User talk:Legacypac/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Inclusion

of that DYK was hilarious :-) And, guessing leather is just impossible! ∯WBGconverse 15:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Stars, Portal:Fish, maybe Portal:World ocean ... nope. Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
What portal contains DYK...... that the Custer Wolf, a North American gray wolf referred to as the "master criminal of the animal world", killed livestock worth almost $300,000 in today's money?
What portals contain DYK...that Alvin Adams founded Adams and Company, forerunner to Adams Express Company, to haul express freight shipments by rail in 1840?
DYK... that professional baseball player Terry Doyle works as a substitute teacher during the offseason?
DYK... that Uncle Tom once led a professional baseball league in stolen bases?
DYK... that no commercial boat has beaten the steamboat Robert E. Lee's (pictured) 1870 speed record between New Orleans and St. Louis of 90 hours and 14 minutes to this day?

Mistake

Hi Legacypac, Your nomination for deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Decompression (diving) was based on a false premise. There are not 16 articles in Category:Diving decompression, there are 18 excluding the additional 6 in the subcategory Category:Decompression algorithms. The total in the category Diving decompression is 24. This exceeds the current requirement even if they were the only articles used in the portal. As it happens there are over 40 articles used in the portal, but that is not obvious at a cursory glance. Unfortunately I did not notice the MfD and no-one bothered to notify me, so I was not able to point these details out at the MfD. You have more experience with deletions than most so I assume you will know what to do about this.

The portal was indeed created by The Transhumanist, but on request as a demonstration of how to use the templates. It was not part of any mass creation and is an integral and important part of the underwater diving portal system.

The earlier one-piece underwater diving portal was split because it was too big to render as a single portal. I am open to suggestions on how to condense the sub-portals to a smaller number providing that the subdivision is logical, useful to the reader, and complies with categorisation appropriate to the topic. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Peter Southwood, I just checked the code of the deleted portal. It was a navbox-based portal, using Template:Decompression (diving). The overwehlming consensus at MFD is that such portals are useless ... so there is near-zero chance that the portal would have survived MFD.
If you want, you can open a DRV, and maybe will have a fresh MfD. Then I or someone else can point out that Template:Decompression (diving) contains only 50 pages, 6 of which are stubs or duplicates and one of which is the head article. So that 43 pages for the selected articles list. If you seriously want to claim that this is an example "a broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", per WP:POG, then prepare for a debate. Than minimum of 20 is minimum, not a mandate,
I really think it is long past time that you and the other portal fans accepted where consensus lies, and stopped trying to defend every single microportal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, If you look closely, you might notice that I am not, as you put it, trying to defend every single microportal. I would like to inspect the consensus you refer to regarding navbox-based portals, if you would be so kind as to direct me to where it is expressed, as there is nothing on the portals guidelines that indicates that there is a consensus on that point. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Peter Southwood, also look at the overwhelming support for a mass cull at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox.
Note that I did not accuse you personally of "trying to defend every single microportal". I was pointing to the collective failure of you and the other portal fans; there's nearly always at least one of you pitching up at MFD to defend any old piece of driveby portsalspam.
And look at WT:WPPORT: there is absolutely nothing there from project members such as yourself which tries to grade, classify or triage portals. The only such discussion there is one begun today by me ... but collectively, you and the other portal fans have done almost nothing to assist the cleanup of the wave of spam which TTH unleashed with the full knowledge, support and encouragement of you personally and many other editors.
You and the rest of the team defended TTH against complaints about the volume of junk, you were aware of his "newsletters" which boasted endlessly of quantity and you did noting to assess quality ... and yet even after hundreds and hundreds of portals have been deleted and while ~1900 are currently at MFD, even now all you do is try to wikilawyer about the deletion of one narrow topic. Wow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

MFD for Portal:Palace of Versailles

Hi Legacypac

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Palace of Versailles, a nomination which you created earlier today, using WP:TWINKLE.

That portal is built on a navbox which isn't about the Palace of Versailles at all. It's a about a Japanese band.

This is visible on the face of the portal, both in the selected article list and in the display of the template at the bottom. I spotted it in seconds after opening the portal, and I don't know how anyone else could have missed it.

That obviously reinforces my assessment of @The Transhumanist's portal creations as reckless spam, especially since TTH created the redirect from Template:Palace of Versailles to Template:Versailles which made this possible.

