MarshalN20 (talk | contribs) |
MarshalN20 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
||
⚫ | |||
{{U|Sandstein}}, please, taking this to a public forum is only going to make your detractors bandwagon into the subject (and jumble this topic with other non-related matter). I have ''not'' broken the topic ban. The current block is taking matters much too broadly (inadvertently making the same "broad misconception" mistake I made when I participated in the War of the Pacific discussion).--[[User:MarshalN20|<span style="color:olive">'''MarshalN20'''</span>]] | [[User_talk:MarshalN20|<sup><font color="maroon">'''T'''</font><font color="Silver">'''al'''</font><font color="maroon">'''k'''</font></sup>]] 20:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ |
Revision as of 20:20, 14 November 2013
Your GA nomination of Falkland Islands
The article Falkland Islands you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Falkland Islands for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2014
Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
Hi MarshalN20,
you have been incriminated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 16:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
November 2013
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.
- In the initial closing statement, I overlooked that Falkland Islands is explicitly exempt from the topic ban. Sorry. But the block is maintained for the other topic ban violations outlined in the AE thread linked to above. Sandstein 19:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is very unfortunate Marshall. I'd like to go on record stating that Marshall is the most civil, polite and knowledgeable editor regarding various areas of Latin American history that I've come across in my time editing WP. A one month block feels definitely unwarranted for a couple of minor comments in a talk page. Marshall is currently engaged in a GA review for the Falkland Islands article to which he has contributed extensively. Sandstein, couldn't the block be lifted and instead a restriction to collaborate only on that article for the duration of it be imposed? Completely blocking an editor like Marshall from WP is a serious loss to the project. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, but MarshalN20 will be free to contribute in a restrictions-compliant manner after the block expires. The possible detrimental effect of MarshalN20's temporary removal from editing certain articles was already considered by the Arbitration Committee when they imposed the topic ban and its enforcement provision, and I am not competent to question that assessment. Sandstein 19:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Thank you for the comment, Gaba. It's all okay. Sandstein's decision is justified. I acted based on the assumption that Keysanger made "obvious vandalism" (per WP:BANEX); Sandstein disagrees with my interpretation and blocked me for breaking the topic ban.
- Sandstein had the option to either agree with me or disagree. In either case, the decision for a block (or no block) would have been justified.
- What does sadden me a bit is that I get the feeling Sandstein's immediate block was harshly based on various erroneous assumptions (including that I was editing the history of the Falkland Islands in lieu of my topic ban). Also, it was my assumption that comments in AN/I and enforcement boards were exempt of topic ban restrictions as long as they have relevance to the topic.
- And, lastly, I am concerned by the logic that "obvious vandalism" can only be equated to something such as "PENISPENISPENIS" (Sandstein's own words). In Keysanger's case, he even went as far as to delete the little country-flag identifiers (how is that not obvious vandalism?).
- Ultimately, I never intended to break my topic ban per se. I justified all of my actions with premises, even if ultimately they turned out to be erroneous.
- Cheers.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have requested a block review at WP:AN and would advise you to make a block appeal. Blocks are not meant to be punitive and it clearly is in this case. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Wee. The premises you raise do make a strong case. The actions that took place did happen a couple of weeks ago. Moreover, not only was the AN/I case archived by this point, but I followed your advise and disengaged from matters.
- I had no intention to continue anything on this matter.
- Keysanger's enforcement report is reflective of vengeful, bad faith attitude.
- Lastly, I again maintain that my actions were all justified by premises. If they were wrong, all that really was needed to be done was to tell me that my premises were wrong.
- Blocking me is not really doing any benefit to Wikipedia.
- I won't claim unblocking me is going to make the encyclopedia better, but I certainly don't view myself as one of the bad guys.
- Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Sandstein, I apologize for the headache. I personally have nothing against you. In fact, you've been very kind to me in past "mistakes" I made also related to my topic ban. I appreciate that and your work in Wikipedia. However, I have to agree with Wee that the timing of the request and the immediate block decision (with no discussion and based on erroneous assumptions) casts doubt into the validity of the block. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for assuming a constructive attitude to the situation. As you may know, arbitration enforcement decisions do not require consensus or discussion. As I explained at AE, based on your equivocal statements so far, I am not confident that the topic ban violations will not reoccur if the block is lifted. As in all cases where I impose sanctions, I am open to lifting the block if I am convinced that it is no longer required to enforce the topic ban. Sandstein 20:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sandstein. I know little about Wikipedia's processes (except for what I have learned over the past few months). The promise I can make to you is that I will never again make assumptions (such as those concerning WP:BANEX) without prior consultation to you or other equally knowledgeable administrators. I also promise to not participate again in any discussion related to the War of the Pacific (at least until my topic ban is eliminated).
- Perhaps my promise might not seem like much, but I believe NuclearWarfare can back it up. I promised him to take the article Falkland Islands to GA and FA status (see Talk:Falkland Islands/GA1). I always honor my promises. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Based on these statements, and the expectation that you will stay well clear of everything related to Latin American history in the future, whether or not you may deem any other user's conduct vandalistic or otherwise problematic, I am lifting the block. You should unwatch any related pages and not respond to any related messages to make sure you do not inadvertently violate the topic ban again. I am not really interested in discussing with you if anything is obvious vandalism or not; if it is, somebody other than you will act on it. Sandstein 20:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to see this worked out fine, thank you Sandstein for reviewing your decision. Cheers all. Gaba (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandstein. Yes, I will no longer make assumptions concerning the limits of my topic ban. It ultimately causes too many problems for everyone. I apologize for all the inconvenience this has caused.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am just discovering that all tis happened because I still have the arbitration pages on my watchlist. I am happy that the block was lifted, and if I were you, Marshall, I'd be looking forward a removal of the topic ban in the future, after you have shown that what you were accused for is no longer valid. Happy week :) — ΛΧΣ21 04:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Based on these statements, and the expectation that you will stay well clear of everything related to Latin American history in the future, whether or not you may deem any other user's conduct vandalistic or otherwise problematic, I am lifting the block. You should unwatch any related pages and not respond to any related messages to make sure you do not inadvertently violate the topic ban again. I am not really interested in discussing with you if anything is obvious vandalism or not; if it is, somebody other than you will act on it. Sandstein 20:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Harold. :)
- The topic ban has been a punitive nuisance rather than a help. Perhaps the only thorn that truly hurts is all the insults and kicks people take at me while I stand in this precarious position.
- However, looking at it from a positive perspective, I have met many good editors (including you & the arbitrators) and even reinforced good relationships with fellow contributors. I have also learned (mainly by trial-and-error) much about Wikipedia's rules and procedures; and continue to do so with passing time.
- I'm grateful for these gifts, even if they are unintentional outcomes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Aw, heck
So here I come with the barnstar and you've just been blocked for a month! Well, I don't know any of the background for whatever wikidrahmaz may surround your life, but I do appreciate your work to bring Falkland Islands to GA. Few users would have had the patience or diplomacy to bring this to stability.
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
For navigating the treacherous waters of Falkland Islands to bring it to GA status. Few editors would dare to tackle such a controversial article at this level; fewer still would have succeeded. It's been a pleasure working with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC) |
Who knows, of course, if my GA promotion here will "stick"--I'm sure we'll see it at GAR sooner or later, and neutrality arguments can go on until the end of time--but to my mind, at least, you made it. Congratulations. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oh good, unblocked already? In any case, my pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Khazar2. The waters in Wikipedia always tend to be rough, but it's good to have fellow sailors moving strong in the right direction. I hope to have the pleasure of interacting with you in the future as well (feel free to contact me if I can be of assistance). Cheers!--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like I owe you one of these, too:
This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Falkland Islands to Good Article status. |
So double congrats! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- lol. Here I thought today would be a bad one. Turned out to be my best day in Wikipedia.
