Peterklutz

Are you the same person as 85.130.186.206? Sethie 12:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Three-finger Rule of Karma

You need to remember Peterklutz, whenever you point, File:Alt stop hand.png three fingers point back at you.

This "stop hand" icon appears to be one of your more dubious contributions to Wikipedia. Don't look so shocked, Peter, you've just given it to yourself.Askolnick 01:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

unblock

Last time I checked it said the block would expire today (19th)- I now see it has been extended two days.

Thanks for your work on the Maharishi page.

One of the policies of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is not a collection of weblinks, it is an encyclopedia. So please, trim down the number of links you have inserted into the article. Thanks! Seth Sethie 22:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I have already done some, I will wait to do more and let you trim it down some. Sethie 14:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Transcendental Meditation, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sfacets 02:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:Transcendental Meditation and User talk:Bishonen

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Cut the crap Bishonen. This is not about personal attacks - this about checking sources. Are you completey blind to what's going on? Peterklutz

Block warning: you are disrupting the site

You consider the polices crap? I thought you might, from the way you act. If you're going to consistently flout them, as you have been doing so far, you're in danger of an indefinite block. People who make no positive contributions to the encyclopedia eventually do get dis-invited from editing it.
A couple of more short-term matters: stop insulting people now or you'll get blocked. Also stop reverting the article. You are already edit warring, which is a blocking matter in itself, and if you revert one more time, you'll be in violation of the WP:3RR. Bishonen | talk 10:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

NPA warning

Taunting and rage won't help anyone. Please avoid personal attacks in all their forms. If you have concerns over the content of an article and you have presented the matter on the article's talk page and not achieved consensus, which is clearly the case with Transcendental meditation, you may not edit war over the content. Disinterested administrators can be called in to mediate, but you appear to have attacked all who have tried. Finally, a Request for Comment will open the article to further deliberation. However, you have to remember that Wikipedia is not the place to negotiate ultimate truth and Wikipedia is not definitive. The majority can be wrong, but the majority does rule, and the only option is to ensure that you persuade (not bully) the existing editors or get the input of a larger group (via RFC). Geogre 11:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure majority rule is at work here, but rather a very noise minority (I'll avoid flak by explaning what apparently motivates them).

Even though Wikipedia may not be definitive, I am sure most constructive-minded people who like to see articles improved.

Peterklutz

In which case, an RFC would draw in more sets of eyes. Also, be aware that those of us who look in might warn you to watch your tone, but that's separate from anyone's view on the article. I can simultaneously believe that the references are weak and that you're being incivil. They're separate matters. I think an RFC might be your best option. Make sure that this is an RFC on the content of the article and do try to leave the motives and personalities of other editors out. The more objective and dispassionate you can be, the better the request will fare. Geogre 14:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I too think you stll need to work on your civility and keep our no personal attacks policy in mind. Over time you'll find that it is far more constructive to edit in a collegial manner and with respect to other contributors, even if you disagree with them, than to edit tendentiously. I've added this page and TM to my watchlist and you should know that many admins will not hesitate to block if your behaviour does not significantly improve. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock request reveiwed and denied. pschemp | talk 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Numerous time I have asked you to use one account and to sign your posts correctly (one example: [1]). Despite my requests, you just made an edit to the talk page of MMY, using one of your numerous 213. ip's and signed not as Peterklutz, but PeterKlutz [2], you did the same on the TM page [3]. You are using 4 accounts- 186., Peterklutz, PeterKlutz, plus numerous rotating IP under 213. You have commented using three seperate user names, all in one day here! [4] Please stop. If any admin knows the proper course of action, please chime in. Sethie 17:07, 18 June 2

Sockpuppets are a serious concern, and certainly against Wikipedia policy, providing that their owner does not clearly state that they are sockpuppets in their profile. I'm not an administrator, but in order for an indefinite ban to be issued (the standard fare for sockpuppets), you have to request "Checkuser" at the following page WP:RCU.

I have copied this onto your user talk as well. --Alphachimp ^talk 17:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please contribute any evidence here.

Sfacets 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As Sfacets says, please present evidence at Check User Request. If the editor has used sockpuppets to evade 3RR or "vote" multiple times, the "socks" will be blocked indefinitely and the user be prosecuted for any 3RR that took place after the warning (above). This will generally be a block of 24 hr for the first instance, with each subsequent instance resulting in a longer block. Additionally (but not instead of), mediation and/or arbitration can begin. Geogre 14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge he has not used his socks that way. I have added what evidence I have, however it appears the check user request was declined. Sethie 15:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Transcendental Meditation, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sfacets 23:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Action will be taken

Peterklutz, your repeated violation of Wiki rules will, in the end, result in your being blocked indefinitely from participating as an editor. The TM article has just been locked to stop your repeated changes which violate Wikipedia rules. It's clear from this discussion page that so far you haven't taken anyone's warnings to heart. You can't keep doing that. Please wise up or you will be blocked for good. Askolnick 15:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If any admin happens to read this officious-impersonating statement by Askolnick, check notice-board::investigation for background. Peterklutz 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Peterklutz/MMY article

Hi! I noticed that in your scratchpad / draft / alternative article User:Peterklutz/MMY article you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in Category:Indian religious figures and a few others. Could I suggest that you deactivate them (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it".) Cheers, Ziggurat 22:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Crossposted from Talk:Transcendental Meditation:
Peter, perhaps you didn't see my objection to your confrontational habits of speech and persistent attacks on other people's motives some ways up this page. I'll up it to a formal warning: please read WP:NPA ("Comment on content, not on the contributor") and desist with the personal attacks or I will block you for disruption. Bishonen | talk 14:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC).

