Right Hand Drive

Welcome!

Hello, Right Hand Drive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Betty Logan (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Does Dallas

Your conduct at Debbie Does Dallas is currently being investigated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_and_a_possible_sock_embedding_hardcore_porn_in_Wikipedia_article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My conduct? What do you think I have done wrong? Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried to make a statement at the link above but there didn't seem to be any way for me to edit the page. What I am doing wrong? Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Next to the section header "Editor and a possible sock embedding hardcore porn in Wikipedia article", there should be an (edit) link. Click that to edit the page. Primefac (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There isn't an edit link. Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• In regards to the RFC you have started at Talk:A Free Ride, I think you should go through all the relevant recent discussions about DDD and notify the participants about the RFC, if your intention is to use the result there as a precedent for DDD. If different discussions at the different forums reach different conclusions then the consensus will not be clear, so the opinions need to be collected in one place if the result is to be in any way binding. Betty Logan (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I hope that the result of the Rfc provides guidance for similar situations, but I wouldn't expect it to be binding. I will leave a note about the RfC so that anyone still interested in those discussions will see it. As far as I am concerned, those other discussions are dead and nothing even remotely approaching consensus was seen. Thanks for the suggestion. Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it will be binding for me. Pornographic content should be treated consistently, so by that rationale it should be permissable to embed it or all of it should be removed. If the outcome at the RFC favors rentention I will withdraw my opposition to embedding the video at DDD. That said, I would still favor retaining the external link regardless of the outcome since not everyone can play flash videos if they don't install the plugin; any editor can still download it from Commons though if the link is provided. Betty Logan (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If the result of the RfC is that the movie is removed from A Free Ride, I will not make any further case at Debbie Does Dallas. I just mean that I don't expect the RfC to apply to Debbie Does Dallas without further discussion there. I see your point about people without plugins and I agree that the link serves a purpose even if the video is embedded. Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, while I was researching the PD status of a few more hardcore titles I came across this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/11/wikipedia_search_engine/ Betty Logan (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Closing DDD RfC

This seems inappropriate. There were several threads about Debbie Does Dallas. You then started an RfC about a different article, and using that RfC to stop discussion of the Debbie Does Dallas RfC? Express your opinion that there shouldn't be an RfC, but don't just shut it down. Your RfC doesn't even ask a general question about embedding such videos -- it's specific to that article. It leaves open a very obvious argument that A Free Ride, being from the early days of cinema, is historically significant while DDD is not (as well as a host of other comparisons between A Free Ride and other articles where people may object to a video being embedded). In other words, the RfC you started doesn't settle the issue, and as DDD was the original topic of debate, if one thread is going to continue it should be that one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you will agree that the situations are extremely similar. That RfD was started first and has been publicized in the other discussions. The result of the A Free Ride RfC (whichever way it turns out) will guide what happens on Debbie Does Dallas, although I'm sure another RfD will be required if the consensus is to include A Free Ride. When I saw the way the new RfC was starting, I closed it and left a message for the editor who started it. If they object to my closure, they can re-open it, although I suspect that they will understand that it is more sensible to have only one RfC running about this. Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I support the temporary suspension of the RFC at least until there is an outcome at A Free Ride. The debate was getting difficult to follow, and regardless of the respective merits of the individual cases, the outcome at A Free Ride will inform the RFC at Debbie Does Dallas. For instance, I personally would oppose embedding the video at DDD if the RFC ran now, but not if there is a subsequent consensus at A Free Ride to embed it because I believe adult content should be treated consistently. If the consensus is to not embed the video at A Free Ride we can probably assume the same result at DDD; if the consensus is to embed it then I agree, it becomes an issue of historical significance rather than adult content at DDD. Either way, the Free Ride RFC should settle the porn dimension of the debate. Betty Logan (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you're feeling put upon. You still didn't answer my question, though.

Sorry you think that we're not getting along. It does look like we don't like each other much, but 1) that can change, and anyway 2) can't expect everyone to like us. Anyways, none of this is personal, it's just business. If you're going to jump into a contentious area as a brand-new editor, while you can expect an appropriate measure of respect, you can't have too thin a skin. Heat, kitchens, all that. We do go hammer and tongs on contentious issues sometimes and that's how we work things out. As a brand-new editor, I can't expect you to know these things. You will learn I hope.

Anyway, that got me to thinking -- are you a brand-new editor? At least two reasonably long-term editors in good standing think not (diff, diff). I would think that you would want to clear this up one way or another rather than leaving it hanging over your head, yes?

