You state in your close that subjectivity is a policy based argument. I rebutted this argument during the discussion by pointing out that most topics contain an element of subjectivity which we address by reference to reliable sources so that it is not our subjective opinion which is used but that of experts and other respected writers. Please see WP:ATA#Subjective importance which addresses this and states, "This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions.".
Furthermore, you seem to have treated the matter as a vote, openly counting heads rather than weighing the merits of the policy-based arguments. This seems improper. Please reconsider your close. Colonel Warden ( talk) 10:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Our guidelines for standalone lists say:
"In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources"
This means that subjectivitly is part of our best practices and that it requires extra attention to reliable sources. There were also many complaints in the AfD about the quality of the sources.
Our policy on reliable sources say:
"While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources.". Most sources presented are opinion pieces with no effort taken to verify that a name is unusual. See also Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion(to large to quote)
There were also numerous complaints about BLP issues, which I really should have mentioned in my closing as it was a significant part of the debate. Our policy on living people(which includes all mentions of living people even if not in a biography) says:
"Be very firm about the use of high quality references" and "it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" and "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." see also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy of names(to large to quote - See example #1 as it is particularly relevant).
What we have here is essentially a collection of opinion pieces stating that one reporter thinks a name is unusual. Both the subjectivity of the inclusion criteria, and the involvement of living people increased the standards the reliable sources required to sustain the article. "Think of the children" aside, living children are living people and are protected by BLP.
While I agree this is not a black and white area and that both interpretation of our standards presented in the AfD have merit, it is clear that consensus favors the interpretation that leads to deletion.
I will e-mail you the content of the article, though I don't think it should be reposted on-wiki until the BLP issues are addressed. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
First off, Happy New Year! :) Anyway, User:WossOccurring has just been blocked after a checkuser confirmed he is a sock of someone who has had multiple other accounts blocked this holiday season. Part of his disruption in addition to sockpuppetry include frivolous renominations of articles for deletion, dishonesty, etc. I am bringing it to your attention as he was the first account to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination) after the nomination and looking through the discussion he is indeed unfortunately cited subsequetntly by such editors as User:Ks0stm with a "per WossOccurring". I am therefore deeply concerned that this account which is one of several we have been playing whack a mole with the past week or so belonging to the same person has unduly influenced that discussion given when he commented and that at least one editor does indeed cite him as part of the stance to delete. As the discussion was far from unanimous and close enough to a no consensus, I urge you to reconsider and reclose as "no consensus" per WP:DENY as we absolutely should not allow a discussion to have been influenced by a ban evading sock with a history of bad faith editing. If the account commented last and had no real influence on the discussion that would be one thing, but by commenting first after the nom and being cited by at least one editor, it clearly did influence the discussion and that is something we absolutely cannot allow to stand. By the way, other blocked socks of this user according to checkuser include User:VaginicaSeaman. Yes, seriously. This is absolutely not the kind of person we want influencing the outcomes of discussions. Really, we have been dealing with this guy's vote-stacking all month. See for example User_talk:Spartaz#Vote_stacking. Even before the sockpuppetry was initially discovered, he was discussed on ANI for both on and eve off wiki canvassing in AfDs he commented in. As soon as one account is blocked, more just keep popping up or we find some new webforum or talk pages on which one of his socks canvassed. And somehow he is getting around the auto-blocks. Anyway, thank you for your time and consideration and again, Happy New Year! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 17:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I've been meaning to raise the issue, and I see I'm not the first to do so. You and I haven't had especially positive interactions in the past, due to our disagreements over matters relating to WP:IAR. However, in the spirit of good faith, I'd like to look past that and appeal to you personally regarding your closure of the debate.
It is my feeling that those who argued for the deletion of the article did not use arguments that had any basis in policy. A number of them suggested that the article "violated NPOV", without specifying how, and and even larger number simply described it as "subjective". I'll readily grant that if the article had been full of the subjective opinions of individual Wikipedians, then it qualify as original research, and would have no place in the encyclopedia. However, all of the material in the article was factual: the opening paragraph qualifed what "unusual" meant in the context of the article, namely that it was a list of names that the professional media had described as "unsual" in one way or another. (At the time of deletion, it needed additional pruning and sourcing to fully meet that requirement, but it was getting there.)
