To whomever this may concern: I want to appeal my block. There is a claim of sockpuppetry which I am blocked for. I do not know how this would even have been possible since my whole ip address (one that uses many public computers that hundreds of users use, I might add,) not just username, has been blocked from editing.
Also, in regards to the initial block, which was for reverting, I would like to point out that I was not the instigator of the reverts. Pete K reverted first, something he does quite a bit when he doesn't agree, and I reverted back. You have to look no further than this page to see what he wrote to me: "I've reverted your recent changes on the Steiner article. Please discuss these types of changes before making them. Thanks! Pete K 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)" Well, seeing as how I created a section on the Rudolf Steiner talk pages several days earlier devoted to making these proposed edits, I obviously already discussed these proposed changes. I recognized this as a tactic to disguise his reverting from the admins as legitimate (since he had been blocked several days before for reverting) and I, in turn, recognized his reverting as vandalism.
In retrospect I realize that reverting is not something I should have done, but if one was to look back in the history, it would be found that I was not the person who initially reverted.
Furthermore, I was never warned prior to the block for reverting. I was in the middle of posting something on a talk page, and as soon as I pressed the submit button, I found I was blocked. I was under the impression that it was okay to revert when it was the case of vandalism (and I saw Pete K's act of reverting my well-thought edits as vandalism) and I would certainly not have continued to revert if only I was issued a warning on my page.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
- Since you have brought my name into this - I'll comment about my message above - but first, I'd like to point out that you have been soliciting meat puppets publicly on Anthroposophical websites. Here's a link to one of your calls for editors: [1]
- Getting back to my comment on this page, you showed up here and started slashing away at the Steiner articles, over the protests of established editors. Additionally, you insisted on reverting your changes and even tried to solicit others in your battle to revise history. I won't even go into the content of the edits you were trying to eliminate by force - the issue here is your behavior which got you banned twice, apparently, in the short time you've been here. I tried pointing out to you several times that the articles that you are trying to forcefully edit are controversial - and that language, a particular phrase, may have been disputed for months before allowed to stay here. You come along and from the minute you show up, slash away at this heavily contested material - WITHOUT discussion of any kind.
- When you were banned the first time, you came back as a sock-puppet in order to continue discussion. The sock-puppetry and the meat-puppetry are serious enough, your arrogant editing (four editors - from both sides of the issues - objected to your edits), and general rudeness would be enough for me - if I were an administrator, to let the ban continue to its full term. But hey, good luck on your appeal. Pete K 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Pete, what makes you think you can go around and spread insults and personal attacks? What makes you think that you can call me "arrogant" and "rude" or kick me while I'm down? I would report you for this ongoing behavior of yours if only I wasn't blocked. But maybe someone will see my page and do just that.
Further, my "recruiting" of other editors is irrelevant. If you read that post of mine on Yahoo, you'd see that I told everyone that, regardless of their position, I'd appreciate their presence. I was not trying to convince other people to come over and post with my POV in mind. The fact that someone did come over and post my POV was completely beyond my control.
Finally, I did discuss these edits. I discussed them on the talk page for a week. You continue to ignore this fact and I can only think the reason you do is to give your argument false weight.
And what all four editors WERE against was not the edit I DID make, but the original proposal which was for deleting the entire section. I, however, preserved the most critical points of that paragraph and moved it to "reception of Steiner" to get rid of the problem of "undue weight." But you reverted it before anyone could weight in, and the reason I believe you reverted my edits was that earlier you admitted that your position would lose if we put it to a vote. You reverted quickly and without discussion because you wanted my edits to be hidden from others. Boogafish 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Pete, what makes you think you can go around and spread insults and personal attacks? What makes you think that you can call me "arrogant" and "rude" or kick me while I'm down? I would report you for this ongoing behavior of yours if only I wasn't blocked. But maybe someone will see my page and do just that." You are appealing your block. I am supporting it. I'm sorry if it feels like an atack to you.
- "Further, my "recruiting" of other editors is irrelevant." That's not up to me or you to decide. Administrators are the ones who get to decide if it is relevant.
- "Finally, I did discuss these edits." And the discussions are there for everyone to see. We don't need to go over them here again. You're pushing your POV - and soliciting for meat-puppets on websites that are comprised of Anthroposophists. IMO, until you realize that your behavior in this regard is inappropriate - and not "irrelevant" - I think you should be doing some thinking instead of editing. Pete K 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Pete, don't try and spin things around here. Your attack is not your act of supporting my block, your attack is calling me "rude" and "arrogant". But, honestly, I don't expect much different from you. You have routinely insulted users like Hgilbert, and you constantly issue personal attacks to my good friend Sune. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Boogafish 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can assure you - I am not ashamed of myself for questioning the motives of some people here - especially those who have attacked me personally as both Sune and () have. () started by discussing personal matters about my family. Sune has harassed me throughout several articles, on my own talk page and has even reproduced discussions here on his own web pages. So, I really have nothing to be ashamed of here. People here who regularly demonstrate dishonesty hurt Waldorf and Anthroposophy much more than those who point it out when it happens. As for your comment above - I called your edits arrogant, not you (please read carefully)... but I did, indeed, suggest that you have displayed a general rudeness - because of your propensity toward sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry as well as your arrogant edits and unwillingness to listen to or participate in reasonable discussion. I don't need to "spin" anything. You are your own worst enemy - and your actions, again, are available for anyone to see. Enjoy your block... Pete K 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Pete, calling my edits arrogant is really not much different, and it's still a personal attack. Calling me rude, however justified you think you are, is still a personal attack. Boogafish 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.
hey, erasing other people's comments from your talk page because you don't like them is not really in line with wiki guidelines. maybe you should take that into account when you advise other people to study them. from looking at your contributions it seems that your account is a defending steiner only account. that does not exactly help taking your talk about neutrality serious. btw getting into discussions with petek on racism and steiner really just clogs up the talk page. it does not do anything else. trueblood 09:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- i'd say you are impolite to say the least. once you're back at doc steiner, are you gonna continue like this?
trueblood 17:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- oh concerning what you told cerx[ [2]] please watch your language. what did i do that qualifies as harrasment? wasn't it you that got blocked for reverting me? apart from ignoring somebody and insulting him there is also the possibility of engaging in dialogue. trueblood 12:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I got blocked for reverting you, but I wanted to work things out on the talk pages. You continued to revert and simply didn't read what I had to say on the talk pages. Edit warring works both ways, and you very well know that the only reason I got blocked was because you tattled on me. I could have reported you, but I chose not to. Boogafish 15:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted your recent changes on the Steiner article. Please discuss these types of changes before making them. Thanks!
Pete K 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
To whomever this may concern: I want to appeal my block. There is a claim of sockpuppetry which I am blocked for. I do not know how this would even have been possible since my whole ip address (one that uses many public computers that hundreds of users use, I might add,) not just username, has been blocked from editing.
Also, in regards to the initial block, which was for reverting, I would like to point out that I was not the instigator of the reverts. Pete K reverted first, something he does quite a bit when he doesn't agree, and I reverted back. You have to look no further than this page to see what he wrote to me: "I've reverted your recent changes on the Steiner article. Please discuss these types of changes before making them. Thanks! Pete K 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)" Well, seeing as how I created a section on the Rudolf Steiner talk pages several days earlier devoted to making these proposed edits, I obviously already discussed these proposed changes. I recognized this as a tactic to disguise his reverting from the admins as legitimate (since he had been blocked several days before for reverting) and I, in turn, recognized his reverting as vandalism.
In retrospect I realize that reverting is not something I should have done, but if one was to look back in the history, it would be found that I was not the person who initially reverted.
Furthermore, I was never warned prior to the block for reverting. I was in the middle of posting something on a talk page, and as soon as I pressed the submit button, I found I was blocked. I was under the impression that it was okay to revert when it was the case of vandalism (and I saw Pete K's act of reverting my well-thought edits as vandalism) and I would certainly not have continued to revert if only I was issued a warning on my page.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
- Since you have brought my name into this - I'll comment about my message above - but first, I'd like to point out that you have been soliciting meat puppets publicly on Anthroposophical websites. Here's a link to one of your calls for editors: [1]
- Getting back to my comment on this page, you showed up here and started slashing away at the Steiner articles, over the protests of established editors. Additionally, you insisted on reverting your changes and even tried to solicit others in your battle to revise history. I won't even go into the content of the edits you were trying to eliminate by force - the issue here is your behavior which got you banned twice, apparently, in the short time you've been here. I tried pointing out to you several times that the articles that you are trying to forcefully edit are controversial - and that language, a particular phrase, may have been disputed for months before allowed to stay here. You come along and from the minute you show up, slash away at this heavily contested material - WITHOUT discussion of any kind.
- When you were banned the first time, you came back as a sock-puppet in order to continue discussion. The sock-puppetry and the meat-puppetry are serious enough, your arrogant editing (four editors - from both sides of the issues - objected to your edits), and general rudeness would be enough for me - if I were an administrator, to let the ban continue to its full term. But hey, good luck on your appeal. Pete K 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Pete, what makes you think you can go around and spread insults and personal attacks? What makes you think that you can call me "arrogant" and "rude" or kick me while I'm down? I would report you for this ongoing behavior of yours if only I wasn't blocked. But maybe someone will see my page and do just that.
Further, my "recruiting" of other editors is irrelevant. If you read that post of mine on Yahoo, you'd see that I told everyone that, regardless of their position, I'd appreciate their presence. I was not trying to convince other people to come over and post with my POV in mind. The fact that someone did come over and post my POV was completely beyond my control.
Finally, I did discuss these edits. I discussed them on the talk page for a week. You continue to ignore this fact and I can only think the reason you do is to give your argument false weight.
And what all four editors WERE against was not the edit I DID make, but the original proposal which was for deleting the entire section. I, however, preserved the most critical points of that paragraph and moved it to "reception of Steiner" to get rid of the problem of "undue weight." But you reverted it before anyone could weight in, and the reason I believe you reverted my edits was that earlier you admitted that your position would lose if we put it to a vote. You reverted quickly and without discussion because you wanted my edits to be hidden from others. Boogafish 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Pete, what makes you think you can go around and spread insults and personal attacks? What makes you think that you can call me "arrogant" and "rude" or kick me while I'm down? I would report you for this ongoing behavior of yours if only I wasn't blocked. But maybe someone will see my page and do just that." You are appealing your block. I am supporting it. I'm sorry if it feels like an atack to you.
- "Further, my "recruiting" of other editors is irrelevant." That's not up to me or you to decide. Administrators are the ones who get to decide if it is relevant.
- "Finally, I did discuss these edits." And the discussions are there for everyone to see. We don't need to go over them here again. You're pushing your POV - and soliciting for meat-puppets on websites that are comprised of Anthroposophists. IMO, until you realize that your behavior in this regard is inappropriate - and not "irrelevant" - I think you should be doing some thinking instead of editing. Pete K 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Pete, don't try and spin things around here. Your attack is not your act of supporting my block, your attack is calling me "rude" and "arrogant". But, honestly, I don't expect much different from you. You have routinely insulted users like Hgilbert, and you constantly issue personal attacks to my good friend Sune. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Boogafish 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can assure you - I am not ashamed of myself for questioning the motives of some people here - especially those who have attacked me personally as both Sune and () have. () started by discussing personal matters about my family. Sune has harassed me throughout several articles, on my own talk page and has even reproduced discussions here on his own web pages. So, I really have nothing to be ashamed of here. People here who regularly demonstrate dishonesty hurt Waldorf and Anthroposophy much more than those who point it out when it happens. As for your comment above - I called your edits arrogant, not you (please read carefully)... but I did, indeed, suggest that you have displayed a general rudeness - because of your propensity toward sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry as well as your arrogant edits and unwillingness to listen to or participate in reasonable discussion. I don't need to "spin" anything. You are your own worst enemy - and your actions, again, are available for anyone to see. Enjoy your block... Pete K 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Pete, calling my edits arrogant is really not much different, and it's still a personal attack. Calling me rude, however justified you think you are, is still a personal attack. Boogafish 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.
hey, erasing other people's comments from your talk page because you don't like them is not really in line with wiki guidelines. maybe you should take that into account when you advise other people to study them. from looking at your contributions it seems that your account is a defending steiner only account. that does not exactly help taking your talk about neutrality serious. btw getting into discussions with petek on racism and steiner really just clogs up the talk page. it does not do anything else. trueblood 09:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- i'd say you are impolite to say the least. once you're back at doc steiner, are you gonna continue like this?
trueblood 17:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- oh concerning what you told cerx[ [2]] please watch your language. what did i do that qualifies as harrasment? wasn't it you that got blocked for reverting me? apart from ignoring somebody and insulting him there is also the possibility of engaging in dialogue. trueblood 12:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I got blocked for reverting you, but I wanted to work things out on the talk pages. You continued to revert and simply didn't read what I had to say on the talk pages. Edit warring works both ways, and you very well know that the only reason I got blocked was because you tattled on me. I could have reported you, but I chose not to. Boogafish 15:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted your recent changes on the Steiner article. Please discuss these types of changes before making them. Thanks!
Pete K 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)