User talk:DocumentError/Archive3

poisonous toxicity at ISIL
There has been a lot of argumentative activity that I have seen at on the ISIL talk page and related pages. I know you feel strongly about issues and any help or advice in dealing with situations would be appreciated. regards GregKaye 00:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Greg, I appreciate the note and I empathize with you. However, I made a conscious choice to stay away from ISIL-related topics several months ago after being called an "anti-Semite," "anti-American," "radical anti-American," "pro-terrorist," "cyber-terrorist," "raving anti-American terrorist nutjob," "raghead," "liberal," etc. by a tightly coordinated duo of editors. I feel bad telling you that because I believe it is an abrogation of an ethical responsibility all WP editors should feel they have in helping other editors protect the encyclopedia, but, I think, at a certain point one has to recognize when it's a lost cause and just pack it in.
 * Ergo, I have voluntarily removed myself from further editing on these topics until the situation has rectified with respect to the one or two users who believe their status as autoconfirmed WP editors puts them on the front lines of defending Baseball and Apple Pie, and am focusing the bulk of my energy at present at WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. With Kindest Regards - DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  02:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP, in my view, is extraordinarily negligent in not supporting response against all genuine WP:PA. I would counsel against escalation in any case where an (undoubtedly, in some cases, aggressive and likely combative) editor may have used "I think you may be" or "I think you may have" that you don't go straight to they "called".  I am not saying that this is the case but I don't think it may not help in a situation where you raised issue in a forum such as AN/i - but this is just opinion.  I have heard Wikipedia described as a bullpit and a snakepit.  Maybe you have already done so but I would make sure of a cited case before asserting poisonous and toxic.
 * Other editors, it seems to me, can use user talk pages with various motives. In my personal experience there have been times that I have tried to broach reconciliation and arbitration over article talk page issues directly with other editors and, from my perspective, this has been done to avoid open and public confrontation.  I have been shocked at my own behaviour in that I have allowed my view of talking "in private" to have given me greater latitude to have used terminologies that I wouldn't use on the article page.
 * On the article talk page I have raised qualms about the use of "anti-ISIL" and "pro-ISIL" but what you describe seems to go way beyond this in many of the cases. My view is that I would like to address or otherwise deescalate Wikipedia conflict so that we can get on with editing and would encourage, whether already done or not, a direct presentation of cited issues with the editors concerned.
 * Hang in there in the meantime. regards,  GregKaye 09:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is very well put, Greg, and I can't really disagree with anything you just said. To be quite honest, the issues in ISIL-related articles are coming from both "sides" of the debate; I have seen people supporting my general editorial viewpoint on these topics behave in what is a rather inexcusable way (and, of course, the counter as well). Anyway, I thank you very much for your kind words and your dedication to these important topics. I suspect the tone will improve dramatically once one side or the other in the actual conflict scores a decisive battlefield victory. As for me, every time I even set foot in these topics I end up getting blasted with (constantly dismissed, but time consuming nonetheless) ANIs, various accusations about my "loyalty" and veiled death threats from tightly coordinated IP vandals. That's fun for the first two days or so! I plan on returning to these articles maybe in a few months when the IRL situation has stabilized a bit as I think that will accompany a calming in the Wikisphere. All my best to you - DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  09:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Required Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

WP:WIKIHOUNDING
I have no idea why you and user:Legacypac have problems. I do not want to hear about it and unless pressed I will not look into either of your edit histories to see what it is, but these exchanges are notable:

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * 10:08, 5 January 2015‎
 * 10:17, 5 January 2015‎

User talk:PBS
 * 19:37, 5 January 2015
 * 22:44, 5 January 2015

Do not hound other editors. -- PBS (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS - I have had no interaction with Legacypac for several months. My first interaction in months was this morning when he dragged yet another newbie to ANI and absolutely tore into him with "Are you a child?" and "your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike." . I happened to be in ANI at that exact moment, so was not hounding/stalking him  (note that the two preceding ANIs filed were mine regarding WP:PROMOTIONAL vandals) and made a single WP:BOOMERANG comment. In response to that, he edited and moved my comments. (I left a note on your Talk page about that in order to avoid an edit war in ANI; I hope you accept the spirit in which that note was left.) He then went to Requests for Permissions and laid into me there. Once again, my response was following the invocation of my name, so I don't think that constitutes hounding.
 * Trust me, I have no desire to follow Legacypac around and my edits show I have not been. I think I should be permitted to raise an objection when another editor chooses to change my comments. I think I should be permitted to offer a defense of myself when another editor proactively goes to RfP and accuses me in front of an Admin of a variety of CIVIL transgressions. I don't believe doing either of these things constitutes hounding. DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  12:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS I'm sorry, I hope the above didn't sound snippy, I just didn't expect to get the full LP treatment dropped on me today as I had successfully avoided him for months. So allow me to refactor my above comment as a question. What would be a correct response in the future when another editor starts editing my comments? What would be the correct response in the future when another editor accuses me of WP:CIVIL violations to an admin? Thanks for your direction. DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  12:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I posted my comment in the next section before I read you comments here. "I happened to be in ANI at that exact moment" I could see that, but it was you who commented on Legacypac's ANI posting not the other way around. Likewise on my talk page. It is a shame that you did not read, comprehend, and act on Squinge's posting to that section on the ANI before you refactored it. -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS you're absolutely right. I saw LP tear into yet another newbie and I tried to stick up for the guy. I should have bit my lip and kept walking. Had I done that my day on WP would have been as pleasant as the last 90 days have been for me sans interaction with LP; quietly editing articles on defunct fraternities and dead state legislators in the nether regions of WP while he - back in the ISIL articles - declares editors in minor content disputes "cyber-terrorists" and all the usual routine. I intervened and my penalty was spending the day as his chew toy, having him start conversations around the Wikisphere about me without pinging me, and ending the day getting slapped with LP's fourth ANI against me. I can guarantee you, I'll not make this mistake in the future. My new mantra is every man for himself. DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  12:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate to keep adding clarifications, PBS, but I want to make sure I'm not coming across as snippy. Right here a moment ago I applauded another editor for intervening to help a new editor who felt accosted because of the personal anguish I know from first-hand experience (today) it usually entails. But anyway, I don't want it to sound like I'm taking my toys and leaving, only pledging that I will attempt to not make any effort to intervene when LP is on top of someone tearing in until he's finished them off. I will continue to try to be helpful and supportive of all other new editors as I always have been before. If you have no objection, I'm going to archive these discussions.  DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  13:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black
Re you posting to my talk page More rearranging of comments. Given this and that in the same section, you complaint about Legacypac's edit at 22:17, 5 January 2015  seems to me to be hypercritical at best and could be seen as disingenuous. -- PBS (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS please note that my move in that case was tagged as a GF move and a reasonable evaluation of the placement of that comment demonstrated the GF intent behind it. The comment remained and the meaning was not changed. After the editor objected I immediately apologized, took full responsibility, and the editor accepted my apology. I also have zero history of being cautioned about rearranging other editors comments.
 * In the case of LP, he archived my comments to hide and obfuscated my BOOMERANG comment so that anyone who happened upon that thread would not see it. He rearranged the order of other comments in a way that clearly altered the meaning behind them. After I objected no apology was offered, instead an ANI was filed against me (the fourth he's hit me with). He has a colorful and long history of being cautioned about rearranging other editors comments. DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  12:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said in this case pot calling the kettle black. The edit you presented to me was Legacypac's moving an edit made by Legacypac (to which no one had responded and was clearly out of sequence -- by the indentation), and that was caused by the mess you refactoring and its revert had caused. As to "he archived my comments to hide and obfuscated my BOOMERANG comment" you would need to provide a diff to support it. "He rearranged the order of other comments in a way that clearly altered the meaning behind them." diffs? -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's just not correct, PBS. I indented S' comment with a GF note - she undid it and I immediately apologized. At that point the thread was reset to where it was. LP's moves came after that. DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  12:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

