Why do others get this privilege and not me? TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's the deal. You are no longer welcome on my talk page. Period. If you have questions, you can post them on your talk page. I promise to watch your talk page, but I don't promise to answer your questions, no matter how much you ping me and no matter how many "fucking"s you use. As a consolation prize, I will answer your question, but you won't like the answer (you never do). CTC added the exemption. It caused confusion. It was decided at AE that it should be removed. As I vaguely recall, part of the reason was that it made the ban more complicated and you have trouble following even a simple ban. As for others, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, each case is different, and I'm certainly not going to examine the particulars of each case to see if they are 100% consistent.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bbb23 If you were getting *Explecitive* screwed by *Explecitive* everyone at every *Explecitive* turn you'd be this *Explecitive* pissed off *Explecitive* too. You didn't answer the first question I asked. This had NOTHING to do with AA2. Please look again and realize this already. Ymblanter thought the Armenian and BLP block was still active and the block resulted from that suspicion. It didn't cause confusion, one admin was just very eager to block me. And now I'm still suffering for it. You have no reason to assume I cannot follow the ban when the exemption has never been a problem. TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Let me be very clear. While both Bbb23 and I understand that you're upset at this point, your behavior is not at all acceptable. I can understand why Bbb23 is hesitant to block you for disruptive behavior when directed at them, but that's not the case for me. If you need to take a break from editing to clear your head, please do. If you continue to behave disruptively or harass Bbb23, I won't be hesitant at all to help you take that break. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 04:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bbb23User:Seraphimblade No thank you. I've taken to many breaks (blocks). B needs to answer my question. The exemption was removed for no reason and he must put it back. TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The question about the removal of the exception has been answered - multiple times - including a few lines above. You just do not like the answer - which is not going to change (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Bbb23User:Bwilkins Wrong, no one has answered my question, because the you cannot answer it. To admit that the exemption shouldn't be removed would be to admit that you have all failed in your duties as Admins. I will not give up and will continue to fight against this corruption. TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You've been mentioned
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. You've been mentioned in this administrators' noticeboard thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Was actually thinking of making something like that myself. I didn't for two reason: One, I knew it would go about.. exactly like it did. Two, even though he has lots of flaws, I think Wilkins is a good Admin overall. TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for notifying me about your (botched) attempt to de-mop me... GiantSnowman 22:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Enough
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Stay away from BWilkins or I will block you indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
GS
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I don't know User:GiantSnowman. The examples you posted at RFAR hint at poor judgment but de-adminship requires far more than two or three lapses.
If I may offer some unasked-for advice, would you consider telling the arbitrators that you withdraw the request? There is, in my opinion, no prospect of the case being accepted, and I've watched and participated in a number of them so that's an informed opinion; and if you do withdraw, the arbitrators will appreciate the courtesy - their time is precious.
If GiantSnowman's behaviour warrants modification by the community, a good case demonstrating that will have to be made. Watch what happens in the User:Bwilkins case. If it proceeds (either as an arbitration case or a community action such as WP:RFC/U), you'll see the processes involved in de-adminship, and can then move forward with the GiantSnowman case if you still think it is warranted. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
User:AnthonyhcoleUser:Bbb23 Why don't you ask Bbb23 if he'll give me my sport exemption which was wrongfully taken back to me? I am under a ton of stress because I cannot complete my work, which is stacking up every day, in addition to more edits going on those pages, which is making it even bigger. It is going to take me weeks of extra work just to catch up because of all the shit the admins have put me through. On top of all that, my computer is acting up, which makes it harder to do everything. These are the same people who have made my job on Wikipedia hell. Maybe they should do something for me before I do something for them. TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Have you been involved in an earlier arbitration case? I don't mean arbitration enforcement. Enforcement is done by administrators. Arbitration is done by arbitrators.
Please reconsider my suggestion that you withdraw the RFAR. The arbitrators are elected by a massive community-wide vote, and only become arbitrators once their character and competence is somewhat understood by the community. (Administrators are elevated with much less scrutiny.) This particular batch of arbitrators is, in my opinion, very decent.
Is the sport exemption related to the topic ban I've seen mentioned? If so, can you point me to the exact details of the topic ban and the exemption? Also, point me to the incident/s that led to the exemption being revoked. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Anthonyhcole It just got taken down. Sorry, I was planning on taking it back.