- Everyone who contributed in Falkland Islands deserves the praise. It's a good day for Wikipedia.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Falkland Islands
The article Falkland Islands you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Falkland Islands for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The Argentine Barnstar of National Merit | |
For working in the Falkland Islands article and helping to make it a recognized good article Cambalachero (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC) | |
this WikiAward was given to MarshalN20 by Cambalachero (talk) on 13:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC) |
- I'm deeply honored. Thank you, Cambalachero.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement block, 14 November 2013
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.
MarshalN20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- Sanction being appealed
- [1]
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a 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 MarshalN20
The Chile-Peru football rivalry is a current event. The article Chile-Peru football rivalry has a history section which delimits the range of "history" in the article (and which I have not edited). The sanction is unfair and must be removed.--MarshalN20Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= [[User_talk:MarshalN20|<sup><font color="maroon">'''T'''</font><font color="Silver">'''al'''</font><font color="maroon">'''k'''</font></sup>]] 20:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC) ; Sanction being appealed : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History#Sanctions] ; Administrator imposing the sanction : [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] <span class="plainlinks">([[User talk:Sandstein|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Sandstein|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/block/Sandstein|blocks]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/protect/Sandstein|protections]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/delete/Sandstein|deletions]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/move/Sandstein|page moves]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/rights/Sandstein|rights]] <b>·</b> [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sandstein|RfA]])</span> ; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|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 MarshalN20=== The Chile-Peru '''football''' rivalry is a '''current event'''. The article [[Chile-Peru football rivalry]] has a history section which delimits the range of "history" in the article (and which '''I have not edited'''). The sanction is unfair and must be removed.--[[User:MarshalN20|<span style="color:olive">'''MarshalN20'''</span>]] |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1= [[User_talk:MarshalN20|<sup><font color="maroon">'''T'''</font><font color="Silver">'''al'''</font><font color="maroon">'''k'''</font></sup>]] 20:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC) ; Sanction being appealed : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History#Sanctions] ; Administrator imposing the sanction : [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] <span class="plainlinks">([[User talk:Sandstein|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Sandstein|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/block/Sandstein|blocks]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/protect/Sandstein|protections]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/delete/Sandstein|deletions]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/move/Sandstein|page moves]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/rights/Sandstein|rights]] <b>·</b> [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sandstein|RfA]])</span> ; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|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 MarshalN20=== The Chile-Peru '''football''' rivalry is a '''current event'''. The article [[Chile-Peru football rivalry]] has a history section which delimits the range of "history" in the article (and which '''I have not edited'''). The sanction is unfair and must be removed.--[[User:MarshalN20|<span style="color:olive">'''MarshalN20'''</span>]] |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1= [[User_talk:MarshalN20|<sup><font color="maroon">'''T'''</font><font color="Silver">'''al'''</font><font color="maroon">'''k'''</font></sup>]] 20:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC) ; Sanction being appealed : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History#Sanctions] ; Administrator imposing the sanction : [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] <span class="plainlinks">([[User talk:Sandstein|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Sandstein|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/block/Sandstein|blocks]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/protect/Sandstein|protections]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/delete/Sandstein|deletions]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/move/Sandstein|page moves]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Log/rights/Sandstein|rights]] <b>·</b> [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sandstein|RfA]])</span> ; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|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 MarshalN20=== The Chile-Peru '''football''' rivalry is a '''current event'''. The article [[Chile-Peru football rivalry]] has a history section which delimits the range of "history" in the article (and which '''I have not edited'''). The sanction is unfair and must be removed.--[[User:MarshalN20|<span style="color:olive">'''MarshalN20'''</span>]] |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Sandstein, please, taking this to a public forum is only going to make your detractors bandwagon into the subject (and jumble this topic with other non-related matter). I have not broken the topic ban. The current block is taking matters much too broadly (inadvertently making the same "broad misconception" mistake I made when I participated in the War of the Pacific discussion).--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)