User talk:Thebee

Archived Talks page, 29 Oct 2006

Archived Talks page 12 Jan 2007

PLANS

As a friendly suggestion: reduce your arguments to a cogent paragraph or two; this is more effective and leaves a better impression than sprawling pages. Even I, sympathetic to your point here, shudder at the format! Best wishes. Hgilbert 14:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling. I don't like long drawn out discussion back and forth about details. That's why I try to be as thorough as possible from the beginning in my argument. But the thoroughness does't seem to impress my main opponent. Or maybe I just read too much Steiner ... ;-) --Thebee 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation of Arbitration Ruling

Greetings Thebee!

Well as promised, I thoroughly reviewed all the ground [and the drama! *whew!*] covering this whole group of articles. I think it's important to break down the salient points, beginning with the ruling itself (which might be more accurately referred to as a statement of probation rather than a ruling) and findings of fact. I've included my interpretations in parentheses:

1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and related articles contain large amounts of original research and information gathered from Anthroposophical related sources which are for verification purposes properly considered self-published by the Anthroposophy movement. (It was unanimously agreed by the arbitration panel that material gathered from Anthroposophical related sources is self-published, and therefore unacceptable for verification and/or citation purposes. They must therefore be removed.)

5) Hgilbert is a teacher in a Waldorf school and a writer regarding the educational theories used at the Waldorf schools. His edits are strongly supportive of the Waldorf schools and their philosophy of education, see an early edit. He has also edited Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and other related articles with a strong positive bias. He has made some edits to Homeopathy and related articles, but very few to other articles outside those related to Rudolf Steiner and the Waldorf schools. (It was unanimously agreed that Hgilbert is biased and in the sub-findings of fact [5.1 and 5.2], was unanimously found to have published original research or inappropriate references as fact.)

Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation 1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. 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. 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.

It seems unequivocally clear, that panel's unanimous intent was that the Anthroposophy-related citations be removed, on the grounds that they are unverifiable as self-published and/or original research. Indeed, the matter appears that contrary to your assertion - only the controversial references be removed - Anthroposophical references by their very nature are controversial and must be removed entirely.

You and Hgilbert as two of the named parties in the arbitration, as well as the chief architects of its content, have therefore been specifically charged with this task. Indeed, you personally requested the arbitration. So presumably, you intend to abide by the panel's findings and remedies.

Being the civil person I am, I do not wish to do what you did to my edits before I was properly informed of the conditions applied to this particular article - meaning wipe the slate clean and pare it down the the barest of facts. With that said, I too was wrong for posting what I did - but my excuse was pure ignorance; you unfortunately cannot make the same claim.

However, it may simply be that the named parties in this matter are too close to this issue to see things clearly and perhaps it requires a fresh set of eyes, from someone who is enough of a student of Steiner (I loved the approach first, then grew to question it, then grow to doubt much of the basis behind it) to look at things from a more objective POV.

I can play that role, because I respect the Waldorf movement for much of what I believe it did for my children from a character perspective and preserving their childhood for as long as we could. But academically, as far as my own children's experiences and the experiences of their peers at their former school [both attending and graduated], the approach does not live up to many of the claims made by its practitioners. Moreover, the spiritual pseudo-science behind the method has no more basis in independent third-party research (meaning outside of Steiner/Anthroposophy/Waldorf), than Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other independent schools do. Childhood education at Waldorf remains what it always has been in general - experimental.

Therefore challenge is this: that much of the facts and experience both pro- and anti- Waldorf (in particular), is original research, anecdotal, or self-published as defined by both the Wikipedia guidelines and the Arbitration Panel.

Perhaps if the parties involved up until this point were all courageous enough and respectful enough of each other's POV earlier on in the process to allow both PsOV to co-exist in the interest of crafting a well-written, honest and balanced article...matters might be different now. But it seems that we have no alternative but to strip the whole thing down to its most fundamental facts - meaning those that can be verified by independent 3rd-party research and publications. What we and the public will be left with, will utterly fail to inform the people who need it most - those who are considering a Waldorf education for their children.

I look forward to your reply.

Wikiwag 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of Arbitration decision

I disagree with much of what you write on the among other the following points and for the following reasons:

The Final decision may stand out as unclear and partly maybe contradictory with regard to what is to be considered to be acceptible sources for different statements in the articles. A closer look shows it is not. You only need to read it closely.

According to Final decision, Findings of Fact (14.2.1.):

Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and related articles contain large amounts of original research and information gathered from Anthroposophical related sources which are for verification purposes properly considered self-published by the Anthroposophy movement.

This is an unclear statement and does not tell if it refers to every statement in the articles. It only states that such statements are found in the articles for which Anthroposophical related sources for verification purposes are to be considered not permitted sources, "self-published (by) the Anthroposophical movement".

The Final decision Principles - Verifiability (14.1.3) is more detailed:

"Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

This is more specific than the Findings of facts point and tells that with regard to controversial information in the articles, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are considered self published and thus not reliable sources. But for information that is not controversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered as reliable sources.

This comes to expression shortly and in an incomplete way in the Remedy - Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation section:

"Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. 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 needs to be seen and interpreted in relation to the first two sections, telling:

- All original research in the articles needs to be removed. To understand this, one needs to look more closely what Wikipedia means with "Original research", defined by one of seven listed characteristics, and is much more limited that what superfifially may be understood with the word, that someone investigates something by him- or herself and tells about the results.

For Wikipedia purposes:

"An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

• It introduces a theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument,

that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments

in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis

or synthesis to a reputable source;

• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."

That is a much more narrow use of the term, than normally probably is understood.

The "No Original research" policy also tells this:

"... research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

To summarize:

For all information in the articles that is uncontroversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered reliable.

For any information in the articles, that (on an not clearly defined basis) can be considered controversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered unreliable.

With regard to what is well known to most people involved in Waldorf education, as teachers and parents, much if not most of what has been found in the article (on Waldorf education), before Pete K again started to hack into it, probably is uncontroversial.

What is "controversial"? That is the big, not cleared out point, about which the Arbitration decision is not clear, and that creates the probably largest difficulty in the continued editing of the article.

Pete K has written somewhere I think, (don't have the time to search for it now) told that he's about to put 200 fact tags in the Waldorf article.

That's clearly absurd, and would demand that every sentence be verified by a at least one cited source. That is not the case with ANY other article at Wikipedia, and an expression of extremely bad faith hostile editing, if implemented by him.

You write:

"You and Hgilbert as two of the named parties in the arbitration, as well as the chief architects of its content, have therefore been specifically charged with this task. Indeed, you personally requested the arbitration."

Your sweeping statement and conclusion is false. I'm not an architect of the arbitration request. Hgilbert wrote it without asking or consulting with me.

With regard to who is expected to do what, the Final decision only says in general that "editors" of the articles ar expected to edit them in accordance with the arbitration decision. It does not put the responsibility for this on any special party, as you do, and expresses its expectation in the seeming hope and good faith that the editors (all editors) who continue to edit the article will make them better in accordance with the arbitration decision (described above).

Your comment and conclusion on this point therefore stands out as biased and untrue.

