Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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)
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)
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
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
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 , you inserted yourself in an ongoing discussion, rather than reporting someone. And your recent contribution history indicates several other topic ban violations, such as . 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¢ | WER13:42, 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¢ | WER16:18, 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¢ | WER18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Dennis Brown I tried my best to dig up the post where you said justice isn't guaranteed on 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, "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¢ | WER21:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Technical 13
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)
*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)
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
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
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 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
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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.
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)
