| Revision as of 18:31, 25 July 2013 editGiantSnowman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators597,664 edits →Topic ban violation: blocked← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:02, 19 April 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:TheShadowCrow/Archive 3) (bot | ||
| (263 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == |
==Collage== | ||
| Dear TheShadowCrow | |||
| I made the collage using '''Photoshop''' (Adobe), but if you do not have this program installed, I can also recommend the program '''Paint'''. You need to copy all the people you wish to include from Wikimedia Commons, but remember to include a reference, otherwise the collage will be deleted after you upload it. Assemble all the people in Paint or Photoshop to make a perfect square. Save it on your desktop. Now go to Wikimedia Commons and click UPLOAD IMAGES/FILES. Choose your collage, fill out necessary information and include a reference, but you have to include a reference of every single person (picture). I also recommend to do no more than 40 people otherwise the square might not work out. Also make sure your images are not pixelated. | |||
| ], you were why to quick to judge a block. As you can see , 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. --] (]) 23:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ](]) 8:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Dennis == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ], 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!?!? --] (]) 23:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hi,<br> | |||
| == Appeal == | |||
| You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692239519 --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=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? --] (]) 02:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | decline=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. ] (]) 01:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hi. We're into the last five days of the ]. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! | |||
| Insofar as it is addressed to me, I decline the appeal. Reporting others is not exempt from your topic ban. Also, at , you inserted yourself in an ongoing discussion, rather than reporting someone. And your recent contribution history indicates several other topic ban violations, such as . <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=WiR_list_2&oldid=812113507 --> | |||
| *], ] 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. | |||
| ==MfD nomination of ]== | |||
| *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. --] (]) 18:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] ], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] 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.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 22:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="afd-notice"> | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. | |||
| 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. ] | ] | ] 13:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *] 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 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. --] (]) 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. ] | ] | ] 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: | |||
| 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 until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ***''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. --] (]) 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. ] | ] | ] 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *****] I tried my best to dig up the post where you said justice isn't guaranteed on Misplaced Pages, 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, "." 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. --] (]) 19:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ******I probably linked the essay ], 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. ] | ] | ] 21:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == 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? --] (]) 16:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please come here when you can. If you need time please just tell me. --] (]) 02:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : {{tps}} ] 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 ] and ]...you ''could'' have possibly been unblocked ages ago, but you're being stubborn (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 10:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] . , 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. --] (]) 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 ] 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. (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 17:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] 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. --] (]) 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? (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 17:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: ] Guess I fucked up. I didn't know there was a difference and that one was ok and one wasn't though. --] (]) 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 ] 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? (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 18:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::] Yes, I understand. Take all reports to ]. 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. --] (]) 21:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheShadowCrow== | |||
| <small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found ]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>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 ]).''</small> | |||
| ; Appealing user : {{userlinks|TheShadowCrow}} – ] (]) 01:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ; Sanction being appealed : "Violating ] topic ban" | |||
| ; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Sandstein}} | |||
| ; Notification of that administrator : ''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 ] 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 , 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. --] (]) 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.'' | |||
| <!-- Please notify the appellant in the event of a successful appeal, in addition to logging it on the case page. ] informs users that "If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful."--> | |||
| <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
| == 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.--] (]) 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. --] (]) 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.--] (]) 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?--] (]) 02:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, thanks. --] (]) 02:13, 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.--] (]) 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.--] (]) 23:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I have granted your appeal and unblocked your account. Please be sure to read my explanation at 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, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for July 25== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| :] (] | ]) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| :] (] | ]) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic ban violation == | |||
| Note that 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.--] (]) 18:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 month''' for violation of your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. </div><!-- Template:uw-block --> ]] 18:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:02, 19 April 2024
| This is TheShadowCrow's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
Collage
Dear TheShadowCrow
I made the collage using Photoshop (Adobe), but if you do not have this program installed, I can also recommend the program Paint. You need to copy all the people you wish to include from Wikimedia Commons, but remember to include a reference, otherwise the collage will be deleted after you upload it. Assemble all the people in Paint or Photoshop to make a perfect square. Save it on your desktop. Now go to Wikimedia Commons and click UPLOAD IMAGES/FILES. Choose your collage, fill out necessary information and include a reference, but you have to include a reference of every single person (picture). I also recommend to do no more than 40 people otherwise the square might not work out. Also make sure your images are not pixelated.
User:Oliszydlowski(talk) 8:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
MfD nomination of User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Irina Vaganian
User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Irina Vaganian, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Irina Vaganian (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Irina Vaganian 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. Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Artur Khachatryan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Artur Khachatryan is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Artur Khachatryan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.