User talk:Xerton/Archive2

Why are you here?
Much (all at Trump/Russia topics) of your activity at Wikipedia seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You really need to drop that attitude or you'll get banned for not being here to build an encyclopedia and constant violations of Not a forum. Your pattern as IP 98.118.62.140 and now seems to be unchanged. That's not good.

Review this about Public figures

A few things to note about this:


 * 1) There is a difference between how we handle public figures and relatively unknown persons. Wikipedia follows normal practice in real life, especially libel laws, where public persons are less protected than others. In the USA, a public person can rarely win a libel lawsuit; the bar to overwhelm the First amendment is set very high. Added to that is the unfortunate fact that Barrett v. Rosenthal protects the deliberate online repetition (not the original creation) of known libelous information found on the internet : a "user of interactive computer services" is "immune from liability [certain conditions follow]". The internet is the Wild West, where a law actually protects the spreading of proven lies. This is sad. We do not participate in this, unless multiple RS have documented it. That's where we are forced to get involved, but here we also include more details and denials.
 * 2) If the conditions are met (noteworthy, relevant, and well documented), "it belongs in the article".
 * 3) "even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The subject has a COI and has no right to have it removed from Wikipedia or to stop us from covering it. By being a public person, they have relinquished the right to privacy, even of negative information. The WMF legal department will rarely side with such attempts where editors are properly following this policy.
 * 4) Allegations must be labeled "allegation". Important.
 * 5) If they have denied the allegation, their denial must be included. Important.

Many editors cite BLP, and even WP:PUBLIFIGURE, as if it means that negative and/or unproven information should not be included. No, that's not the way it works. That would be censorship, and that would violate NPOV. Just treat the allegation(s) sensitively, and neutrally document what multiple RS say.

I hope you'll absorb this and change your ways. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read my response on your talk page Xerton (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)