User talk:Legacypac

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 64 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

On continuous harassment

I don't know if this is possible but can find a new hobby instead of keeping harassing innocent editors who simply want to engage in the content development? Please don't use Wikipedia to address your insecurity about power or authority or whatever. Here we're trying to build an encyclopedia. -- Taku (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Processing abandoned drafts without regard to who started this is hardly a problem. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

~~If you are seeing any article at AFC, wothry of accept, just mainspace it, probably with a note to the decliner(s).~~~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Love to but some editors object to my 90%+ survival rate on mainspacing found abandoned or AfC articles. My ability to identify AfD proof topics is as good as anyone's but currently anyone with 10 edits can put anything in mainspace but "the community" does not trust me. Incredibly stupid and imsulting. Maybe you want to fix that User:Winged Blades of Godric.Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken (which does happen occasionally) your six-month-minimum for appealing is over, so you're welcome to ask for the sanction to be lifted. If you do indeed have a 90% acceptance rate for drafts you submit yourself, I'd say it demonstrates you know what you're doing, and I'd likely support such a request. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It needs some updates (page status keeps changing) User:Legacypac/Promotions shows that even after incredibly nasty attacks and lies at ANi and having my moves and creations scrutinized by multiple users my move survival rate is pretty solid. Anyone that says I can't be trusted to move pages better be prepared to prove their track record is better. Further I was banned from creating pages even though no one produced any evidence there is any issue with my page creations - which was pure punishment from whoever the closing Admin was. Yes it's a sore point for me. I put a lot of time into building a better resource for the world yet lies and falsehoods were used to restrict my freedoms. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you're welcome to request the restriction be lifted. Personally, I would leave out the vitriolic adverbs, but that's just me. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a read through [1]. The abuse thrown at me was very unacceptable. Later events bear out the inapropriateness of how I was treated:

One participant lost their Admin bit partly for their attacks against me in that thread and their related actions messing with my user permissions.
The threatened ArbComm case filed against me failed spectacularly.
I eventually got the interaction ban I was seeking (unfortunately it was two way)

I'd prefer someone else seek the listing of the restriction imposed by User:Dennis Brown. If I have to do it I'll need to update my User:Legacypac/Promotions page. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, I did not impose those sanctions directly. All I did was close the discussion and determine consensus, then "declare" the will of the community. I didn't get enough into the details to form my own opinions. Of course, had I, then I wouldn't have been able to close it due to bias. If you want to appeal, and it would seem you are eligible, I would offer the advice (that you already know) of putting all ideas aside on the fairness and simply focus on demonstrating that the merits no longer apply. You do know the drill for a successful appeal. Not my rules, just the reality here. Politely and unemotionally pointing out misconceptions is fair game in moderation. Again, you know all this. I don't have an opinion on it at this time, but I do think everyone deserves a fair appeal, and you aren't an exception. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two way IBAN I was saddled with also impedes me engaging in a full discussion on appealing the move/creation restriction. I don't know why I even bother. Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how your current IBAN would impact your AFC TBAN, and even if it did for some odd reason WP:BANEX lists appeals as a reason for breaking the strict "no mention" rules. But hey, you seem dead-set on just whinging instead, so I'll leave you be. I would ask, though, that if you're not going to appeal, stop complaining about the ban. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll appeal it but with all the evidence to show it is never appropriate. I've not done any moves since the ban, so everything rests on the moves before the ban. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please stop

I believe i've asked you before not to move my drafts into mainspace or tag for AFC submission. I'm more than capable of moving it myself and simply being in the Draft category doesn't mean it needs to go through AFC. Please stop submitting for other people. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFC review is an entirely optional process and no editor is obligated to use it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 I'm aware and I wasn't going to submit it to AFC anyway. I've asked before as well and the better thing to do here is look at the age of the account and whether they're active too. Not everything needs to be g13'd or submitted to AfC. It wasn't stale because I had no intention of continuing to work on it, it was because I wanted to take photos and get the non-online sources from the library to improve it before main space. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in agreement with you, Chrissymad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, sorry! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any request from you Chrissymad, but even if you asked it does not seem to be reasonable to give special consideration or remember the preferences of various editors that created the thousands of drafts I look at. Remember the edit to submit the draft to AfC (which is what I do with all promising drafts I find up for G13) buys the draft another 6 months at worst or immediate promotion at best. An edit every six months should avoid having your drafts processed off the G13 lists, where every draft will be touched by some editor within a few days of hitting 6 months without edits. Sorry for the inconvenience. Keep creating good topics. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "special consideration". WP:STALEDRAFT only applies to userspace drafts of long-inactive users. The above is a request for you to follow the relevant content guideline, which you have been ignoring. VQuakr (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't in AFC, so why were you even reviewing it? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Draft you are talking about, but it was likely on this list User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report as 6 months stale. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to note that this behaviour is a violation of your community imposed editing restriction. The logged restriction specifically states "Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles" so you should not be moving/submitting another user's content to the AFC process nor making comments regarding the AFC process as below. You should only be submitting content to AFC where you are the original author. I'm not going to take any action, the discussion was over 6 months ago, so this is simply a quick reminder that the editing restriction exists. I'll also note, in the interests of fairness, the decision could be appealed after 6 months, if you haven't done so already. I've no opinion on whether that would be prudent at this time. Nick (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original intent of that sanction was to disallow Legacypac from creating/moving articles directly in mainspace. I say this as the original closing admin of that ANI. Moving drafts to AFC is a bit in the grey area. Perhaps I didn't word it clear enough at the close. [2] But the AFC portion was just about how he created material, keeping it out of the view of search engines. As to moving someone else's draft to AFC, I'm not completely sure how that fits into these restrictions and it wasn't something I contemplated when finalizing the sanction. AFC isn't mainspace. From my perspective, moving drafts to AFC isn't disallowed simply because it wasn't even considered at close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles" would appear to be explicitly clear - unless Legacypac is the originator of the material submitted through AFC, he is not permitted to use AFC and shouldn't be submitting other user's material to that process. That's perhaps separate to the movement of pages. I'd agree there's nothing stopping him moving pages around - say from User space into Draft space, but he can't then submit anything moved into Draft space for review via AFC, nor can he move it further into Article space. Nick (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, as much as I hate to disagree with you, when the closing admin says that the intention was that pages created by Legacypac need to go via AFC, it doesn't mean that they're prohibited from doing anything other than editing their own pages (despite the somewhat-vague wording of the close). I will agree that moving pages to AFC/the draft space is a grey area, but I don't find anything wrong with working in the draft space to deal with G13/problematic material.

To address the original point, while it would be "ideal" if Legacypac checked a page's history before submitting to AFC, they're not necessarily obligated to do so, and while Chrissymad may get annoyed at having to undo an edit (and is of course welcome to leave notes here) she does not solely control the content of an article and (to quote someone dead) "shit happens". Primefac (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

I concur. The idea of moving drafts to AFC never came up at the ANI and I don't feel right imposing it after the fact. Yes, ideally he would avoid it but I don't feel I could sanction him for it. Admittedly, the wording could have been better, but it is difficult to anticipate every possibility when closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the close and the intention of the close clearly don't match each other then. The close should have been something like "Legacypac must use AFC to submit their new content to the Article space" or words to that effect, that has a quite different meaning to "Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles" which makes it sound, to a previously un-involved administrator, that Legacypac should not be using AFC with work written by other users. You'll need to work on how to clarify that close, Dennis, since it's inadvertently misleading for those of us who are looking at the community editing restrictions. Nick (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First User:Nick - I have not violated the community imposed editing restriction and you need to retract your allegation. Arthur Rubin lost his tools partly based on his unsubstantiated allegations and unjustified action against me during the same thread where this restriction was imposed based partly on your unsubstantiated allegations. Now you say you could have blocked me?

I have submitted hundreds of drafts to AfC over many months - in fact as I currently can't move other's Drafts directly into mainspace that is the only way I have to continue identifying potentially salvageable abandoned content. Further, as one of the originators of the restriction you made unsubstantiated allegations that lead to this stupid restriction and since you showed up at my talk page to accuse me again...How is your move/creation survival rate User:Nick? If you want to police me you should be able to show you are a lot better than me at writing and identifying notable content. Sorry if I sound annoyed, but your posts have rubbed salt on a very unfair wound. Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at it this way. Chrissymad is not a long-gone editor that abandoned a bunch of drafts that you need to rescue through AfC. She's a writer and is taking her time to perfect these articles before moving them into mainspace. Wikipedia relies on editors like Chrissymad to write content. If you move these drafts into AfC when that wasn't Chrissymad's intent, aren't you subverting her incentive to contribute? Sure, you're having fun jacking other editors' content because you derive pleasure in going through draft entries but your supposed contributions are stepping on the toes of constructive editors who simply want to finish drafts before publication. We have gamification in play here and your strategy is harming the payoff other editors derive from their work. You were asked to stop, Legacypac, so why not stop? You think that's too much hassle? How about you stop moving userspace drafts that aren't your own unless the editor has been inactive for a year or so? You can peruse the forgotten drafts while allowing active editors to edit at their own pace. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chris troutman the premise of your point misses the facts. Evidently the unidentified page was in Draft space (she said so) and up for G13 deletion. It was not in her userspace. Your assperations about my motives are WAY off base. I could have just tagged for deletion but instead, as is my practice with promising pages, I evidently tagged it for AfC. The appropriate response was a quick undue-not hassle me. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're talking about Draft:July 2017 flood in Maryland? My mistake. I thought it was moving userspace stuff like User:Acalycine/A.F.C. Bursledon. I struck my comment. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dennis Brown here is the close [3] Here is what User:Nick proposed that lead to the close "I'd suggest 'topic banning' Legacypac from moving any type of draft content into the mainspace, instead allowing/requiring them to move potential new articles into the Draft namespace where they can be submitted/reviewed through the Articles for Creation review process. That way BLPs and other content with verification and referencing issues remains out of the way of search engines and the 'encyclopedia proper' until it's checked by a AfC reviewer. Nick (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

Nick's comments here [4] [5] and [6] and what he proposed are very different. I've done exactly what he wanted to force me to do and now he says it is a violation! What is the correct venue to deal with Nick? Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best venue is here. Leave it a few days, then look again and have a thick about it. If anything needs saying, say it a week later. Don’t ping anyone. Anyone with anything of value to say will already be watching. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The closure that is logged at the logged restrictions page states "Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles" which I interpreted to be a restriction which means you can only submit content you have created to AFC process. Dennis has clarified that is not what the closure means and I've asked that they clarify their closure to note you can submit content created by others to AFC. I'll note very clearly that since the closure has been clarified, I will not and cannot take any administrative action based on this badly written restriction (not that I would anyway, given I'm involved with the original restriction). I will also point out that I was trying to stop you from getting into further trouble by reminding you of the restriction, which is why I was clear I wasn't going to block you and why I noted the restriction can now be appealed against - I was trying to be fair. I didn't have a problem with you using AFC with others work at the original discussion and now that the restriction has been clarified, I still don't. I'm sorry if you think I was being unduly harsh here, that wasn't my intention, I just didn't want to see you get into trouble and that's all there is to it. Nick (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took it as Nick politely trying to keep you away from sanctions as well. I've done similar with editors when I thought they were going against a topic ban but might not understand they were. I accept responsibility for my close being less than clear, and Nick has accepted my explanation, so there really isn't much more to do. There were some misunderstandings, things are clearer now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About my undo

You are trying to trap me to violate the topic ban. Just stop. -- Taku (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take my comments off my talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You tried to provoke me and I responded to the provocation by mistake. I realized my mistake (that I was responding to your "game") so I undid my comment. -- Taku (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to provoke you. I was working a list of stale pages tagged "promising drafts" and actually did not pick up you were the author of one of them. The notification to you was automated but you came to my talk page fully aware of your topic ban to discuss my deletion process. I'm glad you are coming back to your senses but please don't delete my posts from my own talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry I misunderstood the situation (that this is part of the mass deletion attempt). I know the ban and I don't need or should engage in the draftspace usage discussion (I can only hope someone can stop you) -- Taku (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I should reiterate that you do have a real behaviorial problem; [7] is another case in point. You treat Wikipedia as a game; ending a debate by silencing the opponents by topic bans is not winning the debate in substance. I have learned that I shouldn’t play this game but you need to stop it too. —- Taku (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Promising draft"

Have you tried just nominating these for G13? I don't see the need for every one of those drafts to hit MfD just because someone slapped a template on them; too inefficient. VQuakr (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wanted to get a feel for what was tagged and how the MfD regulars felt about this situation. Rather not take the heat for ignoring the tags, until we get a bit more experience with them. A whole bunch of the ones tagged are sports stubs that were mass draftified. It looks like, including those, the tag has been used about 220 times. I did a search specifying Draft space for the first few words of the tag to ID them and threw up a selection of ones I did not feel should be postponed or sent to AfC or mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds like we are in agreement here. I appreciate your taking the time to look at them; what I was hoping to avoid was having every single one routed through MfD - I think we could get consensus on them as a group either through a single MfD discussion, discussion at WT:MFD, or discussion at WT:CSD. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments on the one MfD. The tag originated with users opposed to G13 expanding. I did not fight the tag, but things turned out as I figured they would - it would be used a few times and forgotten until the 6 months rolled around. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable behavior

Hi,

I have just removed the comment “I agree they are attempting to abide by the restriction, but dancing along the edge of it. The continued negative comments about my activity are stupid. There is only one editor playing a game here. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)”[reply]

This level of the personal attack is plainly unacceptable. It is YOU who have decided Wikipedia is your playground and keep interfering with the normal content development activity. You have to stop! —- Taku (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for harassment of User:TakuyaMurata and edit warring at Draft:Relative cycle. 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 ~~~~}}. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What prompted this? His editwarring to remove my comments in various places as reported at 3RR discussed at User:Primefac's User_talk:Primefac#For_your_consideration I have not been harrassing Taku - he has been busy making false claims of that all over the place about my normal editing cleaning up stale drafts. Look at his main user page and editing restriction for background. This is a very ill advised block and I want a review by a more clued in Admin. If Taku wants to make a harrassment case against me bring it to ANi where it will boomerang as totally baseless. There is a much better case that they are harrasssing me with baseless claims and removing my posts. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Baseless claim I was harrassing another user in the normal course of processing stale drafts. See additional comments. Legacypac (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Block has been lifted. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't edit war - I restored my own comments after days of this user removing my comments in various locations. I'll admit I should have not restored my comments but rather put together an ANi case, but I decided a more limited impact 3RR report would be better, not involving so many editors. I'd rather see the other editor just go work on content instead of being disruptive to User:TakuyaMurata prove his point he is being persecuted. When unblocked I'll not be restoring anymore of my comments removed by this user, just noting they were removed improperly. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and TakuyaMurata clearly have an inability to work together, and it seems that this exact same issue is doomed to repeat every six months given your work in stale draft tagging and Taku's ongoing reluctance to address their drafts proactively. Nonetheless, it's a bit difficult for someone less familiar with the situation to see how it's not harassment (or let's say baiting) that each time you nominate one of TakuyaMurata's drafts for deletion, you insist on dropping in a note (e.g. [8], [9], [10]) about Taku's topic ban from MfD policy, which is still not a topic ban from MfD itself; this does read as a pointy non-sequitur. Our policy says "comment on content, not on the contributor". What can you do so that this will not happen again six months from now? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [11] correctly identified a violation of his topic ban - he is not to discuss deletion process anywhere on the site. The other two links are in response to another editor in the discussion and to the history of Taku's dealing with the page being nominated. I've simply been dealing with his drafts as I find them and in the same way that other drafts are dealt with. There is NO targeting of Taku. This block is the result of his casting aspirations claiming harassment, believed by an Admin appears unfamiliar with the long term problems caused by Taku around drafts. Legacypac (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't, they're allowed to give arguments for or against deletion and I don't see any more than that. Anyway, irrespective of what anyone else did you have done nothing to deescalate the situation. That's what I'm asking, what can you do differently? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion as to what constitutes discussing deletion process. I asserted that talking about G13 (a major theme that lead to the block) was not appropriate. In recent memory I've CSD G13'd one Taku Draft, sent two to MfD and postponed several. Given the User:Legacypac/CSD_log and the number of pages I sent to WP:MFD it is obvious I'm not targeting him. I've used warnings and talk pages to attempt to deal with his antics. I filed a 3RR and that got me blocked. What else would you prefer I do with an editor that keeps removing my posts and claiming I'm harrassing them? I'm open to suggestions. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not going to put all the blame for this on you, but you could try not to be so abrasive. I know you go through a lot of drafts, but someone who doesn't get that probably does have cause to feel badgered when you hit up five of their drafts within a week or two (here, roughly) and just in the natural cycle you're back doing it again every six months or so (six months ago). I would suggest, as a start, that you don't get into revert wars with them over silly things like an AfC comment (any edit to the page would reset the 6-month timer, no?) and try not to bring up their topic ban at every opportunity. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DQ, please reconsider LP's block...we've been working on backlogs of stale drafts, and dealing with a substantial number of problematic article creators. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I understand Legacypac does thankless and tiring work, but it's his interactions with those "problematic" people which is the issue here. I'm willing to consider steps down from the two week block with assurances, but otherwise, i'd point you to WP:NODEADLINE. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DQ, thank you for your response. My request for clarity now comes as a volunteer at AfC and NPP. Based on what I've gleaned from the stub that gave birth to this unfortunate result:

Legacypac, as part of his work at AfC, added a notice to postpone an auto G13 for an 8 mo. old stub in draft space to avoid an auto delete as a stale draft per this explanation by Primefac. (My apologies if I've misunderstood Primefac's intention.)
Takuya reverted it, stating in the edit summary "..not AfC." Why would Takuya's revert be considered appropriate?
Legacypac reverted, stating in his edit summary (..."it's not in AfC it is a comment to keep the draft around for 6 months").
Takuya reverted again, stating "then leave a comment without the AfC template." Legacypac was doing what AfC reviewers are supposed to do to save stale drafts from deletion. What validation is there for Takuya's reverting?
Legacypac reverted, stating ("...the AfC template is quite an excellent way to leave comments.")
Takuya reverted again, saying "I have moved the comment to the talk page". Again...what was the justifcation for Takuya's reverts...and what is the justification for blocking Legacypac? I find this very confusing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my reasoning yesterday below in about 4KB of text, and don't really care to rehash it unless you have specific questions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Amanda. This is a sticky wicket. Two weeks is a pretty strong block given the circumstances (but clearly within discretion), and more importantly, Legacypac could have easily avoided it. I would agree with the above one of the problems is being too abrasive. There is a time to be abrasive on a talk page, usually after you have tried to be polite on a talk page (even my current talk page is an example). I know you are trying to do a lot of work, and it is thankless work, Legacypac, but if you get in a rush to get more done and it affects the way you come across to others, it will end badly. I could name you a dozen names of people you probably know that fell down this well. You HAVE to start out polite on these people's talk page, not just a giant WARNING. Give them the opportunity to respond in kind, and if they don't, then the source of the problem is easy to see. I'm not putting all the blame on you, btw, just saying there are things you can do that would prevent these problems. You can't control the actions of others, but you can control your own. I' m putting off reviewing the block because I really can't lift it; it is a valid block and the rationale in the unblock request is insufficient to justify overriding the original admin. I would personally like to see Amanda reduce it, and/or I would like to see Legacypac modify the request so it explains what they understand and how they will move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: To be fair the time for polite talk page discussion with Taku was about 9 months ago, or prior to Taku earning his topic ban. I tend to disqualify editors who have shown outright hostility and unwillingness to even consider modifying their behavior with respect to wikipedia norms from the initial rounds of AGF. It would be one thing if Taku was just being disruptive as there's tools for addressing disruptive users, but Taku (in my mind) plays a cunning long con in which they don't entirely oppose a proposal but change it so effectively that the proposal's intention is dead on arrival. In short his play, when not outright opposing, is to gaslight his opponents into throwing up their hands and walking away and letting Taku to continue keeping his walled gardens. Hasteur (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dennis Brown indeed User Taku's actions and comments tried my patience amd I failed to take a deep breath and think more carefully how to manage the situation. I let him get to me over a number of days and I showed too thin a skin. I'll be more patient with him in the future or ignore his more trival actions. I also filed the 3RR using automated tools without enough evidence (you can see the edit conflict) and therefore did not bring forward a comprehensive series of diffs with explanations to support the filing. Therefore I mislead the reviewing Admin into reviewing an incomplete case to my own detriment. I apologize to Amanda and Taku for my part in creating this mess. Legacypac (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to reply to @Dennis Brown: when I saw that Legacypac left a comment, so I'll try to include that in my reply. I would first like to point out, this isn't a one way block. I've blocked Taku for a period of two weeks also. The only reason I arrived at two weeks instead of one for the both of them was their block log. Legacypac has an entry from May 2016 for a month (without unblock) about "gravedancing, perpetuating a feud, on User talk:Winkelvi". That shows that there was a previous incident that Legacypac had not learned to take a step back from, though I understand that's almost two years ago and why I didn't go any higher.

Specifically speaking to the harassment charge, it was self-initiated. And it was specifically around wikihounding. So it starts with you processing 4 of Taku's drafts in less than a week. I don't have an issue with that, i've even specifically gone over someones contribs and nominated everything before esp in the field of copyright issues. When they disagree with your edit though, you don't take it up with them on their talkpage, you take it to MFD. That's where it gets murky. Still not enough for me to be overly concerned, maybe you didn't know how to start that conversation. This is where I hit the red line now. Again, instead of talking it out, you edit war (albeit without either of you breaking 3RR) with Taku at Draft:Relative cycle over whether your comment be left on someone's draft (I know the WP:OWN comments are coming, I get that they don't own it). You also started an MfD about one of them, including the line "who is overly concerned with and banned from discussing deletion process", which entirely seems like bating, especially after @Primefac: has specifically commented that they are allowed to vote in the discussion and that this surrounds only G13s. You then make a further comment below someones vote saying "There is a significant history of disruption around this specific user and his drafts. He is now topic banned from discussing deletion policy anywhere in site." If this isn't antagonizing an editor I'm not sure what is. Then you proceed to revert the removal of that specific comment telling them on their talk not to delete your comments. The last and final straw of this was you then filed an AN3 report on the mess you both created at Draft:Relative cycle, which you could have again discussed out with them first, since neither of you violated 3RR. To further top it of with Primefac's talkpage (which, yes, I read before blocking), you took this as a direct personal attack (when it's an unspecified attack), and threw an attack of your own out "Now you are focusing your disruption on me and my work perhaps because you blame me for the community ban you earned." And i'm still of half a mind if "I doubt someone with your math knowledge is either a child or stupid, so we should be able to expect better behavior from you." has a bit of a sarcastic line to it, especially considering the "expect better" part.

So with all that said, two weeks, especially with your block history I felt was significantly justified, and I stand behind that length. I'm not by any means saying it's your fault all the way though, as I blocked Taku also, but you had several points where you could have disengaged from disruption and you didn't.

I do find Legacypac's latest comment encouraging towards developing a way forward. While I stand behind my block length, if something does work out and we can find a way forward, i'm not going to stick to that. My suggestion for both to be unblocked is that a voluntary two-way IBAN be agreed upon by the users, and that an admin can make that IBAN non-voluntary if it's not abided by. I am tough on my sanctions, but it's only to actually prevent the disruption, so that you guys don't get 6 months down the road and have this issue again or end in the direction of ArbCom. If I help stop the issues now, we can all return to helping the encyclopedia. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Amanda makes a lot of good points, but I am also very sympathetic to Legacypac, who is essentially the main person working behind the scenes to make sure that our draft space stays as a place for building an encyclopedia and not a private webhost or a place for spam. Honestly, one of the thing that makes me the saddest about this block is that I think his topic ban should be lifted, and that this might make that less likely.
To Amanda's point about a IBAN, I'm not sure if it would work here: Legacypac will inevitably come into conflict with Taku because they have very different views of what should happen in the draft space, and it intersects in practicality on Taku's drafts. An IBAN might not cover the drafts, but I am confident that the second the next MfD was started after an IBAN, we'd be back at ANI with someone proposing a new TBAN for Legacypac, and I don't think that would be in the best interest of the encyclopedia at all.
Something that might work (and Legacypac, please take this as coming from someone who appreciates your good work and understands the frustrations you are having here) is for Legacypac to agree to keep his interactions with Taku in any conversation minimal.
I know Gerda always discusses how ArbCom restricted her to two replies per discussion once, and how she appreciated it, and I think that might be a good way forward here: Legacypac would agree to two replies to Taku in any given conversation, and after that, they would stop. Maybe even only one reply. I'd like to think that it might be a way forward that is short of an IBAN or future TBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate User:TonyBallioni's comments. He convinced me of the wisdom in generally NOT responding to Taku at all regardless of what Taku posts. I don't seek contact with Taku anyway, other then standard automated notifications. I don't work on math topics and he does not work cleanup, so there is really no interaction to ban. Great strategy Tony. Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is meant as a reply to Hasteur's reply to Dennis above, but it's for everyone and I'm putting it here for chronology. I object to Hasteur's characterization of TakuyaMurata's behaviour, as someone who has been following this probably more closely than the other admins here. I've observed that each time a user approaches Taku with a constructive suggestion for the disposition of one of their drafts, they're more than willing to discuss; see the current discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Distributional calculus and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bivariant theory as examples. Note in particular Taku's civil initial response to both of these, both of which are noms by Legacypac. It's only when someone else makes a hostile comment that Taku responds in kind, and it's nearly always either Legacypac or Hasteur making those comments (see the comments I've collapsed in both of those discussions). I could link to several more identical discussions from six months ago but I'm on mobile at the moment and it's 3am here. This pattern does not excuse Taku's own conduct, they did indeed earn a topic ban from discussing draft or deletion policy, but if this were simply an issue of Taku being aggressive toward Legacypac or defensive of their drafts I would not anticipate any rational discourse at all. I would hope to see some introspection from Legacypac on this point before I would support lifting the block. I have not seen it yet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 07:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector are you open to reviewing the evidence if I post it or have you made up your mind I'm wrong? I'm not perfect, and I could handle problematic behavior better. I've said that already and agreed to a plan of ignoring someone that has been pursuing me for months based on a vendetta for (in his view) getting him topic banned. Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not just trying to say that you're wrong. What I'm trying to get at is that I think this situation could be resolved over some civil discussion, if any of the parties involved would give it a try. And I mean a real effort to see the other side and work toward a resolution, not just one polite statement in pursuit of your own predetermined goal and then going back to the cannons when someone doesn't agree. Someone can trout me for saying this in this way but one of you has to be the bigger person. Otherwise, the solution is as you have proposed that you simply try to ignore each other, but I foresee that the cycle will just repeat again as you both tend to naturally intersect in each of your own regular good-faith pursuits, and we'll be right back here in six months. I don't want you to feel that you're wrong, I just want to suggest that there's a better way to solve this.

