Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Arbitrators 2 Question 3 Waldorf education blank page 4 Counter-example by way of illustration 5 Public Figure 6 Waldorf Education - Article/Discussion Page 7 Evidence Page 8 Quick Suggestion on Proposed remedies 9 Further Question on Review Process 10 Note to Fred Baurer about supposedly "removed" links 11 A question on Pete K and this Arbitration 12 Edit warring by Pete K in Waldorf article and at Waldorf talks page 13 Sock puppetry - third apology 14 Libel Question - Are we just going to let the accusation hang in the air? 15 Unprotected and restored Talk:Waldorf education 16 Concerns over future bias unjustified 16.1 King of the Critics 17 Going forward 18 Wikiwag 19 Thebee 20 Timeline for review decision 21 TheBee's latest ridiculous claim 22 On-going problems 22.1 RFC and GA assessment 23 Yet another edit war 24 End of Adoption/Mentorship 25 Deletion for your attention 26 Evidence by Fergie 27 Close before block of Pete K expires 23:21, 17 March 2007 UTC?

[edit] Arbitrators

Arbitrators active on this case (includes arbitrators who participated in the initial decision and any other arbitrators appointed since that time who have chosen to participate)

• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Morven
• Charles Matthews
• SimonP
• FloNight

Raul654 is inactive effective March 1), not participating.

New arbitrators inactive on this case

The newly appointed arbitrators did not hear the original case and may not feel qualified to participate in this review. Arbitrators who wish to participate will move their names to the top list and the voting majority will be recalculated accordingly. (Or, an arbitrator may simply vote and the clerks will make the adjustments.)

• Flcelloguy
• Kirill Lokshin
• Paul August
• UninvitedCompany
• Jpgordon
• Blnguyen
• Mackensen

There are now 6 participating arbitrators, so the majority is 4. Newyorkbrad, updated 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

A quick question about the Evidence providing stage of this Review:

Are we just to provide evidence of how users have not conformed to the ArbCom probation ruling, or can we also give a statement of what we think has gone well/wrong since the ruling, as well as any remedies that we think might be useful/appropriate? If the statement/suggested remedies are not appropriate in this section where should we put them?

Many thanks, User:Lethaniol 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See below, I think I covered it all. This will deal with conduct after the prior case. Evidence is helpful; comments or proposals should go on this talk page. Thatcher131 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, got that thanks User:Lethaniol 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waldorf education blank page

Is this arbitration a continuation of the first one, with the same procedures for evidence? And the rules of the arbitration say that none of the material removed over the dispute over wikipedia:biography_of_living_persons can be used in the arbitration. But all of the article has been blanked and removed, does this mean no evidence at all can be shown from that article, only other articles? Thank you.Venado 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The is a continuation/reopening of the previous case. However, remember in the previous case the editors were basically pointed at the right policies and given a chance to edit the articles according to those policies (no original research, no edit warring, etc.) So the point of this case is to consider whether editors have continued to edit against editorial policies and standards of community behavior, so that article or site-wide bans or probation might be considered. So the old evidence is not really relevant. If you would like to present evidence of edit warring and other bad behavior since the close of the prior case, you can do so. I would avoid mentioning the most recent problem (since Fred is dealing with it already) and focus instead on other incidents or editors who you believe have behaved improperly. Thatcher131 17:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-example by way of illustration

The Albany Times Union for March 21, 2004 has a story headlined Beyond the bottom line; Hawthorne Valley School students learn how to make a difference in the global economy. What would happen if somone tried to use this one article to illustrate the claim that all Waldorf Method schools teach social responsibilty and environmental stewardship? Thatcher131 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If I found it, I would include it and cite the article. If someone else placed it, I would allow it to stand unchallenged, because it's true. With that said, in my brief experience here, there seems to be constant bickering over minutiae and demand for citations on the smallest of points. Is this the way it's supposed to be? - Wikiwag 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what would happen. It happens all the time in those articles. Somebody will just say their own opinion in the article, based only on their own biases, rumors or own first hand knowledge, and then someone else with the opposite bias or personal circumstances won't like it that the passage makes Waldorf sound "good"/"bad" and reverts it. Then the one who started it will search the internet skipping all the sources that say the opposite to find a single reference that agrees with them and puts it back. Then the article gets trivialized with people adding more trying to have the last word. "All schools have farms" "Except schools in cities." "But they have a vegetable garden." "But schools with gardens don't have cows." "But they do have peas and carrots. "Students don't eat there vegetables." Its not good judgement, or good editing, and is almost a game.Venado 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, Venado's probably right. That fairly describes the dynamic on this article. - Wikiwag 02:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Several problems come up in relation to finding citations that apply to all or most Waldorf schools:

1) All Waldorf schools are inherently independent in that there is no mandated curriculum or administration as there are in public schools.

2) On the other hand, AWSNA, for example, does accredit North American Waldorf schools and holds the trademark for the term Waldorf. If they wanted to, they could rescind accreditation or the right to use the name Waldorf from any school that did not meet their criteria, and in doing so they could in effect create a mandate for curriculum and administrative policies.

3) Even if one could find citations that state what "all" or "no" Waldorf schools do, they would probably be disallowed by the previous arbcom ruling because they would most likely be from Waldorf sources like AWSNA.

4) Is the intent of a Wikipedia article to a) give an intensely detailed listing of all aspects of a topic or b) to provide general information about a topic? According to what I read in the encyclopedia article, we must consider who the target audience is for the article. Is the audience prospective Waldorf parents? Then we must be fairly detailed. Is it the general population? Then an overview would probably suffice. Unfortunately with such passionate editors, we struggle to include every little detail as crucial to our perspective of Waldorf.

Henitsirk 03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree with everything everyone here has said so far. As with any claim, this one would be disected. The first question, in my mind, would be - is the claim "true" according to my experience? Do Waldorf schools teach social responsibility and environmental stewardship? If the answer is "yes" then I wouldn't have a problem leaving the claim as is. I may look for the hidden language or the misunderstood phrasing in the article. If the "social responsibility" they are teaching is really a veiled phrase disguising an exercise in which students are taught about Steiner's three-fold social order, I would want to make that part clear, and yes, I may search for sources that demonstrate this. The next question, for me, would be - does this Waldorf school's activities represent what I know about ALL Waldorf schools? Again, is this claim consistent with what I have experienced? If not, and the claim is properly sourced, I may want to introduce language that limits the claim to the one Waldorf school that it applies to - because, in my experience, the claim is not applicable to all schools.

For me, my experience determines how I will approach each claim. My experience is 15+ years with Waldorf as a parent and 15+ years reading Steiner, my kids are 3rd generation Waldorf students, I was married to a Waldorf teacher who is the daughter of a Waldorf teacher and a biodynamic farmer - so I feel I have some pretty deep insight into Waldorf. My experience, in other words, is nothing to sneeze at and I take my own experience of Waldorf very seriously. Some claims are automatically disputable for me - "Anthroposophy is not in the curriculum" types of claims, for example, don't hold water for me even if some source is found that supports this (I know it's there, and at one time in my life, I insisted that it SHOULD be there). Other claims, like the one above, require careful consideration and investigation. While I wouldn't doubt that each Waldorf methods school has a garden, I may question if the lesson is "stewardship" or if work in the garden is sometimes used as punishment for children (as has been my own experience). Is such analysis appropriate for such a simple claim? If it's a claim that is surrounded by more brochure-like claims, then yes, maybe each claim should be carefully examined, properly sourced, and produced in exactly the form it is presented in the article (e.g. one school doing this). If the same claim is in a balanced article, then it becomes less important to the overall tone of the article itself. The Waldorf article suffered from a POV tone and unsubstantiated claims. Improvement has come at great expense and tremendous effort through careful analysis of claims like the one above. Pete K 15:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public Figure

How do we discuss if someone represents a public figure for the BLP portion of this arbitration? Pete K 16:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred has indicated that it should be done via email. - Wikiwag 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikiwag, but how is that a discussion? I think it becomes a one-way conversation at that point KWIM? I'd like to know what you think, and what others think. I already know what I think - and I think this has all been blown out of proportion. If I hear from other editors that they agree or disagree with me, I might re-think my viewpoint, but conducting this discussion by email doesn't afford me the opportunity to do this. We can certainly determine if someone is a public figure without discussing the details of the article or any other issues. If someone is a not a public figure, what are the criteria for making making that assessment. This whole issue hinges on that determination and the charges against me are based on someone making a decision about this. I'd like to know how that decision was made and what criteria were used to make that determination. Is there a Wiki-page that describes exactly what the criteria for "public figure" are, or is this someone's judgment call? If it's the latter, I'd like them to explain themselves. Pete K 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waldorf Education - Article/Discussion Page

Is it appropriate to harvest evidence from the Waldorf Education discussion page? The page itself has been locked and blanked. Is the evidence contained on that page also off limits? How about diffs from user contribution pages that are referenced on that page? Are certain topics off-topic and others OK to bring to the evidence page? I've already posted some diffs from that page. Have I done something that needs correction? Pete K 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so nobody is answering my question. I'm just going to make my case and if something insensitive shows up, it can be deleted by the clerks and at the ArbCom's option, I can be further accused of intentinally trying to do something wrong. Pete K 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence Page

Fred writes:

5) In this edit by Pete K he distorts the information found in his source; the distortions are subtle, but substantially change the tone of the information conveyed. Essentially any scrap of negative information is being used to advance a negative point of view.

The link doesn't seem to be working exactly right - but the edit you're pointing to is me reverting an edit by someone else - an edit that contains, I believe, information that was added by several editors. If I have distorted anything, could you please provide an edit that shows me actually introducing distortions? Thanks! Pete K 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred has added more information to suggest my edits were corrected by HGilbert. Again, these are not my edits that are being corrected - they were introduced by another editor. Pete K 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of propaganda techniques by Pete K

4) The use of information regarding an unfortunate incident involving an individual teacher in the manner information regarding Willie Horton was used is a propaganda technique inappropriate for use in a Wikipedia article.

The use of the words emotionally charged words "propaganda technques" and their implication is, indeed, a propaganda technique in and of itself. If the head arbitrator is going to use these types of emotionally-charged terms in the proposals in an attempt to sway other arbitrators, it's pretty clear to me that there is a good reason to suggest recusal. Earlier, on Thatcher131's talk page, he stated "Removed another attempt by Pete K to include information violating WP:BIO" - implying that discussion of an issue is an "attempt" to violate WP:BOI. I implore fair-minded arbitrators to please not be swayed by Fred's obvious bias in this issue and to please judge this arbitration fairly. If the articles here have to be NPOV, then certainly the templates for these proceedings also need to be. Thanks! Pete K 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This may probably be deleted, but addressing the actual claim of #4, it is inaccurate to say "incident" here - it was two incidents a year apart. Again the use of "propaganda technique" is inappropriate to describe this - it was a very simple case of producing material for an article that was proberly sourced. There is no evidence provided ANYWHERE to suggest that this was an isolated case. Pete K 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Suggestion on Proposed remedies

If any user is up for a ban on the article Waldorf Education and its talk page - I think this should be broadened to a topic ban on any article related to Waldorf Education, Rudolf Steiner or indeed Anthroposophy. Although the vast majority of issues have been with the editing of Waldorf Education, and its talk page (note some disagreements on Anthroposophy), it is because of the editors views/opinions of Anthroposophy and its teachings/promotion in general, not just with respect to Waldorf schools. Cheers Lethaniol 21:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further Question on Review Process

Sorry more questions from me, but better to get them sorted at the start.

Is this the definitive ArbCom review on this matter, or is it likely that if current users who are behaving or users that are inactive, misbehave in the future they can also be brought to account. I ask because if this review focuses on the worst of users, possibly with bans/blocks, it may leave other users to still push their POV on these articles. Hopefully this will not happen but if it does I would like to known whether it will be coming back for review or it needs to be dealt with elsewhere.

Cheers Lethaniol 21:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to Fred Baurer about supposedly "removed" links

I won't fill the evidence page with this since it would show restricted material included, (is proably a moot point also) but those links were not typed correctly in the original edit in the first place, that is why it looks like they were later "missing". They never worked by clicking, even in the beginning, because there is an extra " | " (not lower "L" )character at the end of each one, it looks at glance like an "html" but it should be just "htm". The | divider was put in but I think it works in [[wikilink but not [hyperlink. Venado 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question on Pete K and this Arbitration

May I ask why it is that the arbitration page at this time - indeed from the very moment it was reopened - appears to focus solely on Pete K? I want to be clear that there is no doubt he should be held accountable for his actions. But with all due respect, Thebee's conduct is likewise inconsistent with proper etiquette, as evidenced in both Pete K's and my submissions. Thank you in advance for your answer. - Wikiwag 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm about to coin a new word... "Wiki-hunt". Take that Stephen Colbert. Pete K 14:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring by Pete K in Waldorf article and at Waldorf talks page

As the first example of general incivility on my part, Wikiwag at the evidence page links to this diff.

What is the background for it?

21:59, 9 January Wikiwag adds a duplicate Article probation tag to the main page of the article, in addtion to the one already added to the article talks page by Thatcher131. Wikiwag motivates the duplicate tag with: "Added Article Probation tag (I think it's important everyone remember this, and it is appropriate for it to go here))"

17:14, 10 January 2007 I remove the duplicate article probation tag from the article page, arguing "Removed probation tag, only used at Talks pages, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_on_probation"

19:33, 10 January 2007 Pete K readds the duplicate article probation tag to the main article page again, writing: "Reverted aggressive editing. No discussion was attempted before editor reverted article again. Tag removal unjustified. Please see discussion and try to participate in it."

The edit by Pete K also readds a broad Google search on 'Waldorf Checklist' as citation leading to the self published site of "Open W", used by Wikiwag to circumvent the prohibition against using self published sites for citation. The "OW" site was used directly by Wikiwag for the same purpose earlier, but had been removed by me as a violation of Wikipedia policies for citations.

22:54, 10 January 2007 I remove the inappropriate duplicate article probation tag from the main article page again, telling: "Remove arbitration tag at the top of article in accordance with standard at Wikipedia only to have such tags at Talks pages of articles"

22:57, 10 January 2007 Pete K instead adds the duplicate article probation tag to the article talks page, and puts it directly below the already existing article probation tag at the page, added to the page by arbitration clerk Thatcher131, arguing: "OK, let's put it here."

00:08, 11 January 2007 I again remove the inappropriate duplicate article probation tag from the article talks page, telling: "Removed duplicate article probation tag, added by Pete K, saying the same thing as existing article probation tag just above it"

00:12, 11 January 2007 Pete K readds the inappropriate duplicate article probation tag to the talks page again, arguing: "Reverting - let's leave both as one has a graphic that grabs the attention better than the text version"

23:44, 7 January 2007 Pete K had described an edit war to his mentor regarding the PLANS article as a "pissing contest" that he had lost, writing "BTW, the word "expose" doesn't mean that much in all of this - it was just part of the pissing contest (that I lost)." He had gotten a 3RR block for it.

00:28, 11 January 2007 Following the third addition by Pete K of the duplicate article probation tag (two of them readditions), to the article/article talks page, after I have removed them as inappropriate duplications of the already existing tag, I ask, regrettingly at this point losing my temper, referring to his comment three days earlier on his edit warring as a "pissing contest":

"What is this, Pete? One of the pissing contests you at times mention that you engage in?" ([1])

Pete K defends this ([2])

During the same time, Pete K repeatedly insists that "anti-racism" is not a "word" and cannot therefore be used in the Waldorf article to describe the the markedly greater anti-racism of Swedish Waldorf pupils in relation to public school pupils, reported by a recent academic study in Sweden. ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7] ...)

