Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 5 November 2013 (→November 2013: reply, lifting block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is MarshalN20'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: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 10 days

GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of eleven people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest and Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the November drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:FT topic question

Hello, you recently commented on the Featured Topic nomination Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Battlecruisers of the World/archive1. There have been three different versions of the topic box proposed - could you take a look at them and offer an opinion as to which is best? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Falkland Islands

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Falkland Islands you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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 ©_ontributions 01:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Hi MarshalN20,

you have been incriminated in Misplaced Pages: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 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 | 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 | 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 | 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 Misplaced Pages'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 | 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)