User talk:Legacypac/Archive 13

I would request my GiantSnowman evidence page posts be restored under a heading "Observation presented by Legacypac". This appears to be an acceptable way to participate. Discussion of Football is just as valid as discussion of Admin conduct. I am requesting this publicly because I want any refusal to be public just like the restriction imposed on me was done publicly, not buried in some email account where it is hard to discuss. Ping User:Bradv and User:L235.

Also since my perceived infraction was very minor and based on a misunderstanding I request the restriction against me participating in the case be removed by the clerks as I intend to participate in the workshop phase. If not lifted I will seek redress from ArbComm - I don't take kindly to being threatened with a block for participating in a case I filed against an Admin who abused his tools. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Please submit your request by email per the above instructions. Bradv🍁 15:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Is that a refusal? Because as I said - you posted the restriction on my highly watched userpage so this seems like a great place to discuss. Further I would prefer not to dosclose my email and real name unnecessarily. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you may not want to disclose your identity or regular email address. Many editors create separate email addresses specifically for use on Wikipedia, which you are welcome to do as well.

And yes, this is a refusal to hear your request for appeal here. Any further participation in the case by you, including an appeal of this restriction, must happen by email per the instructions above. Bradv🍁 16:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledged that three Admins have been able to add diffless evidence/commentary but I have been restricted for attempting to do the same. Nice clerking. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

[14] is both misleading and lacks diffs. Football is no different than Hollywood celebrities or town pages or countless other topic areas that attract unsourced edits. Should we suspend AGF and other editing standards on a topic by topic basis? Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Guerillero, L235, Bradv: I am bound to say that your tone here comes across as needlessly high-handed. EEng 19:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• • We're sorry about being high-handed, and we appreciate the feedback.

• • Legacypac, one reason we would like you to appeal by email is that none of us, individually, can reverse this decision. The decision to restrict was made by consensus, supported by four clerks and two arbs with no dissenting opinions (one recusal). It will take a consensus, or an ArbCom decision, to reverse it. We are willing to consider changes to the restriction, but you'll need to send an email.

• • Ultimately, the purpose of arbitration cases – this one, which is quite narrowly about a single editor, in particular – is not to complain about the process or seek broader changes to Wikipedia policy or practice; it's not to air grievances against tangentially-related perceived corrupt systems or Wikipedia-wide injustices. It's to resolve the dispute brought before the Committee.

• • And again, if you want to participate, you are absolutely welcome to do so by email; the clerks will post your submissions on your behalf if appropriate. Thanks for your understanding; please reach out if any of this is unclear. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

A secret meeting banned me so I want a public process to unban me, not another secret meeting. The involved editors have lost my respect and this is being used against me [15] You removed my evidence because you did not like it (see above comments) not because I broke any rules. If I broke a rule you would not allow three Admins to provide similar general evidence. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You are not banned from participating in the process, you are simply restricted to using email. Since this is obviously causing you some consternation, please allow me to clarify. There was discussion on the mailing list about how to handle some of the evidence, and the clerks expressed concern about the following:

• Failure to provide evidence in the form of
  diffs in statements such as [16], even after being asked [17]

• Inappropriate comments toward the subject of the case, such as [18]

• General soapboxing about process and about admins, rather than following the case procedures, e.g. [19] [20]

If you have evidence about the subject that you feel the arbitrators should consider, please email your evidence to the clerks. If it is on topic, pertinent, and follows the rules, we will gladly post it on your behalf. We're not trying to make this difficult for you or prevent you from participating – we're trying to ensure that this case runs fairly and smoothly. Bradv🍁 21:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Repeatedly clerks have emphasised they will decide what evidence they will accept from me. I was reverted from the talkpage with the comment I was restricted ie can't post anywhere on the case. I've been "restricted" from a case I filed for pointing out that the Admin involved has been treated much different than any established editor would be. Proving my point, as an established editor I have been "restricted" from posting while three Admins have also posted on the same evidence page without diffs about football. Unrestrict me or revert and restrict those Admins. Talking about "fairness" while evidently there is no consideration for fairness is not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: During the request phase of this case, editors said things such as:

"Several other Admins have protected GiantSnowman by shutting down discussion and excusing his behavior..."

"...we already have a tendency to be much more lenient for admins than for non-admins."

"I am also disappointed in the rapid closures of various sections of the ANI thread, by admins glossing over the issues and indicating the problem was resolved when it obviously wasn't and isn't."

"... the perception that some admins routinely close ranks to protect one of their own, for example by abruptly closing discussions, threatening editors with blocks, and berating editors who expect their concerns to be taken seriously. There is a pervasive double standard..."

"Administrators closing ranks on AN/I..."

"The torches-and-pitchforks behaviour as well as the dismissive behaviour too many admins take toward wide swathes of constructive editors are as damaging to the encyclopedia as GS's mishandling of the tools."

The filer is gagged because:

1. Failure to provide diffs. The statement [21] was not removed until after someone complained [22], meanwhile, another diff-less statement, by an admin, remains undisturbed. Also, Lpac gave what I think is a good reason for not including diffs in this statement. [23]

1. Inappropriate comments [24], which were self-tempered in the very next edit [25]

1. "General soapboxing about process and about admins," citing to this, which (sorry Lpac, calling a spade a spade) was a mistake by Lpac that reflected more upon him than upon the clerks or the process, which was not disruptive, and which he took back [26]. While the comments may have been snippy, that's after his diff-less statement was removed while others' diff-less statements remained. Requiring an editor to make submissions via the clerks because the editor said something intemperate towards a clerk after being treated differently from other editors by the clerks seems retributive not preventative.

I know the clerks are not trying to; despite this, they may nevertheless be succeeding. "Not just impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety" must be avoided. Gagging the filer, for things that other editors are allowed to do, or for making intemperate but retracted comments, just adds fuel to the fire of the "closing ranks" perception. Is Lpac really being disruptive? Or is gagging the filer more disruptive? If the filer is gagged, how will that affect the credibility of Arbcom's ultimate decision in this case, regardless of what that is? Removing this restriction, and either requiring diffs or not requiring diffs of all editors, seems like the better, less contentious, less disruptive, way to proceed. My unsolicited two cents. Levivich (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I and a couple of other editors have expressed concerns with this restriction on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence and Worm That Turned has said the arbs are looking into an alternative. Fish+Karate 10:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, the decision was made during the holiday period, while there was a lot of inactivity. This sideshow is largely my fault for not being active enough to review the situations and make decisions at the time, for which I do apologise. I am considering options here, but LegacyPac, this edit gives me pause. That comment suggests to me that you would be unable to participate in an Arbcom case in the manner expected. Arbitration is a pain to navigate, and full of bureaucracy, but it's designed to be based on clear and persuasive evidence rather than debate or arguments. Worm^TT(talk) 14:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Worm That Turned GS just blocked a range of IPs as alleged socks of the exact same acct he recently blocked another comstructive editor for being an alleged sock. Let's see if he will explain or others will investigate. Maybe it is ok or maybe not and someone will submit these blocks as evidence. AN is not ArbComm, different process of course. I don't think the clerk action is your fault at all. They made a stupid decision on their own initiative. I requested they reverse it and they refused, though they could fix it any time. The consiquences will be what they are. Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm the drafting Arb and therefore meant to work with the clerks to ensure things are happening smoothly. I knew there was a risk I wouldn't be around and shouldn't really have taken on a case over xmas. But what's done is done. For now, I'm happy to modify your restriction - you may also post any requests to

the clerks noticeboard as an alternative to posting by email. With regard to your evidence, I'm not seeing the benefit of restoring it. However, new evidence could still be added at the noticeboard. We're moving forward to the Workshop phase, if you have any suggestions for that area, please do post them to the noticeboard. Worm^TT(talk

) 16:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bump so no archive. Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The redirect was cleared so I went ahead and approved Nadia's Initiative, and gave you the AFC credit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I ran across User:ToThAc/U.S. Route 460 in Kentucky where you made comments concerning a "promising draft" and getting it into mainspace. I have been on the road more than once so also made comments that I would help.

After this I saw the 2006 article U.S. Route 460 in Kentucky so I thought I would let you know. Otr500 (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Very nice thank-you. I've removed that "promising draft" tag. Legacypac (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I just saw that you had stated on its talk page that the page at

I can only go on what I read at the AfD and the page. I can't compare deleted content. I note you were in favor of deletion at the AfD so are now using your Admin tools to effect your desired outcome. Legacypac (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This reads like an accusation of misconduct to me. If that's what you think I did, try

WP:AN. People there will judge whether this was a routine administrative task that any reasonable admin would have performed in the same way or whether I abused my tools to inappropriately delete the page. Huon (talk

) 16:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

AN is a waste of time because some other Admin will quickly shut down any discussion. Please be more careful with how you use your Admin tools. Legacypac (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I will give it the due consideration it deserves. Enjoy your vacation! Huon (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Zvowell (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Don Morris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request for clarification on secondary sources Hello Legacypac, sorry for bothering you on your talk page; I had posted this question at the AFC Help Desk on December 9, but I can't seem to find a reply, so I thought I'd try here. Thanks for considering my question. You may recall I submitted an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Don_Morris) that was declined on October 30 for the following reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

My question is more a request for clarification. Is it that the article does not contain enough secondary sources? If so, can I ask if newspaper articles that document the article's subject and his activities would qualify as secondary sources. I had hoped that the article contained enough secondary sources.

Thank you! -zv Zvowell (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes newspaper articles are secondary sources. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Legacypac, unfortunately I can't find your message you left me at following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Supernova-Group Excuse me for my late answer, I was on vacation for a longer time. Naitsabes117 (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow the link you left me. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to tweak the formatting of headings on my talk page. It makes me walk through the history to see what you added, which was nothing but brackets. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Added a link for ease of access. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I came across this while on patrol earlier. Not sure who this might be, but it seems like they're familiar with you even though you've never interacted with that account... Aspening (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes thank-you for reverting. That is a sockpuppet of

WP:SPI. If you see such attacks against any editor use the ARV tab under TW (Twinkle) to report the user and get the account blocked. If you don't have twinkle yet, it can be enabled under preferences. Makes life here much faster and easier. Legacypac (talk

) 02:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep - I've been using Twinkle for well over a year, just wasn't sure who the master was Aspening (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac. You've just declared my Lucas Perri draft should not yet be an article as he is not yet notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. I initially made the article because an Italian one exists, so I assumed the guidelines were the same (I've checked and they are not). I'm just writing this little follow up because I'm curious about the draft's future: will it remain a draft until he is notable (i.e. can I re-submit it when he makes an appearance for Palace) or will I/somebody have to make a new one when he becomes notable? (Yes I'm pretty new to creating articles.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkerr98 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTY he will be considered notable when/if he plays a game for Crystal Palace. As long as the draft is edited at least once every six months it can sit in the draft space until he does play a match for them. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker

)

Hi Legacypac, did you really just nominate this draft yourself to AfC, then accept and move it? First, it's someone else's work. Second, it's obviously nowhere near ready for mainspace. Can you explain? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a response. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The article title is

Operation Höss. I can't speak for Legacypac but that article is manifestly notable and is already in better shape than the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia. Why would readers be better served by allowing it to langhish in draft space? FloridaArmy (talk

) 02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly - and it will not be left in Draft space even though someone moved it back to draft. It was up for G13 deletion. Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote elsewhere, we now have two pages dealing with the

Operation Höss

, a short page named after the commandant of Auschwitz. The source supporting the title is Evil Online.

When

Holocaust in Hungary. I acknowledge that that topic should have its own article, but separating the Holocaust section from History of the Jews in Hungary, and leaving both pages in good shape, would be a lot of work (and any new article shouldn't be named after Rudolf Höss). SarahSV ^(talk)

04:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The idea this is a content fork is new, not discussed before. If really a content fork, as a bare minimum a merge and redirect would be the preferred solution not deletion/move to userspace. As for not naming the page Operation Hoss (the title of the draft) compare Operation Reinhard an related operation in Poland named for an Nazi officer. I think your grasping for new exusss to justify your misguided criticism. Also a little googling shows Operation Hoss is the appropriate name [27] I don't consider reversing a really bad move "move warring". If he wanted deletion he should use AFD. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The source you cite is not an RS for this issue, just as Evil Online isn't. (By the way, I want to make clear when I highlighted the latter, that it's not a criticism of the editor who added it, because that person wasn't working in mainspace. I don't want to leave the impression that I'm singling any part of the article out for criticism. As an early draft, it's fine.) As for Operation Reinhard, that's a common term and topic among academic historians.

Hungary is a different issue. It's an important, complex topic, hard to write about well because it has so many arms and legs. It was the final stage of the Holocaust, insanity on top of the usual insanity, 12,000 people a day moved to Auschwitz, which couldn't cope and had to take to burning bodies in open pits. If we are to have a separate article, someone needs to take the time to split out that material very carefully from the History of the Jews in Hungary. To have ended up with a content fork is unfortunate. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest taking this discussion to the article talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

	half-eaten salmon
	I'm half-Jewish and I was going to bring you this salmon for your talk page, but I got hungry on the way, so... sorry. Levivich 07:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there,

I would like to work further on this article. I had referenced all of the books with the intention of demonstrating notability. However, I can see this may have looked promotional. I would like to remove most of these and demonstrate notability in other ways. Please would you be able to reinstate my draft for further edits and resubmission.

Many thanks Nick

Nickbaines1 (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not an admin so I can't restore pages. User:RHaworth deleted it as spam. Legacypac (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman

About the involved parties; wouldn't UninvitedCompany and Valenciano be considered important parties to add? I don't know, but both did participate. Would you say this should be the case? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 22:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Why? Legacypac (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, UninvitedCompany started the original ANI discussion on GiantSnowman and nevermind on Valenciano. I mixed them up with Veryproicelandic. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Uninvited company noticed the inappropriate behavior and brought it to ANi. That does not make them a party, more a whistle blower. The other party is a victim. Hopefully there will be a desysop here because, while I don't think GS meant to do harm, he is clearly unable to understand how to use rollback appropriately, when to block, and how to treat good faith contributors. Had any non-Admin been doing what he has been doing they would be blocked/sanctioned long ago.

WP:CIR amd even more so for Admins. Legacypac (talk

) 01:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I was quite surprised when I woke up this morning to find this article - which I declined late last night - in the accepted list. Checking the history, I then saw it'd been resubmitted and declined again by another editor overnight before being accepted by you. I'm never going to second-guess another RfC reviewer's call (someone has to make decisions on these ones that sit there), but I really think sends a bad message when this kind of rapid-fire-resubmission in response to a decline of a draft results in a third reviewer approving their article without changes. This is really not something we want to see become a nominator habit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I watch User:FloridaArmy's talkpage for pages that get declined. Reviewers make calls that are mistakes or debatable. The creator has countless approved articles and a very good handle on what will pass AfD/is notable. I've approved many of those pages amd never lost one at AfD yet. He tackles somewhat obscure old topics like this school that closed more than 100 years ago. There is no promotional or other benefit to anyone in covering the topic other than recording history. Legacypac (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I think it's best to stick to the facts and policies. I would be shocked if this highly notable historic institution was deleted. I know things get frustrating and I agree your comment was misrepresented, but take the high road. Don't give any ammunition to critics. Please consider redacting anything not related to the article content and policies. Many editors rely on your help and you are very much appreciated and needed. Keep things fun and rewarding for yourself as best you can. Cheers. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The

I was quite surprised when I woke up this morning to find this article - which I declined late last night - in the accepted list. Checking the history, I then saw it'd been resubmitted and declined again by another editor overnight before being accepted by you. I'm never going to second-guess another RfC reviewer's call (someone has to make decisions on these ones that sit there), but I really think sends a bad message when this kind of rapid-fire-resubmission in response to a decline of a draft results in a third reviewer approving their article without changes. This is really not something we want to see become a nominator habit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I watch User:FloridaArmy's talkpage for pages that get declined. Reviewers make calls that are mistakes or debatable. The creator has countless approved articles and a very good handle on what will pass AfD/is notable. I've approved many of those pages amd never lost one at AfD yet. He tackles somewhat obscure old topics like this school that closed more than 100 years ago. There is no promotional or other benefit to anyone in covering the topic other than recording history. Legacypac (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I think it's best to stick to the facts and policies. I would be shocked if this highly notable historic institution was deleted. I know things get frustrating and I agree your comment was misrepresented, but take the high road. Don't give any ammunition to critics. Please consider redacting anything not related to the article content and policies. Many editors rely on your help and you are very much appreciated and needed. Keep things fun and rewarding for yourself as best you can. Cheers. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Chess player biographies are usually disambiguated using "(chess player)" rather than "(chess grandmaster)". You can see several examples in Category:American chess players. Quale (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes but there are two notable American chess players with the name. See lead of

Larry Evans (chess grandmaster). The other one does not yet have a page but should. Legacypac (talk

) 03:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of

notable in the Wikipedia sense. It's also unnecessary to disambiguate because there is no other article. In the chess world in contexts in which there might be confusion, the second Evans is called "Larry D. Evans". What do you plan to do if Larry D. Evans earns the GM title? Quale (talk

) 21:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Whatever I don't care. I was just trying to improve the situation when a third Larry Evans page was created. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Legacypac. A question: at the disambiguation page

I was just setting up the DAB, i will not be writing up a page on the person. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attacks against you from Talk:2004 in Portuguese television. I recommend filing an SPI if you have not already done so. Cheers. Bradv🍁 07:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I’ve semi protected this page for a week because it’s had a lot of socking. Surely not your fault. Let me know if you object. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Please unprotect

 Done. Regards SoWhy 08:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. That draft is meta-

Ya not my kind of book but anyway it needs to be published and reviewed to be notable. The sock attacks me regularly. No creativity, very lame. Legacypac (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding GiantSnowman has now closed, and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

GiantSnowman is admonished for overuse of the rollback and blocking functions, and reminded to

exception of obvious vandalism

, he is subject to the following restrictions:

1. He may not revert another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This includes use of MediaWiki's rollback function, any tool or script that provides a similar function, and any manual revert without an edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient for the purpose of this sanction
2. He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings
3. He may not consecutively block an editor; after one block he is advised to consult with another admin or bring the matter to the attention of the community
4. He may not place a warning template on an editor's talk page without having first placed an appropriate self-composed message containing links to relevant policies and guidelines
5. He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin
6. He may not use MassRollback.js

Violations may be reported by any editor to

WP:AE

. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 18:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman closed