User talk:DocumentError/Archive1

Krzyhorse22

Once again, you come to my aid in dealing with this nuisance. Much appreciated. The sheer amount of effort and energy spent into defending myself from his hollow accusations could be in the hours, as he wastes all our time. Lost time, which will never be retrieved. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, StanTheMan87. DocumentError (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Gramsci, eh?

I'm reminded of one of my favourite quotations, some words from Antonio Gramsci's Prison Diaries that Nadine Gordimer used as the epigraph to her novel July's People: "The old is dying, and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum there arises a great diversity of morbid symptoms." I don't really know what it actually means, but I always feel like a real bad-ass intellectual whenever I say it. Pete "for he is a mixture of gravity and waggery" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha! I hadn't heard that one Shirt. It sounds more like something Gramsci's right-wing counterpart in Italy, Julius Evola, would have said. DocumentError (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Code Reviser

Hello! Your submission of Code Reviser at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Michael Ross (Washington politician)

Hello! Your submission of Michael Ross (Washington politician) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 97198 (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Addition of ISIL forces

I appreciate your addition of the ISIL forces section - equipment and troops. Great idea. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I would politely like to remind you of WP:PA, specifically "Comment on content, not on the contributor", and "Repeated or egregious personal attacks". You have repeatedly accused me of behavior that I am not engaging in. Please stop. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac I'm not going to debate this and I'm certainly not going to entertain your AGF/PA wolf-crying act anymore either. What you've done is absolutely and totally unacceptable and you are being told it is unacceptable in a civil, but frank, manner as all other efforts to communicate with you have failed. This is no longer simply a content dispute, you are engaging in a pattern of extremely aberrant and off-kilterbehavior. There is absolutely no need for you to reply to this message, so don't. You simply need to undo the destruction you've done. I and others have given you a lot of leeway, but the stunt you just pulled is absolutely and totally unacceptable. DocumentError (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Stokes (politician)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not inclined

I'm not especially inclined to "amend" it, honestly, nor am I interested in opening up yet another AN/I discussion. As I have said before, while I don't especially like your behavior, it's hard to see how arguing about it ad nauseum on a noticeboard is going to help anything.

Oh, and it was twice at least that you brought up WP:CALMDOWN, plus this response earlier in the thread. "Chill out" isn't substantively different than "calm down" or "cool off" -- not that I have a problem with the language, personally, just the double standards you use. I also liked the apparent lack of irony in your previous message blatantly canvassing me to come support you in your antagonistic AN/I report. At least you're consistent in your approach -- one way for you and another way for everyone who disagrees with you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way, Kudzu1. DocumentError (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Got it

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey, I already read it and replied, thanks. I believed it was germane to the dispute you and Legacypac have been airing all over AN/I (three active threads now, by my count, that are effectively WP:BATTLE proxies), but I understand if you did not want that edit widely shared. Nonetheless, I do think it was a constructive step for you to remove it, just as I think it was constructive for Legacypac to back down from asking for sanctions against you in turn. Sorry for any inconvenience. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kudzu1, there's no inconvenience. First, I don't care if you widely share my edit or not; I'm not trying to hide anything, it was an edit for conciseness and syntax and nothing else. There was absolutely no personal attack in it so I have no reason not to stand behind my comment. I don't appreciate you mischaracterizing it as a personal attack, however, if you truly believe it was one I'm only asking, as I've previously asked, you bring it up in the correct forum. You were not saying "thanks," so let's not pretend you were. You were trying to parade what you thought was a miscue onto the stage for the audience to see.

I know you have a serious problem with me and that's fine. We don't all have to be friends. I have started exactly one ANI, TTBOMK, regarding LP and I have not asked for a ban or block, merely an extra set of eyes on the page. There's nothing WP:BATTLE about that. Ultimately, all I'm asking is that if you want to try to kneecap me, that's fine, just please don't do it in that thread. I really think you have a lot of great points and I agree with most of them; it's really too bad we can't seem to get along. Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There was quite clearly a personal attack removed in the edit, in that you had made an ultimatum that appeared to threaten removal of the editor you were addressing from the topic (while prosecuting an AN/I, regardless of the specific sanctions you were requesting there). I have already stated that I don't believe administrators need to get involved at this point, so I'm not sure what "audience" you think I am trying to "parade" anything before.

Furthermore, you not only started an AN/I with an inflammatory title (your correction of which I took as evidence you were making a genuine, if quiet, effort to de-escalate) against Legacypac, but that AN/I followed onto an AN/I against Acetotyce that was rife with personal attacks, as well as two WP:AN/EW claims that were entirely unfounded, in addition to starting several overlapping RfCs, a spurious AfD, and multiple merge discussions. These admin processes exist for a reason, obviously, but it strains credibility for you to present yourself as having made only limited recourse to them in the course of this dispute.

As I have said numerous times, I'd like to let bygones be bygones and work with you. I'm not interested in "kneecapping" anyone (I'm sure you have noticed that I haven't jumped on the bandwagon of editors asking for you to be blocked or topic-banned or anything of the sort in the past week-plus). But I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too; it seems like you are trying to simultaneously de-escalate and repair antagonistic relationships with a number of editors, myself included, without having to admit you crossed the line to begin with. But you did, and you have, and if this WP:BATTLE continues on the AN/I board, the article Talk pages, or wherever, it's probably going to happen again, with similarly disruptive results. And I think it's a bad sign when your response to me praising you for de-escalation (even if I did tweak you about your edit summary, which I think we both know underplayed the actual effect of the edit, but which was probably unnecessary on my part) was to bark orders at me and accuse me of trying to "kneecap" you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kudzu1, I explained the issue with the title of the thread and the reason I clarified it. English is not my first language and I sometimes do not correctly use idioms. Mark accepted that clarification; if you choose not to that's something I'll have to live with. You said the bandwagon of editors asking for you to be blocked or topic-banned in reference to an objectively frivolous ANI in which only 2 of 10 editors voiced support for such a thing, and several expressed a sense that the ANI should be boomeranged back on the nom. That's kind-of what I'm referring to when I talk about your aggressive attitude toward me and your penchant for dramatizing the past or reimagining it to cast me as a villain to anyone who will listen. I have gone out of my way to de-escalate with you including voluntarily retracting your 1RR report, repeatedly thanking you for edits, and reaching-out to you on your Talk page, but it's clear you simply hate me. You truly despise me as a person. I would be lying if I said I didn't care; I really do care but I also understand why and you are not the first person to hate me or those like me for reasons beyond our control. So that's where we're at right now. Can we agree to a voluntary interaction "ban" between each other just for the next month? I think it would be for the best of WP. Don't you agree? DocumentError (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You repeatedly stressed Legacypac's "aberrant" and "instability" -- and you also clearly stated, in a since-deleted edit on this page, that you believe the issue with Legacypac is "a possible IRL stability issue". That is difficult for me to reconcile with what you told Mark Miller: [1] However, I looked past it because I believed you were making an effort to de-escalate. Now you are trying to say that you never made the attack at all, and I am out-of-bounds by thanking you for de-escalating, because you won't admit that's what you were doing. Do you see what I mean about trying to have your cake and eat it too? Can you not just acknowledge that you said some things you shouldn't have, and take them back gracefully?

I urge you not to assume I "truly despise" you or anyone else on Wikipedia on a personal level. For one, my edits simply don't support it (as I have repeatedly said, I want to work with you just as I work with other editors in these subject areas); for another, while I have a strong interest in the Wikipedia community and the content of articles that I work on, I have a life outside of this website and I frankly don't have the bandwidth for hating some guy whose Wikipedia edits I sometimes disagree with.

I could go on, but I don't think rehashing the history of this dispute would be constructive. If you don't want to engage with me, that's fine, but I'm not going to agree to any sanctions, voluntary or otherwise, against myself. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kudzu1, I can't force you to do anything but I would strongly urge you to reconsider. Saying something patently false like the bandwagon of editors asking for you to be blocked or topic-banned - when you very well know there has been no such "bandwagon" - was either a mistake/error or was done with the intention to hurt and disrupt. If you can't accept me as a human, that's not something I can effect (and is part of the reason I have avoided these topics in my edit history until now). I'm just asking you don't let it disrupt WP. I have offered a two-way voluntary ban as the penultimate type of de-escalation gesture I can make, after my many previous. There's no need to reply to me, I just would please ask you to do me the courtesy to think about it. DocumentError (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The bandwagon wasn't the point (although I count four editors, including the nominator, who voted !support in that -- I agree, frivolous -- AN/I, as well as two of them previously suggesting you should be sanctioned on the AfD). The point was that I didn't support it. I have not been trying to "hurt and disrupt" you, anyone, or anything else. I have not been trying to get you sanctioned. (I do think some of your behavior deserved a warning, at the time, but I hardly see the value in that now.) I have not been rejecting you as a human (and I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I'm honestly not sure where that is coming from). Contra some of your previous accusations, there is no "trio", or "cartel", or conspiracy against you that I'm aware of or involved in. All I want to see is some self-awareness on your part -- of how this all started, how it has snowballed, and hopefully, how it can be resolved. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As you know, that's a bald-faced lie. Also, I have never said there is a "conspiracy." Why do you insist on lying to my face about my own history? We're the only two people reading this. I understand when you do this act on-stage for an audience, but why are you doing it here? I'm simply beyond confused about this game you're playing. Kudzu1, I really hate to do this, but do not respond to this message. As shown here I have gone to all reasonable lengths to de-escalate this situation; it's clear by your comments you're not willing to take ownership for your own history ("I want to see is some self-awareness on your part"). DocumentError (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.