This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to bifurcate

1) Motion to bifurcate the Waldorf Education article from the other articles.

Reasons for this motion

The mountain of evidence in this arbitration is going to be overwhelming. I have collected and hope to present almost 200 diffs about a single editor's questionable actions in the Waldorf education article alone.
Collecting this much information on this many articles, and then (hopefully) reducing it to within the guidelines, and in the timeframe provided is going to be close to impossible.
The Waldorf Education article seems to be the oldest and the most heavily edited of the articles listed.
It has been protected by administrators on several occasions.
A team of editors developed a project to edit the article.
There are issues involving that article which are not necessarily present in the other articles (conflict of interest for example).
Some of the editors in this action are involved in this article but not in other articles.
A decision on this article will make it easier to resolve the disputes on the other articles.

Pete K 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think we can address the issues without dividing the case. Fred Bauder 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Motion/Request - Reveal Sock Puppets

I would like to make a formal request that the Arbitration Committee determine if sock puppets are being utilized here and to identify them for the following reasons.

It would help to establish patterns of behavior.
In the articles, unregistered users have been producing a lot of brochure language. If those unregistered users later became registered users, or if registered users simply didn't sign in when making controversial edits, we could connect their anonymous edits to their registered edits through their IP address.
In some articles, meat puppets have apparently been used as well - some editors actually went on public bulletin boards calling for meat puppets to come to Wikipedia and help revert edits and infuse articles with POV.
We had a time when it appeared at least two Waldorf high-school students (apparent from their writing) arrived to give support to Waldorf (perhaps on behalf of, or at the request of their own teacher).

I think the Arbitration Committee needs to at least identify sock puppets so we can determine the extent of the POV editing that is going on. Pete K 18:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

We generally evaluate editing by its pattern. Who is not as important as how. Remedies can be fashioned for all who edit in a certain way. Fred Bauder 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Request - User intimidating people who have supplied evidence

1) User Thebee is using the talk pages to intimidate people who have produced evidence in the arbitration case. He has not produced any assertions or evidence in this case so far and has, apparently, restricted himself to sniping from the sidelines about issues that are not part of the case. I have asked him to stop intimidating people who have provided (and by his actions, people who might provide) evidence in this case. His intimidation/harassment is, in my view, inappropriate. Here is where the discussion occurs. Thank you for considering this issue. Pete K 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After further consideration and after seeing that others are supplying evidence - I have decided to withdraw this motion. Pete K 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Durova has commented on your motion at the Talks page of this page:

"How does this qualify as intimidation? Thebee's question looks pretty fair to me. I suggest withdrawing that motion."

In what way would a simple and very polite question to you and Fergie to provide supporting diffs for your statements - with regard to you, statements you made at the beginning of the Arbitration, and with regard to Fergie her main statement at the Evidence page without supporting diffs - ever intimidate anyone from providing evidence even remotely similar to the way your suggestions - twice - to me to knock myself out for asking the question - would to do ANYONE, except me? Though you make ANY intercourse with you continuously extremely unpleasant, as you have done from your first day here at Wikipedia, as you're probably fully aware of and demonstrate your seeming intention to continue to be with your suggestions and following request at this page, even during this arbitration under the eyes of reviewing arbitrators. Thebee 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova has made clear that my comment above depends on non-awareness of the meaning of the American expression "knock yourself out" as an idiomatic expression. It therefore stands out as less motivated than it seemed at first. I regret having made it. Thebee 12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct - my consideration took into account the suggestion by administrator Durova. Pete K 20:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Pete withdrew the motion. Let's be sparing with the accusations on both sides. You'll never be friends; that's established. What the arbitrators probably wonder is whether you can work together at all. And if either of you lack the self-control to collaborate productively then the question becomes what external controls to impose. Do you really want to introduce those doubts? Durova^Charge! 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was primarily concerned that others might not be willing to produce evidence. Others have produced evidence - so my concerns were unfounded. Based on this and Durova's suggestion I withdrew the request. Pete K 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The background for my reaction was a long term pattern of demeaning comments by PeteK in discussions [1], repeatedly ending them with "Buzz off now little Bee" and at one time suggesting at the end of one comment: "Insert a juicy insult from me here______.", [2]. Thebee 09:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The request has been withdrawn. Pete K 14:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Motion for Restriction

1) The arbitration has shown a propagation of Waldorf/Steiner/Anthroposophy related articles and stubs that have been produced and/or embellished almost exclusively by a single editor (HGilbert) who is, apparently, on a missionary quest. If this editor is found to be in violation of WP:OWN or WP:COI, I would motion that he be restricted from extensive editing of those articles.

2) Evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the same editor has repeatedly removed tags from articles including {advert}, {NPOV} and {totally disputed} tags - all of which were subsequently repaced by multiple editors. Many of the articles that HGilbert has spawned could rationally be merged together or in some cases tagged for deletion as they are completely redundant and only being used to proliferate the presence of Anthroposophy. I motion that this particular editor be restricted from removing tags from articles related to Waldorf/Steiner/Anthroposophy and associated initiatives. Pete K 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I hope it will obvious to everybody who looks at this case that 'apparently, on a missionary quest' is a description that fits on more than one editor in this edit war. If editors are restricted, i would support the motion that for example everybody involved is restricted from editing the articles in question for 1-3 months. trueblood 21:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is not at issue here. Violation of WP:OWN and WP:COI are the issue - and not all editors are in violation of these policies. Other editors have not started dozens of stub articles all relating to one particular world view. Other editors here have not removed tags (sometimes with deceptive edit summaries) like one particular editor has. One editor, HGilbert, is in violation here and the evidence is overwhelming. Pete K 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At issue are also violations of WP:OWN, WP:COI and WP:NOT with regard to PeteK as documented by this and this, and extensive violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thebee 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be construded as a Wikipedia:Walled garden, which is distinct from edit warring. The arbitration committee will determine the merits of the claim. If they conclude that it has a solid basis then the remedies can be expected to include a solution - interim restrictions are less likely unless the disruption is really dire. Review prior case histories for examples. Durova^Charge! 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Motion for Restriction

I motion for the restriction of user Pete K from editing Wikipedia generally, and of user Diana W from editing Waldorf, anti-Waldorf, and Waldorf and anthroposophy-related articles.

1. The reasons with regard to User Pete K are, in general

a: expressed intent to violate the WP:OWN policy (take control of the article on Waldorf education) when starting to edit Wikipedia,

b: also telling the reason he came to Wikipedia was to fight against the undersigned, constituing an intent to violate the WP:NOT policy.

This has been followed by

c: repeated violations of fhe WP:NOT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL policies [3]

d: (with violations of the latter two even continued during this arbitration) [4], when he has stated that he has "tried to tone it down." [5], at no time before this arbitration having expressed regret for any of his many personal attacks on and incivilities towards different co-editors,

e: repeated strife to assert ownership of articles by deletion of fully referenced and proper citations, that in no sense violate the guidelines for such citations (for just a few examples: [6], [7] [8], [9], [10]), also indicated by Professor Marginalia with regard to the article on PLANS while not yet exemplifying it,

f: demonstrated/expressed contempt/disrespect for

- Wikipedia policies, (numeruous violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL),

- the mediation process, completely in stept replacing [11], [12], [13], [14], a Mediation request [15] made at one time with his own description, after 9 of the invited 11 editors had accepted the invitation, and leading to that two of those who had accepted the invitation withdrew it, [16], [17],

- this arbitration processes, by adding a personal attack [18] to the neutral "Brief summary of situation" after the request had been accepted

- administrators, (removing one warning from his Talks page as belonging to "irrelevant stuff" [19] when getting a second warning [20], then explicitly denying the validity of the second warning [21], followed by a denial also of the validity of the first warning [22]) and

- other editors (in a demeaning way [23] referring to their request to him to stay civil) with:

"TheBee makes the statement "He has disregarded repeated requests by different admins and editors to stay civi" followed by 10 diffs. Examination of those diffs reveals only two requests by administrators, and the rest are a concoction of TheBee's comments and those of other editors."

and with regard to Waldorf- and anthroposophy related articles:

g: expressed deep personal aggression towards Waldorf schools and Waldorf education [24], based on his personal relation to people at his children's Waldorf school, violating the WP:COI policy.

2. The reasons with regard to User Diana W are her former position as officer (board member) of the central anti-Waldorf group in English on the internet [25], her co-ownership of [26] a non-public mailing list "Survivors action", violating WP:COI. (On 04 Mar 2004 01:20:01 +0000 one Waldorf critics by accident happened to forward a mail to the "Survivors-action" list to the WC-mailing list of the secretary of PLANS) repeated incivilities towards other editors, expressed non-interest in contributing to the development of Wikipedia [27] and repeated non-interest in continuing to contribute to Wikipedia under the guidance of a mentor. Thebee 17:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I was going to ignore this motion, as it is an obvious tit-for-tat by TheBee. But since it's against me, I guess I have to address his points. My responses will be in reference to his letter-designated points above:

a: Anyone reading this reference will see clearly that there is nothing that indicates I intend to violate any Wikipedia policies with my statement.

b: All that can be said here is that TheBee has misinterpreted what he read.

c: Most of TheBee's page does not demonstrate any such thing. Perhaps TheBee has a valid complaint somewhere in there, but I haven't seen it in the instances where I have skimmed through his list of complaints.

d: This claim is not true. I have acknowledged and have indeed expressed regret for incivilities that I have produced.

e: These diffs should indeed be examined as they do not demonstrate what TheBee claims they demonstrate.

f: I have never demonstrated contempt for Wikipedia policies. The mediation request TheBee refers to was poorly worded and discussion regarding that mediation has been produced on the evidence page. No need to repeat it here. TheBee's claim is bogus. Incredibly, TheBee points to statements about conflict of interest in this arbitration process as a "personal attack". This arbitration is intended to root out the issues among editors. If pointing to those constitutes a "personal attack" to TheBee, then it is pretty clear to me that TheBee has a strange definition of what constitutes a personal atack. Also, as far as I know, I am free to archive my personal talk page whenever I like. I have offered TheBee the opportunity to restore whatever he feels is necessary.

g: Again, TheBee has conveniently misunderstood the comment I made which is clearly seen in the diff he provides. In the diff, I acknowledge that I edit agressively. TheBee has misunderstood this to mean "agression" against Waldorf.