Thebee 23:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Report from Mainz

Hi TheBee,

You are right about the title, and Pete K's title is probably far to long and needs to be condensed. I would make one suggestion though:

In the section, see Talk:Waldorf_education#.22Report_from_Mainz.3F.22, you give links to your own Original Research and a quote/letter from a parent which appears only to be referenced from an anthroposophical website (though I may be mistaken on this last point) - please do not do this. These links add little to the discussion, and if there is any argument of note it can be cut and pasted in or paraphrased. I see little point in linking to such references in this case as they can not influence the talk page argument as they can never be used in the main space article.

I understand that these articles are close to your heart but the best way to reach consensus on the talk pages is to only use links/refs that are likely to be able to be used in the article. Cheers Lethaniol 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"In the section, see Talk:Waldorf_education#.22Report_from_Mainz.3F.22, you give links to your own Original Research and a quote/letter from a parent which appears only to be referenced from an anthroposophical website."

If you look closer at the section you refer to, you'll see that what I mention and link to is an advertisement published in the General Jewish Weekly, March 3, 2000 by a former Waldorf student and daughter of a former Chairperson of the Central Jewish Council in Germany, Heinz Galinski, who got so upset at the defamatory TV-program you defend as a reliable citation in the article on Waldorf education, that she even paid for an advertisement in the General Jewish Weekly, telling about it. That I have a copy of her ad at my personal site is irrelevant with regard to its nature, though her ad probably cannot be used as citation in the article. Or can it?

In the discussion, you also comment on "egos". Try http://www.thebee.se/WPPA/PersonalCommentsByPKatWikipedia.html for ego. Thebee 09:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay yes I thought I was wrong about the child's letter, as I mentioned above though I may be mistaken on this last point. It is still not a good source to use though as compared with the TV program it is an anecdotal report, notably non-notable and if added gives an emotional bias to an Encyclopaedia that should be fact based. Cheers Lethaniol 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for cleaning this up, sorry [1] Cheers Lethaniol 18:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The daughter is and was not a "child". It is a grown up adult woman. I'm puzzled by the carelessness with which you as mentor, teaching others how to edit Wikipedia, describe citations, as also by the superficial way you read and interpret sources, like the Worldnetdaily article. It does not say what it stated in the citation. What teachers read and think is one thing. What they teach is not all they read. And you have readded the citation, even though it says nothing at all about Saint Michael, nor about Saint Martin as described in the text, based on it as citation, nor anything about it being taught to the pupils. I assume you will correct this by removing the citation and the reference at least to 'Lucifer' in the text. Thebee 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are things being claimed that you contest (St. Michael, St. Martin), then put a fact tag next to them. It's very simple. You tag it and someone has to find a citation that confirms this. IF they can't, THEN it can be removed. Pete K 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right TheBee I have not read the Worldnetdaily article end to end, all I know is that it does mention about Lucifer (and hence directly infers it is taught, as taken from a teaching aid - The Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide). Hence the reason that this ref DOES apply to the text (specifically) Lucifer - and should not be removed with the reason - Citation says nothing about Saint Michael, Saint Martin, or that children are being taught about "Lucifer". Check before readding.

Personally I think this ref is weak - hence why I brought it up for discussion on the talk page but you have not contributed. I added back the ref and Lucifer bit so that people would get up to the talk page and discuss the issue which has not happen yet - so get to it.

In terms of the Saints - fact tag it or delete citing no sources - I do not care - it is up to Pete/Diana to come up appropriate sources for these if they are to be kept. I suggest fact tags for a few days.

The child is not a child but a parent, again I did not read the document completely. You do not need to, to see that it is an inappropriate source for which I have already given good reasons for. Cheers Lethaniol 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and why do I not read every reference given to me end to end - because I have better things to do - I have been taught to read through documents quickly and find the info I need - it is yours, and Pete's etc... job to check all the tiny facts, it is my job to help mediate and get the article up to scratch - oh and I forget help stop you lot getting banned. Cheers Lethaniol 19:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You improperly readded the citation, after I explicitly had described that it does not say anything about teaching to the pupils on the three points is is used as citation for in the newly added OR text, St Michael, St Martin or 'Lucifer', added AFTER the Arbitration in direct violation of it, by probably DianaW as "Captain Wikivag" (now silent after I asked Durova to investigate the sock puppet problem, while Diana W has reentered the scene again).

From other people, I would expect them not to add citations they do not know actually state what they are used as citations for in the text. On the help from getting banned part: you mean help Pete from getting banned? Let people edit according to their nature. Then it will show who stays and who goes. Thanks, (and will you remove the citation you incorrectly readded again, including the 'Lucifer part in the text, that is absolutely incorrect?) Thanks again, Thebee 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Right TheBee I have read the article from end to end - I now reply on the talk page - where you should have brought the issue in the first place. With respect to banning - I will try and help you all - if you will take my advice you will not get banned I would bet my life saving on it. Cheers Lethaniol 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a very serious question for you TheBee, and I suggest you answer it carefully, but do answer it - this will have a great impact on how we work together in the future.

Above you have got upset about the Lucifer quote being left in - I assumed that this was because the insinuation that by teaching about Lucifer in school this was in some way occult or evil etc... From an outsiders perspective this seems like a controversial subject - and therefore needs excellent references. I went to some effort to try and sort the situation out - and hopefully with a bit of talk on the Waldorf talk page we will get there.

What I have just found though is that a quick google search of Waldorf and Lucifer comes up with a massive number of hits - including [2]. [3] and [4] at a quick pick - which makes it look like concepts around Lucifer is part of Anthroposophy. Now obviously these sources are unlikely to be used in these articles - but the question that I am now coming to arises:

Why were you so determined to get the reference in question and in particular the concept of Lucifer being taught removed - when in all likelihood you know that it is taught? Am I missing something obvious - please answer this ASAP. Many thanks User:Lethaniol 21:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Diana intended her comment to be here as TheBee makes the accusation again above "by probably DianaW as "Captain Wikivag" (now silent after I asked Durova to investigate the sock puppet problem, while Diana W has reentered the scene again)" Regarding Lucifer, kids are absolutely taught about Lucifer, they have a Michaelmas festival in which (and they are told this) Lucifer is represented by the dragon. They are also taught about Lucifer in the Old Testament part of the curriculum, of course. I'll butt out now. Pete K 22:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay Pete - I thought it was more directed at an Admin than TheBee, but it can be moved if needed. Thanks also for your input Pete, but I want TheBee to give me his reasonings on this matter. Cheers Lethaniol 22:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The only reason I mentioned it was that it appeared to me Diana was looking for a response from TheBee as well. Pete K 22:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that much is has been happening her, when I have been working at an answer to you Lehaniol. Maybe it's too long, but it's an effort an answer your question. If something is unclear, I'd be happy to answer any other question you have to the best of my ability:

In Steiner's view, diferent spiritual beings on different levels, in the Judeo-Christian tradition described as Angels, Archangels, Archai, and higher spiritual beings have not all developed in a 'normal' way at different stages of the evolution of Cosmos. Some have remained behind at different times, and act in a way contrary to the normal evolution of Cosmos. To these - in Steiner's view - belong two types of beings that in Ancient times were called 'Ahriman' (Persian time) (The 'god of darkness') and 'Lucifer' (possibly also during Persian times) (The 'god of light'). In the Bible, they are referred to "Satan" (being of darkness) and the "Devil" (the twisted being of light). According to Steiner and anthroposophy, they work in opposite directions in cosmos, and also in man.

