User talk:Masteryorlando

Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise

I see that your edits are good faith, but as a new editor you will want to familiarize yourself with the policies of verifiable sources and WP:Original research. In addition, even if you are certain of your material, if other editors are not they have the right to discuss, change, revert - so it makes sense to talk things out. You might even learn something about the Wikipedia process thereby! It can be frustrating but also rewarding to work by consensus. hgilbert (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems clear that your edits are not in good faith. You have reverted to the speculation lacking any original research that the first Goetheanum was burnt by arson; you have removed the New York Times headline which indeed indicated this was speculation and called it "Steiner's Temple"; you claim this had to be removed as it constituted "original research" clearly it did not, being a contemporary article. You have removed the reference to the wooden structure being covered with bees wax the research for which I included. You have removed the reference in a letter from Steiner to his wife to his continuing stomach problems and his hemmorhoids. You claim my reference to this is "original research" clearly it is not since it is derived from Steiner's own letter. You have left in the article the entirely unsubstantiated claim that the Goetheanum was burnt by arson. It is clear that you are entirely biased. Masteryorlando

Please read the policy on original research, especially the section on synthesis. To quote this: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. Combining facts that you find (e.g. beeswax used on the outside of the building) with other facts (e.g. the fire started on the interior walls) to conclude that they are related (e.g. the walls burned like doused with gasoline because of the stupid design) is synthesis, UNLESS a reliable source explicitly states that conclusion from those facts. Another example would be (1) Steiner had stomach problems, (2) Steiner took homeopathic anthroposophical medicines during his illness, (3) some ingredients to the anthroposophical medicines, like wormwood and mistletoe, are poisonous (before they have been homeopathically diluted), (4) therefore Steiner died because he poisoned himself. Facts (1) - (3) are correct and can be substantiated by reliable sources, as you did. However there is no source that combines these facts to reach conclusion (4). Again, that's synthesis. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The primary source I quoted Gary Lachman, Rudolf Steiner, Penguin Books 2007 pp. 199 - 204. This source provided precisely this:

"The Christian Community for which Steiner provided a new Sacrament, the Act of the Consecration of Man ... became another target for the rising anti-Steiner hostility. ...The very real hostility Steiner experienced, led to the belief that arson was to blame. Others point out that as the fire was discovered inside a wall, it could have been an electrical fault. More than likely we will never know. By midnight the flames shot through the massive domes and illuminated the sky. Local firefighters and anthroposophists joined to battle the blaze but the wood was too plentiful a fuel."

I further provided three other sources that confirmed exactly these things confirming Lachman that the fire source was inside an inner wall.

Christoph Lindenberg's biography of Steiner: chapter 46, "Der Brand des Goetheanum" pp. 789-797.

"Der Brand des Goetheanum" in René Maikowski's memoir Schicksalswege auf der Suche nach dem lebendigen Geist (Freiburg 1980), pp. 59-65

Colin Wilson, Rudolf Steiner, the man and his vision: an introduction to the life and ideas of the founder of anthroposophy Publ Aquarian Press 1985 p.153

You also removed my passage sourced in all four reliable references above

"According to Steiner biographer, Lachman, and others, the source of the fire was inside a hollow wall, as was discovered when smoke was noticed at an early stage but the fire could only be found after the wall was broken open."

AND

Kenneth Bayes, Living Architecture Publ. Steiner Books, 1994 p.70 states that the wooden walls and roof of the building were waxed with bees wax.

It is perfectly obvious that bees wax is flammable.

You removed all of this to leave stand the entirely unsupported speculation that the Goetheanum was destroyed by arson. See paragraph "The Anthroposophical Society and its cultural activities" which states "it was burned down by arson"

You further removed the actual New York times headline which I had added which stated that Arson was "suspected" and that described the Goetheanum as a "temple".

You did so by falsely claiming my edits were "original material" not supported by exosting reputable research even whilst you could see that I was editing it AND even after I had substantiated this with 4 reliable sources.