So at the ANI thread you opened, you didn't answer my question, even though I bolded it so you would see it. Maybe you were busy, and the thread is closed now, so OK. I'll ask again now though, because I think it's important:

Have you edited under other accounts? Yes or no.

You can provide explanations if you like, of course. Check out WP:SOCK and WP:SPA for possible implications for the answer, such as application of {{spa}} and whatnot. N.B. editing under multiple accounts is not utterly forbidden although it is severely constrained, see WP:SOCK for details.

P.S. while we going round about all this, I also made this. What have you done to improve the Wikipedia today? Make or fix a few score articles and maybe you'll get some more respect, hmmm?

Eagerly awaiting you answer to my question, Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You are harrassing me. Your comments are not welcome here. Leave me alone. Right Hand Drive (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I won't contact you anymore. Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please unblock my accounts

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello. User:Limited Resources is my alternate account. I created that account because I was already being harrassed by editors and I wanted to be able to comment on the Signpost article without drawing more of their harrassment. I didn't think there was anything wrong with doing that, but now I find that both of my accounts are blocked. Please unblock my acounts, or at least unblock Right Hand Drive and I will stick to editing with that one if having two accounts is the problem. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see that you think that you may not have done anything wrong. However we do not allow undisclosed alternate accounts to participate in internal discussions to the project. The block was correct. I will ping @Mike V: so that they may be aware of your explanation. HighInBC 14:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User:HighInBC, I just looked at WP:SOCKPUPPET. If you look at the context of what you quote, it says "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates". I don't read this as applying to Signpost comments or even asking Jimbo to look into something, but I'm sure different interpretations are possible. Do you think it was meant as a blanket prohibition on using alternate accounts outside of editing articles without regard for what was said or where it was being said? That seems awfully un-Wikipedia-like. Right Hand Drive (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Such as" does not mean "only this and nothing else", it means "this is one example, but not a complete list". If you really want to look at context you will see it specifically mentions "project space". HighInBC 17:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• @HighInBC: You're right, of course. "Policy debates" is the one example given but there could be other places. If it is interpreted as including all project space, that's fine. I've already apologised for unknowingly violating this policy and I have promised not to do it again. I'm just having a little bit of trouble understanding why I'm still blocked. What do I need to do to get unblocked? Right Hand Drive (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have just seen this editor's block pop up on my watchlist. I was on the opposite side of the debate to him in the ongoing embedded video discussions and I have even raised concerns about his contributions at ANI (see above) so I would be lying if I said it would not be convenient to have him removed from the equation. He was clearly using the alternative account to edit another area of Wikipedia, rather than using a sockpuppet to influence the outcome of the debate he is already involved in. I have been on Wikipedia for years and even I didn't know that alternative accounts had to be "disclosed", merely that it was forbidden to use them for sockpuppetry and block evasion so I think he should probably be given the benefit of the doubt in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Betty Logan, that is exremely gracious of you. Should I not be unblocked, perhaps you can make sure that the RfC at Debbie Does Dallas eventually gets closed. Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I was not aware that it was not allowed to use an alternate account to comment on the Signpost or on Jimbo Wales' talk page. If it that is how the WP:SOCKPUPPET policy is interpreted then I am sorry and I will not do it again. Please unblock this account so that I can continue to edit Wikipedia. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your insistence in interpreting simple discussion by another user as harassment demonstrates part of the problem here. Not only were you abusing multiple accounts but your contributions here have been far more disruptive than their quality justifies. It appears you are here for a single purpose(which is not to write an encyclopedia) and it also appears as though this may not be your first account, we know it was not your last. I suggest you find another website. HighInBC 04:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User:HighInBC, you have declined this request right after I asked you to stop posting on my talk page. It seems vindictive. Would you mind reconsidering this action in light of that (and the fact that you were the admin who declined my initial unblock request)? Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You have been complaining for days that you were not getting a fast enough review. Frankly the more I look into your case the more this block seems justified. I don't see a line up of other admins looking to deal with your request. I suggest you wait at least 6 months before trying to come back under our standard offer. HighInBC 04:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I was waiting for an objective review, not a bogus lecture from an admin who has been deliberately ducking my questions about what I needed to do to get unblocked. I think that your detail of my unblock request was retaliatory and out of process. I'm going to start a fresh unblock request. I hope you won't interfere. And I remind you that you are not welcome here, so please take this page off your watchlist. Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: I'm sorry for unknowingly violating the rules here and I won't do it again. I would like this account to be unblocked - what do I need to do to get that to happen? Right Hand Drive (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)}}

What do I need to do to have this account unblocked?

