Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:46, 3 November 2012

This is TheShadowCrow's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Carl Lewis

I undid your edit in the Carl Lewis article again. You brought up that Emmiyan should be referred by his ethnic group however, athletes in this article are referred to by the nation they represented, not by their ethnic groups. Notice Ben Johnson is referred to as a Canadian and not as a Black Canadian or African Canadian or Jamaican Canadian. Additionally, regarding the sentence you have edited, the sentence is in context of the nation that he represented during the race, not what he would represent in the future. There should be no special treatment regarding this one particular athlete. This information is in Emmiyan's Misplaced Pages article anyway so there is no need to add to the Carl Lewis article which would damage the above uniformity I mentioned. As a result, I undid your edit again. BearMan998 (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding the term Soviet Armenian for Emmiyan for this particular 1986 event. The above still applies and again, Emmiyan was representing the Soviet Union at the time, not Armenia. Even the referenced source states the Soviet Union. It doesn't say Soviet Armenian or Armenian Soviet. BearMan998 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again, Emmiyan did not compete for Armenia in 1986. Again, he competed for the Soviet Union. Again, do not add this to the Carl Lewis article. This is your last warning over this disruptive editing. BearMan998 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

An 8.86 m jump is not even referring to this event where he jumped for 8.61 m. BearMan998 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Again the source in the article lists Soviet Union and multiple sources list the Soviet Union. It wasn't until after this 1986 event that he competed for Armenia. And the sentence you keep inserting this into refers only to a 1986 event where he only competed for the Soviet Union. BearMan998 (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ara Vardanyan, Sergo Chakhoyan, Israel Militosyan, Aleksander Karapetyan, Anna Chicherova

State flags

Please stop inserting state flags where they are not directly relevant as you have done several times on the Zab Judah article. It is against MOS:FLAG#Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance.--Jahalive (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this issue. Repeatedly reverting rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion is edit warring. This is prohibited by Misplaced Pages.--Jahalive (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If you continue edit warring rather than discussing this issue you risk being blocked or even banned. Responding that "There's nothing to discuss." is not trying to resolve the issue. Please work toward a consensus.--Jahalive (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the flags.--Jahalive (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Questions and ideas

I don't really know that much about categories, because I never had experience with them But I know that there's some program that can add categories to dozens of pages in few seconds, but I don't know what it's called.

I strongly support that idea, but I don't know how how we can put that information there. It would like ugly if we put it on two lines, like this:

 Armenian SSR

 Soviet Union

Another thing we can do is somehow point out the ones that are from the Arm SSR.

Also, it is really interesting for us, but I don't think this will be appropriate for wiki. I'm not really sure. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 01:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The category looks good.

I have an Armenian book which lists all the ethnic Armenian medalists of the Soviet period and indicated the city/republic they came from. So it won't take much of a time from me. I'll try few ways of pointing out the ones from Arm SSR and chose the best one and I'll let you know before applying it.

Probably yes, you shold add the Soviet representatives as well, because anything before Atlanta 96 is considered other country.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 00:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Question for administrator

{{admin help}} How do you create categories? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

See:

• Help:Categories (very basic)
• Help:Category (much more detail)
• WP:Categorization

For the question just above, Misplaced Pages:HotCat may be what you are looking for, but I have no experience of it myself. JohnCD (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BearMan998 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Your recent editing history at Carl Lewis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Yankees76 14:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Congrats!

Thanks. And I'm really surprised. Hope more media will mention it. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 19:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

To be clear on this, Novikov IS considered Armenian by most sources. In fact, Armenian Olympic Committee lists him as an Armenian olympic champion http://armnoc.am/olympic-champions-of-armenia.html

I don't think that Taimazov or Damian are Armenian, but Tavakolian and Kotzian do sound Armenian. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 23:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Avanesyan

Hello TheShadowCrow,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Robert Avanesyan for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Thisside2 (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The usual criterion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is explained here. Very basically, we only summarise information that's already published in reliable sources that're independent of the subject. We do this to ensure both that our information is verifiable, and that it can be written neutrally. If you have any questions, please ask. Cheers, WilyD 08:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's now at User:TheShadowCrow/Robert Avanesyan - move it to the mainspace when it's ready (any earlier, and someone or another will A7 it again). WilyD 16:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to move it yourself, no? WilyD 06:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Olympians of Armenian descent