But it also clearly indicates that your MFD nomination was made without even minimal scrutiny of the portal page. As you know, I agree that nearly all these automated portals are at best useless, and at worst a disruptive waste of readers' time, and I support deletion. In this case, the portal is even worse that you thought. But the community relies on deletion nominations being made with some sort of diligence, at least a few basic checks ... and the fact that you opened the portal page to use Twinkle but didn't even notice the flaw is clear evidence that you didn't even skim-read the page before nominating it.

This comes after my message to you yesterday about your disruption of an existing nimination, which I am sad to see that you deleted[1] from this page without archiving.

So I'm sorry, but I have lost confidence the integrity of your MFD nominations of portals. So I want to ask you to stop making them: i.e. you make no more deletions nominations for portals.

I think that voluntary restraint will be better for you and everyone else than a formal topic ban discussion at WP:ANI, so I hope you will consider this carefully. However, if you delete this message or or prematurely archive it, then I will take this matter to ANI.

Pinging Thryduulf. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

PS I note that the warning which you deleted yesterday was restored[2] by @Robert McClenon. I'm not sure about the advisability of Robert doing that to another editor's talk page, but I hope that Legacypac will view it as a helpful act by a friend. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination based only on similarity to Winter Palace. There was no need to articulate everything wrong with the portal or research it in depth because it is a single building or complex of buildings. A million other fixable errors in the construction of the portal do not matter when the unfixable scope is the core issue. Many many nominations happen and others discover or note additional problems. For example you removed 30 odd portals from one of your noms over a supposed mistake that turned out not to be a mistake, then added and removed 1300 more. I'm still trying to figure out why you did a test covering half of the batch instead of all of them. I already know you despise me so please stop throwing your admin weight around on my talkpage and stop trying to derail my nominations like you did by posting inaccurate info at my small LA neighborhood bundle. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
No, @Legacypac, I do not despise you. On the contrary, here is lots I like about you. And I am raising these issues here as a less escalating alternative to raising them at ANI. If you would prefer me to take them there, then I will do; but otherwise I will notify you here.
But I am increasingly concerned that your excessive haste in throwing pages onto MFD without properly checking the facts is creating too much drama and thereby discrediting the whole process of cleanup.
I have seen you do much the same thing in two other types of XFD, and it is deeply counterproductive. It creates drama which distracts everyone from the substantive issues, and gives ammunition to those who want to stop the whole cleanup.
So please, less haste and more care is the way for you to stop undermining your own efforts.
I'm sorry to see that you responded by misrepresenting what happened at the mass MFD. Another editor raised a concern, so I promptly did a re-check and here were 36 pages which had been mistakenly included. I promptly removed them and apologised; and instead of complaining that my error had been detected, I thanked NA1K for raising the problem -- because we are engaged in a collaborative effort to get it right, not in a battle.
And it's also untrue to say that the batch of any 36 which I removed turned out not to be a mistake. None of them met the criteria set for the nomination. It later turned out that 30 of the 36 do meet a similar criterion, and will be included in a later batch, but they should not have been included in this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Outstanding contributions recognition

Outstanding Contributions Recognition
Your work and contributions at the AfC Wikiproject are exemplary. I've messed up my assessment of you earlier, and I'm grateful that you've forgiven me for that. But truly, it's a wonder why it's taken me this much time to hand over this barnstar to you. You're probably amongst the most dedicated contributors at this Wikiproject and I'm thankful to have you as a valued colleague.

With intelligent and most helpful inputs, you truly are an outstanding contributor.

Keep up the great work! :)

Lourdes

Thank-you that means a lot from an Admin. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding portal pages to MfD nominations opened by others

Hi Legacypac

Please stop adding pages onto existing MFD nominations. There are some limited situations where it may be appropriate, but you have been adding far too many.

The worst I have seen was a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, where I nominated one portal. You added 52 extra portals, which made an utter nonsense of my nomination rationale, and has led to a sprawling debate which has unsurprisingly not been closed after 25 days. That is monumental waste of editors' time; in its own way, it just as disruptive as the spam creation of portals.

The most recent that I am aware of is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Los Angeles glorified navbox microportals, where you added[3] 6 extra pages.

Two of those are already under discussion at another MFD:

Having the same pages discussed simultaneously at two XfDs is blatant forum-shopping. It is made even worse by fact that you didn't even tag them for the second discussion, so anyone looking at those portal pages would be unaware that they were being discussed elsewhere.

You also added 4 other pages:

The last of those, Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles had multiple manuals edits and so did not meet the criteria which the nomination described as being shared by all the pages nominated.

The nomination is for portals with a scope of less than 16 pages, but the other 3 pages which you added exceed that scope:

All of those facts were available to you when you added to them to the nomination, including the scope figures, because I have created tracking categories for scope: see Category:Automated portals with 31–40 articles in article list and 13 other cross-liked tracking categories.

This is highly disruptive conduct, because apart from the forum-shopping, you turned a carefully-checked and described nomination into a festival of falsehoods. That led to my signature appearing below a bunch of untruths, which tarnishes my good name. I have participated in thousands of XFDs over 13 years, taking great care to be precise and accurate, and to promptly and explicitly acknowledge and correct any errors. I am appalled that you have associated my name with untruths.

This has to stop now. You have already been the subject of multiple threads at ANI, where I have not supported sanctions against you ... but this after latest episode, I would strongly support sanctions for any repetition. In the meantime, I am pinging @Thryduulf, who has been a major critic, because while I disagree with most of Thryduulf's approach, they have a right to know about this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at any of BHG's links (I don't have time right now), but if what they say is correct (and her general opinion on portal-related matters it seems very unlikely not to be) then I fully endorse her description of this as disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Thryduulf. I spent about an hour making that nomination, which is way more time than the portalspammer (@The Transhumanist) spent creating those microportals, because I always take a lot of care to do due diligence and ensure that my XFD nominations are accurate. That is why I have objected so strongly to your unevidenced allegations against me.
I have just spent another hour checking Legacypac's misplaced additions, and documenting the problems. The cleanup of the portalspam is far too much work already, without having time wasted by this sort of cavalier disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Well I will nominate them separately then. I was very very clear that I made the additions and set them off as seperate from the original nom so there would be no confusion. The obvious commonalities are the scope. BHG has also been dragged to ANi over portals and as for Thruduulf you are in a class of your own for obstructiin and false accusations around Portals. Drag me to ANi, fail to get trackion but uninvolved editors give you grief, and keep ≥citing the origional thread as some proof there are vague problems with me. You are a major reason we cN't sppedy delete all this junk in one go. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Legacypac, you say The obvious commonalities are the scope. But Portal:South Los Angeles has 64 articles in its scope, whereas the nomination was explicitly for portals with less than 16 articles in scope.
And there's just no excuse for the forum-shopping --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Seconded. Please contact me in the future before adding portals to my MfDs. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Priceless

[4] Portal:Lua programming language has a red lua error.

YCMTSU. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I need to move the portal content manually

The portal page itself doesn't help me any. I have to copy-paste the contents of all those dumb little subpages. Abyssal (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. They are not being used anyway now. You can do that as you like. The portal page can be speedy deleted anytime you like by you. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

Just my 2c, FWIW: I would keep phrases like "should be topic banned" out of XfD discussions, to keep the temp. down. WP:ANI is the only good place for those, as a last resort, IMHO. And thanks for your excellent work on the project! UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes do you think it is time for requiring all pages they create to go through AfC? The idea of bot created templates is frightening. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't think that is necessary yet. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Maghsoud_Farasatkhah

Hello Good time I've read the rules I wanted to ask if possible to review the page Draft:Maghsoud_Farasatkhah I do not have the possibility to edit Thank You (Saeedigimon (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC))

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Lakshmi Ramaswamy

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Lakshmi Ramaswamy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'll take this on. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Fulbright and Kalaimamani are the words in this draft that pop out and say, "hey, let's have a look into this draft, and let's see how we can improve it". (Unfortunately it may also be Copyvio O'Clock on the text of this draft article.) I'll do my my best to fix things. Let's see what happens. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm worried. I've made a promise I'm not sure I can keep. First step for me is to read up on Classical Indian dance, and then reach out to other editors who can read Hindi - for default-wide Indian media sigcov - and then to fellow editors who can read the Dravidian languages for specific references... Pete "Il faut imaginer Shirt58 heureux" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this again, I might start by looking at whether an article about Drid Williams is feasible, as it might be start for English language references generally. I'd appreciate your feedback. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Still gravedancing I see

[5]...Weren't you blocked for attacking this editor in the past? Unless of course you want to bring an indef upon yourself as well I'd refrain from such petty things.--MONGO (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall. I was once blocked very inappropriately for alleged gravedancing. The blocking admin should be defrocked for that stupid block and you should go find something productive to do other then hassling me. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nom question

Hey LP: looks like on several portals you attached MfD tags and created discussions, but then they weren't put onto the MfD page; probably makes sense for you to to pull the tags off those portals/CSD G7 the discussions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

They are sitting at User:Legacypac/sandbox pending a couple other closes and/or maybe a DRV. If you want to nominate one feel free to copy the code into MfD and make your own nom statement. Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

New edits on David Benaron article

Hi Legacypac, I updated the article David Benaron in January to address some issues it had however the "multiple issues" notice still appears on the article. As I am new on the system I wasn't sure who to approach about this and I hoped you wouldn't mind me asking you directly as I saw you have accepted the article back in October last year. Thanks in advance for your suggestions! --Seagull019 (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

+On the principle of teaching a man to fish rather then giving fish away User:Seagull019 the multiple issues box comes from the very first line on the page. It's called a template and can be identified by the {{ marks. You can edit it out by erasing that line. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for guidance Legacypac! --87.70.145.37 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Information icon Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:National Hockey League. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You are trolling and you know better than to template an editor with more than 150,000 edits. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-Template Warning

First, Don't Template the Regulars is an essay, not a guideline, so you have no basis for scolding User:BrownHairedGirl about that. She has more edits than you do, and, second, you should not be accusing an administrator of trolling unless they really are being a troll, which she is not. Your repeated claims that she is trolling you have crossed the line into being personal attacks. You don't need enemies if this is the way you treat those who agree with you on a content issue. Or, rather, you will have enemies on both sides of the content issue if you continue to follow a scorched-earth approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The last person that treated me this way ended up blocked and IBANed from me. I'm quite tired with the regular inappropriate comments. She goes out of her way to be nasty while I go out of my way to support her nominations wherever I can. Pick your description of what she is doing but it needs to stop. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This is the edit[6] in which Legacypac edited my comment.
My comment refers to
  1. Legacypac's false assertion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:National Hockey League that just a fork of Template:National Hockey League which is the driver for this page. The reality is that the page Portal:National Hockey League is driven by the links on two pages
  2. Legacypac's wholly false nomination at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian cuisine, whose flaws I describe here[7]
Neither of those is a personal attack. WP:NPA specifically says "A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack".
I will not desist from pointing out significant errors in XFD nominations, by anyone. The reason that so many of my recent comments about errors related to Legacypac is simply that Legacypac is making a lot of errors in the MFD discussions which I follow.
Correcting errors of fact or procedure is an important part of the consensus-building process. It is not possible to build a valid consensus on the basis of mis-statements, and an XFD built on the basis of demonstrable falsehoods will be overturned at DRV. If Legacypac is unable to accept that errors will be noted, they should stop participating in XFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep your opinions off my talkpage and preferably to yourself. No need to drag you criticisms of my nominations and editing here too. Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Having your book made into a film

Hey there Legacypac, I saw your comment at Draft:John Mersereau that having your book made into a film meets WP:CREATIVE. I haven't heard that before, could you explain it for me? Is it because of criterion #3? --Cerebellum (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The film must be notable of course, not some kid's youtube creation. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Got it thanks. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Cerebellum: I accepted the draft. Looks like it would survive an AfD + created by FloridaArmy, a prolific author of accepted drafts. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
User:FloridaArmy does good work. His pages are almost always a quick accept. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, Draft:Elizabeth Lincoln Gould and Draft:Taft Middle School need reviewing. Draft:Ray Malone is one that has stuggled for an approval but he seems wuite notable to me. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Heads up

Portal:Fullerton, California - maybe Twinkle glitched? The nomination wasn't completed. SITH (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting an MFD after it is open

