Created or improved at AfC.
Wikified, etc.

Not to be confused with User:Deepfriedokra2, who is not I.


If anyone asks for money to create an article, it's a scam. Send an email to 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

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

A barnstar for you!

The No Spam Barnstar
For doing a great job defending Wikipedia against those pesky spammers! Seawolf35 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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


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

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)


I am 384 on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

More user boxes

Crat statistics
Action Count
Edits 162149
Edits+Deleted 176922
Pages deleted 28459
Revisions deleted 2325
Logs/Events deleted 12
Pages restored 743
Pages protected 6628
Pages unprotected 115
Protections modified 638
Users blocked 12723
Users reblocked 678
Users unblocked 807
User rights modified 40
Users created 7
Pages merged 16
Users renamed 3179