This demonstrates clear bias to me.

With regard to Steiner's illness

You removed original material (Steiner's letter to Marie Steiner in which he complains of hemorrhoids and stomach troubles) yet you left the entirely speculative and unsourced comment that "The loss of the Goetheanum affected Steiner's health seriously."

With regard to Three fold Commonwealth

You removed mys statement that the Threefold Commonwealth "was largely drawn from the synarchic ideas of Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre

I provided the source for this as The encyclopedia of the unexplained: magic, occultism, and parapsychology Published by Richard Cavendish p.239 This article was written by the respected Occult Historian James Webb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_(historian)

You further removed the description of Steiner's The Threefold Commonwealth (which I had referenced additionally to Webb's research in his book The Occult Establishment) as having much in common with Mussolini's Corporate Realpolitik. There are numerous other sources for this and I backed this up further with a quotation from Mussolini which explicitly demonstrates this. You removed this but left the entirely unsubstantiated and erroneous claim that

"Steiner promoted a radical solution in the disputed area of Upper Silesia - claimed by both Poland and Germany: his suggestion that this area be granted at least provisional independence led to his being publicly accused of being a traitor to Germany."

The reference provided in this text which you replaced, incidentally does not say at all that this "led to his being publicly accused of being a traitor to Germany." It says that Steiner's "Threefold Social Order" is "a destructive Jewish scheme."

Let's try to deal with these questions systematically.

• Arson

The official police report states that the cause was arson. I'll put the reference (Lindenberg) into the article if it's not there already.

• 3Fold commonwealth

Could you please provide the exact quote from Cavendish supporting the claim that Steiner took his ideas from d'Alveydre? How does he know that Steiner was familiar with d'Alveydre's work?

In any case, this and the Webb source do not meet the criteria for sources for highly speculative material - they are not academic presses, peer-reviewed journals, or the like, but popular accounts. The Wikipedia article you link to in order to confirm that he was a respected historian states that "Webb was generally ignored in his lifetime". Please find sources that are peer-reviewed for any speculation and interpretation. hgilbert (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

NO... It is only speculated that it was Arson.

The New York Times article (amongst others) provides the evidence that this was only speculation. The exact same Lindenberg reference that you rely on for the police report (which Lindenbergreference I had also used to prove the hollow wall and the speculation) also clearly states this was speculative. [This, incidentaly, is published neither by an academic press or a peer review journal which you say is required for "highly peculative material"] On the other hand my text is NOT speculation but it is fact.

It stated "some speculated that it was arson and some that it was an eletrical fault." I provided the proof of this FACT with four references.

With regard to James Webb. The work I quoted from is edited not only by Richard Cavendish but also by Professor Rhine of Duke University. It is published by Arkana - the academic esoteric imprint of Penguin. With regard to Webb being peer reviewed: indeed he is very extensively peer reviewed. Professor Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. Director, Centre for the Study of Esotericism at the University of Exeter has extensively reviewed his work and quotes from it at length in his own work including publications by Oxford University Press. Antoine Faivre, Professor at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Religious Studies Section at the Sorbonne in Paris and Professor Emeritus of History of Esoteric and Mystical Currents in Modern and Contemporary Europe at the 5th section of the École Pratique des Hautes Études (Sorbonne), Paris, France also likewise extensively quotes Webb in his own work. Faivre is described by Michigan University Press as the "most prominent scholar of esotericism to have appeared since Mircea Eliade" Wouter J. Hanegraaff Professor of History of Hermetic Philosophy and Related Currents at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands likewise quotes at length from Webb.

However it is certainly not speculative that Steiner derived the Threefold Commonwealth from d'Alveydre it is fact. Perhaps you need to familiarize yourelf with Steiner's esoteric heritage to appreciate this(???) d'Alveydre was Levi's nominated successor in the esoteric lineage - five of Levi's twelve disciples were amongst those who formed the German Theosophical Society with Olcott in 1884 and the Esoteric group with Blavatsky immediately thereafter. This is exactly the lineage Édouard Schuré speaks of when he and Steiner say that Steiner's initiation is as a Rosicrucian in the preface to Le Mystère Chrétien et les Mystères Antiques published in 1908: "[Steiner] through his first Master, through the brotherhood with which he was associated, and by his own innermost nature, belongs to another school of Occultism, I mean to the esoteric Christianity of the West, and most especially to the Rosicrucian initiation." If you need further convincing see also Sergei O. Prokofieff, The spiritual origins of Eastern Europe and the future mysteries of the Holy Grail pp.472-474 (Footnote 134) - Prokofieff is of course a member of the vorstand of the GAS.

The exact text in the Arkana Encylopaedia reads "Steiner did not improve matters by himself making a bid to enter politics. In the confusion of 1919 he produced a theory of society which he called the 'Threefold Commonwealth' and which was derived from the 19th Century French Occultist Saint Yves d'Alveydre."

In any event this influence is already stated at Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Saint-Yves_d'Alveydre

Masteryorlando

Sorry; Lindenberg clearly states that the police report concluded it was arson. This is a factual report, not speculation.

Can you summarize the ideas of Saint Yves d'Alveydre that are related to the threefold social order? hgilbert (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The report you refer to is NOT a 'factual' report. It is speculative. I do not disagree that the Goetheanum reported the fire as arson. Indeed I provided precisely the reference to their report in my footnotes. I do not disagree that it was reported to the police as arson - I again provided the same Lindenberg reference as you to that. I do not disagee that Steiner stated that he "assumed" it was arson in his first lecture after the fire: accusing the Dornach Roman Catholic community and Freemasons as being jointly responsible. I do not disagree that many commentators say it was arson.

I do however disagree most strongly that it was FACTUALLY arson. There is no evidence to corroborate this and it remains speculation.

The contemporary New York Times referece which I provided states that "incendiarism was suspected" in "Steiner's Temple". For some reason you keep removing this (4 times now) claiming it is my "original research". Clearly it is not. This is a contemporary news account clearly worthy of inclusion. The description of the fire as being at "Steiner's Temple" in that New York Times report alone is vitally important to a full understanding of what the Goetheanum was perceived to be by reputable news sources at that time. Again Gary Lachman - a respected occult academic - see http://garylachman.co.uk/ in his biography of Steiner published by the respected academic Penguin Books http://us.penguingroup.com/static/pages/publishers/adult/tarcher.html states as undisputable fact: "The very real hostility Steiner experienced, led to the belief that arson was to blame. Others point out that as the fire was discovered inside a wall, it could have been an electrical fault." I again provided this reference bein p.204 of Larchman's book "Rudolf Steiner" published by Penguin One such "other" - again the reference to whose writing I provided - was Colin Wilson who in his biography of Steiner says "Most commentators suggest that the fire was due to arson, but the fact that it began inside a wall suggests an electrical fault."

Steiner critic Peter Peter Staudenmaier, Assistant Professr of History at Montana University (see http://www.cas.umt.edu/history/people/facultyList.cfm) at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/3156 calls the arson notion "mostly silly"

For all of the above reasons I believe the Wikipedia recommendation should stand. This states "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral."

I have done this in my last edit presenting an entirely neutral both sides of the case. You have deleted this. This is now the 4th time you have sought to present a unilateral case that it was arson. You have provided no academic proof to back up this "highly speculative" statement.

So I suggest a neutral and factual statement that (as Larchner says) "likely we will never know" and that some commentators say arson and some say electrical fire.... something like The suggestion that the burning of the Goetheanum was arson, however, has never been proved and is disputed. According to Steiner biographer, Gary Lachman, and others, the source of the fire was inside a hollow wall, as was discovered when smoke was noticed at an early stage but the fire could only be found after the wall was broken open. [REFERENCE Gary Lachman, Rudolf Steiner Publ. Penguin Books 2007 pp. 204-205 See also Christoph Lindenberg's biography of Steiner: chapter 46, "Der Brand des Goetheanum" pp. 789-797. See also "Der Brand des Goetheanum" in René Maikowski's memoir Schicksalswege auf der Suche nach dem lebendigen Geist (Freiburg 1980), pp. 59-65 ] Larchman refers to other commentators who suggest it was an electrical fault REFERENCE Larchman Ibid p.204 See for one such commentator Colin Wilson, Rudolf Steiner, the man and his vision: an introduction to the life and ideas of the founder of anthroposophy Publ Aquarian Press 1985 p.153 Wilson writes "Most commentators suggest that the fire was due to arson, but the fact that it began inside a wall suggests an electrical fault."] Lachman concludes "more than likely we will never know. To answer your d'Alveydre question - check out 'Synarchy' at his entry at Wikipedia.

Please also see James Webb Occult Establishment p.279 "the design for The Threefold Commonwealth was taken lock stock and barrel from Papus' intellectual Master, Saint-Yves d'Alveydre. Saint-Yves had called the system Synarchy."

You have also removed several other inserts of mine:

1. That Steiner suffered serious digestive problems 2. That Steiner complained of painful daily treatment for hemorrhoids 3. That Steiner directed his own treatment 4. That his primary so-called 'medical' caregiver Ita Wegman believed he had an etheric disorder that turned food to poison 5. That he suffered a massive heart attack in January 1925 three months before he died.

Given that I corroborated each of these with contemporary verification including correspondence from Steiner and his wife, writing by Wegman why have you removed them replacing them instead with the unproven and entirely speculative statement "The loss of the Goetheanum affected Steiner's health seriously." Whilst I agree he went downhill rapidly from the end of 1924, however the medical problems were present long before. Please therefore explain why you have removed my 5 entries

Masteryorlando

Fire

It is true that there is much speculation about the cause of the fire, but a police report is more conclusive than speculation taking place 80 years later. I have added a second reference for it being an act of arson. hgilbert (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

See Rudolf Steiner Talk Page on the issue. I reproduce there the final District Commissioner's report of 22 February. This states "no trace of arson was found". I am assuming the Lindberg reference you keep referring to refers to the 4 January Police report based on the Goetheanum's theory that Ott is responsible and has fled - a theory of course found false after Ott's body is found in the ruins. I do not have Lindberg here but judging from the page number in your reference you are ignoring the whole of the rest of the chapter in Lindberg on the fire... why would you do that? - it entirely distorts what Lindberg is saying.Masteryorlando (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE use proper formatting of comments so they can be read. Use colons to indent so that each part of the conversation can be followed and extra lines to separate the paragraphs. Use the Preview button to see how your comments will look or edit them afterward to make the comments readable. As it is, your comments are extremely hard to follow and the credibility of your points.

Also please take the comments about an article to the article's talk page. I will comment on issue of the fire there. Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please fix your 3RR report

Hello Masteryorlando. See WP:AN3#User:Hgilbert reported by User:Masteryorlando (Result: ). In your report, the diffs do not show up as clickable links. I hope you are aware of how to format diffs. In case of trouble, the 3RR helper tool will make diffs for you. Be sure to select the 'HTML' option. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Done! Thanks!Masteryorlando (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A point about editing "rules" and etiquette

Masteryorlando, it might help if you read up on the rules of editing. In the case of the 3-revert rule, there need to be 4 or more reverting edits ("undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time") within a 24-hour period by the same editor. There are certain steps you need to take such as documenting the 4 or more offending reverts, warning the editor of the potential 3RR, etc. in order to make a complaint about edit warring.

Hgilbert had repeatedly overriden my contributions for the past 10 days. He has stated on another users Talk page that "INDEED" this was to avoid stirring up the 'anti-Waldorf' thereby he has revealed again the same bias which complaints were also noted against him in the arbitration and are noted again recently in the Waldorf discussion page.

There were indeed 3 reverts by Hgilbert of my contributions within 24 hours as follows - Before the last one (5.17) I did indeed warn Hgilbert by posting the warning on his talk page.

3.02:53, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 411784735 by Hgilbert; incoherent lead. (TW)") 4.12:28, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 28 edits by Masteryorlando (talk); Conflicts with arbitration; incoherent presentation. (TW)") 5.17:45, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Masteryorlando (talk) to last version by Hgilbert") Masteryorlando (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, please note the custom of following the BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle. You have been BOLD with your edits, Hgilbert has reverted them. The next step is NOT to revert the revert, but to DISCUSS on the article's talk page. Hgilbert is a very reasonable editor and if you can suggest specific changes on the talk page, you should be able to come to agreement and get the essence of what you want to see in the article, if not your specific wording. Hgilbert has already conceded several changes that you have proposed. Perhaps you didn't see them.

This is hardly a BOLD edit:Although he had been initially opposed to the Theosophical Society in Vienna in the late 1880's, Steiner went on to become President of its German Section from 1902 to 1913 and Arch Warden of its Esoteric School.From within the Theosophical Society, Steiner developed, out of his Rosicrucian initiation, a comprehensive step-by-step path to gnosis. He called this esoteric and occult spiritual philosophy Anthroposophy Although he claimed he had never been a member, Steiner was expelled from the Theosophical Society in 1913 for a breach of its Constitution. He went on to assist in the formation of the Anthroposophical Society founded by his wife in 1913 as well as an Esoteric Occult School of Spiritual Science. Following schisms within the movement, Steiner refounded the General Anthroposophical Society over Christmas 1923 describing it at that time as "a service of the gods, a divine service".

Masteryorlando (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A third point is that we must assume that the other editors are Acting In Good Faith, so it is not helpful to throw out accusations of bias or distortions, etc.

Calling in a private Waldorf School board member and stating on their talk page that "INDEED" this was to "avoid stirring up the 'anti-Waldorf'" proves bias. Hgilbert has refused to address head on any issue that I have raised and contrary to your suggestion I am not aware that he has 'backed down' on anything.Masteryorlando (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A fourth point you need to understand is about the Arbitration ruling on Steiner-related articles. Part of the ruling is that Steiner cannot be quoted or referenced directly, but rather the material needs to be supported by other scholarly sources.

The exact text of the arbitration ruling reads "Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. ...If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed."

Clearly there was nothing in my edits over the past 24 hours that constituted 'original reasearch' or 'controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications.' On the contrary I provided a very detailed description (also on the talk page) of independent scholarly sources for all of my edits. If there is anything Hgilbert wants a further scholarly source for I will be happy to provide it. Simply to remove 28 edits fraudulently claiming it is because they "violate the arbitration" and result in an "incoherent presentation" shamefully distorts the truth - especially in the light of the Talk page I describe demonstrating this is NOT in good faith.Masteryorlando (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, Wikipedia is a cooperative process, so if there is disagreement, the editors need to work together to come to some agreement or if necessary follow one or more of the other avenues for coming to a consensus. These discussions should take place on the article's talk page, not with dueling edits in the article. Also, you should allow a reasonable time for the other editors to digest your points and respond to them. Cheers, EPadmirateur (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Re REASONABLE TIME Please see the discussion page. "Lack of balance / sounds like an advert for the subject" has been up for discussion since 15 December and complains "nothing in the lead at all which gives an indication that Steiner's ideas are controversial or flawed." Two months is plenty long enough for response. I have responded and agreed to this comment and would like to see the lead match the German article and wuould like to see the criticism included in the German Wiki included in the English one. Do you have any reasonable objection to this? If you do object would you be willing to have this moderated or reopen the arbitration review?Masteryorlando (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking time to comment. I believe the best thing is to seek a mediator entirely unrelated to Waldorf or Anthroposophy. Would you and Hgilbert agree to that?Masteryorlando (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to work in Wikipedia more according to the rules of "WP etiquette". The suggestion on the 3RR board was for you to consider getting a Wikipedia mentor. I really suggest that you do this. There is a long list of mentors who are available and I think you can just pick one that would be a good fit with you (time-wise and interest-wise). Then if you run into a problem, the mentor can give you guidance on how to act so you can be more effective working with the other editors. I hope you'll consider doing this. Thanks, EPadmirateur (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I am happy to do that

But please tell me why are you: 1. Failing to address my question asking if you will agree to a mediation? 2. Failing to address the fact that Hgilbert has clearly for a long time now been editing "in an inappropriate and disruptive way". There was no violation of sourcing of "controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications" in my edits and any that he felt required more reference should have had a citation request added? Whilst I agree my first edits may have had unreferenced research or Synthesis almost, however every revert since then by Hgilbert has been without the foundation that he claims. 3. The issue of presenting both sides of the fire issue has now been up for a week now with no opponents to my suggestions. Are you willing to support my edit to show both sides of the case as in Lachman?Masteryorlando (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please strive for clearer explanations

Hello Masteryorlando. I looked at your complaint at WP:AN3 but was not impressed with the strength of your argument. You clearly want to make large changes at Rudolf Steiner, but it's hard to get clear as to what the main problem is that you're trying to fix. (What you've added at the article talk page is quite long and it is not easy to follow). It may be premature to ask for mediation until you've got a case together that others can easily understand. We also have the arbitration case as background and people are naturally concerned that a brand-new editor who arrives at that article could have an axe to grind. Your edits suggest that you may not be completely new to Wikipedia, and it would help to clear the air if you are willing to tell more about how you happen to have knowledge of Steiner's movement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed

Thanks for your reply.

I believe the changes needed are very small to correct the bias. But I am having an extraordinarily tough time with Hgilbert and Epadmirateur getting anything into this article that is remotely neutral, that presents Steiner as the religious and occult leader that he was, emphasises the significance of his involvement for 15 years with the Theosophical Society which he led in Germany and generally makes the article more neutral - as for instance I believe the German Wikipedia.de entry for Steiner is. I would be happy - as a start - if we could all agree that anything in the German Wikipedia entry for Rudolf Steiner http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner may appropriately be translated and included in the English Wikipedia article without spurious deletion by epadmirateuer and hgilbert.

Whilst I acknowledge some naivete over the wikipedia edit process, however it is clear that this is not really the issue. Herewith the history which begins on 28 January and which has involved almost complete reversion of everything I have tried to contribute to this article with over 25 complete reversions of 95 minor edits made by me by either Hgilbert or Epadmiratuer over the past 10 days.

First I added a paragraph to the section "Attacks, illness and death" in the article Rudolf Steiner

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=410656293

In that paragraph I attempted to explain that arson was suspected in the burning of Steiner's HQ - the Goetheanum - NOT because of proto-nazis (as the article had peviously been suggesting) but because: "Such had been the level of animosity against Steiner after his creation of Eucharistic and other sacraments for the Christian Community that some suspected arson. Indeed Steiner himself had reported such threats to the local police. In fact this was unlikely. Guards had been posted around the building. They saw nothing. The source of the fire was inside a hollow wall, as was discovered when fire fighters attempted to put it out at an early stage."

[My source for this was Gary Lachman, Rudolf Steiner Publ. Penguin Books 2007 pp. 204-205]

My edit continued:

"They were unsuccesful primarily because Steiner rather foolishly had instructed that the wooden exterior of the building should be waxed with bees wax. This burnt as if doused in gasoline. More likely the cause was an electrical fault."

[REFERENCE Kenneth Bayes, Living Architecture Publ. Steiner Books, 1994 p.70]

Epadmirateur deletes this claiming it is "unsourced rumor -needs reliable sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=410666565

I had reliable sources - Lachman's Penguin Books 2007 biography of Steiner. I quoted the exact passages from this to Epadmirateur in the section on the Talk Page in the section headed "Speculation, original research and rumor"

I reinserted the edit adding more sources but again EPadmirateur spuriously deletes it claiming it is original research, unsourced statements and speculation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=410670983

Then again EPadmirateur deletes it again as original research, unsourced statements and speculation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=prev&oldid=410685499,

I reinstate it saying "Contrary to revision these are factual revisions based on documented evidence"

I explain these carefully on the talk page but receive no response:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolf_Steiner#Speculation.2C_original_research_and_rumor

Again EPadmirateur deletes it Now claiming Syn

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=410702499

(I concede one word of my edit ('foolish') may have been syn but the remaining edits were all reasonable

Hgilbert removes another edit of mine again stating Original research

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=410720181

This is a spurious edit - there is no "original research"

Hgilbert removes another edit of mine stating Original research

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=410808012

This again is a spurious edit since there is no "original research"

Hgilbert again removes another edit of mine stating not confirmed by source; arson already covered above)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=410957139

This again is a spurious edit - the source I referenced in footnotes is included and I have shown this at talk page and provided verifiable proof.

Hgilbert again removes another edit of mine stating (keep one edit, see talk page about others)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=411048260

(explains on talk page why he considers one part of this edit to be SYN but fails to explain the other 4 edits which he has removed without justification.)

Hgilbert removes this reference (one of the few independent scholarly books on Steiner - sourced from a Phd at London School of Economics) saying it is irrelevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=411304046

hgilbert removes all my edits again saying "detailed discussion inappropriate here" police report sufficient": but his assertion "Goetheanum was destroyed by arson" is speculative without reliable source as my discussion on Talk page shows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=411519905

Hgilbert instead introduces an unreliable source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=411568458

By now I realise I am facing an attempt to suppress anything disfavourable to Anthroposophy or the Waldorf movement -anything to link it to the occult, to esoteric religion or to Theosophy or to describe Steiner's claim to clairvoyance.

I ask for a POV check on the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=411635992

Noticing the lead entirely ignores 15 of the 25 years of the main teaching part of Steiner's career - when he is the General Secretary of the Theosophical Society - I add to the lead this crucial information. (This is a more than reasonable insertion See for instance the Wikipedia entry Anthroposophy entry under its History section - the current lead simply says 'links to theosophy' to cover 15 years - over half of Steiner's main lecturing career!!!)

I address this on the Talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolf_Steiner#Lead_section

Hgilbert removes this claiming "too bulky,already covered in body"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=411668072

This is false (most of the bulk is in footnotes providing source) and mostly this is not 'covered in body'

epAdmirateur removes the remainder of my edits claiming "revert per talk page"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=prev&oldid=411681579

After I revert, Hgilbert again removes all my edits claiming "incoherent lead."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=412081313

His edit is again spurious - the lead is not incoherent. Hgilbert wishes to remove reference to Theosophical Society from my lead and instead focus on Steiner as a philosopher (his career as a philosopher stopped in 1900 and he is barely recognized for his pre-1900 activity - see German Wikipedia entry on Steiner for instance.)

I make a number of reasonable and fairly minor edits 28 in total.These are NOT Bold edits - they add 3 sentences in the lead to say he was leader of the Theosophical Society in Germany, that he was Rosicrucian and an Occultist (see German Wikipedia on Steiner) they add to 'influences' and ideas, they add that Steiner was a 'mystic', they add a balanced pov regarding the cause of the Goetheanum fire - an issue I have left up for discussion on Talk page - they also add a section expanding the explanation of Steiner's illness and the fact that he unsuccesfully directed his own medical treatment out of his clairvoyance.

Hgilbert removes them all stating reverted 28 edits by Masteryorlando (talk); Conflicts with arbitration; incoherent presentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=412118924

This is another spurious edit - they absolutely do NOT conflict with arbitration. Indeed are precisely in the spirit of it presenting a much more balanced review. Far from incoherent this presents a picture of Steiner more in keeping with usual third party Bio's (see talk page) and see wikipedia.de entry.

Hgilbert again removes all my edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=412183742

Minimac reverts Hgilbert: Please remember that rollback is used only for reverting vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=prev&oldid=412311434

EPadmirateur reverts Minimac

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=412311434

EPadmirateur spuriously states "We are in the DISCUSS phase of the WP:BRD cycle"

This is untrue... most of these edits have been discussed and neither Epadmirateur or Hgilbert have answered the points raised in discussion. Indeed bias complained of in the talk page has been left undiscussed since December and have not been responded to. Indeed I agree that bias is evident. I notice bias also evident in Waldorf pages and that Hgilbert is also the busiest editor there. It is plain he is manipulating these articles inappropriately to distort the truth.

Epadmirateur removes the POV request

I remove two lines from the lead. Having checked the sources referred to the lines are not accurately paraphrased from the sources they claim to be taken from one source is disallowed as being an Anthroposophy Society author and the other is not a reputable source being a film critic!

See edits here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=412429138

I explain these in the talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolf_Steiner#R._Bruce_Elder

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolf_Steiner#McDermott

Epadmiratuer reverts both edits saying "Please give the other editors a chance to respond to your points on the talk page"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&diff=next&oldid=412429543

Both Epadmirateur and Hgilbert are (or have been) professionals employed by the Anthroposophical Society and the Waldorf movement. The arbitration agreement forbids "all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications." There a clear conflict of interest. The Wikipedia Conflict of interest guideline "strongly discourages editing regarding an organization by those associated with the organization." The arbitration found that "As applied to this matter, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies to those persons associated either with the Waldorf schools or with PLANS, an anti-Waldorf organization, who are aggressively editing Waldorf school and related articles in a biased manner."

I am neither an Anthroposophist nor associated in any way with Plans. I am writing a book on Steiner which adopts a critical (but I believe a scholarly and fair approach to him )-perceiving some value in his ideas but a vast amount of fraud in the movement and perceives much about Steiner that was bogus.

The arbitration stated "If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them."

So I am really hoping to resolve this without going that route.

Hgilbert has a history of this abuse see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Hgilbert

Thanks so much.

Masteryorlando (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you will get anywhere unless you can write shorter posts. See WP:TLDR. Work on one item at a time, if necessary. Your cite of Living Architecture is probably not allowed by the Arbcom decision, since it is published by Steiner Books. We need to get independent sources. ("Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications.") EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but is it reasonable to assume it is controversial to say that the wooden walls and panelling at the Goetheanum were coated with bees wax? But happy to remove that if I cannot find another source. With regard to short posts - how about this:

"Epadmirateur and Hgilbert have collaborated to remove 95 edits of mine with 25 reverts over a 10 day period. in an inappropriate and disruptive way using false claims."Masteryorlando (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. It looks like a regular content dispute in which you disagree with two other people. You are welcome to try persuading them, or you can open an WP:Request for comment and get it advertised. That allows more people to be informed of the discussion. It is arguable that Hgilbert (talk · contribs) and EPadmirateur (talk · contribs) have a WP:COI, but they are both long-time editors and something is known about them. You've just suddently appeared, and therefore little is known about you except you care strongly about the Rudolf Steiner article. Since you have not chosen to be candid, we can't rule out that you may also have a real-world connection to Steiner matters. The wiki culture tends to be cautious with people who seem to be single purpose accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User pages

Please do not leave messages on my user page, but rather on the talk page. This is general good practice, and I think that you will find that editors will get very irritable if you do not follow it. hgilbert (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Astrology Lede

Hi, Masteryorlando, I have reverted your good faith, but bold edit of the first paragraph of the article on Astrology. This is not because I am unsympathetic to your edits. However, editing this controversial section needs to reflect the body of the article, correspond to the citations and include or acknowledge the wide range of theories of astrology. While it is arguable that presently a majority of astrologers subscribe to a Jungian model of astrology based on synchronicity, there are other models such as causal relationships, divination or even human projection. I invite you to raise the subject on the Astrology Discussion Page and welcome the opportunity to discuss your proposals. Through discussion and possibly the input of other editors, an improved lead paragraph could be made. Robert Currey talk 21:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)