Review opened on 14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed on 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Waldorf_education_and_related_articles_placed_on_probation I have initiated this review of the behavior of the editors of Waldorf education, particularly that of Pete K ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This review will consider appropriate editing restrictions. Fred Bauder 14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence Information

Do not add material which relates to or contains links to the material I removed from Waldorf education and its talk page as a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Email any evidence relating to that material to me to be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee. Fred Bauder 15:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence by Wikiwag

At the request of Durova and pursuant to her statement below, the evidence that I previously submitted against Thebee and his violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE as bullet points, has been rewritten into a statement as follows:

I joined Wikipedia as an editor on 4-January of this year, having been brought here by a Google search on Waldorf Education, and motivated by a recent experience at our local Waldorf school that pointed up serious issues with the qualifications of several of the teachers and their consequent impact on children under their tutelage; two of which are mine. I would later provide additional details with respect to my experience with Waldorf education [1]

My first edit was made anonymously [2], and only after I had carefully read the rules of editing at WP:TRI. At the time, the Advert template appeared at the top of the article. I took the template at face value and as an invitation to participate in editing the article, on the belief that I could add some balance to an entry that was very clearly biased in favor of Waldorf education, which in my opinon glossed over many of the deficits inherent in the approach.

I unfortunately [and perhaps foolishly] did not realize at the time that I was stepping into a very contentious environment with a well-established history. Neither did I realize that the article and its editors had just emerged from Arbitration only days before. In fact, I had never even heard of terms like "edit-warring," or "polemical."

On 6-Jan, I created the Wikiwag user account and made these edits under that name: [3] [4]

The next day, I returned to see some corrections made to my submissions by Pete K and corrected a typo I had discovered. At the time, I believed that any source which supported a statement was allowable, so I made the following contributions to the article: [5] [6] [7] [8] I also thought it was appropriate to add the structure for what I called a "caveats" section, as an invitation to others to fill it in [9]. I then added these contributions [10] [11] and created my user page [12].

This was the point where I got the first taste of what would become a fast education not only in Wikipedia editing, but also in the history behind the article as it stood at the time, as I realized that a user called Thebee had deleted virtually all of my initial edits [13] [14] [15] [16] I was fixated on the word "polemical" in his edit commentary and not knowing precisely what it meant, I looked it up. I then made this post on Thebee's user page [17], hoping he could clarify his use of the term and how it applied to what I'd written, but also making it clear that I felt firmly about what I had written in the first place. I concluded by saying that he could count on me to be civil.

In the meantime, I discovered the discussion page and learned about the arbitration and the unpleasantness that led up to it.

In response however, he implies that I am someone else [18] (a term that I would later come to know as "sock-puppet") and directs me towards the arbitration.

I indicate that I am a new user and trying to make sense of how some of the things that exist in the article are appropriate, while my additions were not [19]. I spend some time reviewing the arbitration statement at the top of the discussion page. Believing I have the substance of the decision and in an attempt to understand who is responsible for what tasks, I make this post: [20] noting inconsistencies in what appears to be happening on the article as compared to the arbitration. Thebee replies that "only controversial material" from Steiner sources is disallowed [21].

I concede my ignorance and indicate I will return only when I have a better grasp of the facts of the arbitration [22].

Pete K then takes an opportunity to reach out to me, but Thebee deletes Pete K's response to my post [23].

I spend a little more than an hour reviewing the arbitration, its players and the circumstances which led to the ultimate decision, I respond with my interpretation of what the ruling says [24], and indicate my understanding that it's not just controversial material - but all Steiner-published material. With that understanding in hand and in response to WP:BOLD, I set to work fleshing out many of the things that I knew to be true about Waldorf Education as neutrally as I knew how to at the time, and removing or reorganizing a good deal of what I came to call "anthro-jargon" [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

I also make my first posts to the Waldorf Education Talk page thanking Pete for his support of my work [39], but then expressing displeasure at the personal attacks by both Thebee and Pete K [40]. [41]. Pete responds to Thebee's persistent use of his own website as a source. I take Thebee to task for deleting my edits on WP:NOR grounds, while he continues to use his own website as a definitive source [42] in direct contradiction to the ArbComm decision. I also delete Pete K's "fight fire with fire" links with an admonition to behave himself, too [43].

It's at this point that Thebee first crosses the WP:CIVIL line in front of me by calling good-faith reinforcement of the arbitration reminders a "pissing contest" [44]. For the record, I say "good faith," because the link in the template on the Waldorf Education Talk page led to this page describing its appropriate use, where it indicated that it was appropriate to place it on "the article page itself." I later made this point to Thatcher131 here, which he conceded here. Unfortunately at the time, it led to an edit war between Thebee and Pete K.

Even though I was becoming increasingly annoyed at the seemingly constant back-and-forth and incivility between Thebee and Pete K (wherein I regarded Thebee as the instigator), I defended Thebee when he and Pete K were warring over the term "antiracism" [45]. Thebee then takes another jab at both Pete K and me [46]. This is the point that I lose patience and post a section on Personal Attacks and Disruptive Conduct [47] calling them both to task and telling them to stop the behavior, or I will take it to an arbitrator. Pete K apologizes and agrees that collaboration is in order [48]. Thebee also issues his first so-called "apology" [49]. However unbeknownst to me, Thebee had four hours earlier, began a dialog with Durova alleging that I was a sock-puppet [50]

I accept everyone's apologies at face value and lay the groundwork for a new platform of achieving consensus [51], and added these two sections for that purpose [52] [53]

I then take a break of several days. In my absence, Thebee seeks support from Durova to legitimize his belief that I am a sock puppet [54] which endures for days and extends to his talk page ( [55]).

Upon my return, I vigorously refute the accusation that I am a sock-puppet with Thebee: [56] and with Durova, who becomes supportive of my pleas: [57] [58] [59]. She recommends an apology by Thebee, which he rejects [60]

Durova opens and supports a CheckUser case between Pete K, Diana W and me, that proves I am not a sock puppet [61]

I respond directly to Thebee saying he can apologize and I will listen [62]. In response, he accuses me of making false accusations of incivility, which have since been entered into evidence by other users as fact [63].

Ultimately, Thebee offers another "apology" [64], which I again accept at face value [65]. Unfortunately, Thebee then decides to include me in his indictment of Pete K [66]. This move led me to consider the sincerity of his last "apology" as dubious. In turn, I have retracted my acceptance of his apology [67].

Thebee offers a third "apology" [68]. Unfortunately, it is clear to me by this time that Thebee is attempting to avoid being subjected to threatened edit blocks for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE and I reject the apology. For my own part, I have given him more than enough opportunities to cooperate, be civil and follow the rules of good conduct. But the evidence shows that for whatever reason he is either unwilling or unable to cooperate.

Moreover, Thebee's conduct has been criticized by experienced editors and mentors:

Lethaniol: "Stop trying to win cheap points," "your quote picking is really starting to annoy me." [69]
Durova: "act like the educated adults you all are and write an encyclopedia instead of a soap opera." [70] UPDATE: Durova has asked me to add the following to this point: "Although I posted on Bee's talk page, the statement was directed as much toward all the editors who were active there (except Lethaniol who's been stellar). That was as much a criticism of Pete and Diana as it was of Bee."