Again, this is TheBee's idea of tit-for-tat and has little to do with anything substantive in the way of my relationship to Wikipedia. Pete K 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A board member is not an "officer" and putting the two words in parentheses next to each other will not equate them. I am not even a member of this organization, let alone an officer. And I will certainly be fascinated to learn that my running a mailing list on *anything* disqualifies me from editing articles here! Sometimes I think, Sune, it would be less trouble to just let you join that damn list. The content is not half so fascinating as you apparently think. How about if I sub you? I feel bad imagining you staying up nights wondering what we talk about :) It is very comical to try to imagine what you think you are showing by noting that a post once went astray, giving you the fascinating tidbit of information that I moderate that group. (Actually I don't anymore, as of recently.) Are you planning, at some point, to establish what you think the relevance of that mailing list is to - something? Thanks. (Indeed, as I think I told you earlier, I argued with some folks on that list to just let you have your "Secret Action Group" rhetoric here, as it is so funny. Not everyone was amused, however, and of course, it isn't "wikipedian" to allow junk to remain in articles just because it amuses somebody). I believe you can let the admins determine whether my attitudes toward wikipedia are in line or not. The fashion in which I have edited here and there at wikipedia is exactly what wikipedia is for - 99% of editors do what I have done, that is, add material or work on articles on topics that interest them, and not on the 400 gazillion other topics, with no desire for wider involvement, penetrating the politics, joining all the clubs etc. I have edited *extremely* more broadly at wikipedia than you have done (not all my edits are Steiner-related; I've edited several pages on novels and literature. And if you think I'm only interested in shouting "racism" at Rudolf Steiner, check out a nasty little situation that developed on the Nadine Gordimer page recently.) That's what wikipedia is *for* - it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I'm not interested in *most* of the topics on wikipedia and clearly neither are you. Last I heard nobody is "required" to get a mentor. I certainly will not get a mentor in order to apple polish the arbitration committee. How absurd! I am not here to play games.DianaW 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could clarify this. I stress board member versus officer because board members advise but don't vote. Now, someone could argue I've gone on advising them anyway. I do, in fact, often give them my opinion, but the problem is they don't listen to me :) which largely explains why I am not a board member anymore. Thebee and numerous of his cohort have a long history of insisting that anyone who is critical of Waldorf or anthroposophy, ever, anywhere, is a "member of PLANS" whether they like it or not. People have been told they're "members of PLANS" who have never *heard* of PLANS. This confusion is partly self-serving because then when they spread vicious rumors about PLANS, anyone they don't like is tainted by it (they hope). Also, I suppose it's just easier to think of everybody with anything critical to say in one undifferentiated mass labeled "enemy." PLANS = enemy. It doesn't matter how many times you say you're not with PLANS or what kind of reasoned discussion you try to have about it, they say anyone who's ever written a post on the WC mailing list is a "member of PLANS." (The fact that this logic would make them "members of PLANS" too doesn't faze them.) *Countless* people peruse the PLANS website or follow the mailing list, for short or long periods, without joining PLANS, i.e., sending them money, taking part in their actions, strategizing with them, advising or any such. Since Thebee et al. do not see behind the scenes correspondence they haven't a clue who interacts with PLANS in what way. Pretty much every organization with a website works that way. My personal opinions and actions match what PLANS is up to in certain ways, and not in others. I notice that he never requests clarification of this; he and his friends are not interested in the subtleties, and to straighten out his own thinking on this would mean he couldn't label and dismiss me anymore. He is content with the conclusions he has reached and it is no use to bother him with the facts. Unfortunately for him, reality is not his to construct. I ought to know what groups I'm a member of.DianaW 21:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we are giving this motion more attention than it deserves. Pete K 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay. I didn't realize we could all just "motion" anything we like and it took me by surprise.DianaW 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bee, for finally showing me the information posted from the yahoo list that so fascinated you, that "went astray" to the critics list. It can be found at:

http://waldorfcritics.org/active/archives/WCA0403.html Scroll to March 4 (there is only one post on that date).

Someone sent a local news item, regarding the local Camphill (anthroposophic) facility, of potential interest to others concerned about anthroposophical projects. They accidentally sent their post to the wrong list. Thebee learned in this manner of the existence of this private discussion group, and worrying about what is said there has dogged him every since. This is the sort of tidbit thebee latches onto, and this is the way he "documents" his claims. He attempted over at the "PLANS" article to suggest that the existence of this yahoo group supported his claim that PLANS is a "hate group." (The yahoo group doesn't have anything to do with PLANS anyway, but facts rarely get in his way.) Now he claims the fact that I (used to) moderate this group (it isn't really moderated anyway, I just happened to start it) is a "conflict of interest." Does he think I get paid to chat on yahoo? I suggest the arbitrators check out the nature of the item that thebee feels demonstrates my bad behavior.DianaW 03:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On

"Thebee learned in this manner of the existence of this private discussion group"

No, I learned about it when you at one time two years ago tried to persuade me to go to the U.S. to "defend" Waldorf education at an anti-Waldorf colloqium organized by PLANS, and you happened to include me in what you wrote to the group (or the group in what you wrote to me) about it. You were clearly engaged in the organizing of the anti-Waldorf colloqium and made one contribution at it. The COI it demonstrates on your part is that you in different forms in different positions have been deeply engaged in the activities of the central anti-Waldorf group on the net, to whose anti-Waldorf mailing list you still contribute with Waldorf/anthroposophy-critical postings almost on a daily basis. Thebee 10:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-Waldorf colloquium" that I organized? I have never in my life organized an anti-Waldorf colloquium, or anything remotely like that. Thebee's misrepresentations are continually amusing. He's referring to the yearly conference of the International Cultic Studies Association (http://cultinfobooks.com/infoserv_events/idx_affevents.htm), an academic conference and meeting of ex-members of cultic groups. I play no role in this organization either (though I have, in this case, made donations), and I have certainly never organized anything for them. I gave a presentation on Waldorf at their meeting in 2004; presumably this is what thebee refers to. I don't think I had any role in trying to persuade thebee to come, unless I said "Why don't you come" on the critics list. I remember suggesting Professor Marginalia attend. Anyone can come. I believe thebee was in fact formally invited to attend and be a formal respondent on a paper that was given by Peter Staudenmaier at the same conference. A history and religious studies professor at the U of Georgia, who also happened to be a supporter of Waldorf education, accepted in his stead (and, incidentally, ended up thanking Peter for his scholarly work on Steiner's racism). Thebee declined the invitation; it's very difficult to get anthroposophists to debate outside their own clubbish circles, where scholarly or professional standards will be applied to the debate. This perhaps illustrates the problem he is having here, as well. He is convinced that all refutations or criticisms of Rudolf Steiner are attacks on his person, designed to cause him heaviness of soul. Incidentally, bee, the next ICSA conference is in Brussels next June - you could get there much easier than I could, and indeed you would find it fascinating. This isn't a trick or a trap; I promise Pete and I won't be there. The meeting is always attended by not only ex-members but also numerous defenders of various cultic groups, everyone from Scientologists to the Hare Krishnas and Sai Babas, Mormon polygamists and Unification Church folks ("Moonies"), vocally refuting what they view as vicious attacks from the outside world by people who "don't understand," just as thebee does for anthroposophy, and it's quite interesting.DianaW 11:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, correction, he doesn't accuse *me* of organizing the ICSA conference, he accuses PLANS of it. Of course PLANS and I are the same thing :) PLANS didn't organize it either. Hundreds of groups and individuals attend this conference, and ICSA has no association with PLANS. The commentary on the critics list at the time was quite humorous in this same vein; various other anthroposophists including professor marginalia insisted till they were blue in the face that the anthroposophy-related papers being given were all by PLANS; the whole bloody meeting, involving hundreds of people worldwide, was a PLANS conspiracy, to hear them tell it. Four people gave Steiner-related presentations, one of whom was from PLANS (Dan Dugan). The other presentations were by Peter Staudenmaier, a PhD student in the history department at Cornell, John Holland (of the web site openwaldorf.com - another individual somewhat critical of Waldorf who is not connected to PLANS; hasn't been mentioned here previously but also refutes thebee's claim that PLANS is the Number One and Only Worldwide Anti-Waldorf Whatever), and myself. The efforts of the four of us attending the meeting were loosely organized by Sharon Lombard, yet another critic of Waldorf education and author of a Steiner-critical paper given at an earlier ICSA conference; Sharon also is not affiliated with PLANS.DianaW 12:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amended at 12:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC) by Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]}

Citing sources

1) It is highly desirable that editors cite the sources of the information in their edits, especially on controversial articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse with comment. Sources that are clearly biased have provided an avenue for introducing a distinct POV (brochure language) in these articles. Pete K 15:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse in accordance with the by Fred Bauder proposed principle regarding reliable sources, with the the inclusion of suggested additions by the undersigned. Thebee 23:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Hgilbert 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - while hanging head in shame for letting frustration motivate some personal violations of this policy. Pete K 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Hgilbert 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per evidence. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

1) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment, and keeps with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Pete K 16:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Thebee 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Hgilbert 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View, IV

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View applies equally to addition and deletion of material. Editors who systematically delete a notable point of view so that it is underrepresented or absent from an article do as much harm to the goal of neutrality as editors who attempt to overload an article with some point of view via the addition of material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Pete K 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for viewpoints documented in accordance with Wikipedia criteria for acceptable sources, with the inclusion of suggested additions to the description by Fred Bauder of the principle of reliable sources Thebee 23:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Hgilbert 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ownership of articles

No editor or group of editors may preempt site policies in pursuit of some other agenda in Wikipedia's articles. Instead they should abide by existing policy, attempt to create a consensus amendment to policy, or advance their agenda at some other website.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Pete K 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Hgilbert 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Thebee 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Conflicts of interest

1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, strongly discourages editing regarding an organization by those associated with the organization, especially in a public relations capacity. As applied to this matter, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies to those persons associated either with the Waldorf schools or with PLANS, an anti-Waldorf organization, who are aggressively editing Waldorf school and related articles in a biased manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as rewritten Fred Bauder 18:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would propose and support this language from the WP:COI page: An editor may be restricted from "edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject." "Of special concern are organisational conflicts of interest." Pete K 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as rewritten with minor objection to the "anti-Waldorf" characterization of PLANS. Pete K 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the need to reword. Not sure exactly where to take this, but I'd like to see it touch on the ethic of disclosing one's affiliations as potential conflics of interest. When I was in the military a catchphrase that often got used was avoid the appearance of impropriety. So even if you weren't actually doing anything wrong, if an unbiased person could look at the situation and perceive a likely problem, don't go there. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf schools are not an organization. Each of the appr. 900 Waldorf school world wide in general is a completely independent organization, probably mostly having the form of a non-profit foundation. A positive article about Waldorf education at Wikipedia will not in any noticeable way increase the salary of any Waldorf teacher in a foreseeable future.

I would suggest adding documented expressed deep personal feelings of aggression towards Waldorf education and Waldorf schools following a divorce from a Waldorf teacher, and repeated unmotivated personal attacks on other editors, experienced as supportive of Waldorf education, as an indication of a deep COI with regard to Waldorf related articles. [28]. Thebee 22:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works both ways. Fred Bauder 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel no general personal aggression towards critics of Waldorf education [29], [30], but have at times felt aggression towards PeteK and DianaW the last four months as a specific result of their repeated personal bullying, at times leading to a marked heaviness of the soul. Thebee 10:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the underlying principle, but see the need to reword: many editors work in fields related to their (or one of their) primary editing area(s). Durova's disclosure policy makes sense to me. Hgilbert 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, per [31]. Needs a reword, so feel free to hack it up. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a battleground

1) Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or advertising, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, nor is it a battleground for struggle, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as reworded Fred Bauder 18:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse completely Thebee 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 21:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Hgilbert 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Pete K 14:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, per COI. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it a bit. Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse. Pete K 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse with inclusion in the principle that works by authors, whose unreliability with regard to well documented and published historical sources is easily documented by direct comparison of what they write to the original historical sources, published on the internet, that they they assert that they describe, be considered unreliable sources. While not normally necessary, the suggested addition in this case - regrettably - stands out as relevant.