The following day, 13:58, 11 January 2007, Wikiwag tells Pete K he is wrong, and that the word "antiracism" exists, according to the Oxford American Dictionary, ...

00:59, 11 January 2007 Wikiwag describes my question to Pete K about his repeated inappropriate edit warring addition/readdition three times of the duplicate article probation tag to the article, that Wikiwag had been the originator of in the first place, as a "personal attack" on Pete K.

"From where I'm sitting Thebee, you are the one on the (personal) attack.

"Please, please continue. Then the ArbComm can see your behavior and we can be rid of your vitriol once and for all. And FYI - yours was an objectively "polemic" statement. Don't bother using it to describe the comments of others, if you can't avoid it yourself - it's insulting and serves only to diminish your own credibility."

02:59, 12 January 2007 Thetcher131 removes the duplicate Article probation tag from the Talks page, and later tells There is no provision for issuing article or talk page bans, so the second template is inaccurate and should not be used.

15:41, 18 January 2007, after all discussions about it, and final removal by Thatcher131 and explanation of the reason for it, when Wikiwag reterns after a break, Wikiwag again adds the inapproproate duplicate article probation tag to the article page ... After I inform Thatcher131 about it, he removes it again.

In general, the edits by Pete K and Wikiwag stand out as systematic long term efforts to build and cultivate an air of controversy around Waldorf education, from beyond to far beyond what can properly be motivated from reliable and balanced sources.

This is life editing "with" Pete K and Wikiwag at Wikipedia.

I'm sorry about the "pissing contest" question to Pete K. I lost my temper for a short time after all his edit warring over simple self evident issues, and should not have done it.

Thebee 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, editing with you here has always been such a pleasure. It's refreshing that you finally acknowledge that everyone else is at fault. Better to whine for months to administrator after administrator, make false accusations "sockpuppet", "libel" to get rid of those opinions you don't like instead of putting some effort into building an article that fairly describes Waldorf. Even Waldorf supporters are embarassed by your tactics here and elsewhere. Pete K 14:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

For my own part, as a new user I'll cite WP:TRI and my associate belief that I was improving this Wikipedia article; I submit that the body of my edits to the article and my calls for cooperation [see evidence presented by me on the project page] bear out that assertion. Moreover, on the issue of the "double probation tag," the rules describing its use are contradictory; a point I made to Thatcher131 here, which he conceded here. There has been no attempt by me to re-add the tag since this issue was clarified.

Conversely, there is copious evidence already submitted that Thebee has routinely failed at both WP:NPOV and the second rule (the crude term for which I will not write here, as Fred has already admonished its use). It should be likewise noted that Thebee excels at the third rule WP:IAR in a mostly negative fashion. If Thebee's submission is properly entered into evidence, I will support this last assertion with the necessary diffs. - Wikiwag 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppetry - third apology

After I above have described the background for what Wikiwag as evidence links to and describes as general incivility by me, my short loss of temper at one time after the inappropriate addition by Wikiwag of a duplicate article probation tag to the article page in addition to the existing one at the talks pag, and the following baiting by Pete K in his repeated three times addition of the same duplicate article probation tag to the article/talks page after i had removed it, Wikiwag has retracted the acceptance of the second of two apologies by me in connection with a suspicion I have had that Wikiwag might have been a sock puppet of the user Diana W [8].

After having read everything the last weeks, I don't suspect that Wikiwag is a sock puppet of Diana W, and apologize for this expressed suspicion. The "voices" of Diana W and Wikiwag, while exhibiting similarities, are too different for me to continue to suspect this. This is now also supported by the result of a Request for checkuser.

What made me suspect it in the first place was a number of things. Admin Durova also seems to have agreed with me and suspecting some form of puppetry too, though more leaning towards a meat puppet [9], [10].

My first apology was for addressing Wikiwag as "Mylady" [11] asking implicitly if Wikiwag was Diana W, during an escalated baiting by Pete and Wikiwag. I apologized to Wikiwag shortly afterwards. [12] and Wikiwag accepted the apology [13].

My second apology to Wikiwag [14] was for hurting Wikiwag's feelings with my suspicion of sock puppetry, and leaving some personal attacks by Wikiwag to the side [15], [16].

Thebee 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the acceptance of my second apology, Wikiwag also apologized for the two personal attacks [17]. Thebee 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thebee: An apology is supposed to clear the air and serves as a promise not to behave in the same offensive manner in the future. The problem here is that each time you have "apologized," you have followed it up with another attack - another "bite."

Specifically, you apologized for calling me a woman ("Mylady"), only to go on an extended campaign to label me a sock-puppet after I accepted your apology. You then apologized for the whole extended sock-puppet episode, only to indict me on this page in front of the ArbComm after I accepted your apology. You even bite me again in this so-called "third apology."

When I have apologized for my own ignorant conduct [to you, to Thatcher131, to Fred Brauer] and to you again for my single episode of incivility, I have shown the discipline to not reoffend. As far as you and I were concerned, I was fully prepared to let bygones be bygones. But frankly, I have seen you repeatedly behave in this exact same manner with Pete; the mistake he made was in "fighting fire with fire" as he put it - and now appears that he will likely be banned as a result of him allowing you to provoke him.

I assure you that I will not make that same mistake.

I will therefore conclude by saying simply that I do not believe you, and I regard your repeated apologies for repeated misdeeds as hollow and without substance. This is your third strike with me, and I am done with indulging this behavior of yours. Kindly take care that you similarly avoid behaving in a way which reflects poorly on you, and we will let the ArbComm settle this appropriately. But in my opinion, the only just consequence would be your removal, since I do not believe you are able or willing to change you behavior in order to reach consensus.

Sincerely,

- Wikiwag 15:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

TheBee: LOL! Yeah, now after your accusations have been proven to be false. You're interested in smearing me and Diana. The truth is, you look for any excuse to get critics of Waldorf banned from editing - ANYWHERE. Both you and HGilbert are initially friendly to new editors and then become intimidating when a new editor challenges your gushing praises of Waldorf. TheBee, your "apologies" are hollow and disingenuous and always include some additional slam against the editor you are apologizing to. They are clearly intended to get you off the hook with any administrators that may be watching. The truth is, I am not ashamed to identify myself and I don't have any hidden agendas - I have no reason to hide anything. Can you say the same about yourself, and Linda, and Deborah, and Serena? You guys are all over the internet pretending to be multiple people, always pushing your pro-Waldorf/slam critics agenda. You are nothing more than a small group of organized Waldorf fanatics who have made anyone who sees fault in Waldorf your enemy. No left-handed apology necessary - you are who you are. Pete K 15:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libel Question - Are we just going to let the accusation hang in the air?

There was a charge of "libel" made by TheBee. This not only smears my name but violates Wikipedia policy. The research into this claim has been or is being conducted out of view of the participants here. When are we going to get the results of this review. I am very concerned that this claim/attack against me has been made without any type of disciplinary measures taken. This is VERY serious and I have asked several times that the air be cleared about this. Can we PLEASE have an answer on this issue? Thanks! Pete K 15:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

From a non-American perspective, Americans at times can seem to be somewhat obsessed with suing each other for large sums of money over all sorts of things. When I, as a non-American, not living in the U.S., have used the term "libel" I have done it in a purely technical-linguistic, not a legal sense.

I have already addressed the issue at one Talks page. Below is part of what I have answered. I have anonymized it as much as possible with regard to the person discussed by Pete K, not to violate what can stand out as a wish by Mr. Bauder to save Wikipedia from a lawsuit for publishing libel, and only kept what seems relevant with regard to me. If Mr Bauder thinks also this violates his strife, I apologize and only quote what is found below, to maybe somewhat clarify my view of and perspective on the issue.

Someone wrote:

"I am not a legal expert - but my reading of WP:LEGAL - suggests that you are on thin ice TheBee. If you wish to discuss the libel issue further then please do so with the Libel Team see Wikipedia:Libel. If you continue to accuse Pete K of libel I will ask immediately for a block on you, until the issue is resolved - note I will have already informed the ArbCom of these issues."

I answered:

I have no intention to discuss any libel issue further with anyone. I just noted in passing that if someone - like Pete - describes someone else, like a young former female Waldorf teacher as "A VERY DISTURBED WALDORF TEACHER", four years after she as a new young teacher made some mistakes in trying to handle some seemingly troublesome pupils in class (), after having commented extensively on her as basically a person who constitutes a danger to children, that - to me - sounds like libel of her, and it is in no sense a legal threat by me of Pete, as only someone libelled against - as far as I understand - can sue for libel.

It also is not something "quoted from and considered truthful a 3rd party source about a notable incident", as you seem to indicate, but a seemingly very personal expression of his own views of her, still found at the Talks page of an article, also as indicated by his continued witch hunt of her in the article and at the talks page, in full quoting a four year old ad by her at a message board, seemingly intended as a warning to people, and giving half of her email address and telling where the other half can be found. To me - that looks like a "WANTED" witch hunt.

As for his comment on me, referring to me as "sick in the frickin' head", my comment on it as a seemingly libelous statement was purely analytical. He has called me similar things many times since he started editing Wikipedia last August, and I have never considered any form of legal action against him for it, just noted it in passing and documented a number of the instances up to Nov last year. As can be seen from my comment above, I describe it very civilly as a "seeming" libel that "probably violates a number of Wikipedia policies" (being an implied question to you between the lines, (...) to maybe remove it, as continuing to published it is bad for him), but have not turned to any complaint board to complain about it (though I've pointed the attention os Mr. Bauder to the witch hunt that Pete has been pursuing against the former teacher). Judged from his many similar comments, it seems to be a way he at times finds natural in expressing himself. I've just noted his last instance in passing, while first not taking any notice at all of it, as I'm so used to similar comments from him.

Thanks, Thebee (...) 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to retract your claim of libel. You are well aware of what it means and the legal implications of using such a term, not just here at Wikipedia but in the outside world as well. Until this issue is settled, you should be banned from editing per Wikipedia policy. You also haven't produced a diff where you claim I call you "sick in the frickin' head". If you are going to continue to make that claim, you should produce the diff that shows that statement. With regard to the woman I called "a very disturbed Waldorf teacher" - you're right, as Waldorf teachers go, this may not seem so out of the ordinary to you. I should have said "a very disturbed individual". I think few normal people would deny that this teacher's behavior is mis-characterized by the word "disturbed". There has been no libel here and your claim of libel violates Wikipedia policy and if there weren't a double standard going on here, it would get you banned. Pete K 14:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected and restored Talk:Waldorf education

A User:EdwinHJ has unprotected the Talk:Waldorf education page, that Fred Bauder protected and blanked 14:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC), pending resolution of Biographies of living persons dispute. In response to a question by Pete K, EdwinHJ has also restored the contents of the page. Is this issue resolved now? Thebee 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks TheBee, I was about to announce that we are free to continue discussions there. EdwinHW unprotected the page on his own. The material that was at issue had previously been removed so there shouldn't be a problem - but I left it to EdwinHJ's discretion about restoring it. Pete K 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns over future bias unjustified

I have seen concerns expressed here that the articles in this group will become biased in the future if only editors sympathetic to Waldorf education are active. I believe this concern is misplaced for the following reasons:

1. I believe that the last months' editing has shown that particularly these editors are aiming for a balanced presentation; see the version before the last edit conflicts. All relevant sides of a source's presentation are being included; see this edit.
2. A great deal of what may have seemed to be and was criticized as original research in the pre-arbitration article has now been shown to be well-supported through objective documentation by verifiable sources, and has also now been rephrased to correspond more closely to such sources. The pre-arbitration presentation may have been more casual and freely worded, but in the majority of cases diverged suprisingly little from what mainstream sources have now been found to say; in the relatively few cases where material was not found to be verifiable, it has been excluded and no one has any desire to bring this back.
3. I personally seek to improve the objectivity of all of these articles.
4. There is little danger that only sympathetic editors will be present; there are presently and will continue to be a number of editors who are in no way at risk of being overly sympathetic (to put it tactfully). Hgilbert 21:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an incredible appeal coming from the person who wrote the biased articles in the first place. The articles are only slightly less biased now because of months of butting heads with this and other pro-Waldorf editors who insisted on POV pushing well after the arbitration. Additionally, it was shown in the previous arbitration and to some extent in this one that these particular pro-Waldorf editors are aggressive toward newcomers, and are intent on frustrating the efforts of editors who are interested in working toward balanced articles. Editors, Lumos3 and Fergie seem to have been chased out of the articles completely. DianaW, a professional editor, has apparently found it fruitless to battle these aggressive editors. Right up until this renewed arbitration, the pro-Waldorf contingent was still producing Anthroposophical sources and still insisting that controversial material was not controversial in order to slip it in without sourcing it properly. When they tried to slip a Master Waldorf Teacher, Jack Petrash, in as a neutral source, they were caught red-handed. They tried the same thing with Henry Barnes. It would be incredibly naive to think that Waldorf activists and Waldorf teachers left on their own would produce balanced articles with acceptable sources. And we have only scratched the surface of the biased articles here. A hard-fought battle ensued over the "psuedoscience" tag on the Anthroposophical Medicine article. In the Steiner article, it took months to get the pro-Waldorfers to remove the findings of their own Anthroposophical Dutch Commission report that they interpreted as having excused Steiner of racism (it didn't). The material here is extremely complex and NOBODY will be able to identify all the weasel-worded, false claims that are supposedly supported by the references. While I don't consider myself an expert, I am able to spot this type of material when it is produced (I don't think anyone here can deny this). Without meaning offense, the pro-Waldorf group cannot be trusted here to avoid the temptation to push their POV, and they shouldn't be. Pete K 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lumos3 and Fergie are good examples of editors who have worked on this article and will surely continue to work on it. Hgilbert 00:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They've been inactive for months - and who can blame them. Fergie, as it happens, just recently wrote me here expressing that Wikipedia needs me. I'm guessing this is because few people have been able to stand up to the relentless onslaught that customarily follows any critical edit. Pete K 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In my work on this article, I have observed that if ALL editors keep cool heads and refrain from any "onslaughts" or personal attacks, then actual constructive work is accomplished. In the same vein, if we can try to remain as objective as possible and not become personally defensive, we will be able to keep on guard against POV problems.

I think dissenting/critical viewpoints are important, if only as a natural check against bias. Anyone with the knowledge and inclination to edit this article will probably be inherently biased, either pro or con. All of these problems have occurred because people are not assuming good faith, and taking things very personally/pushing personal agendas.

Let's move forward by remembering the principles of consensus and civility. Henitsirk 03:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Proposed findings of fact by the main arbitrator identifies one editor, who last year compared himself to Christ crucified and identified himself as "King of the Critics" of the type of school where he has told that his now divorced wife works, as having distorted information and using propaganda techniques in what he has added to the article on Waldorf ed. The identified editor is not Hgilbert or a pro-Waldorf editor.

Hopefully the situation will change with the closing of this reopened arbitration from the continuous battlefield it has been with the self appointed "King of the Critics" editor dominating all discussions since long, dedicating 8-12 hours/day to it (according to himself) to push his agenda, into a more calm climate, where it is possible to actually reason about what is a reasonable and balanced description of the subject. Thebee 10:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My comments above may have been misunderstood. They express my personal commitment, demonstrated prior to and to be continued independent of the on-going results of the arbitration. Hgilbert 12:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for another personal attack, TheBee. Pete K 14:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

HGilbert, please forgive me for asking this, but what is there to suggest that your "personal committment" that has been demonstated by a couple of seemingly balanced edits will continue after the focus of the arbitration committee has been lifted? I think we are all interested in trying harder. My own personal committment was demonstrated when, unlike you, I worked cooperatively with Lethaniol and other editors to work from a ToDo list, to identify areas that needed attention and to focus on difficult NPOV language that was acceptable to the community. Your approach has always been to make aggressive edits - sometimes 20 or more in a row - often citing disallowed sources and to defend them or on occasion permit minor compromises. If you could change your personal committment from making what you believe to be NPOV edits to working with the community of editors to produce what we ALL believe are NPOV edits, then that committment would be meaningful. As it is now, the intention seems to be to alter the make-up of the community instead. Please understand that your personal bias and POV infused in the articles is what brought us to where we are in the first place. Both POV's need to be represented here as harmoniously as possible. Wouldn't you agree? Pete K 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete: Speaking as arguably one of the few people who wants to see you stay (if for no other reason than I personally do not relish the thought of being the lone voice that keeps the Waldorfers from making inappropriate claims and edits [a sentiment echoed by Durova in his her statement]), I have to say that comments like these do not help your case. I said very bluntly that I did not believe Thebee was sincere in what he said, because his actions do not support his words and I intend to hold him to task for that. But I have to concede that if this is how you intend to continue to go forward, I have to agree with those who want to see you go - this kind of behavior is absolutely not appropriate. Now I need you to be candid for a minute, are you able to cease being so hostile? Are you able to stick to the facts without being provocative? I consider you a valuable resource, but you must absolutely learn to check your emotions, set your personal feelings aside and allow others to begin again, if we are ever going to move on together. - Wikiwag 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, her. :) Durova^Charge! 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG!!! I'm soooo sorry!!! - Wikiwag 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC) <– (who feels like a complete goof.)

Not a problem. Happens all the time. It's surprising how many people suppose a man would select a username from the first female officer of the Russian army. We must live in enlightened times. *chuckle* Durova^Charge! 00:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrrgg... <G> I don't get why what I have said above is viewed as "hostile". I'm trying to discuss something here, not attack anyone. I didn't write any of the above with the slightest hostility - NONE. What I said above, I said in a very matter-of-fact way - describing my perceptions. If I have perceived something incorrectly, I'll accept that. In my view, HGilbert's edits have been aggressively made without consensus. I'm trying to explain this to him in a very calm way. If there is something personal about what I have said above, it is not intended. I am talking about edits, not personalities. I'm asking him to edit by consensus as others have been doing. It's no secret that he wrote many of the articles in the first place, and that many people in the community viewed them as biased. This is not intended as a personal attack in any way, shape or form. It is intended to point out that personal bias is personal bias and that a couple of edits don't demonstrate that 20+ years of Waldorf teaching can be checked at the door. If I popped in here and suddenly proclaimed I no longer have any personal bias about Waldorf, it would seem pretty silly. Concerns over future bias ARE justified. That's all I'm trying to say. Harlan, my apologies if I came off sounding hostile in any way. I'm here today trying to patch things up, not make things worse. I wish people could actually hear this. Pete K 00:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete K:

"Thanks for another personal attack, TheBee."

It's not a personal attack. In the main it's just a description of what Mr. Bauder as main arbitrator (to whom you have suggested that he recuse himself from this arbitration for bias against you, as you also have suggested to Thatcher131 as arbitration clerk) and you yourself have written, and a simple longing from the bottom of the heart for a situation where I don't first have to discuss 8-12 hours a day for days with you about such simple things as whether the word "antiracism" actually is a word or not, and then another 8-12 hours a day for some more days to reach "consensus"(?) with you as the dominating discussant in all discussions here, regarding whether the word actually can be used to describe the markedly stronger antiracism of Waldorf pupils than among pupils at public schools according to one systematic study of Waldorf pupils. Or not...

Nothing of what I've seen from you since you came to Wikipedia in Aug. last year indicates that something would change in this respect, if you were allowed to stay on. Thebee 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. That will not change. When you are disguising what is factual, when you are misrepresenting Waldorf education by producing biased studies from isolated environments, when you produce weasel-worded statements that require clarification, when you introduce highly biased Waldorf sources/authors as "neutral", I will call you on it - every time, for as long as I am here. Hopefully, now that you have realized my tenacity in this, it won't take 8-12 hours to reach consensus. People who have been following this will notice that many of the wild claims produced by you and HGilbert have disappeared from the articles. That the articles have improved considerably is due, in large part, to my tenacity. Pete K 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

For whoever is able to continue editing this article: I think the key will be to discuss any major edits on the talk page beforehand. My experience working with Pete K these last months have shown me that while he is passionate and at times uncivil, if I remained neutral and focused on the work (and refused to get personal) then he did too. That relationship was created via the talk page, not via edit warring. I'm not taking away Pete's responsibility for his own actions, I'm just saying that we have to continue to work via discussion and consensus, not waste time in unending discussions about personal opinion. Henitsirk 21:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And I have to say that I'm with Wikiwag: personal attacks do nothing to help anyone's opinion of Pete K or Thebee. I would like Pete K to continue participating in editing because 1) he does often have constructive criticisms 2) we do need dissenting views. But at this point I wish everyone would stop making any personal comments and focus solely on the work here, whether from the "pro" or "con" side of the fence. Instead of writing paragraphs full of attacks, why not take all that time spent and write some new wording for the article!! Henitsirk 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Henitsirk. I would like to concentrate on the content and not the personalities as well. Regardless of whether I stay here or not, I deeply and sincerely apologize for my part in the edit wars (funny what a few days rest will do). I'm not saying I will back off my opinion, or not approach this topic with the same passion, but I do regret that my more juvenile side has surfaced around certain people. Pete K 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to Hgilbert, I stand by my statement. I do hope you and other editors do contribute neutrally if Pete departs because the scrutiny on these articles would not be at an end. And in response to Pete, both you and Bee have serious civility issues that are getting in the way of productive editing. Your problem happens to be the more serious one in my view. It's your responsibility to fix that. Otherwise, in spite of the positives you also bring, you'll be gone pretty soon. Durova^Charge! 23:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear Henitsirk! Durova: you can count on me. - Wikiwag 23:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete:

"People who have been following this will notice that many of the wild claims produced by you and HGilbert have disappeared from the articles."

Except with regard to the WC, on which we disagree, I somehow doubt you can point to anything in terms of "wild claims" from me, that now has disappeared from any article, through you or someone else. Regards, Thebee 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Durova, yes, I understand it is my responsibility and I will do that (I just started to engage TheBee and re-thought my decision). I know I would be on a short leash if allowed to stay. Pete K 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A very short leash, and the if is out of my hands. I heartily recommend you do your best to make amends. Durova^Charge! 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying - but people are used to a more aggressive tone from me. I suspect everyone is reading more into what I am saying than I intend. Pete K 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete, first answer to my request that he substantiate his assertion about a number (many) "wild claims" by me in one or several articles except with regard to the WC, on which we disagree:

"Sure I can... but I won't bother."

and then second answer to the same question:

"Sure I can... but why should I bother?"

then changed to the above. If you stand by your assertion, I assume you can document it in a simple objective non-personal way. If you can't do it, I'd expect you to retract it. If I'm wrong, I will admit I was wrong. Thanks, Thebee 00:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You have resurrected a comment that I deleted. I won't engage you in this activity. Pete K 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to engage me in anything. I ask you to engage yourself in substantiating what you have asserted. I't nothing strange, (forget about the incivil part of your first answers, I do) just in a simple way substantiate your assertion with regard to me, except with regard to the WC, on which we disagree:

"People who have been following this will notice that many of the wild claims produced by you and HGilbert have disappeared from the articles."

In your first answers you have asserted that you can. Independently of the incivil part in your first answers, I assume you can substantiate your assertion in a simple way as you stated. If you can't, I'd somehow expect you to retract your statement, if you wouldn't mind. Thanks, Thebee 01:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope... not taking the bait. And there's nothing to retract. Pete K 01:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bait. It's a simple request to you to either substantiate what you have stated or retract it. As you write that there's nothing to retract, I understand this to mean that you stand by your statement, but refuse to substantiate it as requested. Isn't Wikipedia about only making statements that you can substantiate some way, or refrain from making them, respectively retract statements that you have made, but then fail to substantiate? Thanks Thebee 01:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Above, Durova writes to you:

"I heartily recommend you do your best to make amends"

I have done it on a number of points to Wikiwag, and will also do it on what Mr. Bauder describes further as incivilites by me, that I have not already expressed regret for.

Just before Mr. Bauder blanked and blocked the WE article and its discussion page, you described me as

"sick in the frickin' head"

if I remember correctly. Would you consider taking up on Durova's recommendation to you on that point, as also the earlier times you've expressed similar views since you came here, if that's included in Durova's recommendation? Again, this is not a bait, but a very simple straightforward question. Thanks, Thebee 01:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Could I make a small suggestion? Perhaps moving forward we would all be better served if we tried to avoid using terms like "pro-Waldorfers," "Waldorfers," "Waldorf critics," etc.? When we use language like that, we are automatically creating opposition when we should all be working together. This is based on my observations of these discussions becoming polemical and therefore less constructive. Henitsirk 02:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Henitsirk. I think the opinions here tend to be polarized from the start, but I agree with you about the labels. I consider myself to be pro-Waldorf too so the lable names don't make much sense to me anyway. Pete K 02:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Waldorf Critics" (WC) is not a label I've made up. It's the name of the site (domain) of the main group on the net, critical of Waldorf education and everything related to it. The secretary of the group runs a mailing list with the same name since a number of years (about ten).

Thebee, I am aware that Waldorf Critics is an actual web site. I wasn't directing my comments at you. I just used that as an example, just as I used "Waldorfers," of oppositional name-calling. Henitsirk 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete K and I disagree about the nature of the group and its activities since 10-12 years.

While he says he is a pro-Waldorf reformist, and I may be wrong about this: I do have the feeling that most people connected with or working in or in connection with Waldorf education in one or other form don't view his actions here and at other places on the net as being "pro-Waldorf" or primarily markedly constructive, with his main focus being work to portray it as racist, anti-semitic and anti-scientific, (don't right now remember his exact stance on it as being allegedly inspired by the Devil) and for example promoting and defending someone as a "top notch historian", who repeatedly tells and writes easily documented defamatory untruths about Steiner and anthroposophy in a way Pete K probably is quite clear about, when describing himself as "pro-Waldorf" activist.

But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether Pete K can and will substantiate and verify the truthfulness of the statement about many "wild claims" that he has made (just yesterday?) about what I have written here at Wikipedia, except with regard to the WC-group, about which we disagree, and whether he stands by or would want to amend the statement he made just about a week ago, describing me as "sick in the frickin' head", or not, as also the similar statements he has made regularly about me in discussions since he came here to Wikipedia last year.

On the first point, he at first asserted that he could but then has refused, asserting there's nothing to retract. On the second point, he does not answer.

Thanks, Thebee 09:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Many (if not most) people connected with Waldorf acknowledge that the perception by parents that Waldorf teachers are not always honest (or at the very least not forthcoming) about many aspects of Waldorf education is the main problem that all Waldorf schools need to overcome in their public relations. Topics that Waldorf teachers are traditionally not forthcoming about include: what Anthroposophy is and Anthroposophy's role in Waldorf education, Steiner's racism/anti-semitism and how that is handled today, many problematic issues that concern the curriculum, teacher training and competence, and other issues I have brought forth here. When parents discover these things on their own, they lose trust in Waldorf. This is why Waldorf schools have large turnover, and it is also why many put restrictions on communication between parents. Waldorf's reluctance to address these concerns by parents does immeasurable harm to Waldorf and the Waldorf movement. This is not just my view but the view of MANY people within and even in the top levels of the Waldorf movement. Pete K 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that intended as your farewell speech, also meaning you do not intend to address my two questions to you? Thanks, Thebee 17:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thebee: I strongly suggest you read the following section. Stop trying to pick a fight. And Pete - stand your ground in silence...if you don't run, he can't chase you. - Wikiwag 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick a fight, as you describe it. I just ask Pete K to substantiate a defamatory fact claim he made about me only a day ago: that I have made "many" "wild claims" in articles her at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about not only claiming or asserting things, but also of substantiating them, when requested to. With regard to this task, Pete's claim is defamatory if he can't substantiate it. You seem to suggest that I should accept that, and not ask him to substantiate his claim.

He also just one week ago in one discussion described me as "Sick in the frickin' head" in a similar way that he has done a number of times the last months since he came to Wikipedia. Durova has heartedly suggested that he make amends with regard to his incivilities. When I ask him if he's prepared to follow Durova's suggestion with regard to his latest personal insult of me only a week ago, you describe this as trying to "pick a fight" with Pete K and recommend him to "stand [his] ground in silence". My question has been very simple in accordance with Durova's heartedly expressed suggestion. I take your suggestion to him to mean you think he should not follow Durova's advice.

Thanks, Thebee 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikiwag - I don't intend to engage TheBee in any of this. I was just taking the opportunity he provided me to clarify my position and the position of many people in Waldorf. None of what I wrote was directed at him. Pete K 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, Thebee. Your sword cuts both ways. Let it go and WP:AGF. - Wikiwag 20:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bee, bear in mind that your own civility is under scrutiny here also. I do encourage Pete to extend an olive branch. Please don't grab one and poke him with it. Let bygones be bygones and do your best to focus on improving the articles. Durova^Charge! 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King of the Critics

TheBee has made a claim about me proclaiming myself "King of the Critics". His characture is in reference to the following post that I have recovered from the Waldorf Critics. It describes how TheBee worked with the moderator of the Anthroposophy Tomorrow website to fabricate reasons to ban me from that website. This postcan be found in the Waldorf Critics archives.

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:01:55 +0000 From: Pete K Subject: The Crucifixion of Pete

Since the list has been slow lately, I hope you will indulge me while I tell my little story of...

The Crucifixion of Pete

As an Orthodox Christian, I celebrate Easter tomorrow. Yesterday, was my Good Friday. As I reflected on the crucifixion of Christ, I found myself in a crucifixion of my own on that very same day.

Here is my story:

Pete traveled the internet, describing his experiences about Waldorf education and spreading the good word. Now, in his wanderings he made some friends but he also started to noticed people sometimes seemed threatened by his views - even though what he preached was honest and good, and always true. He happened onto a small internet town a few weeks ago called Anthroposophy Tomorrowland - a land that prides itself on freedom of speech. It seemed like a nice town, and he started discussing his experiences and insights with the townsfolk. He told them to beware of false prophets. He told them about the sins of Waldorf, and about how following the old ways of their false prophet could only lead to disaster. One day, he even tipped over the tables of the deceivers who cause harm to children for profit, and exposed the moneychangers and network marketers and the threefold social orderers. He brought the good word, that God loves them and that they need not worship their fearsome god that would judge them by the color of their skin and demonize their children.

A few of the people of Anthroposophy Tomorrowland heard Pete's words, and those who did not fear their own god or their neighbors, asked to hear more. The more Pete spoke, the more attention he attracted, and soon the kings of Scandinavia began to worry that the words he spoke might not be so easily rejected by the people - in fact, they feared that his words were making sense. Was this freedom of speech such a good idea, if someone could speak of things that threatened the kings themselves, and moreover, their god? Something had to be done. King Pilate started by mocking Pete, and encourged others to mock and humiliate him as well but soon, it became clear, Pete was not about to be chased away with mockery, and the more they mocked him, the more strength he gained. The people of Anthroposophy Tomorrowland even began to question their kings behavior.

More importantly, Pete had broken no laws. Something still had to be done. Pilate called in King Herod (referring to TheBee) who came to Anthroposophy Tomorrowland and claimed laws had indeed been broken, and when it was shown that none were, he claimed that new laws needed to be put into place. Herod appealed to Pilate (Tarjei, the owner and moderator of the Anthroposophy Tomorrow list) and Pilate was worried that nothing could be done to a rebel like Pete without first raising the support of the people. And so, Pilate started warning Pete - that he had broken the imaginary laws. And then Herod joind in and taunted Pete some more, and eventually, Herod and Pilate tried to threaten Pete into silence. And when Pilate saw that even his threats failed he made up new laws and claimed that Pete had broken them. And having convinced the people that Pete had broken imaginary laws, Pilate asked the people "What shall we do with Pete - the King of the Critics" And the people of Anthroposophy Tomorrowland cried out "Crucify him, crucify him." And having thus heard from the people of Anthroposophy Tomorrowland, Pilate washed his hands, and hid behind the disguise of Sophia - the hood of the executioner, and gave the order. And Pete was crucified, bound and gagged and above his head was nailed a label that said "King of the Critics".

And there, my friends, is the story of the Crucifixion of Pete - at the hands of Herod and Pilate in the cursed land of Anthroposophy Tomorrowland.

Pete K 13:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What the story above is describing is how TheBee is sometimes brought in by Anthroposophists to intimidate me into losing my composure. It happened on the Anthroposphy Tomorrow list and it happened on the Mothering.com list Waldorf section. TheBee was not posting regularly on the Anthroposophy Tomorrow list prior to this incident, and he hasn't been posting since the incident. He was brought in like a thug - simply to rough me up. On Mothering.com he arrived months after I did and it only took him a couple of weeks to get us both banned leaving two other members of his 5-person fanatical Waldorf group Americans for Waldorf Education (one of which is here as Professor Marginalia) in place to continue to slant the discussions there. The activities of this group include the infiltration of any site where Waldorf is discussed and to strongly influence the discussion. The main activity of TheBee (Sune Nordwall) is to discredit or silence people who discuss Waldorf critically. He's very good at it. Pete K 14:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Venado removed the names that are public information sourced here. Why shouldn't these names appear here and their activities revealed during this arbitration? This isn't personal information, it's information that is freely available on the internet - information on a website TheBee has directed readers to dozens of times. At some point, this arbitration has to get down to the nitty-gritty of what is actually happening here - an organized effort by a small group of Waldorf fanatics who are intent on controlling/perverting every bit of information about Waldorf on the internet. Wikipedia is just one front for them. They follow critical voices around and throw the same nonsensical arguments at every criticism. If what they are doing is honorable, let them sign their names to it. Pete K 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Harass-"Posting of personal information: Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. "

If you have a problem how an editor's edits, you show the problem with diffs, not names. All editors need to take there personal grudges and resentments to another forum besides wikipedia. Thats not what wikipedia is for, to disrupt the articles with your feuds. Venado

Oh, OK - so it's OK to smear the people who are PLANS members and then post their full names, but it's not OK to post the names of the "Americans for Waldorf Education". Why? Nobody on the board of PLANS offered their names here. Maybe we need to create an article about the "Americans for Waldorf Education" and scrutinize their activities. They are as much fair game as PLANS is - and much more active on the internet. When will the hypocrisy of this become evident here? I'm not the person who is here with the aim of disrupting Wikipedia - they are. Poisoning the well of information about Waldorf is why the group was created in the first place. Why should their names be protected and the names of PLANS members not be? It's a clear case of sauce for the goose. Pete K 20:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite know if I should address what Pete K writes. As what he writes about me being sent or "brought" here and there by "anthroposophists" is another false accusation by him, maybe I'm allowed to do it shortly? Nobody sends or has sent me anywhere. I only go where I send myself. This is also the case with the list he mentions, an off beat strongly anarchist list with only one rule, an "everything is allowed" complete freedom of speech policy, except paradoxically on one point, on the list questioning the policy after being warned about it, as list management and list rules are considered off topic for the list.

I subscribed to (and still subscribe to) the list he mentions, but seldom read or participate on it, just browse it in between. At one time, I questioned the list policy with regard to one posting on the list, that I thought passed far outside all limits for civility, was warned about this questioning, stopped it after I was warned about it and did not follow the list closely after that. Pete seems to have questioned the list policy too, but too much, and seems to have been banned for it. I was not involved it in beyond my own first questioning of the list policy, did not follow that process closely, and only noticed he had been, when he had. Afterwards, he on the WC-list wrote the posting above, that he quotes in full. According to him, my short mentioning and description of it, linking to it, constitutes a characture of what he wrote. I leave that to others to judge. Thebee 20:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's reasonable to assume you just magically show up everywhere I'm posting. There's no reason to suspect that the two people from your 5-member group contacted you and asked you to join Mothering.com - a site for parenting, a site where I had been posting without problems for months. You seem to have an uncanny ability to find me on your own. Pete K 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Venado writes: "If you have a problem how an editor's edits, you show the problem with diffs, not names. All editors need to take there personal grudges and resentments to another forum besides wikipedia. Thats not what wikipedia is for, to disrupt the articles with your feuds."

Here's another place where we don't have equity. We have the "good guys" and the "bad guys". For the good guys, it's OK to produce the full names of private persons right in articles, but the bad guys can't even produce them on the talk pages, let alone the articles. For the good guys, it's OK to make false claims of libel over information that was published in three separate articles, but if the bad guys object to claims of "hate group", accusations that are completely unfounded, unpublished, and attributed to a tiny group of pro-Waldorf activists, that's not OK. In fact, make a statement that one of the good guys doesn't like, they harass you about supporting supporting statement - even to the extent of producing material that was intentionally deleted to avoid argument. Then we have the whole issue of sources which was discussed on the Waldorf Education page - where you believe illegitimate Anthroposophical sources can be referenced when you believe a topic isn't controversial but legitimate sources have to produced in order to claim that it is. This is more inequity.

Also, Venado, I'll thank you not to alter what I have written in any way. If you have a complaint about the fact that I have named two people Linda Clemens and Deborah Kahn as two members of Americans for Waldorf Education - when they themselves have agreed to make their own names public by posting them on their website page (unlike the people from PLANS who were named without their permission), please take your complaint to an arbitrator or administrator and ask them to alter what I have written. I do not give you or anyone else authority or permission to edit what I have written here or anywhere - it is a record of what I have written and I take this very seriously. If an administrator has a reason for removing this material, they have this authority. You do not. This isn't about a grudge, it's about revealing who here is doing what and why. This is an arbitration page and that's why this information is provided - so that claims made here can be verified. Arbitrators can (and I hope they will) go to the Mothering.com Waldorf page and see if indeed the two people I mention above who are members of AWE are there. They can also see their behavior, maybe even examine writing patterns to determine if indeed the Professor Marginalia persona here is connected to the AWE group. If so, it demonstrates the dishonesty by which these people operate as well as the bias they hold and the unfairness of not having representatives from the critical view of Waldorf available to edit the Waldorf articles. What is written here by me should be considered evidence on my behalf - and it really is NOT appropriate for you to alter it. Thanks. Pete K 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I will remove names. There are official rules about this, and if you do not agree, change them or by all means make a complaint against me.

“

Behavior that is unacceptable Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia.....Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely." Also "Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). " TALK

”

You think this rules don't fit for you. I dont see it your way. Venado 04:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete K:

"Yes, it's reasonable to assume you just magically show up everywhere I'm posting."

No magic needed. The WC-list told of the anti-Waldorf defamation campaign by WC-list participants (other than you) in the Mothering internet forums already in March 2005. I looked at it but only joined during the summer, I think, to at least maybe somewhat contribute with some balance to the intense anti-Waldorf defamation campaign there at that time. In a posting in November 2005 on your own mailing list, you told of your recent ban, and how Mothering deleted five (of your six) threads when they busted you from the Waldorf forum. It seems they'd had enough and did not want to continue publishing them. In your comment, you describe Mothering's busting of you and some other critics (earlier) as a sort of "ethnic cleansing" and told you'd "expose" MDC and their policies and practices along with Waldorf. Thebee 15:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You can have the last word here Sune. Your efforts to smear me with the "King of the Critics" nonsense have been exposed for what they are - nonsense. I'm not going to even bother reading what you wrote above. Pete K 16:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What am I not getting here? Looked at PLANS article. Names are not up, except for Dan Dugan. So why are the names that are not there used for justifying putting people's names here?MinorityView 00:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The name of the board members of PLANS were put on the page on the group on 31 October 2006 by Diana W, former member of the board of the group, and Pete K's main partner here at Wikipedia since he came here in August last year. They were removed from the page on 8 January 2007 by Pete K, who then complained about the listing of them at the page to Mr. Bauder. For the discussion of the issue at Mr. Bauder's Talks page, see here. Regards, Thebee 01:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The logic on both sides of this particular screaming match totally escapes me. I still think that having the names up violates the rule. How do I go about bringing it to the attention of someone who can take care of the problem?'MinorityView 01:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Venado, it seems to me that you're missing the intent of WP:HARASS: "it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media."

If the members of AWE or PLANS put their names on their websites, then mentioning their names here would pose no additional risk to them since their names are already known in "the real world." If your real name were posted here, that would be a violation of the policy because it reveals something you have chosen to keep private.

From what I see in the comments above, the PLANS members did not publish their names on the PLANS website, so it is inappropriate to name them (unless they have been cited in newspaper articles, PLANS press releases, etc.) But if the AWE members' names are on the AWE website, then it is acceptable to name them. Henitsirk 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Henitsirk, I think your missing the meaning of this arbitration. This is about the actions of editors of articles at wikipedia, not whose who at other places. If you can follow all these old fights you probably spent to much time figuring them out. I know who cries loudest gets petted by others just to quiet things. But I know threr are names on PLANs website, I know there are names on AWE website. That right there is not true there aren't names at PLANS website, so I think its a red herring. No diffs, no purpose to this line of arguement. So why is this brought up here? Maybe by editors in the spotlight to distract from themselves, I think. If editors don't edit in civility and npov and are being judged they carry old grudges from other places here and say its not there fault they can't be good wikipedians. Why should wp work through to all this? These old grudge matches need a differnent battleground. There are wp rules about this, and are you wikipedians or are you here for some other reason. It feels like wikipedia is being used in a fight thats not there fight. And there is one thing sure and that is that this first arbitration allowed agenda driven editors a second chance with there training wheels to understand wikipedia is not a brochure and not a tabloid. Agenda driven editors think there alone at wikipedia, that such a thing has never happened before until this case. Wikipedia doesn't even have many rules but the ones they have aren't for this but just everyplace else? The rules apply here, just like everywhere else.Venado 07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, Venado, you have missed the point. The "old grudges" are only apparent when the people who are disguising themselves here are made known. Sure there are old grudges - some of us have been at this for many years. Just because some people here are in disguise doesn't excuse them from that connection. Again, it's a double standard that you hold me to - that because I have revealed myself willingly, that I am guilty of bringing old grudges here. You want others who have done the same to be excused because they have tried to hide who they are. That's not honest, and it certainly isn't fair. If this arbitration is going to serve any purpose, we have to stop pretending this is some masquerade ball. Getting to the bottom of things requires identifying the participants and their reasons for being here. One group of participants is very organized, and working here under false pretenses. Their actions need to be revealed if the arbitrators are to get a clear picture of what has transpired and what will transpire if they are permitted to overrun these articles and edit this material to their will. People from PLANS have been prohibited from editing the PLANS article. Why shouldn't people from similar pro-Waldorf organizations enjoy the same restrictions with regard to the Waldorf article? Pete K 14:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete K:

"People from PLANS have been prohibited from editing the PLANS article."

Hm, who, when and for what reason? Thebee 15:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to me to read or explain the ArbCom decisions to you (although many have tried without success). Go read them yourself. Pete K 15:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifying non-answer. Thebee 16:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Here then read it for yourself. The reason is Conflict of Interest - and it applies to you too. Pete K 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The section you link to refers to the WP:COI guideline. According to the description of the guideline by Mr. Bauder, it strongly discourages editing regarding an organization by those associated with the organization. It does not prohibit people in some way associated with associations from doing it, as you write:

"People from PLANS have been prohibited from editing the PLANS article."

Thebee 18:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

{sigh} Pete K 21:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about being being carefully truthful. Try it. Thebee 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10... Pete K 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete, this thread shows an astonishing lapse of judgement. If you had followed my advice in December and read past arbitration precedents, you would know how the committee deals with disclosures of personal information about other editors. It's a different matter entirely if some editor puts that information into play by posting it onsite himself or herself, but the degree to which the information is generally available elsewhere on the Internet is irrelevant. Before posting you could have asked me, or your mentor, or an arbitration clerk - but you neglected every option. I am at a loss to conceive why you chose to post that at an arbitration review whose primary purpose is to scrutinize your behavior and where a proposal to have you topic banned has already been signed by an arbitrator. Even if I set aside that very serious violation, I see no positive purpose to this thread you started. None. Instead of making amends, you author a long complaint. Instead of demonstrating commitment to building an encyclopedia, you demonstrate how much this dispute carries over your conflicts from other websites. If anyone chooses to quote this post of mine as evidence they are welcome to do so. You have made a mockery of my good faith. And unless you retract what you have written here and refrain from all future lapses of this nature, I will strikethrough my recommendation to the committee and recommend a siteban: not a topic ban, a siteban. Durova^Charge! 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see this as a double-standard. I'm held accountable for activities outside Wikipedia because I have revealed who I am. That an organized group can fly under the radar by masking themselves goes against everything that is honorable. Maybe I've seen too many cowboy movies - but the ones with the masks are usually the bad guys. If what someone has done outside of this site is irrelevant, then that should apply to everyone - whether they have revealed themselves or not. In your own testimony, you have held me accountable for my exchanges with TheBee at other websites. Fairness demands that others here who have chosen to hide their identities be held accountable if I am to be held accountable. Otherwise, that portion of your testimony is what you should be striking out in my view. If, as it seems, I am the only one on trial here, then it should be a fair trial and I should have the right to identify and confront my accusers and their agendas. Instead, I'm supposed to sit quietly under a gag-order while my name is smeared and their organized infiltration of Wikipedia goes undetected. My "committment to building an encyclopedia" is impossible to maintain under these conditions. I have been accused of LIBEL by faceless people. That's not right, it's not fair and it's not something I will sit quietly for. If nobody of authority is willing to do anything about it, then it's up to me to try to clear my own name until I am banned. I have no control over when that ban will come but it looks to be inevitable from what I can see. As I have said before, a topic ban for me is the same as a site ban. My only interest for staying here at this time is to clear up the false libel accusation. It's already clear to me that this organized group has accomplished their goal. Pete K 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

After the names had been removed from Pete K's posting above at this Talks page one or more times, he also has added them to his evidence section under a heading "Who's Who" - maybe to make sure they would not be removed at least from that page. Thebee 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I went and took a look at the web page for AWE. They are certainly pro-waldorf. Is that a crime? I looked at the web page for PLANS. They are certainly anti-waldorf. Also not criminal. If Pete K has behaved in other places as he is behaving here, then why would it take extraordinary efforts on the part of a conspiratorial group to get him banned? There is such a thing as shooting yourself in the foot, ya know. MinorityView 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