Thebee has also proven recalcitrant at accepting the counsel of at least one other experienced editor/mentor:

Lethaniol: says "I also suggest you stop taking out individual quotes from individual sections and commenting on them - look at the bigger picture of the Wikipedia article - do not get bogged down in the ego and personalities." Thebee replies: [71]

I'll conclude by stating that since my arrival, I have yet to see Thebee make a positive contribution that expands this article according to the ArbComm decision or towards WP:NPOV. His pattern of behavior is more like someone who lies in wait for someone to make a mistake - or at least what he considers a mistake - and then pounces on it and them; this behavior continues to this day [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]. ], despite efforts by any editor in his sights [in this case Pete K] to diffuse the situation [78] [79] [80] [81] . Also in my experience and according to other evidence submitted, he has persisted in a pattern of aggressive/disruptive editing and removed acceptable citations in favor of his own counsel and his own website, including the addition of superfluous fact tags on contiguous citations of a single source. This in my opinion, does not demonstrate good faith.

If Thebee is to remain as an active editor on this article, he needs to start contributing in a more supportive and collaborative manner, be much more civil and when he apologizes for misbehavior, avoid criticizing the person [or persons] he offended in the first place.

Respectfully submitted by - Wikiwag 02:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Third party sources

WilsonWeb has 60 articles on keyword*Waldorf education*, about half of which are from the Anthroposophy society. Of the remainder, 15 are peer-reviewed.

Couler, D. J. Montessori and Steiner: A Pattern of Reverse Symmetries. Montessori Life v. 15 no. 1 (Winter 2003) p. 24
Stehlik, T. Parenting as a vocation: lifelong learning can begin in the home. International Journal of Lifelong Education v. 22 no. 4 (July/August 2003) p. 367-79
Woods, P. A., et. al., Policy on school diversity: taking an existential turn in the pursuit of valued learning?. British Journal of Educational Studies v. 50 no. 2 (June 2002) p. 254-78
Cox, M. V., et. al., The effect of three different educational approaches on children's drawing ability: Steiner, Montessori and traditional. The British Journal of Educational Psychology v. 70 no. pt4 (December 2000) p. 485-503
Nicholson, D. W. Layers of experience: forms of representation in a Waldorf school classroom. Journal of Curriculum Studies v. 32 no. 4 (July/August 2000) p. 575-87
Easton, F. Educating the whole child, "head, heart, and hands": learning from the Waldorf experience. Theory into Practice v. 36 (Spring 1997) p. 87-94
McDermott, R., et. al., Waldorf education in an inner-city public school. The Urban Review v. 28 (June 1996) p. 119-40
Ensign, J. A conversation between John Dewey and Rudolf Steiner: a comparison of Waldorf and progressive education. Educational Theory v. 46 (Spring 1996) p. 175-88
Uhrmacher, P. B. Uncommon schooling: a historical look at Rudolf Steiner, anthroposophy, and Waldorf education. Curriculum Inquiry v. 25 (Winter 1995) p. 381-406
Uhrmacher, P. B. Coming to know the world through Waldorf education. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision v. 9 (Fall 1993) p. 87-104
Uhrmacher, P. B. Making contact: an exploration of focused attention between teacher and students. Curriculum Inquiry v. 23 (Winter 1993) p. 433-44
James, V. The art of the line [form drawing in Waldorf schools]. School Arts v. 91 (April 1992) p. 28-9
Schutt, R. Waldorf schools--a complement to our educational landscape or. . . ? [with discussion]. European Education v. 23 (Spring 1991) p. 88-95
Wermes, H. A necessary addition to Rudi Schutt's "Waldorf schools--a complement to our educational landscape or. . .?". European Education v. 23 (Spring 1991) p. 94-5
Reinsmith, W. A. The whole in every part: Steiner and Waldorf schooling. The Educational Forum v. 54 (Fall 1989) p. 79-91

LexisNexis has several recent articles on Waldorf schools. ISI Web of Knowledge has 15 peer-reviewed articles, some but not all overlap with what WilsonWeb found. The ERIC database has 88 listings, including peer-reviewed articles, articles in non-peer-reviewed journals, and book. Thatcher131 21:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence by Pete K

Evidence previously presented.

TheBee's inappropriate posts and activities (Dec 27th through Jan 10th)

[82] - Rant about me, the day after the arbitration closed. His comments are based on me exposing him soliciting meat puppets on another website.
[83] - Linking to his original research/defamatory web pages - three days after the arbitration closed.
[84] - Reinserting Anthroposophical sources and calling me a vandal - two days after the arbitration closed.
[85] - Reinserting Anthroposophical sources - asking for fact tags to be placed on each statement they refer to.
[86] - Interfering with my mentorship - producing private discussion on public page
[87] - Interfering with my mentorship - on public page
[88] - TheBee's explanation of his right to interfere with my mentorship.
[89] - more explanation by TheBee - note my plea at the top of this diff, asking him to stop.
[90] - TheBee supporting new misinformation with the misinformation contained in an article HE produced here at Wikipedia.
[91] - Admission by TheBee that his objective is to have himself banned along with me and DianaW.
[92] - Rabbit hole and original research
[93] - Suggesting very little of the material is controversial
[94] - TheBee removing AS quote which he later defends.
[95] - Deleting entire racism section out of Anthroposophy article.
[96] - Replacing links to HIS OWN original research/defamatory websites and calling me a vandal for removing them.
[97] - Accusing me of "vandalism" for removing Anthroposophical sources - pre ArbCom instructions.
[98] - Disguising his "hate group" smear
[99] - Re-inserting his own websites
[100] - Calling me vandal, insisting on linking to his own websites to divert users to defamatory information about critics of Waldorf
[101] - Again accusing me of "vandalism"
[102] - Making Sockpuppet accusations (unfounded)

(to be continued - as this is likely to be an exhaustive list)

Miscellaneous inappropriate posts by TheBee:

[103] - Insult Wikiwag
[104] - Insult Pete
[105] - Inappropriately asking for user's name
[106] - Implying user is DianaW
[107] - "Showing Colors"
[108] - Insincere 11th-hour "apology" to Wikiwag

TheBee has, since my arrival, been shopping for administrators to complain to in order to have me banned from Wikipedia:

- Longhair
[109]
[110]
[111]
[112]
- GoldenWattle
[113]
[114]
[115]
[116]
[117]
[118]
[119]
[120]
[121]
- Centrx
[122]
[123]
[124]
- Durova
[125]
- 999 (asking if he's an admin)
[126]

Other inappropriate edits:

TheBee deleting valid reference (approved by Fred Bauder)
TheBee deleting valid reference (approved by Fred Bauder)
TheBee introducing Waldorf references and POV edits to underplay racism in Waldorf
TheBee making unsupported POV edit
TheBee making unsupported POV edit
TheBee making unsupported POV edit
TheBee making unsupported POV edit
TheBee making unsupported POV edit
TheBee making unsupported POV edit
TheBee making unsupported POV edit
TheBee adding Anthroposophical reference
TheBee asking for source to describe each of these as "common"
TheBee adding anecdotal evidence to begin edit war after discussing it here
TheBee readding anecdotal evidence. Not participating in discussion.
TheBee readding anecdotal evidence. Not participating in discussion.
Here Lethaniol appeals to TheBee to stop edit-warring and to discuss.

HGilbert:

HGilbert attempting to diguise the fact that the findings of this government funded study were the opinions of the researchers and not the government.
HGilbert repeatedly attempting to disguise the validity of this research document - calling it an "article".
HGilbert introducing more Waldorf sources
HGilbert introducing more Waldorf sources

I hereby submit this entire discussion page as evidence that I have been working cooperatively with editors to make positive edits to the articles. The only disruptive editors have been HGilbert and TheBee. Neither has made the slightest effort to cooperate with the neutral editors who have been discussing edits, working from a ToDo list, questioning each other about sources, searching for citations, working out difficult phrasing to ensure a NPOV. The ~~two other~~ editors, TheBee and HGilbert, have been working completely independently and consistently undermining the editing process. The diffs I have presented above, and diffs I will continue to present until I run out of time, show that their disruptive editing has resulted in some material being reverted. It was a constant request for these two editors to discuss changes before making edits. The article on Waldorf Ed is especially controversial and discussion of the edits is, as I understand it, not optional - it is a requirement. The tag on the discussion page reads: This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. Everyone has complied with this with the exception of HGilbert and TheBee - who have only brought their edits to the discussion pages after having them reverted. Despite their interference, several issues were resolved and many improvements were made to the article. The process I was working under was what I believed and still believe was according to the directive from the ArbCom.

Refuting Evidence by Venado

Venado points to this "last chance" diff to demonstrate that I am edit-warring. Both HGilbert and I were blocked. At the time I was blocked, I was blocked for an edit that produced compromise language. Here is the discussion I had with Thatcher131, the blocking administrator. A careful look will see that I was compromising. Also, in the diff above, the directive from Thatcher, representing the ArbCom decision, was to do exactly what I have been doing, removing Anthroposophical sources from the articles.

In this diff, Venado complains that I have made a "baseless accusation" against HGilbert. Not only is the accusation correct, that HGilbert is a Waldorf teacher with a conflict of interest, it was necessary to point this out to the neutral editor who HGilbert solicited because HGilbert had already prejudiced the editor by suggesting the article "is now written from a neutral point of view" (it isn't) and if HGilbert was really interested in a neutral opinion, then he shouldn't be suggesting the correct response to the neutral editor.

This diff shows HGilbert intimidating me by putting his friendly AGF tag on my talk page. This is not an honest request from HGilbert, it is an intentional taunt. That's why the strong reply - including the ugly comment at the end. HGilbert is well aware of what I've been through and shouldn't be surprised at what I say about it to him. Here HGilbert is again taunting me - pretending not to know that Lucifer and Michaelmas are connected. He's a WALDORF TEACHER - of course he knows they are connected. Here again is more of the same. In my comment, I am referring to another time when he claimed he knew of no historian who had claimed Steiner was a racist. So I provided him with sources so that he couldn't make the weasel-worded claim that "he knew of no historian."

This and this demostrate the edit warring that goes on. Entire sections that are sourced are being ripped out of the article with little or no explanation as to the objection. In this case, there was a question for several days about whether we could use this source. Here TheBee is trying to use goofy language in the heading because he found a single study in a far off land that shows something favorable on the topic. The discussion was about racism. Nonetheless, a silly edit war ensued. In this edit, a mediocre source was used to support a claim about crayons. Nothing to get too excited about. Here Venado is mistaken - I didn't add this language, just return a block of text that was removed despite being sourced (again, the validity of the source was under review). In this edit, I am actually trying to arrive at a compromise as another editor felt the previous heading was too strong. Note that I'm altering my own wording.

This diff was presented by Venado claiming I am making a personal attack. This is, of course, false, but looking at it carefully, one can see above my comment that HGilbert did, indeed, try to poision the opinion of a neutral editor while soliciting him to review the article. He states that the article is NPOV. A reasonable and fair request would have been "Please look at this article and tell us if you feel it is written from a NPOV." HGilbert is a writer. That this request was intentionally prepared with a biased question would be a reasonable assumption.

Claim in Principle section by Fred B

"The principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons apply to biographical material about living persons in articles such as Waldorf education. Inclusion of anecdotal derogatory material regarding a particular teacher in a Waldorf school, however well-sourced, amounts to guilt by association. There are also problems with holding up a person who is not a public figure to opprobrium."

I agree with the first sentence. I do not agree, however, that the person is not a public figure. The fact that this teacher IS a public figure was very reasonably the reason multiple sources produced articles in the first place. The woman is the daughter of a public political person and gives up some rights because of this under WP:BLP. The part of this principle regarding persons who are not public figures does not apply here.

There has been a claim of "libel" made against me by TheBee here at Wikipedia that initiated this proceeding and has not been publicly resolved to my knowledge. This claim also violates WP:BLP and WP:LEGAL. Wikipedia WP:LEGAL states "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." The official Wikipedia policy is that TheBee should be blocked from editing until this issue has been resolved and these charges are either shown to be true or false and my name cleared publicly.

Abundant evidence has been presented that TheBee, HGilbert and Professor Marginalia each supported edits that made claims that persons of the PLANS organization represented a "hate group." This language evolved over time but continued to represent that claim. When presented with the fact that NO SOURCE made this claim, TheBee tried to alter the claim to suggest his particular 5-member group was the source making the claim. Members of PLANS were named by name - both before and after the "hate group" claim had been made. That discussion is here. The people named are NOT public figures. Application of this principle would require looking at each of these editors in this regard.

WP:BLP Violations by TheBee and HGilbert This evidence was already presented in the previous arbitration and is still valid.

[127]

Since Professor Marginalia has protested being associated with this "hate group" claim, perhaps she should consider withdrawing her name and support from the 5-member group that, according to TheBee, is responsible for it. As to her activities here at Wikipedia, her service in the "hate group" defamation process was to help supply the full names of the people who were smeared by TheBee's allegations.

[128]
[129]

The Antroposophical sourced lecture that Professor Marginalia is intent on removing is THE most important reference in the entire article. It shows that PLANS is indeed supported by a reform movement within the Waldorf movement. Providing Waldorf supporters with the ability to disguise the facts has been an interesting side-effect of the previous arbitration decision.

Proposed Finding of Fact section by Fred B

"Editors who violated WP:BIO" lists me alone. I believe the above shows adequately that the person in question may be regarded as a public figure and this violation did not occur. Furthermore, the "hate group" accusations by TheBee, HGilbert and Professor Marginalia do indeed violate WP:BIO and those editors should be listed in this section.

"Editwarring by Pete K" shows a diff that demonstrates the opposite. The edit that I corrected by HGilbert was an aggressive removal of a lot of material without any discussion whatsoever. It is these types of aggressive edits that not only cause edit wars, but are intended (I believe) to frustrate the efforts of the editors who went to a great deal of trouble to work together to produce the material in the first place.

"Incivility by Pete K" shows the same diff as above. The edit summary refers HGilbert to WP:DICK. This was on the heels of HGilbert's taunt on my talk page where he referred me to WP:AGF. It was half-intended as humor. If using this template represents incivility, why is it available on Wikipedia? There was no intention to be uncivil on my part, even though having to go back and forth over material that is properly sourced could easily lead to this. I don't deny that I have some rough edges, but this was a Wikipedia template.

"The use of information regarding an unfortunate incident involving an individual teacher in the manner information regarding Willie Horton was used is a propaganda technique inappropriate for use in a Wikipedia article." I regret that Fred has accused me of using "propaganda techniques" here as it really has no connection to what I'm doing on Wikipedia. We are allowed to edit articles based on sourced material. There's no propaganda involved here. Is it propaganda to claim that Rudolf Steiner was clairvoyant? That Waldorf schools are better than other schools? We find information and produce articles based on that information. There's nothing sinister going on here. Some people have one point of view, others have a different one. I'm not representing anything in this article that I doesn't agree with my own experience. I've been in Waldorf a long time - I know of many, many cases personally, that agree with this representation. I know the children, their parents, the teachers involved. I know this is a difficult topic, but there are very definite reasons unique to Waldorf that point to why these things happen. I've asked and still haven't received an answer - if more information supporting this type of problem is made available, is the content contained in the article allowed, or is there something about this topic that isn't allowed on Wikipedia? The only issue here, apparently, is that it *appears* to be an isolated incident. If it was, that might make a case for the "propaganda" claim. If it is not an isolated incident, if it is a common occurance, and the reasons why it is a common occurance are made clear in the article, then (I'm guessing) it isn't propaganda. So since the article was just introduced, I suggest that it is a rush to judgment to rule on a claim of "propaganda" until there is evidence supporting that this is an isolated incident, or evidence supporting the opposite.

"Distortion of information by Pete K" "In this edit by Pete K he distorts the information found in his source; the distortions are subtle, but substantially change the tone of the information conveyed. Essentially any scrap of negative information is being used to advance a negative point of view. Most of these distortions were later corrected by Hgilbert [57]. Another edit by Hgilbert correcting a point of view distortion." Fred is mistaken here. The language in the edit was not produced by me - a different editor introduced the material I am accused of producing here. The edit shows I reverted the previous edit to produce the diff. HGilbert's edits were reasonable in this case.

Intimidation by Fred B

I find this followed by this to be a type of intimidation of witnesses who would testify in my behalf. This page is not a place to test out false accusations and then remove them seven minutes later - especially by our head arbitrator. It amounts to intimidation for anyone reading the page history when the only editor who tried to supply evidence on my behalf was shown the chopping block even if ever-so briefly. It's difficult to assume good faith here in light of the other false evidence Fred has provided. He simply wants me gone - I'm happy to oblige him on my own when my name has been cleared of the false accusation of "libel" by TheBee. In the meantime, I ask for a third time that he recuse himself from this case and implore other administrators to step up.

Re: Durova's statement: I have tremendous respect for Durova (I am pretty sure she knows this) and don't disagree with what she has provided here. I want to clarify regarding the history between myself and TheBee that both TheBee and I were banned from the Waldorf section of one site (Mothering.com) - I'm not sure, but I believe TheBee was banned from the site completely, neither of us were banned from the second site (OpenWaldorf.com), on a third site (Anthroposophy Tomorrow), I was banned for suggesting TheBee's constant referrals to his websites were spam and that suggestion was construed as me trying to "moderate the website" - TheBee was apparently affiliated with this site in some way (one of the charter members or something). On a fourth site where we have both participated, (Waldorf Critics) TheBee has been banned for repeatedly violating the no ad hominem attacks rule. I score that as a tie. Pete K 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

TODAY'S NEW PERSONAL ATTACK by TheBee Is here.

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

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

Protest At this time, I would like to formally protest AGAIN TheBee's continual mention of my personal life situation (above). Where my former wife works has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything here. I find this particular type of personal attack extremely offensive and have brought it to the attention of TheBee and the arbitrators here in the past. My former wife has done nothing to warrant this type of public attention.

Who's Who TheBee is sometimes brought in by Anthroposophists to intimidate me into losing my composure. It happened on the Anthroposphy Tomorrow list and it happened on the Mothering.com list Waldorf section. TheBee was not posting regularly on the Anthroposophy Tomorrow list prior to this incident, which I describe here and he hasn't been posting since the incident. He was brought in like a thug - simply to rough me up. On Mothering.com he arrived months after I did and it only took him a couple of weeks to get us both banned leaving two other members whose names are publicly listed on his 5-person fanatical Waldorf group Americans for Waldorf Education (one of which is here as Professor Marginalia) in place to continue to slant the discussions there as the do here. The activities of this group include the infiltration of any site where Waldorf is discussed and to strongly influence the discussion. The main activity of TheBee (Sune Nordwall) is to discredit or silence people who discuss Waldorf critically. He's very good at it. A close examination of his "edits" will show very little that isn't intent on defaming critics or suppressing critical views. His focus is always to divert readers to his own websites where the rules of citation don't apply and where his own original research is abundant. In his dealings with me, he uses everything he knows about me, my personal life situation, the issues that I'm passionate about, people he knows I'm friends with, anything he can find in order to push my buttons. He does this regularly with the intention of getting me to strike back - at which point he brings my behavior to the attention of the moderators. That's what has happened here. The fanatical group Americans for Waldorf Education have infiltrated Wikipedia. Arbitrators should confirm the names of these people, look at their activities elsewhere and determine if this group whose sole purpose is to introduce bias and discredit criticism should be so heavily represented here.

New Evidence by TheBee Please look at this entire situation carefully. TheBee has been stalking people here, asking them for personal information. This is inappropriate. He did this with Wikiwag and he did it again with Fergie. Both have asked him to stop. He has, of course, done this with me and has regularly brought up personal details about my family that I do not wish disclosed on these pages. His behavior is inappropriate.

Final Statement I believe it's time for the ArbCom to acknowledge that NO one editor is the cause of the problems here any more than any other editor is and that the issues associated with the Waldorf/Anthroposophy/Steiner articles which total over 30 articles, are extremely complex. We have seen some very aggressive editing at the Associative Economics page, for example, by an editor who is not associated with this arbitration at all, but is again another Steinerite with an aggressive agenda (and another person with an obvious conflict of interest). He is certainly guilty of WP:OWN on that article.

The problems on these pages come from a lot of arrogance on the part of several editors as well as an unwillingness to work together by some. While the original and subsequent arbitrations have calmed things down a bit, they did not address the main problems which, again, cannot be attributed to one editor and to the exclusion of others. Disrupting the balance of editors here will only serve to make things worse from a content standpoint. Even today we have many aggressive POV edits on the Waldorf Education article and there has been a pattern of unwillingness to work by consensus by certain aggressive editors. Their actions are only checked by editors willing to be equally aggressive in challenging those edits. This is an important aspect of what Wikipedia is supposed to stand for and the right to challenge edits is primary here - but also important is the right of those of us who are working on these articles through consensus not to have our work destroyed overnight by one or two POV-pushing editors. Taking action against me, someone who has been working through consensus and not taking action against the aggressive editors who are just POV-pushing would be improper. I intend this to be my final statement on the matter.

Amazing The number of arbitrators required to have me banned (as Fred has proposed) has now dwindled down to TWO? This would be an incredibly unfair process if all that is required to have an editor banned is votes from only two people.

Lethaniol wrote: "A recent collapse in Pete K's editing standards i.e. edit warring and attempts to add in inappropriate sources, has lead me to conclude that he cares nothing for Wikipedia. Hence I believe it is in Wikipedia's best interest that Pete K be indefinitely banned." and "If you are at all in doubt for the need to speed this review up, please see this statement by Pete K [215]."

I would agree, of course, with Lethaniol's assessment. The moment Fred Bauder sat in judgement of ME and singled me out as the cause of these problems, I realized nothing of value could come from my attempts to participate in good faith here at Wikipedia. As long as the foxes are guarding the henhouse, there will be no voice here for people attempting to bring an honest viewpoint. Wikipedia will continue to be a soapbox for every crackpot who can find a keyboard. So please, brer fox, please don't throw me in the briar patch... Pete K 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence by Venado

Edit warring by Pete K

Pete K received 2 blocks for edit warring since the arbitration decision Dec 30. [130]. After admin issued a "Last chance" to all editors to shape up, [131], Pete K immediately resumed reverts. Since the "last chance" warning, about one of every six edits he makes to the articles (most Waldorf education article) are still reverts.

Continued edit warring by Pete K during this review: [132], and against previous arbitration ruling used anthroposphical primary source for reference [133] and misrepresents that source as verifying current practice now. Later used negative proof argument to keep it. [134]

Incivility by Pete K

[135];

(baseless accusations to prejudice others against fellow editors)-> [136];

I have edited the above because format in the first cut wasn't clear whch diff I described "baseless attack". This was a baseless accusation. He claimed Waldorf websites had removed specific links in a conspiratorial type cooperation with editors here who had supposedly "alerted them" of there use at wikipedia. These links were not removed at all, and so accusing wikipedia editors of colluding with operators of these websites was baseless. Venado 03:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Whether they were removed or not (and I can't find them), they are primary sources. Fred Bauder 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

[137] which is slightly fixed [138]; [139]; [140]; [141]

Distortion of statements by sources by Pete K

[142]; [143]; [144]; [145]; [146]

- Distortions made by Pete K in evidence given in this arbitration review
  - In rebutting evidence, Pete K described this straightforward RfC by Hgilbert as "prejudicing the editor" to excuse his own obvious and uncivil attempt to prejudice [147]
  - In rebutting evidemce distorted this edit. Claiming "I didn't add this language, just return a block of text that was removed despite being sourced (again, the validity of the source was under review)", this was actually not so. Pete K sourced it, though didn't right it, and it wasn't under review. The "review" of the validity of the source began after, the next day. Pete K was the one who used it as the source to support reentering a sentence removed for lack of citation. This first time for added sentence by wikiwag with no source. It was all removed by thebee after admin "last chance" warning, for lake of citation. Pete K restored it with a worldnetdaily. And warred to keep it [148] by distorting it as "The citation follows the exact word it is a citation for and indeed covers much of the sentence" The only thing "covered" in the source was this one "exact word", Lucifer. That was the closest it came because everything else about it didn't match at all. It did not say that any religious stories, or stories about Lucifer, or any thing about Lucifer were taught to children which it said in the sentence in the article here. The source talked about Lucifer only in the context of teachers and anthrosophists themselves, not what they tell children. It was a distortion of the source to citation it for any part of a statement about preschool or kindegarden stories (and the whole section of the article where the sentence was is just about that, preschool and kindegarden).

POV "loaded language" editing by Pete K

[149]

Aftermath of first arbitration decision:
- Battles in the articles resumed quickly after the end of the first arbitration part because of confusion in interpreting the decision itself. It read, "Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications." Diffs probably aren't necessary to illustrate, but I will try to explain briefly.

1. 1. Differences of interpretation arose about what is and isn't really "controversial"
  2. And differences arose about what qualifies as an "Anthroposophy related publication" - both #1 and #2 turned out to be more complicated than it looks.
  3. Shortly into the process, another complexity came in when an anthroposophy related publication was given the okay as a source in one instance because it seemed critical and the authorship appeared independent. (McDermott article authors weren't entirely independent, just partway). When that same lead author was cited speaking on the same topic in another article in the same publication, it was reverted just because it was complimentery instead of critical. The rule was bended there to allow negative but not positive comments from a specific source, naturally leading to more ways of confusion and conflict among editors about how to follow policy on a case by case basis.
  4. Many editors ask different administrators to decide the disputes over the sources, and in the battleground atmosphere, with some it became like it was administrators job to decide every disagreement instead of the editors jobs to find consensus. So in other words the decision was used to much like an excuse not listen and work together, to just fight and edit war until an administrator decides.

- Through all this confusion and conflict editors were removing the wp:OR and Steiner published sources though. In the Waldorf article I think all were gone, at least most. Even the parts that were not controversial, just to get passed the disagreements about whether something is really a controversy. Venado 21:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

During this arbitration review User:Thebee and User:Pete_K continue to violate WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and draw wikipedia into there feuds from outside wikipedia. They are also bringing others outside of wikipedia itno there fights and violating WP:HARASS of WP members and nonmenbers. The talk page to this has many instances, some examples here [150] [151] and [152] Pete_K has also edit warred to widen the conflict with new people and add full names in violation of wikipedias WP:HARASS policy: [153] [154] [155] [156]

Pete_K edit warring still on 3/5/07 and I think he will continue to put his agenda above WP policies like before the arbitration

[157], to keep this self published article [158] to a blog or message board.
In talk page he offered these reasons to allow for the linking [159], [160] linking to not the same but different self published articles, [161]
Here said, "Do whatever you like - I really don't care at this point" [162],
Reverted its removal anyway. "This source was acceptable last month. Object to the characterization as a "blog". The staff at this site is made up of scholars and it is more impressive than the newspaper news rags we're used to.)" [163]

Response to Fergie:

Fergie has accused me of only pushing my own point of view here and on other websites. That is untrue and unfair, and Fergie has not shown any diffs as evidence of me doing this at all yet claims thats all I am doing.
Fergie has accused me of not being a wikipedian and manipulating articles. There are no diffs of this given, and I am very insulted that some one would accuse me without even lifting a finger to show what I have done to deserve it.
Before arbitration I altogether made only 2 edits to one of the articles. I added a footnote and I removed a fact tag from a claim that was already sourced by somebody else. That is not POV pushing by any stretch.
After arbitration conclusion I was told with all the editors involved to fix the articles immediately. And since I have worked very hard to accomplish this, and clean up a mess that I did not make.

Evidence by Professor_marginalia

Edit warring
- After the conclusion of the original arbitration, Pete_K waged an edit war with me to keep a passage which violated the arbitration's decision not to use Waldorf published sources. This source was a Waldorf teacher and it was published in a Waldorf publication. [164], [165], [166]. He wasted no time questioning my motives for removing what he knew was not allowed anymore under the arbitration decision: [167], [168], [169] After being blocked for 3rr, he supplied new references for this text: this one pointed to the article back to itself on the answers.com mirror site [170], and this one (which is still in the article) is a link to a Waldorf publishing catalog description of the Waldorf publication written by the same Waldorf teacher [171] To my knowledge that was the only Waldorf published reference in the article. I disengaged from the article shortly after because nothing had improved after the arbitration decision, and it was not possible to edit anything without ending up in an edit war with Pete_K.

wp:NPOV and WP:NOT#SOAP
- After the arbitration decision, Pete_K continued to enter unsourced opinions [172] into the articles.

WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and WP:AGF
- After the arbitration decision, Pete_K continued to express hostility and unsupported accusations towards editors on talk pages. Here he asks on talk pages for a reason board member names were placed in article. Hours later, he asserts on talk pages that the names were revealed by editors as an extension of a "hate campaign" [173]. In the talk page, I showed him the diff to the edit, made several months earlier without subsequent objection from any editor before this baseless accusation from Pete_K made after the arbitration decision. Even though to my knowledge no one had ever before argued that the PLANS board members names were a sensitive issue, and even though they'd been there for quite some time without complaint from Pete_K, after the arbitration decision he began trying to vilify me over them. The links he has "selectively" presented in his evidence against me above, "showing full names" he has called it, has a very simple explanation: in some cases because of earlier edits and in other cases probably just an oversight, the first names no longer appeared anywhere in the text. All articles generally give the full names the first time they are used in an article, and later just last name is given whenever the individual is referred to.
- Since just my third edit on the article, amid a dispute over an unsourced statement he wanted to resolve by sourcing it to WP:OR, Pete_K focuses his comments on me rather than content in disagreements -- [174], [175], [176] etc--and hadn't stopped at all in the few days I tried to help edit the article after the arbitration.
- After the arbitration decision, Pete_K and DianaW both continued to express hostility and unsupported accusations against me, resuming a battle against me personally over an edit I both made and discussed on the talk pages months earlier. This entire section [177], all of it occurring after the arbitration decision, illustrates that nothing had changed, and the talk page remained a battleground. Working on that article, I spent so much wasted time laboriously documenting the evidence in my own defense against the character assassinations that came after every edit they didn't agree with, it was ridiculous. I was even wasting time answering personal attacks against me for edits that obviously somebody else made and I played no part in at all.

Even while this second arbitration is underway:
- Pete_K has continued to obsfuscate excuses for reverts on talk pages:
  - To explain removal text in article about a court case [178], see talk [179]: the article did not say anywhere "PLANS was unable" as alleged in the talk excuse for revert in removing the text related to the court case
  - To give further examples [180] of places supposedly inappropriate "interpretations", he argues, "It's amazing that so much language can be introduced here by these pro-Waldorf editors without sourcing ANY of it. " There was never a prior dispute that it wasn't sourced, no fact tags. So the objection has shifted from it being an WP:OR interpretation to a new one that "none of it is sourced".
  - After I answered the objections raised in that posting by both sourcing and quoting the source directly to show that there was no new "interpretation" added to it, he responds [181], and argues it doesn't matter "these things are even technically true", and suggests even though the facts in the article were accurate reports of those sources, the problem is that there exists out "there" alternative ways to interpret things (specifically mentioning one interpretation given by PLANS in a press release). So the objection has shifted from a)article's text is an WP:OR interpretation or b) there are no sources given, to one which seems to be something like, "don't report about the court case here because the facts given in the court records and transcripts don't match the interpretation given to them in the PLANS press release".
  - In further discussion, the excuse shifts again, [182]- that the facts have been "selectively harvested from an article and editorial".
  - And after it was explained that the sources were not from an article or editorial at all, the excuse circles all the way back to the beginning, "You aren't qualified to even say if it is an interpretation or not." [183] Only he is, apparently.
- And Pete_K continues to ignore WP:AGF, WP:HARASS, and WP:NPA
  - [184], [185]

Disruptive editing by Pete_K.
- Pete_K had a history of disrupting the article with a fickle game-the-game type editing before the arbitration. (Can give diffs if necessary) This pattern continued after the arbitration.
  - Changes "against" to "expose" [186]--
  - Edit wars to keep "expose [187], [188], [189]
  - Reveals the POV behind "expose" in defending it here: [190]
  - Defends entire statement in another article here, calling it "perfectly accurate and NPOV": [191]
  - Very next day, he disputes the statement with a fact tag: [192]
  - After references were given in endnote, he removes some of it over objections that names were identified, but left one name: [193]
  - After remainder of endnote, with name, was deleted, Pete_removes the statement entirely, claiming it is a "misleading sentence": [194]

Refuting evidence offered by Pete_K
- Pete_K has said, 'Abundant evidence, however, has been presented that TheBee, HGilbert and Professor Marginalia each supported edits that made claims that persons of the PLANS organization represented a "hate group." ' I have never done this. He also tried to ostracize me from the article also by filling the talk page with completely unsubstantiated rants like this. Part of it seems to come with the territory in controversial articles in wikipedia. I've also been accused of deceiving potential Philippine treasure hunters in order to "promote" some books by some author I know nothing about, and most recently of being an "acolyte" of a Pentacostal faith healer because I "vandalized" what the angry editor described as "my article". But Pete_K is recalcitrant and continues to go on like this here and elsewhere long after the arbitration decision should have put an end to it. Professor marginalia 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence by Durova

I have asked PeteK, Thebee, and DianaW to contact me regarding my planned statement and offered them one week (ending Monday) to reply. Pete has responded in detail, Bee responded briefly and is preparing a longer response, and Diana has gone inactive. I respectfully request the committee's patience. My statement should be ready by Tuesday. Durova^Charge! 18:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem, although the work goes on. Fred Bauder 16:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Pete K

My evidence does not address the serious issues of WP:BLP and appropriate use of sources. This is independent of, and contingent upon, those and related topical issues. When this review opened I informed Pete that I was considering recommending a topic ban and asked him, essentially, to change my mind.

The results have not been encouraging. Here he makes a disclosure that would have seriously altered my testimony in the original case if I had been aware of it at the time. [195] Pete admits that he has clashed with Thebee on three different websites before this one and that Pete was sitebanned from two of those places as a result. Pete does not allege that Bee was banned from any site as a result of that conflict. I had written my prior statements in Pete's support under the good faith assumption that his incivility was the result of simple frustration: a relatively new editor outnumbered at a content dispute where two previous requests for comment had gone unanswered. I even asked the best mentor I know, Lethaniol, to take on Pete as a personal favor to me. Lethaniol has made an exemplary effort (as always) and the Waldorf-related articles no longer fly beneath the radar of the broader Wikipedia community, yet Pete's angry outbursts continue. I have done all I can to alleviate the causes of that frustration. Editors must assume commensurate responsibility for themselves.

Although Pete identifies personal conflict with Thebee as the primary source of his problems, this edit suggests otherwise. [196] Fred Bauder had replied at my user talk to a technical question I had posed about arbitration review procedures and Pete construed it in very bad faith. Since Pete leaps to this sort of conclusion about me and Fred Bauder, how could he collaborate in good faith with anyone else, particularly if collaboration requires setting aside old quarrels?

I told Pete that I've already offered my best solutions and gave him a week to come up with something else - something I could stand behind and propose to the committee. This was his best offer. [197] If Wikipedia's ratio of administrators to registered accounts were 1:300 that might succeed, but the reality differs by an order of magnitude. [198] In mid-November of last year when I started tracking the statistic, the English edition of Wikipedia had a ratio of 1:2216 - the third lowest sysop to account ratio of any Wikipedia language version. The current rate is 1:3069 - an alarming dropoff during less than three months. When I researched past trends I discovered that rate has declined steadily for two years. [199] Both WP:PAIN and WP:RFI have been discontinued since some of the cases I handled went into arbitration. There simply weren't enough other mops to keep up with the inflow while I dealt with these. Waldorf education has been by far the largest single drain on my time - more so than all other arbitrations I've dealt with combined. I have cautioned the editors at this case of that fact in emphatic terms. [200] Yet Pete's solution would increase the demands on scarce administrative volunteer time and he admits that he is a single purpose editor. [201] I appreciate his candor in declaring that openly, but what reason does that leave for me or anyone else to neglect other situations where editors assume meaningful responsibility for their mistakes and spend our time compensating for his lack of self control? I don't like to be blunt, but arbitration review is not the place to mince words: the program is called WP:ADOPT, not WP:BABYSIT.

That said - and my evaluation is scathing - I see one good reason to recommend something short of an immediate topic ban: article balance. In DianaW's absence Pete is the primary editor to challenge pro-Waldorf POV. The articles on this subject were tained by a pro-Waldorf slant when arbitration opened. It is unrealistic to expect a group of post-arbitration editors, some of whom have dedicated their careers to Waldorf education and anthrosophy, to achieve NPOV without challenge or dissent. The articles remain under probation, which makes it likely that the committee would eventually ban others after Pete's departure. For this reason, if Pete has addressed the topical issues adequately, I suggest a schedule of rapidly escalating blocks culminating in a topic ban. The committee can impose that remedy without further review or action and it would offer some intermediate ground: no one from this case has yet been placed on revert parole or civility parole in this dispute. Rather than leap to an immediate topic ban, try a structured alternative. Durova^Charge! 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Per the talk page history at this arbitration review, over the last couple of days Pete has disclosed real world names of editors who wish to remain anonymous and reinserted the information after another editor refactored it. Someone with oversight powers probably ought to come in and fix things. For this reason I'm not providing links to that. I reprimanded Pete [202] and he responded by accusing me of a double standard and attempting to dictate revisions to my evidence statement. [203] Pete fails to understand that his own voluntary disclosure in no way obligates other people to reveal information about themselves or invites compromise of their own confidentiality. I no longer see a reason to extend leniency. Recommend siteban, per disclosure precedents. Durova^Charge! 23:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thebee

I have serious concerns regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE regarding Bee's interactions with Wikiwag. Bee recently extended an apology so I leave it up to Wikiwag to introduce the details if he or she so wishes. I initiated Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikiwag to clear up the matter with the consent of Wikiwag, Pete K, and DianaW. If Wikiwag chooses not to submit an amended statement I have no recommendation, but if Wikiwag does choose to submit one regarding this matter I would support a remedy similar to what I recommend for Pete, but with a slower enforcement schedule. I do not believe this problem rises to the same level as Pete's. Durova^Charge! 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I endorse Wikiwag's update. Durova^Charge! 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Article probation

Suggest changing the wording: a family of articles were placed on probation following the initial ArbCom decision. Current phrasing would effectively lift probation from all but one of those articles. Seems to me the others still need it. Durova^Charge! 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence by Hgilbert

Problems with PeteK continue:

Failure to follow Good Faith, Civility and No Personal Attacks policies: [204] [205]

[206] [207] [208] [209] [210]

Insertion of essentially unrelated links with polemical intent: [211]

Reverting worthwhile edits en bloc because of problems with intervening edits: [212]; Pete's [ response to a request not to revert in this way,

further response

Refutation by Hgilbert

The allegations made about me here by PeteK are baseless.

That a study is government-funded never implies that the government endorses the views expressed by the study's authors; the words I removed, "independent researchers", were superfluous, as every government-funded study has independent researchers in this sense. The implication that this was done with malicious intent is simply a violation of the "good faith" principle.
The article he refers to is in fact an article - an article published in a journal called the Waldorf Research Bulletin. He is evidently confused by the journal's name, and despite my pointing out the actual situation on the talk page continued to edit the Waldorf education article to term the McDermott article a research bulletin.
The citations he mentions were to:
- An international Waldorf association's list of Waldorf schools and kindergartens to document the total number of these world-wide.
- A lecture by Rudolf Steiner to document his intentions in establishing the Waldorf schools.

The use of citation for factual reference has been repeatedly affirmed by the administrators of this arbitration proceeding. I believe that the former citation indubitably falls within this category, and the latter can reasonably be considered to do so. Hgilbert 02:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence by Lethaniol

Background

I feel it would help to give some background about how I became involved in this ArbCom case and what role I have played. After coming to the attention of User:Durova, after an unrelated incident that she helped resolve, Durova requested that I help mentor one or more of the users involved in this case. She had previously suggested such an option on the workshop pages of the ArbCom case, with User:Pete K and User:DianaW first to take up the offer, hence how I came to be their mentor.

I realised it was going to be challenge the moment the mentorship started, with User:Thebee immediately offering some unconstructive advice [213]. I then proceeded to feel my way around the mentorship using a subpage for discussions with Pete K and DianaW. These discussions did not work well, because though I am sure the advice and explanations were listened to, my mentees, in particular Pete K, found implementing them in practise quite difficult. I believe this is because a number of users are passionate about the subject and find it difficult to disengage once disagreement occurs, as well as the occasional deliberate baiting of others to cause conflict.

I then took the unusual decision, which I certainly did not plan at the outset, of getting directly involved by acting as mediator, mostly with the Waldorf Education article where editing was focused. This began with the Racism section, but when this was successful I expanded my work. Initially I think people respected my suggestions because they saw me as some kind of outside authority (which I am obviously not), but now I think people respect me for being as neutral and fair as I can be, as well as trying hard to keep any discussions on track. The mediation was relatively successful in the respect that a lot of issues got resolved, and the article improved both in general quality, as well as quality of references employed (with respect to the ArbCom’s decisions). Unfortunately this process was very time consuming and draining, and when I took a short break from this mediation (just prior to this ArbCom review being called) not only did the editors find new issues to raise controversy on, but incivility increased. Suffice to say that some people had not learnt from the mediation and went back to their old habits, which is likely to be one of the reasons that this review has been called.

With respect to my edits to Waldorf Education and its talk page, I have not been the perfect mediator. I have misread sources on occasion, broken WP:1RR to try and sort out a situation, and not known all the answers to all the tricky questions (particularly on appropriate sources). In general though, I have helped to keep things more civil than not, and keep editors on point during debates. Unfortunately such mediation is not a long term answer, and either editors’ attitudes and actions will have to change, or remedies will have to be put in place by the ArbCom to protect Wikipedia’s content. Hence I believe the suggestion by Pete K of further future mediation [214] is impractical, as well as for reasons that Durova has already stated above

Pete K

With respect to this ArbCom review, I will not be providing any evidence against Pete K (or DianaW – less of an issue due to her being mostly inactive in mainspace since the start of probation). The reasons for not presenting any evidence against Pete K or suggesting any actions for the ArbCom to take, are threefold:

As Pete K’s mentor, I wish to maintain a positive relationship for the future.
This ArbCom review appears to be initiated for and focusing on Pete K’s actions alone.
The majority of editors at Waldorf Education and related articles appear to be broadly pro-Anthroposophy, and often in conflict with Pete K, and so he has little support from the editors involved.

By no means does this mean that I think Pete K does not have a case to answer (I suggest a read through of this subpage for my general opinions of Pete K’s actions), or that the ArbCom should not take action. I just believe it is more appropriate if I do not discuss Pete K’s behaviour/actions.

:I will add (since drafting the above I have read Durova’s suggested remedy) that I support Durova’s remedy of quickly escalating blocks, not only for Pete K, but also for any other editors that have been shown to break the rules of probation.

A recent collapse in Pete K's editing standards i.e. edit warring and attempts to add in inappropriate sources, has lead me to conclude that he cares nothing for Wikipedia. Hence I believe it is in Wikipedia's best interest that Pete K be indefinitely banned. Cheers Lethaniol 16:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

If you are at all in doubt for the need to speed this review up, please see this statement by Pete K [215]. Cheers Lethaniol 16:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

WP:BIO

I have already sent an email to all ArbCom members, via Fred Bauder, concerning the WP:BIO issue, which I personally believe is not particularly relevant in this ArbCom review.

TheBee

Out of all the editors involved in this case, apart from Pete K, TheBee has been far the most disruptive post arbitration. The evidence below shows how TheBee seeks to cause confrontation and escalate disagreements on talk pages by continually seeking to focus on the personalities involved and not the content in question, with TheBee often linking to his own websites to back up their arguments. I will not cover his incivility to Wikiwag as this has already been covered in sufficient detail by Durova and Wikiwag, but I believe it is very serious, or the suggestion by Pete K that TheBee has been fishing for Admin support, which also needs to be considered.

Repeated escalation of conflict, possibly with view to getting Pete K to bite; [216] soon after ArbCom decision, [217], [218] calls Pete K arrogant, even though Pete’s edits were reasonable, [219] suggestion of libel against themselves by Pete K, [220] reactionary heading.

Repeated posting of links to personal websites instead of bringing the information (which is likely not relevant considering ArbCom decision on appropriate sources) to the talk page; [221], [222].

TheBee often concentrates on editors egos here is an good example [223] which was in response to my question [224]. There are many examples of this behaviour and I can add more if required.

Although TheBee actions may on occasion be considered trivial, taken cumulatively they have been quite disruptive to talk page discussions (and are possibly just for the sake of disruption or too make Pete K “bite”), and in many cases irrelevant to Wikipedia and its development. IMHO though TheBee’s incivility is often much more subtle than Pete K’s, it is in many ways more of problem as it can not be so easily dismissed and takes a lot of time/effort to read and respond to.

Although I am sure that all editors involved will find TheBee’s talk page discussions often disruptive and diverting from the keys points, and I feel their edits are often on the verge of WikiLawyering, TheBee has unlikely done enough for a block at this time. From this review though I would like the ArbCom to strongly remind TheBee to focus on the article at hand and when dealing with other editors to be civil and not to pick at their ego. If possible TheBee should be under a Durova like scheme, where if they continue to concentrate on the editors with incivil remarks linked, that they slowly move up an escalating scale of blocks.

Other users

I do not wish to offer any other evidence against any other user as I have personally found all other editors I have come across generally helpful and constructive, being an asset to Wikipedia. They may though in the future need to be reminded to keep these articles neutral and backed up with appropriate sources.

My one concern was User:Hgilbert, who was blocked for 24hours for editing warring with Pete K [225]. I believe he has since learnt from the ArbCom decision, and was and hopefully still is willing to accept the strict resource criteria set, see [226].Cheers Lethaniol 13:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence by Thebee

Response to evidence by Wikiwag¨

I have commented on it here and apologized to Wikiwag three times here, here and here. Thebee 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Improper edits by Pete K

[227], "sneaky vandalism" - deleting proper quotation from published consensus policy statement on immunization by organisation, representing 630 Waldorf schools in Europe, and the proper citation for it, balancing section on immunization and contributing to improving the article. Thebee 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

False accusations by Pete K

[228], false accusation of having "changed" section on immunisation to say the opposite of what it said previously without having provided references to support the "changes". Answer. Thebee 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The following seems to be a personal attack by Pete K at my talks page.

Comparison to Hannibal Lecter

At my talks page, Pete K compares me to the cannibalistic serial murderer Hannibal Lecter in the movie The Silence of the Lambs (Pete K: "It's like Hannibal Lecter inviting you over for dinner... you never know exactly what is on his mind. Pete K 22:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)") [229], and then tells that I should consider the comparison to be a compliment. ("you should take it as a compliment") [230] When I ask him if this is what he has written [231], he denies this [232]. Full context. (Also in passing in same exchange falsely accuses me of having stalked a (non-wiki) person that he names. [233] The person's actual IRL name is not what Pete K states, and I had several friendly personal email exchanges with the person in question.) Thebee 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The following seems to another personal attack by Pete K.

Comparison to Peter denouncing Christ

In one discussion, Pete K writes "I don't care for people who have corrupted what he [Steiner] said or intended. That would include you. If you cared about Steiner and Steiner's image, you would stop trying to disguise what he wrote and stand behind it. You are like Peter denouncing Christ three times before the cock crows."

The comparison of me to S:t Peter denouncing Christ seems related to Pete K's comparison of himself to Christ ( "The Crucifixion of Pete" at discussion page for this reopened arbitration) for - according to himself - as "King of the Critics" having told the truth about Steiner at an anarchistic anthroposophical discussion list last year. According to Pete K, he was banned from/crucified at the discussion list for this reason. Thebee 14:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Clerk note

Per WP:AN3 and User talk:Pete K, Pete K has just been blocked for one week for repeated 3RR violations on the Steiner article. Newyorkbrad 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence by Fergie

Single Issue Editors

The list below is a sample of editors who devote all, or almost all, of their time on wikipedia editing steiner-related articles. I find the high proportion of single-issue editors problematic in creating an air of general wikipedianness.

Pete_K ( talk · contribs)

Thebee ( talk · contribs)

Hgilbert ( talk · contribs)

DianaW ( talk · contribs)

Venado ( talk · contribs)

Henitsirk ( talk · contribs) (to be fair, this user has branched out very slightly)

Rottentomatoe ( talk · contribs)

Boogafish ( talk · contribs)

Soccer-systems ( talk · contribs) (thankfully long gone, this user appeared to be using wikipedia as a promotional vehicle for some kind of 'betting system' when not editing Steiner-related articles)

Final decision Information

Only Arbitrators may add to and vote on the proposed decision. Interested parties may offer evidence above, or comment on the proposals on the talk page.

On this case, 6 Arbitrators are active, so 4 votes are a majority. (Updated 22:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Principles

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

1) The principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons apply to biographical material about living persons in articles such as Waldorf education. Inclusion of anecdotal derogatory material regarding a particular teacher in a Waldorf school, however well-sourced, amounts to guilt by association. There are also problems with holding up a person who is not a public figure to opprobrium.