Lost me. Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to a repeatedly unreliable (untruthful) author on anthroposophy, a Mr. Staudenmaier, whose unreliability is easily documented by comparison of what he writes about a published historical source (lecture series by Steiner in 1910) to the source itself, published on the internet. For comparison of what he writes as introduction to one article to the source he refers to, see the historical published source, found here and here on the internet. The article by Staudenmaier is published at the site of PLANS since six years and Pete K repeatedly insists on adding it as citation in the article on Anthroposophy, [32] , [33], [34], while repeatedly removing (edit warring against) well referenced citations, that contradict him [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. For more on the unreliability of the author in question as author on anthroposophy, see here and here. Thebee 15:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good example of an unreliable source. There is no need to specifically mention such sources; any polemical source is considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only unreliable source here is TheBee. Other than TheBee and a few other Anthroposophists making the obligatory accusations against Peter Staudenmaier, there is nobody discrediting his work. His articles have been published and supported by other historians. If a source is discredited because Anthroposophists don't like the source, then we are going to have a very difficult time finding any sources that discuss these topics objectively. This is, indeed, why the articles here have depended so heavily on Steiner's actual words... and even then Anthroposophists argue about translation, or context. One time TheBee even argued that Steiner didn't realize a stenographer was hiding behind a curtain. We cannot fairly dismiss sources on TheBee's evidence. If someone outside of Anthroposophy has claimed that Mr. Staudenmaier is an unreliable source then that should be considered, of course. If Anthroposophists aren't permitted to source language in the articles, they must not be permitted to determine the legitimate sources for criticism. Pete K 17:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In obstruction (contempt) of the 16:55 (UTC) expressed view of Fred Bauder of Staudenmaier as an unreliable source and therefore impermissible citation in articles at Wikipedia, PeteK again (17:18) has added Staudenmaier as citation in the article mentioned. Thebee 17:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Mr. Bauder is not the Arbitration Committee, he is one arbitrator. I don't believe he suggests his decision is final. It's amazing that you cannot wait another day or two before moving forward on what you percieve to be some sort of vindication here. We are still discussing this issue - that's what arbitration is about. Your "evidence" above requires examination and, when that has been done thoroughly, I'm quite sure it will be shown to be wrong - as it has been in the past. Please read Mr. Bauder's words carefully. "Sounds like a good example of an unreliable source". Let's at least wait until all the evidence is in and a decision has been made before taking that to be a ruling of the entire arbitration committee. Pete K 17:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I looked at it a bit more, it can be searched at Amazon; it looks bad, with its facile equation of environmentalism with fascism, but I suggest that everyone actually buy, or otherwise view, the book and consider it both as a whole and in its treatment of Anthrosophy. I am not impressed by reasoning that since both Nazi's and Anthrosophists support organic farming, that they can be equated, although I have met my share of both nasty organic farmers and environmentalists. Fred Bauder 20:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article, by an Anthroposophist, makes the connection. Rudolf Hess was interested in biodynamic (Anthroposophical) agriculture and intervened against the closing of Waldorf schools. Biodynamic agriculture was practiced by the Nazis the concentration camps - prisoners were forced to work the farms. Mr. Staudenmaier's works on the topic of eco-fascism in Germany are well respected [40], and referenced in academic works even though sometimes misunderstood. Pete K 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a comment on the similar attitude to serious discussions that Mr. Staudenmaier has demonstrated with regard to his repeated untruthfulness and mind games with regard to anthroposophy, see this discussion, published by the Institute for Anarchist Studies.

The revolting soup by Mr. Staudenmaier, and insult to serious scholarship, that you add as "citation" at the end of the article on Anthroposophy and insist that people read as "information" about anthroposophy can be found in the article. For some more comments on it, see here. Thebee 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another connection. More can be found, of course, but I believe the point has been made. Yes? Pete K 20:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Mr. Staudenmaier is an unreliable source on Steiner and anthroposophy is easily documented by a direct comparison of what he writes in the article you repeatedly add as citation in the article on anthroposophy to the published historical source (also here) he asserts that he descibes. That someone has an academic title (at no time so far has Mr. Staudenmaier told that he has an undergraduate degree in any subject) need not have anything to do with their reliability, as exemplified by David_Irving.

In writing "This article, by an Anthroposophist, makes the connection.", "makes the connection" looks like an argument that the author (Hindes) is of the view that there is a connection between being interested in biodynamic farming and being positively interested in anthroposophy, and that the article linked to tells that. Actually reading it shows the opposite. Any interest of Hess in anthroposophy is also denied by the wife of Hess. Thebee 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This argument gets more incredible by the minute. When TheBee sources what "he writes" (meaning Mr. Staudenmaier) he provides not a document that Mr. Staudenmaier has written (as one would expect to see), but what TheBee has written about what Mr. Staudenmaier has written. Then he suggests a comparison can be made to this by sourcing an article ("Angels, Folk Spirits, Time Spirits: Their part in the Evolution of Mankind") that is different than the one referenced in Mr. Staudenmaier's paper("The Mission of Individual European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology"). To add a bit more confusion, the Bee references an article about David Irving for no apparent reason that I can ascertain. Then he builds a straw-man argument in reference to the article by Daniel Hindes, and refutes it by producing a letter by the wife of Rudolf Hess. Following the fatal logic of this presentation is a remarkable exercise in irony as it is TheBee's intention to argue for reliable sources. Pete K 23:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Unreliable source Thebee 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar way as for works on controversial issues with regard to Waldorf education, published by anthroposophical or Waldorf publishers, I would also suggest that authors, who have worked actively in a public capacity in organizations, on an ideological basis strongly critical of Waldorf education and anthroposophy, be considered as unreliable sources with regard to controversial issues in relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy. Thebee 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I think he's talking about anybody who he can loosly classify as a skeptic - or in one case, a Libertarian Communist [41]. Pete K 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How should A.C. Harwood, "The Main Lesson", Child and Man Extracts, Forest Row 1975, pp. 198-9 (one of the founders of the first Waldorf school in Britain) be considered? Fred Bauder 23:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be relevant: the magazine "Child and Man", and thus the article in question, is included in the British library's holdings

It is not the text that is in question, what is at issue is that here is, simply another Waldorf teacher advocating his theories, definitely not a third party look at Waldorf schools. Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be too pointed, but should Thomas Jefferson (one of the founders of America)'s thoughts about America be excluded? Hgilbert 01:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would not quote Jefferson's rhetoric as descriptive of America. He wrote of a ideal. That is what a lot of this is about, "In a Waldorf school children become creative and mature, etc", brochure language about vision. Find some peer reviewed research that shows something. Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the first sentence.

Strongly disagree with the second sentence. Wikipedia policy describes self-published sources as "personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs". Specialist publishing houses that publish thousands of titles by hundreds of authors, many of whom are unrelated to anthroposophy and Waldorf education, are a far cry from self-publishing. In addition, it is unreasonable to exclude the expertise of all those active in or with direct knowledge of a field. The standard should be that generally applied. These works are in the collections of major libraries, including the Library of Congress and are written by competent authorities in their field.

It is reasonable to assume that such authors are writing from a point of view sympathetic to the fields in question, but see WP:Reliable sources: "If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view." Hgilbert 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed are sources about not by, third party sources. Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify things if this analogy is faulty, but if a self-published blog is acceptable as a source of information about that particular blogger, and company press releases are acceptable as information about a company and its products, then wouldn't anthroposophy press material be similarly acceptable for the narrow purpose of describing anthroposophy? Durova^Charge! 03:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for information which is not controversial. Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be meaningful, does not your suggestion need some definition of what is to be considered controversial with regard to Waldorf education? Thanks, Thebee 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If some editors strongly disagree with an statement, that's a good sign that edit is controversial and requires support. That's pretty much the case throughout Wikipedia. Pete K 23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An incompletely formulated criterion. On 2 Sept. you started a cite request war regarding the Waldorf education article, repeatedly adding maybe 153 cite requests to the article [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], and got a 24h ban for 3rr violation (that you've then removed from your Talks page). Few of them referred to controversial issues. While most of the issues probably are adressed and supportable from sources published by AWSNA, the Anthroposophic Press, or other large large anthroposophy or Waldorf related publishing companies, there are (probably) few peer reviewed research papers that adress and discuss them. In general, works published by large Waldorf related publishing companies, must be assumed to be generally reliable sources on Waldorf education. Thebee 10:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I have shown here, HGilbert has indeed gone into the article to cite much of the uncited material. And yes, he has used almost exclusively Anthroposophical sources. Some of those will, as Mr. Bauder has said, be acceptable as the claims are not controversial. For example, the claim "spiritual values are central both to the curriculum and to the training of teachers.[3][4]" has two citations. That probably won't be challenged in the future as it happens to be true. It may, indeed, be embellished. Pete K 15:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that mean AWSNA can be an acceptable source to describe AWSNA? The Anthroposophical Society of Denmark could be an acceptable source for describing the Anthroposophical Society of Denmark? Wouldn't a brochure from Shining Mountain Waldorf school be an acceptable (and appropriate) source for describing Shining Mountain Waldorf school - and not every Waldorf school world-wide? Adding to this: The Anthroposophic Press and the Rudolf Steiner Press are indeed the sources for much of the material on Steiner and between them is contained the bulk of the material that represents Steiner's work, also known as Anthroposophy. Steiner's own works cannot, of course, be excluded here. At issue, I hope, is the material of Steiner's gushing followers, past and present, who have since distorted much of what Steiner said. These sources, being Steiner missionaries, represent a biased view of the material they are presenting and this often swings heavily in the direction of the brochure language and views that are discordant with Steiner's own views - such as we have seen appear in the articles. Pete K 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material such as you cite can be used for material which is not controversial, but not for material that is. Often the nature and content of the vision and theories advanced are not controversial, whether they apply to real people is. For example from the website of the Waldorf school in Carbondale:

Intellectual flexibility, independent judgment, and moral courage will be essential to our children's success as creative and responsible human beings. To nurture these characteristics, the Waldorf curriculum carefully balances academic, artistic, and practical activities to stimulate the imagination and prepare the students for life.

Whether that school can, in fact, impart moral courage to its pupils is quite another question. Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, a brochure for Harvard University isn't likely to be written in the same tone that would be appropriate in a Wikipedia article either. The article editors bear the responsibility for giving the article an NPOV tone distinct from any imbalance in the source material, although the article can offer examples to demonstrate POV in certain relevant sources. Those points step away from whether POV self-published material is acceptable as a source. I suspect articles that relate to anthroposophy would be difficult to write if such material were excluded since, as Pete's evidence demonstrates, peer-reviewed studies of the subject are relatively scarce and tend to be negative. Or to put this another way, one point this proposal seems to get at would be better expressed as objecting to over-reliance on self-published sources. Durova^Charge! 14:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there is little third party peer reviewed information available, but that is what you need to work with. Fred Bauder 18:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one study on the creativity issue, see this abstract, for the full report, see here (republished with the permission of the author). Thebee 07:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why the above advertisment by TheBee belongs in this arbitration... but if this was, indeed, in the proper place, the Waldorf article, I would object to TheBee's website being used as a warehouse for this article because of the self-promotion, original research and defamatory comments contained elsewhere on the website. So, in my view, the first link would be an acceptable source but the second link would not. Pete K 08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article contained in the second link were deemed to be a valid source, I believe it should be warehoused elsewhere - Wikisource, for example. As the first reference in the article says "Information obtained from the Association of Waldorf Schools in North American and the Waldorf Bunds and Federations in Germany and England." I might have some reservations about it.Pete K 08:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That reference is to support the statement that the study is the first on creativity in Waldorf schools. A strict constructionist would suggest that we should avoid citing that claim when referring to the study, it is true. Hgilbert 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, and I don't have a problem citing this study, per say (for the record) but it completely depends on the language in the article and what IT says. If the language says "Waldorf students are more creative than other students" and cites this article, then I would have a problem with it. If the language says "A survey was conducted and found that in blah blah cases, Waldorf students scored 5% higher in creativity in blah blah areas of creativity - and this was attributed to blah blah. Students entering Waldorf later scored better than students who were in Waldorf earlier... blah blah...". IOW, if the text in the article represents accurately the text in the source, there wouldn't be an objection from me for introducing this source. Pete K 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bee is not a reliable person himself to comment on whether the author Peter Staudenmaier is "untruthful." He has put forth this notion many times in many forums and he never introduces anything that convinces most people there are "untruths" in Staudenmaier's work. I have seen him literally claim that Staudenmaier is untruthful because he describe one of Steiner's audiences as "large" and according to thebee it was 350 people in the room and that should not count as a "large" audience; therefore Staudenmaier is "unreliable" and "untruthful." He has his own agenda for declaring Staudenmaier an unreliable source and the arbitrators need to not take his version of things at face value. Incidentally, Staudenmaier most certainly does not equate environmentalism and fascism. It is that reading that is "facile" not Staudenmaier's treatment. The essay in question regards fascism *in* environmentalism but does not equate them. That is a far fetched interpretation and causes me discouragement that arbitration will be able to delve deeply enough into the issues here to render a meaningful judgment. Staudenmaier certainly has an undergraduate degree and is currently a PhD candidate in history at Cornell, writing a dissertation on Steiner. His works are published in scholarly journals and are fully citable at wikipedia. There is no justification for excluding them.DianaW 02:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no way this arbitration can credibly declare articles published by Staudenmaier in scholarly journals to be "unreliable" as wikipedia sources. Putting it bluntly, don't fall for this.DianaW 02:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder wrote: "I am not impressed by reasoning that since both Nazi's and Anthrosophists support organic farming, that they can be equated . . ." The book claims nothing like this.DianaW 02:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete wrote: "This argument gets more incredible by the minute. When TheBee sources what "he writes" (meaning Mr. Staudenmaier) he provides not a document that Mr. Staudenmaier has written (as one would expect to see), but what TheBee has written about what Mr. Staudenmaier has written." What Pete says here really needs to be taken seriously in this arbitration. Thebee repeatedly "documents" things by giving links to his own web sites, where he has written lengthy "summaries" of what are only his own views and in no way provide "documentation" of what he is claiming. Scour the pages he links to for documentation of his claims; you will find nothing but content-free rants. I am unsure if it is uncivil of me to point this out but it is true; it is in reply to extremely serious accusations and I feel it is justified to point out that the documentation for the accusations does not exist.

The last thing I need to note in this arbitration, and I am probably putting it in the wrong place but I am out of time, is that I take the "hate group" accusations by Thebee extremely seriously, and he should not think that because I am not a litigious person that it is acceptable to go on for years publicly defaming people, making completely unsupportable accusations, linked to my name, easily googled etc. Wikipedia should take this very seriously. This is a person who writes out-and-out defamation and does not care when this is pointed out to him. It is an extremely serious situation. I am not a member of any hate groups. The group in question (PLANS) has done nothing ever, in any way, shape of form, no actions, no statements, nothing ever even close to the tactics of hate groups. The tactic is despicable. It is employed to turn attention away from Rudolf Steiner's own racial and anti-Semitic views which critics point out. It is a shabby and transparent "turn the tables" strategy. I do not have the time to research how wikipedia could or should deal with such a person contributing to wikipedia and repeatedly linking to his own web sites where defamation of groups and individuals is published. (At these web sites he also accuses Peter Staudenmaier of "forgery." There has never been a forgery. There was originally a misunderstanding in a long-ago debate which caused Thebee to believe that a lecture was being cited that didn't exist. His mistake (Thebee's) was pointed out to him many years ago, but he refuses to remove the accusations from his web sites. (Sometimes he calls it a "spiritual forgery." Regardless forgery is a criminal accusation. This should make clear the nature of his relationship with the author Peter Staudenmaier and his- thebee's - unfitness to even comment on Staudenmaier's 'reliability" or "truthfulness." Thebee replies to requests to substantiate his endless accusations, "forgery," "hate group," with absolutely nothing. And I am not exaggerating - absolutely nothing, ever. You could search all night and you will not find any evidence of any "forgery" nor of anything suggesting the similarity of PLANS to a hate group. That's because there is nothing to the accusations - he made them up. He gets away with it largely because the frankly lunatic character of the accusations generally makes people laugh. But Wikipedia really needs to have policies about this sort of thing if it is ever to rise above the reputation it currently has for being basically by and for hacks. So many smart people here are working so hard to improve it - but it's got to take this sort of behavior very seriously. There are certainly very serious potential legal ramifications if not in this case in similar ones, sometime.DianaW 02:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaratory judgement

1) In the case of a dispute where users editing in good faith have misunderstood basic policy, it is more appropriate to interpret the policy and expect the users to conform than to restrict their editing.

Please, let's all always move forward by assuming good faith. Good
people, trying to do a good thing for the world, balancing many complex and competing concerns. It's a complex mess. That's because the world is a complex mess. We're all doing our best here.
--Jimbo

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have my doubts about the efficacy of this. Thatcher131 02:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation

1) An article or set of articles which have due diverged significantly from encyclopedic standards may be placed on probation. Articles which are on probation shall be reviewed periodically and if they do not significantly improve, appropriate additional remedies restricting editing of those editing the article or articles may be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conflicts of interest II

1) (Attempting to reword the above) If an editor chooses to go against the recommendations at WP:COI and edit at an article where he or she may have a conflict of interest, the ethical approach is to disclose one's own potential conflict candidly and openly from the outset. Whenever an editor perceives a gray area in the policy and doubts that his or her own situation constitutes real conflict of interest, the appropriate standard for providing disclosure is avoid the appearance of impropriety: how would one's actions look to uninvolved Wikipedians if a dispute ensued and a third party later discovered and shared the same information? Durova^Charge! 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Polarized editing

1) "There tend to be two strongly polarized parties editing these articles, one sympathetic to the themes, one antagonistic to them." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Statement_by_Hgilbert. See this comment by Fergie.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse; unfortunately so. Though I believe I strive to find an objective balance and to include other points of view, this has been a very polarized situation. Hgilbert 01:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When one especially looks at the actual edits to the articles, there really doesn't seem to be the sympathetic/antagonistic polarization described here. What I've noticed is one group that is heavily invested in presenting an overly sympathetic picture of the themes - and in order to do so is having to disguise the known facts about those themes. They tend to support their sometimes reckless claims with biased material from more overly-sympathetic authors - or with selectively harvested single-sentence quotations that are out of context from the surrounding text. Among those themes, and most distasteful to the sympathetic group are themes about Steiner and racism and Steiner and anti-Semitism/assimilation. Their overly-sympathetic viewpoint extends to and manifests in emotionally-driven positive claims about Steiner and Waldorf education and negative claims about PLANS, authors and historians who have reported critically on these themes. I suggest that the editors who are, instead, attempting to provide factually supported edits that are refuting these claims are not "antagonistic" to the themes but are simply doing their job as Wikipedians - to present a fair and unbiased representation of the themes from a NPOV. To the overly-sympathetic and personally invested editors, this appears as a POV or even antagonistic - and herein lies the issue. Pete K 16:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some problems with the anti-Semitic accusations. They seem to fall into approximately the same category as quotes mined from Abraham Lincoln that he did not think much of the prospects of the Black race. If Waldorf schoolers were anti-Semites, they would be showing up at Nazi rallies, not planting schools in the inner city. I think it comes down to this: controversial information, especially of this sort, must be verified by good sources while all that seems to be available are old quotes from Steiner and anecdotal evidence of offenses by misguided teachers. There is a similar problem in Mormon culture, which I am familiar with, but there is also a concerted effort by the leadership of the church to overcome them. Fred Bauder 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any claims against Waldorf schooler's regarding anti-Semitism. The biggest issue here is an attempt by overzealous Steiner supporters to paint Steiner as seriously *opposed* to anti-Semitism. Steiner's views were clear - he was an assimilationist in the most extreme sense. The issue of anti-Semitism in Waldorf hasn't been broached here - and I don't think this claim would be appropriate for the Waldorf article (even though I believe Waldorf's alignment with Christian themes is relevant). I agree that good, unbiased sources should represent the scholarship represented here on this issue. Pete K 19:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to one browser of the net, living near a Waldorf school and searching the net for info on, as basis for a possible decision if to put his child at the school, the site of PLANS depicts Waldorf schols as nazi training camps [50]. This may be compared to a number of the types of people who have gone to Waldorf schools, or who have chosen a Waldorf school for their child or children. [51],[52]. For some results from a recent Swedish study on pupils in public and Waldorf schools, that also touches on their respective views on racism and anti-Semitism, see here. For Steiner's own views of the anti-Semitism of his time, see here. For the view of the Anthroposophical Society on the issue, see here. Thebee 00:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the articles on Wikipedia, not articles, blogs, websites or discussion lists elsewhere. Pete K 00:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Tentative endorse. The polarisation has tended to be between 'extremely pro-waldorf' and 'objectively critical' camps. (ie there is not really an 'anti-waldorf' camp)--Fergie 19:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred B. wrote: "If Waldorf schoolers were anti-Semites, they would be showing up at Nazi rallies, not planting schools in the inner city." This reasoning is very wrong and very naive; I can't stand on ceremony because it is an arbitrator who expressed it. Clearly there are many people who hold anti-Semitic views yet never in their whole lives go near a Nazi rally! I daresay we all know some in real life. To dismiss concerns about anti-Semitism in such a manner is to me shocking, and frighteningly naive. Nevertheless, no claims of racism in Waldorf have ever been made in (any of the) articles on Waldorf education, to my recollection. The claim that Steiner made racist statements and held anti-Semitic views has been made in the *article on Steiner*, where the claim is appropriate because it is true, well and scrupulously documented, and relevant to understanding Steiner's worldview and his spiritual doctrines (karma, reincarnation, etc.). Steiner's versions of these doctrines are significantly different from other variants of karma, which is believed by many people worldwide without racial meanings attached - Steiner, conversely, believed that you reincarnate in different races in different lifetimes to experience the "tasks" or "missions" assigned to different races. (Put baldly, you'd better be nice to black people 'cus you might come back as one.) He held similar, equally stupid views about essentialist roles of men and women, views which yet don't attract the furor that the racist elements of his thought attract. (They deserve the same scrutiny as his racial doctrines but that awaits a scholar on the order of Staudenmaier to take it on.)DianaW 03:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hgilbert

1) Hgilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a teacher in a Waldorf school and a writer regarding the educational theories used at the Waldorf schools [53] [54]. 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse. Pete K 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed a Waldorf teacher and a writer, sometimes on Waldorf pedagogy. However, I did not begin primarily editing these articles; see my first edits [55]. I was drawn to Wikipedia because of its usefulness, and began to contribute to these articles because I found them in very poor shape, and because they are subjects in which I have some expertise. I have been editing here less than a year, in which time I have certainly contributed to a large number of articles outside Waldorf subjects, but generally in a small way. I believe I work to be inclusive of and incorporate other points of view; some of the criticism sections in these articles were begun or extended by me, for example. I have also been learning how to present material more objectively through my time here; I do believe that this shows in the articles. Hgilbert 01:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse. HGilbert clearly has a vested interest in Waldorf Education.--Fergie 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research by Hgilbert

1.1) Hgilbert has repeatedly added information, apparently from his own knowledge or studies, without providing references to a reliable source [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse. Pete K 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I mentioned earlier that the articles need citations, and have begun to supply these. I will endeavor to ensure that my edits include specific citations in the future. I would like to add, however, that it would be helpful if other editors did not remove valid citations. Hgilbert 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Inadequate and inappropriate references by Hgilbert

1.1) Hgilbert has advanced material as references which are not references, simply his own original research or tendentious assertions, while his references sometimes refer to books, they do not do so with specific reference to pages in the book [65] California court decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Since Mr. Bauder's comment, HGilbert has started to add references to the Waldorf Education material he has provided.

