Misplaced Pages

User talk:Pete K: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:36, 6 September 2006 editMatilda (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,816 edits Request← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:18, 6 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(479 intermediate revisions by 65 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{sockpuppeteer}}
Please see ] about excessive use of links without relevant content. Please also see ] about not disrupting an article to prove a point. Also note that
:"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as Misplaced Pages sources." (from ]) ] 00:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


] applies to this page if it contains content which relates to ], ], ], or]. ] 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 ]. If the page concerns ordinary user issues, if does not. ] 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Pete,
I totally respect your point of view on the Waldorf page and appreciate your willingness to join the project. At the same time, I feel that i must be clear that the point of view must be to briefly explain Waldorf ed. there will be a "Critical Views" section (or some other title) as with any other article.


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. '''--] 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)'''
I see your role on this as totally welcome as a balancing viewpoint for other parts of the page, and possibly writing the paragraphs in the critical views section. Is that how you see it?


* Forgive my butting in, but the specific remedy in the Arbitration proceeding states: ''1) Pete K is banned indefinitely from editing ], ], ], ], 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". - ] 01:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I know that this viewpoint is not welcome , but I think you should know that after discussing this in-depth with an administrator, I feel strongly that we will eventually go to no outside links other than scholarly articles. To set an example, I have removed my own site and all other homeschooling links from the page.
::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. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
:::He made it related. ] 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Please consider ]. ] 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.] <sup>]</sup> 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This is because the article has to move away from being a brochure, yes, and it also has to get away from being a war-zone for links and text.


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. '''--] 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)'''
I am open to any opinions on this.


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. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I will be setting up the project pages in the next day - sorry, I broke a finger on my left hand last week and typed very little. When I do, I plan to put you down as a member of the project team. Please let me know if you prefer not to be listed as such. ] 15:05, 28 August 2006 (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.] <sup>]</sup> 06:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
==Your recent edit to ]==
I note your recent edit on the talk page of ] in reply to ]. Please make yourself aware of the official Misplaced Pages policy regarding ]. Whilst I am not actively involved in the article, I have been asked to keep an eye on the apparent war that is ongoing there. Legal threats are best left off Misplaced Pages, and it's not uncommon for good editors to find themselves blocked for making them. -- ] 15:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Please see ], ], and ]. ] 10:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not sure if I should respond to you here or on your own talk page (fairly new here, sorry) but I don't recall making any legal threats. I have invited TheBee to make good on his own legal threats if he feels he as a basis for them. I find that it is difficult not to respond to unfounded challenges to my integrity. In any case, I'm very interested in giving this page a fair edit so I'll tone it down to a more level-headed roar and try to ignore his comments as much as possible. --] 15:24, 29 August 2006 (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to distort material in such a way.
::You may respond on my talk page, or yours, whichever takes your fancy. I trust you'll allow me some time to absorb the entire debate that is raging at the ] article. The article and talk page discussions are quite long and there's a lot to learn about both sides. I'm sure you're not the only editor involved in the fierce debate, and other editors who are behaving against Misplaced Pages policy will be reminded in due course. It'd help if you could provide any ] pointing to offensive behaviour or behaviour contrary to policy and I'll take the matter on personally and point those editors to the correct policies. Please don't feel as though I'm watching you with a fine tooth comb. I was asked to oversee the article by a concerned editor and am not interested in taking any side whatsoever. Any way I can be of assistance, please let me know. -- ] 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


: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. Misplaced Pages has become their soapbox.
Thank you Longhair. You are definitely in for a challenge here as both sides of this issue have been at it for decades. I didn't assume you were singling me out in this. I appreciate how hard it will be to keep tempers on simmer instead of full boil. I appreciate the tip about diffs. Hopefully we won't have too many future problems as some of us are trying to iron out our differences (sometimes heatedly) on the discussion pages and not in the article. That has been a good first step. I'm hoping level heads will prevail here. --] 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
----


: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies despite your obvious distaste for my way of doing things. These pages are allowed and there is no Misplaced Pages policy nor ruling that would prevent them from being here. '''--] 13:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)'''
'''Welcome!'''


