Talk:PLANS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] Removal of link to critical site
User:75.28.155.147 proposes to remove a link to a critical assessment of PLANS on the web site Americans4Waldorf.org. The reasons for removing the link might be? --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article is currently under article probation and for all intents and purposes, only independently published content is acceptable under the terms of the probation. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If we go back to the original objections User:Pete K had to the link to the Americans4Waldorf.org site that's critical of the PLANS organization, his only assertion was that "that site may not be linked". What do other editors think about the validity of this site? Should the link be removed, and on what grounds, for example as given in WP:ELNO? --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, the Americans for Waldorf page on PLANS claims that much of what PLANS asserts about Waldorf and anthroposophy is incorrect, deliberately falsified, "with defamatory exaggeration, distortion, and delusion about Waldorf education, about its founder Rudolf Steiner, and about anthroposophy". The myths proposed by PLANS are "defamatory even to the point of demonization" with a number of demonstrably untrue allegations. All of these points may be true, and a number of the issues are backed up with arguments and countervailing facts. In this way, the site provides balance to the PLANS site itself, helping to achieve a neutral point of view. However, the site appears to me to be too aggressive and polemical. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Per my reasons stated above, I have removed this link. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that based on the probation source requirements that site does not meet the independence/reliable source test. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RFC
- NPOV tag was put in place by a sock evading his topic ban. RFC is not needed at this point. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That's quite a confident assertion, Professor. Got any facts to back it up with? I may have missed where a check-user was conducted which revealed the identity of the person you have called a "sock."DianaW (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well? What were the results of the check-user?DianaW (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do I have the impression there may be a feeling that since the NPOV tag is not there now, further questions on the topic can be ignored unless the NPOV tag is put back? Is that how it is supposed to work at wikipedia, Professor?DianaW (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Answering my own question, no, there has been no check user, at least not publicly reported.
At 18:41 on 13 May, the Professor opened a case accusing Pete K of sock puppetry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets&diff=prev&oldid=212168103
At 23:30 on the same day she began referring to a poster here whose edits she doesn't like as a "banned user" and reverting his or her edits with the sock puppetry accusation (unresolved as of this writing) only hours old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=prev&oldid=212231544
I hope you're angling for "adminship," Professor, you're showing all the necessary qualities . . .
She has made numerous edits to wikipedia since I posed my question two days ago, so it strikes me as unlikely she is unaware of the questions I have raised here about her behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DianaW (talk • contribs) 02:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I repeat: I would like to see the evidence that the poster was a sock of Pete K.DianaW (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um, I see that the explanation on your talk page from Shalom was not clear to you and that you have asked for further clarification from him. I think he would be the better source to answer your question. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- This discussion is simultaneously taking place and properly belongs on Pete K's entry on the Wikipedia sock puppet page. The conclusion by admins is that this is indeed to be considered as a sock puppet. Please continue the discussion on that page, as it is the admins who make the call here. Hgilbert (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No evidence has been posted in *any* of those places that the user in question was Pete K. If I have missed it, please point me to that evidence.DianaW (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