These, so far, have been references to publications by people exactly like HGilbert - i.e. Waldorf teachers and Anthroposophists. The publications he has cited, so far, have included as an example "Renewal - a Journal for Waldorf Education" which is published by the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America (AWSNA). AWSNA's purpose is to produce the brochure language that is present in the Waldorf Education article. Using Renewal as a reference is essentially using a Waldorf brochure to support the inclusion of the brochure language. Ref: Renewal Production and Sales, AWSNA Publications Sales, 3911 Bannister Road, Fair Oaks, CA 95628-6805 - www.awsna.org

E.A. Karl Stockmeyer

A.C.Harwood

Pete K 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Workshop#Reliable_sources above. Fred Bauder 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Pete K 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The larger question of whether Waldorf teachers are competent authorities on Waldorf education, or anthroposophists on anthroposophy, seems to me to be answered both in and of itself, and by reference to Wikipedia's policy of neutrality of point of view.

You and other teachers are not authorities in the sense required. Your writings are not third party, peer reviewed publications. Fred Bauder 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only citation made to Renewal magazine referred to an article about the origin of the name 'Waldorf'; on this subject, certainly, it is an acceptable authority.

If I have provided citations without page numbers (or the equivalent such as an internet link), it has been very rare. In line with my general attempt to improve citations mentioned above, I am endeavoring to clarify any references that are not specific, whatever their provenance.

Of the two diffs above, one is to a book that includes a range of authors mentioned; a specific page number is thus not possible to give (this is an unusual case). Hgilbert 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse. HGilbert generally walks, and has repeatedly overstepped this line --Fergie 19:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DianaW

1) While not confirmed, DianaW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently an anti-Waldorf activist, see mailing list post regarding editing struggle on Wikipedia on mailing list sponsored by PLANS. Apparently attracted to Wikipedia by the Waldorf school controversy, she has made some edits to unrelated articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

DianaW is a former officer of PLANS, the central (one) anti-Waldorf group on the internet [71]. Thebee 09:23, 16 December 2006

The comment above was added by TheBee. Pete K 16:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have never been an officer of PLANS. I served on their board at one point, several years ago. I have never contributed financially to PLANS, I have no vote and no say in what PLANS does, and statements that I make online or elsewhere are all my own, in every way. I am neither entitled to speak for PLANS nor do I wish to, as I don't share all their views nor agree with all the actions they have taken. I fully agree with the lawsuit they are bringing, and it is an important case that may eventually reach the Supreme Court, but I have no role in it, neither monetary, advisory, strategically etc. There is nothing about my association with them that disqualifies me at wikipedia (I'm good friends with a couple of them, certainly), that I can see. Nor is PLANS the only group critical of Waldorf education (the relevance of thebee's comment there, I'm not sure, but it's inaccurate anyway). There is a group in the UK: easeonline.org and there is a group active in Norway (don't have the link handy but two of its active members contributed a statement in this arbitration). (It is easy to document at wikipedia alone, and elswhere through media reports, that thebee knows them through *extremely* long and intricate personal association, so it's very difficult even to take the above statement suggesting his unawareness of their group as showing "good faith.") There are other efforts that are not yet public. I am not associated in a formal way with any group critical of anthroposophy or Waldorf education; I speak for myself. Thebee would like to claim that if I exchange emails with people I'm a "member" of whatever they may be doing; that's ridiculous.DianaW 04:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add to the section here bearing my name that it continues to confuse me - and cast doubt on the reasonableness of these proceedings overall - that Pete and myself as a result of using our *real* names on wikipedia (both of us have given our first and last names here, in full, and that name is my name in real life, it is on my resume, my business correspondence, my paychecks, my personal checkbook, my income tax returns, my driver's license etc. as well as every comment I have ever written on Waldorf education or anthroposophy on the Internet, and I believe this is the case with Pete as well) - we are subjected to scrutiny of real-life affiliations, associations, and activities, while various others who have made supportive contributions escape this entirely simply by using goofy screen names like 13-year-olds do. Can someone explain this to me? Where are the requests that we learn who exactly are Professor Marginalia, Venado, Vindheim, Trueblood, Boogafish, Goethean, Wonderactivist, Fergie, a number of IP-address-only editors, and several others that I've probably forgotten? Pete and I are fairly certain of the identity of Professor M. and if she is who we think, she is a founding member of Americans for Waldorf Education. This is clearly a relevant organizational affiliation; the group's web site also repeats the defamatory "hate group" accusations against PLANS. (And this organization *exists* to promote Waldorf education.) Will I be told it is inappropriate of me to "out" this person? Then what sense does it make that if I "out" myself by signing my real name, we are now here debating whether any of my past or present affiliations impact my editing at wikipedia? Personally, I believe that certainly my real-life activities and past associations with Waldorf impact my editing. If we hadn't enrolled a child in a Waldorf school I would probably have no opinion or information today about Waldorf education. Of course these experiences shape my approach to the articles here and I believe in being forthright with this. To do otherwise is just to play games, and to me the issues are serious and real-world. This does not appear to be the case with various other editors. Even "thebee" while linking repeatedly at wikipedia to his own web sites where not only his full name, mailing address including street and apartment number and telephone number but even his *picture* appears, has gone through and deliberately removed mentions of his real name as if insulted or affronted that somebody mentioned it. Obviously that's just posturing but I think the issues this raises should be clarified. If the forthrightness of those of us using our real names when we work on wikipedia is *not* in fact a good quality in an editor at wikipedia, it seems to me this should be stated and the entire matter of who belongs to what group in what capacity should be dropped; it makes a farce of these proceedings.DianaW 15:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And finally. I believe the issue of repeatedly reporting on another editor's marital status needs to be addressed. Frankly this is preposterous. If "being divorced from a Waldorf teacher" disqualifies someone from editing anything related to Waldorf here, then clearly we'd need a policy of everybody else revealing not only their real-life identities as I note above, but also their marital status and the Waldorf sympathies (or otherwise) of their present and past spouses. Is Professor M or Hgilbert married to or divorced from a Waldorf teacher? How about if a son or daughter or close friend is a Waldorf teacher or Waldorf parent? How about if the grandkids attend Waldorf? It would extend far beyond this, obviously, to numerous other potential anthroposophical affiliations. What if my best friend is a biodynamic farmer? What if my mother uses Weleda? What if my husband's brother once worked in Camphill? (citing various other anthroposophical projects). Where should such silliness end? Either somebody's marital history is an appropriate topic here or it is not. Period.DianaW 16:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that it was HGilbert who produced this claim - that I do not have custody of my children, producing my name here (enough to identify me to people) and caused me to have to use my real and true identity in order to refute his claim here. It is clear, I believe, by my comment that I was annoyed (to say the least) that comments about my marital and child-custody situation were represented (misrepresented) here at Wikipedia - and before I was an editor here. At some point, I believe the arbitrators have to look at these types of activities and consider that one side has gone beyond the definition of "good faith" in their actions. I've tried to avoid this topic as it is personal to me, but geez, what are people expected to endure in order to participate here? Pete K 17:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to fully support Pete in this. I'm sure others have observed that in this issue he has total self-restraint. He simply does not comment on these personal issues; he never tries to rebut what anyone here tries to say about his family, other than the occasion where Hgilbert was literally telling the world that Pete did not have custody of his children or had to fight for custody of his children (which is all completely false). He makes no comment ever about the divorce that so titillates Waldorf supporters here. Aside from it being simply unconscionable to start discussing anybody's private life here, it raises all the issues I've been discussing this morning and more. Even if were ethical and appropriate to start interviewing all the other editors of these articles regarding their marital situations (and hey - do boyfriends or girlfriends count if they're not married? I know of quite a few couples who split up or had conflicts regarding their children's schooling, and I can think of several personal acquaintances whose negative opinions about anthroposophy come from personal relationships with anthroposophists - are these experiences invalid? would these people to be banned from editing anthroposophy-related articles here?), but the notion that this tells us anything pertinent about people's contributions here is plain stupid. What do we do next, all have our marriage counselors make statements here? None of the correspondents repeating gleefully here that Pete is divorced seem to have ever wondered whether Pete is critical of Waldorf because he's divorced from a Waldorf teacher or whether he's divorced from a Waldorf teacher because he's critical of Waldorf. (Either is possible - and it's also possible that he is divorced for completely unrelated reasons!) How about that!! How would we unravel this and similar personal issues for all the contributing editors here?DianaW 17:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete K

1) While not confirmed, Pete K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently a Waldorf activist, see mailing list post regarding editing struggle on Wikipedia on mailing list sponsored by PLANS. Pete K's edits have generally been limited to articles related to Rudolf Steiner related articles and the editing controversies connected with them. Pete K maintains a mailing list WaldorfQuestions [72].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed

Comment by parties:

I think I'll move this comment from Diana's area to mine since it applies to both. Why is this "anti-Waldorf"? Waldorf is harmed by dishonest behavior (labels of "Hate group") by Waldorf teachers and Waldorf representatives far more than it is helped. It helps Waldorf when the bad apples are identified and removed from the barrel. People who are interested in reforming Waldorf should not be labeled "anti-Waldorf". There are many, many people within Waldorf including Waldorf teachers who believe Waldorf needs to implement reform policies. A well-deserved reputation for dishonesty among some Waldorf teachers hurts enrollment and drives parents away. Even this master Waldorf teacher agrees - shining a light on the problems within Waldorf is ultimately good for Waldorf [73]. I'll add here that I have no affiliations with or connection to PLANS or any anti-Waldorf organization. I post on their public email list along with other email lists. I am only encumbered by a strong opinion regarding Waldorf reform. Pete K 20:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If posting to the Waldorf Critic's list is going to be used as a criteria to determine "anti-Waldorf" status, then TheBee, HGilbert and Professor Marginalia (if her true identity were revealed) would all have to be considered "anti-Waldorf". Should I provide links to their contributions there? Re: edit warring - I believe this can be traced to one group of editors who are connected to Waldorf who are trying desperately to own the articles related to Waldorf. Were they not here pushing their unrealistic POV, there would be no edit-warring. Even detached editors have been frustrated by their efforts. Just sayin... Pete K 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My mailing list. I was only here about a week when I suggested linking it to the articles. I may have even inserted my own link a couple of times. Once I was made aware of Wikipedia policy against this, I didn't suggest linking it again. There are only something like 12 members. Pete K 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm what I have said above about my feelings toward Waldorf and in particular my local Waldorf school (since my own email list has now seen the spotlight of these proceedings, there's little point in keeping the school name a secret) here is a post about my issues with this particular school. Note my concern for the overall well-being of the school. This posting is from June and pre-dates my arrival at Wikipedia by two months. Pete K 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Apparently Mr. Bauder has upgraded me from an "anti-Waldorf" activist to a "Waldorf activist".[74] I just wanted to say thanks <G>. Pete K 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

People who are very close to a topic often lack the detachment needed to write a good encyclopedia article about the topic. (This applies in both directions; some time ago I found myself between Mr. A, who was writing his own autobiography, and Mr. B, who has been a strong critic of Mr. A for many years in the "real world.") When the lack of detachment leads to edit warring and other disruption, steps are usually taken. Thatcher131 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Despite occasional incivility on the talk pages, PeteK's article edits have been the most 'wikipedian' of all the editors involved in this dispute --Fergie 20:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by PeteK

1.1) PeteK has directed personal attacks at his opponents "I think this shows mental instability and, coupled with his frequent wild accusations and unintelligible rantings, this hate page "

