Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

Arbitrators

These arbitrators were active for the original case and are still members of the arbitration committee.

Arbitrators active on this case

• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Morven
• Charles Matthews
• Dmcdevit (currently inactive)
• Raul654
• SimonP

New arbitrators inactive on this case

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

Waldorf education blank page

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

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

Counter-example by way of illustration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henitsirk 03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Public Figure

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

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

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

Waldorf Education - Article/Discussion Page

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

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

Evidence Page

Fred writes:

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

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

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

Use of propaganda techniques by Pete K

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

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

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

Quick Suggestion on Proposed remedies

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

Further Question on Review Process

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

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

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

Note to Fred Baurer about supposedly "removed" links

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

A question on Pete K and this Arbitration

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

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

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

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

What is the background for it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete K defends this ([2])

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thebee 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sock puppetry - third apology

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

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

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

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

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

Thebee 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

Unprotected and restored Talk:Waldorf education

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

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

Concerns over future bias unjustified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete K:

"Thanks for another personal attack, TheBee."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and then second answer to the same question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Above, Durova writes to you:

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

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

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

"sick in the frickin' head"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King of the Critics

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

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

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

The Crucifixion of Pete

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

Here is my story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Going forward

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

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

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

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

Let me spell it out for you:

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

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

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

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

Then we come to...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"You would do well to follow his example"

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

Thebee 12:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Wikiwag

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

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

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

Thebee

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

"You would do well to follow his example"

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

I was actually referring to letting bygones be bygones.

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

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

Would you care to answer those charges?

My point is this, friend:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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