:::::No, you saw where you thought you could flout the ban and then edited in those areas as an attempt to bypass the ban. Your edits/attitude are disruptive. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::No, you saw where you thought you could flout the ban and then edited in those areas as an attempt to bypass the ban. Your edits/attitude are disruptive. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
===Statement by (involvededitor1)===
===Statement by CT Cooper ===
Wesley is correct that I'm officially absent at the moment - however I'm still visiting and after reviewing the above it is clear that a few things need to be clarified here. Firstly, to be clear, yes I did ban TheShadowCrow from "all articles, talk pages, and discussions covered under WP:ARBAA2 [meaning Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts]" for an indefinite period and that ban remains enforce indefinitely barring community consensus or an ArbCom decision to lift it. This ban is a "generic" WP:AA2 one with the only amendment I have made (as noted in the logs) being the closing of any perceived exemption for obvious vandalism. This was implemented on grounds that the TheShadowCrow was unable to correctly identify what was and wasn't vandalism. Separately from that, from what I remember, I have made two clarifications on nature of the topic ban. The first being that Turkey comes under "related ethnic conflicts", so ethnic disputes related to Turkey are covered despite multiple claims by TheShadowCrow that they are exempt. The second was about sports, in which I told TheShadowCrow that "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". I need to make clear here that this was a clarification, not an amendment, meaning simply that I did not intend to narrow or widen the scope of the existing ban - just to clarify what it already covered. That's why nothing was logged on that subject. I cannot fully recall what thought process led me to make that statement. However, I would suggest that my reading of "Armenia-Azerbaijan ''and related ethnic conflicts''" implies that only political/cultural content related to Armenia or Azerbaijan is covered - I couldn't see any real problem with TheShadowCrow adding non-ethnic conflict related sporting material to biographies where the person covered happened to be Armenian. However, I can now see that "broadly construed" arguably contradicts that view. So I'm willing to accept that my interpretation of the ban is wrong if ArbCom do or have already said so, or if most admins/users with an informed opinion on the subject say so.
I'm sorry that the topic ban I imposed wasn't as clear as it should have been and that I gave what appears to be incorrect advise to TheShadowCrow, which has lead to unnecessary drama. However, that apology comes with two caveats. The first being that I was actually only extending the topic ban that another admin had imposed on TheShadowCrow from three months to indefinite, when it became clear that it wasn't appropriate for the ban to expire. I didn't at the time see any need to change the wording. The second is that I advised TheShadowCrow that the idea of a topic ban was to go and find a completely different set of topics to edit and I explicitly warned him that editing around the edges of the topic ban, as I put it, was going to lead to trouble - I have been proven right time and time again on that point.
On what should be done now - I would recommend that the block be lifted as it seems clear that TheShadowCrow thought he was editing outside the scope of the topic ban. For the moment, I am also rescinding my clarification stating that "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". This means that the TheShadowCrow should disregard that advise and cease editing Armenia-Azerbaijan related sports articles until there is agreement or an ArbCom ruling clarifying otherwise. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 21:36, 25 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]
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.
Although two Admins already saw no reason for the block, GiantSnowman still refuses to lift it. Therefore, I call upon a third party to judge. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by GiantSnowman
Firstly, please note this topic ban that expired only two weeks ago - you clearly have not learnt from that and I am half-tempted to request it is extended to indefinite. Secondly, per this, I still think ARBAA2 applies to your edits to Talk:Khoren Oganesian. Your topic ban states "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts [...] broadly construed" - well you were editing on a topic related to both Armenia and ethnic/regional divisions, were you not? Finally, it's not that I refuse to lift your block, it is that I feel it would be more appropriate for a fresh set of eyes to review the situation in full. GiantSnowman 21:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'm allowed to talk here, but you've completely ignored the fact told to you twice now that sports are an exception to Wikipedia:ARBAA2. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and you've completely ignored the wording of your topic ban which states "broadly construed" - as others have said, you have violated the very spirit if not (as I feel) also the letter. GiantSnowman 21:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually quite the opposite. I am reading the rules more clearly than anyone else since I noticed categories and sports don't fall under the ban. As Sandstein said, you didn't realize this, and that should be acknowledged. However, you had also rushed a block and still refuse to acknowledge your mistakes. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you saw where you thought you could flout the ban and then edited in those areas as an attempt to bypass the ban. Your edits/attitude are disruptive. GiantSnowman 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by CT Cooper
Wesley is correct that I'm officially absent at the moment - however I'm still visiting and after reviewing the above it is clear that a few things need to be clarified here. Firstly, to be clear, yes I did ban TheShadowCrow from "all articles, talk pages, and discussions covered under WP:ARBAA2 [meaning Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts]" for an indefinite period and that ban remains enforce indefinitely barring community consensus or an ArbCom decision to lift it. This ban is a "generic" WP:AA2 one with the only amendment I have made (as noted in the logs) being the closing of any perceived exemption for obvious vandalism. This was implemented on grounds that the TheShadowCrow was unable to correctly identify what was and wasn't vandalism. Separately from that, from what I remember, I have made two clarifications on nature of the topic ban. The first being that Turkey comes under "related ethnic conflicts", so ethnic disputes related to Turkey are covered despite multiple claims by TheShadowCrow that they are exempt. The second was about sports, in which I told TheShadowCrow that "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". I need to make clear here that this was a clarification, not an amendment, meaning simply that I did not intend to narrow or widen the scope of the existing ban - just to clarify what it already covered. That's why nothing was logged on that subject. I cannot fully recall what thought process led me to make that statement. However, I would suggest that my reading of "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" implies that only political/cultural content related to Armenia or Azerbaijan is covered - I couldn't see any real problem with TheShadowCrow adding non-ethnic conflict related sporting material to biographies where the person covered happened to be Armenian. However, I can now see that "broadly construed" arguably contradicts that view. So I'm willing to accept that my interpretation of the ban is wrong if ArbCom do or have already said so, or if most admins/users with an informed opinion on the subject say so.
I'm sorry that the topic ban I imposed wasn't as clear as it should have been and that I gave what appears to be incorrect advise to TheShadowCrow, which has lead to unnecessary drama. However, that apology comes with two caveats. The first being that I was actually only extending the topic ban that another admin had imposed on TheShadowCrow from three months to indefinite, when it became clear that it wasn't appropriate for the ban to expire. I didn't at the time see any need to change the wording. The second is that I advised TheShadowCrow that the idea of a topic ban was to go and find a completely different set of topics to edit and I explicitly warned him that editing around the edges of the topic ban, as I put it, was going to lead to trouble - I have been proven right time and time again on that point.
On what should be done now - I would recommend that the block be lifted as it seems clear that TheShadowCrow thought he was editing outside the scope of the topic ban. For the moment, I am also rescinding my clarification stating that "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". This means that the TheShadowCrow should disregard that advise and cease editing Armenia-Azerbaijan related sports articles until there is agreement or an ArbCom ruling clarifying otherwise. CT Cooper ·talk 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
