User talk:DangerousPanda

Note: please do not use talkback {{tb}} templates here unless you are referring to discussion areas that I have not yet been a part of; I do monitor my conversations

Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs

Hi Bwilkins. I saw only today that you closed the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs on 22 Dec 2012.

I did not see the AfD until today, and therefore of course, could not have participated in it. While I regularly teach on the concept of "Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs" in Economics classes I teach at a small liberal arts college, and I could provide additional sources for the concept (if the article existed), I realize it is too late to have that discussion now.

But I have a different question: one about the process of the closure. Since it would appear that no consensus was reached, with about 50% favoring keep and 50% favoring a redirect or delete, what was the rationale under those circusmstances for making a change, and essentially removing the concept from Wikipedia?

I'm not an expert on AfD's, but it would seem that no consensus to make the change occurred in this particular article, and that the article should have remained in place.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bwilkins. That was a serious question, and I am very much assuming good faith. I sincerely do not understand the criteria that was used to close that discussion, as it did not appear to have a consensus. Would appreciate your thoughts. N2e (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi N2e. Yes I agree that this change was problematical. I see a 3-2 headcount in favor of deleting or redirecting, which is not much of a quorum and not a supermajority, while the delete/redirect camp did not really have the upper hand in the argument either. So you're right. But you know, we have to work fast here, so mistakes like this crop up on occasion.

If the article had been deleted, you could go Wikipedia:Deletion Review. However, it was made into a redirect, so it's different. At any rate, while the concept is notable, the article was not too good, consisting mostly of a series of quoted passages (which are also copyright violations; we are allowed under fair use to quote short excerpts for certain purposes (such as describing/discussing the quoted work), but not to construct articles by pasting together string of copyrighted quotes). I suspect that's a main reason why the article was made into a redirect.

However, it still exists, and the history exists. I made a copy of the old version and put it in your userspace, here: User:N2e/Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. What I suggest is that you create an improved version (if you want to) off-line, then edit the article and paste your work over the redirect in one edit. If the quality is reasonable I don't think anyone will object to this.

If you want to work on it here on Wikipedia -- say, if you want to ask User:Xerographica, the main editor of the article so far, if to work on it with you -- you can, but then instead of a simple copy-and-paste you have to a more complicated procedure called "history merge", which requires an admin to do. BWilkins or any admin will do this for you. Herostratus (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would you disparage the quality of the entry? Do you not understand how Wikipedia works? It's a notable concept...so I created a stub+...which anybody could have contributed to. The problem had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the entry and everything to do with editors and admins editing way outside their areas of expertise.

Here are three entries that I just created...are any of them not up to your standard of quality? If so...then, rather than making the effort to improve them, why not just nominate them for deletion? Better yet...why not redirect them to the tragedy of the commons? --Xerographica (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: This was discussed at length further up this page - if it was your intent to continue that discussion, it should have been done there - or at least you should have read it before starting a new section. In my review of the article, and the quality of the policy-based discussions, the article was actually going to be a delete - this isn't a vote, so beginning the discussion with numerical counts is a bit of a red herring - the keep arguments were policy-weak, while the delete and redirect were strong enough to well outweigh the keep !votes. As part of WP:PRESERVE I chose the redirect option. Yes, you CAN take this to WP:DRV if you believe the closure was policy-incorrect (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Bwilkins. I'm the one who started this Talk page section to ask YOU about YOUR rationale for closing the discussion without a real consensus one way or the other. I was not aware of any discussion higher up in the page, and had not seen it. I think you are confusing the comments of Xerographica with me.

I think your explanation of what was behind the closure answers my question, as does the helpful comment of Herostratus, above. I would be totally in support of poorly written and poorly sourced material being purged from the encyclopedia, at least temporarily, and then it can be re-added when/if it is ever better done by someone who cares enough to do it.N2e (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I cared enough to find all the reliable sources that supported the creation of a stub for a notable concept...a stub that anybody could have contributed to. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It's based on Hayek's concept of partial knowledge. Expecting people to pop out perfectly polished entries goes against the entire concept of CROWD sourcing. And speaking of WP:BURDEN...where are the reliable sources that support concentrated benefits and dispersed costs being redirected to tragedy? It's been two weeks since I asked Rubin and BWilkins (see section above) to WP:PROVEIT and both have failed to do so. --Xerographica (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Xerographica, as you can see above, I'm partially with you, in the sense that I know that Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs is a viable concept in economics, is notable, etc. As I said, I teach this stuff, and it is in the college textbook I assign to my classes.

Having said that, you should slow down, and self-monitor your behavior so we can all make this encyclopedia better together. Wikipedia will be just fine if it takes a few weeks, or a few months, to get the article back.

As you can see in the discussion above, the administrator who closed the discussion did so based principally on the poor quality of the article. It sounds to me like, based on that admin (BWilkins) and the other commenter (Herostratus), that the article, were it to be improved to meet article criteria, could simply replace the redirect at some point in the future, when some editor or set of editors [[WP:BURDEN|cares enough to ensure that all of it is well-sourced. That could be me, if I get around to having the time to follow the idea Herostratus left for me. But if not, it will emerge in time. But you will hurt your own ability to be constructive in improving the encyclopedia if continue to be disruptive. Relax. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's not really the quality of the article. For all I know, creating a set of passages quoted from other works is a fine way to get some concepts across. It is, however, also against our rules because it violates the copyrights of the quoted works. Whoever works on the article in future needs to describe the concept in their own words. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Herostratus, you should really head over to the Wikiquote project and let them know that they are violating copyrights. --Xerographica (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

N2e, you're not addressing the reason that the article was nominated for deletion in the first place...

PROD reason was: rarely used term, and the article only consists of a (disputed) definition and a series of (probably excessive) quotes; and was removed by article creator. In addition, the rare uses seem to be, with the exception of some libertarian think-tanks, primarily referring to corporate lobbying, rather than the more general concept implied here. — Arthur Rubin

...and again...Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tax_choice

No sources have been provided that the name is used, and very few of the sources can be verified to discuss the same topic. I would accept a merge somewhere, if relevance is established, once the quotes are removed or placed in footnotes. — Arthur Rubin

...and again? Evidently we have different definitions of disruptive behavior. --Xerographica (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 9, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @811  ·  18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Defending myself on my own time, in my own way

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.

---

For the last month or so, I've been the target of a what has recently escalated into smear campaign by one specific editor. Oddly enough, it's an editor who I have - until recently - had significant respect for, whether I agreed with them or not. As I choose not to become embroiled with childish bullshit, I'm simply going to put my basic points here - it's all provable by contribs and discussions. Indeed, I have proven myself many times - I don't give into terrorists, and so I also don't play the "repeat again and again ad nauseum" game:

Related to supposed sexual harassment by another editor

• on a recent RFA, a question arose that was an outright accusation of sexual harassment
• the accusation had no proper context, nor proof
• without proof or even a willingness to provide proof, such an accusation is wholly inappropriate
• although I take harassment extremely seriously (anyone who knows my life will know this as a fact), unfounded accusations cannot remain
• a discussion regarding the accusation occurred on the RFA talkpage
• the person who created the question stated that an incident had occurred somewhere on IRC
• the person was unwilling/unable to provide proof
• I advised them that either they provide such proof, or stop - as per the above, the accusations were now becoming a personal attack
• they remained unable/unwilling to provide - as such, I advised them that their only option on that specific RFA was to "shut it" or it could lead to a block
• there was general agreement that these actions were appropriate at least to close the specific matter in the RFA

At no point did I stop anyone from filing appropriate comments/complaints about sexual harassment. Of course, IMHO, such complaints should be taken to the Foundation legal folks, rather than being held in open discussion anyway, but that has nothing to do with the above situation whatsoever. The simple fact is: with something as serious as sexual harassment, put your money where your mouth is: the supposed anonymity of the internet does not permit anyone to make unproven accusations - at the same time, the supposed anonymity does not permit anyone to sexually harass anyone.

Related to a block

• in my opinion, that same editor has wholly misunderstood the entire gist of the RFA talkpage discussion
• based on my opinion directly above, that editor has truly gone on a rampage - including the smear campaign against me
• one needs only to read the related ANI, and their own talkpage to understand both the smear and the rampage
• the editor in question was originally blocked related to their behaviour surrounding an AN/ANI discussion about the RFA commentary - IIRC, for edit-warring
• obviously and understandably, the editor becamw angry at the block
• understandably, it would only take a slight misunderstanding/misreading of the situation as a whole to make someone angry for other reasons
• IMHO, the editor in question was therefore angry both because of their misreading, AND because of their first block
• rather than use the block time to de-escalate, their posts in the meantime showed an increase in misunderstanding AND in their anger
• when their block expired, their very first act was an angry retort, including serious accusations against those involved in the original situation AND the original block
• due to the angry nature and accusations, I blocked - I used an indefinite block to prevent damage to the conversation/project as a whole - knowing full well that "indefinite" means "until the community is convinced that the behaviour will not recur"
• a discussion rightfully ensued on ANI - general consensus was that the block was one valid way of dealing with the immediate threat, although possibly not the most ideal way
• there was some disagreement with the block, but the general agreement was that some form of protection to the project was required
• after promising to not repeat the behaviour, another admin unblocked - a decision I 100% agree with, based on the understanding of "indefinite" that the community upholds

Conclusion

In my opinion, one specific editor has wholly and unbelievably misread my involvement in the original RFA discussion situation, which has increased their anger, and exacerbated the block situation. It has coloured their discussions since, and as noted, has taken them on a path of a smear campaign against me. I will NOT accept edits to the above, nor will I respond to any requests to clarify my statements above - such requests will be removed as needed. I have ZERO requirement to provide diffs or other proof: they have ALREADY been provided in the past, and I will not do so again. Some of the above is based on my belief (which I am entitled to hold), some is based on my perception (which again, I am entitled to).

It is and always has been my hope that hope that if they ever actually re-read the original conversation, that they would actually be able to understand the above themself. However, based on their recent comments elsewhere, it becomes painfully obvious that they either refuse to re-read it, or that they continue to misread/misunderstand. It may also be the case that they have gone so far down a specific rathole that there's no way to climb out/save face. Based on what REALLY transpired, they do need to back off.

I have no requirement for apologies - but the smear campaign is now starting to resemble the same discussion on the RFA that caused the mess to begin with. In this case, the smear campagin has been based on misreading and has escalated into pure falsehoods. I will not entertain further discussions on it, but do ask that my colleagues act accordingly should the smears continue.

(✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:07, 14 January 2013 (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.

You are obligated to provide evidence for your allegations. You have not provided diffs of my alleged personal-attacks after I was unblocked, despite your obligation as an administrator and as an editor (WP:NPA prohibits unsubstantiated allegations).

I am in the process of providing diffs to document your behavior, which will continue on my talk page, as I stated to you on my talk page in our last discussion.

You are repeating "rampage" and other personal attacks that were criticized at ANI by uninvolved editors. Please cease such personal attacks or be blocked by an administrator who enforces policy.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is your final notice Kiefer: until you actually learn to read what has been provided to you, you are NOT permitted to post on my talkpage. In short: go away. Your behaviour based on your sheer failure to read all the links provided to you disgusts me. Stop your smear campaign (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Cyberbot II

Can you confirm it and give it the reviewer flag?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Operator holds permissions in his own right and seems unlikely to abuse them through his bot account. MBisanz ^talk 16:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What are the requirement on giving another user an RfA or RfB nomination?

Hello,

I'm wondering if there are requirements for autoconfirmed users to nominate another user for bureaucratship or adminship. Are there any requirements to nominate another user for adminship or bureaucratship? Cmach7 (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the RFA page itself gives very basic info, in that basically anyone with an account can nominate someone else with an account. However, reality is this: the quality of your nominator can have a significant effect on your result. What I mean by this is that you need to remember that only people that the community has incredible trust in can become an administrator. If the person who nominates you is not well-trusted by the community, them nominating you is a pretty bad idea. You for example - based on your short history on Wikipedia so far, you have very little trust by the community as a whole: you should likely not be nominating anyone. The other important piece is this: don't nominate someone who has never asked to be nominated! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Notable game clarification

Hi Bwilkins,

You responded to me saying that the wiki I'm working on "heroes of the realm", the game itself is not notable. Could you explain to me more what that means please? And you mentioned that the owners of the images will need to be the ones to directly release images to Wikipedia. Does that mean they need to give you the image, then you'll give it to me so I can use it on the page i'm working on?

thanks

Wowren (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowren (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I advised you that the topic did not appear to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (make sure you click ALL the blue links in a) my original message to you on the Requests for Permissions page, b) the Welcome message I left on your personal talkpage, and any that I leave here for you). As part of the Image Use Policy, the owner of the images will see exactly how to release those images to Wikipedia. They will be able to upload them to the project, and you will then be able to use them in a complete/accepted article. Note that in the case of the game you're writing about, it's fairly new, and there's nothing to suggest it's notable - its existence is not enough to make it encyclopedic (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In order for the game company to upload their image for me to use, does my wikipedia page have to be approved by you guys first? or can they upload the picture while my page is still under review?

If they ARE able to upload the images before my page's approval, will I be able to use it right away (even when my page is still under review)?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowren (talk • contribs) 00:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned, we typically do not host images that are not in use in an live article somewhere. They could go through the process, but if the image never gets used, they will have gone through a lot of trouble - and probably some hard feelings - if they don't get used. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba/WCM

Taking a look at the specific complaints of Gaba, they seem to have some merit. But I think any attempt to address them is being lost in the back-and-forth with WCM/Muggins. The escalation *looks* like a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters and divert the discussion. If its not, its having the same effect. Its working quite well as Gaba is easily diverted/provoked. RE the lying accusations - I took a look at the diffs/links Gaba provided and they certainly show a pattern of being economical with the truth and disingenuous. I wouldnt call it outright lying however. The talkpage comments WCM makes to third parties about Gaba are certainly not telling the whole story. It might be worth asking Gaba to lay out just a strict point-with-supporting-diff complaint (like arbcom evidence submissions) and not to respond to threaded conversation until its been looked at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice re Xerographica

Thank you so much for your guidance. When I first saw the list of "offending" edits, I could not think of a proper response. They weren't really insulting or attacking SPECIFICO. So I focused on the trolling idea as a proper characterization. But you prompted me to take a closer look at talk page guidance, where I found the "laundry list" WP:UP#POLEMIC guideline. --S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about your comment at RfC PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas?

I didn't fully understand your comment "How successful was your WP:RFC/U?" [1] at "RfC PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas". To what WP:RFC/U do you refer? Deicas (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Having just had to go through two of these in the last few months, I'm more likely to abandon the article than go through inflicting another 64K of this stuff on the world. Mangoe (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit-summary for that edit was quite clear: RFC/U certainly should have been the way to deal with that specific issue, not ANI ... it hopefully would have forced the editor to wake up and smell the coffee. My comment was rhetorical as I knew that people were wimping out of doing things the right way (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Arydberg

Since you commented in the thread on ANI wrt Arydberg, would you be interested in checking out his latest at Talk:Aspartame_controversy#birth_defects and determining whether this is a continuation of his old behavior and thus requires a reenactment of his topic ban? I'm not around much these days so thanks in advance for your time. Sædon^talk 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Tagremover disputes

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tagremover disputes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Tagremover (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I commented at ANI ... how in any deity's name does that make me even remotely involved? Do you have a clue what a) this project is about or b) what you're doing? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Beeblebrox block

Hey, I just saw your block of Beeblebrox and I wanted to let you know that I don't believe his account is compromised - that's a pretty typical (though definitely extreme) reaction style for him at the end of a conversation like he was having. It's up to you whether you feel the behavior itself warrants a block, but I'm fairly sure that calling it a compromised account isn't accurate. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - he does lose his temper occasionally (see Meta about a year ago). Not that I never have... --Rschen7754 21:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It pained me to block him ... but I'm trying to AGF that it might be compromised. Beebs has worked to try and become a bureaucrat and an Arb ... this type of series of reactions certainly does not seem to be typical of someone who has worked on this project in the manner they have. I have posted at AN for further discussion/advice (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No comment on whether a block of some kind was necessary, but when a user is linking a long-standing subpage within his own userspace titled "Fuck off" within the edit, dropping the F-bomb is not a very good indicator of compromised-ness.<3, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, clearly not accepting the trout on this one, but thanks. The Beeblebrox that I know and respect does NOT in capital letters say "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" to anyone. Period. If I have been wrong in my evaluation of his character then it's my fault for looking up to him, rather than anything else (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

:/ Fair enough... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hey B. Just wanted to stop by for a handshake and "no hard feelings". I'm not super thrilled at being blocked and obviously I shocked you a bit with my foul mouth. Since a sitting arb saw fit to zap the edit summary I guess you weren't the only one. You may not agree with my explanation of why I did what I did but I trust that you at least understand it and we can put this whole incident behind us. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey B2 ... it's oh-dark-hundred, and I'm awake far too early - things like "blocking people I respect" on my mind I guess LOL. I do hope you see my perspective on this one: I will always understand getting pissed at someone (it's in my genetic makeup), but when I saw an account being used to express anger in an unexpected (and against policy) manner - and the real holder of that knew better, then I did honestly and truly fear that someone else was making you look bad, so I was trying to protect you in this case. Of course, we all know that if it was compromised, they could have unblocked themself (if they knew how). It was a difficult block to make, but if I saw the same unexpected behaviour from your account (and a few others I monitor), I would do the exact same attempt to protect the owner of the account in the future. Cheers. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

James Knowles (footballer) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James Knowles (footballer). Since you had some involvement with the James Knowles (footballer) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Peter James (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Email

Hello Bwilkins. I have sent you an email on a private matter that I am sure you know which is :) Have a nice day. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oddly it has not yet arrived (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Very odd indeed. I marked to receive a copy that has not yet arrived to my inbox either. I will write to you again. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay I have sent the email again. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it ... haven't had a chance to review everything I want to yet (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I have no hurries. Thank you again :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget about me :) but take your time though. I know you have real life and work. Have a nice day. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked editor using sockpuppet

It looks like an editor you recently blocked is using a sockpuppet to evade the block. ElKevbo (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it's been taken care of. Oddly enough, his block was so brief, it had probably almost expired when he pulled that boneheaded move (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Britney Spears songs (2nd nomination)

Thanks for closing above. Any comment regarding my oft repeated comments about LINKVIO etc? No need to change your closing comments so an answer here would be great. Just for clarification and my peace of mind, really. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunate thinko?

In your closure of WP:AN/I#Conduct and comments unbecoming of an admin - User:Maunus (which resulted in a site ban for user:Youreallycan) you write that "every human being is iresponsible for their own actions". I presume you mean "every human is responsible for their own actions".? Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's sad that it had to come to a site ban. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's true. I was sincere in the beginning words of my notification of the site ban. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Susan Hefuna

Hello!

I am very new to Wikipedia and still learning the ropes, but I understand you will be auditing the article I put forward so I just wanted to introduce myself - hope I've done so in the right place!

All the best,

Katia aka LondonEditorial — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonEditorial (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I'll be "auditing" it - it's in WP:AFC, and someday someone will get around to it. From what I have read, there's nothing in there that suggests/proves notability - it looks like an advertisement to me, so you probably don't want me reviewing it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case request closed as withdrawn

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that an arbitration case request, named Tagremover disputes, in which you were named as a party has been withdrawn by the filing party. The commenting arbitrators felt that the community was able to handle this issue at the current time and it was withdrawn by the filing party.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuses

I don't make excuses. I'm providing (ongoing) context. :) I remember you. I don't give barnstars every day. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I ever suggested you were making excuses ... and I hope Shrike "catches my drift" about their behaviour (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that barnstar was 3 1/2 years ago... we're gettin' old... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, scarey isn't it! LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Could you please clarify how this is personal attack [2] and how it could construed as vandalism and no one asked me from stop interacting with user:Seb az86556--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The warning in ANI that you're only a couple of edits from indef of your own is sufficient. Your behaviour is appalling, and you know it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But my edit was before this warning.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly ... I couldn't have warned before you made it, could I? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I stricken the questionable edit in Andy talk page before I saw you warning but my edit as Seb page was sincere attempt to clarify things so its hard for me to understand how its could be labeled as vandalism anyhow per you warning/advice I will not participate in WP:AN/I discussion any more.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

... in the midst of reading through ANI, this had me chuckling for quite a while. Regards, m.o.p 12:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, although not directed at you specifically, you of all people certain do need a little humour this morning! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, appreciated. To be honest, I'm not upset - if the community says that I've overstepped my authority, then I am obliged to agree with them and re-factor my response to something more in-step with consensus. I'm sure there'll be more discussion to greet me in the morning, but hopefully I've responded adequately for now. Thanks again. m.o.p 12:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Are You The Lord Of Double Standards Here?

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.

---

Oh pray tell me, why have you not deleted this user page which "looks like a wikipedia" page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Duke_of_Waltham

Why, really? Why do you have such double standards? Is it because of the enormous power you have that makes you feel special when you are being so impartial?

The Duke of Madras (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh welcome ye, peon of Wikipedia. With over 4.1 million articles, 18 million editors with user pages, and verily nearly 30 million pages in total, I do'est admit that in my great and incredible omnipotence and clear omicience, I have obviously quite intentionally not deleted a userpage that I had until this moment never seen in my life. Yes, you ha'st caught me slacking: I somehow missed a mere needle in the great haystack that is Wikipedia. Clearly, I have "such double standards" that I only delete things that I am aware of ... but of course, I should be aware of every single edit on every single page. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously another case of sloth (there is a wp:sloth, I never knew that) Darkness Shines (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the talk page of the page you deleted before deleting it, you would have seen the other page mentioned. You can still see it being mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:King_of_Zeroes

Well, anyway, now that you have seen the other page, what are you going to do about it? Or are you still not seeing it? Would you, maybe, like to have a link to that page? The page that has been left alone for five and a half years, while this one was tagged for deletion for "being too deceptively like a Wikipedia article!" in five minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Duke of Madras (talk • contribs) 15:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously if you have bothered to actually look, I have advised that other user of the problem with their userpage and I await their reply. Of course, you already know that the bigger part of the problem was that you copy/pasted theirs - contrary to the copyright requirements. Why not actually *read* some things, rather than just fly off the handle (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That was not the reason I was given when I copy-pasted it. In fact, I was not even given a reason or a chance to correct it with a post on the user page. Five minutes after I copy-pasted it, I see an edit adding a wp:hoax to the top of the article, and a largely generic message on the talk page. Why do I deserve an in-your-face pink banner while another user gets a friendly warning at the end of his user page? Are new users expendable and don't deserve proper courtesy? The copy-paste wasn't even an issue until I referenced it out to the other editor myself so it is not applicable to the initial treatment I received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Duke of Madras (talk • contribs) 16:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: Also, if you thought the copy/paste was the "bigger" part of the problem leading to the literally speedy deletion of the page by you, why did you not add the warning note to the other user page until 15:07 which was just six minutes before you composed your "witty" reply (15:13) to my post where I pointed out the similar page to you (13:51)? The Duke of Madras (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, because I wanted to respond to the question from someone that was asked to me before I went to deal with the other. Why the heck else? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to expand on that? What I am asking is this: You deleted my user page and you said it being a copy/paste was the "bigger problem". If it was, you would have known that the other user page existed. But you did not add anything to the user's talk page until I pointed it out to you above. So, how was it a bigger problem?

Secondly, you added the warning note and decided to await the user's response but you didn't want to give me that option. You just deleted it. And since you were not even aware of the other user page till I mentioned it above, you clearly didn't even bother looking at the talk page before going ahead and deleting it. Why? I don't see any variable that could have affected your decision except the fact that I am a new user. So, I'm back to my original question: Do you treat all new users on Wikipedia at an inferior level?

The Duke of Madras (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how did you come across that user page? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

How does anyone come across anything on the internet? The Duke of Madras (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's an even better question: you requested a username change. It was changed. Why have you re-created your old userid and are editing with it right now? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not. Maybe you should check out that bug in your Wikipedia. Just in case you don't get that, I'm implying that you own this place. Or at least it seems like you do. And also, that is not an even better question. It is, however, an attempt at avoiding the right questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Duke of Madras (talk • contribs)

"(Move log); 09:44 . . MBisanz (talk | contribs | block) moved page User talk:The Duke of Madras to User talk:King of Zeroes ‎(Automatically moved page while renaming the user "The Duke of Madras" to "King of Zeroes")". Your user account was renamed, and yet you re-created it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I put this so you could understand. I. Did. Not. I did not. I did not re-create the user account. The Duke of Madras (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Duke of Madras (talk • contribs) 17:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Usually by searching for something, you did a search for a non existent duke? And then decided to copy that page? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, feel free to take another guess. The Duke of Madras (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Second guess then, you created this account after The Duke and your other account got into an argument. You created a similar username and appear intent on getting his user page deleted, no doubt to make a point. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Although this is actually your first guess, unfortunately you are wrong again. I don't know The Duke. Or his ducklings. I don't care about getting that page deleted. And I certainly don't have another account. But I do care about equality, and if no one speaks up, who is to champion the rights of the many people who those with virtual power try to oppress? I only copied parts of it to use it as a template to create my own user page. But five minutes into the edit, I get a conflict and the huge pink banner. The Duke of Madras (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm closing this. Duke/King/whatever ... your userpage was reported to WP:ANI as a possible violation. In my review, I noted it was both improper as a WP:FAKEARTICLE but also because you copy/pasted it violated WP:COPYRIGHT. Copyright violations are immediate deletion, no discussion. The original editor from whom you stole their work is only violating WP:FAKEARTICLE, and it may go through a deletion discussion if I do not get a satisfactory response.

Sure, close anything that questions your actions. Great way to go! You have still not explained something fundamental. You deleted the page at around 1 PM. But you did not get around to posting the note on the other page until 15:07. If you KNEW the page I was making was a copyright violation, you would have checked the source, and would have instantly known the other page is in violation of the minor infraction and would have posted the note right away. But you did not. So, clearly, you did NOT know that the page had a copy/paste violation when you deleted it. Also remember you posted the note on the other page only after I posted at 13:51 here and you replied at 15:13 saying you had not seen that page before. The Duke of Madras (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Contray to your delusion, this has nothing to with you being a new user, except for the fact that you quite clearly do not understand the rules and policies that you agreed to on Wikipedia. I don't know you from Adam. I don't care to know you from Adam. What I do care is that you read up on those rules, and realize how a) brutally wrong you are and b) how much easier life is when you don't make stupid accusations (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My issues are not with the rules or "the decision". My issues are with equality and the way this was handled. I should also have been given the warning by you before deleting the page, and the editor who posted on my talk page should also have posted on the other user's talk page. I am not wrong or delusional here. You are just trying to cover-up a blunder instead of owning up to it. Your self-assumed authority is probably doing its role to hinder that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Duke of Madras (talk • contribs) 17:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted one the problematic page - as per the rules you agreed to. I then got my kids fed, bathed and dressed, shit, showered, shaved, drove the kids to school, got on a bus, came to work, had a meeting with my boss, signed into Wikipedia and saw your message. So, I followed up on it, appropriately. Sorry it took me so long. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you've got the sympathy vote. Now, please tell me why, if you decided to delete the page because it was a copyright violation, why did you not immediately place the warning note on the page it was copied from, as it was clearly in violation of the "rules" the other user had agreed to? Did you feel that you had just enough time to delete one page but not enough to place the other note even though both pages were partially guilty of the same "crime" of "looking like an article"? The Duke of Madras (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Do I need to say it again? COPYRIGHT is immediate deletion - it's a speedy deletion criteria. WP:FAKEARTICLE/WP:UP#NOT-violations are not (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so because the other violation was less severe, even though it had been there for five years, and even though I clicked on that button that contested the speedy deletion, and even though I was constantly working on the user page itself intending to use the other as only a template to create my own, with the plan to eventually replace every word of every sentence, you found it appropriate to click the delete button without reading the active discussion on the talk page or bothering to leave a friendly suggestion to use the sandbox instead, and just let the other one slide.

• Outside opinion: Bwilkins, you're being trolled. I don't think WP:ADMINACCT (or whatever the link is) means you have to keep responding to this guy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Actually, on review, I don't think this is "trolling" so much as being angry at being called a vandal, and being somewhat... persistent... in that anger. So, pretend I wasn't here. I'll follow up on their talk page, to let Bwilkins' orange bar recharge. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read the above discussion, you will see that is exactly what he is doing already. He has not actually responded to the most difficult questions, especially regarding the courtesy shown to newer members by one admin and one editor, impartiality in a public forum, and of course the gaping hole in his logic. His support-gathering tactics seem to be working though.The Duke of Madras (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, having spent last evening off Wikipedia, I awake to find what was unfortunately expected - although I had hoped differently. Duke - I am truly sorry that you feel you have been hard done by. Your very first action on Wikipedia was to break a key rule that actually has legal ramifications. Are you aware that you simply could have asked that other editor if you could borrow their format, and then attributed it to them? As many editors have now told you, your userpage had to be deleted. As promised, I have approached the other editor and a discussion is taking place - indeed, I haven not checked it since yesterday because I have a real life. You have not been singled out or treated any differently. This has been explained to you again and again, you simply do not like the explanation. A rephrase of my earlier words of advice (and you can see it when someone tries to edit this page): "an intelligent discussion is better than a diatribe or attack". Your first post here was one I probably should have simply deleted - instead, I tried humour, thinking you would understand that obviously I don't treat 1-in-18 million editors any differently than I can monitor 29 million pages. I'm going to assume you're an adult, so please understand this as well: your indefinite block is only infinite if you make it that way: indefinite here means "until you have convinced the community the behaviour that led to the block will not recur". I do believe that everyone has something to add to this project - never allow userpages and frivolity to detract from the fact that our first goal is to create an encyclopedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 26 January 2013 (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.

Duke: you seem to be spending a ridiculous amount of time evading your block in order to carry out some bizarre series of attacks against me. Here's a novel idea: read WP:GAB. Read WP:5P. Formulate some form of unblock request that actually can get accepted. Then you may follow the steps to MFD that user's page if you feel the need. You've worn out my good faith, and I will NOT be MFD'ing it on your behalf - I wash my hands of your immaturity (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleting "Angel bouchet"

I created a page for Angel bouchet but mistakenly used a lower-case "b" for the last name. I sent a request for this correction to be made but the page has now been deleted. Can you please help me understand why the page was deleted versus simply making the change? Thank you!

ShawnaShawna (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The "article" was deleted because the subject failed Wikipedia's notability standards, partcularly the standards for musicians (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WQA-notice

Template:WQA-notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jason Quinn RfA

To avoid commenting any further on the RFA please see my comment here ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Colonel

Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

Sorry, but I couldn't find something more appropriate for supporting a cowboy block while a discussion was underway. --Nouniquenames 05:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)