No, it wasn't related, that's what pisses me off. One admin was suspicious about one ban that expired weeks previously being related to the one I had at the time. GS didn't bother to check this and just slapped a block on, like how he didn't even read my sources from that one time were part of an interview. Sandstein thought it I had also violated the current ban, but shortly afterward admitted I didn't. Anyways, this block should have been removed in an hour, but instead it took five days. GS keeps on getting away with wasting my time and there's nothing I can do about it. And he still is. The admins were still under the impression I violated the current ban, so they thought removing the sports exemption would simplify things, which made NO SENSE AT ALL. So now I'm basically still blocked. Because of GS. Again. Bbb23 has the power to give back what's mine, but he wont for God knows why, because he won't respond to me. TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
If you don't link me to the relevant pages, I can't form an opinion about this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
TSC, some quick comments - I didn't just slap a block on, I was fully aware of your restrictions when I acted. You keep saying it was a bad block - but nobody else has. The request for arbritration you attepmpted was unanimously rejected - please take that as a sign that it was not a bad block. The only person wasting time here is you. Please get over this and move on, for everybody's sake. GiantSnowman 08:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
AE
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Any editor is allowed to comment about any action at AE. Please do not remove comments (i.e [6]) by other editors again, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
AE conduct
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please take heed of the notice that says: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above." I've never before met an editor whose each and every edit even of their own appeal needs careful review. Please keep strictly to the rules of conduct at AE from now on - you may only edit your own section, period. Sandstein 19:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Result of your appeal
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You may not appeal any sanctions that apply to you under the authority of WP:ARBAA2 more than once every six months, counting the appeal of July 2013, but excluding appeals directly to the Arbitration Committee.
You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in this AE thread.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 10:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheShadowCrow
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by TheShadowCrow
Here is what happened. Not only was I discussing this exemption before Sandstein's addition, but the addition itself contradicts B's claim that nothing would be changed about the ban. He also said he wouldn't block me for it this time, but did anyway, just because I followed up by asking him where it was said the ban can't be changed, and also made it clear I wasn't trying to appeal. And Bbb23 has also continued his habit of ignoring everyone who disagrees with him. So in addition to appealing this block, I also want to request someone else be given ownership of the ban.
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
(edit conflict) For clarity, the violation occurred here. TSC was warned after the first request on my talk page, even though that request was in fact a violation. Nonetheless, he persisted and in a manner that indicated that he fails to grasp any of what has happened recently at WP:AE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Bbb23 I wasn't appealing. I clearly stated that. I was asking a question about the terms of the ban. TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Stop this bullshit. How was I in any way appealing? TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
In case it has somehow escaped your notice, you have exhausted everyone's patience. I decline to bring up your appeal to a community board of some kind; as I said in your previous unblock request, we need a break from talking about you 24/7. Your only remaining option (assuming Jimbo doesn't arrive, Deus ex machina) is to email ArbCom. If you're interested in my advice, I wouldn't if I were you. I'd sit the block out, and never mention this topic ban again for 6.01 months. But you can take or leave that advice as you see fit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Floquenbeam It is not my fault they are having a hard time accepting they are corrupt. Maybe they should respond to my still ignored points about how all this was caused by me being blocked for a non-existing ban. Forget ArbCom, I'm pretty sure they are a bot. Why should I have an unofficial 6 month block? That's ridiculous. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
If this place is as corrupt as you say, why do you want to be here? Not a rhetorical question. Why would you want to participate somewhere when everyone you run into is corrupt? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm here solely to contribute to Armenian related articles. I participate here because it's a top search result, not because of any particular liking for Wikipedia. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
But then you're pretty much boxed in, aren't you? The fact of the matter is, Jimbo himself can't overturn an AE enforcement action, and certainly no admin on their own can. You really have no recourse whatsoever, except directly to ArbCom, and if you won't go to them, then you've run out of ammo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he can do anything. I at least want someone else to be given ownership of the ban, maybe even you. B clearly cannot have it anymore. I'd hope his gag rule is enough proof, but Wikipedia policy treats all non-Admins as second class editors. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
