| Revision as of 01:04, 6 October 2006 editPete K (talk | contribs)3,760 edits →Aggression← 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 | ||
| (401 intermediate revisions by 60 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! -- ] 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) | |||
| All I can say in response is that this is an effort by others to have me removed from Misplaced Pages. You are the third moderator they have contacted to try to accomplish this. They have been complaining about me ever since I got here. This is because I can back up what I say with actual references. Some of us have bad blood going back many years. Harlan Gilbert, in fact, characterized my custody and divorce situation HERE of all places, and when I was alerted to this by a friend, I was drawn into these discussions. Regarding my edits, I believe I have made responsible edits that are continually rejected by a group that wants to preserve their side of a controversial issue. My friends on the other side of this debate have, indeed, twisted translations of quotes in German to make them seem like they say something different. That's why I don't trust them to translate anything - my view is based on experience. I wouldn't trust a card shark in a poker game either - and yet, I could say this about the person without insulting him. What we have here is an effort to use material published by a religious group to support the view of that same group. It would be like pointing to the gospels and saying this proves Jesus is God. While that may be proof enough for some, it would be improper for an encyclopedia to exclaim that, indeed Jesus is God, based on this type of reference. So, when I see a reference to someone within the Waldorf schools supporting ridiculous claims by Waldorf schools - simply because this information was published in a Waldorf resource, I feel compelled to speak out. I've seen far too many children AND parents AND teachers hurt, physically, emotionally, psychologically by some factions within Waldorf education to just be quiet about this. And this is what makes me dangerous to our editors on the other side of the isle. My righteousness is supported by the fact that I know where the bodies are buried. I've seen the worst (hopefully) of Waldorf, and I am quite sure my fellow editors have also seen it but refuse to discuss it. I honestly don't feel Misplaced Pages is a place that would allow a group on one side of any debate to push out the single voice on the other side of the debate. If you will carefully look at the edits I have made, not just the ones Harlan Gilbert sent you, but all of them, you will see that there is validity to what I am trying to do. They don't like that I continually quote Steiner's own words. How does it make sense that an article about a man should not include quotes from him. Even the article about Steiner's RACISM is guarded over by this group to swiftly remove all quotes by the man himself. Each quote I've supplied has a citation and page number reference. And the efforts by these people to whitewash all the articles relating to their belief system is obvious if one were to take the time to look at it. AND this was going on long before I got here. --] 00:48, 7 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) | |||
| == Please don't delete links to relevant and useful material == | |||
| ==] case== | |||
| The transcripts of the PLANS trials are relevant and useful. If you can find other places that they exist, feel free to replace the existing links. Otherwise, they fit the ] guidelines of including links to accurate and relevant material. Please avoid unnecessary edit wars. ] 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {| 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) | |||
| Sorry, Harlan - but I'm not about to agree to link this stuff to the defammatory Waldorfanswers site. I agree with the need to have the transcripts available, but directing people to Waldorfanswers is not an option here. Let's make a sub-page of the PLANS page and post the transcripts there. In the mean time, I'll continue removing the links. --] 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == June 2014 == | |||
| *I think the guidleine you should both be referencing is ] Regards --] <sup>]</sup> 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]To enforce an ] decision, 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and then appeal your block using the instructions there. ] ] ] ] ♠ 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 == | |||
| It isn't the source of the material that is in question here (we're talking about court transcripts and we both agree they should be linked to the article) - it is linking to a website that is replete with false information. Once a person has been directed, via an innocent-looking link, to this site, they are likely to look around the site. Per the guideline: | |||
| 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) | |||
| "Partisan, religious and extremist websites | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source. | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Misplaced Pages, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources." | |||
| <!-- 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== | |||
| So while the good information is warehoused at this site, it is not, I feel, appropriate to link to this particualr site, even though the exact page that is being linked to contains accurate information. I feel that the court transcripts could be a sub-page of the PLANS article and the link could go directly to that sub-page. --] 01:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| :You probably need to place the transcripts at ] - that seems to me to be the appropriate repository for transcripts and probably more appropriate than a sub-page of another article.--] <sup>]</sup> 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you! I'll make that suggestion. --] 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{wikisource|Bermagui - In a Strange Sunset}} | |||