Comment by arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebee/WikiViolationsByPK Thebee's notes regarding PeteK, likeHgilbert's User:Hgilbert/diffs, are not a policy violation, just notes. Fred Bauder 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I regret having made this and similar comments and apologize. I have tried to tone it down. Pete K 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address this directly to Pete: one pattern I've noticed is that when I call you out on incivility, you apologize to me and then continue being uncivil toward the other person. You don't do this in the covert manner I see sometimes in other investigations. Still, each of us is responsible for the effects of our actions. These lapses are pretty frequent. Durova^Charge! 23:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely acknowledge that one particular editor brings out the worst in me. I try to direct my comments to his edits and to his behavior, and not toward him personally. I understand it's a small distinction but one I try hard to make. Pete K 00:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Fred Bauder: Have you looked at this? Thanks, Thebee 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please have a look at TheBee's "personal attack" list. I haven't gone through the whole thing, but if the first third represents personal attacks, then I must not understand what constitutes a personal attack. I don't deny making my share of remarks that have demonstrated bad judgment on my part, but this list doesn't seem reasonable to me. Pete K 00:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bee, remember when I called out Pete on an AGF foul against you?[75] Well you've just made me eat my referee whistle: Pete was right. Durova^Charge! 01:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the whistle. It's just a list of diffs with some descriptions and quotes from them, to save the reader time in reading the list, similar to this, that Fred Bauder has commented on. PeteK had seen earlier versions of it. I've put it off-wiki to prevent the list of Wiki violations by PeteK from being published for ever on the net. Thanks, Thebee 15:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Original research by PeteK

1.1) PeteK has inserted original material personal attack, citing himself

Comment by arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

As Fergie said below, this was a frustration edit after having removed (several times) unfounded "hate-group" accusations by TheBee that used, as reference, his own 5-person original research website. I have tried to limit my frustration to the talk pages, but I acknowledge that I wrongly allowed this to slip into the article. It was not intended to produce original material but I understand now that it violated a Wikipedia policy about using Wikipedia edits to make a point. I regret having made this edit while frustrated. Pete K 21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse. (Although this is immature, point making, disruptive behaviour rather than cynical POV pushing)--Fergie 20:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete wrote: "If posting to the Waldorf Critic's list is going to be used as a criteria to determine "anti-Waldorf" status, then TheBee, HGilbert and Professor Marginalia (if her true identity were revealed) would all have to be considered "anti-Waldorf". Should I provide links to their contributions there?" I want to echo this. A post of mine, linked here originally by thebee, is now cited on this page to tag me as the holder of various strong opinions about Waldorf education and to reveal my desire to counter the use of wikipedia as a soapbox - and more importantly free advertising - by Waldorf supporters. It is indeed a clear and forthright desire of mine to make it difficult for Waldorf supporters to use wikipedia in this way. (I have of course noted this explicitly at wikipedia as well. And unless I'm greatly mistaken my attitude here - and my edits - have been thoroughly in line with the goals of wikipedia, overall; it is not intended to provide a free space for religious proselytizing or promotion of a product name, i.e., Waldorf. But that isn't necessary to the argument.) It is a very simple matter, that would require me less than 5 minutes, to find multiple posts in various online forums showcasing the passionate and often for practical purposes literally *insane* viewpoints and beliefs of various of the Waldorf advocates here. Is this appropriate? Is this really about lining up people and saying, "Aha! He/she is pro- or anti-Waldorf and I can prove it because he/she wrote this on a mailing list once, Ta Da! Here is the link." Fred Bauder checked with me to be sure he had the same Diana Winters. Admirably thorough, but now how are we going to do this with "Professor Marginalia" and the others if they use various other names on other web sites? I could give him the "Professor's" real name, of course. This is linked to the above issue of real-life identities. If mine can be identified - and now we are all debating whether it should be held against me - it is goofy if I cannot then post links showing some of the passionately held beliefs of a number of these other editors that clearly motivate and shape their participation here.

Likewise, if anonymous editing is a central practice at wikipedia, and anonymous editors cannot be challenged to provide their real-life identities in an arbitration, while those who have voluntarily provided this information can be penalized for it, what is to stop us "arbitrating" this till the cows come home and a week later one of the editors who has been warned or banned or on probation or whatever measures are taken, simply comes back calling him/herself Joan of Arc or Elvis Presley and and starts over? I'm frankly not optimistic for any kind of rational real-world outcome here. I'd cheer up if someone could explain to me how this is not all game playing!DianaW 17:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK. Admins like me find the sockpuppet and ban it. We have many tools including blocking the underlying IP address. Usually this works pretty well; that's one reason Wikipedia is a successful project. Durova^Charge! 04:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova. But what about when it is not sock puppets but new people? New people wouldn't be any more required, would they, than the current parties to give their full names and state whether they are affiliated with Waldorf, organizations critical of Waldorf, married to a Waldorf teacher, divorced from a Waldorf teacher, son or daughter of a lifelong and prominent anthroposophist (a situation arguably more likely to bias someone's views on anthroposophy than marriage). So each time, if someone's edits seemed biased, we'd wind up in an arbitration requesting - with no actual recourse, since it isn't required - that they reveal relevant affiliations or personal connections. I mean, the only reason we know Hgilbert is a Waldorf teacher is that we happen to know that Hgilbert is a Waldorf teacher. We could just easily *not* have known this if we didn't know him from elsewhere. And, if I'm understanding, he is not required to say who he is, right? He's been honest enough not to play games about it - but the process could well simply serve to forewarn the next gang to take on wikipedia duty - hey, the way to do it at wikipedia is to choose a false name, and never give away anything that will let them positively ID you. Couldn't this potentially go on forever? I don't suppose there is any way around these situations if "anyone can edit" wikipedia. I think it's a big problem. It's why it's an irresistible temptation to proselytizers. In the long run, they'll get away with it, as long as wikipedia remains what it is. We can possibly get this-or-that individual to make slightly more disciplined edits, but there are lots of other Waldorf teachers and anthroposophists in the world, and others will come along before long.DianaW 15:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We call those new people meatpuppets and have methods for dealing with them too. This kind of conversation would be better to hold with a mentor on user talk pages. If Wikipedia were that easy to disrupt it wouldn't have grown to one of the most popular sites on the Internet. Your experience so far here has been very unusual, but now that there's an arbitration case these particular articles will receive much more scrutiny. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, though it probably doesn't matter now, I'm not talking about meat puppets. I'm talking simply about new people. Real new people - other anthroposophists or Waldorf teachers or Waldorf supporters - there are hundreds of schools world wide - who happen across these articles and start making edits, i.e., rewriting the articles as Waldorf promotional pieces. These people would be constrained in no way by what is being decided here, isn't that correct? All they need do - and they can take this lesson away from simply perusing these proceedings - is be careful not to disclose their real-life identities or any relevant real-world affiliations.DianaW 14:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may be a foregone conclusion now, but we may as well document what's happening. TheBee is rallying the troups over on the Anthroposophy Tomorrow list as this thread shows. This comment shows that this was a planned and coordinated effort by TheBee to make me look like a troublemaker and get me banned (as he did on the other site alluded to in Deborah's post). The site was Mothering.com and this post confirms that I was there for months without problems before TheBee was sent in to try to get me kicked out. So, Diana is right - the next group will be arriving soon. Pete K 16:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we define meatpuppet as editors who arrive at Wikipedia because of external canvassing. Just consult with Lethaniol about how Wikipedia deals with this. You've already had the patience to endure arbitration. Durova^Charge! 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What PeteK writes is untrue. On 25 Dec. he made a comment on me at the WC-discussion list. In his comment, he describes me as "dishonest and self-promoting, easily confused and (as someone who) has no regard for the facts."

I'm not allowed to post on that list. But I know PeteK and others on the WC-list regularly follow the discussion on another, anarchist (off beat?), mailing list. I therefore posted an answer, that he does not link to, on that list, where I rarely post. My answer linked to my initial statement in this arbitration process and an overview of a sample of his numerous personal attacks during his time here at Wikipedia.

As he in his comment abut me on the WC-list describes me as someone who in his view has "no regard for the facts", I also in a second posting described a fantasy he seems to have in his mind about a "considerable alteration" of the site of Waldorf Answers that he assumes I have made as "alteration of evidence" in the arbitration case that he has been correct that the site of Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education are "clones" of each other.

He has provided no evidence for the alleged "considerable alteration of evidence" except his own memory(?) and has not in any way or on any point specified what he refers to. When I in full have told him what alterations have been made at the site of Waldorf Answers since 1 Aug, and have pointed him to the site of archive.org, that would provide him with the "evidence" with which he would be able to prove his allegation, and asked Mr. Bauder for his view on unsubstantiated false accusations at pseronal attacks, PeteK first has jumped in to tell that he need not provide evidence for anything I ask him to provide evidence of. He then has described his false allegation as "fact" (without having provided any evidence of its truthfulness beyond his own memory and making an unspecific reference to something DianaW has written), continuing to describe archive.org as documentation in this case as "the next rabbit hole" he has no interest in, and finally seems to tell that archive.org is of no use in this case. It would go too far to delve into the improbable logical consequences of his answer here.

This just as maybe a comment on PeteK's comment on "regards for facts".

Have I been "rallying" some troups? That's another fantasy by PeteK. I have only commented on accusations against me that he has made on a list where I am not allowed to participate, on another list, that I assumed he is following, as he has done it in the past and also himself has participated on it. His comment here shows my assumption was correct. Maybe what he writes can be seen in perspective of his expressed view that he considers even a simple and polite question to him here during this arbitration to provide evidence for what he has written about when it started me as an "intimidation" of him, making him fear that also others would understand it that way, and going on to make a motion that I be reprimanded for this, and only retractig his motion after having been explained to that my question for evidence was completely reasonable.

As for "meat puppets", I doubt my answer to PeteK will lead to any marked stream of such to Wikipedia. That was not my intent, but the one I describe above. WP has been discussed before at both the WC and the AT lists, and the only noticeable addition of editors it has led to here at Wikipedia are the arrival of PeteK and DianaW. What the original reason for the participation of one Waldorf supporter here at one time was, who then rallied on the AT-list for support, is unclear to me.

Maybe he had read the comments by DianaW on the WC-list on her participation here, shortly after her first week here at Wikipedia at one time describing her own view of her participation here during her first week:

"Y'all know me here, so you know what I did. I ranted and raved, and then I ranted and raved. I ranted and raved systematically, every 2 hours or oftener (kind of like feeding a baby; is it really 2 hours between feedings, if you time it from the start, and the baby nurses for an hour and forty-five minutes?) ..."

Regards, Thebee 13:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just another small comment on "TheBee was sent in to try to get me kicked out" too. Nobody sends me anywhere. I only go where I send myself. Regards, Thebee 14:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this arbitration is essentially closed, we're just flapping our gums at each other here. But the point I wanted to raise above was never about meat puppets and just for posterity :) I'll re-state it. "Meat puppets" don't really enter into it because either "side" in a controversial subject can potentially "recruit" others to wikipedia just as easily as the other side, the same as on any web site. So nobody really gains or loses just because arbitrators will be alert to the possibility of meat puppets. The issue that isn't resolved - and wasn't up to this arbitration committee to resolve anyway, of course - is that the core wikipedia practice of anonymous editing will always permit people to disguise their identities if desired. To my mind, this makes the business of researching (and then arguing over the relevance of) real-life identities or affiliations (let alone personal situations like marital status) in a particular arbitration case very silly; in fact it appears to me it will likely have the opposite effect, in encouraging a "new gang" to disguise their identities more effectively.

