Amicusets

Welcome!

Hi Amicusets, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! 331dot (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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-1992 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

331dot (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing biographies of living people

Hi, please be especially careful when editing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - as mentioned on that policy article, we have to be extra careful to use high quality sources. The New York Post article you cited did not name any of the students involved; the name came only from a domain registered by the doxxing campaign itself, which doesn't count as a high quality source. We need to wait for a good newspaper or something to publish that name before we can name people on Wikipedia. This is because Wikipedia editors like me and you are not considered reliable fact-checkers (i.e. nobody knows if we're any good at research or not), so we have to point to a news article that readers can reasonably assume has been professionally fact-checked, and say only what that article says. So if that student's name has not been verifiably OK'd by a known professional fact checker, then we don't know if that student was really involved or not. Imagine if someone mistakenly put your name on a poster and said you hadn't apologised for being pro-Hamas, and it was all a mistake - they got the wrong person all along - and you didn't even know how to contact them and tell them it hadn't been anything to do with you, let alone fight with the question of should or shouldn't you go on public record with a suspiciously specific denial. And if this student is the president of a club - which I don't know because it hasn't been professionally fact-checked - but if they are, then that doesn't mean a thing because we don't know what it's like in that place: for all we know, there could be loads of pressure to "start your little club and be a president", and that student might just have gone with the flow. We need a professional fact-checker to help figure out if they are bad enough to be named and shamed; we can't figure it out ourselves. But it may still be OK to add the Post to an article about the event, without naming the people involved, if we can summarise the mainstream news coverage i.e. the part that we know has been professionally fact-checked, not the names which have not been professionally fact-checked. For example, it could go in the Accuracy in Media article. Thanks. A1415 (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, there's further discussion of the above on my talk page and I'd suggest putting any replies there... A1415 (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)