User talk:Pete K

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned applies to this page if it contains content which relates to Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, orAnthroposophy. Fred Bauder 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this or any other user page consists of material which relates to the Waldorf Schools it falls within the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned. If the page concerns ordinary user issues, if does not. Fred Bauder 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I was banned from Waldorf-related ARTICLES, not my own user page. Can you please point me to some rule that says my user page is considered an "article"? Otherwise, please allow me to restore it. --Pete K 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgive my butting in, but the specific remedy in the Arbitration proceeding states: 1) Pete K is banned indefinitely from editing Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and related pages or their talk pages. The ruling makes no mention of "articles", but does mention "related pages and talk pages". By the exact semantics of the ruling, any page discussing Waldorf would be "related". - Crockspot 01:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe user page is not related. The dictionary definition of "related" is "being connected; associated". User page with mention of something is not "associated" with that thing. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He made it related. Fred Bauder 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Enforcement_by_block. Fred Bauder 02:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand how a user editing a user page has anything to do with said users ban from wikipedia articles and talk pages. The reason for banning users from articles and their talk pages is due to purported violations of wikipedia policy which is hampering wikipedia. Editing ones own talk page to express opinions about articles is totally unrelated to the articles themselves. It's quite a stretch to prevent a user from editing his own talk page because he expresses opinions about other articles on it.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredible logic Fred. I made my user page related to Waldorf so that makes it an article? I didn't think this situation could get more ridiculous... but you've proven me wrong once again. It's a USER page - I'm using it. Once again - please point me to the rule that says I can't do this. The ban was related to Waldorf articles and their talk pages. I am free to discuss this material on ANY USER page including my own. --Pete K 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was on that page was pure soapbox and for an editor who has been instructed to get down from that soapbox its obvious why Fred did what he did. Good call. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the initial arbitration does it mention "getting down from a soapbox". It simply says he's baned from a specific article and related articles.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_or_social_networking_site, and Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_inappropriate_content. Fred Bauder 10:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Fred - none of your examples applies to what I did here. NONE. There was no outcry from the community - just YOU. You have stood by while Waldorf teachers, with a known (to you) conflict of interest, have removed all critical views from the Waldorf articles day by day - over the comments and efforts of lots and lots of neutral editors. What has happened here is shameful. They are, indeed, using Wikipedia as their soapbox and as advertising for Waldorf. Everyone who reads those articles has the same comment - that they read like Waldorf brochures. They're now getting ready to remove the NPOV tags. That is where your attention should be focused Fred - it's an inappropriate use of Wikipedia to distort material in such a way.

You have banned me - the only editor who was willing to work endlessly to challenge their efforts and to bring material that refuted their claims. I thank you for this - as it has made my life much more simple to not have to fight this fight 12 hours a day. Furthermore, you have singled me out for aggressive editing and have not applied the rules fairly to those aggressive editors - despite community outcry that they were just as responsible for the problems. Wikipedia has become their soapbox.

Again, none of the rules you are suggesting apply here actually apply to my user pages. As Wikidudeman said, I have not been instructed to get down off a soapbox - nor am I on a soapbox. I've presented, on my Biodynamics page, well-researched material about Biodynamics and the Nazis. I have presented on my Steiner Quotes page material that is direct quotes from Steiner. All sourced. I'm allowed to do this - and it is certainly not getting on a soapbox to put information here - in fact, it is my intention to make it easier for other editors to access it. If there is something in Wikipedia policy that says I can't do this, please show it to me. So far you haven't been able to justify your actions. I'm not on here as a troll or a vandal, I'm here working within Wikipedia policies despite your obvious distaste for my way of doing things. These pages are allowed and there is no Wikipedia policy nor ruling that would prevent them from being here. --Pete K 13:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the related content should be removed from the userpage, actually banning the user from editing it seems like overkill. He should, of course, be banned from putting the content back. --Tango 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the content should be removed from my userpage? What Wikipedia rule supports this action? --Pete K 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned. You are not banned from having normal user pages, just pages concerning Waldorf Schools. Fred Bauder 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not banned from having pages concerning Waldorf schools Fred. I'm banned from editing Waldorf-related articles and their talk pages. That's all. My user page is neither of those. Please show me ANYWHERE where it says my user pages are affected by any of these bans? Otherwise, please accept that you are wrong about this. --Pete K 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with no dog in this hunt, I have to agree with Fred. The arbcom does not mention "articles" specifically, it mentions "related pages and talk pages". I looked at the previous version of your user and talk page, and they were both virtually Waldorf articles, just not up to article standards. You can have a normal talk page. You just cannot have a talk page that is used to continue your Waldorf jihad. I would also remind you to refrain from making personal attacks against Fred. It is particularly not very smart to attack an arbitrator. I just looked at your block log, and you are not currently blocked. I suggest you forget about Waldorf, at least here on wikipedia. Perhaps you can start a blog with all of your info, and you can have an innocuous and neutral link to it from your user page. But this path that you have embarked on is not going to end well if you continue pushing this. (Just my humble outsider's opinion.) - Crockspot 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Further observation - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Enforcement by block referst to your situation as a "topic ban". That's pretty clear that the intent of the arbitrators is that you are not to be editing about the topic of Waldorf. - Crockspot 19:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You can have a normal talk page. You just cannot have a talk page that is used to continue your Waldorf jihad." Who says? And where is that said? And what constitutes a "normal" talk page? Is there a "normal" guideline here? I've seen some very creative user pages and talk pages. Are those within the "normal" limits - and how does one know if they have crossed from "normal" to abnormal? None of this is defined at Wikipedia - and that allows arbitrators to shoot from the hip when they dislike a particular user. When this happens, it is absolutely proper to request some clarification based on the rules of Wikipedia not loose interpretations of rulings that don't apply. "Topic ban", again, has to do with articles, not user pages. BTW, I haven't issued any personal attacks. --Pete K 19:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said, it is clearly the intention of the arbitrators that you no longer edit on the topic of Waldorf. So it's pretty simple. In your case, the line is the topic of Waldorf. Don't edit about Waldorf, and you should be just fine. Edit about Waldorf, and you might find yourself blocked, per the ruling. I don't see why you find this so hard to understand. Is discussing Waldorf really so important that you are willing to give up your rights to edit anything on wikipedia? Perhaps to you it is, but for me, no single topic is worth losing my account. Anyway, I was just trying to be helpful, and clarify a little more specifically what I assume Fred is basing his actions on. I would have probably done the same thing as him if I had been in his shoes. So, I will shuffle on now, good luck. - Crockspot 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what EDIT means? It's not about creating a user page, it's about EDITing articles. I am banned from editing articles. I don't dispute that. I am NOT banned from creating my own user pages. If there is some need to ban me from doing this, the ArbCom should make that decision. Nobody else. --Pete K 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that someone clearly saw that this discussion page was being used in clear violation of the ArbCom's intent. I'd also like to point out that Pete K used this page as a means of attempting to have other editors make edits for him that he couldn't make. Here is what he wrote to user RookZero after RookZero responded to the polemical statements made on Pete K's discussion page:

Hi RookZERO, Thanks for asking for my input. I'll try to get a list of changes that can be implemented in the Waldorf, Steiner and Anthroposophy articles for you by next week - I'll need the weekend to work on it. You've got your hands full, I see, with HGilbert - he's not about to let you change HIS articles without a fight. He has already chased away many editors who hoped to produce an NPOV article. But, I also see some help has arrived so I'll produce a list for your review and hopefully people around here will see the extent to which the Anthroposophy propaganda machine is at work here. In looking at your edits, I find your points to be very well taken. HGilbert will find one or two sources that support his agenda and claim them to be universally accepted truths. When a claim is critical of his agenda, he makes sure it appears that a single crackpot has made the claim (as in the case with the recent edit on Hansson). Generally speaking, to get these articles into an NPOV will be impossible as long as HGilbert is here. I would recommend keeping track of his edits and as he starts showing a pattern of aggressive reverts and edits, bring it directly to the ArbCom. They are aware of his tactics and need to be reminded to keep an eye on things. Also, editors in your camp (looking for a NPOV article) include Fergie, Lumos3, Wikiwag, Henitsirk, and Lethaniol - and of course any editor who doesn't want Wikipedia to appear as a joke when people read these. Good luck! I'll put a list together for you soon. Pete K 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out what Jimbo Wales said about userpages:

• Polemical statements:

- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia co-founder

And I'd like to point out that Jimbo Wales said this about a regular user using his userpage to make polemical statements. Certainly, he'd think much worse of a user like Pete doing what he did after being banned from making these polemical edits. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing polemical about honest criticism of a corrupt system. There's nothing polemical about presenting both POV's. Jimbo Wales would agree with that. Pete K 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also clarify that RookZero saw PetK's problem (that he couldn't make edits) and asked Pete for a list and that he'd make those edits for him AFTER reading Pete's statements on his userpage:

::::: Let me know which sections should be changed and how in my talk page. The current state of the article is very poor. (RookZERO 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Pete responded to RookZero's request with the quote that I posted earlier. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm allowed to interact with other editors about Waldorf topics. Let me re-state - the ban is a topic ban for editing Waldorf articles and talk pages... Nothing more. My user page is exactly appropriate for those kinds of interactions. --Pete K 20:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I think removing content on a user page is a bit harsh. Sure, the content here could be seen as polemical, but I wouldn't say it was too offensive or damaging to Wikipedia as a whole.

The user guidelines state that a user page is "about you as a Wikipedian" and is meant "to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia". Note: not a policy, just guidelines. The deletion policy states that "inappropriate user pages" are subject to deletion, however nowhere in that policy is "inappropriate" defined. In the user guidelines it states "There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense." I can't see that this user page met either of those criteria.

PeteK was banned from editing **articles**. I can't see that giving opinions on his user page has anything to do with the arbitration findings. "Related pages or their talk pages" to me means articles alone, not user pages.

About the policies/guidelines that Fred quoted:

• Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox: This policy applies to articles only, though it is a **guideline** for user pages as well.
• Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_or_social_networking_site: I assume that Fred doesn't think that PeteK was violating this policy regarding file storing or dating services, so he must be referring to the personal web page section, which states that pages "may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" and should provide a "foundation for effective collaboration." One could argue about whether PeteK's opinions promote effective collaboration, but I do not see how he is violating the letter of this policy.
• Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_inappropriate_content: This **guideline** states "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so...If you do not cooperate, the inappropriate content will eventually be removed, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate). In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on Miscellany for deletion, subject to deletion policy." I don't see any history of deletion requests, or listing this page on Miscellany for deletion. Correct me if I'm wrong. Henitsirk 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Henitsirk. You are exactly right on each and every count. There is no justification within Wikipedia nor within the ArbCom ruling for this action. Thank you for pointing this out so thoroughly. --Pete K 03:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom ruling says "pages", not "articles". You can banned from editing any page which is related to Waldorf, if you put something related to Waldorf on your user page, then the ban includes your userpage. When there is a dispute as to the interpretation of an ArbCom ruling, I think the interpretation of an Arbitrator takes precedence - that's only common sense. --Tango 14:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting that by placing something about Waldorf on my user page - I'm banning myself from editing my user page. Gee... like that's not absurd... LOL! There is no "interpretation" required here. The application of the ArbCom ruling to user pages is ridiculous and clearly misguided. One arbitrator does not an ArbCom make. Pete K 15:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is effectively what I'm suggesting, and yes, it is indeed not absurd. Why wouldn't the ArbCom ruling apply to user pages? Is a user page not a page? --Tango 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a page that's "related" to Waldorf articles - regardless of what's on it. It's related to the user. The content of the page is a the user's discretion - not the ArbCom's. My pages violated NO rules and NO ArbCom decision. That's exactly why Fred has now opened a new review to get them to change their decision to include my user pages. Meanwhile, he acted unilaterally to violate the rules of Wikipedia and to circumvent the responsible process of getting clarification before wiping out my user pages. He's already backed off the "obnoxious" (by his own words) headings he put on my pages, and now he's having to get the ArbCom to agree with his actions. Clearly, he was out of line. Some people should avoid the keyboard during full moons. --Pete K 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the wikipedia I learn I was one of those targeted on this user page after your ban. I was accused of co-owning an article after you were banned from it even thoguh my last edit in it was two weeks before you were banned from it. The edit history shows how your userpage violated the terms of arbitration agreement, WP:USER and WP:AGF. User pages are provided for facillitating communications about editing the wikipedia. Yours talked about nothing except the articles you are banned from plus WP:SOAP and polemic that never belong at wikipedia. User pages are not free personal websites where you can put what ever you want. Not just admins and arbitrators are always having to deal with conflicts with you, but so have you wasted so much of my time and a lot of other editors trying to test, twist, bend and break WP policies to further the agenda what you call "Waldorf reforminst"[1]. You should have no more business at all on wikipedia any more on that subject, including trying to make edits on those articles by back room lobbying of other users on the user pages and personally attacks of those still editing the articles. If the only reason you want to be at wikipedia is to crusading against Waldorf you have already been banned from that indefinitely and are only abusing the spirit and letter of policies and guidelines to find loopholes to continue the same actions that caused you to be banned.Venado 17:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Targeted" you? Oh please... I have documented exactly what has been happening to the Waldorf articles since I was banned from them... because SOMEBODY has to. Your edits have been part of this effort so please don't be shy about taking some of the credit. This is an absolutely appropriate use of my user pages. It doesn't interfere with the articles or the discussion about the articles. In fact, it doesn't interfere with ANYTHING except for the concerted attempt to whitewash the truth about Waldorf and Steiner on Wikipedia by Waldorf teachers and Waldorf advocates/representatives. Still, my little user page isn't about to put a dent in that mission. That this whitewashing has been allowed on Wikipedia is a huge black eye for Wikipedia. Almost everyone who reads the articles and comments agrees they are ridiculously biased in favor of Waldorf - and this, in turn, throws suspicion on all Wikipedia articles. --Pete K 18:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take notice of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Pete_K Fred Bauder 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I noticed it earlier today. --Pete K 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]