| *For an example of how it might work, see ] - the link to the associated piece by Lawson is just after the info box and is done by the code <nowiki> | |||
| {{wikisource|Bermagui - In a Strange Sunset}}</nowiki>. which produces the box to the right and which in turn will take you to Lawson's piece. Regards--] <sup>]</sup> 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, I like that approach. Thank you Golden Wattle. I don't know if I'm able to do this without help, but I can try it as soon as the lock is removed from the Waldorf Education article. Or, if someone else wants to do it, that's fine by me. Thanks again! --] 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't feel you should be stalled by the lock on the main article. In the meantime, you could probably usefully start to put the stuff on wikisource. It is another project so you need to sign up for it (you can edit as an anon but it perhaps makes it easier for people to identify you if you have the same login there.) | |||
| ::Have a look at how case law is presented at ], see for example ]. I don't like that example - no header or links (I prefer my work on Bermagui and think it helps the reader more as it has an intro with some context and links back to wikipedia for people and places). ] has some headings. A much better write up is ] - note also the associated wikipedia article ]. | |||
| ::The Waldorf education article in my opinion is getting too long - or perhaps off-tangent - not very readable anyway. I would suggest that perhaps a separate article on legal challenges in the US might be useful. Firstly, the legal challenges are US specific and the education system is worldwide. Notwithstanding that we have separation of church and state here in Australia, such a challenge would not for example be successful in Australia - the article on Waldorf Education should as much as possible have worldwide scope. For an example of a lengthy article broken down with other articles and referenced, see for example ] - there is still some reference to languages on the primary article but there are two other articles which tackle the same subject in more detail thereby improving readability of the overall topic. There are already some references from the main article to other articles in the Waldorf Education article. | |||
| ::For examples of other articles on court cases, see ] - though no transcript is at wikisource - Coomonwealth Law reports transcripts are referenced. This article is a ], in other words regarded as a good example of an article.--] <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] edit warring== | |||
| This edit warring ''has'' to stop. I am warning all three parties involved, yourself, ] and ]. I am also not going to be a mediator in this content dispute. But I am warning all three of you, if anymore diffs I see are revert warring on this article or any other related article, all three of you will be reported for 3RR vioations. Please don't put yourself and others in conflicts which result in edit warring. Please discuss this until resolved and then make the appropriate change, ok? — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 19:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you will see the discussion pages, I have continually tried to discuss this issue. All that happens is the continued clipping of quotes. I am quite sure what I am doing is within the guidelines of Misplaced Pages, but if I am doing something wrong, please tell me exactly what it is. I have posted as an example of Steiner's racism - several different quotes. I have gone to the discussion pages and made my case for putting the quotes there and the other two editors you mentioned continually remove them - with NO discussion other than to call my edits vandalism. I feel I have behaved appropriately in this issue and that others who are continually reverting the article should be cautioned about their activities and held to the 3RR rule. Having once violated this rule in the past, I don't believe I have violated this rule at all in this instance. --] 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If you want third party intervention, you may want to try the ], where you can get an unbiased third person's opinion on the situation. But I do find something wrong with what you said above. You stated: ''"I have posted as an example of Steiner's racism"'', which doesn't fully comply with our ] policy, and that very well may be the reason it is being removed. Or if there's somewhere else thier posting this information, you may want to find out where that is. And you said you violated 3RR before, and which you believe you haven't done so now. I can safely say that you have, at least reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours. 4 reverts and you would be blocked. So please take caution around reverting on that article for now on. — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 00:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There is NO POV in quoting what the person the article is about has said. I'm not interjecting any POV in this - it is a quote of his exact words. If anything it is Steiner's POV, not mine. The subsection I am posting this in deals exactly with Steiner's racism. I have not reverted the article, as I understand revert to mean undoing the edits of someone else. I have put different quotes in the article, not the same quote. The effect, however is the same as NO quote demonstrating Steiner's racist views is acceptable to the "editors" who are removing this material. If anybody is reverting the article it is they who continually remove my edits to bring it back to the condition they want to maintain. --] 01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Personal attacks on ]== | |||
| constitutes a personal attack against me. Please stop attcking me personally. — ] ] 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You are, perhaps, too sensitive for this type of work.--] 02:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Or are you too nasty? ] 09:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Maybe, in your view. I've come up against some very nasty people here. Here's a secret - I'm a mirror - you get back what you give. If you're nice, I'll be nice, if you're nasty, you get nasty back. People who are nasty, who call me a vandal or spammer, who rip out my reasonable edits, get back a double dose of what they give. People who take the time to discuss things before wiping out my edits usually have no trouble arriving at a reasonable compromise with me. I'm here to work with others to make several one-sided articles better and more NPOV - not to rip out any edit I don't agree with. Sure, some people here are just here to insist on their POV, and those don't get treated very nicely by me. Those that are willing to discuss what needs discussing will find me generally good-natured and willing to compromise. --] 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You have already been told that ] does not excuse incivility or personal attacks on the basis of these being a "justified response". Allow me to remind you of this. In addition, the above user, Goethean, did nothing incivil; you began the incivility. ] 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think I will allow you to remind me... but thanks anyway. This is just a long-winded attempt by an organized group of Waldorf supporters to have me dismissed from Misplaced Pages. It's pretty clear from all your whining what you are up to. I'm not interested in playing your game. Like I said, perhaps Goethean is a little too sensitive for this work. --] 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal at Waldorf Project == | |||
| With advice from an admin, I have taken the next step in the Waldorf project and invite your opinions or alternative suggestions for a first formal proposal. In the face of the ongoing conflict it will be necessary to work especially hard toward NPOV and to establish groundrules before we can begin our real editing work. I invite you to be part of that process at | |||
| ] ] 14:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Cool it == | |||
| Comments that other editors' contributions are are quite uncalled for regardless of the problems you may have had with the editor in question. Please ] and avoid ]. ] Co., ] 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your unsolicited criticism. I guess that's why your name says "uninvited". Those comments are two weeks old. I've already cooled it. If you want me to change my current behavior, then please find something current to point to. --] 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == removal of weblinks == | |||
| Can you explain why you that I put in the Rudolf Steiner article? I put the links in so that people could see the quotations in a larger context, which is ''exactly'' the problem with all quotations and especially with your very problematic quotations that seek to "expose" a figure as a racist. — ] ] 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, I'd be happy to explain. The links are to Waldorfanswers - which is an original research website that warehouses defamatory information and a lot of myths about Steiner and Waldorf education. If you have a valid reference, it needs to be warehoused somewhere else - not at Waldorfanswers, or Americans4WaldrofEducation or similar original resource sites. This issue has been resolved by the administrators and Wikisource has been offered to us as a good place to warehouse information rather than using the defamatory websites listed above. Please note that I am not AT ALL against referencing the information you want to reference - only the website where it is stored. --] 19:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Who, exactly, do you allege that the linked website defames? By the way, there is no Misplaced Pages policy that dictates that one cannot link to an allegedly defamatory website. I have reverted your edit. — ] ] 20:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| OK, I'll just revert it back. Not a problem for me. The material you want to point to can be posted on Wikisource. But if you would rather have an edit war over warehousing it at this site - a site that everyone else has agreed is defamatory and should not be linked here, go right ahead. It's completely your call here. --] 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That appears to be a refusal to discuss the issue. Reverting without discussion is vandalism. — ] ] 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've discussed the issue in the past, and I'm discussing it here, and I'm discussing it concurrently on the Steiner discussion page. Posting links to defamatory websites is vandalism, my friend.--] 22:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You are being coy. Who was defamed? Where? What Misplaced Pages policy are you invoking? Until I have the answers to these questions, I will — correctly — return the links to the article. — ] ] 22:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've got time - how many reverts is that for you? I'm keeping track. There has already been agreement that the Waldorfanswers site is not an acceptable warehouse for material here. Enjoy yourself, I know I am. BTW, your talk page shows a history of this type of behavior on your part. What's up with that? --] 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You are introducing irrelevancies, a sign that you have no argument. What agreement? Where? Who was it with? — ] ] 22:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The agreement was reached on the Waldorf page. Several of the moderators were interested in this issue but GoldenWattle provided a solution that allows editors to put the material on Wikisource without having to link to defamatory websites. The particular website you are referencing is extremely problematic. The agreement was that someone researching information shouldn't be directed to a website where misinformation is prominent. I have, BTW, tried to find a reference to the information you want to link to on the Rudolf Steiner archive, but it doesn't seem to be there. I really don't know why - but it may be that there is a copyright violation issue and that's why legitimate websites don't have this particular lecture available. In any case, if you have access to it and want to put it on Wikisource, that would be the best way to resolve this. --] 22:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There. was that so hard? Also, you may have heard of new technology called a link. — ] ] 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Naw... I'm against link as they often serve dishonest purposes...--] 23:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No offense, but that's stupid. What I see now is that on that article also, removing the same link repeatedly, until the article was protected by an administrator. There appears to be no agreement; merely your unilateral edit warring. I will keep this, as well as your creative attitude towards describing events, in mind. — ] ] 23:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| No - the article is locked up because of the same silly person who continually wanted to link everything to his same silly website - so people could get a good helping of his same silly opinion. As for the agreement, you will see several of us (everybody involved except the silly person) agreed that the warehousing of material at the Waldorfanswers site was not appropriate and that the warehousing of it at Wikisource was appropriate. That's called an agreement. I really don't care how you characterize me, btw - it's not as if I value your opinion. --] 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The history of that article makes for some mighty interesting reading. So the anti-Steiner group lost a court case, and you are here to make sure that Misplaced Pages doesn't link to the evidentiary documents. Good to know! — ] ] 23:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| No, you actually have to read what is there to understand, my friend. Is commentary based on a superficial understanding of the facts characteristic of your participation here? There is no Anti-Steiner group, BTW, but a group that is testing whether separation of church and state applies to Waldorf schools. But, getting more to the point - there was never any reason or desire to suppress the court documents - only to warehouse them in a neutral site and not a site that is defamatory of the group that filed the lawsuit. This makes perfect sense to people who don't have their head up their ass (not meaning you, of course). --] 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello Waldorf Project Team Members == | |||
| I just wanted to let you know that two proposals have passed on the Waldorf project and two more - one based on Fergie's starting place - have been set out for discussion ]. Feedback has been given that the project has been going slow. I apologize as I had hand surgery a week ago, but truly nothing should wait for one person. If we each check in once or twice a week, we should be able to get through the article in a month or two. I would appreciate your valuable insights on the proposals and timing. ] 12:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Waldorf Edits''' | |||
| In clicking around to user pages to send the note, I have seen that the edit wars are truly still raging - they just have moved from the Waldrof page to user pages. As a result, I do not advise speeding up this project - time will be well-spent hashing out the disagreements civilly, with the result being a better page for Misplaced Pages and its readers. The problem with this page, overall, has been each person's need to push their own agenda without taking time to consider other viewpoints. Please do not resume your edit wars on the page. Wonderactivist 12:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Waldorf_Project" | |||
| ==Your report of edits to my talk page== | |||
| Hi PeteK. I suggest you take a read over ], especially the section at ]. I'm trying to be fair here to all concerned, yourself included, and to let you develop the articles you're working on amongst yourselves. I will only act accordingly as an administrator on any report of abuse outside policy if I witness it myself, or if edits in question are referred to me in the format of a ]. Providing a diff helps me get to the edit in question directly, without wading through a ton of information. -- ]\<sup>]</sup> 23:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you Longhair. Yes, I believe you are trying to act fairly. I'm sorry I haven't figured out how to link diffs like Harlan Gilbert is able to. It is known to me that I am working against a religious organization when I try to edit here and that their resources are greater than mine. I'll see if I can figure out the diff format. --] 23:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::To create a diff, simply view the article history, click (last) to see the edit concerned, then paste the ] from your browsers adress bar within two square brackets to my talk page. Let me know if you need help. -- ]\<sup>]</sup> 23:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks, I'm working on it. {{unsigned|Pete K}} | |||
| ::::Let me get this clear. You feel as though a gang of editors is gaming the ] rule and forcing a point of view into articles? Could you also give me a brief description in addition to your recent message to myself of your complaint regarding those diffs you've provided? Your diffs worked fine btw. Easy huh? :) -- ]\<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, assmuming your diffs are in the same order as pasted above your recent edits to my talk page, I don't require descriptions. I'll just refer to the earlier examples. -- ]\<sup>]</sup> 23:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, basically, it's two people working as a team to restore their POV without effort to discuss the edits. It's just rude and leads to edit wars when discussion isn't at least attempted. There has been discussion about this section by myself and DianaW, and a couple of sentences by HGilbert, but most of it is me talking to a wall. --] 23:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, Pete, tell me that you and Diana have had no discussions about editing Misplaced Pages articles, and this particular article! We know that you two are amongst the most active in the very small group of active forum contributors at the Waldorf critics site, and she appeared very quickly after you asked if it would help to have others on your side in the editing question!!! You both are trying to suppress a valid POV, valid by every Misplaced Pages (and human) standard, written and published by a widely recognized authority on human rights. I have made this clear on the talk page, now please respect it. I'm not suprised that others also see this and revert your attempts to remove clearly significant work. ] 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Harlan, I've already made my point on the discussion page. There is no validity to the POV that Steiner didn't say the things HE ACTUALLY SAID - or that they don't mean what they ACTUALLY MEAN. But let's keep the discussion of this on the appropriate discussion page where it belongs. --] 22:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :PeteK, with all due respects, this issue is getting out of my hands. When accusations of sock or meatpuppets are cast, I am not equipped with any facility to determine the truth, however ]. As I mentioned earlier today at goethean's talk page, I suggest one of you take this matter before the ] or try other avenues of ] to determine a basis for a solution here. The edit warring simply moves from one article to another related to Waldorf and Steiner, from talk pages, to user talk pages, into the article themselves, then around again we go - it's an endless circle of frustration for everybody concerned and tiresome as I'm sure you agree. Clearly a wider view from editors outside the debate are required to resolve this ongoing conflict. -- ]\<sup>]</sup> 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You may also wish to raise the matter at ] -- ]\<sup>]</sup> 00:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, thanks Longhair. I understand. I'm just watching these guys systematically filing complaint after complaint with administrator after administrator trying to get me kicked off the grid here. I'm doing my best to defend myself and I apologize for my part in the headache you must be getting from all this. If this stuff continues, I will, indeed, seek the mediation you have recommended. --] 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see this kind of stuff regularly here and am asked to intervene. I'm sometimes involved in heated debates myself. I must enjoy it - I keep coming back for no pay :) - ]\<sup>]</sup> 00:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks again (that's why I keep thanking you - no pay but you get the thanks of a grateful public). --] 00:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Knowledge is my reward. I love learning. Once the Waldorf series of articles is complete, maybe I'll learn all about that topic too (and perhaps throw in the odd edit, fixing typo's only of course :) Seriously, try some attempts at ]. I'll add my views at I've witnessed them if I can to aid the case along. This raging debate at articles and talk pages is only going to promote grey hairs prematurely in all of us. -- ]\<sup>]</sup> 00:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, I've got a bottle of French Brandy with a little left in the bottom... maybe I'll call it a night tonight and let everyone's tempers cool down a bit before taking that next step. --] 00:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There's nothing wrong with compiling evidence you need for later use in your own personal space if you feel it will help. I've not taken any sides. I'm willing to assist with an offer to anyone involved to bringing this dispute to a close. If you need help with anything, you know where I hang out. Brandy? I've got some scotch whiskey here, but it's only 10am. I couldn't - yet :) -- ]\<sup>]</sup> 00:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks. I appreciate this. I found myself backing out of the Waldorf project because it was me "against" a group of Waldorf supporters (plus, I couldn't keep track of where they were doing the edit proposals) - so I suspect that edit war will continue there as well if some resolution isn't arrived at. I don't think the "project" will resolve anything since the current group is only Waldorf supporters and they will, in all likelyhood, produce another Waldorf brochure and not a factual representation of Waldorf ed. But I'll try to keep an open mind. Well, I'm in California - we're in the middle of happy hour here... so the brandy is looking better and better. --] 00:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Aggression == | |||
| I've noticed you feel strongly about certain topics. Although your point is often reasonable, but when you throw insults or demean people, it is hard to reach a compromise. It becomes more and more of a grudge match. Please try and watch this. That's all. --] 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Kiss my ass! (Just kidding)... --] 01:04, 6 October 2006 (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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:
- Polemical statements:
| “ | libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea' | ” |
- - Jimbo Wales, 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)
- "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)
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)
≈ 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
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
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)