User talk:HighInBC/Archive 40


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination)
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 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)


 * I am not sure how you can call it a vote count, I made it very clear which arguments I counted as based in policy and which arguments were disregarded for lacking a basis in policy. Of course I took into consideration how many people held opinions based in policy. To completely disregard the number of people would be equally foolish as only considering the number of people. Policy is not black and white and when both sides make an argument based in policy then of course consensus is going to take into consideration which interpretation of policy is more prevelent. Those who only said "Look it is nom 5!" were in fact disregarded as the argument was not based in policy.


 * It is not my job as the closer to interpret policy myself and make a decisions, I must look at all of arguments based in a reasonable interpretation of policy and follow what the consensus is. I did read and consider your arguments but they failed to sway people. I am not sure why you characterized others opinions as WP:I just don't like it when every single delete vote gave subjectivity as a reason. I will respond to the idea that subjective criteria making it non-encyclopedic is not a policy based reason after work, I need to get there now. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * By all means take your time - there's no rush. When you get a chance, please could you userfy the article for me.  It was quite large and I'd like to pick it over to see whether it might be broken into parts which address the subjectivity issue, policy or not.  Thanks.  Colonel Warden (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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 RS(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 Biographies_of_living_persons(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)

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 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. 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 NobodyMy talk 17:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year!


 * Thank you and happy new year! I will review the AfD taking this new information into account. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 17:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the AfD I come to the same conclusion. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I took a look again, trying to look at it as if i never saw it before. I don;t think you did wrong, but you could have done better.  I do not think the sockpuppettry AN refers to hopelessly contaminated it--I think sensible people could tell it apart, & I think in your closing you did that  tell. .  I think you were right to reject arguments based on the number of AfDs--it was not a abuse to renominate--the previous   keep was in april, and the earlier record was divided. That's a lot different from 4 successive keeps-- a situation where a fifth AfD would be an abuse, at least for a year or two. .   I think the true result this time is no consensus--I think there is no actual consensus about what to do with this sort of articles,  and that isn't; a matter of numbers. They are different perceptions of the article, & they;re incompatible. As an admin,I would not force one of the two.  The article needs serious guided improvement, and someone competent to do it and watch over it--a sort of article probation.  A non-consensus can do this: You could have said, non consensus, but it should be nom again in 4 months is it doesnt get cleaned up to a high standard. Ideally someone capable of adding content would accept responsibility for that. (I hearby volunteer a Nobody--it would be a nice project for him, a little away from his usual emphasis here, but with sources he should be able to do deal with as an academic. If he succeeds, good; if not, he learns his limitations.     DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw a consensus in that after weighing the arguments as they related to our policies, guidelines, and community expectations there was a clear majority. I could have said non consensus, but it would have been insincere of me. I call them like I see them. I pretty much expected a few posts on my talk page regardless of how I closed that AfD, I really do appreciate that these posts have been so reasonable and friendly. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 08:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can always disagree and still be civil at the same time. :)  I agree that it is encouraging when that occurs.  After all, even heated discussions can still be respectful.  Have a nice night (I have to bathe already!!).  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * I have addressed though precise concerns in my response to Colonel Warden which I have now unarchived and placed at the top of this thread. I have already reevaluated this AfD twice, giving it a second and a third look(that is after I looked at a more than once before closing). I have been approached by 4 of the 8 people who made policy based keep arguments now, and I assure you that I have given your point of view full consideration. I must also give the 19 other people who have made policy based delete arguments full consideration. I cannot close that AfD any other way than I did without being insincere and disregarding what I see to be consensus. If you think the close was not based on policy after reading my response to Colonel Warden then it may just be that we disagree. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, for what it is worth I have only the vaguest memories of interacting with you at IAR and don't remember anything particularly negative. Disagreement is essential to productivity. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well. I have taken the matter to DRV.--Father Goose (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * I pretty much expected this regardless of how I closed it. I have given my 2 cents and will abide by whatever decision the community makes. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added the DRV template to the AfD so that others involved in the debate will know about the DRV. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats?
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)


 * You are more than welcome to defend your reputation, ask others to substantiate claims against you, and point out when you think something is going wrong as long as you don't even hint at legal action. I am sorry you were not given the assumption of good faith that you deserved. As you have said, point taken lets move on now. Thanks. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you again, Chillium. Please accept my further apologies for the misunderstanding and start over. I do understand where you're coming from and harbor no hard feelings. Happy New Year. Joe Burd 16:04, 1 January 2010 (PDT)

Please protect unobtainium
Anonymous edits,

Unobtainium abused;

please semi-protect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 January 2010


 * Done. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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....)


 * It has only happened once since the protection expired. I try to minimize the duration an article is protected. If it continues let me know. Thank you for the poetic structure of your request though. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter Sellers
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)


 * That is how I will always remember him. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 17:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note
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)


 * Thank you for pointing this out to me. I just did what I thought was a fix to the check login function that I thought would deal with this once and for all. I will have to look at this again. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 02:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
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;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems the poll is asking me to choose between a set of systems where I support none of that set. It has been made clear that "none-of-the-above" is not a welcome choice and that only variations on the proposed theme are to be voted on. This is seeming more like a vote than a poll to determine consensus. I am not sure what such a vote hopes to accomplish other than to create a proposal that is likely to fail, so I will wait until then. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 14:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Defender of the Torch
Thanks. This vandal is obviously a sock of and. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And a half dozen other faces... If he tries to make a mockery of the name "Chillum" he may find that other trolls have already registered most of the obvious variations. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Continued prodding under a new account name
Please see here, Unitanode has created an account and is mass prodding under that account here Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As this essentially amounts to what is a content dispute, I have taken the matter to ANI for admins that are not involved to deal with. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unitanode probably should stick to one account, for sure, but I must say, Chillum, I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. PRODding pages is in now way against policy, and if I find that you, or anyone else, has removed PROD tags from long term unreferenced BLPs without actually fixing the problem first (which IS contrary to the spirit, if you aren't clear on that, review the arbcom motion) I will take whatever action I see fit. I'd rather discuss this with you calmly and rationally. Why don't you pop round my talk page and we can talk about it there? ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an active discussion on if BLPs should be deleted for simply lacking references, consensus has not yet emerged. The same RFC discusses the idea that prods cannot be removed until the article is sourced, this also has not gained consensus. While arbcom's approval is nice, I would rather follow the consensus of the community. To be a bit frank, I think that is the minimum that should be expected to any administrator. I am a little concerned that you do no seemed worried about the good articles being thrown out with the bad. There is a difference between following consensus and the communities expectations and doing something that you can get away with because arbcom will sanction it. I did not sign up to be a boss with authority given from on high, but rather as someone with tools to enforce consensus. I am more than a little disappointed with what I have seen these last few days.


 * All of that aside. I agree that unreferenced BLPs are a problem. I even agree that prod is a good tool to use. What I don't agree with is mass prodding without spending 5 minutes to check if it is salvageable. I certainly object to a user saying they will edit war to re-insert prod template against the spirit of the template. I really object to admins ignoring policy and taking action because they know they are right(TM), even if arbcom sanctions it. The community is working towards a solution and these unilateral activist moves only confound the problems. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

HBC AIV helperbot and HBC AIV helperbot2 being redundant
Just so you know, HBC AIV helperbot and HBC AIV helperbot2 are doing the same thing. FakeAvJs-A (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On rare occasion the mediawiki engine does not catch edit conflicts, this happens to both bot and human editors. When this happens the later edit replaces the former without warning. This is not the fault of the bot or the person. It is more likely to occur when multiple editors are trying to edit a page at the same time, which the bots often do. Unless this happens more than once in a while then I don't think it is a problem. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 03:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion
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)


 * I will take a look when I have some time. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 03:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation
Ikip 05:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * An invitational only Wikipedia page? I am pretty sure there is no such thing. Regardless I will check it out later. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 06:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the apearance that the discussion was exclusive. Per Lar's solid suggestion I have moved the page to a more proper name, and welcome input from any and all concerned editors...you very much included. :) Ikip  18:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (refactored template) Ikip 18:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, that is much better. I will gladly participate later. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * great, I was naive to do this! I will look forward to your comments! Ikip 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been reading the page with interest. I have yet to encounter a point where I feel the need to speak though, things seem to be going well. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.