Hi. I've removed the text & categories you've added to articles such as Hratch Zadourian, Sirop Arslanian and Michael Gostigian. The categories need to be supported in the body of the article and backed up with reliable sources to indicate that they are of the ethnic descent you've added. Please also see this for more info. Thanks. Lugnuts 07:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert Avanesyan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Avanesyan 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/Robert Avanesyan until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Holyfield1998 (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow - while I didn't agree with you 100% on the Carl Lewis/Emmiyan issue, do support this article being allowed to exist. If you want to avoid having this article deleted, please ensure you post "KEEP" with a brief explanation, citing the appropriate policy as to why this article should not be deleted. WP:ATHLETE is the most likely best guideline to quote. In the meantime you should expand the article using reliable sources. I've added a few competition placings in the meantime, but this may not be enough to show there are reliable third party published articles about him - I'll leave it to you to find those. --Yankees76 19:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Arsen Galstyan

Please provide in the body of the article the evidence that he is an Armenian citizen, otherwise the category will be removed. You probably know that the Russian law requires that everybody who naturalizes into Russian citizenship has to renounce all previous citizenships. The place of birth is irrelevant. The fact that Galstyan is ethnic Armenian is prominently featured in the article (in fact, before my edits it was difficult to figure out that he is competing for Russia and not for Armenia), and this is in my view more than enough. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Robert Avanesyan. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  21:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

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

Request reason:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F

Which of thse did I do? I don't see any that I said.

2. Calling someone a vandal isn't insulting if they are vandalizing. And that's what E4024 did by removing information supported in the article. In fact, you didn't take the reference to Armenian culture off, so you must agree with me that it shouldn't have been removed.

3. I thought carefully about if I should undo his edit or not and I decided it would be ok because this is neither a BLP nor a political topic

4. I did not see how this fits in with AA subjects. You're wording on the ROA page implies editing on the page to remove vandalism is justified anyway.

5. He IS a racist http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia&diff=517061666&oldid=517061053

6. So, to summarize:

You said it's ok to edit AA pages to revert vandalism. (Note: Not that I was ever told geographical land thats not in Armenia or Azerbaijan falls under Armenian and Azeri topics.)

You recognize E4's edit as removal of content.

The very first sentence on the Vandalism page mentions removal of content falling under vandalism.

I did not personally attack him in any way.

His edit implies irredentism is a part of Armenian culture, which can be considered a racist statement.

So why am I banned? TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please familiarize yourself with what is vandalism and what is not. Content disputes are not vandalism. Your topic ban only allows uncontroversial reverting of simple, obvious vandalism. The rule of the thumb here is that if someone other than the person being reverted disagrees with it being called vandalism, it's not a vandalism. Max Semenik (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This was not an edit dispute, he purposely tried to censor the culture importance of the topic and imply that it's signifigance comes from attemptive political gain, which is actually mentioned in Anti-Armenianism. No controversy, he purposely harmed the article. By intentionally removing info, he committed vandalism, and by committing Anti-Armenianism, he committed racism. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Is no one else going to respond? I have made it perfectly clear why I shouldn't be banned.

The link De7286 claims I violated says it is for BLP, which this is not. It also says it involves Armenian and Azeri issues, which the article in question doesn't involve. He has also claimed it was not clear vandalism. Yet he also removed it!

Is there any Admin out there reading this that can prove me wrong? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If no one can answer me, then I shouldn't be banned. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2012 (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.

Just a side note: you've already been warned here that not everything you disagree with is vandalism, which makes today's violation even more aggravated. Max Semenik (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

See above response --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue discussion (nor I feel that it's needed) - as a last suggestion I can recommend you to look at your behaviour from WP:IDHT standpoint. Max Semenik (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If my point won't be accepted by the community, than I expect an explaination why. I was in fact reverting vandalism. That's why De728631 also reverted it. E4 was removing content, which is considered vandalism. Vandalism is not the same thing as content dispute. If you can prove me wrong, I will stop. But if you can't, the reason is because I'm right, and you should accept it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

AND NOBODY HAS EVEN TOLD ME WHICH PERSONAL ATTACK I DID http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The personal attack you made was accusing E4024 of racism in this edit summary. Such baseless rants are not acceptable. And in case you missed it, I reverted your edit, not E4024's. Apart from that I agree with Max Semenik that a further discussion of this topic is unneeded. De728631 (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant what Misplaced Pages considers a personal attack (see link), not what De728631 considers a personal attack.

