User talk:HandThatFeeds/Archive 2008

nomination request reverted?

why was my intro reverted? did i violate any rules? i wasn't aware my appeal to you would be the official request listed in the section which is why i updated it.

id appreciate it if you could revert the intro!

Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, as nothing was reverted on the Help desk, nor on the AfD. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 04:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you mean my copying your deletion reasoning into the AfD? Since you were the one wishing it, and provided a reason, I went ahead and put your reasoning in there. The fact that other editors have been banned isn't really relevant to the AfD, I'm afraid. If you have any clarifications to make on your reasoning, you should comment on the AfD page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 04:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was somebody else. I reverted. I updated the appeal and some guy changed it back to the original and I didn't know why. apologies! update: What did I do to disrupt the talk page???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.148.148 (talk • contribs) 05:01, June 9, 2008

Is this Wikifan? It looks like you logged out. And you blanked this discussion while logged out, so I thought someone else was erasing your attempt to communicate with me. That's why I warned the IP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Wikipedia Main Page in Flock 1.1.2.png

The Flock browser itself is licensed under the GPL, which means that the image could be free, but Mac OS is not, and since flock works in Linux, which is GPL licensed, we could get a totally free image. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 16:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Becoming disruptive

What an inversion of the truth you present. I am a reasonable person attempting to improve Wikipedia by resurrecting and improving' the article about Alan Cabal. What have you done today? Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt to "improve" wikipedia by insulting those who disagree with you is not helpful. For the record, I've been archiving old article talk-page discussions and trying to end an edit-war on another article. This in between working in the ER registering patients as part of my job. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Your real-world work is very respectable. At any rate, I'm only interested in writing articles here but I get dragged into these vicious fights when I try to keep something around that I know deserves to be here. The thing is, eventually, that article will be resurrected. But the process is what it is.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Docmartin

Okay, I followed up your suggestion - I took it as constructive! Call things resolved if you like... but I can see why Larry Sanger quit!

In passing, I see you say you are you're particularly, against vandalism, what do you think of those particular edits inserting junk references to Stangroom? Or the two that included incorrect information?

If you are also particularly against 'censorship' what do you think of this edit? Neutral admin MaxSem endorsed the contribution uptoapoint by creating a subsection called 'positions' - and then the whole section is taken out, as have all previous efforts to add details to the page.

Now here's a baffling thing: in the history (as I read it) the edit is by Avraham - but SlimVirgin's contributions' page shows a different story. 'Chris' (who I gave the long list of disgraceful edits) cut it and then Slim herself endorsed it.

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Julian_Baggini&diff=prev&oldid=224201979

Maybe you should try to work that one out ...

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Julian_Baggini&diff=next&oldid=224406330 I'd be interested in a second opinion. I'm not reversing it myself, too many people already say I'm involved in an 'edit war'...

Docmartincohen (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Hello, i would like to inquire as to why my article on Satan was removed, you labeled it as spam and i do not see how it can be considered that. If there is any way for me to convince you that it is not spam, please say so. 96.228.218.217 (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The section you added to Satan was removed because it was a rather bold claim that was not reliably sourced. Personal websites, such as the link you gave to an Angelfire page, are not acceptable sources for controversial claims. Since you kept adding it back, I treated it as spam. If you can find a more reliable source for your claims, feel free to cite it properly and add it back to the article. But personal web sites, blogs and forums do not count as reliable on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I could, bjut what would be the point if he could just create yet another one, as he has done so many times in the past? Paul B (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of persistent spammers, but I'd rather they get shut down when they come back, rather than continuing to disrupt articles. I'll keep an eye on this one, for now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been bumpig into this guy and his socks for a while now and have been CUing regularly, so if anything unusual turns up, feel free to ping me. Of course I could just sweep his IP on a daily basis.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing ANI

