Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Hoponpop69 (talk | contribs) |
→Chris Chan: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1,593:
:::::Oh wow, is this the standard of behaviour of admins these days, cussing and whinging? No wonder WP is struggling to retain new editors. [[User:Dev920|Dev920]], who misses [[User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam|Jeffpw]]. 12:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{replyto|Dev920}} what admins are you talking about? In any case, AFAICT, the only one who is whinging is you, who keeps insisting that all these great sources exist, but it's someone else's responsibility to find them. As a non admin highly concerned about BLP matters, I will not apologise for demanding an editor who comes to ANI and claims a highly contentious article about a living person is notable, but utterly fails to demonstrate this notability needs to do so before demanding we take action. If that scares you off, so be it. Editors who come here to harm other living persons should not be welcome. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::I came here because I wanted to read an overview of Chris Chan that was NPOV given all the drama, and found it missing from Wikipedia. I don't intend to write the article, or have any interest in your feelings about the sources I provided. I just happen to know where to ask to get the page unsalted, so I did. Newyorkbrad has suggested waiting for the more detailed profiles, and we can do that, I just think it's a failing of an encyclopedia not to cover this topic when everyone can read plenty of material about Chris Chan from elsewhere if they want to tap her into Google. She won't be any less notable because you're incapable of civility. [[User:Dev920|Dev920]], who misses [[User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam|Jeffpw]]. 15:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I would oppose unsalting at this time. BLPs focused on individuals notable primarily for being harassed should not be encouraged. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 11:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Line 1,613 ⟶ 1,614:
::::::Oh I see, you're referring to the current draft.[[User:Hoponpop69|Hoponpop69]] ([[User talk:Hoponpop69|talk]]) 14:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
::This probably goes beyond my usual rants on RECENTISM and more to the fact that as you state, right now it looks very difficult to write a neutral article using quality sourcing about this person; the combination of trans-related issues and the recent arrest would have trolls coming out of the woodwork. This may be the type of thing in a few months, after the arrest has become a memory that we can talk about an article. I'd also agree the current sourcing is not great. There's a few good sources but also a hefty weight on some known "gossip rags" like Insider that I'd avoid completely in a case like this. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
:::Oh, interesting, I've never read WP:DEADNAME before and I see that it recommends not redirecting pages (my suggestion, not creating the article there) "if the person was not notable under the original name". I guess one should err on the side of caution and not resurrect it, in that case. [[User:Dev920|Dev920]], who misses [[User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam|Jeffpw]]. 15:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
There was a previous draft under [[Draft:Chris-Chan]], which someone deleted yesterday. This was meticulously sourced and of a neutral viewpoint, using sites like Newsweek, Yahoo News, NBC, etc. Is there a way to recover the content in this? I still don't understand why it was deleted and it was more thorough and well-written than the current version.[[User:Hoponpop69|Hoponpop69]] ([[User talk:Hoponpop69|talk]]) 13:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
| |||