::::: Oh yeah, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=565546308 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 ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|←✎]]) 23:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
::::: Oh yeah, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=565546308 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 ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]</span>[[Special:Contributions/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. [[User:TheShadowCrow|TheShadowCrow]] ([[User talk:TheShadowCrow#top|talk]]) 23:26, 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. [[User:TheShadowCrow|TheShadowCrow]] ([[User talk:TheShadowCrow#top|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. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|←✎]]) 23:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
*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)[reply]
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)[reply]
*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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheShadowCrow
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have granted your appeal and unblocked your account. Please be sure to read my explanation at [1] 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)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 25
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)[reply]
Topic ban violation
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Yes, I was aware - but still does no harm to notify them. GiantSnowman 19:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [2], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's for GiantSnowman to decide. If they do not lift the block, you may appeal it. Sandstein 20:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
It made no less sense than topic bans having spirits. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheShadowCrow #2
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yup. More comments like "amateur block" will lead to this talkpage being locked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
