User talk:Pete K

This is my talk page. I reserve the right to delete any content I don't want here. There has begun, what I expect will be an endless stream of comments from people who are disappointed that I haven't folded up my tent regarding discussion about Waldorf. Their comments, some of which are very personal - even regarding my family - can be found in the history of this page which I am using as an informal archive. I am immediately deleting any such comments from the face of this page unless they present something valid and worthy of debate here. Anonymous comments will be deleted as well.

I'll start a list here of the major developments in the Waldorf-related articles. Please stay tuned as I will be expanding this list regularly.

• HGilbert (a Waldorf teacher) now WP:OWNs the Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy articles
  • Discussion with him on the talk page is now futile - he changes whatever he likes, whenever he likes.
  • Sourced statements that Anthroposophy is a religion have been deleted.
  • Criticisms of Waldorf have been removed.
  • Religious activities have been downplayed.
  • Brochure language has flourished in Waldorf Education article.
  • At least one editor has thrown up his hands in frustration and stopped trying to fight HGilberts aggressive POV edits.
  • Today, he's attacking the "Reading and Literacy" section. He has called for a re-write on every section that has anything critical to say about Waldorf.
  • New editors (Waldork for one) have started arriving to replace information that has already been removed by agreement. "Gee, I didn't know..."
• Professor Marginalia (a member of the fanatical AWE) now WP:OWNs the PLANS article
  • The POV tag has been removed from PLANS article now without resistance. The article still reads like death threats were made by PLANS.
• HGilbert and Venado now WP:OWN the Rudolf Steiner article

Update: TheBee and HGilbert have been busy today reverting very reasonable edits in their typical fashion. Whenever something doesn't sound Waldorfy enough for them, they revert.

• Single-subject editor User:Erdanion argues today against ArbCom ruling by stating that Anthroposophical sources are required to describe Anthroposophy, and has argued that Wikipedia does not give enough coverage to Anthroposophy (like 30+ articles here isn't enough). Almost incredibly he whines: "It's not the same thing to write a minority subject page than it is to write a majority subject page. Even though Wikipedia generally encourages usage of secondary sources, it is not wrong to use minority publications on a page about themselves. When writing a minority subject page there is a risk ending up to write it only as some majorities see them. That is not in accordance with NPOV -policy. It sais in Wikipedia:Attribution that secondary sources should be used wherever possible, however, in many cases on a page like this it is not possible. I've been going through policy pages and arbitration decisions and I don't think there is any reason why anthroposophical publications couldn't be used to state views of anthroposophists here." He also leaves a message on Fred Bauder's page with this edit summary: "Since there is no reply after this comment of mine, I hope it's ok I make a small change. No new comments." So here we go once again... Nobody left to stop this Anthroposophy propaganda machine it seems.
• Today, HGilbert has decided to pervert the Lucifer and Ahriman section of the Anthroposophy article by changing the content and title to say "Christ vs Lucifer and Ahriman". How incredibly misleading this is - to disguise the delicate balance between Lucifer and Ahriman that Steiner established. It was never Christ vs Lucifer and Ahriman, but a balance between all three impulses that Steiner described. More dishonest nonsense intended to mislead readers.
• Another big surprise - new editors are arriving to introduce more brochure language referenced to Anthroposophical sources. Today's edit by Martzd24 is straight ot of a brochure and is referenced to Jack Petrash. Let's see if our pro-Waldorf editors will notice this and revert the edit (LOL! - yeah, when pigs fly...).
• As predicted, Jack Petrash has remained safe and sound - a clearly Anthroposophical source
• User Bellowed has arrived to remove all remaining criticism of Waldorf and Steiner. Huge sections of racism have been wiped out. The articles are back to their former brochure-like status.
• LOOK at THIS brilliant idea. Now, based on the comments that say the article seems contrived - these Waldorf-inspired editors want to remove and isolate ALL the criticism of Waldorf to a single section. INCREDIBLE!!!
• The following statement is all that's left of Steiner's views regarding the Jews: "Beginning around the turn of the century, Steiner wrote a series of seven articles for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus, a magazine devoted to combatting anti-Semitism, in which he attacked the anti-Semitism of the era." This is the Anthroposophical version of halocaust denial. Steiner was an anti-Semite - yet all the material that demonstrated this has been removed. Again, Wikipedia suffers for allowing Anthroposophists to control these articles.
• The ENTIRE Rudolf Steiner talk page has been archived. Nobody visiting the article will be aware of any discussion or debate regarding the contents of the article.
• TheBee is not going through and removing references to Professor Sven Hansson and his article that discusses Steiner's racism. Unfortunately, the only way to restore this is to continually revert his edits.
• And HERE is TheBee removing the link to Waldorf Critics. The entire article is now completely sanitized of any critical information. Waldorf is now the greatest thing since sliced bread. Mission Accomplished Sune and Harlan!!!

RookZERO wrote:

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))[reply]

Apparently some people believe this is a solicitation of meat-puppetry. Here is some discussion about this. For the record, I have not compiled a list of edits I would make. I certainly may produce such a list right here on my talk page - why not? That's basically what I'm describing above anyway, when I say stuff like "The ENTIRE Rudolf Steiner talk page has been archived. Nobody visiting the article will be aware of any discussion or debate regarding the contents of the article." and "User Bellowed has arrived to remove all remaining criticism of Waldorf and Steiner. Huge sections of racism have been wiped out." - so what's the difference - other than our friend Bellowed wants to be sure nobody finds this page. Kinda like the Egyptians running around defacing statues. Sad, isn't it? Pete K 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Just for the record, I'd like to say that my intentions were to leave the link up forever until it became apparent that you wanted to make a meatpuppet. You told RookZero that you would compile a list of edits for him to make, which is undisputable meatpuppetry. I wanted to put a stop to it before it got much more out of hand. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my friend, you have not "put a stop" to anything - other than apparently your imagination run wild. Maybe it would have been wiser to actually wait until you had some actual evidence of meatpuppetry - like me feeding someone an edit that they made. What we have, instead, is your hysterical fears that someone other than you and people who support your views will edit the articles. --Pete K 14:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing- I would appreciate if, in the future, you wouldn't question my intentions so readily. The link was up for a good time and I always figured it would be good if people saw your POV, especially in light of everything else. But the record shows clearly that the link was removed only after you made headway into meatpuppetry, so, again, we'll let people decide for themselves. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 17:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we absolutely SHOULD let people decide for themselves. There was no meatpuppetry going on. Anyone can see this. Why not restore the link and stand behind your words - if you intend for people to decide for themselves? Frankly, I'm about to go the the administrators to complain about you fooling around with the tag placed there by the arbitration team anyway. You might save some potential troubles by restoring the link yourself. Pete K 14:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not questioning your intentions - I know exactly what they were. Pete K 14:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On RookZERO's talk page you wrote:

"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..... Good luck! I'll put a list together for you soon."

You told him that you would feed him edits on your behalf. That is meatpuppetry, plain and simple, and that's why I took the link off. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is NOT meatpuppetry. That is discussion of edits - like is done on talk pages and User pages EVERYWHERE on Wikipedia. I have not been banned from discussing edits. I am acting completely within what is available to me here. You've got NO business messing with the links put up by the Arbitration Commission, friend. It's your choice whether or not to restore the links - and my choice whether or not to bring it to the attention of the Arb Com. I'll give you a few minutes before filing a formal complaint. --Pete K 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the ruling here seems to agree with me:

Pete K is prohibited from editing articles about Waldorf education and related topics and their talk pages. This does not mean that he is prohibited from discussing Waldorf with other editors on their or his talk pages (although forcing himself on someone else's talk page without an invitation and getting wound up would be a problem). If someone wants to ask advice he can give it. Note however that editors making edits on behalf of a banned user run the risk of being banned as proxy editors (i.e. being placed under the same article ban). It would be a judgment call for an admin to ban and a risk for the third party editor. The article ban was put in palce because ArbCom decided Pete was a disruptive editor. If a third party editor takes Pete's advice and the disruption resumes that's an easy call to ban. However, there is no specific prohibition against Pete discussing Waldorf on his or other editors talk pages. (Such a ban would be impossible to enforce anyway, as discussions could be carried on off-wiki by chat or email.) Hope this helps. Thatcher131 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There was the first of what I believe will be many new contributors on the Waldorf Critics list only yesterday. She visited Wikipedia and realized what was written here was "too good to be true". Digging deeper, she realized there is controversy in the back pages of the Wikipedia articles. [Here] is a link to that comment:

what kind of a parent would i be if i didnt look at the other side.

everything i had read for many hours sounded too good to be true about the

school so i specificly researced and found places where the "critics lurked". i went to wikipedia and read the controversy that they are having over the antroposophy site.

And people are coming to Wikipedia for straight answers and they look at the mush in the Waldorf articles and realize it can't be true - just as I predicted. Then they dig deeper and find sites that are critical of Waldorf - the get the WHOLE story. Wikipedia has lost its credibility and the Waldorf articles are one place where this is most obvious. Nice job!

THIS is how we are going to deal with it apparently... by removing the critical material so users won't be so confused. By removing the critical material, readers won't be tempted to look for anything controversial in the discussion pages. Score another one for the Waldorf propaganda machine!

Today, HGilbert has decided to pervert the Lucifer and Ahriman section of the Anthroposophy article by changing the content and title to say "Christ vs Lucifer and Ahriman". How incredibly misleading this is - to disguise the delicate balance between Lucifer and Ahriman that Steiner established. It was never Christ vs Lucifer and Ahriman, but a balance between all three impulses that Steiner described. More dishonest nonsense intended to mislead readers.

The source is Willmann, chapter titled "Christ as the center of humanity's evolution". Hgilbert 23:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so what? The point is not that you found a source - the point is that it is wrong - it's not in alignment with Anthroposophy and that somebody has misinterpreted Steiner is not surprising (half the Anthroposophists I know don't "get" Steiner either). Lucifer and Ahriman are never depicted in Anthroposophy as "the bad guys" - they are described as necessariy impulses for the evolution of humanity, just as the Christ is described. It is not Christ against Lucifer and Ahriman, but all three working in conjunction. Why not just be honest and stop finding sources that echo the distorted view you want to present here? Pete K 14:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have deleted the beginning of this discussion because Waldork has brought discussion about my family. (S)he continues to do so in the following discussion despite several requests to stop.

Yeah, I know you would appreciate it if I left your family out of the discussions, but she was always unconsciously in all of your hate-filled arguments, and, with the current discussion page, continues to be. I really don't mean offense; I'm really only trying to shed some light from an outside perspective here. I mean, honestly, Pete, Wikipedia has been your life for some time now, and that time has proven wasted. Now that you've been seen through and are no longer allowed to post, don't you think that therapy might be more productive than continuing to waste time hating?Waldork 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to remove this comment because, first of all, it's full of crap and my family is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. If you want to shed some light - first find some light my friend. This isn't about hating anyone - AT ALL. It is about a dishonest institution behaving dishonestly. That would be YOU GUYS, not me. Thousands of parents find out about Waldorf's true agenda each year - the hard way and at the expense of their children. Many of them leave quietly - a few don't leave so quietly. As to my time spent here - it has been EXTREMELY productive. The pro-Waldorf editors are on constant watch now by the entire Wikipedia community, their agenda has been exposed, their missionary work to promote Anthroposophy through Waldorf has been exposed, their dishonest treatment of Steiner's own works has been exposed, and they have been exposed for the disingenuous, slimy characters they are. Furthermore, the dishonest Wikipedia arbitration process has been exposed - this one in particular was conducted not in public as any arbitration should be conducted, but through private emails. It was corrupted from the start - from behind closed doors. I have not been "seen through" - on the contrary, EVERYONE ELSE has been seen through, thanks to me - and they don't like it. It will take a lot more than some stupid ban from Wikipedia to silence my voice, friend. That LOTS of families have suffered at the hands of Waldorf is very real. If you are who I think you are, then you know what my kids have been through as well. Shame on you for pointing fingers at me - and from behind a coward's disguise. I'm not the one who needs therapy friend. Pete K 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't been seen through? Wasn't it your very mentor who recommended a ban on you for your complete disregard for truth? Yeah, you've been seen through, and that's why you're banned. Well, I guess you're not totally banned...you'll always have this page. Waldork 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Pete, just for the record, despite my name, I have absolutely no affiliations with Waldorf whatsoever. I simply want to post here to show you why you were banned and hope that you might consider therapy for your emotional issues. Waldork 16:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been banned from Waldorf-related articles. I can post anywhere else on Wikipedia - although I may get myself banned completely at some point (get it - I don't really care). My mentor, Lethaniol, comments below. No disregard for the truth on my part - EVER. If you think that's why I've been banned, you need to read the entire proceedings, friend. You're talking out of your posterior - and that would be a total disregard for the truth on your part - right? But then, truth becomes relative when we enter the world of Waldorf ... right? Pete K 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lethaniol wrote: "A recent collapse in Pete K's editing standards i.e. edit warring and attempts to add in inappropriate sources, has lead me to conclude that he cares nothing for Wikipedia. Hence I believe it is in Wikipedia's best interest that Pete K be indefinitely banned." and "If you are at all in doubt for the need to speed this review up, please see this statement by Pete K [215]." Waldork 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Get it. Once the witch-hunt was underway, and there was no doubt I would be banned, my "editing standards" changed. I will be posting a lengthy discussion here about exactly what happened and why, but here's the short form: The pro-Waldorf editors here outnumbered me about 6 to 1. I had to devote between 12 and 18 hours a day verifying sources and correcting edits. It became impossible to keep up with the onslaught of dishonest editing - so at that point I made a decision to just edit aggressively by reverting the dishonest edits and supporting consensus editing. Unfortunately, the pro-Waldorf people again didn't care about consensus and had an overwhelming majority - so they just continued to promote dishonest material. The Dutch Commission report, for example, was CONTINUALLY discussed for 6 months. It was simply an effort to wear down the opposition... and it worked. So yes, when I stopped devoting the time it took to keep these editors honest (an impossible task), my editing standards went way down. At that point, the arbitration re-opened on a trumped up and completely false charge of libel which caused the entire process to go to email. I wasn't interested at that point in producing another arbitration defense (having just been through the arbitration process a month earlier) - so I didn't defend myself against all the BS that the pro-Waldorf editors produced. I was ready to leave anyway - and having lost respect for the Wikipedia dishonest arbitration process, there was no reason not to expose Wikipedia's flaws along with Waldorf's. Lethaniol knew what was going on - and I made it clear I would not defend myself in the proceedings. I also made it clear I had lost interest in Wikipedia and that's what he pointed to with his statement. We BOTH wanted me to be banned - and the sooner the better. There is nothing secret about this fact. Pete K 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, from the very first day that you came to Wikipedia there has been nothing but a lack of regard for telling the truth. You would have written that Rudolf Steiner cooked newborn babies and served them every Christmas dinner is only you could have found or created a site to back up such a claim. You cleaned up your act somewhat when your mentor came along, but the fact is that liars can only tell the truth for so long before they revert to their old ways. Waldork 16:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never told a lie here - EVER. Nor have I EVER told a lie anywhere else - on any forum or in any public or private venue - anywhere - EVER. It's easy to make these claims from behind a disguise. Show even ONE lie that I've produced here. Otherwise, rest secure in the knowledge that YOU are the one who is here lying. Please stop wasting my time and know that I will soon be deleting this discussion if you are only here to produce unsupported prattle. Put up or shut up... it's that easy. Show where I have lied - or apologize. Pete K 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weleda had a rather dark history at the hands of Anthroposophist, Franz Lippert. In the Dachau concentration camp during WWII, SS-officer Lippert conducted experiments on prisoners for the purpose of testing Weleda products - among them freezing prisoners to death in order to test Weleda anti-frostbite ointment. ^[1]

Nobody believed that, Pete. It wasn't credible and you knew it. You were being bloodthirsty, as you always are, and you lied in order to make an attempt at destruction.Waldork 17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Nonsense. Franz Lippert WAS an Anthroposophist (documented) - he WAS at Dachau during WWII as an SS officer (documented) and indeed several sources (only some of which I listed) documented his tests on freezing prisoners for Weleda products. It is absolutely credible and supported by several sources. As you seem to be intent, however, on namecalling on my talk page, and as it has become clear you are here as a troll to throw a lot of BS at me and waste my time - I'm going to delete this discussion. If you have some complaints about me - make them on your own talk page. I'll give you a few minutes to respond before deleting this section. Bye Troll... have a nice day! Pete K 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition was reverted by even a neutral party. It was highly inaccurate and everyone knew it. Too bad that you still don't.Waldork 17:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "neutral" parties in these articles. But thanks for the opportunity to revisit this topic

http://aventurien.canalblog.com/archives/2006/10/27/3010722.html

The head gardener of the anthroposophic joint-stock "Weleda" (which to this day produces anthroposopic medicine), the anthroposophist and SS-officer Franz Lippert, was 1941-45 assigned to the KZ Dachau, to take care of the medical herb garden of the concentration camp, where the prisoners were "exterminated by work." Weleda was involved in medical experiments in the KZ, e.g., prisoners were frozen to death to test the Weleda anti-frostbite ointment. These experiments were performed by the KZ-physician, anthroposophist, and SS-Hauptsturmführer Dr. Sigmund Rascher. His father had been a leading member of the Anthroposophic Society at its center in Dornach, who, of course, had sent his son to a Waldorf school. As a kid Rascher even met Steiner himself at Dornach personally (6).

Rascher was of equal quality to his colleague Mengele, an unbelievable pathological sadist, who not even begrudged his victims the delicacies of their last meal, so that in 1945 he was, because of embezzlement, shot on orders from Himmler. At the time Rascher still was a special favorite of Himmler, if not his personal friend, he submitted to Himmler in August 1942 his own invention: the gas chamber. Here one has to know that it was one of Steiner's teachings that potassium cyanide (like in the insecticide "Zyklon B" used in Auschwitz) from an occult point of view not only destroys the body but also the soul.(3) Thus Rascher aspired to a truly anthroposophic "final solution" (6). Ravenscroft proudly claims that Himmler, as a follower of Steiner's bio-dynamic farming, used anthroposophic "pest control of rabbits, rats, and sub-humans" (Ravenscroft words) to drive away the remaining Jews from the European continent by means of ashes from the KZ-crematories homeopathically dispersed in the air (15).

3. Waldorf Schools According to Haverbeck's Handbuch zur Deutschen Nation (handbook on the German nation, 1986) many elements of Waldorf education became in 1936 part of the then inaugurated official Adolf-Hitler-Schools and Napola-Schools (National Political Institutions to form the future Nazi élite) (6). Indeed, the leading Nazi pedagogue Alfred Bäumler liked Waldorf schools very much and, e.g., the educational concepts of the Nazi pedagogue Magdalene von Tiling were quite like those of Steiner's (20).

• (3) Bierl, P.: "'Vom Dämon besessen'" ÖkoLinx 16, Juli-September 1994
• (6) Flensburger Hefte 3/91, Heft 32: "Anthroposophen und Nationalsozialismus," Flensburg 1991
• (15) Ravenscroft, T.: The Spear of Destiny, York Beach, Maine 1991
• (20) Ulrich, H.: Waldorfpädagogik und okkulte Weltanschauung, Weinheim 1986

--Pete K 17:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is you were using half-truths to propogate your lie. This was seen through by even a neutral party. Here's the other half of the truth, from www.thebee.se:

Waldork 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as to your claim that there are no neutral parties in Waldorf articles, that is yet another lie. The person who REVERTED YOU in this case was your mentor. Well, on second thought, he's actually not a neutral party...he's on YOUR SIDE!!!Waldork 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the portion of your post that references TheBee's nonsense. I'm not hosting discussion for propaganda here. TheBee has NO support for his accusations against Peter Staudenmaier, BTW, and has been repeatedly shown to be completely dishonest about what he has written about Staudenmaier (I proved his claims to be lies right here on Wikipedia) and the discussion I posted above is not by Staudenmaier anyway - it's from someone else, and supported by sources. You're wasting my time little troll. --Pete K 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine, but you should know that this is exactly the type of LYING that I've been talking about. Your arguments cannot stand the test of the other side so you go on and delete them. This is exactly why you were banned in the first place.

Well, anyways, I can't piss on a dead man's grave forever. So I'll leave here with your recent posts and deletions because it is a perfect portrayal of the weasel you always were. Waldork 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you finally acknowledged what you were doing instead of "I really don't mean offense; I'm really only trying to shed some light from an outside perspective here." You have come here to discredit me - and the best you can come up with is to call me a liar without support. When challenged to support this claim, you changed it to "half-truths" and as support for this, you posted unsupported crap from TheBee's website - which is KNOWN to be false and malicious - and I certainly don't have to air it here. You showed up here with nothing - and you left with nothing except your tail between your legs. Have a nice day. --Pete K 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I just figured out who this was... --Pete K 19:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to half-truths? No, purposely telling one side (ie half truths) is equivalent to lying, only actually much worse than an outright fabrication because it appears to be true to a lazy investigator.

And as to "You showed up here with nothing - and you left with nothing except your tail between your legs." All I can say is that you showed up here with nothing but hatred, you couldn't substantiate anything you ever said, and now YOU have nothing to show for your wasted efforts. On the plus side, perhaps anyone who ever looks into the Steiner-related articles further will see quite clearly that anyone who stands up and yells and cries about anything that has to do with Steiner might as just sit down because, as you have so clearly shown, they don't have a leg to stand on. 64.185.4.7 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Changed it to half-truths? No, purposely telling one side (ie half truths) is equivalent to lying, only actually much worse than an outright fabrication because it appears to be true to a lazy investigator." The truth only has one side.

"All I can say is that you showed up here with nothing but hatred, you couldn't substantiate anything you ever said, and now YOU have nothing to show for your wasted efforts." That's not true at all. I have lots to show for my "wasted" efforts. For one thing, TheBee can no longer link to his propaganda websites like he used to - so now Wikipedia won't be a launch-pad for his personal vendetta against critics. And, as I said, the community knows now that some people here are dishonest - like HGilbert, for example, who wasn't up-front about the fact that he's a Waldorf teacher with a conflict of interest. Lots of other Waldorf teachers editing these articles aren't honest about their affiliations with Waldorf either. So, thanks to my efforts, people are keeping an eye on them. That's a huge accomplishment. Hopefully, I have emboldened other editors here to not allow TheBee and HGilbert to walk all over them and to WP:OWN the articles - and now that HGilbert and TheBee are on notice, they will have to tread lightly when such disputes arise. That's another great accomplishment. Sure, the articles have gone back to the brochure language they contained before I arrived, but this was expected. A new wave of critics will arrive to take care of this and the wounded and now thoroughly exposed Waldorf regulars won't survive the next assault. So yeah, I've accomplished quite a bit.

"On the plus side, perhaps anyone who ever looks into the Steiner-related articles further will see quite clearly that anyone who stands up and yells and cries about anything that has to do with Steiner might as just sit down because, as you have so clearly shown, they don't have a leg to stand on." No - that wasn't shown at all (are you sure you're not from a Waldorf school - you don't seem to be able to read very well). The big problem here is that Steiner's own words aren't allowed to demonstrate his own problematic ideas - like racism, anti-Semitism and so forth. And people who have delivered material that points out problems with Anthroposophy and racism, for example, have seen that material deleted off-handedly by the aggressive editors. There is lots of material that supports Steiner's own racism that cannot be used because it is an Anthroposophical source. In fact Anthroposophical sources are the best sources for showning EXACTLY this, as well as other stupid ideas like Lucifer and Ahriman in the classroom, the temperaments and how they are used, eurythmy and its true purpose, and so forth. When Anthroposophical sources were denied by the ArbCom, that closed the door for lots of damaging material relating to Steiner - and most of it written by Steiner himself. That just represents a narrow set of rules for Wikipedia - it has nothing to do with whether people who have read and understood Steiner have a leg to stand on when the state plainly what he said and believed. Just because Wikipedia has made rules about what constitutes "knowledge" doesn't mean those rules are universal or should be universally applied to any other environment. That's why information contained on Wikipedia is, in many cases, completely different from other reliable sources - not just in these articles but throughout Wikipedia. --Pete K 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Steiner's own words are taken out of context, which is what you loved to do, that's when you create grey half-truth-lies, which, as I said, are actually worse than pure black fabrications. But, of course, you are going to discount the wisdom behind Wikipedia's policies because you are intent on stomping your feet; And, no, you know what, you can call it whatever you want, you can say that I'm just trying to discredit you, but what I'm really doing is trying to put one final stamp on what you did...so that the one or two people who might one day stumble across your page will see you for the deluded liar you are and will judge your Anti-Anthro stance accordingly. Have a nice life outside of Wikipedia.64.185.4.7 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never taken Steiner out of context. In fact, it is the Waldorf people who have taken Steiner out of context. Steiner was exactly what I have said - someone who believed in physical racial differences and connected those differences to some races being more advanced than others - and he called this idea (along with some other ideas) Anthroposophy. That is the honest truth in ANY context. The people here have to disguise the use of the word "individual" for example, to pretend that Steiner meant something different than what he said. I've pointed this out in detail several times here. There is no honest context in which Steiner wasn't a racist. The problem is that today, being a racist is a bigger deal than it was in Steiner's time. Steiner felt truly justified in his racism and believed it to be spiritually supported. That's the truth plain and simple. But choose your next words carefully because you are apparently here only to insult and not to discuss or debate - so next time I hear a personal attack I will be removing this entire dialog to make room for honest debate (not name-calling). Pete K 00:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could always dish em out but apparently you can't take it. And how is calling you a liar names? You are obviously a liar; you distorted reality constantly, twisted words out of their proper context, and I don't know if it's because of the isolation or the recognition that you wasted your time trying to destroy the good reputations of others all because you hate people who were close to you with such passion, but you should stop whining and grow some thicker skin here, because anyone on these pages who have listened to your constant stream of insults already has done just that. Waldork 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of finding myself on the receiving end of vitriol - let us suppose that everything Waldork [who of course claimsno opinion whatsoever - funny that "Wal-dork" was the same epithet my kids used much to my displeasure] says is true...why come here then? For what purpose? Isn't it a little unseemly and un-WP:CIVIL to gloat on someone else's talk page? It seems to me that you are spending an awful lot of time here yourself to be writing the things you're writing and levelling the accusations you're leveling. Moreover, what you are doing here is very much on the WP:ATTACK. Indeed - if this were my talk page, you would find yourself on WP:ANI very quickly. As it is not, I will leave it to Pete to decide how to deal with you.

So have a care friend, that you do not set your first days here, off on the wrong foot. Cheers! - Wikiwag 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As I am on record as being strictly against personal attacks and have recently earned the respect of no fewer than two admins in the ArbCom proceeding, I would ask you that you please strike your own epithets and apologize to Pete. Your conduct is inappropriate. - Wikiwag 03:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wikiwag. Let her flap her gums - she's only making an ass out of herself (as usual).

• "You could always dish em out but apparently you can't take it. And how is calling you a liar names?" Pardon me? LOL!
• "You are obviously a liar;" So "obviously" that you can't produce ONE INSTANCE where I have lied. I'd be happy to extend my offer to anywhere, any time - show me ANY INSTANCE ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET WHERE I HAVE LIED and you will have my permission to call me a liar. You cannot because I DO NOT LIE - EVER. My credibility is too important to me. I haven't been banned from Waldorf articles for "lying" as you claimed above, but for aggressive editing and violating some of Wikipedia's rules. You seem to have no trouble lying about me.
• "you distorted reality constantly, twisted words out of their proper context," Fine - show me ONE INSTANCE of when I have done this then. You can't. It's easy to make such claims without supporting them. Anyone reading this will surely notice.
• "and I don't know if it's because of the isolation or the recognition that you wasted your time trying to destroy the good reputations of others all because you hate people who were close to you with such passion," I'm not isolated, FYI, I'm surrounded by people every day and have lots of places on the internet where I post - so you're making up this isolation thing. Furthermore, I haven't destroyed anyone's reputation - they, themselves, have done this through their own dishonesty. I'm just here pointing it out. Below, for example, I'm letting Harlan Gilbert's own words demonstrate his view of reality. People can draw their own conclusions.
• "but you should stop whining and grow some thicker skin here, because anyone on these pages who have listened to your constant stream of insults already has done just that." I'm not whining - I'm here discussing Waldorf. You're here discussing ME. That's not appropriate and I'll probably delete this discussion tomorrow but I may decide to keep it because of the thorough ass you have made of yourself. --Pete K 04:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Pete, you keep threatening to delete it and I'm sure you will. You'd love to conceal from everyone what your REAL motives always were. That's the only reason you'd delete it, though you'd claim it was to make room for real discussion. Waldork 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO! So you think I would spend 10-18 hours a day - over the past 8 years - trying to piss off {personal info removed}. Who in their right mind would believe this? Odd isn't it? Your statement is, again, nonsense that you have invented to try to discredit what I have to say. It's a cheap shot without any basis in fact. IOW, you're lying again.

My problem is with Waldorf. NO SINGLE PERSON is worth the time and energy I have put into exposing Waldorf. It's a convenient but ridiculous claim you and Sune use to excuse the abuses in Waldorf that I bring to light. Those abuses happen daily and they are supported by the Waldorf community. Those abuses happen to children and families around the country and indeed throughout the world. They are very real and I have experienced them first-hand and in some cases I have stopped them - first-hand. Abuse continues to flourish and the massive attempt here at Wikipedia to cover up the truth about Waldorf should demonstrate how fragile the Waldorf house-of-cards is.

Waldork was permanently banned from Wikipedia after this discussion.

Here's a peek into the mind of Harlan Gilbert. Notice how everrything is presented as FACT and completely unsupported by references.

Gilbert, Harlan. At the Source: The Incarnation of the Child and the Development of a Modern Pedagogy. Fair Oaks, CA: Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, 2005.

From the Foreword:

"Given the seven-year developmental phases each phase of life must go through seven definable stages of development, each of which corresponds approximately, at least in normal development, to one year of human life. These seven stages must be archetypal in nature, in other words, the physical body, the life and rhythmic organization and the organization of consciousness (as well as the further members of the human being) must all need to go through the same principle [sic] sequence of development." [p. 9]

"In the course of this study, it became necessary to examine also the incarnating child's preparation in the spiritual worlds, which can be seen as essential a part of the process of incarnation as are the earthly phases of childhood." [p. 13]

Preface

"This work is grounded in the fundamental research into the nature of the human being and into human development--especially child development--of Rudolf Steiner. I would like to declare my debt and thanks to the life and research of this founder of a new 'transcendental science,' uniting the power of thought and philosophical integrity of the transcendental idealists who preceded him with the practical, world-oriented nature of modern science." [p. 15]

"Above all, a spiritually-based education calls upon and calls forth forces of initiative and capacities for inner transformation in children, teachers, and parents alike. The real evidence of spirit at work lies in the ongoing process of transformation and development that it stimulates in the individual, the social fabric of family and community and in the institution itself." [p. 19]

Life

"There is unfortunately still too often popularized theory [sic] that life originally arose from a purely physical origin, e.g. from random combinations of chemicals in a high-energy environment." [p. 21]

"[W]e find in every organism a typical rhythm of life and manner of growth which no change or exchange of its physical substance can modify into a new and viable pattern. The buttercup may be bred or genetically altered to have a scarlet flower, but will never become a rose; a mouse may be given long ears, but will never be made into even a miniature elephant. It has been one of the greatest achievements of modern genetic science to have discovered through the detailed mapping of the genetic structure that the fundamental determination of an organism's nature, overall form and manner of growth is not to be found in the genes." [p. 22]

"Just as a plant can only grow -physically- by taking up substance from its -physical- environment, to which this substance then returns after its death, so must there be an environment of -life-substance- (formative potential) from which the life organization of an organism is drawn and to which it returns after its departure from the physical form.

"The mineral world is adequately defined through its physical qualities. The living world demands of us a comprehension of the life-giving, formative principle imbuing the physical expression, without which the organism's development in time must remain inexplicable and in apparent contravention of all physical law." [p. 23, emphasis in original]

Sentience

"There are moments--this is especially apparent in the higher animals--when sentience seems to withdraw from the living and physical aspects of an organism. In sleep, for example, a sentient oganism's consciousness is seemingly in abeyance, or at least strangely inaccessible. The capacity of the sentient nature to depart from and return to the life-imbued physical body is further important evidence of the independent nature of the sentient organization; if the latter were merely a product of the lower organizations, so long as these lower organizations were present, so would sentience necessarily be." [p. 24]

"We can identify qualities of sentience which are characteristic for every type of animal; thus we have the wily fox, fearful rabbit, voracious wolf, phlegmatic tortoise, and so forth." [p. 24]

"It has been a frequent misconception to assume that the determining organization here is the physical body. In fact, both the animal's behavior and its physical form are manifestations of the underlying sentient organization. The animal bears a sentient organization, a life organization and a physical body, whereby the latter two (the animal's life and form) are given shape under the influence of the sentient organization.

"The sentient organization, too, must be drawn from and return to somewhere. If this is not the world of life or phycial being--in which case the sentient organization could not leave for sleep or death, but would necessarily remain bound to the lower organizations--there must be a realm of sentience with an objective reality of its own." [pp. 24-25]

The Path to Spiritual Experience

"Three levels of spiritual being can be found through self-reflection on the nature of one's own consciousness...only by seeking what underlies this content do we arrive at an awareness of the processes which give rise to it--which processes are revealed as emanating (originating) from spiritual beings; finally we become aware of the beings themselves." [p. 34]

"The principles which the soul uses to transform its initially subjective experience of the outer world, on the one hand, and the ideals which it becomes aware of as not originating in either the outer world or the subjective inner life, on the other hand, are both impressions from a world which lies on the other side of the void of consciousness. This is a world of equal objective reality to the outer world of physicality, life and sentience, but whereas we have no direct access to the objective reality of these outer worlds, such an access -is- possible to the world of spirit.

"The three realms of the spiritual world correspond to the three realms of the outer world, but whereas the latter's content is organized and formed, the spiritual realms' content is that of the creative activity, life and beings which lie behind the organization and forms of what we experience as outer reality. These spiritual realms are as real as those of the minerals, plants and animals, as real as are our physical body, life and consciousness. They are neither abstract nor derived from but rather creative of these more familiar worlds. They are accessible to a consciousness which passes through the gate described above, the gate of the void of consciousness." [p. 35]

The Nature of Human Development

"The nature of the human being is immutable. The capacity to incarnate this nature in the resistant material of its earthly expression is, by contrast, only gradually achieved through evolutionary development. ... All evolution and development are thus the expression of an interaction between the spiritual-cosmic worlds and earthly existence. ... [E]volution and development manifest over cycles of time. They follow universal patterns in these cycles.

"One of these archetypal patterns particularly relevant for the current study is a seven-fold developmental metamorphosis. In order to establish an earthly manifestation of a spiritual principle, seven stages of development are required. These stages are successive steps of incarnation into an earthly form. ... Without understanding the origin of development and the nature of developmental cycles, our understanding of human development can never go deeper than an empirical description of the outer characteristics of this development. Through the approach taken here, the inner nature and motive force of human development and evolution can be comprehended and their outer characteristics given their proper context." [pp. 36-37]

The Guardians of the Threshold

"Before the Mystery of Golgotha the goal of spiritual progress was to completely free oneself of individual karma. The individual could then live completely out of an din the service of the objective path of world destiny, and was in fact no longer bound to return to earthly existence. The sun path of voluntarily taking on others' karma interfered with this goal and was a rarity only known and followed by certain exceptional individuals." [p. 214, note 31 to page 65]

"Three aspects of destiny are thus united in the sheath-building process:

"* universal karma as a microcosm of the spiritual sphere brought by the Greater Guardian, the star path of destiny.

"* individual, unresolved karma from past lives brought by the Lesser Guardian, the moon path of destiny.

"* and the sacrifices of those souls who take up the task of serving as another soul's guardian--and thus become in a sense the equal of the other two guardians in this sphere, the sun path of destiny." [p. 65]

Kindergarten for the older child

"Nature stories and fairy tales can begin to include transformations.[71] The Grimms' story -Mother Holle- is appropriate for this age, for example." [p. 113]

"[71] Plot and character development in stories are not yet appropriate, however." [p. 220, note to page 113]

First Grade: Curriculum

"Drawings can be approached as an expression of a soul-imbued reality; the quality of the color and form employed here is intimately related to and determined by the soul experience of the child. It belongs to the cultivation of inner and outer experience to work out of pure colors, and not to muddy these, and to use -areas- of color rather than solely lines or outlines.[75]" [p. 117]

"[75] Outlines as depictions of objects are conceptual additions to the world; they do not exist in the reality that we perceive. Allowing color areas to express the content is more true to both sense and soul reality, which are full and rich in character." [p.220, note to p. 117]

Second Grade: Methodology

"The children should now always understand the meaning of what they are writing and speaking (in the first grade, it is sometimes enough if they understand that they are practicing writing). This holds for other subjects, as well." [p. 119]

Second Grade: Curriculum

"A human being in contact with the world of archetypes lying just above the world of normal ego consciousness can rise above his or her separate ego, becoming saintly. The archetypes of the animals also emanate from this world. Thus, a human being unconsciously influenced by this world can fall into a one-sidedness which is characteristic of the animal realm. This one-sidedness then has something archetypal, but also something animal (beastly) about it.

"Legends of the saints and animal fables bring out these two possibilities, respectively. Both saint and animal are in contact with the realm above the human realm: the one rises up to this realm, the other descends from it. It is this -archetypal- quality which one seeks to express in the second grade. The detailed study of the actual life and activity of foxes, mice or ants, for example, or a more biographical approach to the lives of the saints, both belong to a later stage of the child's development." [pp. 119-120]

Third Grade: Curriculum

"[T]he Old Testament...gives an awareness that the human being is of divine origin and is guided by God in his relationships with his fellow men and women as well as with the realms of nature." [p. 122]

Fourth Grade: Curriculum

"In the fourth grade, the children's attention is drawn to man's differentiated nature as head, middle (rhythmic) and limb being and then to how different animals each emphasize one of these aspects." [p. 125]

Sixth Grade: Methodology

"Images of the fixed, physical world can now be employed and cultivated. Working from direct observation of this world becomes appropriate for the first time. Previously, observation was stimulated by the material presented; this now begins to reverse itself. Sensory observation in all respects is to be cultivated." [p. 130]

"We begin the study of -history-, the description of events as they took place in the physical world, leaving behind the world of -mythology-." [p. 131, emphasis in original]

Sixth Grade: Curriculum

"In order that mankind, having lost all its earlier awareness of higher worlds, can find the way back up, a guiding impulse must be found in physical existence itself. In order to make this possible, a spiritual being carrying this impulse entered the physical world, the realm of death. This is the turning point to a new consciousness: the Mystery of Golgotha, and this event must find an adequate expression in the sixth grade." [p. 132]

The Pedagogy of the Transitional Period [seventh grade]

"The form of the history lessons cannot yet depend upon drawing upon the pupil's full waking consciousness (clear analytical thought), however, until the soul-sentient organization has reached its maturity in the third year of its development [in the 9th grade-dD]. Therefore story and image are still appropriate rather than a more intellectual approach; symptomatic moments of history and representative figures can be thus presented to bring about a transitional stage of historical awareness. The capacity for making judgements is now present, though it remains dreamy and applies more to feelings and imaginative picture than to clear analytical thought, to which healthy awakening comes after this transitional time.

"In the sciences, to the sense-observation of natural phenomena is now added a history of scientific discoveries, bringing the representative movements in scientific thought and technological discovery in a descriptive or biographical form. (The theoretical or abstract comprehension of these will come in the following years.) The phenomenological approach of the sixth grade is thus applied to what is potentially a more theoretical content in both history and science." [pp. 147-148]

About spiritual geography in the 12th grade curriculum:

"...examining the special contributions of the periods of history and various regions of the world, e.g. how religious impulses and a tendency towards unity, or even homogeneity, arise in the East; social impulses and cooperation develop out of the Center; technological advances and differentiation, even competition, are characteristic of the West; impulses of the West and East intermingle on the Pacific Rim. Another example is the North's tendency towards individuation, abstraction and industrialization vs. the South's tendency towards community, concrete experience and agriculture. A spiritual history and geography of the world thus arises." [p. 182]

The reviewing of the case has finished. Based on the decision, you are now banned from editing Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and related pages or their talk pages. You may view the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YAWN Pete K 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man. Sorry I've been absent. Frankly, I got sick of the whole thing and had to take a break. I wish things had turned out differently. Good luck with everything. Cheers! - Wikiwag 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, I wish things could have turned out differently. Against what you might think, I have been proud to be your adopter, and I wish you all the best in the real world. So long, and thanks for all the fish! Laters from the Leth - 00:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also sorry this has happened to you. This ruling seems excessively harsh and offends natural justice. An indefinite ban is like a life sentence and does not admit the possibility of anything new happening in the future. Looking through the evidence I cannot see why the committee thought your behaviour was worse than others involved. Lumos3 09:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to put up a robust defense against some clearly biased editors, and encountered a great deal of incivility and aggression as a result. I am surprised to see that you have been banned whilst your painfully unwikipedian 'opponents' still have free reign over the articles in question. Maybe this ban is a good thing: Wikipedia operates on reputation, so if you establish some goodwill by productive edits on other articles, you will find that when (not if) you return to the Steiner articles, you will have a lot more credibility/status/respect to your name, which will work in your favour, especially during arbitration.--Fergie 17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fergie. I think I've already burned too many bridges - and that's fine with me. I'm not interested in the Wikipedia process that much any more. It would be better if left to the public to govern their own behavior. Once the selected administrators and arbitrators start displaying bias, it becomes evident that the views here must necessarily be slanted. The criteria for becoming an administrator or arbitrator ensures a certain disdain for people like me who will aggressively debate. --Pete K 17:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Once it was clear that I was being targeted, it made no sense to put up a fight. It doesn't seem right that such a small group of arbitrators can control this process and ultimately what a reader reads when they come to Wikipedia. It sours the whole environment and obviously, Wikipedia has come under a lot of criticism for exactly this lately. The good news is, I've learned that it's impossible to make a difference here - that no matter what, the people who are here in the Waldorf forums are more organized and more devoted to presenting their spin on things - and they will work endlessly to do just that. Everything critical has already been removed and there's a constant hammering to use Anthroposophical sources. It's digging a hole in the sand - the sand eventually wins. But I did what I could - and I may do a bit more in time - we'll see. Good luck to you all! Pete K 04:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to this source. Can you provide a quote or page number or something? Or is it online somewhere? IPSOS (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's here

And there's this one