After others have ganged up to shoot you in the head, shooting yourself in the foot doesn't seem like such a big deal. Pete K 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Durova, I started the thread based on yet another claim by TheBee regarding my behavior on other websites. It was made in the thread preceeding this one I believe. He said I proclaimed myself "King of the Critics". I posted the content of that post to demonstrate that he was, once again, trying to defame me as he frequently does - that the "King of the Critics" comment was in humor, not some proclamation or boast by me. TheBee's comment was just another of hundreds of jabs he has taken at me without any action by the administrators here. I'm quite happy to leave this environment under the circumstances. When an "encyclopedia" is less concerned with content than it is with internal politics, it ceases to be a viable source of information anyway. This is exactly why Wikipedia has become the butt of jokes with everyone from intellectuals to comedians right down to grade-school children. You know I have deep respect for you, but I lost all respect for this process and environment when I was unfairly singled out by our head arbitrator. Enjoy your world. Pete K 01:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

While I respect Pete's decision to identify himself, it's a WP policy that users are anonymous if they choose to be. On several occasions on talk pages Pete has used users' real names, my own included. While I can't speak for the other editors, I never gave my permission for Pete to use my real name (though I realize that it's obvious from the username I chose). Henitsirk 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies Henitsirk. I didn't realize I did that other than to ask you if it was OK to call you by your name (which, yes, I thought was obvious) - and I thought I did that on email, not here. If I have called you by your name here, I assure you it was completely an accident on my part. Again, I am very sorry if I did this - it was unintentional. Pete K 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no double standard here: Pete had the same right as anyone else at Wikipedia to remain anonymous. He revealed certain personal information about himself, voluntarily putting that information into play for other editors to examine and comment. That doesn't create any obligation whatsoever for other editors to make comparable revelations nor does it grant him any special privilege to compromise the privacy of other editors. The committee has already addressed those matters decisively in previous arbitrations. I had advised Pete to make himself aware of this sort of thing and done my best to provide supplementary resources that would forestall any inadvertent missteps. Then, at while his own behavior is under sharp scrutiny, he implodes. Humor, was it? If I look for humor in this sort of situation I browse Raul's Laws, specifically #108, one of the ones I penned: a problem editor who really deserves to be banned will demonstrate the need for banning conclusively at the end of an arbitration or investigation. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, Durova. Everyone here should read and process each of your nine laws. This will likely be the last post I make to this page. I don't see that there's anything more for me to add. Time to get back to the work I came here to do. - Wikiwag 23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not imploding - just facing the facts. There's no reason to pretend it would have made any difference at all if I behaved during this arbitration or misbehaved. It was clear from the first day that this arbitration was opened with the intention of booting me. This was even discussed on Thatcher's talk page BEFORE the arbitration was reopened, and then a phony excuse of "libel" was used to initiate the process. For me, the best service I can do at this point is to point out the conspiritorial nature of certain editors who are still here to rest of the community... before I leave. Having done this, I'm satisfied that others here will keep an eye on them. I'm sure all the Raul's Laws are cute and all that, but I'm not interested in that sort of thing. I was here to cut through the crap and get to the nitty-gritty of problems with these articles, not to become a model Wikipedian or to pay homage to administrators and arbitrators while being dragged through tribunal after tribunal. The content of the articles is all that has ever mattered to me. I made more than a reasonable effort to improve the content, and it proved impossible to maintain the integrity of that content - no matter how many hours I devoted to this. At least the activities of the people who are undermining that content have been exposed. So, thanks, but no thanks - I'm moving on. Pete K 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe just one more ;-) I think you've succeeded in what you set out to do, Pete - even if the way you succeeded was like "Matthias" in the stoning scene from Life of Brian:

"You're only making it worse for yourself!"

"Making it worse? How could it be worse!? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! [while doing a dance]."

Best wishes, my friend. We will be diminished without your extensive knowledge. - Wikiwag 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikiwag. I'm very comfortable leaving this all in your capable hands. Hopefully you have your bee suit on. And, it's certainly possible our hymenopteran friend will follow me and hopefully leave this place as well (although I'll try not to make it so easy for him to find me this time <G>). Feel free to email me if you need me - I've got lots of material collected and websites bookmarked for almost everything to do with Waldorf and Anthroposophy. I'm happy to supply you with off-line support if you need it. That goes for anyone else who may be interested. I expect to be blocked soon and banned soon afterwards - but I think I've said my goodbye's to everyone already. If I've missed anyone - Peace! Pete K 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You had my support, Pete, and you threw it away. I put a lot of effort into helping you and persuaded Lethaniol to do you some pretty big favors too. If you wanted to leave this site you could have left it without such a fuss. If you wanted to improve the articles you could have accomplished that without such a fuss too. You've been pretty shabby toward the Wikipedians who have volunteered their time over this. At this point I wish I'd put my energies elsewhere. Durova^Charge! 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've thanked you endlessly for your efforts with me - and I've thanked Lethaniol. I don't have any guilt whatsoever over trying my best to deal with a difficult situation. The only people I've been disrespectful to are the ones who have been disrespectful to me. Everyone who has approached me with respect has seen nothing but respect from me. So no, guilt trips aren't going to work on me. Could I have just gone quietly and let the Waldorf fanatics overrun Wikipedia? Yes, I could have - but once I was falsely accused of libel, and nobody here did anything to correct it except try to get me banned, there was no reason to leave quietly - at all - none. And no, I couldn't have improved the articles without a fuss - that's what I've been trying to explain all along. The fuss was absolutely guaranteed by TheBee's participation. That's what he's here to do. If you don't see this after all the evidence, then there's nothing more to be said. You're not the only one who wishes you had put your energies elsewhere. This has been a huge waste of time for me too in many, many respects. Pete K 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Durova wrote: "Pete had the same right as anyone else at Wikipedia to remain anonymous. He revealed certain personal information about himself, voluntarily putting that information into play for other editors to examine and comment." I just want to clarify that I did NOT have the option to remain anonymous. I arrived here because HGilbert had made comments about me personally before I was an editor here. He had commented that I did not have custody of my children - a false claim. In order to refute that claim, it was necessary to identify myself right from the beginning. Anonymity was not an option for me - not that I would have chosen to hide behind a pseudonym anyway as I believe it is dishonest, but I didn't have that option if it I was to refute HGilbert's statements. Pete K 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Guilt trip? That's a rude accusation.

2. No option to remain anonymous? Privacy concerns at any website are normally addressed by contacting an administrator. Given your age and education, you should hardly need a reminder that the Community Noticeboard provided appropriate help links that you could have used on your first day of editing.

3. I wash my hands of you.

Durova^Charge! 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"I wash my hands of you." LOL! considering the topic of this thread - that would be appropriate... Pete K 22:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done some research at Mothering.com, but a lot of threads have been deleted so I couldn't get the whole story. "Deborah" became a member of the boards in December of 2002 and has mainly participated in the Vaccinations forum and the Waldorf forum. "LindaCl" joined in January of 2005 and has participated all over the Boards. Both of them are still members in good standing and seem to be valued and respected. I came across positive comments directed at both of them. "PeteK" joined in July 2005. His participation seems to have been a bit bumpy from the beginning but he was doing okay until "theBee" showed up in October 2005. The last participation by theBee was at the end of October (but there may have been some deleted threads) and Pete also seems to have been blocked out of the Waldorf forum at that point, although he posted in some other forums after that. So, the part that leaves me bemused, beset, and bewildered. According to Pete, theBee did for him at Mothering. Then theBee did for him on the Anthroposophy Tomorrow list. And now theBee has defeated him at Wikipedia. I've been reading Pete's posts and edits here and theBee's posts and edits here and theBee doesn't strike me as superhuman or anything. So I could see him doing Pete down once. Maybe even twice. But three times? And none of the problems are on Pete's side? He is totally the innocent victim in the entire sequence?::MinorityView 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line, for me, is that TheBee and I don't get along. We never have and we probably never will. He rubs me the wrong way and I rub him the wrong way. He's not superhuman, but he's living off an inheritance and has, as far as I know, no family to raise - so he apparently has unlimited time to devote to this. I don't - and I won't. So, with the support of the other pro-Waldorf people and his cohorts from his own activist group, he's got the upper hand here and will OWN the articles - just like Deborah and Linda jump on anyone posting a critical view of Waldorf on Mothering.com. They are not so well-respected actually - many people have sent me private messages (there are usually several waiting for me whenever I log onto MDC) to say they are intimidated by them or that they are turned off of Waldorf just by the pushy behavior of Linda and Deborah. That's why a special thread had to be created that excludes them (essentially) - so that people who felt uncomfortable/intimidated posting there could post in the "safe haven" thread (which had over 26,000 views last I looked - a lot for a single thread).

I insist this behavior is dishonest, and it is being done here under disguise - making it even more dishonest. Whenever one group controls what is permissible "information" then there is a huge problem with the credibility, not only of that information, but of the environment hosting this type of control. When the use of such disguises that encourage people to be dishonest is supported by the environment, there's no point in trying to bring honesty to the discussion - and the intellectual world has realized this.

Just in the last few days, we have gone back to using Anthroposophical sources to support outrageous statements (in the Anthroposophy article). I've tried to remove them but others insist they are OK and that the ArbCom has said so - so then I do the same, but when I use them, they say mine are not OK. It's impossible to win against a stacked deck especially if the house rules are also against you. So, I'll do like most other honest people who have encountered this environment and move on. BTW, I never said I was an innocent victim - I generally give as good as I receive. Pete K 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going forward

Hi folks. I started a new section here, because there are a lot of points that are intermixed and intermingled in the prior section that I'd like to respond to in interest of we community of editors.

HGilbert: I want to thank you for being the first to express confidence that we can move forward in the spirit of consensus. While I still disagree that concerns are unjustified (as present exchanges would seem to support) I nevertheless respect your willingness to let bygones be bygones so we can move forward.

Pete: I want to congratulate you on not allowing yourself to be sucked into another acrimonious exchange with Thebee. Believe me - I know it's not easy (especially for you and your history here). While I'm not in a position to make a decision one way or another, if you can maintain this posture I'm hopeful that with Durova's support, the ArbComm will allow you to stay on. To address your question:

Arrrgg... <G> I don't get why what I have said above is viewed as "hostile".

Let me spell it out for you:

When you write something like "This is an incredible appeal coming from the person who wrote the biased articles in the first place," it does not exactly come across as friendly and automatically puts someone on their guard. Accusing people of "slip[ping] in" things, while it may be arguably true, it does not WP:AGF. Moreover, labeling things as "incredibly naive," "weasel-worded, false claims," challenging "HGilbert" on his commitment to the new regime and continuing to hang on his previous "personal bias and POV infused in the articles," is what certainly seems hostile on the surface.

I am saying this as your friend and someone who respects you - if not necessarily your methods: If you truly want to move on together with the rest of us (and I believe you do), you're going to have to take people at their word right now. Then if they fall short of what they promise, at the very least you can take the moral high ground. That is how I've been able to make the case that I have against Thebee, my own singular and solitary burst of incivility not withstanding. In other words: let bygones be bygones, unless someone commits another breach - then call them on it civilly and factually. I know it's not easy - but it's what you must do, because I (and it seems Henitsirk and Durova and Lethaniol) want you to stay, but not if you're going to continue with a combative tone.

Henitsirk: Thanks too for your commitment and your well-reasoned tone. You are a good stabilizing influence.

Durova: I have to confess that I never read your entire user page (forgive me - still feel like a fool) and thanks again for everything you've done to bring us to this point, including your support of my efforts to establish my unique identity here. Having now written a statement myself, I understand what an awful trial it is - especially when you know that it all could've been avoided if people only behaved like the educated adults that they are in the first place.

Then we come to...

Thebee: It's no secret how I feel at this stage. I really wish I could take you at your word on your apology, but you've burned me too many times - so now your going to have to prove your good faith to me. You can start by quitting your attempts to pick a fight with Pete. He deleted what he wrote, suggesting that he realized that he shouldn't have written it in the first place. He rebuffed your efforts to draw him in to another battle four separate times; so he seems to be listening and also seems (I hope) to have learned a valuable lesson here. You would do well to follow his example - please just let it go.

I of course realize that if I'm going to be consistent, I am going to have to follow my own advice. So obviously I too, will have to let bygones be bygones with you. In order for me to do that though, you have to stop saying one thing and doing another. Apply the same standard to yourself that you apparently apply to the rest of us. And if you can't, then it sounds like there may be a process coming to deal with that, if the ArbComm follows Durova's recommendations. To quote Durova again I am here to "write an article, not a soap opera." So please, the next time you apologize - please do it without the codicils and the provisos, blaming the one you offend for your own misbehavior, or continuing to attack the one you've supposedly apologized to - either to their face or in secret as you have done with me.

We also have a new editor, Jtfine, who is a self-described "lifer," having been through 14 years of Waldorf education. Pete, Henitsirk and I have all bid him/her welcome and look forward to the input that comes from his unique experience.

So thanks everyone! I look forward to putting this mess behind us, moving forward in the good-faith pursuit of consensus and getting back to writing the article. - Wikiwag 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems with the articles is the way editors use there own unique experiences with the topic like a reference source. There experience is getting in the way of objectivity to sources. Sources are disregarded if they don't agree with what the editor believes, and not very good sources are given to much emphasis because they do. If personally involved editors can't stop doing this they need to edit other articles. This page, the talk pages, and even in the articles, personal experience is given way to much weight. I tried to say this a few times on the article talk pages already. People who are on a personal mission to make some kind of statement about Waldorf or Steiner are interfering with the editing process. The article needs more contributions from people who don't have personal experience. I am not saying they can't edit if they have an opinion, but I think it is wrong to emphasize editors bring there personal experience, it is the other way around. Venado 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I agree that's where the problems arise, but how can anyone edit in the absence of personal experience or knowledge on a particular topic? Are you saying that you don't have personal experience with Waldorf education? - Wikiwag 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy. They research it. Its a guess but I think the majority of the good articles at wikipedia are written by people without personal experience and the majority of bad ones are written by people with it. Its wrong to try to fix imbalanced articles by encouraging more editing with the opposite POV. "Whose on whose side" business is on this talk page to, thats so wrong. The way to write good articles for the wiki-encyclopedia is to do good research with the best references available and write the article according to the research. No, I don't have any personal experience with Waldorf school. I don't feel the need to edit that article at all, I even encouraged one arbitrator to ban me along with other involved editors from all the Steiner articles if it would put out the edit wars without wasting everybodys time with diffs and all that in another second arbitration. The first one wasted enough time and it didn't stop the problem a bit. I think people should be ashamed how much time they waste of arbitrators and other administrators who keep having to step in to break up fighting in these articles. Is an embarassment. Venado 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag, thank you for what you wrote above. A couple of things. Do we know Jtfine is a "he"? Just checking to see if YOU have learned your lesson <G>. Next, I agree that you are right about my tendency to not assume good faith with editors I have been combating over the years (even though the WP:AGF page says we don't have to if enough reason has been presented). I think, basically HGilbert is a decent guy and I'll take him at his word that there will be a new effort (I assume that means an effort to discuss and gain consensus). I'm not convinced that TheBee's agenda is anything more than to discredit anyone critical of Waldorf, but I know that with the support of others here, I don't have to be the one that calls him on his behavior - so my best tack is to ignore him.

Regarding Venado's statement, I don't know how to get around personal experiences. My own experiences have left me with an opinion that Waldorf needs attention. If my experiences were isolated incidents and not confirmed by dozens of people who write to me personally or participate on discussion lists that I visit, I could agree that they don't reflect Waldorf. I look forward with enthusiasm to Jtfine's input here regarding his/her Waldorf experience as a student. I think experiences are very important in helping us to find what rings true in the article and what needs more formal sourcing. We are collectively, it seems, drawing on over a hundred years of experience here. That's a good thing in my view. Pete K 19:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete: your point is well taken! ;-) [*duh!*] and thanks for getting on board. I hope it's enough.

Venado: I agree this is all a waste of time if nobody learns from it, but I thought that it was the charge of Wikipedians to verify, rather than guess. This whole episode is likewise cause for shame and I've openly said so. But with all due respect, I disagree with your core premise. Without people with personal experiences to contribute not just to this article but to Wikipedia as a whole, there would be no motivation to contribute time to the effort, nobody would know where to look for the sources to support their statements and all we'd have would be a bunch of stubs or worse yet - no content at all. It is precisely because of personal experiences and personal interests that make this a vital place, even though sometimes people get waaaaaaay too carried away. I am curious though - in possessing no desire to edit the article, what is it that brings you here? - Wikiwag 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) A word for Wikiwag: thanks for your updated statement. The back-and-forth with apolgies had me unclear about where you stand. I'd appreciate it if you clarified the point where you quoted me. Although I posted on Bee's talk page, the statement was directed as much toward all the editors who were active there (except Lethaniol who's been stellar). That was as much a criticism of Pete and Diana as it was of Bee.

Also, regarding Jtfine - one thing these articles could definitely use is fresh blood. So far as I know, Jtfine hasn't expended the assumption of good faith yet. So let's not rush to conclude that this editor would ignore proper sourcing and other site standards. If there's a problem then try to bring the new editor up to speed. Jtfine didn't create the conflict on these pages and shouldn't bear the brunt of it. Best wishes all, Durova^Charge! 20:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Durova, regarding Jtfine, has anyone drawn that conclusion? Maybe I missed it somewhere. Pete K 21:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Durova: You're welcome and done. Thanks again.

Pete: I think she just wants to generally put it out there that she doesn't want to see the same thing that happened to me, happen to Jtfine. - Wikiwag 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete, I had Venado's statement in mind regarding Jtfine. That's not at a level worth putting on the main page of this review. More of a polite request. Durova^Charge! 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I tried to make it clear I wasn't signling anybody out, "I am not saying they can't edit if they have an opinion, but I think it is wrong to emphasize editors bring there personal experience, it is the other way around. " I am speaking to the general idea. Personal experience is not relevant and in these articles especially it has been an obstacle that personal experience is used instead of references to select and eliminate material from the article. The last thing the articles need at this stage is to more encourage editors bring there personal experience to the articles.Venado 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is that the last thing these articles need? Everything needs to be referenced anyway. One editor may have experiences that are totally opposite of another editor (case in point Jtfine's experiences of how science subjects are treated don't match mine). This opens up an opportunity for dialog and resolution, and finding language that satisfies both experiences. If lots of experienced people are here, it multiplies the opportunity to hear every viewpoint and come to an agreement. I agree with you Venado, when it's one editor's experience vs another editor's experience, there may be a head-butting contest, but with many editors representing many different experiences, I think the entire process is enhanced, rather than depreciated. Pete K 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I understand your point, Venado. What I meant to express in as friendly a way as possible - under the circumstances - is that a brand new editor gets a full lease on WP:AGF when the person first arrives. There's a larger point aimed not so much as you but as a general statement that human nature doesn't always tend that way. I suppose we've all walked into some bad situation or other that had already been brewing a while and felt the brunt of other people's mistakes. I don't mean to say you've crossed the line in that respect. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take on personal experience/opinion: if we see something in the article that doesn't ring true for us personally, we should discuss it on the talk page. We should not be inserting personal opinion in the actual article, unless it meets the arbcom criteria for verifiability and citability. Also, we need to be very conscious of whether our personal experiences are widespread or common to Waldorf...like the citation that got us into this WP:BLP problem in the first place.

We all have opinions and experiences with Waldorf, or we wouldn't be here. But those opinions and experiences do not belong in an encyclopedia article unless they are factual, verifiable and citable. Henitsirk 04:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Everybody minus one. I have no opinions or experiences with Waldorf. As far as I know, my only encounters with Waldorf and anthroposophy have been via editors at this site. That's one reason I do my best to avoid the content portion of these articles: any of you could run circles around me on this subject. I'm just doing my best to wield a neutral sysop mop. And if someone ever mentions Waldorf to me at a party, I will certainly change the subject (and then head to the snack table if they don't get the hint). Durova^Charge! 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag to me on Pete K's way of making defamatory statements and then refuse to substantiate them and to make personal insults and not adress that either, when requested:

"You would do well to follow his example"

As you maybe understand, I don't quite agree with you.

Thebee 12:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, again, with Henitsirk. We should discuss these things in detail. That particular citation, while verifiable, was certain to ruffle some feathers and it should not have been inserted without additional documentation to support that it wasn't an isolated incident - despite my own experience that suggests this sort of thing is widespread in Waldorf and for reasons that are addressable and repairable within the Waldorf movement. Yet we have seen the inclusion of lots and lots of material which cannot be supported with respect to how widespread the claims are. One thing that comes to mind is the rather bizarre claim by a study that was intended to suggest that Waldorf students are healthier than other students for some reasons related to Waldorf. Another study about "anti-racism" in Waldorf, which is currently in the article, is taken from a small sampling in one country and intended to represent a world-wide condition. Indeed, almost every claim made is based on a small sampling of schools, including the Todd Oppenheimer material. It is our own personal experience that determines for each of us whether to question the claims of this small sampling or not.

In my personal experience, the claim that brought us back to arbitration has been substantiated (in one form or another) no less than four times at just one Waldorf school I am familiar with (each case could have been prevented with proper oversight). Taking surrounding schools into account, similar incidents I can add several additional examples that confirms that this sort of thing happens. Reading the testimony of others on the internet, I feel satisfied that this sort of thing (physical abuse) is widespread. So while I agree that I should have discussed the inclusion of this material beforehand, if we had discussed this issue, I would still have been convinced that this is representative of Waldorf - whether or not additional published information supports this. If extraordinary positive claims can be made based on a single report, it seems reasonable to me that extraordinary negative claims can be made on the same criteria. If we agree that this is not how claims should be introduced, then it should be applied across the board. Pete K 14:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a distinction to be drawn between extraordinary negative claims and extraordinary positive claims and that distinction is drawn in life. If you say someone is a murderer, that is one thing; say they are handsome, that is another. To go back to your earlier paragraph, there is a problem with even outside research. No one is likely to be able to finance comprehensive research that would encompass the full variety presented by Waldorf schools across international and class variance. So a study of an inner city school may not reflect the reality of typical suburban schools, and studies of American schools may not reflect the German situation. I think that can be handled by appropriately identifying the scope of the study. Fred Bauder 14:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Producing evidence that someone is a murderer may turn out to be very "positive" for the people who intend be around that person. One can look at pointing out inappropriate teacher behavior as "negative" or "positive" depending on whether one takes into consideration the affect on the children that may potentially be involved with the teacher. Ignoring this type of thing is the equivalent of passing a poisoned water hole in the desert without putting a sign up. You either feel it's your obligation to help others, or you don't. While this may be an extrodinarily "negative" claim, the results of making it could certainly be extrodinarily positive for some people who heed it. It's not up to us to decide who benefits, but only whether the claim is supportable. This one is. Pete K 20:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiwag

Hi all - can someone explain to me in the edit by Fred here [18], what No basis exits for imposition of editing restrictions means.

If I take it to mean No basis exists for imposition of editing restrictions - is this statement applicable to just Wikiwag or all users? Cheers Lethaniol 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It applies to Wikiwag, but unless I find some strong evidence, I will not propose editing restrictions on anyone other than Pete K. It is possible the rest of the arbitrators will adopt a more balanced approach and put mild editing restrictions on everybody. Fred Bauder 16:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thebee

"Wikiwag to me on Pete K's way of making defamatory statements and then refuse to substantiate them and to make personal insults and not adress that either, when requested:

"You would do well to follow his example"

"As you maybe understand, I don't quite agree with you.

I was actually referring to letting bygones be bygones.

Now, if you're saying you don't agree with that - fair enough.

I stated that the sword you were wielding cut both ways...So let us discuss your defamatory allegations of "libel" [19], your defamatory allegations of sock-puppetry which have been proven baseless, your defamatory allegations of "vandalism" [20] - I don't think I need to continue.

Would you care to answer those charges?

My point is this, friend:

You have a lot of cleaning up of your own conduct to accomplish, before you go around criticizing others.

Until you do - meaning until you demonstrate good faith and civility on an ongoing basis, until you stop trying to win points at the misconduct of others, and until you answer my charges against you, that by the way have been endorsed by Durova - you have no right whatsoever to take such a superior tone with anyone.

I want to be able to work with you. Please make it possible by keeping the same standards for yourself that you apply to others. - Wikiwag 04:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag, you make a good point but that shouts a bit too loud. If we're really here to let bygones be bygones, don't whittle an olive branch into a slingshot. Bee, the best way to gain credibility when asking for an apology is to begin by extending one's own. Durova^Charge! 04:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Durova, since we're still in arbitration, and this is the arbitration page, are we really supposed to be letting bygones be bygones here? On the Waldorf page, yes, of course, but I don't see why putting TheBee's constant sniping and antagonizing into perspective isn't appropriate here. Pete K 13:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Durova: I completely agree with you on principle; it is not my desire to make a slingshot or to shout too loudly. In practice though, it's not possible to let anything be by-gone when the offending conduct persists.

What you are witnessing here, is a perfect illustration of a very frustrating and ongoing dynamic where Thebee "pounces," as I put it in my evidentiary statement, on the precieved mistake of someone else. He makes a major issue out of it, sidestepping all efforts to diffuse the situation, and all the while expecting his own misconduct to be simply overlooked. Then when someone calls him in the inconsistency and cites chapter and verse (as I indicated in my statement and above), he says something like "I don't agree," or "it's not credible," or simply does not respond to it at all; if necessary, I can provide diffs to support these statements, but I haven't the time just at this moment.

He is also very careful about who he does this to. Cases in point: he did not take you or Lethaniol to task for your apt and appropriate comments on his conduct; Thebee wouldn't dare accuse an arbitrator or mentor of incivility. But, the same comment from anyone else would result in an eruption of complaints to an arbitrator or admin. The onus then falls on the person in Thebee's sights to defend themselves.

This frankly is a waste of everyone's time [yours, the ArbComm's, mine, and anyone else whose been snared in a similar trap] and detracts and distracts from the business of editing articles. It needs to stop, and Thebee is the only one who can stop it. Hopefuly he will take your advice to heart and respond appropriately, fairly and for the foreseeable future.

With that said, and being someone who has earned my deep and profound respect, if I have erred I would welcome your suggestions on how I should approach such matters in the future.

As always, thank you for your help and your counsel. - Wikiwag 14:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well gosh, deep and profound respect? Don't make me blush. I've observed what you're saying. I've given my statement to the committee. If anyone wishes to update theirs with additional evidence they may do so. The bottom line is, unless someone gets topic banned the rest of you will have to work together. Depersonalize the dispute as much as possible. Although certain editors go out of their way not to antagonize me because I'm a sysop, many other editors at this site have the opposite reaction. They're like naughty little children looking for buttons to push and if they find a button that actually gets a reaction they're relentless. Every now and then an administrator self-destructs under the pressure. I tend to chuckle lightly and pour another glass of lemonade, then get right back to work. Those are nothing more than a few lines of text on a website. On my 1 to 10 scale of stress the highest Wikipedia ever rated was a 3 and that had nothing to do with an edit dispute: it was the time I reported an online suicide note to the Pennsylvania state police. I worked out all ten places on that scale. It was a good exercise. If Wikipedia starts to seem too involving, try writing your own stress scale to reestablish perspective. Durova^Charge! 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Durova: Hehehe - ok...perhaps I overstated it a bit. I hear you. This really doesn't stress me - I just can't stand people who practice a double standard. But notice that Thebee continues to devote his attention to areas where he can "push buttons" as you rightly put it, while he leaves arguments that he knows he's lost or been pinned dead-to-rights - totally alone (including this one). Well I've done my part in underscoring the offense; nothing more needs to be said as far as I'm concerned. And I see the article's open again! Time to get back to work :-) Thanks again for everything. - Wikiwag 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag 10 Feb :

"... let us discuss your defamatory allegations of "libel" [21], your defamatory allegations of sock-puppetry which have been proven baseless, your defamatory allegations of "vandalism" [22] - I don't think I need to continue."

I have addressed the libel issue (that did not involve you) twice, and described the first instance above on 12 Feb.

As for the sock-puppetry issue, I can understand that expressed suspicion of it can feel more or less insulting, if unfounded. When Pete K brought it up at one time last year in one discussion (now I think deleted), and requested an admin to investigate it, I told him that it was rubbish with regard to me, and left the issue. I have told of the basis for my suspicion with regard to you on 11 Jan. here/here and Durova has twice on 17 Jan. [23], [24], expressed the same suspicion. An IP-check 3 Feb., while possibly indicative, can neither prove nor disprove actual sock puppetry. This is the case even if different postings come from the same IP, and also the opposite, if the posting from two seemingly different users consistently come from different IPs. The latter has also been commented on [25] by Diana W. It must be based on other criteria.

In your case, you have accused me (three times, 11 and 19 Jan.) [26], [27], [28], and reasserting your accusation a fourth time [29] of having "attacked" you in a discussion that took place (18 and 19 Oct. last year) long before you registered as "Wikiwag" in Jan. this year, and where only Diana W, Pete K, "goethean" and I participated in the discussion. This is one of the things that has contributed to my continued suspicion. After having read an increasing number of your postings, I find it increasingly improbable that you are a sock puppet of Diana W, which has been my primary suspicion, and apologized for this above on 6 Feb..

As for the vandalism issue, the posting that you give the diff for - [30] - probably is self explanatory. It was a question to Thatcher131, if repeated deletion by Pete K in Jan. of three research links in a posting I had made one month earlier in response to a question by one user, constituted vandalism or not. Thatcher131 did not answer (as far as I noticed). I don't quite see what I should apologize for in the case, as you can seem to indicate. Can you tell me?

Thanks, Thebee 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline for review decision

It has been a while now since the review started, and the vast majority of evidence has been placed. Also there has been no major additions to proposed decisions for a while. My question is, that with the ArbCom looking like it has all the information it needs to make a decision on the review, how long we should expect before other Arbitrators start to vote, and the review is concluded? Cheers Lethaniol 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The review is listed for voting now. The arbitrators may be discussing it on their closed mailing list, but we'll never know. Other arbitrators could add their votes at any time; however there is currently the largest number of cases open for voting at any one time since I can remember. Thatcher131 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks Thatcher - I appreciate that the workload of the ArbCom is very high, and will be patient for their votes. Cheers Lethaniol 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay time to query again. There is basically no movement here at this Review, and yet it still hangs over the editing at Waldorf Education etc..., leaving me and probably others feeling in limbo. Any chance of this review being closed soon? Respectfully User:Lethaniol 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TheBee's latest ridiculous claim

TheBee has provided "context" for his latest ridiculous claim that is equally ridiculous. I hope the ArbCom will look carefully at what was said in its TRUE context and not the fabricated context that TheBee has manufactured. Thanks! Pete K 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On-going problems

I did not enter evidence originally because I felt that Fred Bauder had fairly and accurately summarized the situation. I have now entered evidence of recent abuses (on the review page) because the situation continues as before, i.e. with inordinate difficulties. Hgilbert 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand behind every edit I have made. The real story is that you have returned both the Anthroposophy and Steiner articles to essentially the condition they were in 6 months ago and you continue to introduce brochure language and unacceptable sources into the those articles and the Waldorf article. We haven't even gotten started with the Steiner and Anthroposophy articles yet and it's certainly obvious you would like to get rid of me before we do this. Anyone can look at those articles and see how many Anthroposophical sources are used to support otherwise unbelievable claims. Your "evidence" shows that I am working hard to remove these sources despite your efforts to continually re-introduce them. Pete K 15:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As you say, we have not really begun working on the anthroposophy and Steiner articles yet. None of the sources you removed in these edits are anthroposophical. We have successfully produced a high-quality Waldorf education article, and are ready to move to the other articles applying the same standards.

In other areas, I have introduced anthroposophical sources as citations for purely factual material; that this is allowed has repeatedly been affirmed by the arbitrators. None of these have been contested by editors (other than Pete K); their status as factual has been upheld by independent editors in every case. Pete K has, however, introduced anthroposophical sources for polemical purposes in non-factual areas; these have been contested by a range of editors and consistently removed. Hgilbert 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete_K: the references you say were "sneaked in" were discussed in the talk pages. They were independent published references (not Steiner published) which many of the editors agreed were allowed for noncontroversial statements. I asked you to times to describe how the facts referenced by them were controversial in any way and you would not say. You only say that the sources cant be used be cause the authors were tied to Waldorf, not that there was any dispute to the claims. The consensus between us after you complained was to find other sources just to avoid fighting about it, and you were the only one fighting I think. The references were taken out and then sourced with other references. So the whole thing caused extra work but did not change the article text hardly at all. It just made busy work by removing sources that were technicaly o.k. because they were independent published and not controversial.

You give an excuse every time there is a difference of opinion with some one else about whats o.k. and what isnt. If its over a very respected published source, you say that the author doesnt have the "years of study" required to understand it like you have. If they say "X", you say "wrong X isn't true" then try to make sure it isn't verified by any kind of source. "I dont care what the source says, its wrong". When other editors dont agree with your opinion its always because there is a secret motive, they are lying, they have an agenda, they are a sock, they don't have enough knowledge. This is just a new one, that there motive is to "slingshot" to administrator. You must be the only user in the whole wikipedia that can judge how good the article is. The only one who knows whats accurate or POV, the only one who is really honest and objective with the purest intentions.Venado 03:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right! I am the only one who can properly assess whether this article is true to my experience of Waldorf. It is not. I didn't just stop by Waldorf for a year or two - I was immersed in it for over 15 years, I was married to a Waldorf teacher who was previously a Waldorf student. I know it very well, and I know the methods of Waldorf teachers and supporters and their tendency to hide the truth - and I know why they do it, I know when they are doing it and I know how to bring the truth out. But, of course, that doesn't make me a lot of friends, so that's fine with me. Is there a secret motive behind the sneaky edits? I hope it's not secret any more, because I've been trying to make it clear in the past couple of weeks during my lame-duck period what the motive is. And yes, some sources are very wrong. Here is part of what's wrong with Oppenheimer's article, for example. Lots and lots of people feel just exactly like I do about the efforts of Waldorf to hide what is going on - and they have been extremely successful in this article. Most of the truth is now buried in the discussion page archives so we again have a very twisted view portrayed here. In a month or so, I suspect a new team of critics will arrive here to start this process all over again - for one simple reason - THE ARTICLE IS NOT TRUTHFUL. So we can just start the process again, and TheBee and HGilbert can try to intimidate or discredit the new editors as they have previous editors, and hopefully, thanks to my playing hardball with them these past few months, their actions will be scrutinized a little more carefully next time. As for me - I'm done here and have been for some time already. I don't have the time or energy left to go through and point out everything wrong with this article any more. Fresh editors will find it and I'm sure will fix it. I'm on to other venues. Pete K 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC and GA assessment

Your OPINION is that we have created a "high-quality Waldorf education article" - and it is nothing more than your opinion at this point. That it resembles what you yourself created probably contributes to your opinion of it. A truly high-quality Waldorf Education article would be quite different if not for your continued influence to promote your POV. I have, indeed, identified many sources that you have tried to sneak into the articles that were, in fact, Anthroposopical sources. Others not familiar with those authors wouldn't have known this. Pete K 23:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We could look at the opinion of a completely objective editor. Hgilbert 11:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, problem is, the "completely objective editor" you mention is trying to parlay his work on this article to slingshot him into a position as an administrator - so his reasons for claiming "Mission Accomplished" are apparent here (no offense intended to Lethaniol - there's nothing wrong with what he has done but one cannot work on these articles for very long and still maintin complete objectivity). You should probably wait for the RFC before suggesting anyone currently working on this article has been completely objective. Even then, we won't know who is doing the reviewing and what their connections to Waldorf or the material might be since this is a site of anonymous users. The information in the article is all we have to go by and so far, it is not objective or neutrally presented - at all. Pete K 16:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Hgilbert's characterization of Lethaniol as completely unbiased. A careful reading of the thread on my user talk page will demonstrate that my principal advice was for him to raise an article to WP:GA based on his own contributions. More article space edits would be of greater benefit to him in a candidacy. I have been urging him to try for adminship for some time and he has been reticent about considering my unsolicited offer of a nomination. Lethaniol hopes to help Waldorf Education become a good article - an admirable goal - and one fundamental requirement of good articles is that they be neutral. Even if he acted out of self-interest (which I doubt) he would have no motivation to promote article bias. Durova^Charge! 02:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say I am slightly taken aback by Pete K's suggestion: that I would try and use a RFC and GA assessment to try and "slingshot" my way to Adminship. Just so you know, as any WP:RfA request will likely be soon, any RfC and subsequent GA (if the RfC is probably positive) will takes weeks (maybe months) to complete, and hence unrelated - if I want a GA article I will need to concentrate on Catch-22 myself. Also if I wanted to use the Waldorf Education in such a way, I would have skipped WP:RfC and gone straight for WP:GA.

I accept that by becoming so deeply involved in this topic, as a mediator, I have two problems. 1. I do not know how to assess the source of various references (whether Anthroposophical or not etc...) - something that Pete K has been useful in helping with. 2. That I am so involved, that I am not the best person to assess the neutrality or style of the article - hence why I suggested and brought about the RfC. Another reason for the the RfC and suggested GA assessment, is to say well done everyone for what is IMHO becoming an excellent article. I understand your objections Pete K, but I often do not agree. As others have commented I try to be unbiased as possible. Remember I do not really care for Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy, but I am passionate about Wikipedia - which should look to have all notable subjects (which these topics definitely are) to a high article standard. Cheers Lethaniol 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Lethaniol, I'm sorry if it sounded like I'm accusing you of bias. That's not what I meant at all and I stated that I didn't mean "lack of objectivity" in an offensive way. Everyone who works on this article loses objectivity because the material is so controversial. It's like a point I was trying to make a couple of days ago using halocaust denial as an example. People who deny the halocaust don't get to parlay that viewpoint into a NPOV that's half way between the viewpoints that halocaust happened or didn't happen. One viewpoint is true, the other is false, despite contentions on one side. That's what I feel has happened in this article - we have a very strong and organized group that has presented a viewpoint that is simply not true. Not that I've been through the halocaust, but I've been through the Waldorf equivalent of it and it's pretty ugly. People from the Waldorf camp who continually deny this happens are, in my view, not allowed to move where the NPOV should be. Neutral means recognizing both sides (including abuse in the schools) and presenting it fairly. Pretending horrible things haven't happened in Waldorf is EXACTLY the same as denying the halocaust. That's why objectivity is so easily sacrificed when one enters this arena. Again, my apologies if I offended you - it was not my intention and I see that I chose my words badly. Since it appears I'll be gone soon, I've stepped up the nature of my discourse while I await the message on my user page that bans me (as the conclusion seems to be a foregone one). I think it is appropriate that fresh but experienced eyes look at the article and evaluate it - that's all I meant to say. Again, my apologies and in case I don't get to say bye - bye. Pete K 23:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point of Wikipedia (like most encyclopaedias) - it is a tertiary source used to represent, in a easily digestible form, information on the subject of concern. To do this, in as fair and unbiased a fashion as possible, we try to pick subjects that are notable, and back up all information in the article with sources that we think we can rely on - to do anything otherwise would obviously lead to a mess very quickly.

Therefore Wikipedia can only work with the primary and secondary sources that are already out there. It is NOT, I repeat NOT, for Wikipedia to even try to tell the absolute truth, as this is impossible. It can only work with the current knowledge of mankind, that is readily available and that we believe we can trust. Therefore the Wikipedia entry for Waldorf Education will never look like you think it should, because your experiences suggest that the article is all wrong. This maybe the case, and Waldorf Education maybe a great evil, but until that is shown to be the case with appropriate sources, then Wikipedia will be stuck with presenting the information that it currently can. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform to try and change current opinions on a subject. If this is what you wish to do, then there are numerous other platforms that can be engaged with. I restate, Wikipedia is NOT for rewriting the wrongs in the world that have otherwise gone largely unnoticed.

Furthermore, I do not see the current Waldorf Education article as unneutral/POV pushing. The controversies section IMHO is pretty damning, and as a scientist I am pretty shocked by the immunisations issues. If there are other notable controversies out there, then open up discussion on the talk page about including them, I think there has been a positive reception when this has been done in the past, and the article is better for it.

Anyway enough of my rant. Cheers Lethaniol 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem comes at the administration end - because it's ultimately up to the administrators/arbitrators to all allow or exclude sources - and as we've seen, this can be subjective. When someone removes something that, to them, looks like a blog - despite being a place where highly eductated (PhD's) experts on the subject post well-researched articles that include citations, I think administrators need to step in and rule on the content - regardless of the venue. A scholarly article that is verifyable, properly sourced and meets every standard of scholarly material except for the appearance of the website where it is posted shouldn't be excluded - or should at least be assessed by the administrators/arbitrators. Pete K 20:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. The problems come from editors who dont contribute constructively with out constant supervision. It is not the arbitrators job to babysit and check each source editors disagree over. Its the editors job to take responsibility for there own edits. The philosophy of the project requires editors to be responsible for them selves. Especially learn the policies and guidelines. Even if the author self-publishes on the internet but has a PhD it isnt allowed for a source at wikipedia except rare exceptions. There are many reasons why a source would not be allowed even its author has a PhD. It is against one of the main tenets of wikipedia philosophy for arbitrators or admins to "step in and rule on the content". Disputes about content should be settled between editors. All the editors have the same rules. All need to take responsibility and make good faith judgements which conform to the policies without hand holding. The amount of time arbitrators have already spent on us is a shame. They have already given more attention to us than we could expect, to demand they give more is to draw resources away from much more needed work at wikipedia than babysitting editors. Venado 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. Yes, there are "rare exceptions" - and who makes those? You? That's what I'm asking for here. Why is that so hard to understand? "Disputes about content should be settled between editors." Good, let's settle it between us then - instead of you trying to bully me around. There are rules and there are guidelines and everything has room for reasonable exceptions and rulings and so forth. The content issue is significant here - without this content the entire article is completely distorted. That's why it needs to be examined. Why don't you stop pretending you are enforcing policy and get to the issue - you don't want the content in the article. I'd like a second opinion - preferably by someone who isn't biased. Pete K 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have repeated this to much to miss it. Find properly published sources. Every body else at wikipedia has to to this before they ad content. If editors use unallowed references, then of course it will be removed. It is not bias, its official policy.Venado 23:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also repeated this - the ONLY thing wrong with the source you don't want to include is the appearance of the site it is on. You claim it looks like a blog - despite that I have provided the same article on several other sites and sources. I'm not interested in your opinion of the appearance of the site - I'm interested in the content of the article written by a PhD candidate at Cornell and on a site supported by PhD's and scholars that are experts in the field of the topic - i.e. peers reviewing the material. Nobody except YOU has said this source isn't allowed. Why don't you yield the floor and let someone else decide? Pete K 23:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the talk page an arbitrator gave the opinion it wasnt a good source either, and you restored it saying that only one arbitrator opinion was not a ruling. I have tried to tell you arbitrators do not "rule" content disputes because you said here the problems are there fault because they arent ruling on content disputes. There are 1.5 million articles at English wikipedia and about 12 arbitrators. It is our job to weigh in with these opinions, not theres. It is an editors job, not administrators.Venado 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing my share. I say the reference and content stays in because it is a solid research paper that has been peer reviewed and that it should not be excluded based on the appearance of the website. You can "tell" me stuff until you're blue in the face - that doesn't make it true, BTW. You have no more authority here than I do so your interpretation of ANYTHING is no more valid than mine - just so you will know where I'm coming from. I certainly don't think you are better able to interpret anything and judging from your writing skills, you don't even seem to be too comfortable with the english language, so where do you get off "telling" me anything. You are entitled to your opinion - that's all. Pete K 04:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The arguments in the dispute on the source belong in the article's talk page.[31] I'm sorry that I don't take the time and care to edit my talk page entries, but my article edits are very clean. I get compliments for my article edits [32], [33] and I often get agreement from editors for my opinions, including my opinion this was not a published source [34] which I got good feedback from [35]. When I said 2 months earlier that we had to concentrate on solutions and consensus which will stop divided editors from using obstruction tactics to pry edit decisions away from other editors up to admins and arbitrators,[36], I got support feedback for this by others also.[37].Venado 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're one heck of a guy. You can post as many attaboys as you like here - it doesn't change the facts. Your voice is no more worthy than mine. Actually, probably less worthy since you work under an alias... and we all know what problems THAT can cause. You still only get one opinion and one vote. Pete K 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are all your attaboys to me, and said to me when I said the same thing I said here once before. When I say it to "the other side", you agreed with me. When I say the same thing I said before to you now, you dont agree anymore. My voice and my opinion is not "worth more" but at least it is consistent.Venado 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm consistent too - when you're right you're right, and when you're wrong, you're wrong. I'm the first to admit when you are right. In this case, you're wrong. The attaboys should let you know this isn't personal - each case is worth looking at individually. You're not suggesting you're consistently "right" are you? <G>. Pete K 22:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but if something is right it is always right. It does not change just when I need it to to win in a dispute. Content disputes are supposed to be resolved with consensus from other editors. The arbitrator role is the last resort venue for personal disputes, not for taking over the decision in content disputes that occur between editors.Venado 22:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll start back on the edge of the page if you don't mind - the indents are getting crazy. Something that is right in one case may or may not be right in another case. The issue here has been that legitimate scholarly research and content has been excluded because of the appearance of the page. Another editor on the Steiner talk page agreed that this is, indeed, a scholarly work and despite being on a slightly informal page, it is indeed on a page reserved for discussion by scholars. The author is a published author in this exact field. The article is available in both critical and Anthroposophical venues. There is no doubt as to its origin or its author. And the information in it is supported by 50 citations of other scholars and historians. It's not like this is a blog from Myspace, it's a discussion page connected to a university and used by professors at that university. I agree arbitrators and administrators shouldn't have to get involved in this - but it's only because some here are going to such great efforts to suppress certain material that we are having to get ruling on something as simple as this. It's good, solid work by a PhD candidate at Cornell - posted on a discussion page for professors. If you go over to the PLANS article, you will see editorials from neighborhood newspapers being used to source claims of everything from witchcraft to death threats by individuals. This is good, unbiased research and there is no question it should be allowed here. Pete K 01:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another edit war

There is yet another edit war going on - in which I am not involved - between Pete K and another editor, Venado. From what I can tell, Venado is making a genuinely good faith effort to replace dubious sources used by Pete (an article signed only by the first name of an author and "published" on a blog) with at least somewhat higher quality sources, even using ones as close to the original in spirit as possible (thus ending up with anarchist-press published material, which is pretty doubtful in itself). Pete is holding onto his blog source, with multiple reverts. This is pretty clearly against the spirit and letter of the arbitration ruling.

Probably the whole citation should be excised, but the edit warring and dubious sourcing is part of a larger pattern.Hgilbert 11:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is under discussion above. The "larger pattern" is that of biased editing on both sides. Pete K 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(copied from Rudolf Steiner)Right simple solution to this problem - I suggest you take it. If Peter Staudenmaier is truly a expert in the area of Anthroposophy then he will either have peer reviewed journal articles (can not find any) or published works (only thing I can find is [38] and I do not think this is particularly relevant). This suggests to me that he is not really a notable expert to work from (great to use his work to find other sources that we can use). Using his work, would be like using my 1st PhD year report (which had 80+ references) as a source - no one in the scientific community would take it seriously (and certainly not quote it) until it was published (though they would take an interest). Hence I suggest that until P.Staudenmaier is shown to be an expert in the area, his unpublished works/comments/opinions should not be used as references in these topics. Cheers Lethaniol 16:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Incredible. A search on Peter Staudenmaier on Amazon shows that no less than 22 books use Peter Staudenmaier's work as a reference in their own books. And we shouldn't use his work as a reference here? I find this to be absurd. Pete K 03:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please give the link to this Amazon search - I can not find that this info is at all correct. Cheers Lethaniol 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Here Lethaniol [39]. As I said, I have already used this reference to verify the claim. Toward the bottom of the page amazon shows 9 books citing this one. I want to say again that in this book there are 2 separate authored essays and Staudenmaier's essay was not relevant for the verification, only the coauthor's essay. Staudenmaier's significance as historian is getting exaggerated greatly here.Venado 16:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Peter Staudenmaier is not a 1st year PhD. [40] Pete K 03:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is Mr. Staudenmaier's dissertation topic at Cornell - "Occultism, Race Thinking and Fascism: Race and Politics in German and Italian Anthroposophy, 1900-1945". Ya think maybe he knows what he's talking about? Geez. Again, I encourage the Arbitration Committee to look at the sources that are claimed as "acceptable" in the PLANS article - editorials in neighborhood newspapers. Sources like Mr. Staudenmaier are gleaming examples of good authorship and peer reviewed material. Pete K 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review - where? A PhD dissertation is not an example of peer review research until published (at best). Really we need either books or journal articles on Anthroposophy - which this PhD student does not have yet. Cheers Lethaniol 16:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me? Are you asserting that a doctoral dissertation does not undergo peer review? That's wrong, at least for doctoral degrees earned at reputable institutions in the United States. The dissertation is a very thoroughly peer-reviewed publication complete with oral defense by a dissertation committee usually composed of several faculty in the student's department and at least one from a different department/field. They are often reworked into a publishable journal article or monogram but that is largely a change in style rather than a change in content. --ElKevbo 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I should have been clearer. This PhD appears in this case not yet to be published/finished, but when it is published I agree it should have undergone a peer review. The reason I added (at best) was that I am not sure whether the University that this PhD student is at is reputable or not (I am from the UK). I try to take care not to give absolutes. If I had said that any published PhD dissertation is appropraite to reference, then this may have come back to bite if someone found a thesis from a dubious institution.Cheers Lethaniol 19:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a very reputable university but the dispute is not over the dissertation which probably isnt even written yet. Pete_K has been claiming other self-publish uploads to a website were peer reviewed, not the dissertation. None of his arguments have been on point. He gave irrelevant links and exaggerations and wasted hours of our time following checking out his non-useful links and other information. He has given to much red herrings and distracting dead ends just like this one, because there is no dissertation.Venado 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding - right? Cornell is the top university in the U.S. This isn't a fly-by-night internet university. Cornell is Ivy League - like Harvard or Yale or Oxford. Please look it up before you call it a "dubious institution". Pete K 19:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not call it a dubious institution, I said I did not know. Sigh. Cheers Lethaniol 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"If I had said that any published PhD dissertation is appropraite to reference, then this may have come back to bite if someone found a thesis from a dubious institution." This wasn't you? {sigh} Pete K 20:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also the sad fact is, that if you have worked with the Wikipedia system, and waited for this PhD student to publish, then I would have likely supported the use of their work to a certain degree. If you are soon banned then this info may now never be incorporated. Cheers Lethaniol 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I trust that others will arrive and continue here long after I am gone. The "PhD student" is already published, and an expert in this field. The research he has done is valid and cited, peer reviewed by professors at the top university in the US - and, again, he has been published on this very topic. There is no reason to suspect the Wikipedia nonsense will stop if I wait long enough. Pete K 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no... you've misunderstood - it needs to be peer reviewed by a Commission of Anthroposophists to pass muster here <sarcasm>. Pete K 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You misread the amazon stats. One Staudenmaier book is cited in 9 other publications. It is the same book I already used as a reference in the article because his coauthor's essay in it was relevant to verify claim. so this argument is over. You cant add other unpublished or self published Staudenmaier articles as a reference simply on the strength of his 1 or 3 years study toward a PhD or that he had one essay in a book published 10 years ago so what ever he writes down period can be used to verify claims in footnotes at wikipedia. This is what the dispute is about, sourcing with Staudmaier's unpublished work.Venado 16:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's about his expert status here - and yes, why not use his other material - or even invite him here as an expert. His credentials are much more easily verified than, say, Essjay's. Pete K 16:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End of Adoption/Mentorship

I am afraid to tell all, that I have ended my Adoption/Mentorship of Pete K.

It seems to have got to stage where Pete K is going for broke - using unreliable sources, regularly edit warring, breaking WP:3RR and using Wikipedia as a general Soapbox for his POV.

I strongly suggest and appeal to the ArbCom to get on with voting and closing this ArbCom review. Cheers Lethaniol 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort Fred Bauder 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for helping to move this forward finally. Let's just get it over with, shall we? Pete K 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion for your attention

I thought I should bring to your attention the following deletions, all by the same Admin User: Luigi30 - who has shown an disinterest (understandable) in using edit summaries fully when deleting articles User talk:Luigi30#Waldorf Education.

First of all there is the deletion of Waldorf schools' organization and administration, and then its repeated redeletion. Note I asked for a copy to be placed in my userspace on the first deletion, please access it here: User:Lethaniol/Waldorf Education.

And now the much more controversial deletion of [Dan Dugan], with merely the edit summary statement "spam".

I bring this here to highlight the issue, though I am not sure there even is an issue. Note though I think that deletion in both cases is inappropriate, and that a redirect/merge discussion in the first case was needed, and in the second an AFD followed by a redirect/merge in the second.

Finally I suggest whoever is interested in the recreation of these articles, please take it to WP:DRV do not just recreate them. Also I have brought to User: Luigi30's attention this discussion.

So why didn't anyone tell me when I was doing all this that this was the subject of an RFAr? I looked at it as a new user trying to write a page about a school and I was trying to help them with rewriting it to make it meet notability guidelines. Luigi30 (Taλk) 23:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not say at first because I thought that the first deletion of Waldorf schools' organization and administration was not necessarily wrong - and not related to the ArbCom issues (I thought you were just housekeeping). I only just picked up on the other deletes so I thought I should bring it here, so that everyone involved can understand the situation, and possible discuss the bigger issues. Note I am not suggesting you have acted in bad faith Luigi30 (though I do disagree with the facts these deletions should be redirect/merges). Cheers Lethaniol 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can ask who the "new user" was that kept adding back the article on Waldorf schools' organization and administration? Cheers Lethaniol 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Me undeleting the page seems to have nuked the history. Luigi30 (Taλk) 23:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there it is, User:Hgilbert Luigi30 (Taλk) 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK Hgilbert will probably come along and defend himself soon enough, but suffice to say that he is a long-running regular editor of the articles concerned with this ArbCom Review, but has limited experience outside of this topic, and might not be familiar with the processes behind deletion and undeletion.

In terms of the history of these pages, the vast number were set up by pro-Anthroposophists, and they had obvious bias. Since the ArbCom decisions and probation, most of the hard work has gone into Waldorf Education and work is now moving onto Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner. The idea being that we get the big articles sorted first and work our way down. It is thought that during this process that a number of articles will be merged or deleted. So Luigi30 you can see you have jumped ahead of the our timetable a little, hence why the initial response to the deletions has been - "hold on a second". It is not that the deletions are incorrect, but that they have come from the blue (and even suggest on the face of it to have a sinister motive - though I am sure this is not the case), and I think most of the people involved would prefer some detailed discussion on any deletions/merges before they happen. Cheers Lethaniol 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know it was a debated subject. If I would have known that I wouldn't have speedied them. Luigi30 (Taλk) 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem lol. One when forward might be to undelete them, and put a WP:PROD on the pages. Will get the other editors rallied, have a discussion on the talk pages concerned, and try and sort it out. If anyone is unhappy with the decision then we can take it to WP:AFD, to get a community decision. Cheers Lethaniol 23:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, easy enough. Luigi30 (Taλk) 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not been reverting this article's deletion. I was probably the original creator of the article; it may have been one of a number of articles created to move less central information off the Waldorf page. Where did my name come from as someone reverting its deletion, however? Hgilbert 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The information will be accessible from the deleted page's history which only Admins can access. I suggest you ask the deleting admin Luigi30 for why he said you had been recreating the article.

Anyway Hgilbert do you agree with the solution I wrote above? Cheers Lethaniol 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am not an administrator and cannot undelete articles. Nor have I done so here. (According to the history page, I last edited the article in August of last year!)

Second of all, I am not at all attached to this article, which was a stop-gap to clean up the main article. I suggest we work on the copy at User:Lethaniol/Waldorf Education; anything of value can either be cleaned up there (if we really want an article by this name) or incorporated into the main article. Having looked at its present contents, I don't think anyone will be seriously worried about losing the article! Hgilbert 01:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence by Fergie

I am copying this here from Fergie's talk page:

Fergie, I have to say I find your evidentiary statement upsetting. As Venado also stated, I think it would have been better for you to back up your claims of single-issue editing and POV pushing with concrete examples.

I can only speak for myself here. I am NOT single-purpose at Wikipedia. True, I have spent a lot of time on anthroposophy articles, because that is an area in which I have interest. However I have also been involved with numerous random articles as a member of the League of Copyeditors (I assume that's what you meant by the "to be fair" comment by my name). There is nothing wrong with contributing to articles in areas of interest, as you do with cycling. And I question what you would know about my activities in any other web forums.

I take the ethos of Wikipedia very seriously. I feel that calling me "not wikipedian" and a "manipulator" of articles is insulting. I have gone out of my way to work for consensus, and have made specific efforts to work cooperatively with editors whose opinions I do not always share.

While I understand that you may have wanted to point out that there is a group of editors who may have difficulties with objectivity and bias, I wish you would have used a less aggressive tone and kept more to factual statements.

Henitsirk 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not just trying to defend myself; I think this evidentiary statement is inflammatory and inappropriate. Henitsirk 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to confirm the above statement; Henitsirk has been quite supportive of Pete K at times, for example (irritatingly so at times!) In addition, I also find Fergie's characterizations of other editors, including myself, to be unsupported (not a single diff despite the inflammatory content!) and inaccurate. Hgilbert 01:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I now realise that my statement did unfairly give the impression that everybody mentioned was extremely POV in their editing so I have modified it. However I stand by the core assertion that the articles in question suffer due to a preponderance of single-issue editors. --Fergie 08:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fergie. Henitsirk 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Close before block of Pete K expires 23:21, 17 March 2007 UTC?

23:21 tonight, 17 March 2007 UTC(?) the one week block of Pete K expires. Will the reopened arbitration be closed by then by someone?? Thanks, Thebee 15:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a motion to close the case supported by four arbitrators before there is a formal closing. This is unlikely, though not impossible, to happen today. If there is any disruptive behavior, reporting it to ANI with a link to the prior discussion and the case page should receive prompt attention. Newyorkbrad 15:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Thebee 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Four ArbCom votes have been provided supporting the closing of the review. Who implements it? Thanks, Thebee 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's coordinated through the ArbCom Clerks' noticeboard. Someone is assigned and this will be done within the next 24 hours. Newyorkbrad 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Saw that (Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard#To_be_closed). Thanks, Thebee 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In a bit of a hurry, TheBee? The witch-hunt is over... but everyone knows you now - they know you can't be trusted and they know your tactics. I'm happy to be done here - otherwise this could have gone on for years. You've brought Wikipedia down to the level of your own malicious rags/websites. Congratulations! Enjoy your new career - ensuring that the truth is never told. Pete K 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the Review page:

"1) Pete K is banned indefinitely from editing Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and related pages or their talk pages."

This page is one of the Waldorf related pages. I assume the implementation of the ArbCom decision means he is banned indefinitely also from further editing of this page? Thanks, Thebee 20:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete K to me:

"Enjoy your new career - ensuring that the truth is never told."

Just as a short reminder: You're the one who has been banned indefinitely from the editing of all Waldorf-related articles here for among other things use of propaganda techniques and distortion of information, not me.

Well...not yet anyway. Don't mistake my absence for abandonment, or indulge in the luxury of forgetting that your conduct was likewise called into serious question. Nevertheless, I offer you congratulations. Enjoy your victory. But exercise caution in your conduct as it is still very much on the radar. Cheers! - Wikiwag 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion along these lines is unlikely to be helpful or productive to anyone. Everyone, please stop. Newyorkbrad 22:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Who can answer if the ruling regarding Pete K means that he is banned from the further posting also on this Waldorf related talks page, and if his continued participation in discussion on this page will result in a block of him? Thanks, Thebee 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be any further discussion on this page. Newyorkbrad 23:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My question was a question of principle. Thanks, Thebee 00:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In principle, if he posted here for a legitimate purpose of clarifying the remedy, etc., that would be acceptable. If it was just to carry on the content dispute in the underlying article, that might be different. Newyorkbrad 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, Thebee, I think you were trying to make a point rather than a principle. In principle, editors are not banned from arbitration cases to which they are parties, and I have never seen this question asked or your viewpoint advocated before. Thatcher131 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad and Thatcher: Agreed on all points. And I apologize if I wrote anything inappropriate. This will be my last post here. - Wikiwag 09:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, you write:

"Frankly, Thebee, I think you were trying to make a point rather than a principle. In principle, editors are not banned from arbitration cases to which they are parties, and I have never seen this question asked or your viewpoint advocated before."

My question concerned the present, post arbitration review situation, after five of six active arbitrators 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC) passed a resolution, banning Pete K indefinitely from editing the articles on Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and related pages or their talk pages (to which this page seems to belong?), not the ongoing arbitration (review) before it was decided and closed. Newyorkbrad has clarified his view with regard to Pete K, that seems reasonable. Thanks, Thebee 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As Wikiwag has apologized for the inappropriate and hostile threat to me above, I won't comment on it here. Thebee 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! What wonderful hubris! Friend, I was no more hostile than Thatcher, and my comment was much more an admonition to exercise caution. If you feel threatened by that, then that says more about you than me. And I won't be sucked into this - it's off my watch list. Cheers! - Wikiwag 02:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And to answer TheBee's question - YES, I can still post here... SEE... Pete K 05:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)