User talk:Lethaniol/Pete K

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 IMPORTANT 2 Start 3 In response to comments on my talk page 4 Welcome DianaW and Mentorship 5 Hey slow down guys 6 Arbitration Ruling 7 Getting to work 8 First Edit War Started 9 How's Things going 10 TheBee Reposting these discussions 11 McDermott Publication 12 Racial Bias 13 3RR - Pete K 14 My thoughts 15 Mentor Contributions 16 The Anthroposophy "family" of articles on wikipedia 17 The accusation that DianaW is Wikiwag - please find the truth here 18 Spiritual or religious philosophy 19 Sources not Ego 20 This is not helpful 21 Moving when you mean deleting 22 ArbCom decision 23 PLANS Article 24 Are you watching what's going on today? 25 New Arbitration Issues 26 Wikibreak - 28hours 27 Proposal 28 OK, Bye 29 Sorting out evidence 30 Slow progress 31 End of Adoption

IMPORTANT

This page is only for discussions between User:Lethaniol, User:Pete K and User:DianaW as part of the Adopt-a-User program. No one else is allowed to contribute unless invited, and if they do I will consider reporting to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Thanks Lethaniol 00:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, because I am sure this page will be watched by outsiders - I am adopting/mentoring these two users because I have asked to help out. I have no vested interest in the WE issue - only heard about it for the first time yesterday. I will try to the best of my ability to act in a neutral and balanced with respect to the articles involved. This means I may give opinions on user conduct and policy implementation, but not on actual article content.

Furthermore, please note, I have taken on both Pete K and DianaW in this process, not because I am trying to "coach" their side, but because it was requested and makes sense as a number of issues they raise will be similar. If at any time they want to split up the discussion they can. Lethaniol 14:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Start

Thanks Lethaniol, I'm sure this page will be monitored, but that's OK. The 0 GMT is fine. I don't think we need to do this in chat mode. I don't mind waiting for an answer. So, have you had any experience with the type of harassment I'm describing? The problem is, reporting it (if no action is taken) causes it to escalate. The guy's mission is to keep getting under my skin until I say something I regret, then he adds it to his list of "atacks by Pete K". I've gone to some detail in documenting all this, but as soon as I make a point in arbitration, he just jumps all over it with endless incomprehensible dialog and I feel people must take one look at all that and don't want to hear my point. Pete K 00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think I have seen something recently, similar but not as bad. The user kept twisting the arguments, sometimes subtly (but not as much as has been suggested in this case) to try and push his point of view. It was not like there was anything particular wrong with his point of view, it had some valid points, but by pushing, edit warring, and trying to use subtle arguments based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines - he managed to get everyone's backs up - meaning that no middle ground could be reached.

What you may find interesting is that I was not arguing against this guy, but I was their Adopter and so trying to coax them into better behaviour - sadly it failed.

In response to saying you have "reported it". I think now that it is at Arbitration there is going to be some action that will force de-escalation - as that is their job. In some ways it is too late - you can sit back and wait for the verdict (once you have got all the evidence together of course). Lethaniol 00:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Right am off to bed now as 1am here, work tomorrow. There is a lot of evidence in this case, and do not have all the time in the world - could you suggest where to look to get a balanced view of all the discussions that have been going over the last weeks/months - i.e. where have the major arguments and discussions, involving all parties, been taking place. Cheers Lethaniol 00:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration of course [1], and the failed mediation [2] are good places to start. Pete K 01:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to comments on my talk page

Hi Pete K,

Can I ask for a few clarifications, just keep the answers brief and do not worry about evidence - it would could just to get a feel for what's been going on, please be honest -

I'll just add my comments in yours since we're being informal. Also, I've removed the link to this page from my talk page. My buddies will find it, I'm sure, but there's no point in making it easy for them to monitor these discussions.

How long has the dispute been going on?

I've been here since mid-August. The dispute is older than this, however, and many of these issues have been discussed on other forums. I'd say for me, it goes back a couple of years.

People have said you are a disgruntled parent from WE school - true or not?

I'm dissatisfied with Waldorf, but my kids all attend there. I consider myself a reformist - I think there are some good things and some bad things. I'd like to keep the good things and repair the bad things. I've had some issues with a few teachers and administrators at my kid's school - but I'm well-respected and well liked by most people there. I participate fully in the Waldorf community at their school and support other Waldorf schools as well. If I encounter a bad teacher, I'm vocal about it.

The POV pushing has been swinging from one side to the other. Has much been done to get at a NPOV that can get a balance or has that been shot down in flames too? If so by who?

One or two editors have been owning the articles. The only way to get a NPOV or at least two conflicting POV's into the articles has been to push, unfortunately. In some cases, it is possible to get a POV removed in this way. In one case, remarkable claims about the "health effects" of Waldorf were being made and supported with Waldorf literature. When I presented information about epidemics in Waldorf schools, the Waldorf POV people decided it would be better not to make their own weak claim - so neither claim made it into the article. On other issues like racism, they insist on putting their spin on things so we get both POV's fighting for space. At one time, a "Waldorf project" was attempted, but the entire team (besides me) was Waldorf POV people. A NPOV was not available through that process.

The instance of Thebee asking for my support before you had even contacted me could be seen to be "jumping the gun". Does a lot of this go on?

Yes, absolutely. He has been consistently trying to undermine me with every administrator. And since he has his list of complaints, it's very easy for him to root out a new administrator and "ask a question" like "Would you have a look at this?" - so the first impression any administrator has of me is a list of "Attacks by Pete K". A couple of administrators have actually looked into the "attacks" list and found that hardly any are actually personal attacks. But yes, this goes on all the time. When HGilbert discovered that I was about to open an arbitration about a COI issue, he instead opened one citing completely different issues. When I added the COI to the request, there was an uproar. So, yeah, jumping the gun is common.

I am really off to bed now - but I wanted to just a quick comment on this last issue. If this is indeed what TheBee or others have been doing, I have faith that Admins in general and Arbitrators in particular will see right through this tactic. The first thing you think of when someone you do not know says X did Y, is to be sceptical and check it out (as you comment Admins have done). My gut feeling in these situations is to not to BITE - because you are always going to look better than someone who has called up an Admin on flimsy charges - but only if you keep it cool. Easier said than done I know, and am sure you know this already - but issues like this come out in the wash - Wikipedia saves all its pages so there is no where to hide. Lethaniol 01:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome DianaW and Mentorship

Hi Dianaw, maybe to start with you could answer the same questions as Pete K above (where applicable) so I can get a feel for your situation to - again be brief.

As User:Durova commented on Pete K's talk page, this mentorship is for you to get out what you want/need, in particular that you might not have a vast range of experiences in Wikipedia despite your time and edit count here. I have spread myself a bit more thinly, though I have a particular passion for Catch-22 and its characters, as well as the Adopt-a-user program. So even if I do not know the answer to a question, I will be able to find it pretty quick.

So ask me any questions on a technical or policy orientated nature? Also in terms on the ME issue I am willing to act as a soundboard, someone to run ideas by or get an opinion on a specific situation. But do remember I am not here to fight your battles - my only objective to help you become better Wikipedians and help develop our encyclopaedia. Cheers Lethaniol 14:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Diana is likely to be gone until after Christmas... but for when she returns... Welcome Diana! Pete K 16:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much Lethaniol and thanks for agreeing to take me on, too. I appreciate it - all of you who actually commit these huge amounts of time to making wikipedia better have my admiration, for your hard work, remaining patient, remaining process-focused etc, not to mention involving yourselves in very complex debates without any prior knowledge, and steadfastly remaining neutral. That is very difficult to do and from what I've seen of you and Durova, you're masters at it. As Pete says, however, I'll be unable to get back into this until probably a few days after Christmas. I have les time to devote to this than I did due not only to holidays but family problems that have me traveling quite a bit. I admit I'm quite disappointed to check back in and see that apparently after many, many, many hours (from people on both sides of the debate) of attempting to marshal the evidence in a comprehensible and comprehensive fashion, the arbitrators have apparently decided to basically say to us all, "Hey, be nice, okay? Merry Christmas" and that's that?! This seems a huge cop-out - why bother inviting both sides to lay everything out in this very elaborate, rule-heavy process and then just slap a couple of wrists. I'm annoyed for everyone on both sides of the debate at having spent their time and energy on something that now appears rather meaningless - all the arbitrators have done is recite various policies to us that we were all already very familiar with, good faith, be civil, etc etc. And as if to add insult to injury, it appears that if I agree to get a mentor, I can be held accountable in ways that I can't be held accountable if I simply go my merry way and avoid mentorship? Maybe I'm misunderstanding that?

I had my doubts there could be more to this whole process, considering how complex the issues are, how busy the administrators must be, and how long-standing the disputes are between some of the people arguing here. But very specific questions that very much needed arbitrators' decisions have simply been disregarded, such as the acceptability as sources of a couple of authors. (In both cases, the authors meet the acceptability criteria as wikipedia sources in every way. Yet Fred Bauder took an admittedly very quick look at a Staudenmaier publication and says "It looks bad." His comments were so superficial he clearly had no idea what he was reading. That's the only comment we ever got from an arbitrator on Staudenmaier, a key disputed source in regard to several of these articles. It's preposterous. Staudenmaier is published as is Sven Hansson, the other disputed source - not self-published - in wikipedia-appropriate sources - scholarly journals and other periodicals. Thebee's attempts to trash these authors have no validity, thebee's beliefs that Staudenmaier is a liar and "forgerer" are figments of his imagination, his "refutations" aren't published anywhere except his own web sites, and thebee's bias against both these authors is as plain as Christmas.) It makes me feel quite reluctant to spend a lot more time with this. Perhaps we were naive to spend so much time on the arbitration - if we knew we were just going to be told "Find neutral sources" and "Remain civil" we certainly would not have spent about 20 hours just compiling and organizing diffs, digging back through the history of all these articles. We could have nodded politely when reprimanded for breaches of civility, and gone back to work. I mean, um, we knew we needed neutral sources - what we're debating is the sources themselves. Of course, it would be good news to the anthroposophical wikipedians if Diana gives up. Well, probably I won't give up, but I can't think more about it till after Saint Nick has come and gone at my house . . . happy holidays and thanks again for your willingness to dive into this.DianaW 15:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's hard not to be disappointed at this lack of outcome in the arbitration - especially considering the stranglehold one group has on the entire subject. Literally NOTHING has been decided that will change anything - as far as I can tell. With the election of new arbitrators, we can't even be sure the same arbitrators who are (hopefully, by now) familiar with this case are still going to be available to rule on anything that happens in the future. Pete K 16:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey slow down guys

From what I can see here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Proposed decision, the decision process is only just getting going, with only three arbitrators involved and the most basic or logical proposals being made and voted on. Unless I am missing something, please tell me if I am, things are just hotting up. If there are to be more "robust"/"dramatic" proposals they may yet come.

The final proposal, about the articles being put on Wikipedia:Article probation is not as soft as you might think. Basically the first person to step out of line e.g. edit war, or be uncivil may quickly find themselves with e.g. a 24 hr block. Think about it.