Such content is entirely permissible:
WP:ASR
WP:ASF, a section of NPOV, states, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." The opening paragraph of the article is what makes the list compliant with this principle: "The following list... is of people who have received media attention because of their name." That is what makes it a non-subjective list. It contains opinions (of professional writers), and declares at the top that that is (or should be) the entirety of its content. "Unusual names" is a subject that many professional writers have touched upon, often at length (which is what justifies our having an article on the subject), so if Wikipedia is to have an article about the subject, the only neutral way to approach it is to simply collate what various writers have said about the subject. That was the entire focus of the article. Perhaps it could be made clearer that the list is "not subjective" as a result of following that rule -- through a rename or further tweaking of the opening paragraph -- but the article still shouldn't be deleted on the basis of several delete !voters failing to properly assess the policy-compliant nature of its content.
In light of all, I assert that not one -- not a single one -- of the deletion rationales was based in any actual policy. On that basis, may I ask you to reevaluate your closure of the deletion discussion?
Thank you for your time.-- Father Goose ( talk) 08:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of unusual personal names. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Father Goose ( talk) 10:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I did not implicitly state that I would take any steps of a legal nature, but rather pointed out that the User's comments were unwarranted and could be construed as slander. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for a long time and I'm also an accredited freelance journalist, so there's no question that I understand copyright law. I took exception that the User stated almost as fact that the photo was professional and, therefore, I couldn't be the copyright holder. Previously and until recently, I did not properly understand Wikipedia's classifications for copyright status, but that was clarified to me by another Administrator. I ran into this same issue with a previous photo of the band because I used the wrong status code. With a new understanding, I decided to revisit the article and uploading the photo came next. As I clearly indicated, I am indeed the owner the said image and, as such, can freely distribute the image as I see fit, especially in any of my written content. I also explained [in my remarks] that either myself or the band can provide additional proof regarding copyright status upon request by Wikipedia. I made no threats, period. I uploaded an imagine that I plan to use in a new Wikipedia article, got accused of not holding a copyright that I do indeed hold, reacted reasonably and stated the facts. Then, I got further reprimanded for a reactive, benign rebuttal to the User's unwarranted remarks. If that User had a question about my ownership of the image, that person only need ask in a respectful, professional manner. Remarks such as, " Likely copyrighted. Unlikely uploader is copyright holder" are provocative and insulting to the innocent uploader of the material. I understand clarifying content, but not in an accusatory way. I respect your concerns about making legal threats, point taken, and let's move on now. However, this situation has not been handled appropriately, respectfully, or in good faith. I feel insulted, threatened and reprimanded for simply trying to add new content. Doesn't my tenure and numerous positive contributions to Wikipedia come into play with regard to credibility instead of simply taking comments out of context and threatening to block me altogether for a situation that wasn't handled professionally? I won't make any threats, will continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and adhere to the rules. I do plan to forward this dialogue on to the Wikimedia Foundation itself to, if for nothing else, allow members to see and keep track of how situations and issues are being handled by their chosen Administrators. I would appreciate if you simply leave me in peace and have no more contact unless, that is, I unintentionally or inadvertently break site rules. For the record though, once and for all, it is not my intention to make threats or break rules. I'm sorry if that's how my remarks were construed. —Preceding unsigned Joe Burd 15:52, 1 January 2010 (PDT)
Anonymous edits,
Unobtainium abused;
please semi-protect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 January 2010
Left unprotected,
vandalism soon returns.
Can you re-protect? LouScheffer ( talk) 14:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) (Pronounce 'vandalism' as 'van-dal-is-em' to get this to scan right....) reply
Hi Chillum. I saw your note about PS as Bond at AN/I and I have to say that I agree completely. While it is a fun debate which of his performances was "best" Casino Royale was certainly one of the funnest. Thanks for making me smile :-) and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The "Helper" bots which redirect to your user talk seem to occasionally get logged out, as User:66.171.182.55's contributions seem to all be the bots edits. Apologies if you already know of this, hope this helps. -- Taelus ( talk) 01:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Thanks. This vandal is obviously a sock of Acrotreion ( talk · contribs) and TheBeneFielder123 ( talk · contribs). -- Defender of torch ( talk) 16:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Please see here, Unitanode has created an account and is mass prodding under that account here Off2riorob ( talk) 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I really appreciated your insightful comments at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will determine whether the community will delete 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, most new editors. I hope we work together soon.
Ikip
01:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
Just so you know, HBC AIV helperbot and HBC AIV helperbot2 are doing the same thing. [1] FakeAvJs-A ( talk) 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() |
Hi HighInBC/Archive 40, I would like to invite you to A discussion about Biographies of Living People |
New editor's lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: |
Ikip
05:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
You state in your close that subjectivity is a policy based argument. I rebutted this argument during the discussion by pointing out that most topics contain an element of subjectivity which we address by reference to reliable sources so that it is not our subjective opinion which is used but that of experts and other respected writers. Please see WP:ATA#Subjective importance which addresses this and states, "This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions.".
