User:Deepfriedokra: Difference between revisions
m →WP:G11: ce |
→IRC: clear |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
==[[WP:G11]]== |
==[[WP:G11]]== |
||
Deleting spam has become one of my main functions. If you feel I have deleted a page in error, please request a review of said deletion at [[WP:DRV]] |
Deleting spam has become one of my main functions. If you feel I have deleted a page in error, please request a review of said deletion at [[WP:DRV]] |
||
==IRC== |
|||
The thing about wikipedia-en-unblock is no one might be actually monitoring the channel, even if there's thirty of us logged in. Your best bet is to post and wait. DMing individuals probably won't work. |
|||
==Useful== |
==Useful== |
||
Revision as of 20:17, 30 April 2023
ToC
|
|---|
|
Created or improved at AfC.
Wikified, etc.
Barnstars.
Not to be confused with User:Deepfriedokra2, who is not I.
SCAM ALERT
If anyone asks for money to create an article, it's a scam. Send an email to paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/ScamWarning
Deleting spam has become one of my main functions. If you feel I have deleted a page in error, please request a review of said deletion at WP:DRV
Useful
|
Tools Boiler plate messages |
More messages
|
<div class="user-block" style="background:Gainsboro; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px">
WP:42 and other sundries-
Thanks for trying to help build Wikipedia, the world's largest free content encyclopedia.
- "All content must be [[WP:cite|cite]]d from [[WP:reliable sources|reliable sources]] that are [[WP:IS|unconnected]] with the subject and have a reputation for [[WP:V|fact checking]]."
- [[WP:BRD|Please discuss content and sourcing on article talk page and achieve consensus for any changes]] Please make [[WP:EDITREQUEST]]s on the article's talk page. Please seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] as needed.
- Please [[WP:BRD|discuss changes on article talk page.]]. Please make [[WP:EDITREQUEST]]s and/or seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] as needed.
- " All content must be [[WP:cite|cite]]d from [[WP:reliable sources|reliable]], [[WP:IS|independent]] sources with a reputation for [[WP:V|fact checking]]."
- [[Wikipedia:Purpose|Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]]-- subjects of articles must meet [[WP:N|notability guidelines]] with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] which are [[WP:IS|unconnected with the subject]] and which provide [[WP:V|verifiable information]]. '''Someone unconnected with the subject needs to have written a great deal about the subject.
A word on negative BLPs
To my way of thinking, any negative BLP content would need thorough coverage, not passing mentions, in several major media outlets. We have an obligation as human beings and as encyclopedists to not defame anyone. We should avoid repeating defamation at all times. And even if repeating negative content is not effectively actionable, (the plaintive loses in court or in pre-trial preliminaries) the defendant has still been subjected to the expense and horror of defending their action/inactions (or the actions/inactions of their organization), either in deposition or in court.
Aside from that thoroughly self-serving motivation, I strongly believe in not doing unnecessary harm to anyone. It is far better, if one is to err, to err on the side of not adding negative content and/or defaming someone. If, as has happened, I protect a version of a page that an interested party finds objectionable, it is not to preserve that content. It is to stop the disruptive editing so that editors can gather their wits and make policy/guideline based arguments about the content. If it is pointed out to me that I have protected negative BLP, I will ask an uninvolved admin to look it over unless it is unsourced, if it is unsourced, I will remove it.
Another concern is PII of a non article subject in an article. This should be avoided, especially if the person in question has sought to conceal their name or other PII and is in fear of doxing or other harassment. Once again, I would rather err on the side of caution in such matters. It has been said that we cannot always avoid harming people in article content. In this case, we can and must.
Contentious Topic page protections
are not something I do anymore. The only effect they have is tying the hands of my fellow admins. Any admin should feel free to reverse my actions without prior approval and certainly without jumping through hoops. A ping would be nice.
COI and unCOI editing and integrity
And in the case of an article being swarmed with UPE, PAID, and COI editors to make a page more favorable to the subject's reputation, the decision as to accepting or rejecting such content does not hinge on the integrity or agenda of these editors. It hinges on our own integrity. If reliable sources can be found to support such content, and if it can be included in a neutral manner, it would be best to have it.
We can't be using this website to trash BLP subjects, even if they trash us. It doesn't necessarily create COI, but we can't just respond in kind; we need to maintain our neutrality and objectivity, even if others don't.... But let's all be clear about what's the right way and what's the wrong way to discuss BLP subjects on-wiki. Levivich 16:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
List
I am 413 on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits
More user boxes
|
|
| Action | Count |
|---|---|
| Edits | 169641 |
| Edits+Deleted | 185128 |
| Pages deleted | 32153 |
| Revisions deleted | 2373 |
| Logs/Events deleted | 13 |
| Pages restored | 759 |
| Pages protected | 6634 |
| Pages unprotected | 116 |
| Protections modified | 641 |
| Users blocked | 13472 |
| Users reblocked | 717 |
| Users unblocked | 864 |
| User rights modified | 44 |
| Users created | 7 |
| Pages merged | 16 |
| Users renamed | 3350 |