The owner of this account is suspected of
abusively using multiple accounts.
(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage) |
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned applies to this page if it contains content which relates to Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, or Anthroposophy. Fred Bauder 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If this or any other user page consists of material which relates to the Waldorf Schools it falls within the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned. If the page concerns ordinary user issues, if does not. Fred Bauder 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. I was banned from Waldorf-related ARTICLES, not my own user page. Can you please point me to some rule that says my user page is considered an "article"? Otherwise, please allow me to restore it. -- Pete K 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This is incredible logic Fred. I made my user page related to Waldorf so that makes it an article? I didn't think this situation could get more ridiculous... but you've proven me wrong once again. It's a USER page - I'm using it. Once again - please point me to the rule that says I can't do this. The ban was related to Waldorf articles and their talk pages. I am free to discuss this material on ANY USER page including my own. -- Pete K 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What was on that page was pure soapbox and for an editor who has been instructed to get down from that soapbox its obvious why Fred did what he did. Good call. Spartaz Humbug! 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_or_social_networking_site, and Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_inappropriate_content. Fred Bauder 10:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
While the related content should be removed from the userpage, actually banning the user from editing it seems like overkill. He should, of course, be banned from putting the content back. -- Tango 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to see that someone clearly saw that this discussion page was being used in clear violation of the ArbCom's intent. I'd also like to point out that Pete K used this page as a means of attempting to have other editors make edits for him that he couldn't make. Here is what he wrote to user RookZero after RookZero responded to the polemical statements made on Pete K's discussion page:
Hi RookZERO, Thanks for asking for my input. I'll try to get a list of changes that can be implemented in the Waldorf, Steiner and Anthroposophy articles for you by next week - I'll need the weekend to work on it. You've got your hands full, I see, with HGilbert - he's not about to let you change HIS articles without a fight. He has already chased away many editors who hoped to produce an NPOV article. But, I also see some help has arrived so I'll produce a list for your review and hopefully people around here will see the extent to which the Anthroposophy propaganda machine is at work here. In looking at your edits, I find your points to be very well taken. HGilbert will find one or two sources that support his agenda and claim them to be universally accepted truths. When a claim is critical of his agenda, he makes sure it appears that a single crackpot has made the claim (as in the case with the recent edit on Hansson). Generally speaking, to get these articles into an NPOV will be impossible as long as HGilbert is here. I would recommend keeping track of his edits and as he starts showing a pattern of aggressive reverts and edits, bring it directly to the ArbCom. They are aware of his tactics and need to be reminded to keep an eye on things. Also, editors in your camp (looking for a NPOV article) include Fergie, Lumos3, Wikiwag, Henitsirk, and Lethaniol - and of course any editor who doesn't want Wikipedia to appear as a joke when people read these. Good luck! I'll put a list together for you soon. Pete K 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to point out what Jimbo Wales said about userpages:
“ | libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea' | ” |
And I'd like to point out that Jimbo Wales said this about a regular user using his userpage to make polemical statements. Certainly, he'd think much worse of a user like Pete doing what he did after being banned from making these polemical edits. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I should also clarify that RookZero saw PetK's problem (that he couldn't make edits) and asked Pete for a list and that he'd make those edits for him AFTER reading Pete's statements on his userpage:
::::: Let me know which sections should be changed and how in my talk page. The current state of the article is very poor. ( RookZERO 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC))
Pete responded to RookZero's request with the quote that I posted earlier. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I think removing content on a user page is a bit harsh. Sure, the content here could be seen as polemical, but I wouldn't say it was too offensive or damaging to Wikipedia as a whole.
The user guidelines state that a user page is "about you as a Wikipedian" and is meant "to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia". Note: not a policy, just guidelines. The deletion policy states that "inappropriate user pages" are subject to deletion, however nowhere in that policy is "inappropriate" defined. In the user guidelines it states "There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense." I can't see that this user page met either of those criteria.
PeteK was banned from editing **articles**. I can't see that giving opinions on his user page has anything to do with the arbitration findings. "Related pages or their talk pages" to me means articles alone, not user pages.
About the policies/guidelines that Fred quoted:
The ArbCom ruling says "pages", not "articles". You can banned from editing any page which is related to Waldorf, if you put something related to Waldorf on your user page, then the ban includes your userpage. When there is a dispute as to the interpretation of an ArbCom ruling, I think the interpretation of an Arbitrator takes precedence - that's only common sense. -- Tango 14:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a page that's "related" to Waldorf articles - regardless of what's on it. It's related to the user. The content of the page is a the user's discretion - not the ArbCom's. My pages violated NO rules and NO ArbCom decision. That's exactly why Fred has now opened a new review to get them to change their decision to include my user pages. Meanwhile, he acted unilaterally to violate the rules of Wikipedia and to circumvent the responsible process of getting clarification before wiping out my user pages. He's already backed off the "obnoxious" (by his own words) headings he put on my pages, and now he's having to get the ArbCom to agree with his actions. Clearly, he was out of line. Some people should avoid the keyboard during full moons. -- Pete K 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you here for any reason other than to harass me Sune? Buzz off please... -- Pete K 20:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Please take notice of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Pete_K Fred Bauder 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I noticed it earlier today. -- Pete K 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Pete K has his finger on the truth when he says "You have stood by while Waldorf teachers, with a known (to you) conflict of interest, have removed all critical views from the Waldorf articles day by day - over the comments and efforts of lots and lots of neutral editors. What has happened here is shameful. They are, indeed, using Wikipedia as their soapbox and as advertising for Waldorf. Everyone who reads those articles has the same comment - that they read like Waldorf brochures." I can attest, from personal experience as well as extensive research, that the Wikipedia articles on Waldorf, Steiner, and Anthroposophy are deeply flawed and biased. Wikipedia needs to work out procedures that protect it from such inaccuracies—they undermine the encyclopedia's credibility. To verify my credibility, you may visit my Web site at http://homepage.mac.com/nonlevitating/one.html. -- Roger Rawlings
The administrators are not interested in content here Roger... Somebody has to straighten the deck chairs on the Titanic... -- Pete K 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to commend the arbitrators for their decision and for sticking to their principals, despite recieving a constant stream of insults and attacks. I would also like to point out that the pages are very balanced. HGilbert may be a Waldorf teacher, but he is fair, and he is not allowing any reasonable and proper criticism to be removed. In addition, he is working actively to get the NPOV tags removed so that we have neutral articles. Afterall, neutral articles are in Wikipedia's best interests. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Diana, don't insult me. Obviously, it's not the mere act of removing tags that results in that. HGilbert is working to get those articles neutral. He's compromising, he's asking for suggestions and input from others and he's making whatever edits he can, within reason, so that we can eventually have tag-free articles. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That will NEVER happen Bellowed. The articles are NOT neutral. Everyone knows this. People unassociated with Waldorf continually write on the talk pages to express how one-sided the articles are. They're BROCHURES for Waldorf. NOT NEUTRAL. And as long as HGilbert and TheBee are owning them - they will NEVER be neutral. Why? Because HGilbert is a Waldorf teacher - and he's NOT NEUTRAL. TheBee is a former Waldorf teacher and a current Waldorf activist. He's NOT NEUTRAL. I don't know who you are - but you're NOT NEUTRAL either - clearly evidenced by your edits. And now Wikipedia, through your collective efforts has become NOT NEUTRAL on these topics. Pete K 05:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, HGilbert is a Waldorf teacher, but he really makes a good effort at being neutral. He's not just a one-sided editor, which is why he wasn't banned from editing on Steiner-related topics. I'm not going to let you portray a good and honest and selfless man like him as a dogmatist. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Please take note that the Arbitration Committee has adopted the following motion: " Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Pete K banned applies to user pages with respect to content which relates to Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, or Anthroposophy." Please be guided accordingly. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's not get hysterical. The content has been removed from the User page, but it is starting to creep back in here, so the discussion of Waldorf in particular should cease here. If someone adds info to your user page Pete, you can certainly remove it without fear of punishment from ARB. And yes, it appears that you are not allowed to discuss the subject anywhere on WP. That is the ruling and the subsequent clarification. Absent any content on Waldorf, you are free of any editing restrictions anywhere on WP. It's not the end of the world. Surely there are other subjects that interest you? - Crockspot 19:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If kicking at anthills is what it takes to break up the hive mentality here, that's what I need to do. -- Pete K 05:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
And so, I can't even edit my own user page. Gee I'm running out of options... Pete K 03:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't let your book get to be too big Pete. Because if it gets its own Wikipedia article, just remember that the Arb Com ruled that your ban extends to all things Waldorf. Too bad, because you won't be able to make edits to defend your own article while I have all the fun in the world lying and slandering something YOU love. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Not interested in childish taunts? Just today you said:
Enjoy your life as a Wikipedia editor, loser, I'm out of here. -- Pete K 14:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Man, Pete, less than one day...you sure grew up fast. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Haha, Pete, don't take it so hard. I'm not trying to be sour here; There's two types of people, those you love and those you love to hate, and just because you fall into the latter category doesn't mean that you won't be missed. Your very clever insults, your everyday antics, your rebellion to authority..I have to say that I always watched your page wanting to see what you just did because, while it might have made me mad, it was at least entertaining. I'm glad for the very brief time I got to know you on Wiki and wish you the best in the future.. except for smearing Waldorf.. and, perhaps, in a future internet endeavor we may meet again. Cheers. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete_K for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Professor marginalia ( talk) 18:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete K (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. EPadmirateur ( talk) 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, too funny, the professor has put a Nyah-nyah on the poor guy's user page. What is this, kindergarten? "Sockpuppeteer"? Might you be starting to take yourself just a trifle too seriously, Professor? DianaW ( talk) 01:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.
Hi Pete K, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the motion proposed regarding you has been passed by the Arbitration Committee and the amendment request has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The owner of this account is suspected of
abusively using multiple accounts.
(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage) |
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned applies to this page if it contains content which relates to Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, or Anthroposophy. Fred Bauder 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If this or any other user page consists of material which relates to the Waldorf Schools it falls within the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned. If the page concerns ordinary user issues, if does not. Fred Bauder 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. I was banned from Waldorf-related ARTICLES, not my own user page. Can you please point me to some rule that says my user page is considered an "article"? Otherwise, please allow me to restore it. -- Pete K 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This is incredible logic Fred. I made my user page related to Waldorf so that makes it an article? I didn't think this situation could get more ridiculous... but you've proven me wrong once again. It's a USER page - I'm using it. Once again - please point me to the rule that says I can't do this. The ban was related to Waldorf articles and their talk pages. I am free to discuss this material on ANY USER page including my own. -- Pete K 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What was on that page was pure soapbox and for an editor who has been instructed to get down from that soapbox its obvious why Fred did what he did. Good call. Spartaz Humbug! 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_or_social_networking_site, and Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_inappropriate_content. Fred Bauder 10:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
While the related content should be removed from the userpage, actually banning the user from editing it seems like overkill. He should, of course, be banned from putting the content back. -- Tango 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to see that someone clearly saw that this discussion page was being used in clear violation of the ArbCom's intent. I'd also like to point out that Pete K used this page as a means of attempting to have other editors make edits for him that he couldn't make. Here is what he wrote to user RookZero after RookZero responded to the polemical statements made on Pete K's discussion page:
Hi RookZERO, Thanks for asking for my input. I'll try to get a list of changes that can be implemented in the Waldorf, Steiner and Anthroposophy articles for you by next week - I'll need the weekend to work on it. You've got your hands full, I see, with HGilbert - he's not about to let you change HIS articles without a fight. He has already chased away many editors who hoped to produce an NPOV article. But, I also see some help has arrived so I'll produce a list for your review and hopefully people around here will see the extent to which the Anthroposophy propaganda machine is at work here. In looking at your edits, I find your points to be very well taken. HGilbert will find one or two sources that support his agenda and claim them to be universally accepted truths. When a claim is critical of his agenda, he makes sure it appears that a single crackpot has made the claim (as in the case with the recent edit on Hansson). Generally speaking, to get these articles into an NPOV will be impossible as long as HGilbert is here. I would recommend keeping track of his edits and as he starts showing a pattern of aggressive reverts and edits, bring it directly to the ArbCom. They are aware of his tactics and need to be reminded to keep an eye on things. Also, editors in your camp (looking for a NPOV article) include Fergie, Lumos3, Wikiwag, Henitsirk, and Lethaniol - and of course any editor who doesn't want Wikipedia to appear as a joke when people read these. Good luck! I'll put a list together for you soon. Pete K 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to point out what Jimbo Wales said about userpages:
“ | libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea' | ” |
And I'd like to point out that Jimbo Wales said this about a regular user using his userpage to make polemical statements. Certainly, he'd think much worse of a user like Pete doing what he did after being banned from making these polemical edits. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I should also clarify that RookZero saw PetK's problem (that he couldn't make edits) and asked Pete for a list and that he'd make those edits for him AFTER reading Pete's statements on his userpage:
::::: Let me know which sections should be changed and how in my talk page. The current state of the article is very poor. ( RookZERO 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC))
Pete responded to RookZero's request with the quote that I posted earlier. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I think removing content on a user page is a bit harsh. Sure, the content here could be seen as polemical, but I wouldn't say it was too offensive or damaging to Wikipedia as a whole.
The user guidelines state that a user page is "about you as a Wikipedian" and is meant "to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia". Note: not a policy, just guidelines. The deletion policy states that "inappropriate user pages" are subject to deletion, however nowhere in that policy is "inappropriate" defined. In the user guidelines it states "There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense." I can't see that this user page met either of those criteria.
PeteK was banned from editing **articles**. I can't see that giving opinions on his user page has anything to do with the arbitration findings. "Related pages or their talk pages" to me means articles alone, not user pages.
About the policies/guidelines that Fred quoted:
The ArbCom ruling says "pages", not "articles". You can banned from editing any page which is related to Waldorf, if you put something related to Waldorf on your user page, then the ban includes your userpage. When there is a dispute as to the interpretation of an ArbCom ruling, I think the interpretation of an Arbitrator takes precedence - that's only common sense. -- Tango 14:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a page that's "related" to Waldorf articles - regardless of what's on it. It's related to the user. The content of the page is a the user's discretion - not the ArbCom's. My pages violated NO rules and NO ArbCom decision. That's exactly why Fred has now opened a new review to get them to change their decision to include my user pages. Meanwhile, he acted unilaterally to violate the rules of Wikipedia and to circumvent the responsible process of getting clarification before wiping out my user pages. He's already backed off the "obnoxious" (by his own words) headings he put on my pages, and now he's having to get the ArbCom to agree with his actions. Clearly, he was out of line. Some people should avoid the keyboard during full moons. -- Pete K 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you here for any reason other than to harass me Sune? Buzz off please... -- Pete K 20:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Please take notice of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Pete_K Fred Bauder 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I noticed it earlier today. -- Pete K 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Pete K has his finger on the truth when he says "You have stood by while Waldorf teachers, with a known (to you) conflict of interest, have removed all critical views from the Waldorf articles day by day - over the comments and efforts of lots and lots of neutral editors. What has happened here is shameful. They are, indeed, using Wikipedia as their soapbox and as advertising for Waldorf. Everyone who reads those articles has the same comment - that they read like Waldorf brochures." I can attest, from personal experience as well as extensive research, that the Wikipedia articles on Waldorf, Steiner, and Anthroposophy are deeply flawed and biased. Wikipedia needs to work out procedures that protect it from such inaccuracies—they undermine the encyclopedia's credibility. To verify my credibility, you may visit my Web site at http://homepage.mac.com/nonlevitating/one.html. -- Roger Rawlings