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. --] 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!&nbsp; -- ] 15:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


:Can you explain why the content should be removed from my userpage? What Misplaced Pages rule supports this action? '''--] 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)'''
== separate articles ==


::]. You are not banned from having normal user pages, just pages concerning Waldorf Schools. ] 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Pete,


: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. '''--] 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)'''
Misplaced Pages policy is not to consider whether things deserve separate articles; some of the weirdest things get these (rock albums, ....) If someone wants to bother writing up some aspect of the world of more than minimal note, so be it. That's the advantage of virtually unlimited storage capacity. There used to be true sub-articles; this structure was given up and everything that used to be a sub-article is now an article in its own right. It leads to an amorphous structure but is useful in tidying up articles; there's a place for everything.
:: 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.) - ] 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC) '''Further observation''' - ] 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. - ] 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 Misplaced Pages - 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 Misplaced Pages 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. '''--] 19:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)'''
In the case of the Steiner on races subject: this section of the article got very long and complex. It was eventually put into the current sub-article and the current summary agreed upon. Please don't start adding quotes, or the whole sub-article will end up back in the main article. Have some faith in past editors, who represented the whole gamut of opinion. ] 10:58, 30 August 2006 (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. - ] 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. '''--] 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)'''
I'm not sure the whole gamut of opinion has been represented here, but I'll have a look. On the discussion page, it seem that a lot of people wanted to put Steiner's significant discussion about race in the article. The "compromise" language that is in the article now is pretty much the type of "Waldorf speech" I have become accustomed to hearing - "to modern ears" is disingenuous. Steiner said racist things that were racist in HIS time. It wasn't customary to write racist material - and that is evidenced by the fact that most philosophers in his day DIDN'T write racist material. So a very careful review of this wording is still necessary and quotes that exemplify his thinking on race are relevant. Again, I have 25 or more pages of quotes by Steiner that are racist. It isn't as if he just brushed over the topic. His racist stance in spirituality is in large part what defines Steiner, IMO. --] 14:48, 30 August 2006 (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:
== Please stay civil ==
With regards to your comments on ]: Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. ''"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users."'' Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. <!-- Template:NPA-n --> In particular, I am referring to you made recently where you said ''Sune, none of your criticisms are supportable so don't even start. Yours are the ravings of a lunatic. I think it's good for ordinary people to get a peek at what some Waldorf teachers are like''.--] <sup>]</sup> 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


<blockquote>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 Misplaced Pages 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) </blockquote>
I really don't know who you are, but civility is a two way street. --] 06:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
*No personal atttacks is an absolute, retaliation is not an excuse I am afraid.--] <sup>]</sup> 08:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Also, I'd like to point out what Jimbo Wales said about userpages:
OK, thanks. Then please let me know where I can go to lodge complaints about others on this list. I know this sounds retaliatory, but I'm only here because I was notified of a false (libelous) statement by a Waldorf supporter who said I don't have custody of my own kids - as if the custody share arrangment of my divorce settlement is somehow a topic appropriate for discussion on the back pages of Misplaced Pages. Where should I go to complain about that? --] 18:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
* ] statements:
*The right place for complaints is ]. First you should warn the contributor - see ] and remember to subst - ie the text would be <nowiki>{{subst:npa2}}</nowiki> or whatever. I recommend using a diff to clarify (as I did above) so it is absolutely clear what it is you are talking about. Check that it falls within the scope of ]. The rest of the instructions are on that noticeboard and somebody should come along and help. The advantage will be they are unlikely to know anything about the content dispute and will look at it objectively. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
{{cquote|''libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to ] or ] is a '''bad idea'''}}
:::::::::::::::- Jimbo Wales, Misplaced Pages 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. ] 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
*Saw your latest comment about your weekend's work. I think you should be using {{tl|fact}} to call for references or when you remove references - ie leave the assertion in there, replace the reference with {{tl|fact}} and then perhaps comment out the reference with <nowiki><!- ... -></nowiki> tags and why you think the ref is unacceptable. Give people a chance to respond. Otherwise you are likely to escalate an edit war (or escalate even further). Just a suggestion - Good luck.--] <sup>]</sup> 20:36, 1 September 2006 (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. '''] 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)'''
Thanks AyArktos! I'll make myself familiar with these notations and take your advice. It would be great if this procedure could be used across the board for all editors instead of people's work being deleted willy nilly. I've spent several hours a day for the past several days with the total accomplishment of having one sentence removed and one sentence and one link added. I don't know about you but I get very frustrated when so much effort goes into so little progress. --] 22:51, 1 September 2006 (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:
<blockquote>::::: Let me know which sections should be changed and how in my talk page. The current state of the article is very poor. (] 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC))</blockquote>


Pete responded to RookZero's request with the quote that I posted earlier. ] 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
AyArktos, I took your advice above and spent two hours adding in ((verify source}} and {{fact}} to the information that was doubtful, only to have my edits reverted. When I reverted them back, they were again reverted. The third time got me blocked. Others who reverted my edits, HGilbert, for example, have not been blocked. Is this blocking policy going to be applied fairly? I don't know how to display this information to you and how to lodge a complaint. HGilbert reverted the article at least three times on September 2nd and the article history shows this clearly. If I am to be blocked, so should he. --] 20:52, 3 September 2006 (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. '''--] 20:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)'''
:See ] - ''If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeat violation. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.'' The other user reverted 3 times not 4 based on my reading of the article history.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:15, 3 September 2006 (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 Misplaced Pages as a whole.
== Personal issues ==


