Pete K

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, orAnthroposophy. 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)

• Forgive my butting in, but the specific remedy in the Arbitration proceeding states: 1) Pete K is banned indefinitely from editing Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and related pages or their talk pages. The ruling makes no mention of "articles", but does mention "related pages and talk pages". By the exact semantics of the ruling, any page discussing Waldorf would be "related". - Crockspot 01:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe user page is not related. The dictionary definition of "related" is "being connected; associated". User page with mention of something is not "associated" with that thing. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He made it related. Fred Bauder 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Enforcement_by_block. Fred Bauder 02:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how a user editing a user page has anything to do with said users ban from wikipedia articles and talk pages. The reason for banning users from articles and their talk pages is due to purported violations of wikipedia policy which is hampering wikipedia. Editing ones own talk page to express opinions about articles is totally unrelated to the articles themselves. It's quite a stretch to prevent a user from editing his own talk page because he expresses opinions about other articles on it.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:43, 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)

Nowhere in the initial arbitration does it mention "getting down from a soapbox". It simply says he's baned from a specific article and related articles.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:33, 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)

Sorry, Fred - none of your examples applies to what I did here. NONE. There was no outcry from the community - just YOU. 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. They're now getting ready to remove the NPOV tags. That is where your attention should be focused Fred - it's an inappropriate use of Wikipedia to distort material in such a way.

You have banned me - the only editor who was willing to work endlessly to challenge their efforts and to bring material that refuted their claims. I thank you for this - as it has made my life much more simple to not have to fight this fight 12 hours a day. Furthermore, you have singled me out for aggressive editing and have not applied the rules fairly to those aggressive editors - despite community outcry that they were just as responsible for the problems. Wikipedia has become their soapbox.

Again, none of the rules you are suggesting apply here actually apply to my user pages. As Wikidudeman said, I have not been instructed to get down off a soapbox - nor am I on a soapbox. I've presented, on my Biodynamics page, well-researched material about Biodynamics and the Nazis. I have presented on my Steiner Quotes page material that is direct quotes from Steiner. All sourced. I'm allowed to do this - and it is certainly not getting on a soapbox to put information here - in fact, it is my intention to make it easier for other editors to access it. If there is something in Wikipedia policy that says I can't do this, please show it to me. So far you haven't been able to justify your actions. I'm not on here as a troll or a vandal, I'm here working within Wikipedia policies despite your obvious distaste for my way of doing things. These pages are allowed and there is no Wikipedia policy nor ruling that would prevent them from being here. --Pete K 13:34, 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)

Can you explain why the content should be removed from my userpage? What Wikipedia rule supports this action? --Pete K 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned. You are not banned from having normal user pages, just pages concerning Waldorf Schools. Fred Bauder 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not banned from having pages concerning Waldorf schools Fred. I'm banned from editing Waldorf-related articles and their talk pages. That's all. My user page is neither of those. Please show me ANYWHERE where it says my user pages are affected by any of these bans? Otherwise, please accept that you are wrong about this. --Pete K 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As someone with no dog in this hunt, I have to agree with Fred. The arbcom does not mention "articles" specifically, it mentions "related pages and talk pages". I looked at the previous version of your user and talk page, and they were both virtually Waldorf articles, just not up to article standards. You can have a normal talk page. You just cannot have a talk page that is used to continue your Waldorf jihad. I would also remind you to refrain from making personal attacks against Fred. It is particularly not very smart to attack an arbitrator. I just looked at your block log, and you are not currently blocked. I suggest you forget about Waldorf, at least here on wikipedia. Perhaps you can start a blog with all of your info, and you can have an innocuous and neutral link to it from your user page. But this path that you have embarked on is not going to end well if you continue pushing this. (Just my humble outsider's opinion.) - Crockspot 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Further observation - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Enforcement by block referst to your situation as a "topic ban". That's pretty clear that the intent of the arbitrators is that you are not to be editing about the topic of Waldorf. - Crockspot 19:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"You can have a normal talk page. You just cannot have a talk page that is used to continue your Waldorf jihad." Who says? And where is that said? And what constitutes a "normal" talk page? Is there a "normal" guideline here? I've seen some very creative user pages and talk pages. Are those within the "normal" limits - and how does one know if they have crossed from "normal" to abnormal? None of this is defined at Wikipedia - and that allows arbitrators to shoot from the hip when they dislike a particular user. When this happens, it is absolutely proper to request some clarification based on the rules of Wikipedia not loose interpretations of rulings that don't apply. "Topic ban", again, has to do with articles, not user pages. BTW, I haven't issued any personal attacks. --Pete K 19:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have already said, it is clearly the intention of the arbitrators that you no longer edit on the topic of Waldorf. So it's pretty simple. In your case, the line is the topic of Waldorf. Don't edit about Waldorf, and you should be just fine. Edit about Waldorf, and you might find yourself blocked, per the ruling. I don't see why you find this so hard to understand. Is discussing Waldorf really so important that you are willing to give up your rights to edit anything on wikipedia? Perhaps to you it is, but for me, no single topic is worth losing my account. Anyway, I was just trying to be helpful, and clarify a little more specifically what I assume Fred is basing his actions on. I would have probably done the same thing as him if I had been in his shoes. So, I will shuffle on now, good luck. - Crockspot 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand what EDIT means? It's not about creating a user page, it's about EDITing articles. I am banned from editing articles. I don't dispute that. I am NOT banned from creating my own user pages. If there is some need to ban me from doing this, the ArbCom should make that decision. Nobody else. --Pete K 19:58, 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:

• Polemical statements:

“ 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' ”

- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia co-founder

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)

There's nothing polemical about honest criticism of a corrupt system. There's nothing polemical about presenting both POV's. Jimbo Wales would agree with that. Pete K 19:58, 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)

Actually, I'm allowed to interact with other editors about Waldorf topics. Let me re-state - the ban is a topic ban for editing Waldorf articles and talk pages... Nothing more. My user page is exactly appropriate for those kinds of interactions. --Pete K 20:27, 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:

• Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox: This policy applies to articles only, though it is a **guideline** for user pages as well.
• Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_or_social_networking_site: I assume that Fred doesn't think that PeteK was violating this policy regarding file storing or dating services, so he must be referring to the personal web page section, which states that pages "may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" and should provide a "foundation for effective collaboration." One could argue about whether PeteK's opinions promote effective collaboration, but I do not see how he is violating the letter of this policy.
• Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_inappropriate_content: This **guideline** states "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so...If you do not cooperate, the inappropriate content will eventually be removed, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate). In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on Miscellany for deletion, subject to deletion policy." I don't see any history of deletion requests, or listing this page on Miscellany for deletion. Correct me if I'm wrong. Henitsirk 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Henitsirk. You are exactly right on each and every count. There is no justification within Wikipedia nor within the ArbCom ruling for this action. Thank you for pointing this out so thoroughly. --Pete K 03:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

So you're suggesting that by placing something about Waldorf on my user page - I'm banning myself from editing my user page. Gee... like that's not absurd... LOL! There is no "interpretation" required here. The application of the ArbCom ruling to user pages is ridiculous and clearly misguided. One arbitrator does not an ArbCom make. Pete K 15:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is effectively what I'm suggesting, and yes, it is indeed not absurd. Why wouldn't the ArbCom ruling apply to user pages? Is a user page not a page? --Tango 22:12, 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)

"Some people should avoid the keyboard during full moons."

I quite agree, Pete. Actually I think some people should avoid keybords at all times.

Thebee 07:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"I quite agree, Pete. Actually I think some people should avoid keybords at all times." I couldn't agree more. Perhaps we should start with people who can't even spell KEYBOARD. --Pete K 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean keybords? That's Swenglish. You must learn it if you plan to visit Sweden some time. Everyone here speaks it in one or other form. Not understanding it, you're toast. Thebee 19:48, 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)

Harass you? You mix things up, Pete. I was here first. You joined Wikipedia last year to harass and bully me, not the other way round: your plan and part of your implementation of it. The one behind 99% of the personal attacks and harassment has always been you. At the end of the arbitration review, you even got your long time support admin Durova to wash her hands of you for your way of violating Wikipedia policy and attacked and ate Mr. Bauder for lunch. Forgot already? Thebee 22:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

LOL! Well, it's nice to see how you spin this stuff Sune. One last blast of your BS... for old time's sake. Totally fine with me. If you REALLY think I joined Wikipedia to harass and bully YOU... you really should, seriously, get some help. LOL! Enjoy your playground... I'm on to bigger and better things. --Pete K 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The motion is to clarify the ruling, not change it. You've refused to accept Fred's interpretation, so he's gone to get the interpretation of the committee as a whole. He's not trying to change the ruling. You say the contents of a user page is at the user's discretion - could you cite a policy for that? As for the contents of a page not be relevant when determining if it's related to a particular topic or not, that's just plain nonsense. --Tango 11:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred's interpretation is exactly that - an interpretation. He has no more inherent ability to interpret words than I do - NONE. That's why a clarification is necessary and should have been attempted BEFORE he wiped out my user pages - which was an outrageous and rude action that was taken without regard to the rules of Wikipedia. He should know - it's his job to know the rules... yet he can't provide a single rule that supports his action. Now he has to go back to revise the ruling ex post facto. This is just a case of an arbitrator gone wild - pushing his authority over someone (me) who challenges it. Fred's behavior, in this instance, has crossed the line. My behavior was within the rules of Wikipedia... so now, it's time to change the rules... right? --Pete K 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as clarification: My comment did not refer to Mr. Bauder. Thanks, Thebee 14:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Motion in arbitration case