Thanks (per WP:SNOWBALL). LotLE×talk 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This was closed within, what, 24 hours? Are other users not entitled to a comment?Bdell555 (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI is really for situations where we need an administrator to intervene. There really wasn't any point to that thread by now; it mostly consisted of a few users making personal attacks against one another. If there's an objection to my close, someone else can reopen it and I won't edit war. But really, when these threads turn into personal grudge-matches, they've exhausted any productive value. That's just my judgment though, and I'm not immune to mistakes by any means. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought DGG made a very viable suggestion when he suggested admins take out some users from both sides. If I was taken out along with either LotE/Lulu or Scjessey I feel it would help resolve the situation simply because whoever replaces either of those two could hardly be more problematic editors. I can't edit pages those two figure they own, anyway, since they have fewer reservations about pursuing an edit war (and I'd count the number of words I contributed to, and the number of unanswered arguments that remain at, say, Project Vote's Talk page before concluding that any resolution not requiring an admin is possible there). I'm just objecting to how summary your action was. The party initiating the complaint clearly spent hours and hours generating supporting evidence and/or argument. I noticed that one user or admin then came along and spent maybe 30 seconds to find out the initiating party's edit count and then made a comment to the effect that the complaint was therefore without merit as if that's all that one needs to know. It's one thing to disgree with something, and it's another to not even take it seriously in the first place. If you are willing to allow that you are "not immune to mistakes", perhaps you'd allow more than 24 hours for users to discuss whether there is, in fact, a need for admin intervention or not.Bdell555 (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a viable suggestion as well, it was starting to receive some support from the community, and no one objected except the targets on one "side." I believe that if the thread had been allowed to stay open for a few days, it would have gathered much more support. As it stands now, it appears to be an enormous waste of my valuable time to even attempt to help resolve these problems. Wikipedia is notorious for its left-wing bias and as a certified left-winger, I must admit that I now see the reputation is well-earned. Attempting to protect Wikipedia from a serially disruptive editor is completely useless, if the POV that he's pushing is a left-wing POV. He's among friends. Curious bystander (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Key words: "if the thread had been allowed to stay open for a few days." While I can see that you might think your time was wasted, and, indeed, it might have been -- but for other reasons -- the fact is that you spent the bulk of your time collecting evidence that you put in the AN/I report. I've been saying that you put the evidence in the wrong place, that AN/I is not the place to address a problem as that which you alleged, and if it is going to be the place, then, just as is the case with any such process just about anywhere in the world, it's your responsibility to do what is needed for the place where you file the report. Try filing a lawsuit that isn't on the right paper and with the proper headers. They'll toss it out, even if you have the strongest case in the world, should it be properly filed. They need that paper and those headers for their purposes. And ANII needs clear, concise reports, so that an administrator can read it and make a judgment very quickly. As you point out, dealing with a serially disruputive editor, if that's the case, takes much more evidence and much more consideration, which is precisely why AN/I isn't the place to do it. Further, AN/I is watched and sees comments from many users, some of whom have axes to grind, and they will take every opportunity to do it. That's why, sometimes, reports there are closed fairly quickly, when it becomes obvious to an editor or administrator that nothing is going to happen in terms of immediate use of administrative tools, i.e., for blocking, topic banning banning, or protecting an article -- and protection is generally requested elsewhere. You may or may not be correct about left-wing bias, but your response here would be like complaining about the left-wing bias of a court because it tosses out your lawsuit claiming, say, political corruption by a liberal, because it wasn't on the right paper or was filed with the wrong court.

As I and several other editors tried to explain to you, nothing was going to come from your report because it wasn't in easily-digestible form. You could claim that Wikipedia has a "lazy" bias, and you'd be right. But then again, so does most of the world, when it comes to stuff like this. I'll say it again: left-wing bias has nothing to do with the dropping of your report like a lead balloon. It affected the moot discussion and argument around it, perhaps. Let me put it this way: if you want to do something about bias on Wikipedia, it isn't going to be as easy as you think, but not because of entrenched left-wing bias, rather because it takes quite a bit of work and time to learn how Wikipedia works, to become an effective editor who can handle the politics and the procedures. From my point of view, it's quite a conservative community, in that it likes to continue doing things the way they have always been done, even if "always" means, really, only "the last few years." There are what I see as "edit cabals" active on Wikipedia, though I haven't seen much evidence of seriously organized cabals. It's difficult to deal with such cabals, directly, editors will tag-team revert. However, that's still edit warring and there are still procedures to deal with it. But, as I stated, if you try to confront an entrenched cabal, you'd better make sure that your own behavior is spotless. Or you will be dead meat, they will notice and report the smallest violations, and they know the politics and what gets the mobs fired up. That does not mean that nothing can be done, plenty can be done, and some of the cabals are falling apart, and the edit warring and incivility that sustain them and make them effective is ultimately exposed. And editors mature, many really do convert to the concept of NPOV. --Abd (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to explicitly mention. The evidence you compiled is still there, in History and in the Archive. It's easy to pull it up if anyone wants to use it, perhaps in an RfC or ArbComm case. It would take you, I'd suspect, a few months of working intensively with Wikipedia process in a variety of areas to get a sense of how to proceed, right now, you'd be likely to simply shoot yourself in the foot.--Abd (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the RfC step had already occured here, as had an invitation to involve ArbComm / other mediation (both LotLE and Wikidemo declined the invitation, the latter advising me to rather just "give it up", and I'm told that arbitration requires voluntary participation). Quotes from policies ranging from WP:RS to WP:OR to WP:BLP had already been thrown out there and brushed off. The fact that DGG, an otherwise uninterested admin, made a suggestion about possible admin actions in the thread that some us view as worthy of consideration suggests that initiating the thread was not necessarily unhelpful to improving the situation. I guess no other admins thought it was worth serious consideration if the thread is closed literally overnight.Bdell555 (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Abd summed up my feelings, really. While DGG's suggestion had some merit, no one was willing to follow through on it. Further, there's nothing to stop you from reposting your request on ANI; though I'd suggest using a short summary, and put the lengthy evidence on a User subpage (like User:Bdell555/Evidence). Really, though, if this is going to be handled, and you've tried other dispute resolution processes, I'd suggest taking it to ArbCom. ANI is more for immediate problems, ArbCom is for lengthy disputed behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely pointless and a waste of my time. Curious bystander (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, "no one was willing to follow through" on DGG's statement "I support Tony's request for a topic ban" in the less than 18 hours between when DGG made the statement and you closed the thread on the "children". So we're back to square one and the refusal of the other parties to acknowledge any role for ArbCom. There's no point in I, or anyone else, raising the matter again in ANI or anywhere else if interested parties are going to be told to take their contributions elsewhere if they don't get them in within an 18 hour window.Bdell555 (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, all I was trying to do was to stop the petty bickering the thread had devolved to. You're free to re-open it if you want, or start a new discussion. And it doesn't matter if the other party "refuses to acknowledge ArbCom." They don't have to. If ArbCom accepts a case, their decisions are binding. It doesn't matter if the other party refuses to believe they have any authority, they'll just get banned for violating ArbCom's decision. That's where you should be taking this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It was taken to ArbCom, and ArbCom declined the case, claiming that community remedies would be sufficient. [1] So here was an attempt at a community remedy, and it was closed down because Scjessey kept arguing with WorkerBee74. How can community remedies be sufficient if they're going to be closed down when one of the editors named in the complaint becomes disruptive? The proper remedy would have been a warning to the two of them and, if either of them continued to act up, a 24-hour block.

I had also been preparing a case against Scjessey himself, and his conduct during the brief WP:ANI thread proves to me that he suspected as much. The evidence against both of them (LotLE and Scjessey) is beyond overwhelming. No one is going to listen to me, because I'm a newbie and these are veteran editors with thousands of edits. Please present the evidence as a neutral admin, interested only in seeing that it gets a fair hearing and that the best interests of the Wikipedia project are served — a description that I have no doubt fits you like a glove. I can e-mail you what I've compiled on Scjessey; the case against LotLE can be recovered from ANI archives. Wikipedia cannot afford to have such a high-profile article controlled by a WP:CABAL of POV pushers. Curious bystander (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your best bet might be to take it to DGG. Considering he was the one admin who actually talked about imposing some kind of sanction, he'd at least know who to turn to if he's not willing to file it himself. There's already sanctions at Barack Obama, so the point may be moot, but that's your best bet. Honestly, I don't edit Wikipedia much. I'm basically a WP:GNOME: I do some anti-vandalism work and minor edits when I get the chance. This is a touch too involved for me to submit and monitor. An admin like DGG might be able to steer you more in the right direction, though.

I do want to apologize if the way I handled things offended you. I just wanted to force things to cool down a bit, fully expecting that someone would re-open the issue at ArbCom or, if necessary, on ANI again. It wasn't an attempt to shut you down, or anything, just to keep a couple of people from turning the discussion into an excuse to flail about needlessly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to participation in this discussion, but I have gone ahead and given a courtesy notice to SCJessey and LotLE that sanctions against them are being discussed with an administrator here. Off-wiki appeals for administrative sanctions and secret evidence seem to be controversial issues. See, for example, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova. Wikidemo (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind: This is WP and there is no supreme court. So if you didn't succeed at ANI accept it. You still have the right to propose again at ANI (or other) with new allegations at any time. Please do so if you think you need to but don't make a "movement" out of this. Sorry, but that's the way I see it at least right now. Besides: See WD's first sentence above. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. 1) The thread was closed due to the bickering, so this isn't a matter of "succeeding" or not at ANI. #2) I am not an admin, just a concerned user, so WD's "notice" is moot. Finally, to WD, I don't see any "off-Wiki appeals" when someone is discussing this on a Wikipedia talk page, so such comments are a bit bizarre here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, mea culpa. Here's the explanation. I incorrectly assumed from these diffs above[2] that you are an admin, that Curious Bystander had prepared a case against both LotLE and Scjessey that he was offering to email you privately in hope of your administering sanctions against them, and you encouraged Curious Bystander to email the case to DGG instead because he indicated a willingness to impose sanctions. If you consider the following statements with that in mind I'm sure you can see how I made that mistake:

CB:"I had also been preparing a case against Scjessey himself....Please present the evidence as a neutral admin...a description that I have no doubt fits you like a glove. I can e-mail you what I've compiled..."

HTF:"your best bet might be to take it to DGG...the one admin who actually talked about imposing some kind of sanction, he'd at least know who to turn to if he's not willing to file it himself...I'm basically a WP:GNOME"

So under the assumption that an editor was planning to present undisclosed evidence to receptive administrators to lobby for sanctions against two editors over a content dispute, I thought it only reasonable to give them a courtesy notice of the fact, and also opine here that the practice of emailing undisclosed evidence to administrators had been the subject of a serious controversy (User:Durova, an Arbcom candidate, resigned her adminship over the issue).Wikidemo (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I can see where the confusion arose from then. No problem. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be delighted if my suggestion is not needed because people followed Abd's advice and started editing more reasonably. Let's try that first. But this should be continued back at ANI. An individual talk page is not the place. Abd, perhaps you can transclude it or summarize it or whatever. Personally, I do not myself particularly want to get involved with an extended mediation on this subject. DGG (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything to be continued on AN/I? Perhaps leave it to the parties to decide whether to bring something up again there, or not, or somewhere else. I certainly hope that I will be left out of it this time. There's plenty of productive stuff to do on the article - even neutral uncontroversial encyclopedic improvements. I think I'll go make one now! Wikidemo (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closure

You were not a neutral closer. Discussion is ok. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see from above this is not the first time. Your intentions are good, please be more careful :) Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to be bold when closing discussions that seem to be either way off topic, or just in the wrong place. Discussion is okay, but I don't see it happening there. It's just a straw poll, and nothing's going to come of it at VPP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see where the arbitrators will read it and understand how the community feels on the matter. The "straw poll": I see rationales attached to the recommendations, so there is some voicing. Incidentally, this discussion is a result of the already filed request for clarification/modification on RFAR. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that's still open. I thought it had already been archived. So, that means RfC is the next logical place to voice this and try to actually get anything done. VPR really... isn't. Some of the poll replies have rationales, but most are the kind of thing that would get ignored at WP:AfD ("I agree", "I don't like it, so overturn it," etc.). A discussion would actually involve back and forth dialogue. This is just people throwing things out and hoping they stick. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Magibon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Magibon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon (3rd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pedofenion (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Retraction Required

[3] Please retract your statement at link. In what world do you think you can presume something about someone you don't know such as myself - that they would redirect the link to a goatSE!? (apparently a shock pornographic image). Did you bother to actually read the defense page I previously had online (as a last resort against Mark Bellinghaus's prolific internet lies, which he wrote almost every day for two and a half years about me?). I am extremely offended. Everything on my page was correct and true NOT accusatory and even admitted to on Bellinghaus's own blogs Restawhile (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

… right. My point was that he has no control over what the link could be redirected to, not that it would. Frankly, I don't care what was on the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI case (70.79.65.227/Ramu50)

Hello, HandThatFeeds. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You can find the specific section here.

To clarify, you are not the subject of the ANI, but you have been previously involved in or have commented on this or a related ANI. Thank you for your time. Jeh (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Wannabe rockstar/Parka (band) procedurally closed

Just letting you know, I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Wannabe rockstar/Parka (band) as WP:AFD is not the correct venue for discussion, WP:MFD is. Any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Regards, — neuro^(talk) 22:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. Been a long time since I've done anything xfd related. Thanks! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As the primary editor of User:Wannabe rockstar/Parka (band), I don't have a problem with it being deleted. I'm just feeling too lazy at the moment to update and reference it, etc. and have the text saved on my computer for whenever I do get around to it.

Regards, Wannabe rockstar (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Free advice

Having recently read your comment on my thread at the admin incident board, I feel you might not fully understand the concept and benefits of free speech and therefore respectfully point you to that article. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the concept of free speech. It does not apply on Wikipedia. There is no First Amendment, as this is a web service, not a government entity. Even by the USA's First Amendment, some speech is restricted. If you really are semi-retired, just delete the message and let it go, rather than dragging out the drama. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think my reason for being semi-retired falls within the free speech afforded me by wikipedia policy. I have not created any drama. That sentence has been on my user page for weeks. As a side note, since the First Amendment of the United States' constitution is very restrictive, as befits a rogue state such as America, I would prefer, for the sake of clarity, that we compare free speech using article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Cheers --Law Lord (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, trolling. Gotcha. Done. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I just disagreed with your free speech premise. There is a mild difference, actually. --Law Lord (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What? Who did I bite? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the boilerplate message. I left you this comment in response to this diff [4]. I think it's important to handle these cases with all possible consideration and patience, as we have a strong ethical and legal responsibility to any living person who is the subject of a biographical article on Wikipedia. While you're right that this does not mean they get to own their biographies, it does mean we need to consider biographical complaints with particular care and seriousness. It is especially bad to bite this kind of newcomer, since any appearance of mishandling these articles is not only ethically and legally dubious, but severely damaging to the image of the Wikipedia project. I hope this makes my concerns more clear. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat. I still don't see what I said as bitey at all; perhaps blunt, but not rude. I pointed out WP:OWN to correct the editor's opinion that it was "his," nothing more. Still, glad someone's watching out for the newbies. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)