Frankly to me the issue of "recruitment" is goofy too: clearly, lots of people are "recruited" to wikipedia as elsewhere online by their friends or on-line or real-world acquaintances, to contribute on particular topics (I don't even remember why I originally looked at the page where Hgilbert was claiming I had "blamed my child's reading problems on Waldorf" - if anything, Hgilbert "recruited" me inadvertently. I think someone told me that "Talk" pages at wikipedia were interesting - which I hadn't even realized existed - and I checked out the Waldorf talk pages and found Hgilbert talking about ME.) Just exactly what is supposed to be wrong with "recruitment" isn't clear to me. It seems to me to be how the Internet works in the first place.DianaW 14:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting people in disguise is how Shakespeare set up all his comedies. The problem is that when people like HGilbert come to the talk pages and start talking about real people by name - as he did with DianaW and me, and discussing our families, it really forced us to show up as ourselves to refute what he was saying. Some people have decided we, as individuals, don't have our right to privacy - nor do our families. Pete K 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try the history of the issue. Thebee 18:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thebee

1) Thebee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an activist involved in public relations on behalf of the Waldorf Schools [76]. HIs editing has been limited to Rudolf Steiner related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse. Pete K 21:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "PR" refers to the site of WaldorfAnswers.org. Noone has asked me or the American co-editor to do this and no Waldorf school or Waldorf school association has or has tried to have an influence over what is published at the site. Only one page of the many at the site can be understood as "advertisement", a page with comments on Waldorf education and anthroposophy by more or less well known people, who in different ways have described their experiences and views. All other pages are purely intended as information about different issues, related to Waldorf education, as we as editors see them. According to PeteK it repels people from putting their children in a Waldorf school. That is not interesting. It tries to describe the issues it describes as truthfully and simply as possible as we see and understand them, while also penetrating some of them in some more depth at sub pages, and linking to further information about related issues on the net. The primary goal of the site is to in a simple give present or prospective parents an as full as possible picture of what Waldorf eduction is, as we see it, and then let people decide for themselves what to think about it. Thebee 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, since TheBee mentions my name - I believe I said the *dishonesty* of TheBee's websites repels people. Pete K 16:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse--Fergie 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venado

1) All edits by Venado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are related to Rudolf Steiner and associated editing controversies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Professor marginalia

1) With a few exceptions all edits by Professor marginalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are related to Rudolf Steiner and associated editing controversies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and related articles

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse. Pete K 21:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse. One way or another this has ended up being the case--Fergie 20:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extended family

1) The extent and coverage of articles relating to Waldorf schools, Rudolf Steiner and Anthrosophy is quite large, extending to articles upon details of Steiner's philosophy such as Social Threefolding which may not have broken into mainstream culture and discourse.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thebee banned

1) Thebee, as a person who is involved in public relations on behalf of the Waldorf schools, is banned from editing Waldorf education. He may comment on talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will not be used. As I have thought about it, there is no reason to treat Thebee different from the other highly involved editors. The questions is whether any of them can edit appropriately. Fred Bauder 15:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse. Pete K 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheBee's edits to the Waldorf Education article have been few anyway. His primary contributions in this article have been to control the links by removing links to critical websites and producing links to his own websites [77]. Pete K 17:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is reason to treat TheBee differently from the other editors here, it would be found in TheBee's exhaustive attempts to defame people and organizations he doesn't like [78] with reckless accusations of "hate-group". As far as I know, he has neither retracted nor apologized for these accusations. Pete K 17:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this "hate group" accusation remains to this day on TheBee's website, AWE. Pete K 17:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is considered off-wiki until it begins to impact us. Fred Bauder 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but his "hate-group" accusations here at Wikipedia do indeed impact us, as do by extension his constant references to the website in question which contains this language. When that is combined with his suggestions that editors here who have used their true names are associated with the organization he has labeled as a hate group, that impacts the editors here, not just in their functions as editors, but in their personal lives. One editor who is not here at the moment to speak for herself, was at one time (years ago) associated with PLANS. TheBee has made this vicious "hate-group" claim many times, referenced it to his own group of five persons, and today has connected her to it. It happens she works as a freelance editor - and it is reasonable to suggest that this claim could impact her livelyhood. I don't know about where TheBee lives, but here in the US that approaches libel. I don't say this as a legal threat, of course, but I feel strongly that firm action should be taken by Wikipedia when an editor crosses the line to this degree toward another editor. Permitting TheBee to get away with this without a retraction, without so much as an apology is obscene and sets a precident that impacts every editor here. Pete K 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on the history and criticism of the group - in my view - now well documents what "hate type of group" refers to without using the term, that need not be used to explicitly summarize it: a softspoken but malicious type (as documented by the surprised comment by one blogger, husband of "delores", finding the site of the WC to depict Waldorf schools as "nazi training camps") in relation to more outspoken ones, trying to stay below the radar screen for such groups.

With regard to external links, I have been critical of links to sites that are self published, not in English, or that contain demonstrably untruthful or libelous material, all of which violates Wikipedia policies regarding external links. I regret having linked to one such site a few times (the AWE site) before realizing the policy against linking to sites you yourself have been involved in.

I should also have left linking to Waldorf Answers (not self-published as documented by the recommendation of the site by AWSNA as the main authority on WE in the US) completely to others. Except for the http://www.bobnancy.com/ site, it probably is the internet site that publishes the most penetrating info regarding Waldorf education and its relation to anthroposophy, targeted in criticism of WE, research on WE, and the most extensive documentation of the legal documents regarding the litigation by the WC against two public school districts in CA for for their support of the use of Waldorf methods at two public charter schools. Thebee 10:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, wait... you are now saying that you admit that AWE contains demonstrably untruthful or libelous material? That's great news! That you have discovered the Wikipedia policy about linking to your own sites just recently is amazing to me, but I'm happy to know that we will not have to worry about you violating this policy in the future. BobNancy.com is another original research site, not unlike your own, and will not, I suspect, be suitable for linking. It may indeed rest on the shoulders of the arbitrators to determine exactly which sites are linked to in these articles. I am deeply concerned about your apparent support of the "hate-group" label that you have placed on the PLANS site and I am even more concerned that you have done so and then connected an editor to that group - and still have done nothing to retract this accusation. I am concerned that you don't understand fully what "hate group" means and that the term is reserved for groups that support inciting violence against people, based on their race or religion. Your difficulty with the English language shouldn't excuse you from understanding what you have written, defended and promoted repeatedly - especially after other editors have attempted to point out to you how misguided your use of this term is. That you continue to stand behind this language demonstrates to me that you should not be considered a responsible editor here at Wikipedia and your edits have further demonstrated this. Pete K 16:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"So, wait... you are now saying that you admit that AWE contains demonstrably untruthful or libelous material?" No, I write that I should have not linked to the site of Waldorf Answers a few times in the article on Waldorf education, as I have been involved in building it, and also, indirectly, with "I should also ..." that I should not myself have linked to the site of AWE a few times, as I have been involved in the building of that site too. Thebee 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you at least made yourself aware of what a "hate group" is and do you still stand by that accusation? Pete K 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia article on it. That the WC publishes material (your "reliable source") that (completely untruthfully) makes one causual browser of the site understand Waldorf schools to be a sort of "nazi training camps" gives a hint about the argumentation published at the site, and how it is understood by browsers of it. Thebee 23:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the Wikipedia article on it - so, now that you have also seen it and understand what "hate group" means, are you saying you still stand by your previous accusation? Pete K 00:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Just to note that as of a few days ago, when I last checked, the "hate group" accusation was on all three of thebee's web sites. This group (PLANS) has been supported over the years by numerous well respected professional and otherwise eminent people, not to mention ordinary families involved in Waldorf education, most of whom probably do not want to be called a hate group on wikipedia.DianaW 02:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder wrote, regarding these accusations: "That is considered off-wiki until it begins to impact us." I suggest arbitrators review some of the talk pages of these articles. These accusations of the bee's have indeed long since been impacting "us." He has repeated the accusations at wikipedia so many times I have lost count. Many of these discussions are now archived.DianaW 02:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thebee wrote: "That the WC publishes material (your "reliable source") that (completely untruthfully) makes one causual browser of the site understand Waldorf schools to be a sort of "nazi training camps" gives a hint about the argumentation published at the site,"

There is also an ongoing confusion here between "PLANS" and "the WC." I'll try to "assume good faith" but I'm quite aware that thebee has long since understood the difference. PLANS hosts a public mailing list. (That's what "WC" refers to.) WC does not equal PLANS. Anyone can say absolutely anything on a public mailing list; the discussion there is only lightly moderated. The moderator is fairly conscientious about warning people about libel, ad hominem argument, personal attacks etc., but there is no way to know what this person to whom thebee refers read that led them to believe Waldorf schools are "nazi training camps." PLANS makes absolutely no such argumentation - absolutely never, absolutely nothing remotely related to such a claim. I'm quite sure if thebee could find such a claim by PLANS he'd be quoting it here. It does not exist, nor anything that could remotely be construed as such. He cannot quote some unknown person on some blog saying, "Gee, Waldorf schools sound like nazi training camps" - this was not written on the WC list to which he refers, but apparently elsewhere by someone who had *read* the list, obviously briefly and superficially - then he attributes this to PLANS, and expects reasonable people to believe this substantiates an accusation that *PLANS* is a hate group. It is merely a transparent attempt to deflect attention from the fact that the Waldorf movement's own Nazi-era history is somewhat less bright and wholesome than they publicly portray it.DianaW 02:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thebee wrote: "The Wikipedia article on the history and criticism of the group - in my view - now well documents what "hate type of group" refers to without using the term, that need not be used to explicitly summarize it: a softspoken but malicious type (as documented by the surprised comment by one blogger, husband of "delores", finding the site of the WC to depict Waldorf schools as "nazi training camps") in relation to more outspoken ones, trying to stay below the radar screen for such groups."

This in my opinion alone should be sufficient to ban this person. He repeats the accusation on this page, without documentation. The argumentation is sly and shameful. The article on PLANS now does not use the actual term "hate group" only because of a very time consuming and concerted effort on my part and Pete's to make it relentlessly clear to thebee that these accusations will not stand in wikipedia articles without ongoing, equally relentless challenge -as well as an energetic campaign elsewhere to expose his tactics here. This remains my intention, in the long run, unless I'm barred or restricted or otherwise told in arbitration that my actions are not acceptable. It is a simple matter: he can't call PLANS a hate group in these articles if he can't document this false claim. He hopes that *I* can be made to appear fanatical for refusing to give up arguing it with him; or, that he can quote my writings elsewhere *here* to suggest I am not qualified to write here. He knows that he cannot document the claim or he would never have given in and agreed to remove that language from the article. Trying to insinuate that they're "really" a hate group, only "staying below the radar screen," is utterly unacceptable.DianaW 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation

2) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse. Pete K 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Do you want to be more specific about the imposition of restrictions? Thatcher131 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead Fred Bauder 14:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added article ban language and logging. Thatcher131 17:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you changed the remedy and put the users on probation. I don't want that. I want them to have a period to adjust. If they bull on, then they might be placed on probation when the articles and the editing by our principals are reviewed. Fred Bauder 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was looking at the Kosovo case. If you want subsequent remedies to be applied after appeal to arbcom rather than ordinary admins then you should do that. Sorry about the confusion. Thatcher131 18:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thebee Banned II

Thebee

1) is a former Waldorf teacher who is involved in public relations on behalf of the Waldorf schools.

2) has been involved in agressive editing in support of Waldorf schools.

3) has repeatedly linked and cited his own original research on websites in which he has a vested interest.

4) has repeatedly directed readers during discussion to his own original research on his own websites where he produces unsupported or poorly supported defamatory claims against persons and organizations he considers critics of Waldorf.

5) went beyond any reasonable definition of appropriate conduct by making unfounded and serious claims against organizations critical of Waldorf and then attempted to connect his own smear to the officers of those organizations as well as to editors here at Wikipedia with whom he admits he holds a personal grudge.

6) has demonstrated that the focus of his activities at Wikipedia includes the intention to discredit critics of Waldorf and Steiner (even when those critics are fellow editors at Wikipedia) in any way he can, even when his methods appear to be disingenuous, unethical or in extremely bad taste.

7) has shown neither remorse nor a desire to retract such claims or apologize to the persons he has smeared with these claims.

Wikipedia is a place where editing is based on good faith and Thebee has compromised this basic premise. Thebee is therefore banned from editing Waldorf education and related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Grounds exist to ban all of you. I hope all of you will reform your habits and become productive editors. Thebee will have to work a revolution in the way he edits if he is not to be banned, but my position is that he should be given guidance and support, and only as a last resort, banned. Fred Bauder 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Pete K 06:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, for me, regarding TheBee's behavior is that he is neither remorseful, nor does he even acknowledge that he is in error with this smear-tactic behavior - in fact, he continues to defend his hate-group claims. He appears to hold a belief that his behavior is righteous and unless he demonstrates at least some understanding that what he has been doing here for months is inappropriate, there is no reason to anticipate that support or guidance will help him become a productive editor. Pete K 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue if PLANS properly can be described as a "hate type of group" of some form or not, or as a group that at its site "publishes argumentation, characteristic of hate groups" (making readers of its site (not the archives of the WC list, but articles at the site) believe that Waldorf schools are a sort of nazi training camps, seemingly not noticed by Kenneth Chenault and Jennifer Aniston [79] when they went to them) is since long not an issue at Wikipedia, and I have no intention of mentioning it again. Though DianaW at one gave the impression that the formulation

"The San Francisco based anti-Waldorf lobby group PLANS, described by one support group of Waldorf Education, Americans for Waldorf education as a group that publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups against Waldorf education[15], is the most vocal on this issue."

was something she could live with in the article on Waldorf education, in connection with a mention of the criticism by the group of Waldorf education in the article and an Interwikilink to the Wikipedia article on the group, with DianaW writing about it:

"I like the wording better. I definitely do. I will say more in a day or two. But I like it much better. It makes clear that it is a group of people who don't like that they're being criticized, who are turning around and lobbing accusations of their own at the people criticizing them."

So, we came to a basic agreement on this, that was later dissolved. But it is not anything I feel any need to bring up again.

As for the description of me by PeteK, I disagree with it but refrain from commenting on it here.

Thebee 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course - the upside of your "hate-group" accusations is that it completely destroys the credibility of your 5-member AWE group. But that you are here, on the arbitration page, again repeating this claim is amazing to me. At this point, if there were something stronger than banning you available on Wikipedia, I would be asking for that instead. Pete K 23:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double life sentence? Banned from Wikipedia also for my next life, if the Wikipedia then still exists ... ?-)) Try the somewhat extended sample of your bullying of me and others, your contempt (at the Evidence page) for other editors (not me), when you comment on the way they have asked you to stay civil, and your contempt also for admins when they have warned you for your personal attacks, denying their warnings have been justified and your contempt/disrespect even for the basis procedures of Mediation resp. Arbitration, as basis for what the arbitrators will decide.

I'll try to make a summary of it for the Evidence page, where I have not yet adressed your and DianaW's different allegations yet, assuming the arbitrators will look through all the buzz words and look at the actual diffs you have provided in relation to your descriptions of the them, and your projection of your feelings on to other people in what you describe with regard to their intentions and feelings, (as you did when I asked you a simple question for substantiation of what you wrote at the beginning of the arbitration). I have added some examples of our continued new personal attacks in article discussions, even during this arbitration, to the evidence page. Thebee 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing... TheBee STILL doesn't seem to understand the severity of what he has done here. Associating someone with a hate group is not similar to namecalling or bullying - it is something quite different and a LOT more serious. I would ask TheBee to please take a moment to try to understand the severity of this issue - but I'm not sure it would help. Again, a ban seems like the most appropriate response here. Pete K 00:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It would be hard for me to disguise the vindication I would feel if thebee were banned. I do think, however, that all these issues are interrelated. Perhaps this is not any clearer anywhere else at wikipedia; I don't know, as I've not taken (and am not going to take) the time to study some of the byzantine policies that have apparently evolved here. I'm waiting for the arbitrators to tell *me* what the policies are, and then I must abide by them, as I understand this is how it works. My personal opinion is that it needs to be resolved whether it is fair to discuss the real-life identities, personal lives, and organizational or other affiliations of *any* of the editors here if we are not going to consider this information on *all* of them (both past and future - a whole new team of Waldorf supporters - or critics - could sign up next week and claim not to be bound by decisions about COI, or avoid all of it by simply remaining anonymous). Lacking info on all the other editors, I couldn't make any kind of coherent "Endorse" or "Don't endorse" on anybody based on what I happen to know of them personally in real life or from other Internet communications. It doesn't make any sense to me, and I'm not sure how the arbitrators view this either. Perhaps one of them will explain.DianaW 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very mistaken to think we will give you the sort of mentoring it might take to avoid pitfalls. You must take the initiative and get yourself up to speed. Fred Bauder 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either I'm misunderstanding or you are, I haven't requested mentoring, in fact I've said I'm not interested in mentoring. I happen to be sitting here looking at this as it comes in and perhaps I should wait for further statements from you or the others, but I've been asking for clarification of various policies, largely regarding real-life identities and activities of various editors. The question is how these will be applied fairly here. That really *is* a serious question regarding wikipedia, regardless of the decisions of these arbitration committee people. I don't expect to have any influence over it and I'm certainly not asking for personal guidance. I don't need mentoring to know how to express myself. I'm very satisfied with my means of expressing myself. If things I have said are unacceptable here, that seems unfortunate but it is the decision of other people, not myself. As far as I understand wikipedia, once something is in arbitration I can either abide by what the arbitration committee decides or I can leave. I can assure you I am not the one who will be back under various aliases if things don't go my way.DianaW 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fred refers to informal mentoring and Diana refers to the formal mentorship I recommended. Diana, Wikipedia doesn't set out to be byzantine. If you can follow this rather strange analogy, it's a bit like hospital architecture. Ever wonder why it's so easy to get lost in most hospitals? Well the doctors have a lot of input during the design phase. Different groups of doctors influence the design of their own areas, which makes the individual departments run well at some cost to the ease of navigating the place for newcomers. You're a named party in arbitration because you've run into some problems. As a participant in this project you have to take responsibility for your actions. If you choose not to, then eventually you (or anyone else) could be relieved of that responsibility through the loss of editing privileges. Durova^Charge! 23:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what has happened here is that the word "mentor" is being misapplied. Diana has requested answers to some very specific questions from the arbitration committee regarding anonymity and disclosure, also assessment of activities outside of Wikipedia and how some participants in the arbitration are exempt from this scrutiny because they chose to be anonymous. This is what I believe she is requesting "mentoring" on - IOW, she's requesting clarification (not really mentoring) and she says so above "I've been asking for clarification of various policies, largely regarding real-life identities and activities of various editors." Pete K 00:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I see Diana didn't use the word "mentoring" at all. Pete K 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The committee's role isn't likely to extend into the degree of clarification implied by Diana's post. That goes into the realm of mentorship. Durova^Charge! 04:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think (and I'm careful not to speak for Diana here) that the clarification she was looking for (and I have expressed this as well on the talk page) had more to do with the idea of fairness. If, by using our real names, we have opened ourselves to scrutiny that others have protected themselves from by hiding their identities, wouldn't it be more fair to not allow that type of scrutiny across the board? IOW, evaluate everyone by their editing at Wikipedia alone and not base characterizations about their viewpoints or motivations on their contributions elsewhere. I think that's the question. Having said this, I'm not sure that approach serves what I'm trying to do as what I have presented regarding COI and inappropriate behavior/malicious inclusion of defamatory websites requires the identification of people and connection of them to their activities elsewhere. Pete K 05:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your clarification Durova and it's strangely apt as I have in fact spent a lot of time in two different hospitals in the past two weeks, one of which was huge and I did in fact keep getting lost. Even the *parking* was byzantine. I kept dreaming at night I was walking round and round the central atrium in one of them, with dozens of corridors that all looked the same - or maybe I was dreaming about wikipedia. Anyway I'm still puzzled as to what mentorship has to do with any of this. I'm just asking about policies. I appreciate your recommendations about mentorship - maybe I just don't understand what it would entail. As I've said I'd have to politely decline advice as to how to make better edits or talk nicer. I just don't think so. I'm 45 years old and a successful professional. I don't have any problem communicating what I want to say, I have no interest in apple polishing, and I'm very experienced at writing and editing academic papers. Policies such as what are acceptable encyclopedia sources or appropriate writing style in an encyclopedia are known to me. If mentorship OTOH offers strategies, or deeper understanding of wikipedia policies and practices, maybe - but again I'm not really all that interested in how wikipedia works on deeper levels or in getting into politicking. Obviously the few things I *have* done here are extraordinarily time consuming and I have no interest in "being a wikipedian," only contributing on the topics of interest to me. I'm perfectly happy to "accept responsibility" insofar as if what I've said or done doesn't float here, too bad for me and I'll withdraw. Perhaps however I don't quite get what "mentorship" accomplishes.DianaW 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete wrote: "I'm not sure that approach serves what I'm trying to do as what I have presented regarding COI and inappropriate behavior/malicious inclusion of defamatory websites requires the identification of people and connection of them to their activities elsewhere." It does - it definitely does. I suppose I'm sort of thinking aloud here. Anonymous editing has very limited credibility, in the long run, and the arbitrators can't change that. It's a bit of a charade to act as if this can all be fairly resolved when different rules are being applied to different people, and newcomers can avoid being bound by the precedents set here simply by disguising their identities better. As soon as one side says, Well you think that 'cus your mama's an anthroposophist, the other says Yeah well aren't you really Ms. so and so and we know what *you're* up to. We are basically just teaching the next crew how to do what they want to do and get away with it - always edit anonymously.DianaW 15:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way regarding the mentorship, Diana: it's a way of making the time you do spend at Wikipedia more pleasant and productive. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks Durova. I know I run the risk of offending you or others if I seem to reject this idea. It's not that I think it's without value, I just cringe at anything that takes more time or adds layers of complication, basically. Maybe if it gets clearer to me what exactly would be involved I'll consider it. I do not want to do it merely to *look* cooperative when my genuine feeling about is reluctance.DianaW 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a thread on this talk page. Let's move mentorship discussion there until or unless it becomes a formal proposed remedy. Durova^Charge! 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HGilbert Banned

1) HGilbert is a Waldorf teacher. His edits have been agressive and biased toward Waldorf education and related themes - often inserting and defending language that is appropriate for Waldorf brochures. It is therefore found that he has a WP:COI with regard to Waldorf and related articles and is banned from editing the Waldorf education article.

2) HGilbert has also demonstrated an intention to WP:OWN the articles he has been involved in editing by agressively removing tags and criticism of Waldorf and related articles while agressively pushing a controversial POV. Additionally, he has spawned several articles that would be of little or no interest to people outside of Anthroposophy in what appears to be nothing more than a missionary effort to promote Anthroposophy. As HGilbert has essentially controlled these articles for many months, a ban of not less than 90 days shall be imposed on him for articles he has participated in (other than the Waldorf education article from which he is banned permanently) - after which time he may return and continue editing those articles. This will give other editors an opportunity to stabilize the content of the articles that he has been controlling.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to bifurcate

Motion/Request - Reveal Sock Puppets

Request - User intimidating people who have supplied evidence

Motion for Restriction

Motion for Restriction

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral Point Of View, I

Neutral Point Of View, II

Neutral Point Of View, III

Edit warring

Citing sources

Wikiquette

Assume good faith

Neutral Point of View, IV

Ownership of articles

Conflicts of interest

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a battleground

Reliable sources

Declaratory judgement

Article probation

Conflicts of interest II

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Polarized editing

Hgilbert

Original research by Hgilbert

Inadequate and inappropriate references by Hgilbert

DianaW

Pete K

Personal attacks by PeteK

Original research by PeteK

Thebee

Venado

Professor marginalia

Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and related articles

Extended family

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Thebee banned

Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation

Thebee Banned II

HGilbert Banned

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion