User talk:TheShadowCrow

June 2013

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban concerning topics covered by the case WP:ARBAA2,

you have been blocked from editing for 1 month. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  22:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

• I would withdraw any exception in using your sandbox. You need to fully comply now, which means nothing that breaches your topic ban, anywhere, including any sandbox, any board, any mention, until it is overturned at WP:AN which I anticipate will be a very long time now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox

User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox 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. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein

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).

TheShadowCrow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

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 [1], you inserted yourself in an ongoing discussion, rather than reporting someone. And your recent contribution history indicates several other topic ban violations, such as [2].  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¢ | WER 13:42, 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¢ | WER 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:

• • • 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¢ | WER 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
        • User:Dennis Brown I tried my best to dig up the post where you said justice isn't guaranteed on Wikipedia, 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¢ | WER 21:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
            • User:Dennis Brown You're a pretty damn big hypocrite to keep on talking about how I can't see where I went wrong yet COMPLETELY ignore your false accusations. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 I don't see violations of any community-imposed topic ban. Care to explain? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I went off-wiki as real life beckoned and I just returned. Unfortunately, I am going off-wiki again now. At the point I declined I had a lot of browser windows open to verify things, but they're all closed now, and I don't have the time tonight to redo it all. I'll try to give you an explanation tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your community-imposed topic ban prohibits you "from making edits related to Armenia or biographies of living persons, both broadly construed." (WP:EDR) On June 23, 2013, you made this edit to the Armenia section of Double (association football). That edit violated both prongs of your topic ban. The edit was Armenia-related as it was in the Armenian section and involved a person of Amernian descent, and that same person is a BLP. On June 19, 2013, you made this edit to Adidas. Prior to your edit, there was a list of four football teams from Spain, Argentina, Finland, and Mexico. After your edit, the list contained three teams from Spain, Argentina, and Armenia. That edit was Armenia-related and violated your topic ban. On May 26, 2013, you made this edit that added Battle of Avarayr to the See also section of Last stand. The Battle of Avarayr invovled an Armenian army. That edit violated your topic ban because it was Armenia-related. There may be more violations, but those three in the last several weeks are sufficient.

This is all somewhat academic as you were not blocked for violating the community-imposed ban. Nonetheless, I thought it worth mentioning that there were other grounds for blocking you that might have made your block even longer. I don't know you, but you appear to aggressively fight back every time other editors claim you are causing problems in these areas. That kind of reaction is likely to lead to an indefinite block if you persist.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 as you half said, those articles are about a sport and a type of warfare. Not Armenia or BLP. Nor are they at all related to the block. Sandstein has cited my role in these two sections as the violation because I got involved in an AA discussion, as he claims. Hovever, I said it's a report of someone who was already banned via discussion, not a discussion in itself.

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) 15:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, your unblock request couldn't be granted be me, even if I disagreed with Sandstein. I was hoping to shed some light on your overall behavior, taking into account the indefinite ArbCom ban as well as the community ban. Too many editors play games with bans, thinking they can violate them as long as the violation is x, y, or z (substitute whatever arguments you want for x, y, and z). When you're topic-banned, you should stay away from anything even arguably related to the topic(s). Post hoc justifications are almost always rejected. This is my last comment. Instead of arguing, learn from the block, adjust your behavior, stay as far away as you can from anything related to the bans, and be more respectful in your interaction with other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 Please still talk to me, I just want answers. If I couldn't be unblocked, then what is the point of appealing? And no, "playing games" wasn't going through my mind at all, I truly felt I was abiding the rules. How can I stay away from something that can be distantly related to BLP? That's most of the articles on Wikipedia. And even so, this isn't the reason I'm banned. But please keep responding to me. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The block notice tells you how to appeal - see WP:AEBLOCK. There are three bullet points at the bottom of AEBLOCK. The first is futile as Sandstein has already responded. The third is quite difficult (unless it's become easier since the last time I looked), but you can do it if you wish. The second is relatively easy. As for your community-imposed ban, it's going to expire before your current block expires unless you are unblocked early.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 The Arbitration Committee takes like 3 weeks to make a reply, which is a "no" paragraph that is so generic, it sounds like a bot wrote it. I'd like Sandstein to reply to me. He has yet to defend his reasoning. Can you ask him to? If this helps convince you to help me, as you can see here, someone tried to get me blocked for reporting someone who violated the same ban, just like what's happening now. The request was denied by the same person who sanctioned the AA ban to begin with. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein already addressed your issues. There's no reason for him to do so again. I think your view of ArbCom is a bit cynical. I'm continuing to respond to you because you are being very polite, which is appreciated, but I don't think there is anything more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 But he didn't. He said 'Reporting others is not exempt from your topic ban.', which isn't true. And he's completely ignored my point of not engaging in a discussion. Also, the appeal says you addressed it, not him. ArbCom has screwed me over and given me the short end of the stick (nowadays I don't even get a stick) several times. Sorry if I've lost faith in them. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23PLEASE HELP ME --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sandstein Please answer the points I've made! If you can I'll stop. Where does it say "Reporting others is not exempt from your topic ban"? Also, the links you gave are not discussions. What do you have to say to this? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:16, 2 July 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 would have been unblocked ages ago, but you're being stubborn (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)