User talk:Peterjayrules

Welcome!

Hello, Peterjayrules, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

I have blocked your account for the indefinite duration for legal threats here, see WP:LEGAL. --Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Peterjayrules (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Actually I was pointing out that the accusations in the articles provided are from the same single accuser and subject to current legal action. One accusation in a paper no matter how many times it's recirculated on blogs does not make it a fact. I suspect that Hesperian is or may be connected to that accuser and is using wikipedia as a platform for a personal attack. I was only referencing the ongoing and unresolved legal issue, not threatening legal action against wikipedia. Peterjayrules (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not about finding the truth. That's for other sources. If the Sydney Morning Herald has reported it, we can repeat it subject to the limitations of our own editorial policies, which do not include jumping the gun on legitimate authorities better equipped to do so than we deciding on the truth of the plagiarism allegations. Should they be found baseless by a court, the article can and should say so. The standard for inclusion in an article is verifiability, not truth. Which is not to say that we should just uncritically repeat any assertion in a reliable source, but rather that we should state that the plagiarism allegations are just allegations at the moment although Slattery has been stripped of his awards. Those facts can be verified by checking the sources cited. The article is written to policy at the moment. Taking that section out repeatedly in the meantime is a violation of policy for which you have been properly blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Moving forward

Hi. I'm not sure if this is possible, but given that the issue you were caught up in seems important, and that I would like to try and figure out what needs to be done with the article, I'd like to see if it is possible to move forward and for you to be unblocked. There are three standing issue that I think we need to work through. The first I gather isn't an issue - as I understand things, you are saying that you were not making a threat of legal action, but were instead simply stating that legal action was occurring in relation to the issues. Is that right? If so, could you just reaffirm that you are not undertaking legal action or planning to undertake legal action against Wikipedia or any Wikipedia contributor? I just want to get this issue off the table, as with that out of the way the rest is a lot more manageable. (As an aside, the issue here is largely to protect both parties - if an editor is taking legal action against another editor, it is better for all parties if they don't interact on Wikipedia while legal action is ongoing). - Bilby (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]