User:Deepfriedokra

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@undefinedwikipedia.org. Please see Articles for creation/ScamWarning

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

I am an equal opportunity deleter of spam and blocker of spammers.

'''A barnstar for you! '''

DFO's rule of thumb
One promotional edit or article creation indicates a lack of understanding of our WP:SPAM polices. Two promotional edits or article creations indicate ignoring/not understanding spam warning. Three promotional edits or article creations indicate intentional use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. (And adding spam to multiple Wikipedias in a foreign language is way over the top.)

Useful

 * T&S ca@undefinedwikimedia.org.
 * Special:EmailUser/Emergency
 * Contact OTRS
 * Legal
 * Special:EmailUser/Oversight
 * Special:EmailUser/Arbitration_Committee
 * paid-en-wp@undefinedwikipedia.org
 * Education noticeboard
 * WikiEd liaise
 * m:User:Deepfriedokra
 * Subpages
 * meta::List of Wikipedias
 * meta::List of Wikipedias


 * GDPR
 * mw:Help:Range_blocks/IPv6

Tools
 * Arbitration_enforcement_log
 * Special:CentralAuth/ RENAME
 * T

Boiler plate messages
 * User:Deepfriedokra/promo renamed unblock
 * User:Deepfriedokra/promo unblock
 * User:Deepfriedokra/g11
 * User:Deepfriedokra/g12
 * Template:Contentious topics/alert

More messages
 * Template:Gs/topics/table
 * A menu of things that need doing can be found here.
 * Biographies of living persons/Help
 * appears to be a role account
 * You can request a new user name at m:Special:GlobalRenameRequest
 * it is a WP:CORPNAME and implies shared use
 * Request an account
 * Request an account



WP:42 and other sundries-
Thanks for trying to help build Wikipedia, the world's largest free content encyclopedia.
 * " All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. "
 * Please discuss content and sourcing on article talk page and achieve consensus for any changes  Please make WP:EDITREQUESTs on the article's talk page.  Please seek dispute resolution as needed.


 * Please discuss changes on article talk page. .  Please make WP:EDITREQUEST s and/or seek dispute resolution as needed.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Unlike LinkedIn, it does not have pages for companies. It has encyclopedia articles, of which some are about companies.


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- subjects of articles must meet inclusion requirements with reliable sources which are unconnected with the subject  and which provide verifiable information. '''Someone unconnected with the subject needs to have written a great deal about the subject.
 * " All content must be cited from reliable, independent sources with a reputation for fact checking. "
 * It is unlikely that you will be able to write about [subject] non promotionally at first. "Experience has unfortunately shown that most (but not all) people with experience in PR cannot be taught to write a proper article, because they are so completely oriented to writing advertisements or quasi-advertisements that they honestly cannot see the difference between that and a proper encyclopedia article." -- User:DGG. You will need therefore to describe what constructive edits you would make to help build the wonder of the world that is Wikipedia.

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.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1046832639&diffmode=source 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)''

LLM's,etc
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." --Orange Catholic Bible, Dune, --Frank Herbert

List
I am 370 on the List of Wikipedians by number of edits