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)

That's hysterical! This place is too funny. You believe that removing the NPOV tag is what results in neutral articles? :) DianaW 22:48, 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)

Notice of arbitration ruling

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)

So he's now banned from his own user page, by virtue of stuff he wrote on it? I am trying to understand. His user page became off limits to him right after he mentioned Waldorf on it, because that caused it to become a page "associated" with the Waldorf articles? Hilarious. Can other people post on his user page? What will happen to his user page? Can *I* talk about Waldorf on Pete's user page? Maybe we need another committee ruling? Perhaps we could all pretend his user page doesn't even exist, and never did. I won't be surprised if the next time I check back, it *won't* exist, and mentioning its prior existence will be a bannable offense (especially if you mention it in the presence of particularly venerable members of "ArbCom"). This place is like falling down the proverbial rabbit hole.DianaW 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This cannot be correct Diana. The Wikipedia arbitrators would never produce a ruling like that. To ban me from editing my own user page if it contains material about Waldorf would mean that ANY editor could place material about Waldorf on my user page, and I could not only be in contempt of court (Arbcom) by responding - it would mean I would be violating this decision by removing the offensive Waldorf material because that would be editing a Waldorf page that is my user page. What could be stupider than such a ruling? That can't possibly be what this ruling means... or could it? Pete K 05:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think now the Waldorf content has been removed, it shouldn't be a problem if you edit your userpage (it is no longer related), as long as you don't put it back. If anyone else puts such content there, you should be ok to remove it, although that would probably be in violation of the letter of the ruling, but I doubt anyone would seriously complain. --Tango 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the Waldorf content hasn't been removed - We're discussing Waldorf above. What does this mean? I can't engage in discussions about Waldorf on my user page. Previously, administrators who have reviewed the ArbCom decision have said I'm free to discuss Waldorf with other users. Now, you guys are saying I have a gag order on the topic. I can't discuss Waldorf ANYWHERE on Wikipedia - right? And I did exactly WHAT to warrant such a punishment? Agressive editing... that's it - oh, and pissing Fred off. It doesn't get more obvious than this. Shame on you guys. Pete K 15:45, 7 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)

Um... am I getting hysterical? Do I fear punishment from the ARB? I think you may have me confused with someone else... the ArbCom, for example, seems to be hysterical here. Who ever heard of such a ridiculous "punishment"? All because Fred is running the show and doesn't like the content I've brought. If you want to look back at what brought this on, it's clear enough - Fred removed the content I posted, despite it was from a reliable and completely acceptable source, and made the claim that I was breaking a rule about Biographies of Living Persons. He didn't like the content so he whisked it away - no explanation, only a claim that I had made some libelous claim - again, nothing to back up that statement either and yet, no retraction from Fred. Nothing but a witch-hunt here... and now a gag-order so that I can't discuss these things. Fred's conduct has been obscenely unfair here with regard to how I have been treated. The other arbitrators fall in line behind his lead like baby ducks following mama duck. This is poisonous to Wikipedia and a shameful distortion of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. I'm not a vandal, I'm not a sock-puppet, I'm a published author here editing articles with content Fred doesn't like. That's my only crime here. Sure, there are hundreds of articles here I could participate in - but I won't, not because I'm unable to, but because I won't lend my name to a process that is so completely corrupt. Enjoy your shame. Pete K 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to DianaW with the "hysterical" comment. Sorry. But I think you are lucky that you didn't get indef banned over this most recent kerfluffle. The ARBcom made it clear that you are not to be writing about the W subject on Wikipedia. You don't agree, and that's fair. I would probably be just as pissed about it as you are, but you are kicking at anthills here. - Crockspot 21:30, 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)

Now My User Page is Protected

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)

That's what sooner or later happens to bad guys/social suicide candidates - at Wikipedia. You've insisted on asking for it, repeatedly going for a permanent ban. No need to play surprised. Thebee 08:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going out of my way in these final exercises to show how corrupt Wikipedia is. And I've done this. Showing your tactics here in detail, Sune, will make a nice chapter for my book. This was a great demonstration of how Waldorf/Anthroposophy works to silence the truth and I've documented every word of what happened here. I don't need to do anything more here - there will be many, many people right here at Wikipedia reverting your nonsense forever. Enjoy your life as a Wikipedia editor, loser, I'm out of here. --Pete K 14:13, 18 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)

I'm not interested in your childish taunts. Enjoy your new career... both of you. --Pete K 17:52, 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)

More childish taunts. You're the one that needs to grow up. --Pete K 13:36, 19 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)

Waldorf smears itself, friend. I just reported the truth... and still do. Pete K 14:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

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)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Topic ban evasion per evidence submitted at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pete_K. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

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)

June 2014

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for evading your topic ban using IP sockpuppets, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 3 June 2014 (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.

Arbitration request regarding you

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

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)