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)

Andy Ngo talk page

I don't care if you've read my comments, but you appear not to have read the source you're discussing. Either way, your argument with Galestar is now far removed from the goal of improving the article. This Sorry, are you Galestar? I'm responding to a very specific thing he quoted, not something you quoted, and it's honestly kind of annoying to have the goal posts moved like this is not appropriate to post on an article talk page. The article talk page is not there for you to argue one specific other editor. If you must argue, move it to one or another or your talk pages. I know that by getting involved I've now partially responsible for the situation, so I won't comment on it again. Also, I apologize that my initial response was unclear, and rude. That was not the correct way to approach the situation, I'm sorry. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Rock Canyon: Apology accepted - no big deal, nobody's perfect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alec Holowka

I think we should not restore that BLP violating content on the talk.-- Deep fried okra 15:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: You seem to have a poor grasp of BLP if you believe that discussing on talk whether or not to mention the rape accusations against Alec Holowka, or linking to this tweet, violates our policies on biographies of living people. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that Twitter is a reliable source suitable for allegations. I thought BLP applied in talk pages.-- Deep fried okra 01:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I sincerely don't know how to address what is either a huge gap in understanding or an unwillingness to examine the situation at even the simplest level. It's beyond the level of effort I want to put in today. If you find this confusing, apply yourself more. I'm not going to help you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an AE thread: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PeterTheFourth. --Pudeo (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd drop by...

...to say Illegitimi non carborundum. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sincerely appreciate that a lot. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]