They are viewed as inevitable real part of cosmos and in the life of man, between which man has to find the balance, as "matters of fact", as "necessary" and important parts of the evolution of man. From this perspective, what stands out to us as evil is not evil in a simple way as such, but something originally "right" that works in the wrong way and in the wrong place. In Steiner's view, what helps man keep the balance between them and stay human is Christ. This is difficult to explain in a short way, that makes it understandable to most people at first - that spiritual beings that we experience as evil in themselves are not evil as such, but beings who work in the wrong (un-normal) way in relation to their actual nature, as also in relation to other spiritual beings of the same category (not as normal angels, but as 'fallen' angels, not as archangels, but as 'fallen' archangels).

This is part of the anthroposophical background of how also probably many Waldorf teachers view the world. Anti-waldorf (WC) campaigns allege that not only nornal subjects are taught to the pupils at Waldorf schools in a way that supports their development and relation to the world in a creative way. They allege that anthroposophy is taught as such in the theoretical way I describe here, to the pupils, and quote the concepts of anthroposophy in a way that makes them stand out as strange by presenting them without the complex context necessary to understand them.

This is the context for the allegation by WCs (Diana W has been on the board of the WC) who argue that anthroposophy not only constitutes a world-view background for, bur also is taught as such to the pupils. That must not happen, and Steiner properly and strongly also argued that that must not take place. Anthroposophy is for those grownup people who take an interest it it. Anthroposophy must not be taught as such to children.

In their anti-Waldorf campaign, WCs like Diana, and PeteK (a WC in the principal but not formal sense) use what can be found as catch words to as much as possible make Waldorf education stand out as strange/weird. "Lucifer" is such a catch-word used for that purpose, as it has a strong negative character in normal language. That makes it so useful in anti-Waldorf campaigns, as also anything referring to the properly very strongly negative word "Aryan", used to refer to Indo-Europeans a hundred years ago. For more on this, see here. In the theosophical tradition, developing at the end of the 19th century, the present development since the last glacial ages, out of its assumed origin in the little known Asian culture, referring to itself as "Aryan" is referred to as an "Aryan" (Indoeuropean) epoch. That concept was misused by the later nazis in support of anti-Semitism.

In Steiner's view, the figure standing as the origin of both the original Indian ("Aryan") culture, described as 'Manu', and 'Noah', standing out as the origin of the Semites in history, are one and the same figure, pointing to the identity of the origin of the Semites and the Indo-Europeans.

The use of the term as understood in that way, and where Steiner - when seeing how the term was misused by the anti-Semites - stopped using it to describe human post-glacial development and used a more neutral term, is one of the other most catchwords used in anti-Waldorf demagoguery. One of the tools in that campaign is to try to imply that anthroposophy has some 'friendship' with nazis and protonazis (as seen from the "Mainz" broadcast), which also Pete works at introducing into the article, via the German TV-broadcast.

It's pure demagoguery. Many of those in leading positions in anthroposophical ant Waldorf contexts have a Jewish background and Steiner explicitly made the origin and dramatic history of the Jews into a central subject of the teaching in grade three at Waldorf schools, to build the understanding of ot if as one of the important elements in human culture, followed by a dedicated study of other cultures, a broad interest being part of the background that both the former chairperson of the Central Jewish Council in Germany, as also the former German Chancellor Helmuth Kohl and others belong to those who at different times have chosen a Waldorf school for their children, as expressed by the daughter of the chairperson of the Central Jewish Council in Germany. That is of no interest to anti-Waldorf demagoguery, using any catchword they can to try to defame Waldorf education.

This became somewhat long, but I just wanted to give a small picture of the complex background to what Pete and other WC's push for for different principal or personal reasons.

Is an understanding of 'Lucifer' one part of the anthroposophical background for Waldorf education? Yes. Do Waldorf schools teach children about 'Lucifer' in the way implied by the the way this is described using the false citation? No, and they REALLY should NOT do it in the way implied by the erroneous description of the citation.

I don't know if that in some way answers your question? It something is unclear about this, tell me and I'll do my best to answer how I see things.

At the site of Waldorf Answers I have tried to contribute my share to a possible understanding of what anthroposophy and Waldorf education are, the relation between them and different myths at time cultivated about them, as it takes some time to understand, and the subject is so complex and vast.

Best wishes! Thebee 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay that is better, your reply covers most of my concerns. What I strongly suggest you do in future is to explain on the talk page / edit summary why you revert/remove/delete stuff - if only for the following reason - other Wikipedains inc. Admins will need to be given a good reason for ANY deletion/revert. So in this case you should have brought up the fact that the way concept of "Lucifer" was been written was incorrect and derogatory - and either rewrote to explain significance, link to an article/ref which explains the significance or at the worst deleted and given detailed reasonings. I hope this makes sense - this argument could have been avoided totally if you had done the above - and all of us would have been much more effective. If you have any questions on this feel free to ask Cheers Lethaniol 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Only one problem here. My kids are in Waldorf and all three have been taught about Lucifer. So now what? You may say, "they shouldn't have been" - but you see, that makes NO difference to me - they WERE taught this and that's what is important. The article describes the reason for this - Waldorf teachers rely on this understanding of Lucifer. Fine for them, but when they are imbuing this into the students, parents rightly have cause for concern. If you think all you have to do to defend Waldorf is to point to the ideals, that's not going to fly with critics. You have to point to the realities, like critics do, when you talk about Waldorf education. The reality is, Waldorf students are taught certain things that are inappropriate and this is done without the knowledge or consent of the parents. Explaining away everything as a misunderstanding of the critics isn't going to cut it here like it does for new Waldorf parents. We will address what Waldorf education IS, not what it's supposed to be. Pete K 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The main myths that the WC-group in CA have cultivated as defamation of Waldorf education the last 10 years are described here. The myths that Diana resp Wikiwag and Pete at present work hard to introduce in different forms into the article on Waldorf education at Wikipedia are this, this, this, this. For a version of the first myth, for which Pete has used the basically interview of the WC in WorldNetDaily as citation to support, he now uses a citation from a person, representing a Christian Fundamentalist group, the Chalcedon Foundation on an ideological basis opposed to Waldorf education, at the site of another group, on an ideological basis opposed to Waldorf Education Christian Education Awareness Network (CEANet), having bought into myth 1, cultivated by the WC. The new reference, used by Pete, refers to the WorldNetDaily interview with the WC as source for its statement, quoted by Pete in the WP article. Thebee 11:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't trouble myself to go look at what I'm quite sure is there (from your other "myth" pages. Strawman arguments that you can easily dispel. Big deal. And now you have started trying to associate me with PLANS, I see, the "hate group" you have created. And you wonder why people might tend to be uncivil toward you. I'd like to know why you think you can get away with this. Pete K 16:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Dear TheBee - I see you have put the Adoptme userbox on your page - I think having a mentor will be great for you - so I have two suggestions. If you do not get an experienced editor along soon to offer Adoption - add a comment to the bottom of your talk page briefly explaining the situation and why you would like a mentor. If this fails I will ask at WP:ADOPT for an experienced Adopter to come help if that is okay with you. Cheers Lethaniol 14:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite OK. Only one question: What would you consider to be "soon"? Thanks, Thebee 14:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Before you get a mentor TheBee I have two pieces of advice that if you follow you will help you greatly:

1. Obviously the Lucifer business seems to be a big thing. The easiest way to sort it is to write up a section (maybe in the anthroposophy article then have a link to this section from the Waldorf article) explaining the significance of Lucifer and Archai etc..., and how they differ from traditional views. So explaining exactly what it is all about and putting it in context - I do not think there is any need to hide this information at all.
2. When discussing Wikipedia articles forget about who the other users are, and discuss the points. Only talk about a user's conduct when it is being disrupt, and keep such discussions off talk pages. Basically if you are discussing point A about article X, do not bring up any issues about person B, if you need to discuss person B's attitude, discuss on their or your talk page, separate from the issues of point A on article X. By separating the two far less uncivil behaviour will occur, people will focus on the article not the ego - and everyone will be more effective. There is a time and a place for each of these discussions but they MUST be separated. If you need an example where this is an issue - see above at your reply to my question. The answer was good but there was no need to bring the opposing ego's into the matter - the issues on the principle were enough.

I think I have already made these sort of points to Pete and Diana, if not there same advice goes to you. I hope you can see how this would make the whole situation easier to deal with. Cheers Lethaniol 14:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

On

"Obviously the Lucifer business seems to be a big thing."

In Waldorf education? No. It's only a big thing to WCs, as it us so useful as catchword in their anti-Waldorf demagoguery. It's one of their main defamatory insinuations in their anti-Waldorf campaign. They would love it if this as much as possible would be made a big issue in the context of the Waldorf education article, as Pete now does, quoting a Christian fundamentalist, who quotes the interview with the WC in WorldNetDaily a source. The voodoo/Wicca/"Satanic religion" was one of the first myths cultivated by the WCs in their witch hunt against the use of Waldorf methods at public Waldorf schools. When it was critizised even by one of the more serious supporters of the WC. In response, the secretary of the WC defended this with:

"What I say 'in defense of the Waldorfians' is that 'they don't eat babies.'" "Am I pandering to the prejudices of Christians? Personally, yes I am!"

They and Pete would love to have this made into a big issue in the Waldorf article, the way he now works at cultivating it, and you suggest be developed further with a special article on it.

On

"The answer was good but there was no need to bring the opposing ego's into the matter ..."

You commented on it at the Talks page of the article in a comment to me. I did not address it at the Talks page of the article, but here, at my own Talks page, where you suggest such issues to be addressed. I did it as it still amazes me how Pete has been allowed by administrators to get away with his four month repeated insulting bullying campaign, not only against me but all sorts of people and Wikipedia procedures with few to no comments, and even was given absolution with regard to it by the ArbCom. His bullying started from basically the first day Pete K arrived here at Wikipedia, and even continued with false and unsubstantiated accusations during the arbitration.

When I asked Mr. Bauder if such accusations (the serious accusation of considerable having "altered evidence" in the arbitration case - referring to claimed considerable alterations of the Waldorf Answers site, alleged by Pete K), if referring to statements about verifiable facts as basis for the personal attack/false accusation, need not be substantiated, he stayed silent and just left the issue question about the personal attack hanging in the air.

Pete still has not verified the basis for his personal attack, the accusation of having "tampered with evidence", or been specific on any point about it, just referred to his own memory as "proof" he's right and something unspecified, that Diana - according to him - wrote at some time, without telling what he referred to.

Only at one point has any admin made one comment on the long term bullying by Pete from his first day here at Wikipedia, suggesting I take it to RfC. I assume those addressing it there would be other editors with no admin rights to take any action with regard to it. So why should I? And Mr. Bauder - retired lawyer - and the ArbCom now has given Pete absolution for it.

And during the time after the ArbCom decision, he repeatedly has continued his bullying. Not as much as direct personal attacks, except once, but acting as the Emperor of all Waldorf related articles and discussions related to it, relentlessly at all times commenting on all issues and postings by others, telling who should and who should not answer his questions, and telling in discussions what people can do and not do, relentlessly reverting the edits of others (some 50 since the arbitration according to a comment by Venado) and filling his edit summaries with emotional personal comments in different forms. "Arrrg", what type of comment is that in edit summaries? Pure emotional outburst.

Builds confidence in the justice system of Wikipedia? No.

Do I feel it was justified to point out one of many possible demonstrations of his big ego in my answer to you as answer to your comment on my ego? Yes.

Thebee 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou TheBee for your reply - in terms of length of time to find an Adopter - potentially a few days - as most Adopters will not want to take on such a mentorship lightly.

In terms of my two pieces of advice - I am not sure you have taken them on board. Okay the Lucifer business is not a big thing in Anthroposophy - by far the easiest way to deal with the criticisms mentioned is to write up your own section on it, as I have mentioned above - easy.

The other piece of advice - maybe I should have included - what's done is done! I DO NOT care what happened in the past (neither do the ArbCom or Durova or any other Admin) - that has been sorted by the ArbCom and a judgement passed. You WILL have to work with Pete and Diana and any others out there - if you can not work with them and still hold a grudge, I guarantee you will be blocked, probably indefinitely. So if you want to continue to edit on Wikipedia follow the advice I have given, put aside the past and work with the others involved to reach CONSENSUS and COMPROMISE - leaving the personal stuff out of it - I have given exactly the same advice to Pete and Diana. Cheers Lethaniol 16:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also suggest you stop taking out individual quotes from individual sections and commenting on them - look at the bigger picture of the Wikipedia article - do not get bogged down in the ego and personalities...

Consensus with someone acting as if he's Emperor of the Wikipedia Waldorf related world, telling he likes the "authority" with which he thinks you have set the rules and helped him so far in discussions and support of his editing efforts? And telling he views editing as a power game, where the strongest wins in the end, not because of proper editing and good arguments, but because of persistence and strength of conviction?

Make the defamation myths by a small anti-Waldorf fringe group in CA central in the article on WE? I disagree on this point. They're already addressed here and here and have little to do with WE. The second of the two sites has had almost 200,000 visits to its main page the last two years. It tells what people need to know about it, and they easily find it. Thebee 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to make this clear. I don't say consensus with people who act as if they are Emperors is impossible. I express my skepticism about the possibility of achieving it on other terms than those set by the Emperor in spe(?). Thebee 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good because you are going to need to try - remember we are all being watched - if Pete is seen to bully it will be noted - and taken account of when we are judged by the ArbCom - you may if you wish keep a list of the diffs of such behaviour. In the meantime you need to try and assume good faith and and be civil. I hope you have seen by my actions - that although I am Pete's and Diana's mentor I am just as likely to remove/revert inappropriate edits on either side of the argument. I just want good articles for Wikipedia - and am perfectly neutral and even indifferent to what happens to Waldorf schools or Anthroposophy in the real world.

