Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 22 January 2013

This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs

Hi Bwilkins. I saw only today that you closed the AfD for Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages?

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages -- 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Having said that, you should slow down, and self-monitor your behavior so we can all make this encyclopedia better together. Misplaced Pages 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

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)

Hello, I want to be able to upload images on Misplaced Pages and I am ready to do this now

Listen up Wilko, You sent me a message saying I'm too new to add images (fair enough). Well, I feel I'm ready now to be able to upload images now. If you read my user page you will probably notice that I am interested in the lower leagues of football and editing them. Well, I have been doing that but I've noticed there's a number of less notable footballers who haven't got images on their Misplaced Pages page. Well, I feel if I am able to upload images, I could give these less notable footballers an image on their Misplaced Pages page. So, is there a chance you could grant me permission to be able to upload images on Misplaced Pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey, Boomage! You actually should already have permission. The way it works is that only "autoconfirmed" editors can upload images to Misplaced Pages. One becomes autoconfirmed after their account is 4 days old and has accumulated 10 edits. That's what he meant by "too new", I think. Since you've already passed this mark, you should be able to upload images now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That said, the notability for footballers should be carefully adhered to, and any images must be ones that meet the image use policy - copyright violations are bad. You cannot just take an image from the internet and upload it to Misplaced Pages (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Proactiv

Hi Bwilkins. I noticed a familiar name as the AfD closer for Proactiv and wanted to let you know I'll be working with them to help them contribute in a manner compliant with WP:COI from the Talk page. If you watchlist the article, I'll be on Talk and would love it if you stuck around a bit to participate on our effort to improve the page. CorporateM (Talk) 18:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 18, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages: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)

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 _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 16:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.—cyberpower _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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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?" 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 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Tagremover disputes

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages: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—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

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