I haven't myself seen very good evidence that anyone involved here is pursuing a vendetta, but if you have it I'll happily review. Nobody should have to endure harassment to edit here. Feel free to email me if you'd prefer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, two people just set each other off. There are one or two people I simply avoid because it is difficult to resist the urge to choke them through the monitor. Being an admin, I've attracted a few that feel the same way about me. The key is recognizing this and avoiding those people. I don't want to make a sanction out of it, but I would strongly suggest that Legacypac, you simply choose to avoid Taku's work. let someone else deal with it. It seems there is some history, and you both rub each other the wrong way, so it is best if you simply avoid each other. I was more aggressive in my early days here, I've learned to pull back most of the time, not so much for Wikipedia's sake as my own. I just got tired of getting angry and frustrated, and figured that I can't change other people but I can change ME. So I learned to not take things so serious, to slow down. It was a process that took a year or so. I'm happier now. When it really hits the fan, I tend to walk away and simply remember that I have a job, a family, several really nice guitars and plenty of things to occupy my time. Wikipedia is just a part of that, and not a reason to get bent out of shape. As to Amanda's comments, I respect that, you've obviously done your homework and the block is unquestionably within discretion. I also appreciate you keeping the door open, as it does seem Legacypac is moving in the right direction here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've agreed to ignore the other user - that is a wonderful plan for a variety of reasons. Given the advice of User:Dennis Brown to discuss politely on talk, I'm disappointed Amanda did not bother to discuss with me. I'm hardly a spammer or vandal. Now what do I need to do to get this embarrassing block lifted? Legacypac (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think what needs to be done to have this block lifted has been stated already; DeltaQuad suggests voluntary two-way IBAN for both parties (I am thinking indefinite). This would probably include the standard automated notifications, not even minimal conversations, no interactions of any kind I suppose. If both you and TakuyaMurata agrees, I think I can go ahead and log this in the editing restrictions section, and then move on to discuss lifting of the block with the blocking administrator. This is probably the only thing left as I think you already have made the introspections suggested by Ivanvector above. Alex Shih (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih, you might want to mention this to Taku - you can't have a voluntary two-way IBAN without both parties being involved. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker – please do not ping on reply)[reply]

Primefac, I pinged Taku in my previous post. I understand he cannot respond here at the moment, I was hoping to receive a affirmative answer from Legacypac first before moving on to Taku's talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, just thinking about common courtesies. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3) @Alex Shih: no objection, despite my most recent comment here which I hope is taken as food for thought. Wait, one objection: please consider excluding the "standard automated notifications" from the interaction ban. I expect it would be a significant hindrance to Legacypac's work to have to check the creator of every draft he encounters; some of the notifications cannot be reliably turned off; and should one of TakuyaMurata's drafts be tagged inadvertently they should be notified. Or is the ban going to be that Legacypac cannot interact with TakuyaMurata's drafts as well? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Thanks. I would think at this point it's probably a good idea to leave no scope for negotiation. If it's difficult to avoid automated notifications, then I would agree to include that as an exception. If no one else is willing to deal with TakuyaMurata's drafts other than Legacypac (or Hasteur), then I suppose that would speak volumes. Alex Shih (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of disappointed with returning this morning to see more criticizing of my actions by Legacypac, despite the positive strides that seem to have been made yesterday. Legacypac had the chance to "discuss politely" on Primefac's talkpage before this block. The block was to stop immediate hindrance of the rest of the encyclopedia through AN3, MFD, and Primefac's talkpage. I also didn't call Legacypac a spammer or a vandal.

The problem with the voluntary IBAN (to echo some of TonyBalloni's concern) is that if we do a interaction ban and Legacy can't do Taku's drafts, that frustrates Legacy and prevents possibly good work. On the other hand, if we allow it with the notifications we set ourselves up for the same issues, and then IBAN violations as soon as one user gets pissed off enough, and we are back to more sanctions and blocks.

I understand the majority of my fellow admins wish to see this block lifted, and i'm not a stick in the mud, but we need to prevent the future issues first, which yes, will require some discussion and some time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I suggest civility parole with respect to interacting with each other at MfD, and an outright IBAN otherwise? I know how well civility parole usually goes over, but I think it might actually work here. If not then we're no worse off. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am minded to lift the block. I have observed Legacypac's work for some time ever since he took on the mantle of cleaning up after Neelix, and while I think he can sometimes be a bit blunt, he is ultimately here for all the right reasons. He's shown remorse over what he did, and a number of other admins have given him a sympathetic ear. I think Amanda was perfectly within policy to WP:BOOMERANG block on the AN3 report, but now that Legacypac has stated he will give Taku a wide berth, we might as well take him at his word that he will - he knows what will happen if he doesn't. I really don't see much in the way of personal attacks; certainly not compared to some things I've heard. It sounds more like he just got carried away and had a bit of a grump. I fully realise that it would be better to back down and discuss things before the block, but generally I find a block is enough to really prod people into thinking "oh right, I really shouldn't have done that, right, I get it now".

I don't think Amanda's going to budge on the block, and I'm not in the mood to unilaterally overturn it and brass off an admin for no really good reason, so it would be helpful if the admins watching this page could quickly !vote "support" or "oppose" to unblocking. If there's an obvious consensus, I can then do so. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Amanda's "if something does work out and we can find a way forward, i'm not going to stick to that" clause, with the understanding the block was valid and the circumstances have changed now that we have a clear path forward, although I think Alex Shih has the right idea in keeping the other editor in the loop. Whether or not they get unblocked will depend on their willingness to articulate a path forward. One unblock doesn't guarantee the other. This isn't a race, and I think we need to stay within the spirit of Amanda's terms here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without Amanda's consent. She has been nothing but reasonable, why would we take this step to overrule her? Seems premature. We haven't settled the issue of appropriate editing restrictions, besides; we only really just started talking about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently Amanda has consented because she undid the block while I was typing that. Welcome back, LP. Let any of us know if we can be of help if this issue comes up again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, welcome back. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Just stop. I've unblocked them. Welcome back, Legacypac. I'm not going to be a stick in the mud like I said above. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you to the Admins that supported overturning the block. At least some people appreciate my contributions. For clarity, I have agreed to voluntarily ignore what Taku posts unless I do an admin report. I have not agreed to any editing restriction or IBAN as suggested here [12]. I post this just in case some trigger happy Admin is tempted to block me next time I postpone a math draft. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SvG

I was in the middle of investigating SvG (see current ANi discussion). I suspect User:SlowKing4 as a likely sock of SvG [13]. I suggest that the user giving the barnstar be checked as a possible sock (I've not dived into that, don't know) . Looks fishy. Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SlowKing4 was CU-checked recently and SvG didn't come up. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slowking4/Archive --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NeilN. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason talk pages of deleted pages were missed:

Talk:Marcia_Cunha (wacked while I was building list)
Talk:Fernanda Rodrigues (volleyball) (wacked while I was building list)

These should have been speedy deleted after 90 days but were tagged "promising draft" during the G13 expansion debate. Many are G13able too:

Legacypac (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Cause you keep on working even while blocked. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find these?

It's been a circuitous route. Several months ago came across a kid publishing way too much personal info on their talk page. Searched user space for "birth_date 2004" and "birth_date 2003" as a child safety task. The search also turned up a lot of narcissism so the last few days I've been trawling through user pages for "birth_date" for U5 material. I came across a couple in .js & .css pages which I couldn't CSD. So just now I searched Userspace for "vector.css insource:birth_date", "vector.js insource:birth_date", "common.css insource:birth_date", and "common.js insource:birth_date". Also searched monobook.css & .js but they were clean.

Glad to see your block didn't stick. It's one thing to work through a thankless task, it's another to get grief for doing so. Cabayi (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]