The administrators are not interested in content here Roger... Somebody has to straighten the deck chairs on the Titanic... -- Pete K 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to commend the arbitrators for their decision and for sticking to their principals, despite recieving a constant stream of insults and attacks. I would also like to point out that the pages are very balanced. HGilbert may be a Waldorf teacher, but he is fair, and he is not allowing any reasonable and proper criticism to be removed. In addition, he is working actively to get the NPOV tags removed so that we have neutral articles. Afterall, neutral articles are in Wikipedia's best interests. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Diana, don't insult me. Obviously, it's not the mere act of removing tags that results in that. HGilbert is working to get those articles neutral. He's compromising, he's asking for suggestions and input from others and he's making whatever edits he can, within reason, so that we can eventually have tag-free articles. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That will NEVER happen Bellowed. The articles are NOT neutral. Everyone knows this. People unassociated with Waldorf continually write on the talk pages to express how one-sided the articles are. They're BROCHURES for Waldorf. NOT NEUTRAL. And as long as HGilbert and TheBee are owning them - they will NEVER be neutral. Why? Because HGilbert is a Waldorf teacher - and he's NOT NEUTRAL. TheBee is a former Waldorf teacher and a current Waldorf activist. He's NOT NEUTRAL. I don't know who you are - but you're NOT NEUTRAL either - clearly evidenced by your edits. And now Wikipedia, through your collective efforts has become NOT NEUTRAL on these topics. Pete K 05:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, HGilbert is a Waldorf teacher, but he really makes a good effort at being neutral. He's not just a one-sided editor, which is why he wasn't banned from editing on Steiner-related topics. I'm not going to let you portray a good and honest and selfless man like him as a dogmatist. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Please take note that the Arbitration Committee has adopted the following motion: " Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Pete K banned applies to user pages with respect to content which relates to Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, or Anthroposophy." Please be guided accordingly. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's not get hysterical. The content has been removed from the User page, but it is starting to creep back in here, so the discussion of Waldorf in particular should cease here. If someone adds info to your user page Pete, you can certainly remove it without fear of punishment from ARB. And yes, it appears that you are not allowed to discuss the subject anywhere on WP. That is the ruling and the subsequent clarification. Absent any content on Waldorf, you are free of any editing restrictions anywhere on WP. It's not the end of the world. Surely there are other subjects that interest you? - Crockspot 19:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If kicking at anthills is what it takes to break up the hive mentality here, that's what I need to do. -- Pete K 05:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
And so, I can't even edit my own user page. Gee I'm running out of options... Pete K 03:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't let your book get to be too big Pete. Because if it gets its own Wikipedia article, just remember that the Arb Com ruled that your ban extends to all things Waldorf. Too bad, because you won't be able to make edits to defend your own article while I have all the fun in the world lying and slandering something YOU love. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Not interested in childish taunts? Just today you said:
Enjoy your life as a Wikipedia editor, loser, I'm out of here. -- Pete K 14:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Man, Pete, less than one day...you sure grew up fast. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Haha, Pete, don't take it so hard. I'm not trying to be sour here; There's two types of people, those you love and those you love to hate, and just because you fall into the latter category doesn't mean that you won't be missed. Your very clever insults, your everyday antics, your rebellion to authority..I have to say that I always watched your page wanting to see what you just did because, while it might have made me mad, it was at least entertaining. I'm glad for the very brief time I got to know you on Wiki and wish you the best in the future.. except for smearing Waldorf.. and, perhaps, in a future internet endeavor we may meet again. Cheers. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete_K for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Professor marginalia ( talk) 18:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete K (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. EPadmirateur ( talk) 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, too funny, the professor has put a Nyah-nyah on the poor guy's user page. What is this, kindergarten? "Sockpuppeteer"? Might you be starting to take yourself just a trifle too seriously, Professor? DianaW ( talk) 01:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.
Hi Pete K, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the motion proposed regarding you has been passed by the Arbitration Committee and the amendment request has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)