Revision as of 17:54, 6 February 2007

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.

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?

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.

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.

I am open to any opinions on this.

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. Wonderactivist 15:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Talk:Waldorf education

I note your recent edit on the talk page of Waldorf education in reply to User:Thebee. Please make yourself aware of the official Misplaced Pages policy regarding No legal threats. 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. -- Longhair 15:05, 29 August 2006 (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. --Pete K 15:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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 Waldorf education 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 diffs 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. -- Longhair 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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. --Pete K 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

separate articles

Pete,

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.

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. Hgilbert 10:58, 30 August 2006 (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. --Pete K 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Project Update

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. Wonderactivist 04:26, 4 September 2006 (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

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.

I see two major issues:

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?

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.

Other than the administrative questions, my project strategy will be to set up two pages within the alt ed project:

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.

My hope is that it will disarm the ongoing wars over fine points and pet projects.

What is your opinion?

And thank you from the bottom of my transplanted Texas heart! Wonderactivist 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi - I have been asked if I "can suggest a next stage of action, or intervene in some constructive way" to the perception that you have made a large number of edits to talk pages with personal comments.

I guess once again I draw your attention to WP:NPA and also WP:NOT - 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 Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#Examples that are not personal attacks - but not all, and perhaps you could tone it down just a little and still get your point across - I am not sure.

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 WP:AGF 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.--Golden Wattle 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. --Pete K 00:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete links to relevant and useful material

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 WP:External links guidelines of including links to accurate and relevant material. Please avoid unnecessary edit wars. Hgilbert 01:12, 8 September 2006 (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. --Pete K 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the guidleine you should both be referencing is Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources Regards --Golden Wattle 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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:

"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.

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."

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. --Pete K 01:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to place the transcripts at wikisource - that seems to me to be the appropriate repository for transcripts and probably more appropriate than a sub-page of another article.--Golden Wattle 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll make that suggestion. --Pete K 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• For an example of how it might work, see Bermagui, New South Wales - the link to the associated piece by Lawson is just after the info box and is done by the code {{wikisource|Bermagui - In a Strange Sunset}}. which produces the box to the right and which in turn will take you to Lawson's piece. Regards--Golden Wattle 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! --Pete K 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 Wikisource:Wikisource:Case law, see for example Wikisource: Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004). 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). Wikisource:United States v. Dominguez Benitez has some headings. A much better write up is Wikisource:Marbury v. Madison - note also the associated wikipedia article Marbury v. Madison.

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 Indigenous Australians#Languages - 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 Dietrich v The Queen - though no transcript is at wikisource - Coomonwealth Law reports transcripts are referenced. This article is a featured article, in other words regarded as a good example of an article.--Golden Wattle 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

removal of weblinks

Can you explain why you removed the links 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. — goethean ॐ 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. --Pete K 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. — goethean ॐ 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. --Pete K 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That appears to be a refusal to discuss the issue. Reverting without discussion is vandalism. — goethean ॐ 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.--Pete K 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. — goethean ॐ 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? --Pete K 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are introducing irrelevancies, a sign that you have no argument. What agreement? Where? Who was it with? — goethean ॐ 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. --Pete K 22:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There. was that so hard? Also, you may have heard of new technology called a link. — goethean ॐ 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Naw... I'm against link as they often serve dishonest purposes...--Pete K 23:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but that's stupid. What I see now is that you edit warred 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. — goethean ॐ 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. --Pete K 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! — goethean ॐ 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). --Pete K 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I saw your request at the Administrators' Noticeboard and I'm going to hold off on any action. Here's why: the matter is in mediation right now with both parties participating. I hope you work out your differences there. Administrator intervention at this particular point could be counterproductive, especially because this case isn't black and white. This is my particular take as an administrator, not necessarily the view that other administrators would have and not necessarily applicable to every dispute in mediation.

Specifically in reference to a recent post of yours on the other editor's talk page, where you admit to being aggressive and state why, I'd like to suggest an essay and offer a few words of advice: topics that hit close to home aren't necessarily the best subjects to edit at Misplaced Pages. Myself, I never edit World Trade Center or 9/11 because I just couldn't be objective. My nearest relative was one of the last people to escape alive and I joined the military and went to war because of that day. Have a look at WP:NOT and ask yourself whether the reasons you're editing certain pages really fall within Misplaced Pages's mission. If you consider it necessary to warn other parents, then perhaps you'd get better results from the same amount of effort by launching your own public service website where you'd have complete creative control. Respectfully, Durova 14:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Durova. I don't believe this matter is being mediated. There was no consensus on the mediation process and now the articles are opened up for new edit wars. I would suggest to you that the people who are the least objective here are the ones who are promoting material dishonestly and who benefit from drawing people into their religious and school systems. People whose religion is based on certain ideas don't like to have those ideas challenged.

My request at the Administrator's Noticeboard had to do with unfounded charges of "hate group" - and simply slipping off to edit articles about snow-skiing is not going to help me in this. The term "hate group" has very specific meanings that are defamatory and that defamation directly impacts the people who are being targeted with this label (one editor here who was implicated is looking for a job) and Misplaced Pages should act on this. It is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to hold off action on this particular matter while the person making those charges continues to do so. Pete K 15:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Race and Steiner

I support having a thorough and open discussion of this issue, and hope that you see (you have sometimes acknowledged this) that I am attempting to do so in the article devoted to it. It looks like having substantial parts of this article in the main article on Steiner is a highly contentious issue, ranging from suggestions of a merger to the brief (but quite balanced, I hope you'd agree) current summary. Let's try to keep our cool while bringing in as many viewpoints as possible here - and above all, let's keep a tone of civility, Pete...please? Hgilbert 15:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, I'm really trying to assume good faith. When something is done honestly - like the edits in the Anthroposophy article - I've got no problem accepting it. When the slash-and-burn people are pulling the same crap, I won't expend any effort to be polite. I suspect you knew that the Dutch Commission report wasn't settled when you re-inserted it into the articles. But I'll assume that was a mistake for now. We've got to get it properly identified before it can be included. I personally think it's dumb to add it anywhere, but it's up to you guys. Re: the current summary - while I agree it's brief, I'm not sure it's accurate. I've added a citation needed marker to one part. I don't agree that a case can be made that neither Steiner nor his followers promoted racism. But we can work on the summary. Some of the stuff that Steiner said was just wrong - it was wrong then and it's wrong today. I don't mind putting it in a nice way, but I absolutely mind disguising it completely - which is what some editors here want to do. Those will get a fight from me. I can be reasonable, or I can be unreasonable - it pretty much depends on you guys. Pete K 15:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about with "wasn't settled"; I just cut and pasted the description from another location, assuming that it was ok as stood. It's a little bizarre to hear you say you are trying to assume good faith and then say you "suspect..."; but I appreciate the following "but I'll assume..." (maybe just leave out the suspicions, which are false, and keep assuming good faith, which is both polite and Misplaced Pages policy and also accurate, at least in this case).

Add or correct the identification as needed, please; I keep supporting you here. I agreed with your citation needed marker, as well, and actually reverted the article to the earlier wording to which I had referred when I said it was an accurate summary. I think you'll approve of this version? Hgilbert 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Harlan, I'll withdraw the "suspect" and say that you KNEW the issue wasn't settled. That's why it was an issue slated for mediation. When I said I "suspect" you knew it wasn't settled, I was being very kind. It wasn't settled - it was slated for mediation, you know this because you drew up the mediation request yourself - and the mediation never took place. So you knew the inclusion of the Dutch Commission report was contested and you pasted it back in anyway - which started the latest round of edit wars. Are you trying to bluff me with something here when you say you were "assuming that it was ok as it stood"? That's really just nonsense isn't it? You are well aware of the issues - they have been discussed in detail, and yet you didn't address any of them when you pasted in the report - as it was when it was contested. Good faith would have required some attempt from you to discuss the edit you were making and why you felt the two weeks of discussion had resolved anything. Instead, you didn't make any modifications, you didn't seek to identify the authors in any way - you just pasted it in there, knowing (I suspect) that it would cause problems - and it did. I will add the correct identification and the citation and the quote from the article that says it's "no big surprise" to find this commission saw no racism. Pete K 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete, I have discussed this change. You are saying I haven't discussed it simply because you don't agree with my reasoning. But I'm tired of your attempts at stalling progress. You will be reported if you revert again. You are out of line with wikipedia policy--reverting is only to be used in cases of blatant vandalism. This is a constructive edit.

I have made my points ALREADY on the talk page and you ignore the good points and spin the ones that are easily spun. So what am I supposed to do? Besides, I don't have to have your permission to edit. Boogafish 00:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, friend... I tried to be nice about it. Pete K 00:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer by PeteK

At my personal Talks page, Pete has made the following comment about a question I made to an admin. I've moved it here for documentation.

":Oh my... what drama... I spent 6 days documenting my viewpoint on the mediation issue. I did nothing wrong - and I described what I was doing. Sorry your mediation scheme didn't pan out. I'm always open to mediating the issues, but I won't mediate the personalities. Feel free to make another mediation request that actually addresses the issues. Pete K 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)"

Thebee 08:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it belongs on your talk page with the rest of the discussion. I'll move it back. Pete K 13:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal account

The vandal was blocked before I got to them by Luna Santin. Let me know if they resurface. Cheers. -- Longhair\ 03:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Longhair! Pete K 03:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Qualified experts

Pete, you are dealing inconsistently with the question of who qualifies to be quoted in Misplaced Pages. Do you really believe that anyone at all, without special qualifications, should be able to be quoted, as you assert for those you are quoting? Or do you believe that they should be historians, as you assert for those you do not wish to have quoted? Let's stick to one consistent policy, shall we? Otherwise claims of bias will be rather evidently justified... Hgilbert 00:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you are asking this Harlan. Are you suggesting everyone quoted in Misplaced Pages is a historian? We have everything from magazine articles and editorials, to judges opinions, to Dutch commissions, to people on picket lines, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker being quoted in these articles. The material you object to is from a valid published article that meets Misplaced Pages guidelines - which, for some strange reason, don't insist that everyone who presents material must be a historian. It is not original research material, it is published and everything contained in the article is fully cited. Are you suggesting I have kept you from producing a valid source? Pete K 00:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

your annoying blabla

I've moved these to where they belong - see TheBee's talk page.

i moved it to both talk pages. seemed to be the most diplomatic solution. trueblood 17:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks - but I hope you'll understand why I don't want it cluttering up my talk page. This is TheBee's vendetta stuff. It belongs on his page. Maybe he should move it to one of the administrator's pages if he thinks he has an actual point in there somewhere. Pete K 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Web-published documents

Once again, after making a great fuss about removing others' web-published works from articles you have inserted information drawn from a web-published document yourself. Either this should be better documented (is it published anywhere?) or removed. Hgilbert 19:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem - let's remove the entire section on the Commission. You can't continue to disguise the nature of the sources you are providing and expect not to be called out on it. Pete K 22:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked?

Is there some reason why I am blocked from editing? An explanation would be nice. Pete K 00:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stay civil

I don't know what your question refers to. But you have made yet further personal attacks since you were requested last time by an admin to stay civil. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

This refers to your two personal attacks, found here: "If you would get your head out of my ass, you might not think everything that emanates from me must necessarily be offensive. This is a standard trick for you - annoying everyone and using me as the bait to attempt to get us both kicked off the list. This is what you did at Mothering.com when I brought my Waldorf experiences to the Waldorf section there. It's a great trade-off for you, especially now that you have been shown to have no credibility - it's a pawn for a rook sacrifice." Thebee 00:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The request also refers to your personal attack on Hgilbert 15:34, 28 October: "Shove your reminders Harlan." Thebee 10:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"I don't know what your question refers to." No, you don't - so buzz off little bee... Pete K 13:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not know, when I wrote it. Now I do. Thebee 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much like you "know" everything else - by drawing ridiculous conclusions from minimal information. Pete K 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And, as if on que - the truth is revealed:

• • "This was many reverts over several days, but with further investigation of Pete K, this block does not appear to have been warranted. —Centrx→talk • 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)"

Pete K 23:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The block on User:Professor marginalia may not have been warranted. Blocking you was certainly warranted, and if you continue with personal attacks and disruptive editing you will be banned. —Centrx→talk • 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood your comment. If you don't mind - I'd like to know exactly what disruptive editing you are referring to. I've been discussing every edit on the talk pages of every article I've been editing - especially on the PLANS page where and when I was banned. This is, as I understand it, exactly what I'm supposed to be doing. I'm sorry, but I don't believe the blocking of me was warranted and I asked for an explanation above on my own talk page, the only place I could post a comment. I am involved with several controversial articles and that may show me in a harsh light. Nonetheless, several administrators have looked at the complaints against me and as far as I know have agreed that I haven't crossed the line (but I may have straddled it) - they acknowledge that these are heated discussions that sometimes get a little ugly when frustration sets in. Yes, I can be brash - but my edits are good ones and are supportable. I don't believe them to be any more disruptive than those of the some of the other editors who are involved in these articles - some of who follow me around from article to article and start section headers in the discussion pages devoted to attacking me. I'm not vandalizing anything - I am editing and supporting my edits. How is that disruptive? Pete K 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

24 hour block

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violations of WP:CIVIL after previous blocks. When proceeding in a content dispute, please be judicious in your talk page comments and edit summaries. Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution has many appropriate avenues where you can bring in unbiased editors and address content concerns. During your block I hope you will read this essay and bring your best self to Misplaced Pages when you return. Respectfully, Durova 03:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where my actions have not been civil. I think you may have misinterpreted something. Pete K 14:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on November 8 2006 to Waldorf education

The duration of the block is 24 hours. 

Note that this superceedes the previous block, which was for 12h

Apparently, other editors agree that the edits I made were justified. A group of meat-puppets working as a team to revert an article to their own POV is what has caused this block. At issue was the "advert" tag which is justified, was placed on the article by one editor, replaced by me, replaced again by another editor, and replaced again by me. Three editors, so far, have indicated the tag belongs there. I'm sure a forth editor is going to weigh in on this side too. The article is riddled with brochure language. Please note that I was removing brochure language right up to the lock-up of the article. There's still lots more in there that needs to come out before the advert tag should be removed. Additionally, I don't believe I broke the 3RR rule which requires a fourth reversion. Pete K 23:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the 3RR report, the four reverts were 1, 2, 3 and 4. Thebee 02:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppet (from the Misplaced Pages page)

Wikipedians (and others) should remember that the use of the term "Meatpuppet" may be perceived as highly offensive to the people involved. By definition the first contribution of a new user will be to a particular area, and they may start by expressing a view on what should happen on a particular before they subsequently add material of their own. Only if there is very strong evidence should such a term be used in relation to an account created by real person. Note also that "JDoe is a meatpuppet" can only mean "the account called JDoe is a meatpuppet" and to avoid offence the longer form is preferable.

Please sign your comments. Thanks! Pete K 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hey man, you shouldn't be uncivil, even though you think you are right. It's just not worth it... Nothing will come of your arguments after this has been settled, so you are basically wasting your time. I don't know what all of this is about, but out of experience I have learnt to keep my mouth shut when idiots won't accept that I am right... just a thought. --Adriaan90 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian. Pete K 16:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Pete,

Once an AfD is started, you may not remove the notice. Go vote in the AfD. So can anyone else on Misplaced Pages. The discussion goes on on the AfD page. -999 (Talk) 23:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake on my part - not done intentionally. Centrx put it back and I thanked him for doing this. And thanks for putting the tag on. I think when a merger is complete, the R & E page will be redundant and there won't be any problem with deleting the material you indicated today with your edits. Pete K 23:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Replied on 999's talk page, in case you aren't watching it yet... —Hanuman Das 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving to your talk page, since 999 gets touchy about long convos on his. My observation is that the only way to resolve such issues (with follower's coming out of the woodwork) is to insist on the citation of secondary sources for all opinion and interpretation. It may or may not favor your personal opinion, but it keeps the worst of the religious org rhetoric out of it and results in a better encyclopedia article. —Hanuman Das 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pete K, pleased to meet you. And thanks, H.D., for moving the conversation. Though what's on my page is quite amusing. -999 (Talk) 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Pleased to meet you too. Could I ask you guys, as experienced Wikipedians, if there is a way to see who the sock-puppets are - or to request someone to look into them? It would be nice to thin the field to just one editor per set of opinions. Not that I don't appreciate diversity, but stuffing the ballot box doesn't seem like a level playing field. Pete K 17:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Advice

Pete: you might want to look at WP:VANITY#COI_in_POV_disputes, which says, "Another major case is a POV dispute. Underlying conflict of interest can clearly aggravate editorial disagreements, and it is common enough to see accusations of editing with an external agenda.

In that scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. This is negative advice, but the existence of conflicts of interest as a fact of life here does not mean that assume good faith is past its sell-by-date. Quite the opposite. Conflicted editors should back off, but two wrongs do not make a right. (This guideline will not help you win an edit war, but no guideline here is intended to, except as far as all guidelines are intended to help improve the encyclopedia.)

Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor." Hgilbert 02:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, you've got a conflict of interest here - you should do the right thing and step aside voluntarily - especially since your edits are what continually make the Waldorf article a brochure. Stop trying to "sell" Waldorf. That's what you are doing - and it affects the article and clogs up the edit process. I assume you are saying you won't recuse yourself voluntarily... right? Pete K 14:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Durova's complaint was about something you and Paka edited, not about something I edited, I think you should reconsider your own involvement. I'm not trying to sell Waldorf; I am trying to have only verifiable information there, rather than editorializing by editors who are pushing a POV (if the shoe fits, wear it). Hgilbert 23:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't think I need advice from you. You ARE trying to sell Waldorf. It's exactly what you are doing. The only verification for your information comes from Waldorf and Anthroposophical sources. I'll take my chances that you think you can connect me with an editor whose last edit on the article was two months before I arrived here. Pete K 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

There is a current request for arbitration relating to the articles Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Hgilbert 01:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner's views

As I said, I'll be happy to post the text into userspace if you would like to slightly merge it. - crz crztalk 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

But I think we should hold off until after the arbitration is done? - crz crztalk 23:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)`

OK thanks. Pete K 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Crzrussian/Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity

History undeleted to my userspace. - crz crztalk 00:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but it looks empty. Am I looking at the wrong thing? Pete K 00:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops - got it never mind - and thanks!!! Pete K 00:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we get the discussion page too? This is just as important as it demonstrates how much effort some of us have gone to - to talk things out during the edit wars. Pete K 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, NP. - crz crztalk

We must have been posting at the same time - I didn't think you saw this here. Thanks again! Pete K 15:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting PLANS page

Please note that the PLANS page is one of several that is currently in arbitration. That's why there has been little talk on the talk page there. If you're going to unprotect it, you may want to also keep an eye on it... just sayin'... Pete K 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay; I wasn't aware of the arbitration case. I'll keep an eye on it. -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

translate this

hi pete, your evidence 148 (fake german link) actually reads if you stroll far down enough:

"Die Waldorfschulbewegung ist am Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts auf über 800 Schulen angewachsen, 3/4 davon in Europa (einschließlich Ost-Europa), und davon die Hälfte in Deutschland und den Niederlanden. Sie ist damit weltweit mit Abstand die größte von Staat und Kirche unabhängige Schulbewegung. Neue Steiner Waldorf Schulen entstehen ohne jegliche zentrale Steuerung fast immer aus lokalen Elterninitiativen. Schulen vernetzen sich zwar auf regionaler, nationaler und internationaler Ebene, bleiben dabei aber völlig autonom. Darüber hinaus arbeiten weltweit etwa doppelt so viele Kindergärten wie Schulen sowie über 500 heilpädagogische Einrichtungen auf anthroposophischer Grundlage.

note the sentence :Sie ist damit weltweit mit Abstand die größte von Staat und Kirche unabhängige Schulbewegung. maybe you already picked up enough german along the way to translate it. hint groesste means biggest and unabhaengige schulbewegung means independent school movement, oh and weltweit means worldwide... cheers trueblood 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You should post that on the evidence page if you haven't already. I've made my case that most of this stuff comes from Waldorf-supporting sources. If you have proof that this IS true (and not a puff-piece on Waldorf) you have an obligation to present it. Pete K 19:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

Thanks, Pete, I hadn't read the introduction...

Shall we work towards a more cooperative editing style?? Impossible? Possible? Hgilbert 18:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. To be honest, Harlan, I'm waiting until the dust clears. If I may speak candidly here, I think I'd really like to see Sune gone from here. He hasn't really contributed anything substantive to the articles and, in fact, he usually makes more work for others who have to clean up after him. I know you may feel he is supportive of your cause, but he's really doing nothing more than aggravating the issues and he's making you look worse than (I suspect) you are. His posture doesn't help Waldorf at all. I'm guessing it turns a LOT of people off and every time he makes one of his worn-out claims, they're refuted anyway. That he represents Waldorf and even Waldorf teachers is incredibly problematic for Waldorf IMO. I think it would be smart for you to support his banishment - but I know Waldorf teachers sometimes support each other's bad behavior, so I won't get my hopes up.

I think it's *possible* for you and me to work cooperatively, and we have once or twice, but our vision for Waldorf is quite different. And, of course, we seem to see some critical issues from opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm deeply concerned that you have sprouted so many articles - it looks like missionary work to me and emphasizes for me the Conflict of Interest issue I see as the root of the problems with the articles. I'm also concerned about what I feel is a misrepresentation of Steiner - as this continued obfuscation of what he actually believed hurts Waldorf more than it helps it. It makes you guys look sneaky - and people who encounter this sneakiness aren't going to rush to hand you their children. As I said, I think this works against Waldorf. And, because you are a Waldorf teacher, your edits here represent Waldorf teachers (like it or not) - so it's very important that those edits do not hurt the image of Waldorf teachers. This is something I think you should consider carefully before deciding to edit these articles. So, let's wait to see what the arbitration committee comes up with before smoking the peace pipe. I think, honestly, we are going to have to figure out how to work together at some point, but I think that work will be more satisfying if we agree that we are both going generally in the right direction. Pete K 18:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I just say you're latest revert... maybe I spoke too soon, above. Pete K 18:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Pete, I honestly did not mean to be crossing any lines here; I thought you must have seen the arbitrator's response to Sune's query about Staudenmaier. Does it not seem clear that he is, like the anthroposophical authors, not considered a verifiable source for Misplaced Pages? I have been removing both sides according to these suggestions, but maybe you would prefer to await a final decision...that's fine. In addition, this seems to apply to the systematic deletion of Steiner's words. Note that it is possible to give many more citations to his works in support of this. Or I can cite an independent source, if you prefer. At what point can you consider including other points of view than the one you have taken on? I kind of thought that we both could start to move forward accepting each other's contributions in line with the recommendations - but that's a two-way street.

As far as Sune goes, pots shouldn't call kettles black; I see the two of you mirroring each others' behavior to each other quite a lot. I'd like to see all of us find a path forward...without any exclusions. Hgilbert 19:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Does it not seem clear that he is, like the anthroposophical authors, not considered a verifiable source for Misplaced Pages?" This is far from clear - in fact, it is so blatantly wrong that it is quite unlikely such a preliminary judgment will stand. The arbitrator appeared initially to believe what Sune had told him about Staudenmaier's work. That was misguided. What Sune told him was false. Staudenmaier will not be found to be an "untruthful" author by any objective person taking a look at his work. He is a credible historian. Your aims to discredit him hang very, very thinly on the fact that he is still probably a year from having that PhD after his name and a prestigious university affiliation to go along with it. I suggest you make peace with the idea that Staudenmaier is going to be one of the few published (non-anthroposophical) historians to comment on Rudolf Steiner, and his publication list is obviously going to get longer, not shorter, and more prestigious, not less, with Ivy League credentials to his name and probably subsequent book-length treatments of his topic. If an arbitrator at wikipedia falls for Sune's vindictive and transparent attempts to trash the man's reputation, it would reflect very poorly on wikipedia, but it seems unlikely to me. And you can rest assured that such a situation would be temporary in any case. It might make more sense to make peace with it. After all, credible critiques of Staudenmaier's work might also follow. (Clearly Sune's aren't.) Even if you succeed in getting this or that article declared somehow unfit owing to yours and Sune's misrepresentations of his credentials or integrity or what-have-you - or lame things like announcing that he's a communist!! - this situation will only go in the other direction as Staudenmaier's CV gets longer. Do you want to waste time going round on this again in a year or two when new publications are available from Staudenmaier? What will you do when other people turn up with published, citable works on these topics (as is also quite likely in the not-too-distant future)?DianaW 19:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Harlan, please read further on the page you refer me to. The arbitrator is merely commenting. No actions should be taken based on one (of 8) arbitrator's comments. And I would expect a LOT of clarification before the editors here are sent off to interpret the recommendations by the arbitration committee. Re: Peter Staudenmaier, I don't see how he can be excluded as his credentials are impeccable - but in any case, when the arbitration committee makes a decision, that will be the point at which we need to start editing. In any case, your edit uses the "Steiner advocated racial equality" language that is not true, so I'm going to object to it no matter what. The second part you refer me to is, again, under consideration of the arbitration committee. The problem with your edit, and I expressed this in detail on the talk page of the article we are discussing, is that you are citing a source that says, on many pages (as I have shown) exactly the opposite of what you are trying to suggest. So, to be blunt, there will be NO point where a compromise from me is going to permit the acceptance of quotations or language that is contrary to the truth. Did you read all the quotations I offered from the same source - page after page of Steiner saying the exact opposite of what you are claiming? Do you realize how ridiculous you look trying to quote a single sentence that contradicts the bulk of the material from the same exact source? I don't understand why you think it is possible or advantageous to revise history - but your desire to do so again makes the COI issue relevent? Regarding Sune, I think you might be making a mistake hitching your cart to that horse, but that's up to you. Pete K 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another option, Harlan, is to take an angle that will *really* make your contributions to anthroposophy memorable: instead of being one of a large, faceless gang of defenders who parrot "Steiner said" and zealously insist that Steiner never said or did anything wrong in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary, make a name for yourself by being one of the few to suggest reform. Reform of response to justified criticism of Rudolf Steiner is an excellent way to serve the Waldorf and anthroposophical movements. Blaze a new trail: anthroposophists who respond maturely, rather than childishly and reactively, to the need for reform in anthroposophy.DianaW 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although it's not a "new" trail. There have been a few who have done this, but it certainly is the path less traveled in the Waldorf movement. Think of it as a sure-fire way to shut down critics. Pete K 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you might have noticed that I have included criticism in the articles I have edited here, some of it added by me, some by others. My take on verifiable sources for critics, which you find hard to accept, is identical with that proposed by the arbitrators. This will be just as hard for you to swallow as their take on verifiable sources for anthroposophical views will be for me; I, however, am willing to work within their proposed guidelines (as you seem not to be).

For example, I acknowledge and have always sought to include in these articles the problematic aspects of Steiner's comments on racial characteristics. But that doesn't mean I believe people should ignore the far more prevalent thrust of his ideas about equality of all people without regard to race, creed or nationality, nor the fact that he himself treated people in this way (the very first Anthroposophical Society, formed in 1913, had a leadership group of three people, chosen by Steiner; one of these were Jewish). A balanced view includes the negative and the positive, I believe.

I have also given due scope to the critiques of the scientific basis of anthroposophy. This is a valid question. On the other hand, one has to understand that Steiner's attempt was to apply scientific method to an area previously not treated by science, inner and especially spiritual experience. Reproducibility is nevertheless a weak point in his work.

And so on. I acknowledge valid criticisms. Polemic is foreign to me, as it should be to the articles. I would like to see you two attempt to include positive aspects of these fields, as I attempt to include negative ones; with an equally critical eye to verifiability by Misplaced Pages standards, of course. Can you accept such a path? Hgilbert 02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Vis a vis Staudenmaier; he has no credentials as a historian, so far as I know; correct me if I am wrong. (I know he is working on a PhD and hopes someday to achieve this.) He says of himself that he is a polemical historian, however, and this already disqualifies him here, as far as I understand both the arbitrators' judgement and Misplaced Pages standards generally. Hgilbert 02:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps you might have noticed that I have included criticism in the articles I have edited here, some of it added by me, some by others." Well, no, that's not really true. On the occasions (that I have noticed) that you have addes something "critical" it was only done to fend off the truth which is often MORE critical. Your idea of criticism is, "Steiner may have said some things that could be misconstrued as having a mildy racist inference when misheard by modern ears." That, to me, is Waldorf teacher speak - absolutely inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

Did you notice that good faith is meant to be our basis for working here? That means leaving out the "you only did this to fend off that..." sort of comments. Your quote is not a quote. Try quoting what I did say, instead. Accuracy is always refreshing.

"My take on verifiable sources for critics, which you find hard to accept, is identical with that proposed by the arbitrators." I'm not completely convinced that you understand what the arbitrator who has weighed in on this has proposed.

"This will be just as hard for you to swallow as their take on verifiable sources for anthroposophical views will be for me; I, however, am willing to work within their proposed guidelines (as you seem not to be)." I'm absolutely willing to work within their guidelines when they propose them. I don't think the arbitrators are naive enough to buy Sune's representation of who Peter Staudenmaier is, however.

They only need to buy Peter's own representation of who he is: he calls himself a polemical historian.

"For example, I acknowledge and have always sought to include in these articles the problematic aspects of Steiner's comments on racial characteristics." Well, no, you haven't. You are willing to let them be wispy innuendos - and not the facts. Steiner considered black people "savages". His ideas about the development of the spiritual form through the races permeates Anthroposophy - it's the foundation of Anthroposophy. You haven't allowed this information to be present AT ALL in the article about Anthroposophy.

If racism was at the foundation of anthroposophy, why would Steiner have said that judging people on the basis of their race prevents any spiritual progress? Or that "we" are trying to create a culture independent of race, nationality, gender, faith? And why would you keep deleting Steiner's comments about such things (there are scores of them, at least) from this article?

"But that doesn't mean I believe people should ignore the far more prevalent thrust of his ideas about equality of all people without regard to race, creed or nationality, nor the fact that he himself treated people in this way (the very first Anthroposophical Society, formed in 1913, had a leadership group of three people, chosen by Steiner; one of these were Jewish). A balanced view includes the negative and the positive, I believe." That would depend on whether you are fabricating the "positive". This has been the key to our battles, you seem to want to make Steiner into someone he was not. Fine for you in your religious, missionary work, but not in an encyclopedia.

Hmmmm.....since you are systematically deleting quotes and citations, it is curious to hypothesize fabrication. Are you capable of working in a framework of good faith? "A balanced view includes the negative and the positive", and your response is, "not in an encyclopedia"?!?!

"I have also given due scope to the critiques of the scientific basis of anthroposophy. This is a valid question. On the other hand, one has to understand that Steiner's attempt was to apply scientific method to an area previously not treated by science, inner and especially spiritual experience. Reproducibility is nevertheless a weak point in his work." Yeah, but he failed in that attempt. That's why his work is not regarded as scientific, by anyone outside of Anthroposophists. He came up empty. There's no harm in relating this to readers here... in fact it's a responsibility to let them know this. No reproducability means, at the very least, psuedoscience - and really could be considered charlatanism. In real life terms, it means children don't get vaccinated, don't get proper medical attention for high fevers and are systematically and intentionally exposed to (and suffer through) childhood diseases that modern science has remedies for. So, it's really more than a "valid question" isn't it?

Much of this is your own conclusion. Can you understand that it does not belong in an encyclopedia in this form? Objectively presenting his attempt, his results, and competent authorities' evaluation of these is appropriate. If he failed, this will become apparent to any reader. BTW, Steiner did not advise against vaccination to my knowledge.

"And so on. I acknowledge valid criticisms. Polemic is foreign to me, as it should be to the articles. I would like to see you two attempt to include positive aspects of these fields, as I attempt to include negative ones; with an equally critical eye to verifiability by Misplaced Pages standards, of course. Can you accept such a path?" First of all, let's stop with the "positive" and "negative" terminology, shall we? "Negative" to me is people who disguise the truth. "Positive" would be people who shine light on the truth. There is nothing "positive" about children suffering (or dying) over whooping cough. There's nothing "positive" about lying to parents about the presence of Anthroposophy in the Waldorf curriculum. So, if you guys are willing to stop pretending you are somehow more righteous in your missionary work than critics of you then we may have some room to work. I don't think you acknowledge "valid" criticisms in my view, because, from what I've seen of Waldorf, ALL criticisms are valid.

Well, let's avoid arguing about truth, over which we will not agree, and focus on verifiability for Misplaced Pages. Reread your statement above: recheck for good faith. Recheck on what you have been removing ("disguise the truth") from these articles. Recheck to see if you are a man on a mission. We call that a missionary.

"Vis a vis Staudenmaier; he has no credentials as a historian, so far as I know; correct me if I am wrong." I'm sorry, I didn't know that only historians are allowed to be referenced here. When did we make that rule? He's a published author whose work is recognized and referenced by historians and scholars. What type of credentials are you looking for? A historian membership card? He's a year away from his PhD at Cornell - he's an expert on Steiner. Are we only allowing PhD's to be represented here? Your sources are all PhD's?

Especially in controversial areas, sources are expected to have academic credentials and their work to be published in fora subject to third-party review.

"(I know he is working on a PhD and hopes someday to achieve this.) He says of himself that he is a polemical historian, however, and this already disqualifies him here, as far as I understand both the arbitrators' judgement and Misplaced Pages standards generally." I would, frankly, be shocked if he were excluded. If that happened, it would only be through mis-representation by you or TheBee. He is, indeed, probably the foremost expert on various aspects of Steiner's life, works, politics, philosophy - as well as for other German philosophers and leaders around Steiner's time. To exclude his work, just because it is critical of YOUR view of Steiner would be a travesty. I am confident the arbitrators will examine this issue more carefully than the quick glance you may be hoping for. And, to be fair, you guys have objected to EVERY report, article, book that presents a critical view of Steiner or Anthroposophy or Waldorf - REGARDLESS of the credentials of the persons generating the information. You are trying to own the articles and the information contained in them - that is obvious to everyone. Now it's really time for YOU to let go of your grip here and work cooperatively with other editors, not the other way around. Pete K 04:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"The foremost expert"...hmmm...among the "social ecologists", read libertarian communists (his own term), he may well be a significant voice. I don't think most modern historians realize how important his insights into the German philosophers and leaders of the turn of the century really are, though. Ummmm...can you site one significant historian or academic who even cites or mentions PS? Hgilbert 13:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the Motivation

Not interested in homework assignments today Harlan. I may get back to your question later as it seems I found quite a few just the other day when I did a search on his work. But there is one thing I'd like to explore with you today. This has to do with your claim in the Anthropsophy article that Steiner advocated the equality of all races. This claim is, of course, refuted by material in the same reference that you have harvested this claim. The discussion and evidence is here. How can you, with a straight face, in light of all the evidence to the contrary, continue (even yesterday) to reinsert the same claim into the articles - a claim that is shown with lots of evidence to be false. How do you expect people not to see your conflict of interest as a motivation for the regular insertion of inaccurate and untruthful information into these articles? There is really no other explanation. Pete K 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Adoption/Mentoring

Hi Pete K,

Durova said that you were interested in having a mentor to help you out, and she directed me to you (am an adopter with the Adopt-a-user program. I see you have been around a while and been an active editor, so I doubt you need any help with the basics. I suppose you might like someone to act as a sounding board on how to deal with some of the difficult situations that ultimately come with Arbitration issues and the like. If you are interested in the offer, or want to discuss further contact me on my talk page. Until then Lethaniol 18:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Would mentoring be helpful - well there is a question? I see there are many difficulties both with the subject matter (which people are passionate about), the Arbitration process and all the uncivility going around. I do not know if it will help. I can not answer the questions for you on how to approach these problems but maybe (certainly initially) I can chat through with you your concerns and actions, and see where we go from their - as said act as a sounding board. Obviously this is totally voluntary, and if you get nothing out of it - then hey never mind. Oh I am on 0 GMT in the UK, so won't be able to chat all into the USA night with you - although have been doing that more and more recently - am addicted - shame about the PhD :( lol

May I throw in my two cents? Pete's in an unusual situation. Considering there are 2.5 million registered accounts on this site and maybe a couple of dozen in current arbitration, that probably goes without saying. The editors in this conflict have some time in the project and are deeply knowledgeable about their subject, but none of them have much breadth as Wikipedians. So I find myself giving some fairly basic explanations about site concepts and procedures: what's a meatpuppet, how to use Template:Citecheck, and other things like that. My hunch is that some of what Pete could use is a simple sounding board for Does Misplaced Pages have a tool to solve such-and-such a problem I'm facing? They've been trying to reinvent the wheel and their test models are squares and triangles - if you know what I mean. Best wishes both of you. Durova 02:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Durova, I think you're right. It took a while just to learn how to produce a diff (let alone to know what a diff was and why anyone would want to produce one). I'm learning Misplaced Pages as I'm going along, not just the procedures, but the rules (and limits) of engagement. I realize this must be frustrating to experienced users and I know I had more than my share of WP:Whatever shoved in my face by TheBee and HGilbert when I first arrived here. It can be very intimidating (I know Lethaniol supports a "don't bite the newbies" policy). So yes, some insight into procedures would be what I'm looking for - and I know it will be up to me to keep my cool when I feel like making a smart-ass response. I very much appreciate the help. Pete K 03:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I butt in? Could we both have the same mentor? It would seem to make a lot more sense than both of us discussing things with two different people - that's double the time, and it seems like it would waste the second mentor's time, too. Does this make sense? Incidentally, I don't know if there is some formal way I am supposed to do this but Pete's talk page is probably as good as any way, since we are in frequent contact - I won't be online anymore till after Christmas and then only sporadically till at least January. Surely arbitration cases take a few days off for the holidays anyway?DianaW 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Diana, I can't believe you want to hoard in on my mentor... Honestly Diana...<G>... Actually, I agree it would probably be associatively economical if we bent only one person's ear. Pete K 03:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He Pete, I have invited Diana to join us as you seem to be cool with this. Any problems give us a shout. Lethaniol 13:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problems... Pete K 15:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

germanization

hey, since we used the same diff to prove opposite statements, i thought i just clarify this. in this diff you said that assimilation in germany is called germanization. this is wrong. assimilation in german is called assimilation. germanization is a nazi policy, as described in your diff. this might be a special case of assimilation. but you get several things mixed up here.

• we were talking about assimilation of jews here, obviously the nazis never thought about germanizing jews. not even children of mixed marriages or even grandchildren of mixed marriages.
• the ideology of nazis underlying germanization is not just racism (assuming superiority of one race or people over another), but and this is important, that the superior race has the right and even the duty to expand at the cost of 'inferior races'. similary important in the context the is the nazi notion of racial hygiene, sort of breeding the german people, keeping the blood pure all that, hence they chose children (from families in eastern europe) that were assumed 'racially valuable' to kidnapp them and germanize them. see for example lebensborn

i would challenge you to find anything in steiners writings that comes close to this aggressive racism and antisemitism of the nazis. steiner characterize different races in different ways and i agree with you that that is racist. but he did not conclude as the nazis did from these assumed difference,s the right of one people or race to exterminate another race or people.

trueblood 19:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to establish that Steiner was a proto-Nazi. His idea of assimilation of the Jews was extreme. He wanted the Jews to disappear - to lose their culture, their religion, their appearance, their thoughts. There is no evidence that he supported the Jews. People who suggest that he was a friend to the Jews are incorrect. Pete K 20:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

May I offer a third opinion on this matter? Long before Hitler came to power, the Jewish question was an issue of public discussion in German-speaking countries with a consensus among non-Jews that there was some sort of problem and some sort of need for a solution - not necessarily the final solution - but not something we in the twenty-first century would understand as politically correct. Some of the terms of that discussion seem ridiculous today in ways that (and one must tread on this analogy with extreme caution) would be more or less comparable to some presumptions of Cold War era debate in the United States.

At the risk of extreme OR, the impression I get is that Steiner seems to have been attempting an innovative approach to one of the issues of his day. He didn't have a crystal ball to foresee that Auschwitz was coming. I don't know whether there's a neutral analysis that touches on that observation, but I'd encourage you both to dig for that type of citation. Durova 01:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

He had clairvoyance... and claimed to read the akashic record... that's got to be the next best thing to a crystal ball <G>. I agree - I don't think Steiner would have supported Auschwitz. Pete K 02:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is considered bad faith to remove a legitimate source

Pete K, after admitting the source is good, you removed reference to it falsely claiming it doesn't say what it said. When I restored the reference (it does say so), you reverted saying the fact is "wrong". Now it's no longer a good source? I suggest you put the reference back. None of us, including you, are the managing editor around here. I haven't checked in the last couple of days, but between the time the arbitration started up to a few days ago, about 2/3rds of your edits to articles have been reverts. That's edit warring. You don't own that article. You are not an authority on the subject. Editors edit, they don't overrule published authorities by personally deciding they're "right" or "wrong". Editors need to put aside their personal prejudices in the interests of improving the article. Venado 19:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop wasting everyone's time then and be careful how you present information. Your source doesn't say what you claim it says. Even the part you quoted (thanks BTW) doesn't say this. PoF does not lead to Anthroposophy. It is an earlier work of Steiner's that has no connection to Anthroposophy. Your source doesn't disagree with what I have said. There are, of course, lots of people who think that anything Steiner wrote is Anthroposophy. That is nonsense, as you know, and PoF is one good example of what he wrote that isn't Anthroposophy. I get that you don't like that I'm sticking to this point, but the days of these articles being places where the virtues of Steiner are touted are over. You have to support EXACTLY what you are saying - and just finding sources that talk about the subject isn't going to cut it anymore. If the source says EXACTLY what you claim in the article, you will have no problem from me. If it is being used to make an untrue claim, then we will have problems. It's that simple. Pete K 19:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Exactly" the same is plagiarism. Steiner's anthroposophical texts aren't related to anthrospophy? Where's your reference for that remarkable conclusion? And in what sense is this a POV dispute about "virtues of Steiner"? This makes no sens. Venado 19:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you haven't made a case that PoF is an Anthroposophical text yet - so the rest of your point is lost. Anthroposophy wasn't invented yet. Pete K 19:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been issued at the above link. Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop moving the references

Pete: please stop misrepresenting the references to the section you keep reverting. Leave these in their proper place!!Hgilbert 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, this is very simple Harlan. DISCUSS the changes first, and then we will agree. You are using this article as a scratchpad to try out different biased POV's to see if any of them will stick. I really don't know or care which references you are talking about - stop screwing with the article until we agree - then it can all go in the way it should be. Pete K 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Archiving

Sorry did not intend to step on toes. I did not read you asking me to leave the archiving, you said you thought it was done automatically, I noted to you that it is not done auto, and said I'd do it when I could, seeing that the archive is well over the size which is comfortable to handle.

I now use the Firefox browser which shows italics. I'm doing my homework on Scientific Method and epistemology as both defined and challenged within Misplaced Pages. Lucy Skywalker 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on January 7 2007 to PLANS

The ArbCom, after repeated requests have NOT made clear to us how sources will be referenced and which sources are permissible where. They have ruled that Anthroposophical self-published sources are biased - but that doesn't mean those sources can't be used to demonstrate other things, like the existence of a particular festival at a particular school in this case - in fact, the source for this was absolutely appropriate. As soon as the block is lifted, I will re-insert the source. That may not put me in great favor with the blocking administrator, but I have to accept that not everyone who administrates these articles is aware of the issues involved here.

It was inevitable that this kind of blocking would happen because without clarity on this situation, there can be nothing but misinterpretation of the guidelines set up by the ArbCom. I have asked repeatedly (as have others) that some clarification be made about sources (I can provide diffs) - and we have been left confused. In this case, Anthroposophists have used the ruling to delete sources that demonstrate their shenanigans. Additionally, we have two editors who insist on agressive editing, at which my edits were directed, who are working as a team and both belong to the anti-PLANS extremist group Americans for Waldorf Education. They are both listed here, and their professional mission/campaign is to discredit PLANS - which they are attempting to do in this article (and essentially created this article for this purpose). Today will be their field day for unacceptable edits. Tomorrow is another day. Pete K 14:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, TheBee here has himself suggested that he is biased and should not be allowed to edit the PLANS article. It would go a great way toward ending the edit wars on that article if his request was granted. Pete K 15:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no lack of clarity in 3RR; if you simply go back to reverting past it you will get blocked again, so please don't William M. Connolley 17:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The source needs to go back in. We can consider it a "revert" or a new edit, but sources that are legitimate cannot be removed just because POV editors don't like what they say. If there is an issue with the content of what I am adding, the ArbCom should intervene. Today, the Waldorf POV-pushers are adding in a lot of stuff and removing a lot of stuff that requires my attention when I return. This, I'm afraid, will make things worse because I will have a whole day's editing by them to address. They have kept adding stuff that they KNOW will be reverted just to suck me into a 3RR. I'll try to avoid too many reverts in a single day, but there is no good faith editing going on here - they *know* they are not allowed to delete the sources they are deleting, and they know I will revert their edits eventually anyway. I don't know how else to deal with this. I have a mentor who will hopefully help me when I am able to contact him (or her) again. Part of the problem is that little or no discussion occurs before these aggressive edits. I've tried harder than most here to actually discuss the edits beforehand. Pete K 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lethaniol

Rather than waste the entire day - I thought at least I might answer you here (comments by others will be deleted):

Was not good to see you get blocked for a WP:3RR, my general advice, if you are about to 3RR do not at all cost - it is never ever worth it. Yes, I agree. It's hard not to when two obviously biased editors are gaming the 3RR rule - but I agree, it was stupid.

I believe you got the 3RR for reinserting the Expose verb is that correct?

Yes, but I was really interested in the source that they were trying to delete with the same edit. It's a source to a public Waldorf school website that "exposes" that they have disguised the religious festival festival "Michaelmas" by calling it "The Dragon Festival". It is exactly the type of deceptive thing PLANS accuses public Waldorf schools of doing - and in this case they got caught with their pants down - it exactly proves PLANS is correct about this. The pro-Waldorf people are claiming that this source, being a Waldorf school website, is not allowed. It absolutely should be allowed as it is not a Waldorf school website supporting Waldorf school claims (as was the issue with these sources) but a citation to the calendar of a public Waldorf school shows that Michaelmas is deceptively called "The Dragon Festival". That type of source is not, to my knowledge, being disallowed.

Anyway these are just ideas on this particular topic. On the 3RR - I really do not think there was enough discussion at Talk:PLANS#Exposing_Waldorf before reverting - I could understand if the debate had been going on for days - maybe the editing/reverting on a number of articles is not helping - anyway I think a solution could have been reached if needed there.

There had already been considerable discussion about the religious festivals (which is the main thing I was objecting to - the deletion of the source that shows this).

Also I can not stress enough about not getting trapped in a 3RR, especially on something that makes little difference to the context of the whole article. This does not mean that you let yourself get worn down over time, letting people make inappropriate edits and not doing anything about it just putting your energy and limited time into the most worthwhile of causes

With regard to this particular article, *proving* that indeed PLANS has a point about the disguising of the names of religious festivals is a very worthwhile cause. Public Waldorf schools dishonestly disguise the religious (Anthroposophically important) festivals and continue to have them while claiming there are no such religious festivals in the public Waldorf schools. It demonstrates their dishonesty. I will be replacing the reference at my first opportunity. BTW, the word "expose" doesn't mean that much in all of this - it was just part of the pissing contest (that I lost).

Have a great day! I will. Pete K 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

New Editor

Hi Pete K,

I am new here and am trying to navigate my way through the quagmire of the Waldorf Education article/project here. All I can say is "wow, what a drama!"

But with that said, I'm by and large in accord with your position in wanting to see a more balanced representation of the flip sides of Waldorf Education vs. the biased brochure language that still pervades the article. See my dialogue with Thebee and my edits today.

I feel like they're trying to play both sides of the field, and I can see you feel likewise.

So how does one get officially added to the project?

-- Wikiwag 04:50 8-Jan-2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked both Pete K (talk · contribs) and Hgilbert (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring at Waldorf education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) between Jan 10 and 11. I haven't added up the diffs to determine if the the 3RR rule was violated in letter; it was clearly violated in spirit. Edit warring is not permitted, and both users have been on warning that continued disruption at Anthroposophy-related articles will result in sanctions. (This block is not due to any specific violation of the arbitration case unique to these articles, but based on the general prohibition against edit warring that governs all editors. Thatcher131 02:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher131, I think if you have another look, please notice that we arrived at a compromise. We each battled for our own language and ended up combining terms and including each other's sources. It was a good compromise and I don't think we should be banned for it. Pete K 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It's still edit warring, though. If Hgilbert agrees that you've negotiated a settlement I'll unblock you both. Thatcher131 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that we sometimes test each other's conviction to a particular sentence, reference or idea in this way, but I like to think we are trying to work together. And please look at the talk page at the bottom. I'm trying hard to roll up my sleeves and to work with a neutral editor toward what the ArbCom has requested - section by section, line by line. Yes, one group will be complaining alot about me - nothing has changed in this regard, but there is progress being made and every tiny step toward bringing these articles to a NPOV requires defense. I didn't look at all the edits HGilbert made last night, he may have undone everything we accomplished during the day, but the important thing (for me) is that I AM trying to compromise and work affectively with others. Not every edit by a pro-Waldorf person is going to be acceptable, and some (TheBee for example) have a strange way of interpreting the ArbCom ruling - especially regarding sources he considers "polemical" and "original research".

I don't want to get too specific with the details, but the situation in question required that we look at the conflict of interest carefully. It is Waldorf's position that Anthroposophy is not a religious philosophy - they don't get as many students if people think they're pushing a religion. They like to call it a "spiritual" philosophy and disguise the religious elements but have a look at the books Steiner wrote and you will quickly see that religion is the basis of Anthroposophy. Many sources were provided that confirm this. The conflict of interest in excluding those sources was evident - HGilbert is representing Waldorf when he makes this edit. The compromise at "spiritual/religious" is a reasonable one and includes references for both terms. I'm working toward this compromise position. If HGilbert says he isn't, I don't think it should really reflect on me. Thanks! Pete K 14:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Anthroposophy (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 01:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

McDermott

Hi Pete,

Suggest you use something like the example I gave on the Waldorf schools talk page - though not perfect it is short sharp and to the point and what I would expect out of other Misplaced Pages articles. Cheers Lethaniol 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a try - but I'll have another look at what you posted. Pete K 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

translation

from waldorf ed: With a clear advantage to our belonging, or supposed belonging, one must say, to the Aryan race, which Waldorf continues to treat as something that really existed...

does this actually make sense, in german he says with clear emphasis on our ... does 'clear advantage to' mean the same thing? trueblood 20:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to work out translation issues. It's what the article says (how the author translated it) so I guess we have to live with it. I don't know how specific words translate. I know, being of Greek heritage, that some things don't translate well into English. There is no doubt, however, that Steiner proposed that there is an advantage to one race over another so I don't find it to be a contradiction to the truth. And there's no reason to challenge this, in my view (you may, of course) because another translator might translate it differently. If we start opening up the "translation" can of worms, we will be here forever (we may be anyway). The author translated it and reported what he reported. The more fascinating thing is the part about an Aryan "race" which, like the Steiner's idea of a "Semitic race" I find to be a little hard to swallow. Pete K 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

um, my question, was just from a non native english speaker to a native english speaker: does this sentence make sense? i did not want to be dragged into the 'is waldorf education evil discussion', so i will rather stay clear of this can of worms. trueblood 09:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence makes sense. It's not the best sentence construction, but the word "advantage" that you question is used correctly here. Pete K 15:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Pete: I believe that third-party reviewed sources are acceptable. Please avoid reverting until we have a decision here. Thanks, Hgilbert 02:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be taking directions from you today Harlan... but thanks. Pete K 02:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits

I am sorry that I reverted your edits. I am learnng to use a program that helps revert vandalism, and I might have seen your edits as being vandalism. I am working to be more careful when reverting articles, so that something like this does not happen again. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 15:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. As it happens, you stumbled into the middle (or hopefully the end) of a 6 month long edit war among half a dozen editors not counting sock/meat puppets. Sorry if I sounded touchy.

So, best Lakers ever - late '60's - Early '70's - Chamberlain, Baylor, West, Hairston, Erickson - or 1985, Jabbar, Magic, Worthy, Scott, Cooper - or would you go with 1999 - Shaq, Kobe, Rice, Harper, Fox, Fisher?

I am not sure which era was better, but the only one I remember real well was the most recent team that won three championships. But, a team that has a history of winning seems to continue to do well. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for watching for and removing vandalism from my userpage. I appreciate your removal of their insults because those people truly do not have a life, like they wanted people to believe about me. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good faith

A reminder: please follow the Good faith and Civility guidelines. Hgilbert 16:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't post this passive-aggressive stuff on my talk page. Please keep in mind that any good faith concerning your activities here went out the window a long time ago. Every edit, every comment that you make strengthens my resolve to fight against people like you who would consciously deceive the public and intentionally harm children. Thanks! Pete K 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reopening of arbitration

I have reopened the arbitration case concerning this article for review Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. May I warn you in the strongest terms to not restore the information I have removed from Waldorf education and its talk page. This information violates Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Fred Bauder 15:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks Fred. Pete K 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review preparing my statement

In considering what statement to give the committee I am seriously contemplating a recommendation that several editors be topic banned from Waldorf-related articles. You are one of the people I have in mind. If you wish to persuade me otherwise, please present whatever you want me to consider at my user talk page. I expect to spend about one week deciding what position I'll take. Durova 19:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, on Durova's talk page you said "if it ends today, I'll move on to the next front." I'm wondering what that might be? I've realized recently that while important in and of itself, Misplaced Pages isn't necessarily the most widespread source of information o r dialogue (yet!). I think dialogue on these issues about Waldorf and anthroposophy is crucial, yet how many players are there in this discussion? Five? And if I don't sound boastful, I think I'm in the minority of Waldorf people who like or are even able to use a computer! So I'm wondering where you think these discussions could take place in the wider world. Henitsirk 03:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Henitsirk, (can I call you Kristine?) - There are some very public places where such discussions occur. One that I was on for several months was Mothering.com which has its own Waldorf forum. Another one is OpenWaldorf.com. My good friend TheBee has been able to get me booted off of two forums so far. At Mothering.com I posted for months before he arrived and caused so much disturbance, they decided to kick us both off. He's trying to do the same here, unfortunately. On Anthroposophy Tomorrow, it was a conspiritorial team effort between him and the list owner and moderator, Tarjei (AKA Uncle Taz). So, I won't be making a public announcement about where I'm going after I leave Misplaced Pages, if indeed I am forced out. He'll find me eventually, but I may get a month in before he shows up to once again disrupt any environment that takes a fair or critical look at Waldorf. It's just one more form of Waldorf harassment, I'm afraid. I wonder if he realizes how much his behavior hurts the Waldorf movement? In any case, whether he gets booted out of Misplaced Pages or not, I'm pretty sure he'll be investing his time wherever I go, so that might leave you guys free to edit the articles here without interference. I'm very happy to leave the article in your capable hands if it comes to this. Pete K 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"TheBee has been able to get me booted off of two forums so far. At Mothering.com I posted for months before he arrived and caused so much disturbance, they decided to kick us both off."

You forgot to tell that Mothering decided to delete five of your six more or less defamatory threads in the discussion as material they did not want to continue to publish when they booted you, the main part probably written before I signed up. As far as I know, nothing I wrote was deleted, and I participated with maybe only one tenth as many postings as you did, very little.

In the opinion of the independent Thatcher131, after just looking superficially at you editorial contributions to the Waldorf article here, one of your agendas clearly is to bring Waldorf education into disrepute. You also don't tell that while you probably were booted at Mothering for what you wrote, and continued to write, I was prohibited from further participation in the waldorf forum for not participating enough generally in the mothering forums, as the primary goal of Mothering is to build a nice chatting community discussing mothering issues, not penetrate particular issues and allow opposite views. It was having opposite opinions they did not like, not what I wrote as such, in contrast to what you wrote. Thebee 09:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What you write above is about as honest, truthful, and understandable as anything you've ever written. People who have any questions about the abuse in Waldorf should look here at the discussion of people who have survived it. Over 24,000 others have dropped in to Mothering.com to view it. Have a nice day! Pete K 13:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess my question is, are places like Mothering or OpenWaldorf used by people in Waldorf school administration, teacher training facilities, the Anthroposophical Society, etc.? I think discussion is great but if it never reaches out to the wider community then it doesn't seem to have much point except raising all of our blood pressures! Also as I stated in an email to Wikiwag, I'm not really interested in discussion personal opinions. I'm more interested in working to improve the Waldorf world as a whole. Henitsirk 20:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some sites like SJU and Anthroposophy that are generally read by more Anthro/Waldorf people, but the problem is, they don't permit criticism of Waldorf. If they won't permit criticism, they are unlikely to accept criticsm <G>. There aren't too many websites where open discussion is allowed AND that are viewed by Anthroposophists/Waldorf teachers. The Waldorf Critics list is actually read by as many Waldorf/Anthroposophy people as anyone, but even there some people who have displayed exceptionally bad behavior have been banned there as well (they will permit any Waldorf-related topic - pro or con, but they will not tolerate namecalling and personal attacks). Mothering.com is a place where new parents tend to look to find out about Waldorf. That particular site suffers from heavy monitoring from TheBee's own team of editors from Americans for Waldorf Education and critical discussion is quickly turned around - that's why only one critical thread. People can't be freely critical of Waldorf because TheBee's people swoop in and do damage control. They do weird stuff like pretend not to know about things they know about. One of the members of AWE who is also here at Misplaced Pages under a pseudonym pretended to have just discovered the AWE site and recommended it to new parents - Oh, here's a helpful site I've stumbled across... yeah, stumbled across after you wrote half of it. Anyway, there are some new neutral websites in the works and they should be coming on-line soon.

As for me, I've been working directly with some influential people in Waldorf (teacher training and such) - and that activity is seeing some new ground being broken on the teacher training side. And, of course, I've been relentless in my efforts with my kid's particularly problematic school, and that has resulted in some good progress. Pete K 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering creating a new site: e.g. "the next front"

In response to this evening's clampdown and Henitsirk's question, I'm considering the creation of a new site to more freely discuss these things. Interested users: please eMail me off-wiki.

- Wikiwag 04:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikiwag... we should talk about this privately. I'm beat tonight, but I'll contact you tomorrow. Pete K 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So Long - and Thanks for All the Fish!

Hey Pete! I hope this is just going to be a wikibreak- wikipedia needs you!--Fergie 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not so much... LOL! ... but thanks Fergie! Keep fighting the good fight! Yours in spirit... Pete K 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I will miss you. In my opinion, any arbitration that results in your ouster while Thebee remains is patently unfair. I know that you know you both had equal roles to play. It's unfortunate. - Wikiwag 02:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - this has been unfair. I just don't have enough energy/interest left to put up any sort of reasonable defense. I've come away stronger, however, in my understanding of how dishonestly some people choose to conduct themselves. Pete K 14:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Waldorf education

Contents of talk page restored. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)