Furthermore, you seem to have treated the matter as a vote, openly counting heads rather than weighing the merits of the policy-based arguments. This seems improper. Please reconsider your close. Colonel Warden ( talk) 10:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Our guidelines for standalone lists say:
"In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources"
This means that subjectivitly is part of our best practices and that it requires extra attention to reliable sources. There were also many complaints in the AfD about the quality of the sources.
Our policy on reliable sources say:
"While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources.". Most sources presented are opinion pieces with no effort taken to verify that a name is unusual. See also Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion(to large to quote)
There were also numerous complaints about BLP issues, which I really should have mentioned in my closing as it was a significant part of the debate. Our policy on living people(which includes all mentions of living people even if not in a biography) says:
"Be very firm about the use of high quality references" and "it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" and "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." see also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy of names(to large to quote - See example #1 as it is particularly relevant).
What we have here is essentially a collection of opinion pieces stating that one reporter thinks a name is unusual. Both the subjectivity of the inclusion criteria, and the involvement of living people increased the standards the reliable sources required to sustain the article. "Think of the children" aside, living children are living people and are protected by BLP.
While I agree this is not a black and white area and that both interpretation of our standards presented in the AfD have merit, it is clear that consensus favors the interpretation that leads to deletion.
I will e-mail you the content of the article, though I don't think it should be reposted on-wiki until the BLP issues are addressed. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
First off, Happy New Year! :) Anyway, User:WossOccurring has just been blocked after a checkuser confirmed he is a sock of someone who has had multiple other accounts blocked this holiday season. Part of his disruption in addition to sockpuppetry include frivolous renominations of articles for deletion, dishonesty, etc. I am bringing it to your attention as he was the first account to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination) after the nomination and looking through the discussion he is indeed unfortunately cited subsequetntly by such editors as User:Ks0stm with a "per WossOccurring". I am therefore deeply concerned that this account which is one of several we have been playing whack a mole with the past week or so belonging to the same person has unduly influenced that discussion given when he commented and that at least one editor does indeed cite him as part of the stance to delete. As the discussion was far from unanimous and close enough to a no consensus, I urge you to reconsider and reclose as "no consensus" per WP:DENY as we absolutely should not allow a discussion to have been influenced by a ban evading sock with a history of bad faith editing. If the account commented last and had no real influence on the discussion that would be one thing, but by commenting first after the nom and being cited by at least one editor, it clearly did influence the discussion and that is something we absolutely cannot allow to stand. By the way, other blocked socks of this user according to checkuser include User:VaginicaSeaman. Yes, seriously. This is absolutely not the kind of person we want influencing the outcomes of discussions. Really, we have been dealing with this guy's vote-stacking all month. See for example User_talk:Spartaz#Vote_stacking. Even before the sockpuppetry was initially discovered, he was discussed on ANI for both on and eve off wiki canvassing in AfDs he commented in. As soon as one account is blocked, more just keep popping up or we find some new webforum or talk pages on which one of his socks canvassed. And somehow he is getting around the auto-blocks. Anyway, thank you for your time and consideration and again, Happy New Year! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 17:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I've been meaning to raise the issue, and I see I'm not the first to do so. You and I haven't had especially positive interactions in the past, due to our disagreements over matters relating to WP:IAR. However, in the spirit of good faith, I'd like to look past that and appeal to you personally regarding your closure of the debate.
It is my feeling that those who argued for the deletion of the article did not use arguments that had any basis in policy. A number of them suggested that the article "violated NPOV", without specifying how, and and even larger number simply described it as "subjective". I'll readily grant that if the article had been full of the subjective opinions of individual Wikipedians, then it qualify as original research, and would have no place in the encyclopedia. However, all of the material in the article was factual: the opening paragraph qualifed what "unusual" meant in the context of the article, namely that it was a list of names that the professional media had described as "unsual" in one way or another. (At the time of deletion, it needed additional pruning and sourcing to fully meet that requirement, but it was getting there.)
