$ This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that he has been paid by nobody for nuthin' for his contributions to Wikipedia.

Created or improved at AfC.
Wikified, etc.
Barnstars.
On RfA.
User:Bearian/Standards

UsefulEdit

Committed identity: 783cbbdcf49dd0a896db31eb808e772ba6e00608e9b22a3a87e693422789b9004a3a0c8bab7a2d9c772f4a8d71e68f9a1d8beebbccd97732ad3d61e15042b96f is a 512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.


WP:42--Edit

 
self portrait
 
that's okra. Not pakora
 
just tucking this here till needed
 
just what I needed.DFO

Contacts 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]]."

All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking.</nowiki>"


MAGA ANTIFA snowflake white supremacistEdit

To anyone trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their views, and who is angry at me 'cause I am either a MAGA Trump loving white supremacist or a liberal SJW ANTIFA snowflake, as evidenced by opposition to you using Wikipedia as such a soapbox. The fact that I've been accused of both is a pretty good indicator that I do a good job separating my personal politics from Wikipedia. I'm afraid your anger has more to do with your own political extremism than with my personal politics. I will thank you to keep your shrillness to yourself. Thanks,

Fanmail--

Don't worry, MAGA racist, you're going to be outed and dare I pray, after that, assaulted, you lying, discourse rigging MAGAT

Silly Trump supporting, discourse rigging admins. Your time in the box is coming.

A word on negative BLPs and COI editingEdit

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.

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.