User talk:Waldork

I would appreciate it if you leave my family out of discussions here. Further comments about my family will be brought to the attention of the administrators. Thanks! Pete K 00:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not post personal information of other users. If you do so again, you will be blocked. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First and final warning

Please do not post personal or family information concerning the private real-life circumstances of another user, as you have been doing. See Wikipedia:Harassment. If you do this again, I will have no choice but to block this account indefinitely. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and follow the instructions there, including emailing this address. It will then be removed from the archives of Wikipedia. Thank you for your cooperation.

If you do not ensure that personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing this site. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. -- Avi 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported you for harassment. Enjoy your vacation. --Pete K 01:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

I'm sure you are aware of this, but to make it crystally clear, your edits are completely inappropriate for wikipedia. Please take the next 24 hours to review wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding editing. Thank you. -- Avi 01:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user Pete K has himself here at Wikipedia told his full name, as also that he has divorced a women, who is a teacher at a Waldorf school. The probably only new personal info, that Waldork has mentioned once at Pete K's talks page, that Pete K himself has not told before here at Wikipedia, is the name of Pete K's former wife and a comment on Pete K's now former ex mother-in-law. After his divorce, Pete K has been extensively engaged in different forums, writing numerous postings defaming the type of school where his former wife continues to work, and has also commented on this here at Wikipedia.

This is the case also here at Wikipedia, where he was banned for life on 20 March from editing any article related to Waldorf education, as also the related talks pages. He himself has repeatedly in different contexts here mentioned alleged personal names of people, who according to him participate here as editors, but not revealed the IRL names. This has lately been the case both at first the Talks page of the reopened Waldorf Arbitration, and then, when the names repeatedly were deleted, as they violated Wikipeida policies, instead published them at the Evidence page of the Waldorf Arbitration Review page to protect them from renewed deletion, as also then again a THIRD time - AFTER he had been warned about it and has been topic banned indefinitely from all Waldorf related pages - at his personal Talks page.

According to Admin Durova there are Arbitration precedents, telling that editors who do this, like Pete K, are to be site banned indefinitely, and also - referring to these precedents - changed her evidence about him at the evidence page of the Waldorf Arbitration Review page to recommend a site ban of Pete K for life from Wikipedia.

In spite of his repeated conscious violations of this rule, that made Admin Durova, who up to the Arbitration Review had supported him, explicitly wash her hands of him, her explicit recommendation after his repeated mentioned violations to site ban him for life has not yet been implemented. Thebee 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Pete is guilty of violating the terms of his article ban, that should be listed on the corresponding arbitration page. My goal here was purely to sanitize personal info, which should never be posted against someones wil on wiki, regardless of the situation. -- Avi 03:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thebee, there are a number of places to report inappropriate editing by Pete K. This is not one of them, nor is "He started it" an adequate defense for anyone. Thatcher131 19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking you probably don't want to start this here TheBee. Reiterating what personal information YOU think I have produced here is walking a very slippery slope. You are adding more personal information here that doesn't belong here - especially my activities on other forums which is not part of the public record here. Are you looking for the same block as Waldork? Watch yourself friend. Pete K 02:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock policy

Please use the template {{unblock}} if you wish another admin to review. -- Avi 03:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

Blocked: From an analysis of your contributions, including edits deleted from User talk:Pete K, it appears that your account was created solely to harrass that user. As such, I have blocked your account indefinitely. Edits that contribute to the encyclopedia are welcome, harrassment is not. Thatcher131 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]