Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete K

User:Pete K

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Professor marginalia (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User Pete_K is under indefinite ban from arb com and is prohibited from any editing to articles PLANS, Waldorf education, Anthroposophy or any article related to them. [Clarification: Pete K is indefinitely topic banned from those articles but is free to edit other unrelated articles. Shalom (Hello • Peace)] Editor is currently IP editing in two of the articles to circumvent his user ban.
 * Evidence

Identifying himself as IP before indefinite article ban:


 * editing his talk page while under 3RR ban:::


 * signing posts after login:::


 * signing IP post as Pete_K while still logged as IP:::

Current editing in banned articles:     

WP:Arb's article ban was result of several findings of fact against user, including violations of WP:BIO, WP:NOR, misuse of WP:RS, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CIVIL and more: WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review - Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review
 * Comments

After editor continued the crusade on his talk page, arbitrator Fred Bauder posted banned notice there as well: User page

Current edits by these IPs continue the very same pattern as he did in the past:


 * This is going to require some research to sort through. If it turns out to be correct, semi-protection of the affected articles would be a reasonable step, and a rangeblock on the IP addresses, though probably not needed, might become necessary if semi-protection doesn't solve the problem.


 * I will post to WP:AE because an arbitration ruling is at the root of this issue. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at most of the links. The connection between the IP addresses and Pete K is highly credible.  Not all of them signed as Pete K, but those that didn't showed the same interest in Pete K's pet articles as those that did.  I suggest semiprotecting all articles under ArbCom restriction (probably something that should be done regardless) and blocking Pete K for at least two weeks for repeated violations of the ArbCom ruling. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While not commenting directly on the hosiery allegations, I do find it a bit odd that the user in question hasn't posted (under the PeteK username) since the final appeal of the anthroposophy/stiener/waldorf topic ban was rejected, and that as an ip has taken a full year to reach back into the disruption that caused the topic ban (though not seemingly at the same level). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Um - I am not really familiar with this process so I suppose it is remotely possible I am missing something. Isn't the idea here to show that any of the addresses, um - MATCH? Is the idea really to speculate that maybe this person (or persons) sound like someone else you once knew?

What a horror this place is. Wikipedia is like a huge matrix that has swallowed people whole, brains and all.DianaW (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Not all of them signed as Pete K, but those that didn't showed the same interest in Pete K's pet articles as those that did." Boy, this is brilliant reasoning. Um, yeah, they show the same interest in these articles - they were posted TO these articles.DianaW (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions


 * Well so is there going to be one?DianaW (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jossi blocked Pete K and semi-protected the articles in accordance with my recommendation. If further action is needed, please let me know. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Questions
I am afraid I don't understand. Would someone please explain if it was determined whether the suspected sock was really Pete K, and what the evidence was?DianaW (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would really appreciate it if someone would answer the question I posed. Is the point not to determine whether the IPs match?DianaW (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that a more complete answer will not be forthcoming. While as a group those interested in the steiner articles have limited other interests in wikipedia editing and processes, the 'evidence' and conclusion (by Jossi) in this situation is fairly representative of the level of actionable activity.  It really I think came down to starting to call people names on the anthroposophy discussion page.  The regulars let him slide for a whole year of occasional pointed questions on the various articles, it was only when he slipped back into name calling that action was requested.  I know that you find this situation frustratingly difficult, but I suggest spending some time on middle east articles, US politics articles, or the Fringe theories/Noticeboard for a flavor of the fuller madness that is en.wikipedia.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thank you Rocksanddirt for the friendly reply. I've figured out no reply is forthcoming, don't worry, and I have a good sense of the "fuller madness." Every topic that is controversial is just like this, and even quite a few that *aren't* controversial really. No evidence was ever posted anywhere that the so-called "banned user" was PeteK, and I'm fairly sure that the correct procedures were not followed on the part of professor marginalia, but obviously, she has a pass and can behave improperly and uncivilly without consequences, a position that is not hard to obtain here if you play the right games. I think the place is a looney bin! and can't believe people waste so much time here. I did at one point, too, and now can't believe I couldn't see the folly. Again thanks for replying politely, I appreciate it very much.DianaW (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I think 'procedures' were followed close enough. Maybe a bit more snarky commentary from the prof than required, but nothing out of line compared to most commentary of this sort.  Hope you have a great day.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)