Such content is entirely permissible:
WP:ASR
WP:ASF, a section of NPOV, states, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." The opening paragraph of the article is what makes the list compliant with this principle: "The following list... is of people who have received media attention because of their name." That is what makes it a non-subjective list. It contains opinions (of professional writers), and declares at the top that that is (or should be) the entirety of its content. "Unusual names" is a subject that many professional writers have touched upon, often at length (which is what justifies our having an article on the subject), so if Wikipedia is to have an article about the subject, the only neutral way to approach it is to simply collate what various writers have said about the subject. That was the entire focus of the article. Perhaps it could be made clearer that the list is "not subjective" as a result of following that rule -- through a rename or further tweaking of the opening paragraph -- but the article still shouldn't be deleted on the basis of several delete !voters failing to properly assess the policy-compliant nature of its content.
In light of all, I assert that not one -- not a single one -- of the deletion rationales was based in any actual policy. On that basis, may I ask you to reevaluate your closure of the deletion discussion?
Thank you for your time.-- Father Goose ( talk) 08:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of unusual personal names. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Father Goose ( talk) 10:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I did not implicitly state that I would take any steps of a legal nature, but rather pointed out that the User's comments were unwarranted and could be construed as slander. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for a long time and I'm also an accredited freelance journalist, so there's no question that I understand copyright law. I took exception that the User stated almost as fact that the photo was professional and, therefore, I couldn't be the copyright holder. Previously and until recently, I did not properly understand Wikipedia's classifications for copyright status, but that was clarified to me by another Administrator. I ran into this same issue with a previous photo of the band because I used the wrong status code. With a new understanding, I decided to revisit the article and uploading the photo came next. As I clearly indicated, I am indeed the owner the said image and, as such, can freely distribute the image as I see fit, especially in any of my written content. I also explained [in my remarks] that either myself or the band can provide additional proof regarding copyright status upon request by Wikipedia. I made no threats, period. I uploaded an imagine that I plan to use in a new Wikipedia article, got accused of not holding a copyright that I do indeed hold, reacted reasonably and stated the facts. Then, I got further reprimanded for a reactive, benign rebuttal to the User's unwarranted remarks. If that User had a question about my ownership of the image, that person only need ask in a respectful, professional manner. Remarks such as, " Likely copyrighted. Unlikely uploader is copyright holder" are provocative and insulting to the innocent uploader of the material. I understand clarifying content, but not in an accusatory way. I respect your concerns about making legal threats, point taken, and let's move on now. However, this situation has not been handled appropriately, respectfully, or in good faith. I feel insulted, threatened and reprimanded for simply trying to add new content. Doesn't my tenure and numerous positive contributions to Wikipedia come into play with regard to credibility instead of simply taking comments out of context and threatening to block me altogether for a situation that wasn't handled professionally? I won't make any threats, will continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and adhere to the rules. I do plan to forward this dialogue on to the Wikimedia Foundation itself to, if for nothing else, allow members to see and keep track of how situations and issues are being handled by their chosen Administrators. I would appreciate if you simply leave me in peace and have no more contact unless, that is, I unintentionally or inadvertently break site rules. For the record though, once and for all, it is not my intention to make threats or break rules. I'm sorry if that's how my remarks were construed. —Preceding unsigned Joe Burd 15:52, 1 January 2010 (PDT)
Anonymous edits,
Unobtainium abused;
please semi-protect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 January 2010
Left unprotected,
vandalism soon returns.
Can you re-protect? LouScheffer ( talk) 14:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) (Pronounce 'vandalism' as 'van-dal-is-em' to get this to scan right....) reply
Hi Chillum. I saw your note about PS as Bond at AN/I and I have to say that I agree completely. While it is a fun debate which of his performances was "best" Casino Royale was certainly one of the funnest. Thanks for making me smile :-) and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The "Helper" bots which redirect to your user talk seem to occasionally get logged out, as User:66.171.182.55's contributions seem to all be the bots edits. Apologies if you already know of this, hope this helps. -- Taelus ( talk) 01:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Thanks. This vandal is obviously a sock of Acrotreion ( talk · contribs) and TheBeneFielder123 ( talk · contribs). -- Defender of torch ( talk) 16:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Please see here, Unitanode has created an account and is mass prodding under that account here Off2riorob ( talk) 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I really appreciated your insightful comments at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will determine whether the community will delete 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, most new editors. I hope we work together soon.
Ikip
01:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
Just so you know, HBC AIV helperbot and HBC AIV helperbot2 are doing the same thing. [1] FakeAvJs-A ( talk) 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() |
Hi HighInBC/Archive 40, I would like to invite you to A discussion about Biographies of Living People |
New editor's lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: |
Ikip
05:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
reply