- Christian weston chandler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This article subject is very notable for 2 reasons, and there is good RS that note both these points. Firstly, as an example of cyberbullying and trolling, they are one of the most (if not THE most) extreme cases of being trolled and bullied, and I think its an important article to point out the harms of cyberbullying and trolling. Secondly, the article subject has been often noted as probably the most documented person on the internet, with both a 2000 article complete website devoted to them, and an extensive documentary on them. I had checked previous examples of the article that had been deleted, they were years old and a lot of recent RS had appeared, which substantiated the article. I work on AFD quite a bit, and this article IMHO had more than enough RS to establish it.
I'd spent quite a bit of time on this article, and I would ask at least that some editors look at it and judge it on its merits, rather than it simply be deleted unseen, without any discussion. I had contested the speedy deletion, but the article was deleted without going to AFD to allow a broader discussion (as explained by the deleting editor, due to the older articles being deleted). It would be great if someone could undelete the article, so editors can see the recent RS and judge it on that - thank you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Endorse. No. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Endorse and speedy close per the dozens of other times we've had this discussion, and basic standards of decency. Spicy (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think editors are misunderstanding, I think its an important article to point out the harms of cyberbullying and trolling, as an example and providing information about exactly how trolling and cyberbullying happens. It's not written to promote it. This stuff can't be stopped if people don't understand how it works, and that's what this article does. It can help researchers and people writing about the area if the information is provided and the noted RS is available in the ref list in the article. Also, I hope my article creation history would reassure people I'm not a troll! I didn't understand exactly how trolling works, but I do now after researching for this article - but if it's deleted it won't help other people understand the process. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- That is not our place, full stop. If you want to soapbox, get your own website. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Endorse I'm sure you mean well, but in recent discussions from just last year there was very little appetite to let an article stand ([1] [2]). Feel free to provide a WP:THREE if you disagree, but you're going to need some very high quality RS to convince anyone. Jumpytoo Talk 09:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Thank Jumpytoo. The problem is- there is an article on this person online, on Encylopaedia Dramatica - however it's wholly slanderous and awful. A wikipedia article would of been neutral and a good counterpoint to that. But by people denying that, its preventing the only place a neutral article, pointing out the wrong of cyberbullying and trolling in this case could of taken place. Anyone searching for her, and plenty people do, the only place you can see an article about her is a page done by trolls. An awful page. Anyway, here's three articles that point out the trolling issues. I had about 25 RS in the article - all deleted now...
- 1 - "Chris Chan, the online personality accused by police of incest with her mother, has been trolled by the internet for over a decade" - https://www.insider.com/chris-chan-incest-trolling-harassment-kiwi-farms-bluespike-liquid-chris-2021-8
- 2 - "A timeline of Chris Chan's incest charge and the years long online troll interest in the 'Sonichu' creator's relationship with her mother" - https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/a-timeline-of-chris-chanaposs-incest-charge-and-the-yearslong-online-troll-interest-in-the-apossonichuapos-creatoraposs-relationship-with-her-mother/slidelist/85054017.cms#slideid=85054185
- 3- "Kiwi Farms, the Web’s Biggest Community of Stalkers" - https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-webs-biggest-community-of-stalkers.html* Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Of course, Wikipedians have discussed this many times and always come to the same conclusion. That's why all the variations of Chris Chan's name are salted. The matter comes up on the administrator's noticeboard every few months and the answer is always the same. We can't do much to help Chris but we can at least refrain from doing further harm. The community's view is a reasoned, thoughtful "no". I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- In my opinion, there's already lots of awful stuff out there for people to read. By Wikipedia not putting up an article, we are not stopping or preventing any of that. But not putting a good balanced/article to point out some of the evil that was done to her...we are missing out on doing some good. Missed opportunity :-( Anyway, as you note, the die is cast and there is no point in talking about it, it's not going to change anything. Thanks for the comment though, I do really appreciate it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Do you really want to die on this hill? This is a situation where any good the article does cannot outweigh the fact an article existing only furthers the harassment by forcing her into the public eye. We're talking someone who has been doxxed and been the target of persistent, nonstop harassment, and this was going on before she came out as transgender. It is not our place to proselytise on anti-bullying measures in our articles, and given the history here is the better half of two decades (I was dealing with CWC-related crap back when I was an administrator myself) I have absolutely no confidence, even if the article were full-protted by OFFICE fiat and written to be as neutral as possible, that the harassers would not hang it over her head or otherwise use it to continue to destroy her life. Think carefully about why this article has been salted for so long, and whether or not it's actually possible to create an article on someone whose only claim to fame is being the permanent victim of an unusually persistent and virulent Internet hate mob. (Full disclosure: I have also been the target of Encyclopaedia Dramatica harassment, courtesy of JarlaxleArtemis. That history does not factor into my argument except that JarlaxleArtemis was and is no different from another member of the virulent and persistent Internet hate mob.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Endorse, speedy close, and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Endorse the subject is only known for internet trolls creating extensive documentation of her life as part of a harassment campaign. Creating an article on her is inevitably going to contribute to this. Much of the content is also stuff which absolutely should not be in an article about any non-public living person. Hut 8.5 12:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - I am confused. This is a poorly filed case. What has been or is being deleted? It appears that there are at least two titles, Christian weston chandler and Chris Chan, which have been salted. Apparently the appellant expects us to know, and apparently some of the editors do know, what this is all about. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think Deathlibrarian wants permission to recreate Christian weston chandler which was created by them and deleted & salted by Liz. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Christine Weston Chandler, Christian Chandler, Christian Weston Chandler and other name variants ("CWC") refer to a tragic and depressing case of an American transgender woman who's on the autistic spectrum and I suspect might have other mental health needs. Early in the history of the internet CWC started a venture as a content creator on various social media channels. This was spectacularly unsuccessful and during this time CWC very unwisely disclosed some personal information they shouldn't have. They came to the attention of people from Encyclopedia Dramatica who thought their content was hilariously bad and their disclosures were the funniest thing ever. These people from ED encouraged them in their oversharing and built an online dossier about CWC in order to ridicule them. Some years later, CWC confessed to a sex crime for which they were arrested, attracting some media attention in the process, not because the crime was notable (it very much isn't) but because the media knew that an article about them would get page views. In other words, CWC is a vulnerable person/perpetrator, and there are also privacy concerns about a parent/victim to consider. CWC is a low-profile individual who needs criminal prosecution, social worker intervention, and very likely therapy but nothing about this case warrants publicity or attention from the general public.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This is the long and the short of it. Even if Deathlibrarian's plan weren't to hijack it for their own pet project on cyberbullying, this article would simply not be okay because the nature of the harassment means any article or draft would be a contributor to that harassment. We would have no power to stop that other than to delete and salt the article again, because we do not block read access even to glocked users. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Allow draft, following WP:THREE. Although the topic is unpleasant, and there is lots of advice from respected Wikipedians to avoid this topic, I cannot find any proper deletion discussion, and repudiate WP:AN as a forum for substituting for a deletion discussion. There is a wikipedia:Oversight history, but in the absence of Oversighter’s explanations, that history alone is not sufficient to prevent fresh creation that meets WP:THREE. If recreation is a BLP trainwreck, the use of draftspace is fair containment of the damage, however, I see sources that justify some coverage in some form. If the Oversight deletion is being challenged, see WP:Oversight for how to challenge their decisions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This is a nonstarter, as CWC's situation is such that any article or draft would, if not be de facto furtherance of the harassment, than would inevitably be edited to that end. There is a reason my rationale explicitly points out WP:HNE. The fact that this is still going on even almost two decades later is testament to how her only "notability" is as a victim of relentless harassment, and we emphatically shouldn't add to it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- For reference, the deletion discussion about this subject was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Weston Chandler, with a previous DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 20. --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Endorse and suggest a SNOW close. Due to the certainty that any article will contain BLP violations, this article must not be created. Your "there are reliable sources" literally does not matter. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Endorse and salt every imaginable variation of the name. Creating this article would be a big victory for the vile trolls who have been viciously harassing this person for many years. Cullen328 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment- I did have further thoughts, but it's obvious this is not going through, and I had already stopped commenting - all good, its no big deal. From my perspective, I was trying to do some good here. My idea was to get a neutral article up, that countered some of the shit on the internet, and then heavily restrict it from BLP violating further editing. I was just proposing that as an idea - there's nothing wrong with that. I understand people's logic for not doing that - that's cool. I would thank editors for their comments here, but also I don't think there was any need for snyde comments from certain editors here...May be some people need to check out WP:AGF Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I don't think anyone's really baying at your blood over this (not even me). However, this is a perennial issue that crops up damn near every other month and the answer has been the same every time no matter who's offering it up. This is one of those instances where we technically could have an article, but it would come at the expense of whatever is left of the subject's privacy, and events in the real world make it perfectly clear the harassment of her hasn't abated even after damn near 20 years. WP:BLP#Avoid victimization also tells us that in situations like this (where there is a protracted and concerted harassment campaign taking place offwiki) we should not have an article on the subject. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment Deathlibrarian, I assume good faith and do think you might have had good intentions. The problem is is that I have seen discussions like that above us multiple times on WP:AN and knew that this was going to be the result. It was me who deleted this article after it was tagged but it could have been any any other patrolling administrator minutes after it had been seen, identified and tagged for deletion. The feeling is so strong on this subject that it was inevitably going to be swiftly deleted. I actually don't know whether or not a "fair" article could be written on her, it's just after the years I've been here, I knew the consensus of the community would be not to allow there to be an article about her on Wikipedia under any page title.
- I hope this doesn't scare you from taking on other, less controversial subjects for content creation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Completely no issue thereLiz, as you said before, if you hadn't of deleted it, someone else would have...and I understand the context. This has been a sincere and for the most part polite discussion, and its reassuring that people are keeping the wellbeing of CWC in mind. In the last 16 years I've seen infinitely worse than this and kept contributing - all good. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
|