Civility meltdown --> block

Crossposted from Talk:Transcendental Meditation:
[Shrug] You have got to be kidding. The last time I warned you about personal attacks, you came right back with an attack on my motives. And now this namecalling and defamation? I've decided to block you only for three days, but please be aware that you'll be on probation when the block expires. Civility is a big deal on Wikipedia because the lack of it ruins the collaborative process of wiki-editing. That's why civility and no personal attacks are official policy. Please click on those links, study the policies, and then take your choice when you next return to this page (or any other); either decide to abide by them—the spirit, the letter, and the common sense of them—or, next time, expect to be blocked a) fast, b) without warning, and c) for a week. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

Stop editing right now

Peter, er, there seems to be a little miunderstanding here. You're blocked. I'm well aware that you have access to other IPs, but "blocked" doesn't mean merely that one particular account of yours is technically prevented from editing. It means the person is not allowed to edit. It means don't edit. Editing while blocked is "block evasion", which is a serious violation, and cause for further blocks. Note that there is one exception, that the block message page will have told yoou about: you are both technically able to, and allowed, indeed encouraged, to edit your own talkpage, User talk:Peterklutz (just give the anonymous IPs a rest, please). All right, let's say you didn't know that (though what you'd think a block that only applied to one account would be for, I can't imagine.) But from the moment I post this on talk:TM and User talk:Peterklutz, just don't edit, unless you want all your IP's blocked for another week. As for reporting biased admins doing piss poor jobs, there is indeed a special page for that: WP:ANI. Post a request for review of my admin action there, and other admins will look into it. Just 'don't do it while you're blocked—blocked means you don't get to edit, remember? But there is one avenue for protestiing a block that you can use while blocked: the mailing list. Now don't edit any more until the block expires. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

finally time to do your job, Bishonen?

Shirley, given Askolnick's last contribution to civility and exemplary adherence to i.a. the NPA rule at the top of this page, why don't you - just for once - do your job..?

Peterklutz 06:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean speedy-delete the hand image? You know, Peter, I wouldn't personally lengthen your block for being persistently insulting to me, but I'm thinking about posting it on the administrators' noticeboard myself, to get a few other admins to review it and see if they think a longer block is warranted. I know I said you're going to need to be civil when you return from the block; that actually wasn't meant to imply that I'm willing to put up with unlimited amounts of crap from you during the block. Bishonen | talk 09:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Askolnick, please stay away from this page during the block, it's not constructive to come here to triumph. Bishonen | talk 09:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Any further attacks on any user, including Bishonen and Askolnick, and your block will be extended. Take your block, calm down and come back with a clear head. It's the best advice I can give you. But please cease the attacks. They aren't doing you or anyone else any good. Thank you. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Block has been extended

Extended to 96 hours for blanking your talk page. Either discuss things constructively or just take a break. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Block has been reduced

Hi, Peterklutz. I've reduced your block to the original 3 days, which means it's got about 38 hours to run from now. I do this because I don't think you were necessarily aware that you're not supposed to blank warnings from your page. But now you know, so please don't blank warnings again. The point is that other admins who come here, for instance to review an unblock request, need to be able to see current warnings and block messages. Feel free to blank older posts, say down to and including June 28, if you like, but please leave the recent ones. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

3rr violation warning

You just went into violation of the 3 revert rule on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. These are the edits: 1, 2, 3 and 4. The last edit is not strictly a complete revert. It's an example of a complex partial revert where just one or two words are changed. I am going to assume good faith and say that you didn't know about the rule. The rule is...no more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period on one article. This is the only warning you are going to get. The next time, you will be blocked again. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Woohookitty, I am not only aware of the rule - I expect you to show those who violate against now the same courtesy you have shown me the last week.

Unfortunately, this means you'll have to spend some time going through each edit to see exactly who has done what.

When you've done this you'll know that Peterklutz first edit amounted to a smallish edit of the previous edit .

What has happened since is that two persons has taken turns reverting Peterklutz edit.

