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.
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)
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 Misplaced Pages for an indefinite period of time? So he may not respond to this as swiftly as some may have hoped for. Wesley ☮ Mouse19:04, 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 ☮ Mouse19:08, 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 ☮ Mouse19:14, 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 , 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)
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)
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. GiantSnowman20:27, 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"? 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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages - indeed, any collegial environment - is not for you. You'll want to rethink how you interact with humans on Misplaced Pages - 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)
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)
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
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
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
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)
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
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. Seraphimblade04:54, 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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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. GiantSnowman08:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
AE
Any editor is allowed to comment about any action at AE. Please do not remove comments (i.e ) by other editors again, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for repeatedly removing or changing the statements by others at WP:AE in disregard of the warnings above. 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. Sandstein 18:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Sandstein How am I supposed to partake in my appeal? Can you link me one edit Bear had made in this conflict? I moved his edit to uninvolved editors, where it belongs. I did not delete it, I did not alter it. TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You moved the comments of other editors around after being specifically told not to interfere with their comments, you also deleted my comment and Sandstein's which was about this very incident and warning. If this impacts on your appeal, that is something you should have considered. All the evidence is that your disruption would have continued if you had not been blocked. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Moving is also a change. As a party to the proceedings, you may not alter the edits of others. That's the responsibility of the administrators who respond to your request. If another editor wishes to label themselves as involved then you have no interest in contesting that, because this will give their comments less weight. Sandstein 18:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Sandstein You didn't say "change". You said "delete" and "alter". Alter would only fit if I had deleted or added parts. Like with the categories, you are once again wrong. Bear wasn't involved at all. He came to ruin my appeal and you let him. This is exactly what Gatoclass mentioned about unjustness bringing about hostility. You are at fault. TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you actually read the link you have shown. Let us consider one example shown: "He altered his will to leave everything to his sister." In this example, do you think he has not changed his will? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
User:IRWolfie- That's not a definition, it's an example, added by the website, not Webster. I love how I predicted the admins would try to look for excuses to close the appeal without a fair trial and that's exactly what's happening. TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
User:GiantSnowman I didn't say or imply an admin conspiracy. There's no mystery, the system is just corrupt as fuck. Gs, why do you have to constantly prevent me from contributing to Armenian football articles? I am trying to improve them, just as you want to improve all football articles. Why do you undo positive work? TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
"I love how I predicted the admins would try to look for excuses to close the appeal without a fair trial and that's exactly what's happening" definitely implies some kind of admin conspiracy against you. When have I ever prevented you from improving Misplaced Pages? GiantSnowman19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
User:GiantSnowman Not really, Admins have a habit of closing talks when it's inappropriate if they don't like the way it's going. You always have. Most recently you refused to fix the Hovhannisyan name despite that proposed way being culturally and commonly correct. TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You seem to have missed it, so I'll repeat. The edit you made after being warned deleted my comment and one of Sandstein's. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Because you put it there while I made it edit. Misplaced Pages did it, not me. Also, you guys edited outside your own boxes, violating your own rule. TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Sandstein This section has become a shit hole, so let me summarize: Noah Webster says "Change" is different from "delete" and "alter". Like when I edited the sports pages, I was neither under the impression I did something wrong nor did I actually do something wrong. And like with the category confusion, it is you who did something wrong. ven though it's just a day, I request you listen to logic and reason and remove this block. TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page edits, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sandstein 17:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