You replaced the MFD for Portal:Saddam Hussein with redirect to the MFD for Portal:Ruhollah Khomeini after I had already !voted to Delete the Hussein portal. This was disruptive. I know that you meant well, but there are times when redirecting something is disruptive. I have already objected to Speedy Redirects of drafts that have been nominated at MFD while the MFD is in progress, and the instructions say not to blank, delete, or move. This time, rather than merely redirecting the page, you redirected the MFD for the page. The portals are enough of a problem without the critics of portals complicating things by bundling things after they are already in progress. Don't do that again. If an MFD is already getting !votes, let it run. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It is more complex then you describe. I filed the MfD and then BHG bullied me into withdrawing it. I put it in my sandbox waiting to maybe take it to DRV after some additional similar noms closed. Then BHG linked the page from her MfD incorrectly claiming it already under discussion, but it was not, it was sitting in my sandbox. So I made a bundle, but after bundling it I found you had voted even though it was not an active MfD. Roughly that's the sequence as far as I can figure out. Sorry for any confusion. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Legacypac - You say that you were considering taking a withdrawn nomination to DRV after some similar nominations closed. I don't think that withdrawn nominations may be taken to DRV. If they can, please show me the guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon you encountered a withdrawn individual renomination of a page that was discussed in a batch of 17 bio portals. The DRV would have been for the batch which was closed in a supervote as no consensus. Instead the pages have been brought to MfD one by one then as a batch by BHG, with a smaller batch I formed after she incorrectly listed the last few as being under discussion but they were not really under discussion as discussed above. Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I think I may offer some insight here, Robert McClenon.
Legacypac, you used twinkle to nominate Portal:Saddam Hussein for deletion. That notice stayed up for five days linking to this page until UnitedStatesian took down the notice [ link ] (this happened for a bunch of these nominations I take it). I was reviewing the portal situation, and I was understandably confused by this turn of events. The MfD was live for the portal page like five days in between when UnitedStatesian took down the link and when you put it up for nomination (but meant to have it taken down). This was the fourth time I saw UnitedStatesian had did this. However, unlike the previous times I came across the portals from this list, I not only undid UnitedStatesian's removal of the notice (which I had assumed was in error since the page linked to a previously created nomination mfd subpage) but saw it wasn't listed at MFD. Therefore, I concluded this was must've been an error and well... added it. Then I did it again in this edit for two more.
Robert, this was how you were able to comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Saddam Hussein. You would not have commented had I not interfered by adding it to MfD. My apologies to all involved (most especially UnitedStatesian who had the good sense to take down the mfd notices before I mucked that up). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks MJL, you are almost correct with your facts and I appreciate you posting here. The pages were tagged but only live at MFD for several hours before I moved them to my sandbox. I have been slowly reintroducing the 17 portals in the batch one by one to MfD with redated nom statements. Then I bundled the last ones after BHG incorrectly posted they were already under discussion. So I quickly bundled them to make her statement true after the fact. Anyway, I think it is all sorted now. Most of the editors involved are just doing what they thought was the correct thing without knowing the rest of the story. Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Legacypac, MJL, the problem is that they were tagged as under discussion, and in some cases there was an unclosed discussion page. That is "under discussion". Legacypac may have not intended for them still to be under discussion, but Legacypac's previous actions had left it to appear as if they were. I would have assumed that this was a good faith error, but Legacypac's irate responses below make that harder to believe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

25 April 2019

User:Legacypac - I will paraphrase a common warning of mine. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is bullying, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not bullying, and have also been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that if there really is bullying, you can report it. One conclusion is that if you merely say that you were bullied, without reporting it, you were not bullied, and are therefore yourself making a personal attack. I know that you don't like User:BrownHairedGirl. I am not quite sure why, but I don't think it matters. If you say that she bullied you, and you do not report it at WP:ANI, and we know that you are not an editor who will submit to actual bullying, then you are the one who is in the wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no feelings one way or the other about her but I note she has long treated me poorly well before the portal cleanup. The rudeness started at CfD. As you know reporting an Admin and getting any action to contain their behaviour is very very tough. The tendency to shut down any thread about an Admin quickly is very strong for some Admins. Legacypac (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Resumption of Discussion