But you didn't keep E4's "significant role in Armenian irredentism" line, which is what I said is vandalism. The article currently says "significant role in Armenian culture and irredentism" which is what it said and what I restored it to. If I did something wrong on that page, why does my edit remain? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed you reverted E4's edits on the Ararat article because he was doing more or less the same thing he did to the Mount Ararat article (removing Armenian historical and cultural importance). In other words, you banned me for something you also did. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:ARBAA2 sanctions made indefinite

Under the authority of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, talk pages, and discussions covered under WP:ARBAA2 (meaning Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts) for an indefinite period, broadly construed. Violation of these restrictions will result in escalating blocks which may reach up to 1 year in length.

Given your recent block and other general indications that you will continue problematic conduct after the current sanctions expire in December, I'm extending them to indefinite. "Indefinite" does not mean permanent, they may eventually be lifted by community consensus or via appeal to the Arbitration Committee, although that will only happen once it is clear that you can trusted to edit in this area appropriately, and personally I think it is for your own good as well as the projects that you stay away from this topic area. CT Cooper · talk 11:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your decision. Judging from the debate above, it seems I was banned on the grouds of "Just 'cause" instead of AA. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting you to agree, but for one thing, some of the underlying conduct issues seem to remain, one being the persistent need to be spoon fed policy. It seems most appropriate that you get the house in order outside AA issues before these restrictions are lifted. CT Cooper · talk 13:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's because the policy is incredibly loose. I mean, if the article had the Armenia–Azerbaijan relations category or something like that, it would be different. Can you honestly add that category to the Mount Ararat article? If not, than maybe it shouldn't count. Regardless, I edited that page to remove vandalism, which doesn't violate any rules.

I'm also a bit suprised and disapointed you haven't had anything to say about the discussion above. De is saying I made a personal attack but he can't identify which one (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F) it was. Can an Admin ban someone if they can't defend their reason or doing so? This is pure corruption. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Ararat isn't an "ethnic conflict" --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you are trying to argue to me that calling someone a racist and a vandal is not a personal attack? Such an attack isn't even borderline, and there is no chance of the community or ArbCom having a different view. Under WP:NPA#WHATIS accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence is a personal attack, not to mention making comments on racial lines. It is also apparent that you haven't read the section being cited since it clearly says "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."

Vandalism is defined as a deliberate attempt to damage Misplaced Pages, and is very narrowly defined - WP:VAND#NOT. Any edit made in good faith is not vandalism, even if violates other policies such as WP:NPOV. Calling someone a vandal is offensive and so the word should not be used lightly, and it is long-standing precedent that false use of the term vandal is a person attack and grounds for a block if persistent. The general rule is that if you accuse a long-standing editor of vandalism, you are doing something wrong.

One of the reasons you were topic banned from this area was persistent poor judgement and a general inability to engage constructively with other editors, and this is yet another example of that. As for the scope of the topic ban, you know we have had this conversation. You are banned from Armenia-Azerbaijan articles and discussions, broadly construed. This means any content with any remote link to Armenia-Azerbaijan disputes is off limits to you, and that extends to Mount Ararat given the history. The content you were editing was about Armenian nationalism which is clearly covered. The idea of a topic ban is that you go and find something completely different to edit - skimming around the edges is frowned upon and you will therefore get very little sympathy if you overstep the line, even accidentally. Editing articles of people which happen to be Armenian or Azerbaijani is tolerable if there is no ethnic/nationalistic related content, which covers a lot of sports' BLPs, but anything beyond that is not. CT Cooper · talk 09:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

See, here's the thing though: I never called him a vandal or a racist. Why do none of the Admins realize that?

Vandalism: He was clearly no doubt vandalizing the page. De himself removed the part of E4's edit I originally removed after E4 restored it. He was removing content from the article. This is vandalism. If you expect me to not cut corners on AA articles, I expect you to not cut corners on a user's obvious intentions.

Racism: Let's look at what E4's vandal edit and what the page originally said:

It also plays a significant role in Armenian irredentism.

It also plays a significant role in Armenian culture and irredentism.