With the exception of Jayjg who's term expires at 31/12/06, all the other arbitrators will be around for another year at least see list Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Member history. So there is nothing to worry about, if we do need one more arbitrator (admit I do not know if this is the case will try and find out) it should not delay things greatly. Lethaniol 17:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Diana, sorry to hear about your family troubles, hope all will be well. In terms on mentorship, I see in no way how having one can be seen as a disadvantage. I am NOT, definitely not here to hold you accountable, only to offer advice. If you choose to take it or not is your decision. Actively engaging with a mentor will likely be seen in a positive light by both the ArbCom and any Admins you come across. If anyone has said anything else that contradicts what I have just said here - add the link/dif and I shall see what they mean. Lethaniol 17:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In further reply to Diana - that the ArbCom have not said what is an appropriate source or. I think that is not really their job, though they may give some input. They are there to discuss user conduct and how to sort it out. They not there to say what is right or wrong in an article. That is up to the other users involved. The ArbCom try to come up with a solution that allows the users concerned to on and work on the article themselves. Lethaniol 17:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am going to ask Durova to have a quick look at the things I have said about ArbCom, as am not overly familiar with it, and double check that I am right. Lethaniol 17:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Right have found the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop about mentoring. I agree with Durova the ArbCom is not there to answer every question about policy/procedures/conduct that is where mentorship comes in. And I will try to answer your concern Diana about mentorship being set in a particular way. Mentorship (or at least my view of it, and that is what matters here as your Mentor) is that it is what ever the users want it to be. It can be go from just advise, to reviewing other works, to even collaborating on articles. It is what ever you want it to be, you decide. Remember that my time is limited and you need to be civil, and really there are no boundaries to mentorship. Lethaniol 17:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lethaniol, I just posted this on the Proposed Decision talk page. I hope you are right about the arbitration going further - but according to Thatcher131, it seems it's all over but the signatures. I could be wrong. I am, indeed, looking for some guidance regarding what I will be held accountable for. If I interpret the Arb Com's directives in a way that is not what other editors or the Arb Com themselves interpret them, then I'm likely to find myself blocked. So, yes, I'm hoping for the Arb Com to describe what is an appropriate source because this grey area is exactly the type of thing that is causing the edit wars. The editors can't agree, apparently, on this stuff and by not defining it, the Arb Com has set us all up to be banned at some point. Does that make any sense? Pete K 17:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay that's fair enough to ask for this clarification, personally (take this advice if you like or not) I would keep such requests short and snappy. Have noticed a number of users in this debate can get going on long monologues repeating previous arguments (not particularly talking about you here Pete). Keeping questions short and to the point will make people happy - especially compared to people who go on a bit. Have you the link to what Thatcher131 said about it being soon over??? Lethaniol 17:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure it's here beginning with the word "Yup". Pete K 17:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah sorry missed this before thanks PeteCopied here:

Yup. Fred has taken the proposals he feels accomplish what needs to be done, listed them on the Proposed decision page, and listed the case for voting. (See the big orangepink box on the side of the main WP:RFAR page.) The majority in this case is 5; frequently arbitrators vote to support Fred's proposals and when the vote is 5-0 the case will be officially closed. Sometimes the arbitrators disagree; it could be that after reading the evidence and workshops, one of the arbitrators will find Fred's proposals too lenient and will offer alternatives, which will also go into voting. You can discuss the proposed decision on its talk page. Thatcher131 04:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)//

And also - copied here:

If you read the proposed decision page, it is essentially an amnesty for all editors involved in this case. It sets forth some principles as guidance, and some findings of fact to show where individual editors may have violated policy, but imposes no real penalty (like a ban from editing Waldorf-related articles). I think the hope is that all the editors involved are sincere intelligent people who can put aside their differences and work on a neutral encyclopedia style article. Editors don't have to be neutral, but the outcome should be; someone reading the article should not be able to tell the editors' opinions of the subject. Mentorship is one way for you to get some experience in how we do things, but it is not required. You could take a break from Waldorf and go edit articles related to other topics you are interested in, such as hobbies, favorite sports teams, or even TV shows. Whatever you do to get some experience in how this place works will be to your benefit. If, after a reasonable grace period, certain editors have learned how to work within the system and others continue in the behaviors that led to this case being accepted, stricter remedies will probably be handed out against those editors. An editor who accepts a mentor but continues to edit Waldorf articles will still be subject to renewed sanction, and an editor whose behavior improves without formal mentorship will not be a target if this case is reopened. Thatcher131 03:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a comment on mentoring that I think Diana might have had in mind. All it says is that mentorship is not required to get things sorted, and that having a mentor will not save you if you continue to edit inappropriately.

Also it says something that you may both want to consider. If you push for a stronger result from the ArbCom then all the main participants will be blocked. The ArbCom are setting themselves up for giving you all a second chance. Thatcher131 has made it clear here Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Proposed decision that you don't stick to not using primary sources then you will likely be heading for trouble quick, but they want to give you the chance. Lethaniol 18:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume you are keeping an eye on that discussion. I may have said too much already, but my thinking is - if a block is going to take place (as is likely) then this is the time and place for it. I know I'm sticking my own neck out, but this is the most fair place to handle this, I think. Otherwise, it's up to a single arbitrator or administrator to determine if the block is warranted. Maybe we all get blocked - I can't control this, but a legitimate look at the COI in this case would solve a lot of our problems here - and the COI issue is important and was really the reason for the arbitration in the first place. It needs to be addressed, in my view. Pete K 18:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much Lethaniol. I feel less than optimistic, however. I don't understand why we were encouraged to go through a very lengthy and complex process in order to be given not one concrete answer on even a single of the questions that the editors have been disputing - not one. The process appears to me from this vantage point to be a preliminary, "cover the bases"-style step in simply banning people - if so, this is legalistic and cynical. I echo Pete's question - if the intent was to lay the ground work to ban people, why not go ahead and ban us now? How can it be that if I ask for more concrete decisions - or in fact all I am asking for is answers to my questions, it's not as if I'm trying to push anybody around; I will accept any answer I am given - I don't have a choice anyway, do I? - but what I cannot understand is how asking the question now appears to offend the arbitrators -am I really being told that if I keep asking, that is grounds to ban me? Am I missing something here? The intent appears to have been to hand out lengths of rope with which various people, it is hoped, will now hang themselves.DianaW 16:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you too, I've been looking with growing curiosity at the notion of "civility" that prevails at wikipedia. Someone on one of the pages Durova referred us to re: "civility parole" mentioned users who can't get past a "Usenet mentality." While I never actually participated in usenet groups, I think I get what this means, and I suspect I have more of a usenet mentality. This may be a generational thing. I don't find inappropriate at all a vigorous debate which includes sarcasm, satire, or ridicule (not of individuals personally but of ideas or institutions); in very contentious public issues a style that apparently is seen here as "inflammatory" is IMO sometimes exactly what is most desirable. It isn't rude; this isn't Christmas dinner with the in-laws. I do not consider that I have done something morally wrong or socially unacceptable if someone is offended by my views (or conversely if someone ridicules my views). Some of the things that are apparently considered faux pas here I consider the *right* thing to say or do. It sometimes seems to me people much younger than me (I'm 45) are extraordinarily easily offended by things that in my day were merely discussions of politics or religion etc. (I remember when the personal was political; I'm an old lady.) I may not hack it at wikipedia!DianaW 17:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not talking about adding sarcasm or ridicule to the articles - I'm talking about Talk page disputes.DianaW 17:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the arbitration is over. They are motioning to close. What now? Are we allowed to go in and clean up the articles like it says, or will that be considered agressive editing? Pete K 23:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The COI question is another one where I haven't the faintest clue what they think or what they are trying to do, if anything. The "Principles" and the "Remedies" section contradict one another.DianaW 03:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Ruling

Mostly the things you've said seem to be on target. I have to couch any reply with the disclaimer that I serve no official function at arbitration and that being an administrator doesn't carry much weight over there; it's more like being an experienced editor who happens to have sysop powers. So if you want the final word about what arbitration means, ask an arbitrator or a clerk. I'm glad to give my take on things though.

First, to reply to Diana's concern, mentorship does not incur special liabilities. You're right about saying arbitrators and administrators view it in a positive light. It shows an editor is attempting to adjust to site policies and can earn more lenient treatment. About the only time when it has a negative effect is on the rare occasion when the mentorship fails - it might be harder for BooyakaDell to appeal a siteban now than if he hadn't tried mentorship. I don't think either Diana or Pete are likely to exploit a mentor in that sort of way.

Sorry I should put a quick note into why BooyakaDell is in a worse situation now for having had a mentorship - he bare faced lied, did not see why he was wrong, never apologised, and abused a great deal of trust. If you people are honest and fair with your mentor it is only a good thing, and there are no disadvantages. Lethaniol 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Diana's concern about the decision, I raised a similar issue on the talk page at the workshop - not that I thought the proposed decision actually was a slap on the wrist but that it could appear to be one. What I hope Pete and Diana understand is that everybody gets enough rope to hang themselves now. Both of them need to watch their tempers - have a glass of water and walk around the block before replying to something that seems inflammatory. On the other hand, if Pete's very serious charge about misusing obscure references is correct, then the thing to do would be to borrow those references through interlibrary loan and document the misstatements. It would take about a month, yet they have the advantage of knowing an administrator who performs in-depth administrators. I'd want to see systematic and solid evidence. It could be possible to seek a siteban if the evidence is damning enough. Now on the other hand (since this talk page is probably read by many people) the simplest defence for the other side in this case is to rework those citations and make them legitimate during the interim, and walk the straight and narrow path in that regard from now on. Durova^Charge! 09:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Durova, I know you are not acting in an official capacity on ArbCom, just wanted to double check I was not wildly off the mark on this - thanks. I agree with you in the final paragraph - the proposed solution may seem lenient but there is plenty of rope to play with. I am not sure if everyone realises that if anybody steps over the line - they are likely to get blocked very quickly, and that they will be watched carefully for this. Hmmm...

The issue of the German references is an interesting one, and I can see the potential for abuse. If one side insists on using them for controversial or contradictory statements then to check up ourselves, as you suggest, may be the only way to get it sorted. Hmmm again... Well can cross that bridge when we come to it after ArbCom decision.

Thanks for your response Durova, much appreciated, oh and happy holidays. Now must go to sleep. zzzzz Lethaniol 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Regarding "I am not sure if everyone realises that if anybody steps over the line - they are likely to get blocked very quickly, and that they will be watched carefully for this." I surely see this, so what's very frustrating is that I have no clearer idea now than I ever did as to what to do. It appears from my vantage point that absolutely nothing has changed except that I am far likelier now to be speedily blocked or banned. Take a small example. I raise it here because over on the talk page of the proposed decision, Thatcher states that to question this any further will likely result in someone getting banned! The decision states that "anthroposophy related publications" are not acceptable but that articles from "education journals" are acceptable. Okay. What do we do about education journals that are anthroposophy related?

Several such periodicals do exist. They are produced by and for anthroposophists and Waldorf educators, published by anthroposophical presses. They are rarely if ever read by anyone outside anthroposophy or Waldorf education. Yet, literally speaking they are also education journals. Each side can claim to have been vindicated on that point, each side can view this decision as going their way, and each side can point fingers at the other for practically anything anyone now does to the articles. This is why we needed a decision or expert wikipedia opinion on the acceptability specifically of such publications as sources, and we did not get it. The same would apply to many books and authors. Anthroposophy is largely a closed little world; it runs its own presses, it educates teachers in its own training centers, it publishes the stuff its members read. There are few outside studies. We needed a decision on whether books published by the anthroposophical presses can be cited. We haven't got it, so effectively both sides have had their hands tied.

Likewise we are left with Fred Bauder's comment that a particular publication that critics would like to cite by Peter Staudenmaier "looked bad." It was blatant that Fred looked very superficially at the publication. The book is published by a legitimate publisher, not self-published; there is nothing wrong with it in any way that I can think of, other than the fact that Thebee hates the guy's guts. Yet there's an arbitrator saying here the book looks bad. If critics cite Staudenmaier, are we toast here? Replies were posted to Fred's comment, but the discussion ended there. It's completely unclear to me whether that was therefore a binding decision on Staudenmaier as a source, or whether later comments that arbitrators don't decide content trump those off-the-cuff comments of Fred's.

Personally, I'm perfectly willing to abide by the answers to these questions, but if I can't actually get any answers, only threats that I'm being watched, it's not worth it to me to spend many more hours working on articles here.DianaW 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the ruling states that publications from within the Anthroposophy movement will be treated as self-published with regard to WP:V and WP:RS. There isn't any similar finding about publications from critics of Anthroposophy. So Waldorf supporters face additional restrictions in their use of sources but Waldorf critics remain with the usual Wikipedia policies and guidelines. On a practical level - specifically to Diana - that means you can raise certain issues to any administrator that weren't clear from a policy standpoint before. It also means your own civility will be under greater scrutiny. Just act with reasonable maturity and you'll have nothing to worry about. Durova^Charge! 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Durova here, and thought I would break down the final ruling below to give a summary of what it is likely to mean for the editors, this is my opinion only but likely to be close to the mark:

Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation.

So any article that are directly related to Anthroposophy will likely come under Wikipedia:Article probation. This means any new articles that are created too. It may not include insertion of Anthroposophy information into non-Anthroposophy related articles, though if gross uncivil behaviour occurs there it will likely be seen to be in the realms on the ArbCom decision.

Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information,

So this means all sides of the debate. I would say that original research should be removed straight away, if obvious. Uncited information (of a controversial nature only - if everyone agrees that it is true then it can stay and a source found later) should be tagged with {{fact}} or/and a message left on the article's talk page. If no one can come up with a suitable source to verify the information then the information is removed after sensible time.

including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications.

So Anthroposophy related publications, are publications that print mainly or totally Anthroposophy related articles, which I get the impression are quite separate from mainstream journals. This ban does not include Anthroposophy related articles in non-Anthroposophy related publications, but does include non-Anthroposophy related articles in Anthroposophy related publications (if there is such a thing).

This ban is only related to uncontroversial material - not for things like the Anthroposophy main articles, under its External Links section (linking to these publications) or for when Anthroposophy related publications are used to referencing anything that is non-controversial. I suspect that controversial information will almost 100% revolve around the claims of what Anthroposophy can do for you if you follow its philosophy.

It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources.

This does not mean immediately deleting them, or putting them up for deletion, but first going through and removing inappropriate material - see explanation above - and then seeing if there is an article to work with.

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

The ArbCom will be likely watching, but even if not, then if other users see inappropriate and disruptive editing they will bring it to the ArbCom themselves. People are very unlikely to go to the ArbCom after just one minor revert war, but after a number of incidents that they have tried to resolve. It is when attempts at resolution have failed that people will report back to ArbCom.

Notes on this. If people try to get way with edit warring to the point of being reported and then get brought back from the edge with resolution - it won't work - too much of that type of brinkmanship would get one reported to the ArbCom as well.

When talking about attempts at resolution, I am talking about individual users like Durova and myself trying to calm things down, on going back to more official routes such as Mediation Cabal or Request for Comment.

Right well I hope all involved find that helpful. I will also copy this info to other area. Any questions queries just ask. Lethaniol 13:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. It's definitely clearer now. So anthroposophy reporting on anthroposophy, i.e., journals or books published by anthroposophic presses, won't work for "verifiability" or as "reliable sources." Good - that's major progress. Yes, the basic controversy is as Lethaniol says, "what Anthroposophy can do for you" and whether anthroposophists publishing each other's claims on this matter are reliable sources.

"Anthroposophy related publications, are publications that print mainly or totally Anthroposophy related articles, which I get the impression are quite separate from mainstream journals." Essentially, yes. I'd foresee we'll get some attempts to claim certain presses don't publish only anthroposophy - some of these entities have branched out a bit, and there is some overlap, but minimal compared to a mainstream press (and more to the point, anthroposophists reviewing each other's work doesn't count as peer-reviewed research). Are there any wiki guidelines for this sort of thing? Maybe there is something on vanity presses. Most of the anthroposophic publishers are little more than glorified vanity presses. Thanks again and also please note I'll be offline again for a few days now, Happy New Year to all.DianaW 13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Couple of points - (and more to the point, anthroposophists reviewing each other's work doesn't count as peer-reviewed research) - would count as peer-reviewed in notable non-anthroposophic though! Wiki-guidelines on self-publication see this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources. Oh and Happy new year too. Lethaniol 13:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Right because it depends on the nature of the publication, essentially? (This is the point where we're often told we want to "discriminate against anthroposophists.") The point is not that if an anthroposophist wrote it, it's no good - the point is that it has to have been through a reputable, objective system, and that is not what is going on when anthroposophists write for each other, publish each other, review each other, cite each other etc., with no outside scrutiny.DianaW 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think you have got it. As basically the ArbCom have come to the same conclusion as your paragraph directly above - that anthroposophic publications have not gone through a objective peer review, and that they are self-publishing. Therefore they can be used as sources but not for the controversial, self-publishing uses that they may have been used for, and probably where a lot of the arguments reside.

Also you may want to think of the arguments that lie ahead (there will still be plenty). If the Anthroposophy supporters have lost a lot of access to their primary source of evidence, they may be hyper-critical of any sources you use. Therefore I recommend only using the "best quality" sources that are always going to be seen at reputable. For example I would be very cautious about using critical information from any society/organisation that has been set up with the sole purpose of targeting Anthroposophy. Hopefully there is enough good literature out there instead. Note this does not include reports/research reported in notable mainstream journals/paper etc... (goes for both sides of the argument). I hope you see the rational behind this - with the Anthroposophy supporters having lost a support base for their POV, the people "against" Anthroposophy do not have to use more extreme support to try and push their POV. Hence by using mainstream sources the articles should move back to neutrality, and also be condensed significantly. If you take on board this advice it may prevent a number of arguments in the future.

Cheers Lethaniol 16:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting to work

Hi Diana and Pete have copied info from my talk page here, hope it is useful.

Once the ArbCom closes (should be very soon) then get to work. You are in a good position as you can use non-Anthroposophy related publications to better affect than the other side, though just because you have more critical material does not mean the articles should be critical - they should be neutral. It does mean you should be able to argue for the removal of grand facts/statement on Anthroposophy that may have been biasing articles.

I suggest you go easy to start off - following my advice above about tagging/talking on talk page etc... Also if you get into an argument or revert war - stop, think and then maybe ask for advice from myself or others. The articles are not going to be perfect overnight, and it does not matter if they are slightly biased for a few hours/days compared with getting yourself blocked and not being able to edit at all.

Anyway they are more thoughts - I hope you find them useful. I suspect once editing of these articles starts again you may need my help more, and I should be quite available to do so. Cheers Lethaniol 13:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"It does mean you should be able to argue for the removal of grand facts/statement on Anthroposophy that may have been biasing articles." Exactly - that will take care of nine-tenths of the problems with these articles - grandiose claims, and fudged statistics like "fastest-growing independent school movement in the world." (You can't imagine how many times I've begged for some meaningful data on that one, only to get press releases from Waldorf promotional entities, statements from school web sites, or "They told us that at the Open House." Thanks again Lethaniol.DianaW 13:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First Edit War Started

Here we go. TheBee has twice now removed a citation to Peter Staudenmaier's article. I have replaced it hoping an arbitrator is going to jump in and decide this issue (I think it has already been decided that Mr. Staudenmaier is OK, but Fred did make that comment... so I'm not sure). Let's see where this ends up. Pete K 01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Had a quick look so thought I would give my opinions and advice.

1. The ref you are trying to add back in is not worth the edit warring - so do not get caught in a WP:3RR, certainly not over this.
2. If you see my comments above - best, if at all possible to use, neutral, notable references, not from a source that is a set up for the prime purpose of criticising Anthroposophy. I understand this may not always be possible - but try very hard. In this case this ref is backing up a very strong position bias has been identified, as so needs to be a top notch reference (if not references)
3. This section is very long, and should be condensed and should read something more like this:

Racial bias has been identified in Steiner's characterizations of the qualities of different races.[ref - MUST BE NOTABLE/NEUTRAL] Anthroposophy in general and Steiner's work in particular have been called everything from fundamentally racist to "fundamentally anti-racist" by both critics and supporters, however,[ref - LINK TO ONE CAMP][ref - LINK TO ANOTHER CAMP] and the Anthroposophical Society in America has issued a statement saying:

(nope you can see why the refs here are treated differently - one is talking about a fact almost, the others talking about peoples opinions)

ONE PARAGRAPH OF TEXT MAX

But a research bulletin (BY WHOM) about racism in Waldorf schools states (ref - MUST HAVE - MUST BE NOTABLE:

ONE PARAGRAPH MAX (can be paraphrased afterwards a bit if needed)

This would make the article section relatively neutral, well sourced and easier to read.

Hope that helps. Lethaniol 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we all know, TheBee is linking this discussion page to his discussions in the articles. So everything said here is public discussion from now on - if you give me any advice that he can use, he will tout that and it becomes part of his list of grievances about me - that I didn't take the advice of my mentor... blah, blah.

Oh do not worry about that - people were always going to find this page - if only because they looked at your and DianaW's contribution list. They should not use it against you though - that you have a mentor - and try and manipulate my advice for their own purposes. I am sure this will be frowned upon at least for being uncivil... If there are any instances of this please show me the diff on this page. Thanks Lethaniol 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So you know there are no "top-notch" neutral references or even for either side like you are talking about, right? Nobody who is notably neutral has said anything. We have Anthroposophists promoting their own enterprises or non-Anthroposophists criticizing them. So, as top-notch, independent sources go, Peter Staudenmaier is one of the best. His work is well-supported and published. The only problem is that HGilbert and TheBee don't like him and have gone to extraordinary effort to defame him. Pete K 16:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well there are likely to be a number of solutions to these problems - which may be applicable in many other area too, in no particular order, and I am NOT suggesting these ARE the answers just possibilities:

1. Remove the Staudenmaier ref, and therefore text Racial bias has been identified in Steiner's characterizations of the qualities of different races.
2. Ask for other Wikipedians viewpoints on whether Staudenmaier is suitable or not to be used as reference in general (would need to check where to do this - maybe WP:RfC).
3. Keep Staudenmaier ref, but only use with care. Cos although the ArbCom did not rule against its use, Fred gave impression it is not the best ref source. So only use when no other ref can not be found or make sure.
4. Change the way the reference statement is written form fact to more opinions based e.g. Some have suggested...
5. As suggested by ArbCom, a lot of these articles will be condensed. Maybe this section need to be - down to just what I said it might look like above.
6. Clean up articles, condensing where necessary, without use of Staudenmaier ref, once that is done, ask for opinions on whether Staudenmaier ref can and cant be used. Then add back important information.

I am not sure which is the best solution out of these (there are probably more anyway). But they may give people things to think about. Lethaniol 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the diff. Pete K 17:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks have replied to TheBee there. If there are many more things like this please tell me if not too much trouble. Cheers Lethaniol 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the Staudenmaier reference for now as it wasn't required to support the claim that was being made. It may be better needed somewhere else. Pete K 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Good - if you do not need it and it is causing you problems better not to waste your time on in. Just saw this edit [3] here, personally I would have advised to leave it at it was as it is pretty damning anyway - but your choice - but is likely to be something also not worthwhile getting into an edit war on.

I think this section of the Anthroposophy article is starting to get - getting more balanced and neutral - still think it should be condensed down if possible, if only that it is too long for the casual reader. Generally better to have it short, sharp and to the point, and then giving links to the sources so people can read up further for themselves if they want. cheers Lethaniol 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted the edit back to the language used by Venado. You're right - better to pick the battles carefully. This one wasn't worth it. Yes, I'll look at the bloat in this section next. It can be condensed, I agree. Pete K 19:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How's Things going

Hi Pete,

Have been watching some of the editing going on and wanted to ask a few questions about how you though it was going. Are the articles moving forward? Are the discussion more civil? Is the ArbCom decision on sources helping? Cheers Lethaniol 01:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lethaniol, thanks for keeping an eye on me. Boy, today was grueling and frustrating. I've noticed a new pattern forming. An editor will make a very controversial edit and then follow it up with a bunch of silly edits (adding back images, dotting i's and crossing t's) so that if I revert the edit, I have to revert half a dozen edits (and of course it's a lot more work going back and reconstructing everything). The result is that I look like I'm *owning* the articles because they can point to me reverting lots and lots of (meaningless) edits along with the legitimate ones. I begged and begged to get editors to discuss things before making edits - but instead, the articles were used kind of like scratch pads - editors making edits that were testing the limits of what's allowed and the patience of the other editors. I'm having to stick to my guns for some of the references that I want to use and fortunately Fred Bauder backed me up on an important one. I found myself getting in a rush at times and making a goof here and there, but edits were flying back and forth just minutes apart, so it was hard to tell what was going on. In the end, some marginal progress was made (considering this was a whole day's edits, not very reasonable but still) and hopefully it will get easier. Part of the problem is my friend TheBee who seems to have a strange way of interpreting the arbitration decision. I guess he believed it would be up to him to decide what constitutes a "polemic" site, what's "controversial" or what sources are acceptable. He's been a little tough with the edit summaries too here and here but hopefully someone will talk to him about it. After suggesting that he walk away from the keyboard, I had a little discussion with HGilbert on his talk page and told him I was going to ask for a 24 hour ban. He seemed to calm down a bit and even admitted he wasn't assuming good faith. Hopefully it will be better tomorrow.

So, to answer your questions directly - the articles are creeping forward, I think the discussions are generally more civil, the ARbCom decision on sources is helping alot (except that some editors are interpreting them to their advantage). I'm optimistic that this will get easier in the future. Pete K 03:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

TheBee Reposting these discussions

Hi Lethaniol, at the bottom of this section, TheBee is reporting what is going on here. I hope I have handled it OK. I'm reluctant, at this point, to say anything that TheBee will feel free to report (distort) or use against me later. Also, any suggestions you make, as we have seen, are going to be broadcast. Is there anything that can be done to allow this mentoring process to continue without being derailed by TheBee? Thanks! Pete K 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See my response at User_talk:Thebee#Mentoring_Concerns. I have deleted the discussions mentioned as not useful to the article's development, and I request that you do not replace it. I think both you and Thebee should concentrate on the articles at hand, not the particular individual actions of each other editing. I hope that my actions will underline this debate - I hope.

In terms of handling it okay - I think you both did not handle it okay - though not uncivil in wording, the argumentative nature was ever expanding and will lead to a destructive atmosphere and frayed tempers.

If this helps, I will explain what I will do if Thebee wants to argue further the exact wording of this particular piece advice - politely ignore. I will say that I have already given my reasoning, and now want to get back to the article in hand - and not get dragged into the debate any further. Often by staying on point you can avoid the arguments. This is one of my skills - I often get upset about something and say something I regret - but because I always concentrate on the issue at hand (and not the personal comments or off subject arguments) I seem to get myself to the end of an argument with a resolution (not based on who lasted longest, but what the consensus was). If everyone could do this then article development would be a lot easier. The only example of a user that users this behaviour on these pages so far is Venado, who I believe tries hard to stick the point (from the few edits I have seen).

In terms of having more private discussions I am thinking about other options. I have noticed that I have been hesitant in giving you my opinion a number of times, because it may have been critical and as well as worrying how you might take (a legitimate concern), I have had to also worry about how others may take it / use it (not something that I want to be concerned about).

Anyway please say if the above response was useful or not, and I will think about this mentoring privacy issue. In fact one answer that comes to mind - is that I make up a new hotmail account and you could email to that instead. Hmmm will do some more thinking... Cheers Lethaniol 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The advice is, of course (and as usual) very helpful. It would be much better if these discussions could be private, in my view. We could certainly do it by email and that would give us the security we need to discuss issues openly. I very much appreciate your help. Pete K 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

McDermott Publication

Everyone seems to be arguing over this source a lot, so I thought I would chip in with these links -

This article Waldorf education in an inner-city public school appears in the journal The Urban Review, which unless I am wrong is not a Waldorf publication. Hence this article could likely be used as a source. I do not think this is the source being argued - but it certainly covers the racism issue. In case you do not have Athens access here are few quotes. This might act as replacement for the current Waldorf publication based McDermott article. P.S. I still think only a small quote if any needs to be added into the Racial Bias section. - oh and if you have Athens - here is the link [4]. Cheers Lethaniol 17:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Staff members are not always better equipped than the children to handle the hidden injuries of racism. The staff and faculty at Urban Waldorf represented a wide gamut of opinions on race and the possible presence of racism at the school. Some were quick to point to what they thought were unquestionable cases of racism inherent in Waldorf philosophy and practice, and others were as quick to deny the possibility of racism at any level, in any practice. Sometimes, this difference fell out clearly according to the racial identifications of the faculty members; sometimes, not at all. Sometimes, we were able to observe seemingly honest and engaged dialogue about the construction of race and the consequences of racism; at other times, stances were taken, and dialogue was perhaps discouraged. The faculty seems to understand that explorations of the construction and function of racism may be lethal to a struggling community in this country. They also understand that they must try. And so we found teacher study groups on African American culture (particularly on storytelling and folklore), and various individual projects on urban life--everything from African American history to rap music--were shared by the teachers. While the path is sometimes fraught with confrontation, struggle, and uncomfortable silence, the Urban Waldorf faculty has a commendable level of engagement with the difficulties of racism.

Amid an exciting learning and teaching environment at Urban Waldorf, we also observed interactions that were disturbing. Many of the children seemed to have a distorted and negative picture of blackness, an internalized prejudice that runs deep. This is understandable given the ways in which class and color racism, sexism, and the media have informed their lives and their local communities. Even in a classroom with two African American women for teachers and an African American fieldworker from our team to sing everyone's praises, when children were hurt or wanted to hurt one another they sometimes did so with a string of explicatives and adjectives that "called out" their own Africanness and that of their classmates. Seldom did we hear children affirm themselves or other African American children as beautiful. Too often, we heard degrading terms such as "big-lipped," "nappy-headed," "big butt," and "black-faced bitch" both in the classroom and at play. This points to a near desperate need to develop more systematic ways for addressing self-love among African American children. It points to necessary conversations among faculty, parents, and the Waldorf movement about the extent to which the "whole-child" philosophy of Waldorf education includes attention to the racial and ethnic identities of the children.

Racial Bias

I have seen this section of the article go round and round in circles - here is a suggestion that is relatively neutral - evidence based with what I believe is a notable source - see above, and condensed:

---

Concerns have been raised that latent racism in anthroposophy persists today due to the unreserved adherence to the writings of Rudolf Steiner (Need to add MULTIPLE REFERENCES from Warldof critical group/s) The Anthroposophical Society in America refutes this claim:

We explicitly reject any racial theory that may be construed to be part of Rudolf Steiner's writings. The Anthroposophical Society in America is an open, public society and it rejects any purported spiritual or scientific theory on the basis of which the alleged superiority of one race is justified at the expense of another race.^[1]

But research by McDermott et al [5] (Ref this properly) has found evidence of racism with teachers and students at one urban school:

Some [staff members] were quick to point to what they thought were unquestionable cases of racism inherent in Waldorf philosophy and practice, and others were as quick to deny the possibility of racism at any level, in any practice. ... Many of the children seemed to have a distorted and negative picture of blackness, an internalized prejudice that runs deep. This is understandable given the ways in which class and color racism, sexism, and the media have informed their lives and their local communities.

---

Any that is the gist - and unless there was heaps loads more independent research on racism in Warldorf schools (on either side of argument) I would keep it to that length - balanced and readable. Pete you have not asked for this suggestion - but I think it is a good example of what to aim for. It gets across the points*, is neutral, and quick - therefore can move on to the next section to be worked on. Cheers Lethaniol 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was an entire Wiki-article about Steiner's Views on Race and Ethnicity at one time. It was deleted completely just before the arbitration - with the understanding that the Steiner article section on race and ethnicity would be expanded considerably. I think the topic is extremely important because the same racial theories Steiner held are in use today in Waldorf schools (children are seated according to skin color by some teachers), physiology classes teach that black people have blood that is less complex than other people and that based on this, the white race is more evolved than the black race, stuff like that. Racism in Waldorf is a big deal and, I believe, deserves more attention. Pete K 16:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay fair point - but with the current research (only one by McDermott from what I can see) the suggestion I have given above (and what is currently in the article) is about as much as can be said. If you really want to expand this section much further then many more notable non-Waldorf sources need to be found - either research or commentary by outside observers. The difficulty will be that if you can not find such sources, then the section won't be allowed to expand. Cheers Lethaniol 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR - Pete K

Was not good to see you get blocked for a WP:3RR, my general advice, if you are about to 3RR do not at all cost - it is never ever worth it.

I believe you got the 3RR for reinserting the Expose verb is that correct? Cheers Lethaniol 19:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay so you wanted the following:

in PLANS' campaign to expose Waldorf methods in public schools was to seek, instead of PLANS sought (the opening of the sentence makes little difference so have removed from these quotes). I have difficulty seeing why the great need to fight over this wording, either makes little difference. Personally I would go with the PLANS sought, and if the founding philosophy/mission statement/ethos of exposing Waldorf methods in public schools is so important have a separate section in the article for this and other principles. Or if you need to put in context why PLANS sought the support of members and associates with the Skeptics Society then use something less polemical maybe: ... to help investigate Waldorf methods in public schools...

Anyway these are just ideas on this particular topic. On the 3RR - I really do not think there was enough discussion at Talk:PLANS#Exposing_Waldorf before reverting - I could understand if the debate had been going on for days - maybe the editing/reverting on a number of articles is not helping - anyway I think a solution could have been reached if needed there. Also I can not stress enough about not getting trapped in a 3RR, especially on something that makes little difference to the context of the whole article. This does not mean that you let yourself get worn down over time, letting people make inappropriate edits and not doing anything about it just putting your energy and limited time into the most worthwhile of causes Cheers Lethaniol 19:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lethaniol, I answered you on my talk page yesterday (oddly, it was the only page I could access <g>).

Was not good to see you get blocked for a WP:3RR, my general advice, if you are about to 3RR do not at all cost - it is never ever worth it. Yes, I agree. It's hard not to when two obviously biased editors are gaming the 3RR rule - but I agree, it was stupid.

I believe you got the 3RR for reinserting the Expose verb is that correct?

Yes, but I was really interested in the source that they were trying to delete with the same edit. It's a source to a public Waldorf school website that "exposes" that they have disguised the religious festival festival "Michaelmas" by calling it "The Dragon Festival". It is exactly the type of deceptive thing PLANS accuses public Waldorf schools of doing - and in this case they got caught with their pants down - it exactly proves PLANS is correct about this. The pro-Waldorf people are claiming that this source, being a Waldorf school website, is not allowed. It absolutely should be allowed as it is not a Waldorf school website supporting Waldorf school claims (as was the issue with these sources) but a citation to the calendar of a public Waldorf school shows that Michaelmas is deceptively called "The Dragon Festival". That type of source is not, to my knowledge, being disallowed.

Anyway these are just ideas on this particular topic. On the 3RR - I really do not think there was enough discussion at Talk:PLANS#Exposing_Waldorf before reverting - I could understand if the debate had been going on for days - maybe the editing/reverting on a number of articles is not helping - anyway I think a solution could have been reached if needed there.

There had already been considerable discussion about the religious festivals (which is the main thing I was objecting to - the deletion of the source that shows this).

Also I can not stress enough about not getting trapped in a 3RR, especially on something that makes little difference to the context of the whole article. This does not mean that you let yourself get worn down over time, letting people make inappropriate edits and not doing anything about it just putting your energy and limited time into the most worthwhile of causes

With regard to this particular article, *proving* that indeed PLANS has a point about the disguising of the names of religious festivals is a very worthwhile cause. Public Waldorf schools dishonestly disguise the religious (Anthroposophically important) festivals and continue to have them while claiming there are no such religious festivals in the public Waldorf schools. It demonstrates their dishonesty. I will be replacing the reference at my first opportunity. BTW, the word "expose" doesn't mean that much in all of this - it was just part of the pissing contest (that I lost).

Have a great day! I will. Pete K 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you're giving me the silent treatment for the 3RR? I understand... <bowing head in shame>. I'm checking in anyway, and I'm happy to report a neutral editor has arrived on the scene, Wikiwag, who is doing some very thoughtful and reasonable edits to the Waldorf Education article. I'm trying to support him/her and to let him/her have a free rein. While I was on my forced Wiki-break, Wikiwag produced a lot of edits that HGilbert was intent on reverting. I posted a complaint to Fred Bauder's talk page and HGilbert has, for the moment, slowed down a bit. I've asked Fred for clarification on a few things and so far, no reply. I don't know how to get a ruling (or if I should be taking it there or to the arbcom page - I'm not sure where that would be). Anyway, I'm trying to stay out of trouble as much as I can (a leopard can't change his spots, of course). Pete K 03:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts

No, Pete K I am not giving you the silent treatment about the 3RR, I am thinking how I can help you. Frankly the more I look at these articles the more I have the personal feeling that if all the major Polemical editors, including yourself and TheBee, were banned life would be so much easier. A few neutral editors would rip through these articles in no time and bring them up to standard, with out the numerous revert wars that go on.

Now I am not suggesting this ban, it just frustrates me that people that have access to and the willingness to add good content to articles, end up in editing warring and long protracted, often fruitless, discussions on the talk pages. It is very interesting to me that people are continually throwing around Wikipedia policy, when they can not even use the edit summary properly/regularly or wikify the lead paragraphs of these articles (which I have done some).

When Durova told me that the users involved, though they had many edits (most more than myself), yet they had little concept of how Wikipedia works I was sceptical, but it has proven true. Most of the editors involved do not really edit much outside of these articles, and hence their understanding of policy interpretation is poor, and their general technical skills low. So what end up happening is the articles are relatively poorly formatted (for articles that so much work has gone into) and the talk pages are just battle grounds.

Now this is not a criticism of you Pete K (it takes two to tango), but of the situational mess, so to speak. I am very good at answering questions on procedural and technical issues, and even when to tell a user when they have crossed the line. In this case though you have a situation where the arguments are so deep and convoluted, sometimes down to individual wording/points, that forward editing is brought to a crawl.

I am telling you all this so you understand my position and I would not be surprised the position of the majority outside editors, admins or even the ArbCom. If no one is to be banned, there needs to be away to stop the editing from being polemical and the talk page discussion constructive. In most ways if the talk page discussions were constructive then the the editing would become mostly neutral in itself.

Anyway my waffling here had help me come to a good point -TALK PAGES. So often I see people say that they talked about it on the talk page, only to find that no consensus has been reached. In fact a solution might be that no controversial edits can be made to an article until consensus has been reached on the talk page. Hmmm - interesting idea - this is standard practise through out Wikipedia but often does not happen on the articles under discussion. If all editors were forced into reaching consensus first, then you would also be forced into acting civilly, making compromises and becoming neutral. Just an idea - maybe I will bring it up with others.

So now you can see where I am coming from, unless you actively come to me with questions, then it is very difficult for me come up with answers or advice, especially as there is no obvious advice on a lot of these situations. Do consider the above option. If you could persuade the other editors to have a trial run on one of the articles in question (e.g. with me or another editor making sure no non-consensus edits take place) then it might be worth a go.

P.S. the issue of Wikiwag - I have noticed them about - and will look at their edits (and any reverting) soon - before giving any opinion. Cheers Lethaniol 17:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lethaniol - I always appreciate your input. I really like (believe it or not) the consensus idea. At one point, the PLANS article was locked up and we had to arrive at a consensus before it could be unlocked. Editors that are normally at loggerheads worked together to make edits. It would be great if there was some type of "monitor" on the articles that would require a consensus - as if the articles were locked and only one or two administrators could actually introduce material and language that had been agreed to beforehand on the talk pages. Of course, there would be complaints, and it would be best if they were locked in a fairly neutral condition in the first place so that all the edits would be along neutral lines.

I appreciate what you are saying regarding asking specific questions of you. My first question would be - how can I get Fred or the Arbitration Committee to rule on issues that have developed since the arbitration? Their silence seems to be making the ground fertile for more problems. At some point, I suspect the arguing will reach some critical mass and everyone who is trying to edit the articles will be banned (the meek shall inherit the earth apparently at some point). I guess in your view that might be a good thing. Nonetheless, I think we have made some good progress in the Waldorf article. I'll watch myself today and see what happens. Thanks again! Pete K 19:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lethaniol, I could use your advice today. I've tried to follow the ArbCom request, restated yesterday by Thatcher131, and have deleted the Anthroposophical references in the article this morning (at great risk I feel). TheBee is intent on adding them back in and is, again today, editing aggressively. Should I just walk away or is there somewhere I should address my concerns? I'm going to stop and make some breakfast and cool down. It seems between TheBee, HGilbert and Professor Marginalia, they're working in shifts to try to get me banned (some nasty comments have been flying around Thatcher's talk page, Centrx's talk page and Fred Bauder's talk page. I'm trying not to get wrapped up in the dialog this time and just do some editing without the edit-warring. No compromise seems to be acceptable to TheBee who wants to delete anything mentioning racism from the Waldorf articles or to make odd claims that Waldorf schools are "anti-racist". I'm becoming frustrated by this. Pete K 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

HI Pete this is a very quick reply, have to go out for dinner in a minute, but I just wanted to briefly say a few words and hopefully expand later...

You are doing to right thing but taking a break and trying to relax - the more on edge we are the more likely are editing and remarks will appear uncivil to all concerned. The ArbCom is always watching these pages, and even if they were not people pester them enough they are well aware of the situation - you do not want them to act - as Thatcher pointed out. I suggest you go to the other people involved in these pages (all sides) and suggest you have a trial attempt at self-censorship whereby controversial bits of articles are only edited once consensus has been met (as commented above). This would be like a page-protection but with out the negative connotations and would mean all people would have to buy into the situation. Anyway I suggest you take the idea to others and assuming good faith see what happens.

In terms of the anti-racism references (or other highly controversial comments). If the comment is unreferenced delete it or add fact tag, if it is ref with unallowed source then delete the source, and then delete comment or add fact tag. Now if it gets reverted (with no appropriate reason or reference added), then DO NOT revert back, just save the difference on a page of your choosing, and when you have 10-20 of these diffs give them to one of the ArbCom and say that you have tried to remove unsourced claims / unallowed sourced claims but can not - and have avoided getting into an edit war. Now also note this only really applies to Anthroposophical sourced references for controversial statements or value statements (good, bad and ugly) (if other references are appropriate or not needs to be discussed on the talk page of article). Also you HAVE to use EDIT SUMMARY to explain precisely why you have made this edit e.g. Anthroposophical reference removed as supports opinion of better quality of Waldorf schools compared with state schools, (and if adding fact tag) please find non-Anthroposophical reference for this value judgement. Or something along those lines.

Again the important bit is not to even revert once, you make a change you think is justified, giving appropriate reasoning, and save the diffs if they do get reverted. Now as others are likely to read this, take great care on reverting edits and putting back Anthroposophical referenced info - only do this where it is attached to a non-controversial non-value judgement based comment, or it is a direct quote on a subject that is need to illustrate an opinion or response to criticism (e.g. in the Racial Bias section where a quote response from the Anthroposophical organisation is appropriate).

Also remember Pete you will need to talk to the other people involved, especially where the areas are grey and you need to reach a compromise. And consider the option of self-regulated protection of pages to force consensus.

Cheers Lethaniol 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. I don't have a lot of confidence in the self-regulated part as editors are quite heated in this. I'll try to self-regulate my own edits and see what happens. I'll put more effort into the edit summaries and I've been trying hard to support any controversial edits (that have gone back and forth) on the talk pages. Pete K 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. quick point Pete K that I should make clear, if you have already done the above and removed inappropriate sourced after it has been reverted then just collect those differences DO NOT re-revert it Cheers Lethaniol 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already collected a page of diffs (since my previous post). I have not removed any language from the article (other than the brief anti-racism war this morning) - only the references. I'm leaving the language and hoping that it will either be properly sourced or removed by the editors who introduced it. I will avoid reverting and I've been asking others for opinions. Pete K 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mentor Contributions

Hi Pete,

Am off to bed soon, so thought I would just leave with a few questions about our talk on the Waldorf page tonight. Now it all seemed relatively civil, many cos there was an outsider interfering there - but I think we have made more movement today than has been done in a while, maybe.

The question is why do you think that is - look at the talk page/article/histories and come back and give me an answer for tomorrow? Right good night :) Cheers Lethaniol 01:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I can answer your question right now. Someone with authority (you) was able to settle the disputes. That's what I think we were all hoping for from the ArbCom. When we leave it up to me and TheBee to "interpret" the ruling, we get into trouble. Someone simply saying, "no, that won't do" is enough to get things moving. Your help today was VERY welcomed. Good night and thanks!!! Pete K 01:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Anthroposophy "family" of articles on wikipedia

Hi Lethaniol, you asked for a list. I once provided this in the arbitration discussions. It was pieced together simply from wading around wikipedia and is definitely not comprehensive; there are others we don't even know are there, that they just cross their fingers we don't find. (This is, of course, aside from articles on individual schools; if those are counted there may well eventually be hundreds.)

Anthroposophy

Anthroposophical Society

Associative Economics - have put into main category

Astral body

Biodynamic farming and gardening association - have moved and wikified

Biodynamic agiculture

Biodynamic wine

Camphill movement - there are various entries for individual Camphill sites, too

Demeter International

Etheric body

Eurythmy

List of Waldorf schools

List of works on Waldorf education

Rudolf Steiner and the Theosophical Society

Rudolf Steiner's views on races - Has been deleted previouly

Social Threefolding

Spiritual science - already redirects to Anthroposophy

Anthroposophical medicine - have put into main category

History of Waldorf schools - have put into main category

List of Rudolf Steiner's works on education have put into main category

Goetheanum

Rudolf Steiner

Waldorf education

Albert Steffen

Ita Wegman

Sergei Prokofieff

Valentin Tomberg

Karl Konig

Botton Village

Waldorf schools' organization and administration

It might be instructive for you to take a look at the Associative Economics article. No work at all has been done on it since it was originally posted by an anthroposophist (last April; please note we are not exactly demanding instant progress here); I as well as two or three other editors, who are completely unrelated to the issues here as far as I know, commented on the talk page that it is a joke of an article - a pure advertisement for their cause. (And wholly deceptive, as it is not even explained that it is an anthroposophical project.) As long as no one pressures them about it, though, there it sits; there is no chance in the universe of anyone cleaning it up unless they are forced to. The original author can just pretend indefinitely to be unaware of any controversy. This might give you a peek into what these articles would look like if critics of this movement had not come along to try to put the brakes on this metastasizing problem. There is NO movement without intense activism. The first few edits I made at wikipedia, on a Steiner-related article, were reverted LITERALLY 10 minutes later. They sit here and watch, in shifts. How do you fight fanaticism? We know full well wikipedia is not for activism - theirs or ours. Is there a better long-term solution to their using wikipedia as their public pulpit, unopposed?

The Associative Economics article is sort of the counterpoint to the PLANS article - the opposite extreme. On the one hand the pure proselytizing of the AE article and on the other the defamation and harassment of critics represented by the PLANS article. (It might be instructive to take a look at the History of that article, too, and see what kind of language, and what kind of personal dirtiness, it contained before critics came along.)DianaW 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DianaW - I will have a look at the Associative Economics article and maybe the history of the PLANS article. You asked the question - How do you fight fanaticism? - well I decided to get my hands dirty and try and help out and sort out the Racism sections - which through some decent arguments I think has got to a sensible state. I firmly believe that the best argument should win and fortunately Wikipedia agrees with me - anyone that overrides guidelines/policies/consensus i.e. being an activist WILL be banned from Wikipedia if they do not change there ways.

One of the problems people have found is that has all got too personal. I ignore that, and as we say in the UK - "cut through all the shit" and get to the argument and the points that need to be discussed. I disagree with Pete K that I got anywhere yesterday because of authority - I firmly believe it is because I stick to the task, ignore personal comments (by and large) and concentrate totally on the issue at hand. Cheers Lethaniol 19:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, but is there larger-scale discussion of this problem at wikipedia? You must be aware that similar battles rage continually regarding similar religious sects, cults, schisms, heresies, or whatever you want to call them. (The sociological term is "new religious movements.") Check out the pages on Scientology, Sai Baba, the Unification Church, the Mormons, followers of The Forum/est, Hare Krishnas, etc. - there are literally hundreds. Some of those articles have archived talk pages going back years, and the fights there make the anthroposophy debates look calm and friendly. There needs to be a larger, more comprehensive solution to the questions around controversial religious groups and their critics battling it out at wikipedia. They are all having the exact same arguments and the editors are making all the same mistakes, arbitrating and keeping lists of incivilities etc. Enthusiastic followers of some guru flood wikipedia with dozens of articles on the Great Man and his Great Works full of embarrassing gushing, fawning prose that clearly doesn't meet the standards of an encyclopedia. Critics or disgruntled former followers come along and make all the usual mistakes trying to insert "original research," personal anecdotes, links to blogs etc. I'm sure I'm not the only one mulling this over; I wonder where I could talk to other wikipedians about the larger problem? Any suggestions?DianaW 23:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right there are some major problems with the way Wikipedia works in terms of arguments and edit wars - but the alternative of an elitism hierarchical system would not work - we would never any up with any articles at WP:FA. In terms of somewhere to discuss this I will get back to you. Cheers Lethaniol 23:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to our little neck of the woods, our biggest problem here is that we have our set of enthusiastic followers who not only have a conflict of interest, but have a sense of spiritual obligation to cast off the evil-doers who would blemish their articles with talk of racism, occultism, anti-Semitism, scientific or medical quackery, teacher incompetence, religious underpinnings, etc. etc. It is LITERALLY their mission to prevail here. (Sometimes it helps to get this off one's chest) Pete K 23:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhhh - I want to go to sleep, my gf beckons. Calm down Pete, seriously take a break and calm. Only by working with those OTHER editors will you 1. not get yourself banned 2. Actually get to have neutral articles in this area. You really do have to work with them - so forget about being negative and thinking about them - think how can I improve this article, where can I get a ref for that from, what would be a sensible compromise in this situation etc... zzzzzz Cheers Lethaniol 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Lethaniol, just FYI, there's 29 articles under "Anthroposophists" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anthroposophists (most of which I have never looked at, but we have every reason to suspect many of them need the same treatment these other articles are getting as a result of the arbitration)DianaW 15:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out for instance "Rudolf Steiner's influence on major cultural figures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner%27s_influence_on_major_cultural_figures

This joke of an article lists dozens of luminaries Steiner supposedly influenced. There are 3 references, two of which are to anthroposophical sources (the third in a language I can't read so I don't know what it is). One of the three is to thebee's site. I think I will take the liberty of removing that reference right now. This gives an idea of how much work needs to be done on literally dozens of articles. And the anthroposophists who themselves initiated the arbitration on this matter have not seemed in any particular hurry to buckle down to the task.DianaW 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

History of Waldorf schools would be another good one to check out for a sense of the scope of this problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Waldorf_schools

It has one reference - to Waldorf promotional materials. In German.DianaW 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this one is a great one to peruse for a general sense of the problem here. The opening paragraph asserts that there are 2,000 Waldorf kindergartens worldwide. In September 2006 Pete asked for a citation for this. There has never been any reply. The assertion remains in the article. There are only so many hours in a day especially if one does other things in life besides edit wikipedia. Is there any conceivable way Pete and/or I or other critical editors could approach a problem of this magnitude WITHOUT edit warring? If Pete or I take this stuff out, we would be at it round the clock, and early experience here taught us that our changes to any of these articles would often literally be reverted in minutes.DianaW 15:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the magnitude of the problem, my own pet project of Catch-22 is huge and I reckon it will take me (am only active editor accept wikignomes that correct my mistakes) another 6 months to get all the characters pages up to the basic level and that is without edit warring - I will then concentrate on the main article to try and bring it up to Featured Article status! - Wikipedia is a long term project, which contrary to some beliefs is always improving. I the case of the Anthroposophical articles they WILL be be improved and this happen either of two ways:

1. All the current users who are edit warring will be blocked and the moderates will get on and sort the situation out.
2. All the current users get it sorted - concentrate on the main articles - set the level for the others that is - all the other articles will fall into place once the standard has been set!

I prefer the second option as more effective editors = less work = better product. Note the word effective. It will not be the case that the articles are allowed to nudge forward slowly with edit warring - the users will be blocked. The only way is to reach consensus and follow the rules with common sense and AGF/civility. Cheers Lethaniol 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lethaniol, not to be a complainer, but I spent 30 hours over two days last weekend on the Waldorf Ed article. The only real progress has been that I removed the Anthroposophical sources (something everyone was instructed to do). They are slowly being added back in (HGilbert added back some yesterday). And the only other progress was a couple of paragraphs that were sourced. So, here's a math problem: if 30 hours on a single article produces only a couple of paragraphs, because of the edit warring, then how many decades will it take to bring 30-40 articles into line? Now, let's change the variables, let's take the edit warring out of the picture. The two COI editors who actually created these articles and introduced the problems (HGilbert and TheBee) are unlikely to suddenly produce NPOV articles so let's eliminate them from the equation. Without these two COI, POV-pushing editors, 30 hours of editing could produce an entire NPOV article. After the NPOV article has been produced, the COI editors could be re-introduced into the mix.

I'm not confident that because the articles are already biased, that there is any incentive for the two COI editors to work cooperatively. I'm inclined to go in and remove every unsourced statement and begin a total re-write. The first sentence could easily be "Like Hitler did with the Hitler youth, Steiner set up Waldorf schools as indoctrination centers for future Anthroposophists" and I could support this with Steiner's own statements. I don't think this would be fair to Waldorf, but it is as easily supportable as anything else here. If I introduced this, there would certainly be edit wars until doomsday - especially if it was reasonably supported. This is what is happening with the articles now. Statements that are far off the mark but supportable in some kooky, twisted way are in all these articles. It is far more trouble to remove them than it is to leave them alone - and that's what our COI editors are counting on. Pete K 16:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My answer to this Pete is simple - users who revert and force the issue and keep POV will be blocked - if not today then soon. The ArbCom decision is clear - the articles are to be cleaned up - if they are not and someone is seen to be acting in bad faith in doing so - they will be blocked that is simple. Personally I think the WE article has come a long way over the last 48 hours - the racial bias section in particular - basically those three refs are sorted - no one can take them out or muck around with them too much without acting in bad faith. Cheers Lethaniol 16:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll take an AGF pill again today, but I'm starting to run out. Pete K 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The accusation that DianaW is Wikiwag - please find the truth here

I don't know the wikipedia rules or protocol here, and I sure hope I am not told that pursuing this problem will get me banned. I take false accusations seriously. I'd like somebody who can checkuser or whatever it's called, to set this straight. The accusation can be easily disproven and it should be - people should not be left to wonder if I am who I say I am here. I don't use fake ID's. What can I do about this, Lethaniol? Please advise. I think I will copy this to Durova as well since thebee apparently asked her to check on this, and I was not aware of this as I had stopped "watching" her page.DianaW 22:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid there is probably not much you can do. But if you really want to get a Checkuser between yourself and Wikiwag - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser and then ask for a Checkuser off one of your ArbCom. I think this is the only route to take - though they are unlikely to do the Checkuser as there really nothing serious going on.

The real issue is TheBee's. If he suspects you are using Wikiwag as a sockpuppet, in a malicious sense, then the onus is on him to provide evidence. Before then we are supposed to Assume Good Faith, work with the users involved and get on with life. Throwing accusations of sockpuppetry around is really frowned upon and is thought to be uncivil.

So what I suggest is get on with the editing, forget about any sockpuppet suggestions(at the moment there is next to zero evidence for an Admin to be interested - as far as I have seen), except to keep a record of all the differences when this occurs. Okay? Cheers Lethaniol 22:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Diana makes a good point, however, about credibility. Diana and I are here under our own names exactly for this reason (and we have had some exposure even in the arbitration because of this). For someone (particularly someone who is fond of defaming people without cause) to throw this type of accusation out there is extremely serious from my POV. It makes it seem as if we (critical voices) are using the same sneaky tactics we see being used by our friends across the aisle. Destroying the credibility of critics is EXACTLY one of the tactics we see commonly used by our Waldorf-supportive friends, whether it be on a public forum or a parking lot discussion. Nobody wants to make a big deal out of this - but it is serious and some retraction at least is necessary. Wouldn't you agree? Pete K 22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll calm down. I went on huffing and puffing and probably fortunately for me an edit conflict occurred on this page, and I've had time to stop sizzling. You're right it's too stupid to waste time over. I would like to say more later about the proselytizing question but am out of time, thanks for your replies Lethaniol.DianaW 22:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to make a quick point - I came across TheBee's sockpuppet accusations days ago - had a look into them - and left it be. Sockpuppet accusations can often get thrown around when people are cross - so I left the situation to see what would happen - I am sorry as your mentor I should have mentioned something about it too you sooner. Cheers Lethaniol 23:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, I overreacted.DianaW 23:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Pete K - people throwing around sockpuppet accusations carelessly and shopping for Admin support is taken in a very serious light. I am not saying TheBee has been doing this - have not checked all the diffs, but if he has this will be taken into account, and taken seriously. Cheers Lethaniol 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've collected many diffs demonstrating him doing this - particularly one collector's set of diffs that shows him shopping the same complaint to four different administrators within about a week (not counting the Arb Com). I'll just file this away for now. Pete K 00:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wrote this to Durova and am copying it here and to her talk page. I am NOT trying to escalate this -thebee has repeated his accusations.

Durova: Please. I'm begging now. Please find someone who can check user. He has repeated the accusation above: "The myths that Diana resp Wikiwag and Pete at present work hard to introduce . . ." because you all have more or less assured him that he can get away with this, that nobody is going to check. Please. Set it to rest. It is not a matter of my being "forthcoming." I should not have to be forthcoming to disprove accusations against myself, when I never did anything to make anyone even suspect I was using a sock puppet, and there there is a mechanism by which it can be determined if I was Wikiwag. If it is still required that I document something against him, I will do so, but I admit I feel really burned that the tables have been turned on me here. Could we at least deal with one incivility at a time? My point was lost when accusations of incivility were turned on me: my point was how am I to even know when accusations are made against me by someone who deals with so many different admins? Could we deal with the accusation HE made against ME before requiring me to go on some kind of field trip providing diffs against HIM on something unrelated? (a pattern that, furthermore, already IS documented - this is wikipedia, and all you have to do is review this user's contribs log.) Please.DianaW 13:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore there has never ONCE been a request made to him, by any admin, that he document the accusations he has made against me here. Practically every post equates (incorrectly, but never mind) "WC = PLANS" and PLANS is a group he refers to, without documentation, as a "hate group." This is a libelous accusation against me, it is so serious it could prevent me getting a job, it could get the POLICE interested in me. And no one asks him for "diffs"! Could we please deal with reality here. His record of trying to game the system here is blatant, and my own record is equally transparent to any admin who wishes to review it - merely review our respective contributions. Thank you.DianaW 13:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is one example documented by Pete, see the arbitration evidence page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Evidence and scroll to Harassment by thebee.

It is definitely not worth more time than this, as it is absurdly time consuming to flip from page to page trying to correlate dates to establish a pattern. I have noted before that I'm often bemused by the notions of "civility" at wikipedia (and think they really work against productiveness, as they encourage petty score keeping on very trivial matters, but that's another issue I suppose). It would not have occurred to me that remarking on this pattern of thebee's that is clearly evident to those following these conflicts over a period of time was "incivil" of me, let alone that it was a "serious accusation" as Durova said. I don't think of it as a serious accusation. It's just childishness. It would be as childish of me to "document" it as it is of him to do it. That's my notion of civility. "Documenting" and "reporting" nonsense like this escalates it. I noted it not to get him in trouble with someone but to point out how difficult it is to even know what one has been accused of when the accuser's own activities are devilishly difficult to keep track of. I hope this clarifies somewhat, and maybe even gets me off whatever hook of "incivility" I'm currently on.DianaW 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I would cut and paste Durova's comments from TheBee's page:

Wikiquette in this situation is to be very cautious about making that allegation. So to Bee, now that you've challenged Diana and she's responded take it through formal channels and avoid mentioning it elsewhere until that turns up something or else drop the issue entirely. And to Diana, keep cool as a cucumber. Seasoned editors read your willingness to volunteer for checkuser as a strong sign that the accusation is probably unfounded - you didn't even need to make that offer because the base presumption is in your favor. If somebody crosses the line simply ask them to stop in a polite and terse note, then if necessary record the relevant diffs and ask for intervention. Turning up the heat by mentioning libel and police comes perilously close to a legal threat, which can and does get users sitebanned very quickly. If you think certain accusations against you on this site could have an adverse real-world effect, any sysop could review the relevant posts and remove them from the page history. You could also exercise your right to vanish and leave Wikipedia. Go one of those routes or, if you must, actually file a court case - but don't discuss the latter here. The standard response to legal threats is to siteban the user immediately. Other kinds of hot-blooded responses are counterproductive in less dramatic ways. DurovaCharge 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I should have picked up on this before - and would have done if you had continued - legal threats or the such like have led to many a user getting banned from Wikipedia - so never do it. If you do ever decide to take legal action then you must say so as I believe all editing by yourself should be suspended until the legal action is complete (would need to check this) - so the bottom line - never suggest anything that could be taken as a threat - and as Durova says "stay cool" - and all will be fine one way or another. Cheers Lethaniol 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good Lord. I don't have time to get back into this discussion tonight, but I am thoroughly exasperated that you have both misread what I said. I have NEVER in any way, shape or form suggested that I would take legal action against ANYONE and I have NEVER mentioned calling the police on anyone. Nor have I come "perilously close" to either of those things Durova. PLEASE I implore you to instead read what I actually wrote. I am sick to death of being threatened here. Now it's that I'll be banned if I make legal threats! I know this situation is very challenging to admins as well as editors but it is utterly useless for you to post comments if you don't care to read what I've actually said. I have never threatened anyone in my life. Even Durova and Lethaniol cannot apparently be troubled to read what I actually wrote. I have very little faith left in any processes here. I ask the two of you to read what I wrote and please rescind the comments pertaining to my threatening to call the police. I have never done this.DianaW 01:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Stay calm Diana - read what I have said never suggest anything that could be taken as a threat - the people editing these pages often have a tendency to misinterpret to therefore steer clear of anything, absolutely anything that could be taken as a legal threat. I am not suggesting you have made a legal threat, or even come close - just that it could be taken the wrong - hence I am advising you of this. Cheers Lethaniol 11:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual or religious philosophy

Quick question Lethaniol. Having suggested two sources that use the word "religious" consistently in reference to anthroposophy, how long do I need to wait in good faith, to see if anyone replies, before sticking them in the article and reverting Hgilbert's edit in which he changed "religious" to "spiritual"? (see talk page on Waldorf ed; both are impeccable as wikipedia sources go). Thanks.DianaW 23:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I see you have just added them - as this is obviously such a major issue (or even the major issue) - I would wait a few days and wait for consensus. It may be the case that the only solution is to have a separate Religion versus Spiritual section with opinions on either side and then refer throughout the rest of the text to a philosophy or movement or something else that I can not think of at the moment. The reason it is difficult is that if all the Waldorf schools do not consider themselves religious then it is a bit much going through the whole article labelling it as such.

As said this will be a difficult issue and just cos you have two excellent refs does not mean you can change the whole document. In this case - a CONSENSUS will need to be reached I am sure. Ok am off to bed - night Cheers Lethaniol 23:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record - I have NOT added them. I have ONLY discussed it. Indeed, the schools don't want to call themselves religious - that's the dispute here, yes. Practically anyone else who walks in the door sees something religious going on, but they need to deny it in the US or lose tax funding. It's a simple issue of "Follow the money." The movement loses financially. No, wikipedia can't influence the court case but in solidarity many in Waldorf go on supporting the deception that Waldorf isn't religious for this reason. This is the issue regarding COI on the part of editors affiliated with Waldorf, also. For someone employed in a public Waldorf school in the US, denying that Waldorf is religious amounts to repeating the party line in order to protect their job. Denial of public funding to these schools may be the outcome of the PLANS lawsuit. If you are in the UK you may not be familiar with how this works in the US. I think it's important you have some idea of these larger issues, in understanding the conflict between some of the editors here.DianaW 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you added them to the TALK page :):) I know, and I was already aware of the larger picture but thankyou - the COI is very important hence why this will be a difficult issue to sort (maybe the most difficult) but I am confident that it can be. Cheers Lethaniol 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources not Ego

Hi Pete K,

Concerning the edit diff [6], considering that Vernado has previously been discussing the use of sources from the library, and the discussion was never resolved, this is likely to just cause an argument. So I suggest you concentrate on the article and its sources not the egos, please.

With respect to sources in the library - they can be quoted from BUT ONLY if they are available elsewhere (i.e. are non-Antroposophy sources) but for one reason or another are not accessible for example the Swedish Waldorf study. Anything else in the library can not be used. Cheers Lethaniol 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I didn't remember that it was Venado who brought that up. I'm embarassed to say, I get him and Vindheim confused sometimes in my mind. Point taken on the sources. Thanks! Pete K 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not helpful

You're wasting your time TheBee.

I suggest you be a bit more diplomatic Pete and indeed civil. TheBee has some valid arguments - and you can see I have addressed them in an appropriate section early to today already. User:Lethaniol

Fine, I'll go back to lurking. TheBee has been trying to redefine the arbitration agreement since it was handed down. If you want to follow all this, go ahead. It doesn't mean anything to me since it's not what the arbitrators said. Pete K 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this was just a friendly suggestion to try prevent yourself some grief. I understand where you are coming from when you say TheBee has been trying to redefine the arbitration agreement since it was handed down, but he is not going around relentlessly edit warring/reverting but discussing his views on the talk page - so deserves some civility. If you disagree with him and think he spends too much time on these issues then say, but do not want to get involved in a fight say - NOTHING. Leave it up to other editors already engaged (i.e. me at the mo) to talk to TheBee about these issues and try not to inflame the situation. Obviously if there is a need to get involved DO - but try to be constructive if at all possible. Cheers Lethaniol 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but he's been peddling this same idea for a month now. He peddles these ideas until somebody sort of agrees with him, then he uses them to perform a bunch of aggressive edits claiming some sort of agreement has been reached. I've watched this time and time again. So I won't say anything, but then who is going to revert the aggressive edits that follow when he has pestered somebody into saying "I see your point"? I think it cuts down edit warring to stop this early... but I'll stay out of it and let's see what happens.

Pete K 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving when you mean deleting

I saw this edit [7] - now I agree that this section does not belong in this area - but you said it was moved and it has not. Cheers Lethaniol 19:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Forget it I see that you have just added it back in - good. Cheers Lethaniol 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a two-step edit interrupted by someone who reverted my last 10 edits. I've added it where I believe it belongs. That it was misplaced is the reason I changed the sub-heading. Pete K 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom decision

Hi Pete,

This message is very brief as I lost the draft when my connection crashed, and am now off out - but the point I want to make is:

Be very careful - if the ArbCom were to come along now and review the probation, you would be the first to be blocked as the one who is most disruptive, breaks WP:1RR most, uses aggressive editing on articles and talk, and who puts least effort into reaching consensus.

This is a heads up - have a review of your language and edits, and think what others might think. I will reply in more detail later on - but please tone it down for your sake.

Cheers Lethaniol 20:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm doing what they asked us to do - delete the unsourced claims. I may be fatally wrong here, but I truly believe every edit I make is in accordance with the arbcom decision and done with their blessings. Pete K 20:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, and I agree a lot of your edits have been in accordance with the ArbCom decision - though not all, and we have to accept that there will always be grey areas that needed discussion to be resolved. Your Blocking/Banning reason won't be the what or why - but the how. I am telling you, you are being too aggressive, you are putting everyone's back up (including my own), all your edits feel disruptive (even if they are not), and you do not discuss properly, in depth or civilly on the talk page. So even if you do the right thing - you are doing it in the wrong way.

I tell you this, because if you continue to do the right things in the wrong way, you will be blocked and the right things will be lost. Better to go a little slower, with a bit more effort, and then you will get the right things and they will stay. You must engage in the consensus process completely...

Please, please take this on board Cheers Lethaniol 20:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've got to say that I really don't have the time or energy to have this process take six months per article. We all agreed to make the critical edits this weekend (today) so everything that was not cited would be removed. We agreed to this. Last night, HGilbert puts in about 2 dozen edits that, for sure, needed to come back out. Yeah, it makes me look aggressive, but what about the 2 dozen previous edits? Anyway, I'll take some time off. I feel like Sysiphus - almost getting my boulder up the hill and then... Pete K 21:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

PLANS Article

Saw that you edited the PLANS article yesterday, and that upset someone enough to complain. I suggest, to save effort, that we concentrate on the Waldorf Education article - once we are happy with that, then we move on as a group hopefully. The choice is yours, but note I can not spread my editing too thin. Cheers Lethaniol 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to make the edit on the heels of Thatcher's comment regarding the sourcing of legal material. I don't intend to do a lot of editing on that page. I don't think "the group" is necessarily interested in editing that page either. That page is owned by a different group - Professor Marginalia and TheBee. I'd be surprised of anyone else got too excited about it. Pete K 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you watching what's going on today?

I feel like reverting the last 50 edits. Is there any point to agreeing on language when HGilbert goes back through and revises everything to his own liking? I'm inclined to drop out of this for a week and then spend a day reverting the entire article to where it was yesterday. If one editor isn't going to follow the protocol of discussion before making edits, then there's no point in trying to work together with everyone else. Here's a particularly nice edit - but really the whole day has been a bloodbath assault on the article. I'm ready to put the advert tag back on. Pete K 19:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

New Arbitration Issues

Hi Lethaniol. Thanks for sticking up for me.

Ya know... I really don't see how I have violated ANYTHING here - and I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I truly believe the section I have produced in the Waldorf Ed article still belongs there. It may be on the edge of good taste, but that's about it. It is sourced, the person isn't named in the Wiki article, an the incidents happened... twice... and the teacher apologized for them (further suggesting they happened). How can it be libel if it's true? How is reporting an incident on Wikipedia different than reporting it in the newspaper? I really don't understand what has happened here and don't know how to defend against my actions in arbitration. How is this disallowed when TheBee has made completely unsubstantiated claims of "hate group" repeatedly here? I'm sure we will go into all this at the arbitration, but I'm ready for a Wiki-break, not more intensity. I'm have inclined to just let the chips fall. As you may have noticed, your other mentee, Diana W, has given up already. If it weren't for incidents like the one I presented, I would probably give up too. I'll try to find more cases of Waldorf abuse in published sources, but that will be difficult. Most people don't want to publicise these incidents when their own children are the victims. A few write testimonials about such incidents, many anonymously, but unless the incident is noteworthy, as was the case here, little publicity is seen and even less action is taken by Waldorf. Anyway, any advice you have as to the arbitration would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Pete K 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have been watching - I have just finished an email to Fred and the ArbCom about the Libel and Living Biography issues. I do not believe (though we shall see) that the issue of the Living Biography is the only thing to have lead to the review - but an accumulation of issues over the last month.

My first suggestion to you is to email Fred and the ArbCom. Go to Fred's userpage and in the toolbox on the left hand side and click email user. Now spend sometime writing this email. You need to explain your actions on the teacher abuse issue, apologise for anything you regret, and deal with the issues with respect to the Living Biography policy. This issue is serious and needs to be dealt with but because it can not be discussed now on Wikipedia - you will have to suffice with email. All other issues can be discussed openly - presumably on the talk page of the Review page (will need to check). Also I recommend asking if the ArbCom has any questions on why you did X or said Y with respect on the issue above - that way you can respond to their concerns.

I will update my advice as the Review progresses - but you need to concentrate on explaining how you have been trying really hard to work with the other users and with the article probation considerations. Spend little time explaining the infringements of others (only the most aggressive/disruptive). The ArbCom want to know how you have been behaving - has progress been made - a finger pointing match will only lead to user blocks. Be constructive, civil and helpful.

Cheers Lethaniol 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've emailed Fred. Pete K 17:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya know... the thing that really bugs me the most is that I, Pete K am the last line of defense for children against this teacher and teachers like her. The schools do nothing, the state does nothing, teachers who behave like this haven't broken any laws and, as I showed, can continue to advertise for childcare services - or continue teaching in Waldorf. If this had happened in a private home, instead of a Waldorf school, the person would in all likelyhood have been arrested and charged with criminal activity, her childcare license revoked, her teaching credentials revoked at the very least. This is the point I'm trying to make here (a point that nobody wants to acknowledge). Why shouldn't the article about Waldorf Education be clear about this? Pete K 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey you are opening a whole can of worms here. A number of the issues you have raised should be addressed either on her own page if she has one, the senator's page (maybe), the regulation of teachers in general etc... Oh got to go - will get back to you on this one. Cheers Lethaniol 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh - a few more minutes. If your concern is really with this woman you need to take it outside of Wikipedia. I think your main concern is the lack of teaching and discipline of teachers in general and Warldorf ones in particular. If that is the case you need robust third party research/reports to work with not just one case. 800-1000 schools = approx 20000 teachers - there are bound to be some bad eggs. You need to find info on how Waldorf schools do not apply appropriate policies to protect the children and discipline the teachers.

Remember this is an encyclopaedia not a campaign machine. If you want to campaign that is what PLANS is for, if you want to help make a neutral Wikipedia please stay. It is not our job to highlight all the little issues about Waldorf schools - just the main ones and make sure the article is neutral. Cheers Lethaniol 18:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know... the last bit was a little rant. I'm not here to campaign, but I do want to raise the difficult topics related to Waldorf (that's not a surprise is it?). I don't expect to produce anything in the articles that isn't fully supported. Re: "some bad eggs" - I think there are some very clear reasons why bad eggs gravitate to Waldorf - loose requirements, no oversight, no accountability, teachers circle the wagons when one makes a mistake, teachers united under a common spiritual dogma, spiritual misconceptions related to ideas like karma, flying under legal radar, etc. I will continue to look for 3rd party support on these issues and will, hopefully, be able to present them when I have supported them properly. As I said, I have nothing at all against this particular teacher, but have concerns about the system that allowed her to continue to teach after the first incident. Pete K 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good morning (for me) Lethaniol. I've asked Fred for clarification today on why he has removed the sourced material about the Waldorf teacher. If a determination about libel needs to be made (Fred was a lawyer, he should know there wasn't any libel here) - that shouldn't take too long. I'm very concerned that Fred has gotten involved in controlling the content of the articles - and that would be inappropriate in my view. At least two editors besides me have tried to re-introduce the material - neither one is a critic of Waldorf AFAIK. When administrators get involved in removing content that is properly sourced and don't supply reasons (the WP:BLP doesn't seem to be a valid reason to exclude the content) - then this represents a bias and hurts Wikipedia overall. Editors should be the ones involved in content disputes, not administrators. Pete K 14:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete I am not sure what is going on - Fred has said to Durova that the issue of WP:BLP is red herring, yet he has blanked the article and talk page and fully protected them because of this issue. He is right though when he said that the main issue at hand is the use of appropriate 3rd party sources.

We are into realms that I have no knowledge of - I have not been involved in an ArbCom ruling before and have not had dealings with ArbCom members. But here is my advice to you which I think you would be well advised to take on board. Asking for an explanation from Fred/ArbCom is fair enough (use the appropriate channel which they have opted for i.e. email), but do not push it. Asserting that Admins have no more right than a normal user to decide a WP:BLP may get you into trouble, especially as we may not be aware of the full facts in this case. E.g. what happens if someone has made a formal complaint - that would certainly explain Fred's actions.

Therefore I suggest extreme patience - you are already the target of Fred's reopening of the ArbCom case and you need to tread very carefully if you wish to remain editing here. As I said above spend your efforts preparing your statement showing how you have been conforming to ArbCom decisions, highlighting any areas you still feel you need to work and how you will do so. Again it is not in your interests in making your statement loaded with criticism of the other editors involved. Listen to Durova's advice.

Cheers Lethaniol 14:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Asserting that Admins have no more right than a normal user to decide a WP:BLP may get you into trouble..." I'm pretty sure I haven't made that assertion. They absolutely get to decide policy - and I fully support this activity. What I am concerned about is whether they are allowed to decide *content* that does not violate policy. I just wrote to Thatcher, and I'll repeat it here, I'm not sure I'm going to participate in the arbitration. I may change my mind and present a case, but at the moment, I'm thinking this is a foregone conclusion and probably not the best use of my time. Even Durova has said she won't be supporting me this time (I can't blame her). If I do present a case, it will be against HGilbert and TheBee, not in support of myself. I'm pretty sure even that will be a waste of time - if the ArbCom didn't get that allowing two very biased COI editors to remain here after the last arbitration would cause further problems, edit warring and personal attacks, I don't think I'll be able to convince them this time.

I heard on TV last night that Jimbo Wales didn't care for Bill Gates hiring people to clean up Microsoft's image on Wikipedia. It is no different here - people with a COI, who make money from Waldorf should not be allowed to clean up Waldorf's image here and to do everything possible (including getting themselves banned, as TheBee has stated he is willing to do) in order to prevent editors who are critical of Waldorf from participating here. It's this kind of thing that destroys Wikipedia. JW has acknowledged this - the ArbCom needs to follow suit. If they weren't ready to do this the first time, my input is not likely to convince them this time. Pete K 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak - 28hours

Just so you know Pete, I will be offline for 28 hours starting from now - as I have a very important interview to attend in London tomorrow. I have two things to say:

A clarification - ArbCom do not decide policies (the community does) - they only enforce.

A suggestion - take a wikibreak yourself for a few days - with the Waldorf article locked little editing is going on. Chill, relax, contemplate then decide what is most important for you, then come back and prepare for the ArbCom review. As I said patience will help here.

Anyway enough said, and I will see you in a little later. Cheers Lethaniol 17:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck on the interview! I'll take a little Wiki-break myself. Pete K 17:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi Lethaniol, I hope your interview was successful. I've put a proposal together on Durova's talk page. It may be a foregone conclusion that I'm banished, but I've asked her to recommend something else. I've imposed on your time with my proposal, even though it doesn't need to be you involved. Please have a look. Thanks! Pete K 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Bye

It looks like the writing is on the wall. I'm not going to waste any more time putting up a defense - I'm the only person Fred is gunning for so it's pretty clear what this is all about. I've made some valid arguments especially about the case being about a public person but nobody is interested. I was hoping another arbitrator would say "hey, wait a minute" - but this is starting to feel like the mad hatter's tea party - so I'll be deleting my Wikipedia bookmark now and I'll drop by in a couple of weeks to see the outcome of the arbitration (not that I really need to). Thank you, sincerely, Lethaniol, for your patience with me and for your help on the article. I hope you stick with it as your attention there produced quite a bit of progress (but I'd understand if you don't). Here, I promised you one of these:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Awarded for your patience - from a former Wikipedian Pete K 02:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Pete - I am truly sorry to hear you are leaving us, I thought you brought some very useful information to these articles, if not often done in the right way. I also believe that your lack of input will be a loss to the overall content of Wikipedia and its neutrality. We shall see what the ArbCom has to say, but at the moment things do not look too good, but then the other Arbitrators have not got involved yet and Durova and myself have not given our statements. Time will tell, and a break from Wikipedia might be a good thing. Thanks for the star, and I am sure we shall speak again soon. Cheers Lethaniol 13:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lethaniol. I think Fred's mind is made up and I've been asking people not to put themselves at risk by supporting me. When Wikiwag did, the response from Fred was to describe his evidence as "worthless" and to flash this on the page, which he quickly deleted here. That should (or could) be taken as a warning not to mess with Fred's trial - so any evidence on my behalf that might be forthcoming could easily have been reconsidered by other editors. I have, indeed, contacted other editors and asked then not to stick their necks out for me as it appears, by the above, that they will open themselves up to punishment. I'll ask the same of you and Durova if you can stand the hypocrisy in this case. For the Wikipedia system to work, we have to all be on the same level. When people like Fred overstep their power (as I think he has) there is little point to continuing. I don't accept that the claim of "libel" has been made in public and will apparently be resolved in private. How does that make me look? I don't view this as a fair hearing (obviously) for several reasons - reasons for conclusions drawn about whether the teacher was a public figure or not should be open to review by everyone. Fred has also claimed I introduced language that was produced by someone else. I'm being convicted on the flimsiest of evidence. It's a witchunt and nobody is having any trouble finding who the witch is. My integrity requires that I demonstrate what Fred has accomplished with the two links above. I should have stopped when this stopped being fun. I feel I could easily defend myself in a fair trial, but this one is obviously biased. I don't see any reason to put up a defense - exactly what I said would happen has happened - TheBee has tried everything - even to the point of accusing me of libel - to get me banned. He will walk away from the accusation with an apology, or a claim of not understanding the definition of libel, or some other nonsense. Even if I could stay, is it worth staying to endure this kind of abuse on a daily basis? I've been down that route with Waldorf before. If TheBee's disruptive tactics are OK for Wikipedia, I don't really see how I can be part of it. Pete K 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you do not want people to stick their neck out for you, but you do not have to worry about me - I will say what I will say. As you will have seen with my edits to Talk:Waldorf Education I am fair and balanced and when editors try to have a go they do not succeed. I will not get into trouble for giving my opinion in this case, because as always people known that I am straight up and do not have any other agenda than the one that I am making. Cheers Lethaniol 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Pete K 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorting out evidence

Hi Pete K,

Will be presenting my evidence this weekend, though I am not sure what effect it will have on any outcome. Note I also spent some time looking through some of your evidence - a number of the links seem to be in the wrong place, and with the wrong captions. I suggest you check all of them to make sure. Cheers Lethaniol 00:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lethaniol. I had just accumulated a bunch of links and notes over the past month and posted them there as my "defense". I don't want to labor over this too much. I'm not interested in putting up that much of a defense and I really don't have the energy to go through everything that TheBee, HGilber and Professor Marginalia have produced to refute it - although I'm quite sure I could supply a very different picture of what transpired if I did. The last arbitration was exhausting, and I have little interest in this one other than, as I said elsewhere, clearing my name of the libel accusation. I'm trying to spend a lot less time here than I was spending a couple of weeks ago (an hour a day max) and it has made me a lot happier to leave the bickering behind. I don't want to go back to that mode again. If I survive the arbitration, I'll stay, if I don't, I'll go. I'm not really going to sweat it. I have no illusions that I'm going to fly under anyone's radar and even looking forward, I'll be walking on eggshells if I'm allowed to continue editing and that may add to the stress as much as my friend's regular sniping. This arbitration review leaves me feeling like an elk who is attacked by wolves. Inevitably, the wolves are going to win. So without meaning any disrespect to this process, I don't expect to go back through my evidence. I very much appreciate the time you have taken with me and the effort you are taking to produce your own evidence in this case. I'll look forward to it. Pete K 03:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay Pete K I totally understand. I am glad that you are finding life less stressful now - and that is what Wikipedia should be enjoyable not stressful, it is shame you have not found it so. We will see what the ArbCom review has to offer, remember that the other Arbitrators are yet to get involved. Cheers Lethaniol 10:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to give you an idea of how not interested I am, I haven't even bothered reading all the evidence presented against me. The true shame is that Wikipedia suffers from having a very biased group pushing a POV without challenge. It won't take long for them to get on Wikiwag - TheBee is already doing his thing trying to discredit him and challenging him endlessly. You may want to oversee how this goes (maybe offer mentoring to Wikiwag as support). Henitsirk is level-headed, has some background in Waldorf, and seems neutral. Everyone else seems to be pretty much in the "pro-Waldorf" camp (i.e. will defend what's there) to varying degrees so Wikiwag will have his hands full if he's the only voice challenging them.

I don't hold out any hope that the other arbitrators are going to challenge Fred's assertions. I suspect they will fall in line behind him. I'll feel better if I know you're keeping an eye on things when I'm gone. Thanks! Pete K 14:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Slow progress

Hi Pete,

Sorry am making slow progress with my evidence - really should have thought ahead and noted down the differences as they happened - lol. Will get there though.

Just a quick suggestion on Waldorf Education - though I know you trying to show a point adding long quotes from primary sources does not really move the discussion along and it probably side tracks it. Note I do not agree with TheBee that this is a propaganda technique (one for the diff) - do not bite to this - I know you are trying to show a point, but try where possible to keep it on track with allowed sources. Cheers Lethaniol 20:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lethaniol. I've been trying to show that these aren't isolated quotes or one-off's, that they represent a pattern of language/thinking that Steiner displayed throughout his lifetime. If I thought a single quote wouldn't bring someone's comment that - Oh, yeah, that's a single quote not representative of Steiner's views (blah blah) - I'd limit what I produce. Unfortunately, it seems I have to over-prove my point in order to make it over the abundant noise of the people who don't want me to make it. TheBee is now inventing stuff (like 4 different ways Steiner used the term "race") in order confuse the issue, push his POV and nullify mine. I'm inclined to let most of it go as I suspect most people can see through his nonsense, but I also feel a sense of urgency in that I might not be around here much longer to point out how absurd his arguments are for the people here who might actually buy into it. Anyway, I'm sticking to my schedule of limiting my time here so I'm trying to concentrate on the big battles while I'm still able to discuss these articles. My concern is not TheBee and his mindless squabbling, it's HGilbert who is intent on rolling back language we have recently agreed on - now that I am having to walk on those eggshells. Pete K 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you can save your effort. Durova has recommended me for a site ban. I think I've overstayed my welcome. It's been nice knowing you... Pete K 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And now it's starting Lethaniol. Have a look at this diff. An anonymous editor has arrived to suddenly remove all the work DianaW had done on the Associative Economics article. What a surprise? Not only that, but all the discussion on the talk page as well. This is a hate campaign by people who hate critics. How long do you think it will take before everything goes back to the way it was before? HGilbert has alread started rolling back the Waldorf article. I'll bet in less than a month, every article will be indistinguishable from the condition it was in when I arrived here. This is why I get so frustrated. Anyway, I think I've thoroughly burned all my bridges now so I won't have any excuse to worry about this anymore. Take care! Pete K 04:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I had noticed the edits - but thanks for pointing out as I had not noticed the blanking of talk page discussion on the talk page. I have fixed, and warned the Anon IP. Previously I had added back in the NPOV tag, but as for the Anon IP's edits to the article they seem fine to me, all description and not opinions/value judgements - though it does lack the references required. Cheers Lethaniol 10:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This has happened again. Since I don't have any credibility, would it be appropriate for you to suggest that the page be semi-protected from unregistered user edits? It makes sense since these are controversial edits (especially deleting one person's discussion) and they are essentially vandalism. I don't have all the articles on my watch list, but it's likely to be happening elsewhere too. Pete K 15:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

End of Adoption

OK that is the last straw. Pete you previously had been working to introduce sensible material and sensible sources. You are now constantly using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX - and seem to really not care for the quality of the sources. Consider this adoption/mentorship ended. I will be adding evidence to the ArbCom review, and ask for the process to be hurried up.

If you at all care for Wikipedia, stop adding obviously inappropriate sources now, remove the ones added, maybe even apologise. Cheers Lethaniol 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(Note please do not add anything else to this page, it is now archived)