Can someone please tell me what I need to do to get unblocked? I wanted to comment on a Signpost article without attracting the attention of some people here who were harrassing me, so I created an alternate account. I understand now that this was against the rules. I have apologised for doing this and I won't do it again. I would like to get back to work here, but my account is still blocked. What else do I need to do? Right Hand Drive (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You are not the only person blocked, and you have already had one review. Another volunteer will come along when they get around to it. HighInBC 04:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I am willing to wait, but I've been blocked for three days now, which seems like a long time to me. Is that normal? If there's something else I need to do, please let me know what it is. If there isn't, I don't understand why you can't just unblock me yourself. Please? Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering it is an indefinite block then yes, being blocked for 3 days is normal. You can see all of the unblock requests here: Category:Requests_for_unblock. If you are in a real hurry you can go to the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel on freenode. HighInBC 16:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I'm starting to feel like we're playing asome kind of a game here. You hold all the power and know all the rules. I keep asking about the rules and you just keep ignoring my questions. I'm not sure what the point of the game is except to make me wait, which isn't useful to anyone. I'll ask again - is there something else I need to do to get unblocked? If there is, what is it? If there isn't, why don't you just unblock me? Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Before we continue with an unblock request, please provide a list of any and all accounts you have used. If there are any privacy concerns, you may send me an email through the Wikipedia interface. Mike V • Talk 21:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Other than User:Limited Resources, this is my only account. I know everyone would be much happier if I had a whole bunch of accounts, but I don't. Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

For a minute there, you made me think that I was getting somewhere. Point for you! Well played. Now can someone either tell me what I need to do to get unblocked? This is getting a bit silly. Right Hand Drive (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(Comment from harrassing editor removed. @Mike V: maybe you could ask this editor to do what they promised and leave me alone. They are the reason why I created an alternate account in the first place. Right Hand Drive (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC))

I think these are all valid concerns but ultimately Right Hand Drive isn't being blocked because he is a SPA but because he edited with a secondary account so we should stay focused on that issue. If all he has done is fail to disclose a secondary account then I think he should get a second chance; if he turns out to be more trouble than he's worth then he can always be blocked again down the line. If he has used other accounts for the purpose of sockpuppetry then that's a little more serious IMO and I think the only option left to him will be the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(Another comment from harrassing editor removed. Right Hand Drive (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC))

Please deal with User:Herostratus

Can some admin please block User:Herostratus? Soem weeks ago I asked for help at ANI becuase he was harrassing me. Nothing happened. Somehow even after that, he thought it was ok to continue the harrassment on my talk page. I told him he was not welcome here and he replied "I understand. I won't contact you anymore.". Yet in the last few days he has twice posted on my talk page. I have deleted his comments both times but he doesn't show any sign of getting the message and I am unable to post to ANI since I am waiting patiently for someone to unblock me. Incidentally, when I tried to find my own posting about Herostratus on ANI, there was no shortage of resulting concerning his poor behavior. If everyone knows that Herostratus has a behavioral problem, why was my initial complaint ignored? Right Hand Drive (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

We are a collaborative project, communication is important. None of the links you provided shows anything abusive or mean spirited. The ANI you link to found no evidence of harassment then, and I see none now. HighInBC 03:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project." Aside from the numerous false accusations made by Herostratus, it is simply undeniable that he has repeatedly posted to my talk page after he knew that it was unwelcome and after he had told me that he would not contact me again. There could not be a more clear cut case of this type of harrassment. User:HighInBC, stay off my talk page unless you're leaving a message telling me that you have unblocked me. Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

(Comment from User:HighInBC removed. He should know better. Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC))

Unblock request number three

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I was not aware that it was not allowed to use an alternate account to comment on the Signpost or on Jimbo Wales' talk page. If it that is how the WP:SOCKPUPPET policy is interpreted then I am sorry and I will not do it again. Please unblock this account so that I can continue to edit Wikipedia. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given the discourse on this page, which consists of repeated unfounded claims of harassment on your part, I do not think that a collaborative project such as Wikipedia is for you. I notice that your talk page access has already been revoked; any further unblock requests should go through WP:UTRS. Kinu ^t/_c 05:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.