User talk:Silenuss

Genie (feral child)

This isn't really a subject due to discussion or change. I have reverted you and re-archived the discussion. WP:BLP is very clear that for as long as she is alive, and up to a year afterwards, no real names or other names that tie to her directly will be published. It doesn't improve the understanding of the article to have that info, and it is a breach of her privacy. I've already removed, revdel'ed and blocked people for adding it in the past, as have other admins. No "local consensus" of editors on that talk page is going to change that fact, nor can it, as Wikipedia policy is crystal clear that we don't allow that. A consensus on the talk page of that article is meaningless. If you want to change BLP policy, go to the talk page of that policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to WP:BLP, I think it's a good policy and have no substantive disagreements with it. If you take a look at WP:BLPNAME it explicitly states that inclusion is "subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". As such, having a discussion about this on the talk page seems extremely reasonable; furthermore I think there's an obvious middle ground here that could help make things less contentious overall.

Regardless, I don't think it's appropriate for you to unilaterally decide what does and doesn't belong on the talk page. Silenuss (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It's an old discussion, and there is already a very clear consensus to not include the information, so continuing the discussion only encourages people to think they can add the material, which is disruptive. Unilaterally deciding is what many people do here regularly, not just us admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I addressed this in my comment. The consensus in the archives wasn't on this particular topic, and furthermore the issue of clarity involving compound pronouns would justify a discussion anyways.

While I understand that Admins have the ability to unilaterally decide many things, WP:TPO seems to suggest that deleting other people's comments is frowned upon. Silenuss (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Archiving a discussion isn't even an admin function. Any editor can do it. It wasn't deleting any one comment, it wasn't deleting at all. It was archiving. Anyone can do it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Never said it was an admin function. But reverting the discussion without putting it back in the archive feels like deleting rather than archiving to me. It's all good though, no worries tbh. Silenuss (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)