I'll translate this for you: "Armenians have no culture and only exist to lobby." So, to say Armenians have no cultural importantance to the mountain and their only relation to it is to politically gain land, is considered Anti-Armenianism and is even mentioned in the article's header.

So, to top it off, I never called him a name, even though his edit contained both vandalism and racism. Therefore, I haven't made a personal attack and my reasons for editing the Mount Ararat article are justified because I was removing vandalism.

As for engaging constructively with other users, you should look into the work I have been doing with User:Yerevanci.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, can you please indent your posts correctly so I don't have to keep doing it for you - see WP:INDENT.

As for the vandalism and racism issue, what you are arguing above is a textbook example of wikilawyering, in particular "Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." A vandal is someone who commits vandalism, so if you call someone's edit vandalism, you are accusing them of being a vandal; similarly if you are accusing someone of making racist edits, you are accusing them of being racist. Whatever technicality you try and levy, you made a serious unjustified personal attack against someone, which will not be tolerated here.

On the definition of vandalism, even if the edits were vandalism, you were still in violation of your editing restrictions. Only obvious vandalism is exempt - which would mean people making edits which are obviously inappropriate such as blanking the page, of which a competent person would need no knowledge of the topic to see. Given that you find the need to dive into the topic area to explain that the edits were vandalism, that is effectively an admission it wasn't obvious vandalism.

In any case, the edits weren't vandalism at all. I have already linked WP:VANDNOT to you and it is obvious that you haven't read it. The reason you are banned from AA articles is that your judgement is compromised in this topic area, and this extends to making inappropriate assumptions about other actions in violation of WP:AGF - the reason why "obvious" is put in front of the vandalism exemption. Disruptive editing, violating WP:NPOV, adding incorrect information, removing content are only vandalism in certain contexts, which this case does not meet, so even if all of that was true with these edits, that does not make them vandalism.

At the end of the day, we are heading towards a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation here, and I will only attempt explain something to you so many times over. However, I will make clear now that if there is another incident of you wrongly calling an editor a vandal or racist, you will blocked for significantly longer than one month. CT Cooper · talk 14:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that is pure hypocrisy. First you say I was streching the rules by editing an AA page with little to do with AA relations, and now you're bending the rules to say I called someone an offensive name without actually calling them a name.

Calling someone's edit vandalism is not the same as calling them a vandal. This is not a personal attack and cannot be considered insulting.

That's like saying every time you undo a poor edit and say so in the summary, you're calling the person an idiot.

In fact, calling an edit vandalism as opposed to the user a vandal can be considered the positive version for not refering to the editor directly. It's like offering ideas of improvment as opposed to just criticising.

"Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." Ironicly, you seem to be wikilawyering by claiming I made a personal attack without saying anything about a person.

"Obvious vandalism" is your opinion. What we know is that he intended to cause the page harm and another Admin reverted his edit after he restored it. Seems like pretty "obvious" vandalism to me. If an Admin has to revert it, than it clearly wasn't constructive.

I've read the page and I don't see what makes you think I didn't. Removing content is disruptive to Misplaced Pages, as we already went over. That's what E4 did. If his edit wasn't counter constructive, why did De728631 undo it himself? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that will do - you clearly just don't get it and I'm not repeating myself again. Since you have demonstrated that you cannot correctly identify vandalism, I am modifying the restrictions to explicitly state that vandalism is not a valid exemption. I have put in a place a very narrow exemption to even this, in which you can report obvious vandalism to an active administrator. CT Cooper · talk 10:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm as tired of this as you are. But this is different than the sock time, when I clearly did something wrong. I wouldn't still be doing this if I didn't truely believe I shouldn't have been banned.

I hope you don't think that modification impacts this past issue.

You say you're tired of repeating yourself? Fine. Then answer I question I have asked several times but you haven't answered once. How much more "obvious" can vandalism be when an Admin has to undo it?

I reverted the part where E4 removed information connecting Ararat to Armenian culture and notice that De728631 had not restored it. Think about it. I was the one who got banned, yet E4 is the one who's edit was reverted. Why? Because the wrong person was banned. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor chiming in here just point out something. Are you forgeting about this edit that occured between the two diffs you have linked above? Look at the revision history again. You made a total of three edits. The first two were reverted by E4024. Your last edit was reverted by De728631. So none of your changes remain in the current version. The only action by the admin was to revert your latest edit. Therefore your question How much more "obvious" can vandalism be when an Admin has to undo it? hasn't been directly answered because it does not appear to make any sense or is based on a misunderstanding on your part as to what had happened. Hope this clarifies things. --RacerX Talk to me 05:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, I see what happened. User:Dr. K made this edit which restored the changes you had made in your first two edits. So your changes do in fact remain in the current article via Dr. K's action! So that explains your question. I'm not sure if De728631 realized this when De left the page after reverting your latest edit. --RacerX Talk to me 05:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So what we know is that I have third party support and De728631 didn't restore the vandalism part of E4's edit. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sticking to my guns here I'm afraid. I've looked through the edits and yes some lasting changes remain. I'm afraid this does not really work in TheShadowCrow's favour as the idea of the vandalism exemption is someone makes a vandalism edit, it's reverted, and the article is the same as it was before. Anything which goes beyond reverting is not covered by the exemption, so this demonstrates that he violated the editing restrictions irrespective of whether the changes by E4024 (talk · contribs) were vandalism or not. Whether intentional or not, this vandalism exemption was being used as a loophole to influence the content of restricted articles, and so it was right that it has been closed.

In any case, whether and how E4024's edits exist in the current version of the article is irrelevant because as I have tried to explain, just because an edit is reverted, was non-neutral, or otherwise disruptive does not make it vandalism as WP:VAND and WP:VANDNOT, which are both part of a policy, makes very clear. In fact, to make it even clearer I will block quote the relevant sections so there is no need to find it:

...

...

...

...

...

...

The reason I haven't answered the "How much more "obvious" can vandalism be when an Admin has to undo it?" is because its based on a false premise that "having your edits reverted = vandalism". If that was true, pretty much everyone on this project, including me, would be a vandal as having your good faith edits reverted is hardly unheard of - read WP:BRD.

The suggestion that calling someone's actions vandalism is not in any way calling them a vandal is a non-starter, quite frankly. If it isn't a joke it certainly shows a lack of understanding and respect to the reason, i.e. the spirit, of the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies. I've been here long enough to know who goes to WP:ANI and tries to justify there actions in that way will, at best, not be taken seriously. Part of the problem here is that TheShadowCrow does not appear to appreciate what the word vandalism means, with this comment demonstrating that well in my opinion:

The idea that calling someone's edit vandalism is "positive" is blatantly not true - it a highly loaded term and will always be seen by an informed receiving editor as offensive - that's because, by calling someone's edit vandalism one is saying that that edit was made maliciously and was a deliberate attempt to damage Misplaced Pages because that is what vandalism is. Calling someone's edit vandalism is a statement of someone's intentions i.e. that they were editing in bad faith, and therefore TheShadowCrow's technical distinction between calling an editor a vandal and calling an editor vandalism does not exist in reality.

While I sympathize with the "wrong person was banned" point, at the end of day TheShadowCrow is banned from editing AA articles - while E4024 (talk · contribs) is not. TheShadowCrow was wrong to intervene in that dispute while the ban was still in place, and should have left another user or admin handle it. His decision to engage in an edit war and the poor choice of edit summaries show a serious lack of judgement or respect/understanding for the policies of this project. I and others see this incident as a taster of what will happen if he is let loose on AA articles again, which is why the restrictions have been made indefinite, for TheShadowCrow's good as well as the project.

As is probably already clear, I will not support lifting the block or the restrictions. However, TheShadowCrow may make an appeal Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please read the entire page before lodging an appeal via e-mail. CT Cooper · talk 18:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's all I needed to hear than. Regardless of whether I was wrongly banned or not, if the Admin is simply dead set against lifting the ban, there is no point in going on anymore. I do want to thank you for being the only Admin to give my appeal a real audience.

And can you do one last thing for me? Me and Yankees76 believe we both found someone guilty of socking. I was planning on reporting this shortly before I got banned. I was hoping you or someone else could look into it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot unilaterally lift the block or restrictions once implemented anyway, although I will never say never on supporting a lifting of the restrictions when the time is right. I'm looking into this sock-puppetry case, as at first glance the claims do appear to have credibility, but it isn't blatant enough for me to go in and block immediately. I have asked another admin who has dealt with the sock-puppeteer previously for a second opinion. CT Cooper · talk 12:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)