User talk:SocialWikiWarrior

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Social justice warrior.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Also check out WP:3RR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Marriage Conspiracy debate

Hello, I received your message. To avoid any negative interactions, I’ll just ask what your opinion is (as a moderator) on the topic? What constitutes a conspiracy worthy of inclusion on the page in question? I think I’ve laid out some strong points with credible sources. I also think some of the detractors are thinking including the conspiracy, somehow validates the conspiracy, which is not correct. I could be wrong, but that’s the vibe I’m getting from them. The subject is, in fact, a conspiracy but omitting it seems a bit odd to me.

Awaiting further guidance and thank you for your time. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "a moderator on this topic." I'm pointing out , as is required by policy, that potentially controversial edits concerning biographies of living persons and American politics are subject to potential arbitration restrictions, and that as a new and inexperienced editor you must exercise care in these areas. Promotion of poorly-substantiated rumor and innuendo or agenda-driven editing can be sanctioned. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for your clarification on policy, it doesn’t seem necessary here. Just to clear a few things up; I have made no edits on this page, I have asked that edits that were made by previous contributors to be reinstated. Second, nobody is promoting “poorly-substantiated rumor and innuendo or agenda-driven editing”. Absolutely nothing is being promoted. We’re debating why a specific conspiracy theory has been omitted from the conspiracy section. Especially when this particular conspiracy theory has received so much attention from legitimate sources (like PolitiFact). (I also want to note these sources are debunking the conspiracy theory....so once again, there’s no promotion). I don’t know how to make it any clearer than that. Unless you view conspiracies as being based in truth, there should be no reason to exclude this one. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The biographies of living persons policy applies to every part of Wikipedia, including talkpages. You may not propose edits to BLPs that rely on fringe or partisan sources, or which have not gained currency in the mainstream sources that Wikipedia relies upon. You may not use talkpages for speculation or to promote fringe theories, most especially in biographies, which require rigorous mainstream sources. Acroterion (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PolitiFact is not a “Fringe or Partisan sources”, and neither is Snopes (or Business Insider) for that matter.

Currency in the mainstream = like The POTUS mentioning it on live TV?

Once again, it’s not being promoted. It’s being addressed as a conspiracy in the conspiracy section of the living person’s wiki page. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy theory is based on fringe sources and has not gained currency or notability outside of partisan sources. This kind of backhanded "this has been mentioned somewhere" discussion has been sanctioned on other subjects. Advocacy for inclusion of non-notable conspiracy theories about people is sanctionable.Articles and talkpages aren't places to see how much mud might stick, or to spitball defamatory ideas. Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most (if not all) conspiracy theories are based on fringe sources.....that’s why they’re conspiracy theories.

Not only that, but it’s been virtually debunked by Snopes and Politifact, so why wouldn’t you include it under the conspiracy section with the other debunked conspiracies? It’s been dissected and investigated by professionals, so now the general public can go to Wikipedia and get the truth on the subject as oppose to consuming some biased nonsense promoted by partisan sites.

SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia's coverage of fringe theories is in proportion to their coverage and discussion in mainstream sources.The test is whether the conspiracy theory has been covered in the Star-Tribune, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., i.e., in newspapers of record. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reply, but I’m not sure if it went through since it contained an article link.

So I’ll just repeat the message again.

Thank you for clarifying the required sources to include the subject matter.

I have provided a link to one of your sources listed above (The New York Times) that covers the conspiracy. The title of the article is “FACT CHECK: Examining Trump’s Claims About Representative Ilhan Omar”. I can also provide a source from The Guardian if you’d like another mainstream source.

I think I met your criteria for sources on conspiracy theories. I used one that you outlined specifically. I’m not sure where to go after this, I would hope this would resolved the misunderstanding completely.

If you want the link, please instruct me on how to add it, because it doesn’t seem like I can add it in the reply box. Thank you again for your time. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up on the talkpage with mainstream sources. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And don't copy this conversation. Just state your sources and your suggested edits, bearing in mind at all times that conspiracy theories should be given space in proportion to their coverage in mainstream sources, and at no time should be equivocated in favor of defamation. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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.

Drmies (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, this is the same dude that was just rev-deleted from Bbb's talk page. Just FYI. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]