So I am happy for you to express your scepticism - but follow the above advice and concentrate on the articles not the egos and we will all be better off, most especially youself Cheers Lethaniol 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"In the meantime you need to try and assume good faith"

While I understand your concern, your admonition is not supported by the WP:AGF guideline. Maybe you refer to some other guideline? Thebee 23:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bee, over at WP:RFAR the lower portion of the page is for clarification requests. You can post there to tie up any loose ends from arbitration. Don't expect them to reopen issues the committee has already decided. I'm very glad you've requested a mentor. The biggest advice I can give is to go to your mentor as a sounding board before engaging Pete or Diana in a confrontational manner.

Another thing comes to mind in light of your topical post above. Maybe the Atlantic Ocean accounts for part of the difference in the way this debate gets framed. I live in California and I've also lived in the Bible Belt and I've traveled to sixteen other countries in three continents (or four continents if the south side of the Panama Canal counts). From this perspective there's a pretty obvious difference between the sort of person who would assert XYZ is satanic and the sort of person who would expose their children to XYZ and campaign for its reform. The practice of labeling things as satanic and of framing one's world view in terms of a struggle between God and the devil is characteristic of certain branches of evangelical Protestantism whose media-savvy representatives often claim to speak for far more people than they actually represent. Outside of their own rather insular following other North Americans view that with degrees of amusement, irritation, or embarrassment. Although I'm no expert on the subjects of Waldorf Education or anthroposophy, it really doesn't look as if either Pete or Diana subscribe to that paradigm. When other North Americans who don't adopt that world view happen to discuss Lucifer, demonology, or similar subjects they usually do so in a detached and analytical manner that perhaps - a continent away - might be mistaken for evangelism in fancy dress. If you can see the analogy, that resembles the mistake some North Americans make about Europe when they confuse democratic socialism with communism. I see shades of gray here. Durova^Charge 02:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP

Hi Bee, I was sick for a few days and missed the action on the account you suspected as a sockpuppet. I'll clear up a few points:

1. Wikipedia doesn't have any technical way to block a particular editor from editing a particular article. I could block all non-admins from editing a page or I could block an account from editing to the site, but the type of situation Diana commented on must have been a technical issue at her end.
2. Per WP:AGF and WP:BITE, the default assumption is that each new account is a new user. You may notice some threads on my user talk that converse in a different tone. Those are follow-ups on lengthy investigations where (in most cases) a disruptive editor has been banned and has an established sockpuppet pattern. That's one type of problem the Waldorf/Steiner articles haven't typically seen.
3. WP:SSP and WP:RFCU are the two standard venues for posting your kind of request. Only 1%-2% of administrators have the checkuser function and its use is restricted. If Diana had actually been blocked and a suspicious account appeared while she couldn't edit, that would be cause for requesting a checkuser. You can check Diana's block log here.[5] Other accounts follow a similar syntax: here's the sockmaster of one of the troublesome accounts where people post follow-ups at my talk page.[6]
4. This is the kind of information that a mentor would provide you if you entered WP:ADOPT. Although I do what I can, when I take the time to explain these things that's time away from other investigations. I became very involved in the Waldorf arbitration because no other administrator was available and that reduced my productivity in other areas. The English language Wikipedia has the third lowest ratio of sysops to registered accounts - fewer than 1 in 2700.

I wouldn't mind being a supplement to a mentor the same way I drop by at Lethaniol's page, but I feel uncomfortable about the current situation. I read trouble between the lines of the thread that collected on my user talk this week. It represents a series of questions that ought to have been asked but weren't and a set of solutions that got overlooked as a result. Diana and Pete have a go-to person who can point them in the right direction, but you and the other pro-Waldorf editors are out on your own. The bottom line to all of this is that you're post-arbitration, which means it's possible that someone would follow up with an enforcement request aimed at any or all of the named editors. If it comes to that I won't be the admin to act, but any who does act would weigh Pete and Diana's mentorship favorably. Little problems and bad timing can add up - such as sniping at a suspected sockpuppet without filing an investigation request through formal channels. I assume you meant well by coming directly to me, but I happened to have a bad cold and wasn't online to respond until several days afterward. I don't think you have much to worry about this particular incident. Yet if someone establishes it as part of a pattern of disruptive behavior you would have cause to worry and that can happen rather quickly because arbitration is already completed. I hope you take this sincere caution to heart. Durova^Charge 19:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Durova! I've never suspected sock puppetry from anyone before, and did not quite know how to handle the problem. That's why I asked you to look into it, that I've been in contact with before. The strong comments by DW suggest I'm wrong about her being a sock puppet, but the characteristics and behaviour as such of "Wikiwag" (as I've explained at your Talks page) seem so closely to resemble the characteristics of a sock puppet, as described at WP:SOCK that I would be somewhat surprised if it does not turn out to be someone used to editing at Wikipedia before doing it as "Wikiwag" (even if it is someone else than DW.). It takes a little longer when you start to come of age (57 in some weeks), and your hair has started to turn gray during all this sitting before a computer screen, to find your way through the labyrinth of policies, guidelines, essays, routines, procedures, sub routines and forums that is Wikipedia. Now I know THIS routine. Also, I'll contact FrankB who generously has asked me about my needs in terms of editing. Thanks for your great help! Thebee 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag was probably possibly what Wikipedians call a meatpuppet: a different person who knew some of a discussion's participants and came for the specific purpose of participating in an ongoing topic. That's bad when it tries to sway the outcome of a poll or when it stacks the consensus on an edit dispute. Note that joining the discussion in a civil and meaningful manner isn't so bad because Wikipedia is an open edit site. Here's a classic example of negative meatpuppetry: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NUGGET. Not that it matters, but a related essay I wrote in its aftermath got translated into the Swedish Wikipedia.[7] Durova^Charge 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your comment, Durova! While you may be right about Wikiwag being a possible meat puppet, it does not explain the immediate expertise in using editing routines demonstrated by Wikiwag, while claiming not to have edited at Wikipedia before. Your essay is very pedagogical. Have you worked as a teacher?-) Thebee 14:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Diana and I discussed Wikiwag off-line and neither of us are aware of who Wikiwag could be. If this is a person known to us, they have kept it a secret from us. I am convinced Wikiwag is (or was) a new legitimate editor who tried to get involved in a neutral way and was driven out by the nonsense. Others who may have experienced this include 999 and Hanuman Das, Lumos3 and Fergie (I won't look up their exact names) and several administrators Golden Wattle, Longhair, Centrx. Wikiwag's edits were very neutral and he seemed to support TheBee several times. And for all we know he may be taking a break and be back here soon. We really shouldn't suggest Wikiwag was a meatpuppet or anything else - especially if a check has not been conducted. Pete K 16:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a sockpuppet account by an experienced Wikipedian who didn't want to stick their neck out as far as I have. The username seems to imply that. If that's the case the person was probably trying to help and backed off when they saw it raised more questions than it settled. The more I think about it the more plausible that explanation seems. Either way, the account's inactive and the behavior doesn't seem to have violated any policies. To answer Bee's question, I've never been a full-time credentialed teacher. I held a teaching assistantship in graduate school and did some academic tutoring on the side. I was also a certified sports instructor for a few years while I was a semi-professional athlete. Durova^Charge 16:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe, but that's not what you said above. You said "Wikiwag was probably what Wikipedians call a meatpuppet" - that's not saying "possibly" it's saying "probably". Durova, I just admire your neutrality and thoroughness (I gave you a star) and want to be sure everyone else does too. It very well could be that Wikiwag was a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet - but he could also be a good Wikipedian who is taking a few days off. All I'm saying is we shouldn't judge yet (or speculate). I mean, TheBee and I can, but as an administrator, you shouldn't. Just sayin' - with all due respect. Pete K 16:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, changed. Durova^Charge 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So see... today Wikiwag is back. That's why it's better not to make assumptions about a user... Just sayin'... Pete K 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like this addressed: thebee accuses me of using multiple accounts. This can easily be proved or disproved. Admins can check, and I would appreciate if they would do so. I would like thebee to retract the accusation once it is disproven, please. I write under my own name, always.DianaW 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I was never blocked as far as I know. I have not tried to make any edits to these pages in several weeks with the exception of trying to correct a typo in references. I found on trying to edit that article that I could open and edit other sections but not the reference section. I wasn't sure if I was blocked for some reason pertaining to the arbitration, since the page was semi-protected, or if it was a technical glitch, but as I had no plan to edit more extensively then anyway I didn't pursue it. When I checked again a day or two later the problem seemed to have disappeared anyway.DianaW 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova wrote to thebee: "Diana and Pete have a go-to person who can point them in the right direction" - yes, but keep in mind this only works if we KNOW what someone is saying about us, accusing us of, etc. Thebee has a longstanding pattern of working down lists of admins, moving to the next name when one doesn't give him satisfaction, and if you want to know what he's up to, you have to try to stay a couple of guesses ahead of him. Well forgive me but I have a life! I had stopped watching Durova's talk page and only found out via a circuitous route that thebee had accused me of sockpuppetry. There ought to be some way a person is notified if someone's running around finding people to whisper to about him/her. I can't monitor the talk page of everyone who's ever participated in these articles. If someone is going to make accusations they need to do it formally and the person accused needs to be notified. I don't think my mentor even know anything about it, and obviously, he can't wander around listening at keyholes to see what thebee is saying about me elsewhere on wikipedia either.DianaW 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Easy there, Diana. Out of 1000+ administrators only about 17 have access to checkuser. I'm not one of them. I've left a query regarding whether we could get one in this situation - they aren't easy to come by. That final paragraph levels a serious accusation against Bee without any supporting evidence. We call that forum shopping or admin shopping and it's seriously frowned upon when it's demonstrated. This sockpuppetry allegation looks like a simple misunderstanding that should have defused itself in five minutes at most. If you really mean to make that accusation then raise it formally with diffs and supporting evidence or else don't mention it at all. Sniping from both sides, bypassing mentorship, and escalating the accusations after an administrator is on the matter does not help. I still doubt the seriousness of arbitration has impressed itself on the parties in this case. Durova^Charge 23:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be hard to give long lists of diffs showing his repeated appeals to many admins. In fact, Durova, this is documented somewhere in the arbitration evidence, I believe. He complained to one admin after another about Pete's "incivilities." At least one admin simply ignored him. I can indeed document this if it requested, but I don't think this is worth anyone's time. He also has pages at his own web site that document it. I also think merely reviewing his contribs list looking at Talk pages of admins would document it. Read his contribs list chronologically, and the pattern is there. It is easy to compare this, for instance, with my own record. I have never yet appealed to or contacted an admin to protest thebee's actions, or anyone's - I have only replied when accused of something. Hgilbert wrote about me here as having lied and misrepresented my experiences, and he suggested publicly here that Waldorf critics are people who do not have custody of their children. I am accused, repeatedly, of being a member of a hate group. This is a criminal accusation. Members of hate groups are violent and dangerous people. I speak up for myself - I do not beg admins to help me. I think I deserve an apology from thebee if his serious accusation against me is shown to be untrue. This does not come from me, it comes from HIM and I don't understand, in reply to this situation, the meaning of repeated references to the seriousness of the arbitration, unless once again it simply means, Pipe down or you'll get banned. I would rather be banned than repeatedly threatened. I am confident I have done nothing in any way to violate arbitration rulings.DianaW 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Diana, I know you've got your hands full. I'm going through his contribution list right now and will document this activity. Then we can have a better picture. Pete K 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Right guys please can we draw a line underneath this (I lit have :) ) so that we can give TheBee back his talkpage - I think all the points have been made, and if discussion needs to go on - please take it to mine or Durova's talk page cheers.

---

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lethaniol (talk • contribs) 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry - I actually forgot this was TheBee's talk page. Apologies to TheBee. Pete K 23:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I please just note that I am not even remotely interested in documenting this, I have absolutely no interest in drawing up long lists of grievances against people, and I would NEVER consider pursuing this with diffs or engaging admins in discussing thebee's behavior, except that Durova has suggested that I'm the one being uncivil. I had already told Lethaniol fine drop it. But then I was told it needed documenting! Thank you Pete. I wouldn't spend long, then again it won't take long will it.DianaW 00:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the line, now I can't figure out how to move it.DianaW 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Diana, if the diffs are somewhere in the arbitration case then a link to the appropriate page section would be sufficient. The larger point I've set out to make is step back and disengage. According to WP:AGF, the onus is on Bee to make a case for you having a sockpuppet. It's very forthcoming to offer to undergo checkuser voluntarily to clear the air. The point where you crossed the line was in making a reciprocal accusation without backing it up - especially on Bee's own talk page. What Lethaniol and I are striving to do is to depersonalize this whole affair. Just the facts, ma'am. Durova^Charge 02:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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 12:59, 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 12:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no special strings to pull to get a checkuser. As I posted to my user talk page, the chances of getting a request approved in this situation are slim. Diana, you're welcome to request one yourself at WP:RFCU and also welcome to post a request to the suspected sockpuppet investigation board WP:SSP, which is the standard plan B in situations where checkuser can't be had. As far as site standards are concerned the onus is on Bee to substantiate the claim. Diana isn't obligated to take any action at all: she's presumptively not a sockpuppeteer.

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. Durova^Charge 23:52, 15 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)

Just for the record, I certainly do not want any of this removed. If thebee takes it off his talk page, I'll dig it out and put it on mine. I apparently have a considerably different notion not only of civility but of right and wrong than prevails around here. How can I make myself clear? I don't want accusations REMOVED I want them RETRACTED. Can anyone around here relate to the difference between these things?DianaW 01:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I can. Pete K 01:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"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." Is it obvious to anyone but me that this makes no sense at all? Having accusations against oneself removed is a very dubious thing to do, and considering that old versions of the page are always available anyway (even if they've supposedly been buried deep, computer-savvy people know how to find them), in practical terms having accusations against oneself removed looks WORSE than leaving them, as it seems to suggest guilt. The thing to do with accusations is to DEMAND that the person making them substantiate them. Instead the policy here is apparently that this is left to thebee's pleasure to decide now whether he'd like to let the truth come out - or not. (Or I can appeal to a bunch of nameless people who, it is clearly implied, are very unlikely to be interested and very unlikely to take any action.) The lesson here is that it is fine to make an accusation; substantiating it is optional.

Honestly - if I learned that it ever came to someone in the "real world" (why people think wikipedia is not the real world, I'm not sure) reading here that I'm a member of a "hate group" and believed it, or even wondered, it would be clear to me that it was in my interest for the material to remain here, not to be removed. It astounds me this is not obvious, and that the ethical implications apparently interest no one.DianaW 01:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm interested - especially as TheBee has now started trying to connect me to Waldorf Critics/PLANS - after making the "hate group" accusations. This is malicious, dishonest and should be an automatic ban. That he made these claims repeatedly (supported by Professor Marginalia and HGilbert) without being banned - or even officially told to stop - is incredible. He has done the same sort of thing with others here, Dan Dugan and other members of PLANS. Again NO connection to ANYTHING that could be construed even loosly as "hate group" activity has ever been demonstrated against ANYONE connected with PLANS, and certainly to throw that claim around and then to start connecting people to it simply because they post on an email list is, again, incredibly dishonest at the very least, malicious and should require a ban. Still no apology or retraction from TheBee. We've been told not to take things personally when we edit the articles. It doesn't get any more personal than people associating you with a "hate group". How are we supposed to assume good faith when there is none? Pete K 02:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

He has never been told to stop at all - officially or otherwise. He has made these accusations many, many times, and it has been called to admins' attention many times. It remained in the PLANS article and the Waldorf ed article for months, despite vigorous protests. The arbitrators were informed in crystal clear terms that his continued links to his own web sites are for the purpose of directing people to the hate group commentary. Multiple diffs were provided demonstrating this. No arbitrator ever mentioned the matter, during, before or after the arbitration. It did not interest anyone enough to comment on in the ruling. I've now officially gotten more threats for mentioning it than he's gotten for doing it. It is tolerated here.DianaW 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the more I review what has happened now the more astounded I am. Please review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Evidence#Harassment

Flip down to "The personal vendetta of Thebee and his associates on wikipedia." It has all been documented - and in what is, apparently, the most formal conflict resolution process available at wikipedia. Why are you implying here that I have somehow lost my mind today, flown off the handle etc.? Why today am I threatened that if I mention libel on wikipedia, that's "perilously close" to a legal threat? Please actually take a look at those diffs if you never did so before now. It says that I belong to a group that is similar to "Jew Watch." Do you know what Jew Watch is? If you don't, then you don't understand what has been happening here. I've mentioned thebee's hate-group commentary many times and supplied dozens of diffs. I've noted repeatedly that such accusations can have real-world consequences for people. Has this escaped you previously? If this gets users banned from the site, why wasn't I banned when I presented this evidence in the arbitration? I'd like to believe you and the arbitrators were actually reading it, but now I wonder. None of what has happened here makes sense. It may be better for me to leave anyway. I appreciate that you've tried to help sort it out, I realize it is time consuming and that you're all volunteers - but I'm clearly unable to understand how things work here.DianaW 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Diana, I have asked Durova to move this discussion to her talk page. We probably shouldn't be having it on TheBee's page for a number of reasons. There has already been one attempt to "draw the line". Pete K 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.jewwatch.com/

It says here today, for instance, under “Breaking Jewish News,” that a “New Scientific Soil Study of Treblinka Shows Claimed Death Camp Never Even Existed.” (“No buildings were ever built and no graves ever dug.”)

Here is a diff showing one of thebee’s attempts to link PLANS to Jew Watch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=63118576&oldid=63116325 DianaW 04:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your comment before I posted that, Pete, but I'm not really trying anymore to understand the rules here, including what to post where. I'm sure someone will move it where it's supposed to be; the admins are experts at all this.DianaW 04:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem - Durova has asked me to explain why I wanted it moved, so maybe we will keep it here. I've left it up to her. Pete K 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova wrote yesterday: "Turning up the heat by mentioning libel and police comes perilously close to a legal threat," and I continue to request that this be rescinded. I have never made a legal threat nor come close. I mentioned the police in reference to them being interested in ME (as it is asserted on these pages that I belong to a hate group), not the other way around. I would like to see it acknowledged, Durova, that what you wrote is incorrect. You are in a position of authority over me here. It requires that you correct your statements if they are incorrect. I'm very appreciative of your efforts here to sort out these conflicts but re-reading exactly what happened here I'm more convinced than ever it works inescapably against me and I did nothing to cause it.

It also says above that I should merely have written a terse and polite note on first being accused of sock puppetry. If you will read above you will see that is exactly what I did. I stated that I was not a sock puppet, I requested that someone check, I clarified that I have never used multiple accounts. There is nothing "hot" in my reply.

Later explanations clarified the question of whether I had been blocked (or even perceived myself to have been blocked; I briefly wondered, but never made any kind of issue of it at all, let alone getting upset). (This was written to confirm that I would have no motive for creating a sock puppet. Thebee might have thought, even if I wasn't blocked, possibly I thought I was. I never thought I was blocked. I hadn't even made any edits - I couldn't possibly have been blocked.) The escalation the next day came - please review above to determine this - after thebee the next day repeated the allegations ("Diana resp wikiwag"), having seen that he would get away with it. My distress comes from being told not only that there is nothing I can do about this, that this choice rests with thebee as accuser (????), but also increasingly I am threatened that I'm the one behaving in such a way as to get banned. Totally ridiculous. And if "mentioning libel" gets people banned from this site, please explain why the arbitration did not even address this, let alone ban me, despite copious evidence of libel being presented BY ME during the arbitration. I provided you with the links on this yesterday. I would like the suggestion that my comments here risk getting me banned rescinded. My comments have been 100% appropriate.