@Legacypac, I did not "bully you". I pointed out that you had flooded that day's MFD with no less than 36 single-page nomination sin one morning, and that this was disruptive.
I can see no trace of the MFD moved. It seems that MJL describes the history well.
Legacypac made several bad moves in all of this:
  • The withdrawal was done in the wrong way. When the original nominations were withdrawn, they should simply have been closed as "withdrawn by nominator" and the pages untagged. Instead they were left as zombie nominations, tagged on the portal when no longer listed at MFD, wit the discussion pages unclosed. That creates a bad situation where anyone reviewing the MFD page thinks it was live when it wasn't. That's how Robert McClenon ended up !voting[8] on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Saddam Hussein; it was not in your sandbox, it was an unclosed discssion linked from the portal page, and there as no way for Robert to know that it wasn't also at MFD.
  • Redirecting[9] the MFD page to bundle the portal at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ruhollah Khomeini. Redirecting MFD pages creates a hideous mess in future, as follows: if the bundled nomination is closed, the redirect remains in place. Any attempt to use WP:TWINKLE to renominate ends up following the redirect, with the result that the nomination is not saved, and the old closed discussion is as added to the MFD log for the current day. This has happened to me twice in the last two day, with the result that I have deleted a lot of the redirects.
I have bundled a lot of MFD nominations and some AFD nominations, and that is how the Help says to bundle nominations, manually. It is work, but sometimes it needs to be done, and any job that needs to be done needs to be done right. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Building a bundle by creating a nomination for one page, without any indication that more are to follow. That risks other editors commenting before the bundle is complete, which make the discussion a mess.
There are several ways to avoid all this.
  1. If a nomination is withdrawn, close it using {{subst:mfd top}} and {{subst:mfd bottom}}, and remove the tag from the portal. Do not leave it as a zombie.
  2. Never redirect an MFD page. When adding a portal to an existing nomination which is being made into a bundle, do not use Twinkle. Instead, manually edit the portal page and add {{mfd|name of bundled discussion}}. e.g, if the title of the discussion page is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:FooBar123456789, then add {{mfd|Portal:FooBar123456789}}
  3. When creating a bundled discussion, don't put the substantive nomination in at the start. Instead just leave a clear warning that the nomination is under discussion. I use the boilerplate text nomination under construction. Please wait before commenting, but devise your own wording if you prefer. It might even better as shouty BOLD CAPS, so that anyone thinking of commenting can't miss it. Then take you time listing the portals and writing the rationale, and remove the "Please wait" notice only as the last step when you are ready to go live.
I know that some of this will seem complex and counter-intuitive, but the crude software is as it it and we have to work within its limitations. You do a lot of MFD nominations, mostly good ones, but that means that even a low rate of procedural glitches creates a lot of drama. For example, there are literally dozens of MFD page redirects which you created, which I have quietly been working to unravel.
Please please slow down and take care of the procedural issues. If some of it seems unclear, please just ask. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I told you to stop posting your lectures on my talkpage. I don't need your coaching and have no interest in learning to edit more like you. No one asked you to change all my MFD redirects and I can see you doing that pointless messing around with my work. Please stop stalking my edits. I've made hundreds of MfD bundles over the years and no one has seen the need to adjust the redirects. I've also never seen anyone adjust the redirects on anyone else's bundles. That suggests you are making busywork and inventing another excuse to critique my work. Post "advice" on my talkpage again and it will be rolled back as vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Legacypac, my post above was to explain as clearly as I could how some of your edits were causing disruption, which I presume was unintended.
The fact is that the redirects do disrupt twinkle, as I explained; that a significant number of your your bundled nominations have become trainwrecks; and that that there are fairly simple ways of avoiding all those problems.
You may well have never seen anyone adjust the redirects on anyone else's bundles, but I would be surprised if you noticed, because a) you didn't spot what I did until I came here to tell you about it, and b) other editors just add the correct MFD tags in the first place, rather than your baroque method of using Twinkle to create discussion pages which you have no intention of using.
I have absolutely no desire to give you a hard time, or to make you edit like I do. I just want the disruption to stop.
You may not want coaching, but you do need to be aware that you causing problems. If those are caused in good faith, then you will want to fix them; if you don't want to fix them, then my assumption of your good faith was misplaced.
Finally, do read WP:NOTVAND. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
And then read Yelling Vandalism about calling edits with which you disagree vandalism. Not enough administrators will block for the personal attack of yelling "vandalism" when there is no vandalism, but, since, as you say, administrators will sometimes close ranks, they might choose to defend one of their number if you claim vandalism against User:BrownHairedGirl, with whose edits you may disagree, but who is not a vandal. Genseric was a Vandal.

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019 (2)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Spartaz Humbug! 04:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Say what??? An explanation is required here Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I edit conflicted doing exactly that. I warned you about casting aspersions and here you are accusing another editor of bullying without foundation and then battleground behaviour with snarky edit summaries. Please stop it. Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Unblock me and I'll file the arbcom case next week when I'm near my desktop. Anything I've said about bullying can be supported with diffs. Blocking a good faith editor for pushing back against a relentless weeks long stream of criticisms is not right. Legacypac (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Legacypac FWIW, as someone who has been silently watching this play-out here and at the occasional noticeboard, I'd suggest you reconsider going to arbcom. I know you think that non-sysops get treated poorly by sysops. I have encountered this "know your place peon" attitude from some sysops myself. In this case I don't think that's what's happening here. I think you've gotten yourself into a couple of recent disagreement with other editors, who just happen to by sysops and a combination of your suggestions of poor treatment by sysops and the respect given to someone who has contributed as long and as much as you have to the encyclopedia has prevented you, until now, from being blocked or brought to ANI - where I think a very real outcome is the crowd could pile on against you resulting in a long sanction. I think the GS case you initiated has changed things, for the moment, in terms of ADMINACCT and not protecting each other at ANI by closing threads early - look there now where a very long tenured sysop has been brought there by another sysop and there is an ongoing discussion about the appropriateness of a CU block or the way the Enigaman situation played out. Given your commitment to the project of building an encyclopedia, I hope you find some ways to edit that bring you joy rather than the mounting frustration that this portal situation seems to have brought you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank-you for your comments. I'm not at all frustrated by portals. Of course I think there are more efficent ways to clean up but I've done big cleanups before. I'm only frustrated at the relentless attacks against me by BHG for what is normal editing. She exaggerates, criticizes me for alleged errors that are not errors, and is generally following me around being a critic. No one but me is seeing the totality of the situation because it does not concern them. All others see is comments here and there that are designed to destroy my reputation bit by bit. This behavior is only tolerated because she is an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

Apparently I've been blocked for complaining about an Admin who has been harassing me. I've been allowed no due process and as a non-Admin, can't block the Admin for their actions which are more disruptive then my pushback. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A block is completely warranted here and the emerging consensus is that it's a lenient one given the scope of disruption. To dismiss the block with the tired excuse of admins circling the wagons instead of acknowledging that your behvaviour has been disruptive is unpromising, at best. Some serious introspection prior to posting another unblock request will likely do wonders. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:06, 26 April 2019 (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.

  • Note to blocking admin @Spartaz and to block reviewers: there is a long history here of Legacypac engaging in disruptive conduct in relations to XFDs, most recently MFDs. I have tried many times to engage Legacypac about it, assuming that these have been good faith errors rather than intentional disruption, but Legacypac's response has been a pattern of ignoring the substance, and making personal attacks.
See e.g. higher up this page: #Please_stop_adding_portal_pages_to_MfD_nominations_opened_by_others. Legacypac has done that at many nominations, severely disrupting consensus formation.
There have been repeated errors of fact in Legaypac's own MFD nominations. In such discussions I am used to good faith editors welcoming corrections on points of fact, but when I challenge any such issues in Legacypac's nominations or comments, his response has repeatedly been to complain about being challenged rather than correct the error. See e.g. MFD:Portal:Indian cuisine. Legacypac's response has increasingly been to ignore the substance, and respond with various forms of personal attack:
  • false accusations that I am a "troll", e.g. [10], [11]
  • one page with multiple false accusations of trolling([12], [13]) and an accusation that I was "attacking" and assuming bad faith by disputing points of fact[14], plus responding "buzz off" to my posting elsewhere in the discussion[15]
  • another discussion where I am called "troll"[16] by Legacypac; another editor rebukes Legacypac for that[17]
  • again calling me a "troll"[18]; note my response[19]
Most recently, on my user talk, Legacy responds to my discusison with another editor with repeated demands that I "shut up", and calls me a "bitch": [20]
The persistent problem here is that multiple attempts by multiple editors to raise issues of procedure or substance with Legacypac are met with the same pattern of ignore the substance, repeat the the error, and make ad hominem attacks against the messenger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
PS See also Legacypac's response to my warning about their editing of my comment in a discussion. I particularly object to the misogynist personal attack there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Calling BHG a bitch is so blatantly using Wikipedia to launch a misogynistic attack against a contributor, it is shameful that this is not a lengthy block with a ban discussion for violating the website terms of use. We are at the stage where Twitter does a better job protecting its contributors from people who misuse the project to hound contributors for who they are, rather than criticism of contributions. --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
That is not what I posted. I have hounded no one - instead I have become the punching bag for BHG who has a long history of aggressive behaviour against other editors Legacypac (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Er, what, you are trying to make what you wrote BHG's fault? Your words here were your chosen words to use when responding to BHG on their talk page, and it was a blatant misogynistic targeted attack. In my view the minimum outcome here should be an interaction ban, and I am not saying that because I think I am your "mother" either. Wikipedia's talk pages are governed by very clear anti-harassment policies, they apply to you as much as anyone else. --Fæ (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, no point appealing a short block here. I suggest using the time to lie down in a dark room, or take a nice walk. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I have been very clear BHG is no longer welcome to post her criticisms here, but she has persisted, even cranking them up. Now she is gravedancing but no admin will block her for that because she is an Admin too. Legacypac (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually if there really is a significant problem with BHG's behaviour, I think the primary reason no one is blocking BHG is because you basically called her a bitch. If you want others to notice and act on possible poor behaviour from other editors, don't act so poorly yourself that no one cares. Regardless of the alleged baiting of whatever, you really need to develop a strategy which stops you from calling someone a bitch. Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was coming here to thank Legacypac for abstaining from bringing potals to MfD for a couple of days; I hadn't realised they were blocked. I don't normally comment in conduct cases, but I've been following this as it rolled out... There have been errors & raised voices all round here, me included, but I think Legacypac means well and has genuinely felt threatened by admin BrownHairedGirl. In no way does that excuse the language that they have used towards her, but I think it starts to go somewhere to explaining it. I think we all need to have a bit of a cool-down break here. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Please ignore the above, an abusive legal threat made in your name was received via UTRS. A checkuser has investigated and confirmed it is not related to your account. I've reset the block back to the 31 hours per Spartaz initial block (without prejudice to any other discussions going on elsewhere concerning the block). Nick (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
As I said over at the AN thread, I sincerely apologize for having made this mistake. I should have realized that the language in the ticket was suspicious and paused to investigate further, and I appreciate that several admins including Nick here realized what was actually happening and corrected my inappropriate action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

In case it is not blindingly obvious - I've never made any legal threat and to the best of my knowledge have never used the UTRS system for anything. I've been camping with limited internet access and ignoring Wikipedia while the original block ran out. Legacypac (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Block log

I don't want to get involved into this at all. I'd just like to point out that in the block log, "Making legal threats (see UTRS #24940)" seems to give a wrong impression that has not yet been corrected in a similar way; all we see is "per update to", which is meaningless to anyone only looking at the log and seems to be unfair. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't modify entries, and our guidelines are pretty clear that we're not to add entries to the block log just to add notes about previous blocks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: (talk page stalker) I too have no wish to get involved, but can I suggest that a note be added to the unblock message if LP is unblocked? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
No. If/when Legacypac is unblocked, the log entry for that action should relate to the discussion(s) which resulted in the unblock being agreed upon. I left a specific log entry when I adjusted the block with the intention of directing administrators to the UTRS ticket where they can see additional notes on the ticket itself. Nick (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvector and Nick: Add me to this ever growing list of people who don't want to get involved. Has there ever been a phabricator ticket filed to allow a blocking administrator to edit their block log? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: I hope not, it's a stupid idea. Why the hell would we want administrators to be able to edit their block logs, allowing them to hiding dubious block reasons ? Nick (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick: Touchy subject, but I meant like the way comments are edited in Flow (ie, where you can see the edit history and still link back to it if need be). Without that feature, it would be a disaster waiting to happen. Either way, I'm digging my own grave here, so I'll just stop talking now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Counter-examples are described at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Recording_in_the_block_log_after_a_"clean_start" and Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Recording_in_the_block_log. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Might I suggest taking this somewhere other than an indefinitely blocked editors talk page? There are many people who have erroneous blocks in their logs (myself included) and this isn't relevant to Legacy alone. Praxidicae (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (watching) The discussion is verging on pointlessness; administrators already have the opportunity to "hide"block log entries (to non admins, anyway), merely by removing their visibility. A twinkle button like anyother. Of course, what confuses the issue is that half of our administrators don't know of it, andthe other half won'tadmit it. The fiction is, one assumes, preferable to the vista that would otherwise unfold.
As for not annotating block logs with later notes, c.f. 14:53, 2 February 2018. By the way, this is me too, not getting involved... ——SerialNumber54129 20:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Having this visible and easy to reference in my archives is a good thing. I don't want this hidden. Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac/Archive_16&oldid=1042322075"