The ] 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 ] states that "inappropriate user pages" are subject to deletion, however nowhere in that policy is "inappropriate" defined. In the ] 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.
Pete,


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.
I realize that I haven't personally apologized for bringing your personal situation into the PLANS debate, and for accidentally misrepresenting this on top of this. I had been told that your child was in the Waldorf school against your wishes, and drew what I now know to be the false conclusion that you did not have custody. I apologize for the misrepresentation, and for naming you at all (in response to Diana's demand for names).


About the policies/guidelines that Fred quoted:
Deep and heartfelt apologies. I feel we are working slowly toward a mutual understanding around editing, though many battles surely lie ahead, and hope we can engage with ever increasing mutual respect and civility. ] 00:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


*]: This policy applies to articles only, though it is a **guideline** for user pages as well.
Thanks Harlan, I am happy to have this from you - and your apology is accepted. This is why I, when pressured by others to name names, prefer to keep those names to myself - even if it makes me look bad. People know they can talk to me in confidence about problems with Waldorf and that I will never betray them. In my personal case, my ex wanted my kids in Waldorf, and the only way I would consider allowing this is by getting additional custody of them so that I could monitor their experiences closely. I'm living literally across the street from the school so I can be available to them at a moment's notice.
*]: 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.
*]: 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. ] 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


:Thank you Henitsirk. You are exactly right on each and every count. There is no justification within Misplaced Pages nor within the ArbCom ruling for this action. Thank you for pointing this out so thoroughly. '''--] 03:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)'''
For the record, there are a few people at Highland Hall that dislike me because I don't let them get away with the types of cover-ups they are accustomed to. I have had several teachers fired through my relentless efforts to expose wrongdoing. I've made a few enemies there (even some teachers hate other teachers there so it's not surprising), but I have also gained the respect of, I'd say, most of the parent body and the majority of the teachers. The thing that most people will say about me is that I never compromise integrity. So as far as editing goes, if it's true, you won't get a fight from me. If it's false, I don't care if God is the source of the citation, it's not going to end up on the page.


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. --] 14:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, thanks for the apology - it sincerely means a lot to me. --] 01:05, 2 September 2006 (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. '''] 15:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)'''
You're very welcome. I respect your stance. If I can continue on the basis of your exceptional frankness, I agree that all institutions, including Waldorf schools, need people willing to stand up for the truth. They also need people who can see and respect others' points of view; as Steiner said :), there are always at least twelve equally valid viewpoints. I hope that we can bring both a respect for truth and a respect for other points of view (including each others') to this and all our work.
::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? --] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. '''--] 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)'''
Warmly, ] 18:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


:"Some people should avoid the keyboard during full moons."
== Excessive use of tags ==
::I quite agree, Pete. Actually I think some people should avoid keybords at all times.
:'''] 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. '''--] 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)'''
In your recent edit of ], you put tags on numerous sentences with cited sources, as well as many other areas that are reasonably considered common knowledge, or which can be found in numerous sources cited in the bibliography. Please use common sense and moderation in editing articles. ] 18:21, 2 September 2006 (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. '''] 19:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)'''


Are you here for any reason other than to harass me Sune? Buzz off please...''' --] 20:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)'''
Common sense tells me to remove the material that is erroneous, but having attempted this only to have my edits reversed, tagging those areas appears to be my only option. Please read the discussion page for information about why multiple tags were used. In the mean time, I'll keep reverting the article until the issues are addressed. --] 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


::Harass you? You mix things up, Pete. I was here first. You joined Misplaced Pages last year to harass and bully me, not the other way round: your and part of your 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 Misplaced Pages policy and attacked and ate Mr. Bauder for lunch. Forgot already? '''] 22:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)'''.
==Blocked for 24 hours for a violation of ]==
{| class="user-block"
|| ]
|| You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
|}<!-- Template:3RR5 --> -- ] 21:13, 2 September 2006 (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 Misplaced Pages to harass and bully YOU... you really should, seriously, get some help. LOL! Enjoy your playground... I'm on to bigger and better things. '''--] 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)'''
We can't unblock you at this time, because you haven't given us the information we need to even look into your block. If you still want to be unblocked, feel free to add the <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> tag back to this page, and be sure to include a reason why you want to be unblocked. Without that information, we won't unblock you.


: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. --] 11:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been 24 hours give or take. This is a first offense of a rule I was not aware of. I can wait out the 24 hours but I have some time in my schedule to do some work on the Waldorf project. It's not a big deal, just an inconvenience for me. If necessary, I'll wait until the block has been lifted. --] 19:38, 3 September 2006 (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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages... so now, it's time to change the rules... right? '''--] 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)'''
AyArktos, I took your advice above and spent two hours adding in ((verify source}} and to the information that was doubtful, only to have my edits reverted. When I reverted them back, they were again reverted. The third time got me blocked. Others who reverted my edits, HGilbert, for example, have not been blocked. Is this blocking policy going to be applied fairly? I don't know how to display this information to you and how to lodge a complaint. HGilbert reverted the article at least three times on September 2nd and the article history shows this clearly. If I am to be blocked, so should he. --Pete K 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:I don't really want to buy into it, I htink you went over the top in a big way and hence you just put every bodys' back up. Editing is a collaborative effort. You can request sources but as the following is an example, I will comment on an example of your tagging taken from :


::Just as clarification: My comment did refer to Mr. Bauder. Thanks, '''] 14:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)'''
::<nowiki>'''Waldorf education''' (also called '''Steiner education''') is a worldwide movement {{verify source}} based on an ] first formulated by ]n ] and which grew out of his ] {{specify}} , ]. Waldorf education aims to educate the "whole child" {{specify}} by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic ] and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development {{verify source}}, which is seen as a process of ] of the child's ] and ].<ref>Carlgren, Frans, ''Education Towards Freedom'' ISBN 0-906155-04-5</ref> {{verify credibility}} Its curriculum focuses on the ], ]s, {{verify source}} ] {{verify source}} values as well as practical and integrated learning {{verify source}} . The typical Waldorf school is described as the school of the ''head, heart and hands''.<ref></ref></nowiki>
:which produced the following:
::'''Waldorf education''' (also called '''Steiner education''') is a worldwide movement {{verify source}} based on an ] first formulated by ]n ] and which grew out of his ] {{specify}} , ]. Waldorf education aims to educate the "whole child" {{specify}} by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic ] and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development {{verify source}}, which is seen as a process of ] of the child's ] and ].<ref>Carlgren, Frans, ''Education Towards Freedom'' ISBN 0-906155-04-5</ref> {{verify credibility}} Its curriculum focuses on the ], ]s, {{verify source}} ] {{verify source}} values as well as practical and integrated learning {{verify source}} . The typical Waldorf school is described as the school of the ''head, heart and hands''.<ref></ref>
:There are 107 words in four sentences. It is the lead paragraph which means one would expect any of its assertions to be dealt with later in the article. You added 8 tags. It is too many.
:Let's take it tag by tag:
#citation requested as to whether it is worldwide or not
#*http://www.waldorfworld.net/Waldorf/Directories/ (which was easily reached via one of the external links listed) shows Waldorf (Steiner) Schools in the UK, Colegio los Charcos San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, Directory of Waldorf Schools in Denmark, French Waldorf School in Paris, New Zealand Waldorf (Steiner) Schools, Steiner Schools in Austalia, Waldorf Education Directory for South America, Waldorf movement in Ukraine and Russia, Waldorf Schools in Italy, Waldorf Schools in Norway, Waldorf Schools in Switzerland
#*It was easy enough to provide your own citation if one was required. It was not to my mind necessary to request a citation, the information was likely to be easily verifiable - what were you trying to prove by calling for a citation?
#You added a specificity tag to ''an educational philosophy first formulated by Austrian Rudolf Steiner and which grew out of his spiritual science''. The tag is a fixit tag for cases where statements and the terms used therein are too general, and thus need to be specified. Immediately following the tag was a link to ] which provides more than enough specification for the term and /or concept. This is clearly a gratuitous tag.
#Similarly the specificity tag was added to the term "while child" which was already in quotes and seems to be specified by the rest of the sentence, ie the words immediately following are ''by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic creativity and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development which is seen as a process of incarnation of the child's soul and spirit'' which procvides specificity.
#Next you ask to verify the source of the assertion about ''well-defined stages in child development'' - not clear at all what you are calling for here. However the article has aa whole section on pedagogy which goes level by level and links to the philosphy of ] which in turn links to ]. It does not make sense to me why you are challenging this. Certainly not int he lead papra but in fact anywhere. My response to this sort of thing in fact is, is there an educational philosophy that ignores "well-defined stages in child development"?
#The next tag seeks to verify the credibility of a book by Frans Carlgren. Not clear under ] how you are challenging the book. The author is not one who is held by the ]. He is held by the Library of Congress with one translated work (all the others in foreign languages). The work cited is not self-published. Is held in a library. Not sure if this search will be accessible later by link but here is the full catalogue record from the Library of Congress What are you trying to prove by requesting verification? How does it not meet ]? As I suggested above, you should probably have used comment tags to clarify your request.
#The last tags all seek citations for elements of the curriculum. I would again turn the question around. Is there a curriculum that does not focus on ''the arts, social skills, spiritual values as well as practical and integrated learning''? Secondly requesting three citations within a sentence within the lead paragraph is just over the top. That material is dealt with in the lengthy article below.
:So in conclusion yes you took my advice but you did so in a way that makes me despair. I have difficulty ] when I look at the tagging. It is hard to look at the tags and understand what you are trying to do - none of the examples above would have helped to clarify the article. The use of excessive tags had already been drawn to your attention several times.
:In future, I suggest you add one tag at a time, and only at the end of a sentence. You discuss that tag on the talk page - ie provide a rationale for why you think the tag is necessary. For example, it seems you want to challenge the assertion that "All students learn to play instruments" You assert they don't. Tag the assertion, provide discussion on that tag on the talk page about that and that only. Allow responses. I would be very surprised if a child made it through any education system without being offered a triangle, drum or some other instrument. If you don't like the assertions at ], make clear on the talk page what it is you object to. Do they not sing? Do they not sing each day? Do they not play the recorder? Do they not play string instruments? Are pupils not "generally required to take private music lessons"? Does orchestral instruction not continue through to 18, though as an elective in many schools?
:Before you add a tag, make sure there is not citation available in the extensive list of references and external links already available - or a wikilink providing the specificity you are requesting. For example, before adding a tag about music, is there a citation available already that deals with music int he waldorf curriculum? (I can't see one at a quick glance.)
:When there is a response, move on to the next one. Leave lead paragraphs alone. Check that the assertion is not dealt with in a wikilinked article. Above all else, don't violate the 3RR. You will be blocked again. Note admins are not obliged to block - you ask why HGilbert was not blocked - he reverted three times, not a fourth - it is the fourth that is the violation. S/he also had the agreement of other editors - others also reverted your tagging and commented on the article's talk page.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)




Thank you for going to this effort.


==Motion in arbitration case==
1) "citation requested as to whether it is worldwide or not" - no I want clarification about what connotes it as a "movement". Nothing is moving - enrollment numbers aren't moving, there is nothing progressive about Waldorf education, it is exactly the same as it was 80 years ago when Steiner died. In my kid's school, they don't have computers in any of the classrooms. Waldorf education is like Mrs. Havisham's wedding cake - no movement at all. Labeling it as a "movement" is saying it's going some place. Great if there's some verification that it IS, then let's leave the wording. Otherwise it's brochure talk.
Please take notice of ] ] 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks. I noticed it earlier today. '''--] 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)'''
2) "You added a specificity tag to an educational philosophy first formulated by Austrian Rudolf Steiner and which grew out of his spiritual science. The tag is a fixit tag for cases where statements and the terms used therein are too general, and thus need to be specified." - I've already discussed that the term "spiritual science" needs to be specified and at the very least put into quotes. It is not "science" by any stretch of the imagination (even Steiner's). That's what the tag to specify was for. "This is clearly a gratuitous tag" - maybe others may think so. Making a statement that calls Steiner's ideas "science" and then expecting someone to follow a link to get the explanation that it's NOT science (if that were on the Anthroposophy page - and I don't believe it is) is silly. Just put quotes around "spiritual science" to make it clear it was Steiner's term.


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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages articles on Waldorf, Steiner, and Anthroposophy are deeply flawed and biased. Misplaced Pages 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
3) "Similarly the specificity tag was added to the term "while child" which was already in quotes and seems to be specified by the rest of the sentence, ie the words immediately following are ''by maintaining a balance between physical activity, artistic creativity and academic work against a backdrop of well-defined stages in child development which is seen as a process of incarnation of the child's soul and spirit'' which procvides specificity." - You mean "whole child" here. The problem here, for me, is that there is no "balance" maintained here. Children in early grades are only kept in the spiritual - their questions are not answered for them because asking "why are Johnny's eyes blue and mine are brown" is too intellectual - it brings them "into their heads" too soon - answering questions can cause them to incarnate too soon. There is a problem with the sentence in may areas and I'm trying to identify the problem completely since nobody here will allow me to edit it myself without having my edits reverted.


The administrators are not interested in content here Roger... Somebody has to straighten the deck chairs on the Titanic... '''--] 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)'''
4) "Next you ask to verify the source of the assertion about ''well-defined stages in child development'' - not clear at all what you are calling for here. However the article has aa whole section on pedagogy which goes level by level and links to the philosphy of ] which in turn links to ]. Certainly not int he lead papra but in fact anywhere. My response to this sort of thing in fact is, is there an educational philosophy that ignores "well-defined stages in child development"?" Here I'm questioning the "well-defined stages in child development" - which are "well defined" by Steiner. In the next portion, they try to present Steiner's ideas as if they are similar to Piaget's (which is not accurate). Piaget's work is something Waldorf schools have latched on to because of its popularity. It has nothing to do with Steiner, doesn't agree with Steiner at all. It's a Waldorf buzzword to legitimize Steiner's ideas. Nothing more.


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 Misplaced Pages's best interests. ] 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5) "The next tag seeks to verify the credibility of a book by Frans Carlgren. Not clear under ] how you are challenging the book. The author is not one who is held by the ]. He is held by the Library of Congress with one translated work (all the others in foreign languages). The work cited is not self-published. Is held in a library. Not sure if this search will be accessible later by link but here is the full catalogue record from the Library of Congress What are you trying to prove by requesting verification? How does it not meet ]? As I suggested above, you should probably have used comment tags to clarify your request." I'll admit, I don't trust Anthroposophical sources because, like the Anthroposophical commission in the Netherlands who concluded that Steiner didn't make racist remarks in his work, Anthroposphists verifying the work of Waldorf is akin to Catholics supporting Catholic schools. Yes, sure, Anthroposophists have been published, and sure, their work may be in the Library of Congress, but validation of Waldorf activities by Anthroposophists is not something that I don't find very reassuring - especially when claims are unbelievable (like claims that kids in Waldorf schools are healthier than kids in other schools - and attributing this to Waldorf education).


:That's hysterical! This place is too funny. You believe that removing the NPOV tag is what results in neutral articles? :) ] 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
6) "The last tags all seek citations for elements of the curriculum. I would again turn the question around. Is there a curriculum that does not focus on ''the arts, social skills, spiritual values as well as practical and integrated learning''? Secondly requesting three citations within a sentence within the lead paragraph is just over the top. That material is dealt with in the lengthy article below." - The issue I have is, again with each of the elements of the sentence. No, social skills are not focused on - in fact bullying is a huge issue in Waldorf schools, much more common than ordinary schools because Waldorf schools believe in a karmic relationship between the children - and teachers will often watch fights on the playground without helping children resolve their differences. Also, socialization is an issue because children are in a very small class for 12 years - they are only accustomed to the kids in their class - and in the older grades, still only with the kids in their, often very small, school. Waldorf kids generally don't socialize well in the outside world and it is common to see high school graduates come unglued when they have to move into a college environment. I've also discussed my concern with the words "spiritual values" which are really meaningless, especially when one doesn't know what spiritual bent Anthroposophy has. A reader will assume it means their own spiritual values - and it is almost certain NOT to mean these. The words "practical and integrated learning" are also misleading. Two of my own kids who have been in Waldorf from kindergarten - one is in high school and one in 7th grade - cannot name more than 5 presidents. I don't find that very practical. Their learning experience is absolutely full of holes and certainly not "integrated". This is common of most kids in Waldorf. Kids are never taught about dinosaurs, for example, because Steiner didn't think this was necessary. My cite requests were intended to challenge each of these things individually. I understand it looked ugly. The article needs a lot of work.


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. ] 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
":So in conclusion yes you took my advice but you did so in a way that makes me despair. I have difficulty ] when I look at the tagging. It is hard to look at the tags and understand what you are trying to do - none of the examples above would have helped to clarify the article. The use of excessive tags had already been drawn to your attention several times."


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 Misplaced Pages, through your collective efforts has become NOT NEUTRAL on these topics. '''] 05:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)'''
If I would be allowed to actually edit the article, as is the intention of Misplaced Pages, without my edits being removed offhandedly by the Waldorf police, I would certainly not have needed to go to this effort. I tried to tag every instance where the language is problematic. If I simply tag a sentence, most of these are compound sentences, then there is even less clarity about what I find problematic. If I could just edit the article, an activity everyone else apparently has available to them, I could make some headway toward cleaning it up. The problem is some overzealous Waldorf defenders won't allow it - and they outnumber me, so they can revert the article to their heart's content. In each discussion where I've made a legitimate point for change, they have just dropped the discussion - no agreement is arrived at - and so the change doesn't happen. Everybody seems to agree that the article needs work - but nobody can agree that any changes by a critic of Waldorf should belong there. Even on the project page outline, critical comments are labeled as "hysterical". This is not conducive for honest good faith. It makes me wonder if being on the editing project is better than not. Trying to work cooperatively with people who characterize critics as hysterical doesn't make good sense to me.


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. ] 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
":In future, I suggest you add one tag at a time, and only at the end of a sentence. You discuss that tag on the talk page - ie provide a rationale for why you think the tag is necessary. For example, it seems you want to challenge the assertion that "All students learn to play instruments" You assert they don't. Tag the assertion, provide discussion on that tag on the talk page about that and that only. Allow responses. "


== Notice of arbitration ruling ==
Again, discussions don't seem to go anywhere. They dead-end whenever I've made a point. I've got three students here that don't play any instruments. So, no, all students don't learn to play instruments. You saw how many issues are in the article. Discussing each and every one is something nobody has time for. I have seen some effort in the last day or so by the Waldorf people to address some of the citations, but it's basically an exercise in finding Waldorf sources that confirm the brochure dialog.


Please take note that the ] has adopted the following motion: ''"] 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. ] 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"I would be very surprised if a child made it through any education system without being offered a triangle, drum or some other instrument. If you don't like the assertions at ], make clear on the talk page what it is you object to. Do they not sing? Do they not sing each day? Do they not play the recorder? Do they not play string instruments? Are pupils not "generally required to take private music lessons"? Does orchestral instruction not continue through to 18, though as an elective in many schools?" - But that's not what is being claimed here. They claim that all children "learn" to play instruments, not that they are offered a triangle or drum. The claim is that children come away with an abilty to play instruments. Some do, some don't - certainly not ALL.


: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.] 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
":When there is a response, move on to the next one. Leave lead paragraphs alone."


::This cannot be correct Diana. The Misplaced Pages 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? '''] 05:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)'''
For the time being, I'm still part of the editing project team. We're working on the lead paragraph right now. It is full of flaws and everyone agrees with this.


:::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. --] 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"Check that the assertion is not dealt with in a wikilinked article. Above all else, don't violate the 3RR. You will be blocked again. Note admins are not obliged to block - you ask why HGilbert was not blocked - he reverted three times, not a fourth - it is the fourth that is the violation. S/he also had the agreement of other editors - others also reverted your tagging and commented on the article's talk page."


::::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 Misplaced Pages - 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. '''] 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)'''
Yes, it's no surprise that other editors reverted my edits. And I read that the 3RR doesn't apply to groups - so a team effort by Waldorf supporters is OK, I suppose - so they slide because they have more people involved. I commented on the talk page and on the project page as well. I was told what to do on the talk page - how to tag the problem areas. I guess my problem was that I thought the issues I have with the article might be taken seriously. I'm not inclined to invite a team of critics here to support me, yet I'm facing a team of Waldorf supporters working together to ensure that my edits don't make it on to the page. Please know that my efforts are in earnest. The article is riddled with problematic language and the reality of Waldorf education, one of the most controversial educational systems in the world (as you have no doubt guessed), is not expressed fairly here. I'll settle in for the long term and fight the edit wars by the rules - which I guess I'll be learning as I go along. --] 01:36, 4 September 2006 (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? - ] 19:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
= Waldorf Project Update =


: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 Misplaced Pages and a shameful distortion of what Misplaced Pages 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. '''] 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)'''
Dear Pete, I am sending each project member a copy of the note I am sending to the adminsitrators about our project. I remain very optimistic that this project can make a big difference in the quality of the Waldorf page as experienced by the Wiki reader. I am pasting the letter below my signature and invite feedback on my Talk.
:: 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. - ] 21:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
] 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


If kicking at anthills is what it takes to break up the hive mentality here, that's what I need to do. '''--] 05:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)'''
Dear Longhair and Cormaggio, Thank you immeasurably for your help with the Waldorf project so far. As you will note below, I am planning shortly to move the project pages to within alt ed - just want to clarify structure first. It is currently at User:Wonderactivist/Waldorf Project Team Page


==Now My User Page is Protected==
With your admin experience, and the amount of back-n-forth this article has undergone - actually speeding up since the proposed project - I would like your opinion on strategies to manage the project if you should have time.
And so, I can't even edit my own user page. Gee I'm running out of options... '''] 03:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)'''


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


::I'm going out of my way in these final exercises to show how corrupt Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages reverting your nonsense forever. Enjoy your life as a Misplaced Pages editor, loser, I'm out of here. '''--] 14:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)'''
1 there are "sides" within the group instead of a single focus on creating a good article. While this is somewhat to be expected, I also expected a greater level of professionalism. Is there a known strategy to begin to turn this around?


Don't let your book get to be too big Pete. Because if it gets its own Misplaced Pages 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. ] 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
2 Unbelievably, I think,we have actually reached almost a consensus on the Introduction. I would like to focus on this positive and if possible have it become a springboard for examining just one section at a time. 3 On the current project page, a format for the article has been proposed, while the person actually rewrote the whole article, I propose taking just the OUTLINE - the section names 0- and beginnning with agreeing upon the sections.


:I'm not interested in your childish taunts. Enjoy your new career... both of you. '''--] 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)'''
Other than the administrative questions, my project strategy will be to set up two pages within the alt ed project:


Not interested in childish taunts? Just today you said:<blockquote>Enjoy your life as a Misplaced Pages editor, loser, I'm out of here. '''--] 14:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)'''</blockquote>
1 to lay out a structure - outline only - for the page 2 to finalize with formal agreement, the introduction. 3 ONLY begin work on the next section when we have agreed upon the above two, then moving just one section at a time.
Man, Pete, less than one day...you sure grew up fast. ] 22:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


:More childish taunts. You're the one that needs to grow up. '''--] 13:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)'''
My hope is that it will disarm the ongoing wars over fine points and pet projects.


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. ] 23:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
What is your opinion?


:Waldorf smears itself, friend. I just reported the truth... and still do. '''] 14:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)'''
And thank you from the bottom of my transplanted Texas heart! Wonderactivist 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


==] case==
== Request ==
{| align="left"
Hi - I have been asked if I ''"can suggest a next stage of action, or intervene in some constructive way"'' to the perception that ].
|| ]
:I guess once again I draw your attention to ] and also ] - wikipedia isn't a soap box ...
|}
:Not all of the diffs are in my view personal attacks. In fact most of them to my mind fall within the scope of ] - but not all, and perhaps you could tone it down just a little and still get your point across - I am not sure.
You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] (]) 18:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:At one stage you state - ''I don't speak German and I'm not going to take your word for it as to what it says - nothing personal.'' - even though you qualify with nothing personal, it isn't really satisfactory. If the source is available only in German and it serves to verify the assertion in the article and it is, apart from the language issue, a reliable source. The source does not need to be accessible to you or any other particular editor, it needs to meet the verifiability criteria of Misplaced Pages. It probably does. Similarly if someone quotes from a book that I have not got access to, for example it is no longer published and there is no copy in an Australian library, it does not make it an unsuitable source - the assertion can be verified - just not by me.

:Please try to abide by ] and work with other editors towards producing the best possible article on Waldorf and related topics - the best possible article will be neutral - not merely an attack, not merely puffery. It will not be based on unpublished sources. It will not reflect the views of any one editor or a very few editors. After reading these articles, any reasonable person will say - ''that was fair, I am better informed, I know where to go for more information or to follow up on some of the points made.'' A good article will develop collaboratively and will not be written overnight.

:As per the advice above on requesting citations, go slowly, one assertion at a time. Fix that to a good standard and with concensus and then move on to the next ... It is obviously not easy and especially when there are strong views on both sides.--] <sup>]</sup> 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''time'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:Topic ban evasion per evidence submitted at ]|'''Topic ban evasion per evidence submitted at ]'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] <small>]</small> 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> ] <small>]</small> 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

==] case==
{| align="left"
|| ]
|}
You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] (]) 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?] (]) 01:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

== June 2014 ==
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]To enforce an ] decision,&nbsp;and for evading your topic ban using ], you have been ''']''' 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.&nbsp;If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and then appeal your block using the instructions there. ] ] ] ] &spades; 23:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC) <hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a ]: "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" ). 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.</small></p></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->

== Arbitration request regarding you ==

Hi Pete K, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the ] proposed regarding you has been passed by the Arbitration Committee and the amendment request has been closed and ]. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692039973 -->

==Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:FTN-notice--> Thank you.--] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 18:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:18, 6 March 2023

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
He made it related. Fred Bauder 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please consider Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 06:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_or_social_networking_site, and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies despite your obvious distaste for my way of doing things. These pages are allowed and there is no Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages rule supports this action? --Pete K 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages: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 - Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages - 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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' ”
- Jimbo Wales, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

  • Misplaced Pages: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.
  • Misplaced Pages: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.
  • Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages... 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages articles on Waldorf, Steiner, and Anthroposophy are deeply flawed and biased. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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: "Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages - 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 Misplaced Pages and a shameful distortion of what Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages reverting your nonsense forever. Enjoy your life as a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for Topic ban evasion per evidence submitted at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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" ). 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shibbolethink 18:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Category: