User talk:PeterTheFourth

Hello! If there's any reason you'd like to contact me, feel equally free to leave me a comment here or wikimail me- I should be able to reply fairly quickly in either case.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merphee (talk • contribs)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Per this discussion, you are banned from all pages and edits related to living persons (as that term is used in the policy on biographies of living persons) for six months, subject to the usual exceptions. GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Hi GoldenRing. Would you please explain why you are placing this topic ban on me? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are clearly stated in the AE discussion, but to reiterate: For an uncollaborative, incivil and BATTLEGROUNDish approach to editing and for repeatedly restoring BLP violations; you know very well that twitter is not a source that would ever be used in an article. GoldenRing (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: What portion of what I restored was a BLP violation, and why? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically - what was violated in WP:BLP, and how? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really need this spelt out? Okay:

WP:BLPSPS - "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to ... tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." You were edit-warring a tweet into a page as a source alleging sexual assault.
WP:BLPGOSSIP - "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." This source was not reliable.
WP:BLPREMOVE - "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that ... relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP ... or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards." Someone removed the material because it used a self-published source to make an allegation of sexual assault and you edit-warred it back in.
WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." This material clearly didn't comply with Wikipedia's content policies and you've been around a lot longer than you should need to know that. If someone removes a source from a talk page as a BLP violation and you think there is a good-faith reason for it to be discussed, your recourse is a request at BLPN for consensus over whether the discussion is appropriate, not edit-warring the material back onto the talk page. But here's a hint: Twitter will never be an acceptable source for allegations of sexual assault. GoldenRing (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: You ought to be aware by now that more coverage in reliable sources was available and being discussed at the time, and this is not about just 'a tweet'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of it. You were perfectly at liberty to introduce those sources. You didn't. You continued to edit-war the tweet into the talk page and repeat it elsewhere. GoldenRing (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Ah, so this is a procedural ban? I should have copied the sources in the BLPN discussion over to the talk page when I reverted somebody deleting people's comments, and I didn't, so therefore I should be banned? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this is difficult for you to understand. You repeatedly restored BLP violations. That is not procedural, that is substantive. You are therefore banned from pages and edits related to BLPs. GoldenRing (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my attempt at understanding your reasoning- there are a few alternate explanations:

I violated BLP by suggesting that we use a tweet as a source for a BLP.
I violated BLP by restoring somebody else suggesting that we use a tweet as a source for a BLP.
I violated BLP by restoring a link to a tweet whose content violated BLP.

Help me out here - are any of these close to your belief as to why I violated BLP? You say that 'Twitter will never be an acceptable source' as though I at some point argued such a thing. It's a bit orthogonal and I'm wondering where the disconnect is. I don't believe the tweet was a source, and the section I restored wasn't arguing that we should use it as a source, it was saying 'here are the allegations'. Please note that the BLPN discussion I was responding to did include several reliable sources discussing this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained to you why you were banned. If you think it is wrong, you are welcome to appeal it, at AE, AN or ARCA, or by email to the committee. GoldenRing (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Well, I'm having trouble understanding your explanation. I can't exactly appeal something I don't understand. Be a pal. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example, at WP:BLPTALK it says very plainly For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating "This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?". Is the problem that the original source of the allegations was also linked when somebody started a discussion on how to cover the allegations in the article? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I mean, I know I voted oppose on your RfA, but that's really no reason to just ignore me. You wrote a whole poem for MarkBernstein! PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained this to you repeatedly. ADMINACCT does not extend to indulging your IDHT. GoldenRing (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you've already come to the conclusion yourself. But in case not: This was a good edit [1]. However IMO not particularly wise given your recent BLP topic ban, no matter that obvious violations of BLP are excepted per normal topic ban exceptions. (You were commenting here on the topic ban before that edit so I assume already knew of it.) I appreciate it's difficult especially with something that seems an obvious yet simple issue and where you were already involved, but from experience at ANI etc, I can tell you arguing over whether something is covered (or for that matter IAR) is nearly always a bad idea with topic bans. You really need to go the extra distance and ensure none of your edits come close to violating the topic ban. I mean sure, if someone spams that a living person is a paedophile or some crap like that somewhere go ahead and remove it. But stay away from anything relating to BLPs that isn't such a severe problem it needs to be dealt with right this minute maybe even with considerations of rev-deletion or suppression. A big problem is even if no one would reasonably think that edit was a violation it's quite easy to slip up and move into areas where it's more on the borderline if you don't take a very hard line on your edits. BTW, in case you're wondering how I came across the edit, I visited the AE page for unrelated reasons and was surprised to see you got banned over that (as I'd seen it before via BLPN and didn't think it crossed that line albeit I was anywhere of any history). Since you clearly weren't happy over it I was wondering if you had appealed so checked your history and was surprised to see that. Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinealittlelight: - PeterTheFourth was recently topic banned from BLPs for some time, and Andy Ngo is a BLP, so I don't think PeterTheFourth can comment on issues regarding the article Andy Ngo, especially when PeterTheFourth is not the one being reported on at that noticeboard. starship .paint (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I just posted a bunch of diffs there, and I notified everyone who was involved in those diffs. I wasn't aware he was topic banned. Better to notify than not, I guess, right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinealittlelight: - yes, it is better to notify... just that not much can be done then. It doesn't seem like there's any serious misconduct being alleged on PeterTheFourth's part, so I think we can leave PeterTheFourth alone on this matter, given their restriction. starship .paint (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree. Apologies to PeterTheFourth for any irritation caused. All the best. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]