No, recent history shows that Jimbo has gotten out of the GodKing business, he's not going to overturn an AE ban. WP doesn't treat all non-admins as second class editors, but it certainly treats all AE topic banned editors as second class editors. Kind of by design. I'm sorry it's frustrating, but it's been a long road to get to this point, and you could have left that road at any time in the past. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales
Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Mr. User:Jimbo Wales. I didn't want to first speak with you under these circumstances, but unfortunately it cannot be helped. I have been caught in an unending loop of wrongly given punishments and no other Admins I've talked to will help me. I was given the WP:ARBAA2 ban and haven't even edited an article that falls under it all year. If you were to ask User:CT Cooper, I'm sure he'd confirm that I haven't done anything that resulted in the ban being placed to begin with in a very long time, so it is not even serving its purpose anymore. Starting when I was blocked for a ban that didn't exist, I have been continuously been blocked for ridiculous reasons which I appealed, some accepted, some plain ignored. The admins had kept adding things to the ban that make it so I can be blocked for pretty much anything, such as recently being forbidden from appealing bans, which is more of a gag rule than anything else. The owner of this ban, User:Bbb23, is mad at me because I was a victim of friend BWilkins' personal attacks, which almost cost him his admin powers and which you recommended he leave Wikipedia for awhile for. Bbb has since been abusing his position. Right now I'm banned for asking a simple question, which didn't even violate his gag rule. I've appealed it, but no admins will even look at it. I am asking you to stop this madness by removing these ridiculous sanctions, because you are the only one who can. TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Three minutes after I posted this, Bbb23 tried to censor it, further proof that he is using a gag rule. Please don't let me be a victim of this any longer. I want to contribute to Wikipedia and they are preventing me from doing so. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked you for an additional month for again violating your topic ban and again after I warned you. I've also revoked your talk page access so this farce will not continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I've reset your block back to the original week and restored your talk page access. I did not realize that another admin had restored your topic ban violation (I assumed you had). Based on that, I think an additional block would have been unfair at this point. However, my original warning about violating your topic ban stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Bbb. I restored it because (a) it's harmless; it's on his talk page, there's no way the AE ban is going to be actually be overturned by Jimbo; (b) because I really don't think you should be the one removing posts complaining about your enforcement of the topic ban, even if the complaint is unfair; and (c) I think Jimbo has said several times he doesn't mind people making "final" appeals to him.
That said, SC, I would definitely not recommend appealing to Jimbo on his talk page when your block expires. There are quite a few admins who would see that as a violation of your topic ban, and that probably would get you a long block. No, I think ArbCom, whatever you think it's faults, is your only chance. (And really, I don't think that's likely either.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Floquenbeam Ok, in the past three weeks, I've had three blocks put on me lifted prematurely. CLEARLY THE ADMINS ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. How much longer is Bbb going to be allowed to freely abuse power? I appreciate the interest and help you have been giving this and how you hear my side of the story. That being said, I am requesting that you request to be the new owner of the ban. No one else is more deserving. Use his new gag rule and absurd blocks as examples of why Bbb isn't. TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
TSC, no admin "owns" a ban. Any admin that sees what they consider a ban violation can impose a block for it. Any admin that sees what they consider an appeal of the ban can impose a block for it. I couldn't ask to be the "owner" of the ban even if I wanted to (which I don't).
This last block doesn't even count as "lifted prematurely", he reversed himself like 10 minutes later when he saw I was sticking my nose in, and that it wasn't you who reposted. He is not "abusing his power", and it is not "his" gag rule, it is a decision at WP:AE that he is enforcing. But yes, there is basically a gag rule in effect on you now. Put bluntly, nobody wants to hear about this any more.
I think your current 1 week block expires in about 2 days, so to make sure everything is crystal clear, here's the deal, in summary:
Any admin can reblock you if they think you've violated the topic ban again (including the ban on appealing the ban). Including admins you've called names, and including admins who have blocked you before. Due to the normal way AE blocks are escalated, it will likely be for 1 month, although if someone jumped to 6 months, i doubt anyone else would be bothered enough to argue.
Your only recourse to appeal this topic ban (or to appeal the ban on appealing it for 6 months), is to go directly to ArbCom. There is no other mechanism. I'm pretty confident that if you post on Jimbo's talk page, someone is going to consider that an appeal, and block you, although I personally wouldn't. In my opinion, it would be very unwise to try, as Jimbo is not likely to get involved anyway so it would be taking a risk with no likely payoff.
Because of how long this has dragged on, if you need clarification for the ban, you need to go directly to ArbCom. If you want to ask for a modification of the ban, that's the same as appealing it as far as everyone else is concerned, so that should go directly to ArbCom too.
With the exception of the single "appeal to Jimbo" you've already posted above, any appeals or requests for clarifications or modifications that appear on your talk page "count" as appeals or requests for clarifications or modifications, and can easily atract a block. Even another appeal to Jimbo here in the future.
If you want some free advice, I am 99% sure that requests for modifications or appeals will be denied at ArbCom, and clarification requests that are actually thinly disguised modification requests will probably result in a block. But ArbCom is sometimes hard to predict, so I could be wrong.
If someone has neglected to dot an i or cross a t somewhere, and you think you've found a loophole, you haven't. Someone is going to block you, and no one is going to argue with them about it.
You don't have to like it, nor think it's fair, nor "agree" to it; but you are now aware that this is what's going to happen.
My last post here, I think, whether I get pinged or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Floquenbeam No, there is most certainly indeed an owner of my ban. And he's corrupt as shit. If you hadn't stood up to Bbb's gag rule, I might still be blocked and silenced for another month. You've already helped me part way. Now lets see if you're wiling to go a little further. In fact, I think my current block should be removed too because all I did was ask a question, not appeal. Of course they won't with only 2 days left (it will take them a week of debate alone), but even so, that's four poorly placed blocks in less than a month. Bbb is clearly unfit to judge, and I think you would be a good one in his place. You are truly my last hope. If you abandon me, I will likely be doomed to an unofficial block for at least half a year. TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, that concept of ban "ownership" seems quite silly to me, to be honest. But it doesn't actually affect anything here. It doesn't mean Bbb is in charge of blocking you in the future, it seems to mean that one option that you used to have was to talk to the admin who imposed the ban about getting unbanned. But that bridge appears to have been well and truly burned, plus so many admins have agreed with the ban now that I doubt Bbb would be comfortable changing it himself, even if he wanted to. Which is why I think I may have mentioned once or twice that you'll need to go through ArbCom now. I would not count on my intercession in the future; continuing with this tiresome "corrupt as shit" meme has pretty much burned any bridges you might have had with me too. If all you want to do is edit articles that would violate your topic ban, and you don't want to appeal to ArbCom, then yes, this is pretty much equivalent to a six month unofficial block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This is just for Floq's benefit. Without delving into the entire discussion about "ownership" among several admins, the final result was that I would be a resource for TSC if he wanted clarification of his ban. Unfortunately, he abused that process, and I gave up on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
User:FloquenbeamUser:Bbb23 It doesn't matter if its "silly", it's still fact. Ownership has been handed down for three generations, from Northern Blade, to Cooper, and to Bbb. It's now time for another because the current owner "gave up". You don't seem to realize this, but you're basically doing now what you'll do as owner. If you're so interested in this, please be my new master. Not only has Bbb just shattered a new hypocrisy record by accusing me of abuse, but he also admits to ignoring every thing I ask him unless a block opportunity reveals itself. If he won't do his duties, he cannot be an owner. And what better owner than someone who has been unofficially performing the ownership duties? Please save me Floquenbeam, you're my only hope. TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Floquenbeam Please help me.. Everyone else has left me for dead. Don't be like them.. Please.. TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, I have no desire to take over "ownership" of this ban. I'd say that the best way of thinking about it is that ownership of this ban has probably passed to ArbCom, if it can be said to be "owned" by anyone. I don't think I have anything else to say, other than my wise counsel above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Talk page stalking
Latest comment: 10 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion
Hello there, I just restored your deletion from Floquenbeam's talk page. It wasn't correct for you to describe Bishonen's original edit as trolling. Bish was simply pointing out, in her typically humorous way, that when you write things like " I won't say Bbb is abusive or corrupt anymore (though he still is)" you are using a particular rhetorical device. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 06:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
ShadowCrow, I'm not your enemy, really. Did you click on the link to paralipsis? It refers to the statement Kim quotes. It's not wise or polite to describe an editor with those adjectives, and doing it by saying you won't do it (paralipsis) isn't actually better — worse really. My use of the word "banned" was in jest, but I was otherwise making a serious (a k a "constructive") point. But I'll certainly remove my comment if you like. I needn't have put it so flippantly, and anyway it falls a bit flat when Floquenbeam isn't around — I thought he was going to be — and when you also didn't reply to me.
It's a pity Floq isn't editing. Have you thought of activating Wikipedia e-mail through your preferences? Then you could mail him your appeal through the "E-mail this user" feature. I'm pretty sure he reads his e-mails. Bishonen | talk 08:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
I have no comment on the above discussion except that TSC cannot appeal by e-mailing Floq; it would be a violation of his topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I'll just remove it. Done. Bishonen | talk 08:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
To be clear, this block is for the following edit: [7]. This would be blockable conduct under any circumstances, and is also a violation of your ban, which may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee only. I strongly considered making this block indefinite, and I may regret not doing so. I hope I'm wrong and that a month off will help you clear your head and return to productive editing rather than repeatedly violating the ban. If upon your return there's more of the same disruptive behavior and ban violations, I doubt the next one to block you will be as charitable. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Seraphimblade The only thing you did was prove I was right when I said stupid cunts are using censorship. Fuck you. TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way shithead, I never asked anywhere in that edit for anything to be removed. But hey, lets not pretend that you fuckers need a reason to block me anymore. TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked due to egregious and persistent personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks and follow its advice.
It should be noted that this block is mandated by the discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBAA2. The first year of the block is covered by WP:ARBAA2 and is an Arbitrartion Enforcement block, beyond that point the block is considered to be covered by normal admin discretion. For the first year you may appeal as per WP:AEBLOCK, after a year you may request unblock as normal and contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.--Caililtalk 20:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
You had plenty of warning that this was coming TSC. I mooted this at the AE weeks ago. Seraphimblade mooted it above. Responding as you did only made things worse for yourself. I am open to giving you back talk page access ONLY if you a) agree to abide to the letter of WP:CIVIL and b) not to waste anymore of other people's time. Please note any email contacts with me will be replied to here on wiki. I reserve the right to pass any inappropriate messages on to ArbCom and take further action if necessary. As mentioned above this a year long AE Block, so no individual sysop can reverse it unilaterally. After a year passes you can appeal as if it were a normal block. I am open to unblocking you completely at any time subject to your agreement to abide to letter of this site's behavioural policies. And with the clear understanding that if any bad behaviour recurs this block will be reimposed immediately--Caililtalk 20:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Cailil I was already essentially blocked indefinitely, you just made it official. TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Talk page access was supposed to be revoked. Block tweaked. And no you weren't "already essentially blocked indefinitely". But you are now. And again I'm happy to lift this block at any time subject toy your agreement to abide by site policy as per above--Caililtalk 20:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Given your agreement by email to "be civil and stop asking people to remove my restrictions" I am restoring your talk page access so that you can make a statement here saying that you will abide by site policy (especially its behavioural codes) and cease requesting your restrictions be removed. At such point I will restore Seraphimblade's month long ArbCom enforcement block which will expire at 05:26 on September 28th, 2013. I will remind you that any further inappropriate behaviour will be considered a breach of your unblock agreement and result in this the indefinite block being restored immediately--Caililtalk 13:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Cailil I agree to abide by site policy and cease requesting your restrictions be removed. Do you think four months of good behavior and constructive editing in appropriate areas will be enough to get the restrictions removed then (That's when I'll be allowed to make another appeal)? TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm! You've just contradicted yourself STC. Do you understand what ceasing to request your sanctions be removed means? Stop talking about them. Stop asking. Stop thinking about it. If you want to make an appeal at the earliest possible moment fine. I would suggest and this is the ONLY advice I will ever give you on the matter (and this is not a discussion) to wait until you're attitude changes. Are we clear on this?--Caililtalk 13:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Cailil Okay, got it. My mistake for thinking a simple question wouldn't fall under the multitude of restrictions. I have no rights and will not request any again. Sorry master. TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I really don't understand this tendency of yours to be offensive even when you are ostensibly apologizing. This is not something new, either. Cailil, like others in the past, is trying to help you and yet all he gets is attitude in return. Frankly, I think you're beyond help (as far as Wikipedia is concerned), but other than commenting, I'm not going to interfere at this juncture.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I really don't understand you tendency to create multiple ways for me to be blocked when I have done no wrong. I'm still questioning if it was because I was a factor in your buddy Wilkie deserving to lose his Adminship. Of course, the idea of an admin getting punished is hilarious. It was no surprise that he was unanimously voted to keep his powers by fellow criminals, despite his multiple personal attacks. None of you are trying to help me, you are looking for more excuses to give a block and will continue to do so as long as I try to contribute to Wikipedia. If I try to edit other things in the mean time, you will stretch the ban over them and block me for that. If I don't, you will claim I have done nothing important in the meantime and refuse to remove an already poorly placed set of restrictions. After all, if you people are going to place blocks for bans that don't exist, it is no surprise that you cannot understand, because you have been a dictator ever since you became the owner of the ban. TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Right, TSC if you say "I agree to be civil" and then follow that with the above post[8] (which breaks your agreement). I am left with no choice but to remove your access to your talk page again. You had your chance to appeal properly and on-wiki - You've blown it. Talk page access revoked. I will not be entertaining any further requests by email or otherwise (since you have broken your word on all 3 matters required for me to lift the block: civility, time wasting, and discussion of sanctions), unless or until your attitude changes. Please read the guidance on appealing Arbitration enforcement blocks. Note also if you abuse the email function access to it can similarly be revoked--Caililtalk 11:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As above TSC I will not entertain any further requests by email or otherwise until your attitude changes. Continuing to jump up-and-down about how it's everyone else's fault is a) a violation of WP:NOTTHEM; b) failing to take ownership of your own actions; and c) showing a lack of basic competence for working in a collaborative environment.
Read the guide to appealing AE blocks. Floquenbeam told you above to drop the allegations of corruption. You didn't listen, and now you're here. Until you demonstrate restraint, respect and take responsibility for your actions you will remain indefinitely blocked. Once you do this I will reduce the block length to Seraphimblade's 1 month AE block.
Take some time out and get some perspective. Make another appeal when you understand and are willing to abide by the conditions above. Describing other users (whom you disagree with) as "criminals" is whether you believe it or not deeply incivil. Speculating on another user's motivations ("I'm still questioning if it was because I was a factor in your buddy Wilkie deserving to lose his Adminship") is equally unacceptable.
In essence, "if you haven't anything nice to say, say nothing". When you've got a handle on that let me know. This will be my last reply to emails, until your attitude changes and as a reminder wikipedia's rules apply to its email system - access to it can be revoked if it is abused--Caililtalk 19:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Another try
Thank you for the email TSC and I'm glad you're beginning to see things this way. Again I'd like you to make your agreement on wiki (so I have returned access to you for your talk page). So please, as above, state your agreement to abide by policy and cease discussion of your restrictions. At that point I will reduce this block to Seraphimblade's AE block which will expire at 05:26 (UTC) on 28 September 2013--Caililtalk 00:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree to abide by site policy and cease requesting my restrictions be removed. TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Block reduced accordingly to 18 days, 14 hours and 54 minutes to expire at 05:26 (UTC) on 28 September 2013. Please remember that breach of this agreement will result in this block being reimposed--Caililtalk 13:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
GA nominations
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I saw that you wanted to nominate an article for GA--thanks for that. You can see instructions on how to do this at WP:GAN/I. You shouldn't edit WP:GAN directly, which is why the large warning message appears when you try to do so. Enjoy the day! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joel Osteen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of StAnselm -- StAnselm(talk) 04:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The article Joel Osteen you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Joel Osteen for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. StAnselm (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Joel Osteen
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
So...the numerous previous blocks didn't teach you about how Wikipedia works? Consider this your final warning. When you make a major addition to a page, and another editor reverts it for legitimate grounds (in this case, there was concern that there was excessive quoting of primary materials and a violation of WP:NPOV), you, not the other editor, are required to go to talk and discuss the matter. Merely because you've added something that is verified does not mean that it gets to stay in automatically. WP:V sets a minimum standard for inclusion; simply being verified does not mean the info goes into an article. There are quite a large number of other policies in play, along with the more general principle that we simply do not include every verifiable fact.
You have to stop. Immediately. It really seems to me that you are simply unable to adjust to the sort of collaborative processes needed to work on a wiki. If you continue edit warring on that article or another, you will need to be blocked. Furthermore, if you make even a single other personal attack (calling good faiths "vandalism" as you did in an edit summary is a personal attack, as explained at WP:NPA), I will ensure that you are blocked.
So, despite the fact that the burden is on you, another editor has actually started discussion on Talk:Joel Osteen. Go join that conversation. Justify the changes you made. Do not reinsert those change until there is consensus for them. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joel Osteen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compaq Center (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm! You've just contradicted yourself STC. Do you understand what ceasing to request your sanctions be removed means? Stop talking about them. Stop asking. Stop thinking about it. If you want to make an appeal at the earliest possible moment fine. I would suggest and this is the ONLY advice I will ever give you on the matter (and this is not a discussion) to wait until you're attitude changes. Are we clear on this?--Cailil talk 13:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of StAnselm -- StAnselm (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
; see Talk:Joel Osteen for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. StAnselm (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Alesha Varosi Abrahamyan, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Alesha Varosi Abrahamyan and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Alesha Varosi Abrahamyan during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)