User talk:SwiftieSis
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Mikewem (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- The second we get one single reliable source that says law enforcement are investigating it as anti-abortion violence, we can add that to 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators. But if we don’t even have one single reliable source that confirms the information you just added to a contentious breaking news event, then it should not be in the article, and including it anyway is a violation of WP:BLP. Mikewem (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/vance-boelter-minnesota-shooting-melissa-hortman-fjtpxnx9d SwiftieSis (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- One motive being considered by police is the targeting of pro-abortion activists after a list obtained from the vehicle identified prominent advocates and others in support of liberal causes SwiftieSis (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is a better source for the claim than the current The Hill article. It really is and I really mean that. It is better.
- This may seem like I’m being tough for no reason, but I would say this is not good enough to support the unattributed generalizations currently made in the article. This is proof that The Sunday Times claims police are considering it as a motive. It would be iron-clad conclusive if they included a quote from law enforcement. But there’s no quote. I’ve read most of the quotes officials made about the list they found. And none of them include anything close to “this speaks to motive”. If I hadn’t done all that canvassing of the reliable sources already, I might be more inclined to say this is conclusive proof. This is very close to conclusive proof, but I would recommend adding “according to The Sunday Times” after any claim of police investigating for anti-abortion in the article Mikewem (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.