General comment on the last two section.
With reference to, and  do you not see that by commenting on the thread initiated by  Legacypac, called "New User - Needs Guidance?" at ANI, far from allowing administrators to concentrate on the issue which was initially posed (boomerang and all), you allowed the thread to degenerate into something else which obfuscates the initial report? -- PBS (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS, don't mistake my exasperation for sarcasm as it's not. I can assure you that I absolutely see that (though I never "hounded" anyone as previously explained). I can also see that LP has filed an astonishing two dozen ANIs in the last 8 months since his topic ban was lifted (100% regarding content disputes on ISIL topics), the overwhelming majority of which have resulted in no action, on top of numerous, frivolous SPI actions and direct threats of ANIs against (usually new) editors. I can see a pattern of intense intimidation being applied against new editors and a long history of tendentious edits when all else fails, including unilateral page moves and editing against RfC. I was a new editor once and had my introduction to WP been "Are you a child?" and "your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike." followed by a flurry of threats capped by an ANI report, I probably wouldn't be here.
 * Like I said, though, it's every man for himself. LegacyPac can pound all the newbies he wants into submission - I promise you I'll do my best to shut up and put up moving forward.  DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  13:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yellow Box edit
You asked me "" Yes you did. The reason I have given the text a yellow background is because it was copied from the earlier ANI for which you provided a link. The clue is that the signatures are dated from November 2014. Putting them in a box with a yellow background helps to make that clear. -- PBS (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS - Was the comment edited after the fact to insert the quote from Corr? At the time I made my comment it didn't exist: . If that's the case can you just delete my comments entirely? It makes it look untoward if my comments are encapsulated in a preview box, as though they contain something so shocking it must be hidden.  DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  03:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Look at the diff you provided it includes the comment with the signature "Corriebertus (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)". You can not have your cake and eat it. You asked me to look at it (and presumably use my judgement) I did and made the minimum change that I thought necessary to bring clarity to it. My comment on the collapse box makes it clear that it is just an out of sequence comment, nothing untoward is imped. Now that it is sorted out, let sleeping dogs lie. -- PBS (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it, sorry, my mistake, PBS. He didn't use a cquote but just a raw text copy which is what threw me off. Would you mind making a ruling on this ANI tonight? Based on NinjaRobotPirate's comment that there was "nothing egregious" in the ANI report and the comments of Lor, Mbcap and others, I feel exonerated, however, in all honesty if you need to block me to wrap it up, it's fine at this point. This is a monumentally unpleasurable exercise and I'd like to return to the vanilla topics I've been editing for the last few months before yesterday. As I've told you I should never have made the BOOMERANG comment in the original thread when I saw it below mine and if I had a do-over I would keep a wide-berth from the ANI filer regardless of what I see happening. My only plan in the future is to edit, not to try and pretend I'm WikiBatman righting wrongs. DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  03:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, nevermind PBS. This can wait - I'm not going to explode. (Specifically, I have second thoughts about saying in all honesty if you need to block me to wrap it up, it's fine at this point.) Thanks for your patience. DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  03:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of my ANI comment
Hello DocumentError, I would like to let you know that I have contributed to an ANI discussion that you are a party to. When I went into the source on that page to put my comment in, I was told to inform users I would be speaking about so here I am. Mbcap (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, Mbcap. In interest of formatting, you may want to move your comment above the section titled "Questions" which is where I think you meant to put it. If you want me to do it for you just let me know. Best - DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  03:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you may move it to the appropriate place. Mbcap (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of CSD Tag from Buddhaditya Mohanty
I have removed the CSD tag for A7 from the above mentioned article as I have found enough local sources. The actor is a noted one in Orissa state of India. Feel free to put it back, with valid reasons (A brief consultation with me would be better in that case).  Ethically  Yours! 12:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Block log
I'm not actually reading all the thread so I'm not clear on the issues, but I noticed that you thought GregKaye's block log is clear - but you were write, Callanec did block him. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks, Dougweller. I apologize, I was trying to be doubly careful I wasn't reading into another editors edits or insinuating something that was untrue. It appears I spelled his name incorrectly checking the block log, though, and you're (or I guess I'm) right . Thanks for the clarification. DOCUMENT  ★  ERROR  10:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad you were being careful. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:DocumentError I know that it was perfectly in your right to redact and add the above information back into the thread. I would have been happy either way.  The specific edits, within I think controversial contexts, that led to the bans were made in good faith but a ban is a ban.  I know that tactical argument might have left you to push the case and I respect that you didn't.  I hope also that you realise that my only involvement in this was to try to keep the peace in general around ISIL related topics.  There has been, from my perspective, a lot of PA, arguing against editors and not for the point, stating opinion as facts, indcrit and things like that on the page.  Anything that can be done to ease this situation will be appreciated.  If you have any issues with any specific editors then please be specific with cited or clearly referenced comment.  I would support any valid case that any editor makes here that helps a move to increasingly civil interaction and contribution on various talk pages.  Please be assured that there was nothing personal in my comments.  GregKaye 13:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)