Peterklutz 13:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I will but you are the only violator at the moment. There is no rule against more than one editor reverting you, as long as they don't go beyond 3 reverts individually. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That allows 2 or more people to conspire to manipulate Wiki administrators into blocking a 3rd contributor. There are parts of the reverted entry that are blatantly POV ("sell TM" comes to mind as one since all the TM movement organizations involved in teaching TM are non-profit educational organizations), but I haven't felt like trying to edit those individual POV items because they keep ping-ponging.Sparaig 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked due to the 3RR violation mentioned before. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a week

As you have returned from a three-day block with your notions about appropriate wiki editing intact and as damaging as ever — consisting as they do of inputting POV edits without discussion and revert warring to keep them there, also without discussion — you leave me with the choice of either fully protecting the TM articles, or fully removing you from them. In the interest of the encyclopedia, I choose the latter. You have been blocked for a week for inveterate edit warring and personal attacks. If I hadn't mentioned the period of one week in my last warning to you, I'd frankly be inclined to impose a much longer block, since you're now violating far more policies than were in question then. If you continue to ignore policy, ignore warnings, disrupt talk pages, and make no positive contributions to the encyclopedia when you return from this block, you will be blocked indefinitely.

I see that you ignored Woohookitty's 3RR warning above ("This is the only warning you are going to get. The next time, you will be blocked again."), just as you have ignored all my warnings. You seem to have the idea that admins don't mean what they say. Please abandon it. It has gotten you into a lot of trouble. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

I am impressed, Bishonen - the only thing Peterklutz has done is to exercize his right to contribute to wikipedia, for which he is flipped the finger and told to deliver any complaints he might to someone's dog to chew on (there's an NPA violation if you ever saw one).

Your response?

Ignore everyone and everything but Peterklutz - and block him.

When Peterklutz returns from his exile and once again exercizes his right to contribute, he sees his edits slashed in a matter of minutes in a surprisingly well-coordinted attack by two accounts.

Seemingly evident to other wikipedia admins, the Modus Operandi witnessed is cause for investigation: two accounts doing reversals two times each against a targeted editor, which gets banned for 3RR violation when protecting his contributions - whilst the two accounts that initiated hostilities gets away scotfree (since they only reverted two times each).

Instead of flying off the handle, why don't you start acting like an admin and investigate the contribution pattern of the MMY and TM articles in order to determine the frequency of today's MO? When you do this you may also want to investigate the IPs operating the accounts.

Chances are you'll be in for a surprise.

Since you concievably cannot do more to Peterklutz than you already have, he'll now indulge himself by walking the line to a fresh NPA.

Bishonen, you're positively starting to came across as a serious embarrasment for wikipedia (if not outright liability). In fact so low is your flaunted level of intelligence that people might actually start to wonder if your account should be part of the investigation regarding ways for single individuals or tight-knit groups of dead-enders to conspire to keep Wikipeda articles hijacked indefinitely.

Peterklutz 22:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely

Wow, that's a classic. You have been blocked indefinitely. If you post any more attacks on this page, I'm afraid I'll have to lock it against editing, as other users may not enjoy your sallies the way I do. Goodbye. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen- are his other socks locked too? Sethie 02:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it, User:85.30.186.206 made a (trivial) edit earlier today. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peterklutz is pretty up-to date, AFAICT. --quadpus 05:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Blocking IPs is such a collateral damage nightmare that I was more hoping we can simply revert those IPs. P's edits are easily recognized, after all, the IPs are known, and, especially, he's interested in a limited number of articles. If those IPs start any large-scale editing, it'll be a different matter—then I'll call in a nerdier/cleverer admin. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

Peterklutz- I am happy to see you blocked and sad to see you blocked.

I am happy, because on your first or second day of editing, I told you that you were not participating in ways that were in line with wiki policies. I asked for dialogue on these issues and you did not reply, once. So, I am happy that a non-team player has been blocked.

I am sad to see you blocked, because WHEN (roughly 15-20% of the time) you would edit in alignment with wiki- the TM and MMY articles grew and got better! I am a very outspoken critic of them, AND I always welcome sourced, neutral, sympathetic information about the movement. You provided this, and now you are gone. Sethie 02:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sethie, the little that Peterklutz contributed was completely overwhelmed by the damage he caused -- not only to the Wiki community but to his fellow TMers. Some of them have remarked in chat groups that he's causing far more harm to the TM movement than all TM critics combined, who have contributed information to Wikipedia on Maharishi and his followers. With his repeated attempts at censorship and vandalism, Klutz has wasted an enormous amount of Wiki editors' and administrators' time. His rabid personal attacks have caused further disruption. And his crackpot allegations of Wiki conspiracies against those he disagrees with is an embarrassment for the Wiki community. I'm certain Wikipedia will be able to get sourced, neutral, and sympathetic information about TM from other contributers without suffering such serious disruption. We are all well rid of his destructive behavior. And when I say we, I mean both critics and defenders of the TM organization as well as those in between.Askolnick 03:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, maybe it was more like 5-10% helpful edits! No, overall I am very, very happy to see him gone, just wanting to plant a seed that if he learns how to get along with others, he could be of service. Sethie 03:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

IP editing

Everybody please note that what I said above about IP blocking being a collateral damage nightmare no longer applies, thanks to a welcome Wikimedia software upgrade. Anonymous editing by Peterklutz can and will be dealt with effectively from now on. See my request on the administrators' noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 12:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC).