Talk:Manchester High School (Virginia)

Suppression

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

---

Was it really needed to suppress information on a talk page that was last posted to in 2015 in 2019? I'm pretty sure it would have gotten noticed much sooner if it was too personally identifying, especially since the discussion was apparently also posted in by Cannolis, who is a recent changes patroller. Or did it really just take that long to notice? Granted, I can't see the suppressed material in question, but it just seems quite weird for stuff like that to take so long to identify, and to revert someone else asking about the suppression 2 years after they asked is just even weirder and doesn't quite follow good practices, but the person who reverted it is now dead, so... wizzito | say hello! 05:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, every edit from about 1 December 2016‎‎ to 25 May 2019‎ was completely suppressed for no real visible reason (no copyvio, etc. If the addition of non-notable people was an issue, then suppress the diffs where that was added and removed. Not every little addition.). wizzito | say hello! 05:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about the revdel - if I should have requested it at the time of my edits or not. All I can say is that I believe pretty much all of my edits to this article or its talk page have been reverting ir declining attempts to add a person whose article has been deleted and salted for being a troll/attack page. Cannolis (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Was it really needed to suppress information...: yes. did it really just take that long to notice: probably (this page has not too many viewers). every edit...was completely suppressed for no real visible reason: that's kind of the point. [only] suppress the diffs where that was added and removed: that's not how this works; if I add text to a page, it is in every diff until that text is removed.

In the future, please bring questions about the applicability of the use of oversight to either the OS Team or ArbCom, who has it in their remit to review the use of oversight on the English Wikipedia. Material is removed for a variety of reasons, and shouting loudly that you think the OS was inappropriate can lead to people trying to dig it up again. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is a lack of visible reason "kind of the point"? Why would mentioning the revdel was for libel or copyright violation, for instance, defeat its purpose? 14.202.45.95 (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If the content is "bad enough" that it needs to be suppressed, we do not want to give information about why that information was suppressed - just knowing that it was a violation should be enough. For example, if there were a public log of me suppressing someone revealing that they were a minor, then it would rather defeat the purpose of suppressing that information, no? Information that needs to be suppressed needs to be suppressed because it reveals information about someone, and giving that reason would likely reveal the type of information itself. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

No; if revelation that the person is a minor is the issue, then the suppression log could just mention that "personal information" was suppressed. Why would that be a problem? 14.202.45.95 (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The suppression log does give the reason the content was removed. However, the suppression log is not public. If you have issues with that, please discuss it at WT:OSPOL, not here, as we are starting to get rather off-topic. Primefac (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, WP:OS makes no mention of a policy of no public information being provided on why a revdel took place. How are we any more off topic than earlier? 14.202.45.95 (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Other than in the #Nomenclature and #Logging sections... we are getting off-topic because we're discussing how OSPOL is applied, and are no longer discussing the article that this talk page is attached to. Primefac (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Where do they say that? As we're still discussing this talk page, which lacks its own talk page, there is no place better. 14.202.45.95 (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

In "Nomenclature", in the table under "In public deletion log?" suppression is a "no". In "Logging", it says Page revisions... that have been suppressed by an oversighter... are logged in the suppression log; no entry is added to the deletion log. The content on this page was suppressed, members of the OS team know why, and there is no reason to say anything further. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why isn't Chris mentioned?

He is by far a lot more notable than all of the alumni combined. In fact, Chris beats them by search results all combined together. Per WP:REDACTION, it makes no sense for his name to not be mentioned. It doesn't make sense if he's a "target" of harassment, because people who are solely notable for it like Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn (their games are only notable due to them being targets, so as chris for his comic) are not censored. I think it is ridiculous that he is not mentioned. Even google autofills his name when you look up the high school. 2600:6C51:7B7E:D9DB:D9C9:535C:45C6:FABE (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No article, no listing. Simple as that. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac OK but he is banned from having an article. he is still notable in this context nonetheless. 108.82.130.140 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No, but I have yet to see an article, draft, or sandbox page that isn't an attack, because the only people who want to write about her are the people who want to poke fun at her. Primefac (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So? Just protect the article, simple as. Ven3u69 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It is protected. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, just make an article for christine, and protect it, seeing as there is none, and it is clearly "wanted" amongst some people. Ven3u69 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Such things have been tried and failed so often the page cannot be created. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

chris is banned from being mentioned on wikipedia, as weird as it is 78.18.57.218 (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)