I'd like to hear any clarification you have to offer. I am likely done editing here but do not plan to leave satisfied with condescending "Please calm down" replies from admins. I surely don't expect satisfaction from thebee (despite offers to take me to dinner LOL), but I'd like fair treatment from the admins. Thanks.DianaW 13:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify one final time: My comments regarding thebee's libelous statements are not a legal threat. They were written during the arbitration to suggest to arbitrators the nature of his motives and bias in editing the articles we've been disputing. They are unequivocally documented. His web pages contain hate group accusations with no documentation. He has a personal vendetta against the group PLANS and he thinks that he can discredit any critic of Waldorf education or anthroposophy by associating them with the group that he smears on his personal web sites. This is relevant to understanding his edits here. Pete has shown conclusively that thebee's purpose here, if he can't get the articles to read the way he wants, is to provide links to his own web sites over and over to direct readers there, where these accusations are elaborated. I'd sure like to see him banned from wikipedia for this, but I've never threatened him with legal action. I have brought up his libelous comments again in this ridiculous sockpuppet discussion, in order to point to the absurdity of my being told I've made a "serious accusation" against him in noting his whining continually to admins, trying one thing and then the other to get Pete and/or me kicked out. It's a joke to call this a "serious accusation" on my part when he's allowed to call me a member of a hate group and no one, er, steps in to note that this is a "serious accusation." Hate group accusations are essentially accusations of criminal activity or inclinations; they imply a person is bigoted, violent and dangerous. To paint this picture of me (and Pete and others) is his agenda here, since he can't get the articles to read his way. No one tells him it is a serious accusation that could get him banned from wikipedia.DianaW 14:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Here yesterday neutral editor Trueblood asked on my talk page about translation of the broadcast cited on the Waldorf Ed page. By today TheBee has contacted him and directed him to his own original research. He claims to provide a "full translation" so that Trueblood will have a look at it. Instead what he/she sees is this - a page of "Comments by the Waldorf Schools" - refuting the content of the broadcast. TheBee then provides four more pages of original research calling the broadcast "propaganda" among other things (I didn't bother to read all the nonsense carefully). This is intended, of course, to gain support for his own position with a neutral editor. That TheBee has several pages of original research prepared to dispute every critical citation on the internet is scary enough. That he is allowed to link to these every time an editor asks a simple question is absurd, not to mention disruptive. Pete K 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this thread has veered into areas that no longer have anything to do with Bee. I'd invite it to my own user talk if I weren't rather close to resorting to other options. At Wikipedia everyone has what's known as the right to vanish. Ask a mentor to explain if you don't know what that is. And Diana, I stand by all I wrote to you and warn you regarding WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Do you folks have any idea how much drain your endless dispute places on scarce volunteer time? Do you read Wikipedia:Community Portal? Have you seen its link to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard? An entire noticeboard recently got discontinued, where until your arbitration case opened I had been lauded as the most active administrator, because the board lost good oversight and ran amok. Have a serious look at that deletion discussion, then ask yourselves whether Wikipedia is better off with the lot of you editing Waldorf/anthoposophy or topic banned from it. That's the question I'm asking right now. ArbCom would answer it if I posed it to them, so act like the educated adults you all are and write an encyclopedia instead of a soap opera. Durova^Charge 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

LMAO Durova! I couldn't have put it better myself. Bravo! And for the record - I am no "puppet:" sock, meat or otherwise. My ability to pick up the editing syntax and nomenclature derives from my expertise in programming languages. Believe what you want - but if you believe anything other than I am a new editor that is apparently an unusually quick study, then you're simply mistaken.

- Wikiwag 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT request

Technically, I'm not part of that program (I just now found it, an thence you via the category!) but do such with many others via the WP:Wc. Why, with all of your edits, are you looking for additional guidance and assistance? My experience has been editing this or that you meet others and many when more experienced here are quite willing to help. So I am too, so feel free to share your needs. Best wishes // FrankB 05:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag

Bee, Wikiwag has left some messages at my talk page assuring me that he or she is a unique user and asking you to assume more good faith and more civility. In the interest of getting along, I suggest a few words from you to patch things up would go a long way. If problems continue I've suggested Wikiwag follow up at WP:ANI. Durova^Charge! 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova, and thanks for your concerns and efforts to contribute to a mutual understanding between me and Diana. I have left that in peace for the moment, but may come back to it. Also, thanks for your question asking why I think I should not be banned from editing Waldorf related articles. I have not thought about that yet, but will try to think about it. Just as a first reflexion, whether I stay or not to me stands out as much less important than that Pete goes, not only because he is damaging to the balance of the Waldorf related articles, but because I think his general basic attitude to others at Wikipedia has been and is damaging in the long run. Now it seems Mr. Bauder has had enough of his attitude and editing too, and reopens the arbitration because of it.

Two times, "wikiwag" has been logged out while editing, displaying the IP as editor instead. The first time, 26 Jan, the IP displayed - 24.38.65.114 - according to http://www.ip-adress.com/ was located in Kansas. The second time, tonight, 29 Jan, (see here) the IP displayed for the same user - 69.160.7.22 - is located in Buffalo (at both times using the same ISP). So, where is "wikiwag" located?

19 Jan, Wikiwag wrote a complaint to Thatcher131, later changed after I pointed out that it lacked substance on a number of points. Accordig to "Wikiwag" I had attacked "Wikiwag" in one specific Waldorf talks section, where discussion only took place 18 and 19 Oct. last year (2006). No "wikiwag" participated as "wikiwag" in the section at the time (and also not later), as documented by the contribution history list of "Wikiwag".

When I pointed that out to "Wikiwag", "Wikiwag accused me of having deleted the "attack" if it was not there any more. Also this can be documented to be untrue, based on my list contribution history, as this must have taken place after "Wikiwag" registered at the beginning of January. I describe this in some detail here, pointing out that "Wikiwag" seems to identify him- or herself with Pete, also with regard to one of the two instances referred to by "Wikiwag" as "attacks" on "wikiwag" in this ... section, well the page seems to have been blanked for the time being.

When "Wikiwag" persued this one step further, arguing that the references given earlier (four times ...) had been "mistakes" and should have included "others", being Pete, in the description of the "attacks", I just noted that this assertion - to me - lacked credibility, and that I already had described the reasons for this. "Wikiwag" ended with:

"Thebee; I am the mountain and I will no longer listen, because you have nothing to say that I consider of any value what-so-ever."

A female voice to my ears, using two pictures similar to Pete's earlier, one comparing himself to a rook and me to a pawn, and secondly expressing the same view as Pete earlier today in discussions (telling he had no interest in what I have to write, as he repeatedly has told on a number of occations), and making similar careless "errors" as Pete, when he for example at the talks page of Centrx last year at one time listed five diffs as "proof" of my "harassment" of him. Two of them were to postings by HGilbert, not me. So who is who actually.

And would you have any suggestion for me as "the wind" to patch things up to "the mountain", who thinks I have nothing to say that "Captain" "Wikiwag" would consider of any value whatsoever? Not meant as an insult or offense, just as a curious question.

Thanks,

Thebee 02:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thebee: I'll respond to this, because this directly concerns me and to let you know that there is one thing that you can say that I will listen to. That one thing is: "I'm sorry for harassing you and accusing you of being a sock-puppet."

Moreover, I've requested a UserCheck on my account, to put to rest any doubts that I am a unique user. Until that happens we have nothing to discuss, except that as an American citizen I have a right to travel as I please and my business as I do so is my own. It's frankly none of your business where I'm located.

But consider that if nothing else, the fact that I have accessed through the same ISP from at least two different locations tends to support the veracity of my assertions. - Wikiwag 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reopening of arbitration

I have reopened the arbitration case concerning this article for review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Fred Bauder 15:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review preparing my statement

In considering what statement to give the committee I am seriously contemplating a recommendation that several editors be topic banned from Waldorf-related articles. You are one of the people I have in mind. If you wish to persuade me otherwise, please present whatever you want me to consider at my user talk page. I expect to spend about one week deciding what position I'll take. Durova^Charge! 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)