I don't know whether the motion to bifurcate will succeed, but whether or not it does I'll suggest a solution to editors who have large numbers of diffs to present. It could be helpful to take a small number of representative examples and explain those in depth, then offer a brief bullet pointed summary for the others. Durova Charg e! 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Another question. It would be great if the Arbitration Committee determined if sock puppets are being utilized here. Is that part of the standard operating procedure in such cases? If sock puppets are being used, and they could be identified here, it would help us to establish patterns of behavior. In some areas, meat puppets have apparently been used as well - some users actually went on public bulletin boards calling for meat puppets. We had a time when it appeared at least two Waldorf high-school students arrived to give support to Waldorf (perhaps on behalf of their own teacher). I can't support what I am saying above, of course, but I think the Arbitration Committee could indeed identify sock puppets at least. The other issue is that early on in the articles we have unregistered users producing a lot of brochure language. If those unregistered users later became registered users, are we allowed to connect their anonymous edits to their registered edits through their IP address? Thanks! Pete K 16:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Should material from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration relating to this case be moved here? Newyorkbrad 19:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This was posted on HGilbert's talk page and subsequently removed by HGilbert. I've reproduced it here:
HGilbert, you placed the following on the Arbitration page: "Note: I have been accused of having a financial interest in this article. I am employed as a teacher in a Waldorf school - a non-profit organization. I receive no money for anything connected with Wikipedia editing. My position is no different than someone working in any other field contributing to an article about that field. In addition, I have published a book on Waldorf education. Wikipedia policies explicitly allow editors to cite their own publications, making it further clear that those working and publishing in a field are in no way excluded from editing articles. I do not cite (and do not seek to cite) my own work in the field at present, however. Hgilbert 16:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)"
It occurs to me that you may not be clear on the "conflict-of-interest" in this case. You have a financial interest in the success of Waldorf - you DO get paid a salary so I don't know what the "non-profit" stuff you mention above is about (clearly to throw people off the scent) - it's not as if you are a volunteer. The fact that you have produced and defended the brochure language on the Waldorf Education article is what points to the conflict of interest. You haven't made neutral edits - you have made POV edits. It's not like you have simply edited a few details - you practically WROTE the article from your own POV. Here are a couple of your early edits [1] [2]. You don't get to say you just edited like everyone else so conflict-of-interest doesn't apply. Your hand in this article is considerable PLUS you babysit this article to ensure your POV remains in tact. When many, many editors have pointed out to you that it is POV and brochure language, you fight them on it. So, no, you're not just editing like anyone else in the field of Waldorf, you are POV-pushing in the field of Waldorf, and you get paid and you have written a book - and THAT, my friend, is conflict-of-interest. Pete K 17:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Pete K 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The added material is verifiable, and you are welcome to request citations, in which case I can easily offer sources to support it (or see the books listed in the bibliography). Descriptions of the goals and actual curriculum of the schools are factual; the educational approach has these as stated goals and as its curriculum (as published in a number of standard works on Waldorf education). I doubt very much that you can find sources that dispute that these are the goals and curriculum. Hgilbert 21:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe later... I think that's all part of the arbitration process. I'll do all this when we enter into arbitration. If I produce it now, you will start refuting it here and referencing your own websites - and we will never get anywhere. Let's let the arbitration begin and then we can both support our positions with evidence. Thanks in advance for your patience! Pete K 21:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I'm also going to claim that TheBee's role in these edit wars has been to remove links to websites and articles critical of or not completely supportive of Waldorf and to infuse the articles with links to his own self-published websites that are defamatory of people and organizations who are critical of Waldorf. There has been a tremendous effort by several editors to try to get TheBee to stop introducing links to his own self-published, original research, and defamatory websites and to stop removing links to legitimate websites and articles. This inappropriate linking not only occurs on the English version of Wikipedia, but on every language (that I know of) version of Wikipedia. This problem, then, spans ALL Wikipedia versions and should be corrected in each of them. Pete K 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Clerk note: You should probably save this sort of stuff for the Evidence page if and when the case opens.
Thatcher131
21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher131, you write: "You should probably save this sort of stuff for the Evidence page if and when the case opens." When would that be, at the earliest? Thanks, Thebee 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
HGilbert writes: "Administrators who have recommended taking the issues to dispute resolution include User:Longhair, and if my memory serves me rightly User:Centrx and possibly User:Cormaggio, in addition to User:Durova." I would like HGilbert to support this statement. I think it is incorrect but perhaps his memory is better than mine. Administrator Longhair, as I recall, recommended mediation. I don't believe Administrators Centrx or Cormaggio recommended Arbitration. I could be wrong - but I believe HGilbert was referring to Administrator Durova in his initial statement.
"Note that though he claims in the last-cited diff that the list of editors I originally provided on this arbitration page did not include the full (or a fair) range of editors involved with the article, the user making this accusation has not added any further involved editors. The list as I originally placed it appears to have been complete and fair; it certainly is to the best of my knowledge." I'm reluctant to modify the arbitration request since you beat me up for months when I modified the mediation request. You have left at least two editors off the list. I believe I have brought this to your attention. I have contacted 999 and Hanuman Das on their talk pages but they have not responded so perhaps they aren't interested (who can blame them). Still, they were there making edits recently (reversing some of the more outlandish stuff) and you chose not to invite them.
"Frequent accusations of "brochure language" have been launched; an administrator's investigation made it clear that such language has been introduced by those hostile to the subjects as well as those in favor of them." This is apparently a fabrication by Mr. Gilbert. Here's what the administrator had to say about this:
HGilbert continues: "Vis a vis Durova's questioning of "contradictory claims" and my quote of "an administrator's investigation" (see below); in a discussion on his talk page, Durova cited a particular sentence of the article Waldorf education as an example of what he considered problematic "brochure language". That particular section was, however, authored by an editor not involved in the current discussion and critical of, not supportive of Waldorf education, as proven by an independent editor; that editor, not me, provided the diff to prove the case on Durova's talk page (Durova might have missed this on his own talk page because it came from another editor, not myself). What is contradictory is then his use of this evidence to support his claim that I and other "pro-Waldorf" users are inserting such language when it was exactly an "anti-Waldorf" user who inserted this." Mr. Gilbert is again, mistaken here (see Administrator Durova's comment above). The whole point, that Mr. Gilbert continues to miss, apparently, is that the article is riddled with brochure language that Mr. Gilbert is continually defending. How it got there is really unimportant (even though Mr. Gilbert IS responsible for much of it). That Mr. Gilbert has sorted editors into "pro" and "anti" Waldorf screams volumes about why we are having problems here. (name redacted) - everyone here is supposed to be "pro" a good article. Maybe the "assume good faith" template should be posted here. Pete K 05:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the editor opening the case provides the brief summary of the situation. I attempted to do so without personalizing or contested accusations. When a user added a personal and contested accusation, I moved it from there to his own statement. That is the source of the above and below concern. The editor in question, Pete K, has since replaced the original accusation back into the brief general summary. Hgilbert 11:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not an NPOV paragraph; rather, it contains accusations against two parties, stated as fact ("both are primary culprits"). It appears that paragraph was originally part of Pete K's statement and signed by Pete K, in the same position to which HGilbert restored it, but is now an unsigned part of the "Brief summary". (It was not part of the original summary section when the case was added to WP:RFAR.) – SAJordan talk contribs 08:55, 20 Nov 2006 (UTC).Conflict-of-interest exists with one or more editors who are financially connected to the success of Waldorf. These editors include Walodrf teachers HGilbert and TheBee - both are primary culprits in the edit wars and responsible for the brochure langage as well as frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article.
And more shenanigans . . . Hgilbert, with the noble aim of "reducing his statement," has removed the comments that I am responding to above, so that (not for the first time) I appear to be replying to someone or something imaginary. Hgilbert's statement used to say that I had "emotionally charged personal issues" regarding Waldorf; now this inappropriate personal remark does not appear. I really wish there were less of this sort of altering the record later. He did this on the Waldorf talk page way back when, also, making outrageous (and false) personal comments about Pete and then removing Pete's name when I objected. (So I appear to be sputtering 'How dare you' over something that now reads very benignly.) Now Pete of course can and certainly will reply to recent things posted about him on the arbitration page that are false and make no sense, but as long as I'm here, "Venado's" recent comments are way off base, too. I don't think Pete has a financial interest in a school he once helped found that has long since closed. To suggest that he has a "financial interest" in the way these articles on wikipedia read because he is writing a book is goofy. Whether the articles here read positively or negatively or neutrally, it would be impossible to guess whether whether this could affect book sales; it seems very unlikely. It's fairly unlikely that the author of *any* book on Waldorf (whether praising or criticizing) would earn enough money from it to be influenced to edit content on wikipedia in any particular direction, from hope of increasing the book sales. Basically, that's ridiculous. This is a desperate maneuver in reply to the obvious conflict of interest presented by Waldorf teachers, who straightforwardly draw a salary from a Waldorf school, feed their families with this job, and are here editing the Waldorf/Steiner articles to read exactly like the promotional literature that is passed out to parents. Also, while I'm sure the school is not paying him to do this, it sure makes him look devoted to the cause, and that's the leading criterion for on-the-job advancement in Waldorf.
I'd also like to clarify that when I write that I'm not divorced etc., have no family disputes about Waldorf etc., this is not to imply that if a person is divorced etc. this disqualifies them from having a cogent opinion on Waldorf or contributing to these articles. I'm pointing out that the Waldorf cheerleaders here are merely grasping at straws to attempt to disqualify critics of their movement, using any kind of inappropriate personal material that has fallen into their hands, and the only reason they post personal junk about Pete and not me is that they don't *have* it on me. This is why I'm merely said to have "personal issues." They will try *whatever* angle they think has a prayer of working. It is really unconscionable to start talking about people's marriages and children here; I don't think Pete or I or any other critical editor on these articles would ever have the gall to comment on other people's marriages or families. DianaW
He also deleted mention of the "extremely anti-Waldorf web forum." Did this seem less important to him suddenly, or or did he realize that he'd just be encouraging interested parties to go check out this forum for themselves, and that once they were there it would be very clear that there aren't any "extreme" views being posted there by Waldorf critics? It's an interesting forum at the moment since a zealous Waldorf defender recently posted links to a virulently antisemitic hate site - a contribution that makes interesting reading in light of the wikipedia fights over just how important Steiner's racism and antisemitism were, and whether they influence anyone in Waldorf today. Twice in the past few months we've had a nasty dialogue with an anthroposophist posting racist or hate materials on that list; the last one was a Holocaust denier - defending another well-known anthroposophist who is a Holocaust denier. If anything, this phenomenon seems to be on the increase. Could the seemingly increasing boldness of these people in anthroposophy be connected to the fact that anthroposophists generally can't admit there's any racism in Rudolf Steiner?
Looking back at the diffs that Hgilbert posted purportedly to show that Pete claims anyone who ever visited a Waldorf school is biased in favor of Waldorf, the contention was only about who, among recent editors, had been invited to the arbitration dialogue. It was not about trying to claim these people had a "conflict of interest" in editing the article. DianaW 12:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither of us has ever claimed anything like what he's attributed to us. I'm also slowly understanding that Hgilbert has had a lot of trouble understanding what "brochure language" means - he thinks it is just a nasty word that means stuff he puts in that we don't like, or stuff we put in that he doesn't like. "Brochure language" refers to the sort of sales pitch that is found in schools' promotional literature. It is very silly to suggest Diana or Pete want to put in "brochure language." Waldorf schools hand prospective customers a glossy brochure with smiling children eagerly engaged in something in the classroom, or romping in the sunshine; the rhetoric is all the stuff that we can document (with dozens and dozens of diffs) is in *actual* Waldorf brochures. Maybe we need to get some hard copies of Waldorf brochures for comparison; these days, of course, the main purveyor of Waldorf "brochure language" is school web sites. We can easily show that in many cases Hgilbert inserts language that is IDENTICAL to what is found on Waldorf school web sites and is clearly not what would normally appear in an encyclopedia article. "Head, heart, and hands" "whole child" "Rudolf Steiner was a Renaissance man" type stuff. One of my personal favorites is "fastest growing independent school movement in the world." I've been literally begging - for years - for somebody in Waldorf to source this. If a Waldorf supporter could even suggest a means by which such a claim COULD be sourced, it would be interesting. (Is somebody out there counting different types of new schools opening and closing every year, worldwide?) If there is a "fastest growing" one in 2006, it is probably evangelical Christian schools in (for instance) Africa or South America. Yes, we have many diffs that show Hgilbert inserting brochure language - boasts about how great Waldorf is, or how amazing a man Rudolf Steiner was - completely unmoored from claims that can be objectively documented. DianaW 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have shortened my statement in response to a reminder that there is a word limit for these. The original statement appears below and still stands. Hgilbert 11:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There tend to be two strongly polarized parties editing these articles, one sympathetic to the themes, one antagonistic to them. Attempts to achieve an objective point of view in the article have been stymied, in part due to extremists on both sides seeking to put in what they see as "truth" and remove anything contrary to their POV. (Examples: Talk:Waldorf_education#Weasel_words, [3])
There is also a failure of good faith; see here, here and here, where even opening this request for arbitration (as suggested by several administrators over several months) stimulates accusations. Administrators who have recommended taking the issues to dispute resolution include User:Longhair, and if my memory serves me rightly User:Centrx and possibly User:Cormaggio, in addition to User:Durova.
Note that though he claims in the last-cited diff that the list of editors I originally provided on this arbitration page did not include the full (or a fair) range of editors involved with the article, the user making this accusation has not added any further involved editors. The list as I originally placed it appears to have been complete and fair; it certainly is to the best of my knowledge.
The refusal by the two editors most antagonistic to the subjects of these articles, User:Pete K and User:DianaW, to enter mediation has blocked further progress along these lines. The former has been repeatedly warned about his incivility; the latter has also had egregious violations ( [4], [5]). The incivility has dropped off considerably in the last weeks, it should be noted. User:Thebee has also been incivil on occasion.
Frequent accusations of "brochure language" have been launched; an administrator's investigation made it clear that such language has been introduced by those hostile to the subjects as well as those in favor of them.
The same two parties, Pete K and DianaW, have suggested that certain themes, such as the actual life of Rudolf Steiner, should not be given due weight (see Talk:Rudolf_Steiner/Archive_2#Proportion_and_subarticle in order to make room for critical questioning exposing the "reality" of his views. They have also claimed that anyone involved in anthroposophy or Waldorf education is by nature too biased to be cited or to be an editor, whereas their own and outside critics' views are unbiased.
The polarization visible elsewhere in the articles comes to a crux over the delicate subject of Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity, see Talk:Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Steiner's views were complex, as he came out strongly against racism and anti-Semitism but made comments about individual races and ethnic groups that are offensive or at least questionable to many modern sensibilities. This article is itself currently recommended for deletion as it is in many respects a quote farm.
I feel that these articles need to be verifiable and NPOV. The term "brochure language" has been unhelpful, as it tends to be used to refer to anything one point of view wishes to strip away from the article; especially anything that might cast the subject in a positive light, even if this is relevant and verifiable information.
The articles should mention any controversy over the subjects, as also their positive reception, but these themes should not dominate over an exposition of the actual subjects themselves. The goals, model of child development, teaching methods and curriculum should be the dominant focus of an article on Waldorf education; Steiner's life, work and philosophical development should be the dominant focus of an article on Steiner; the ideas, institutions and historical development of anthroposophy should be the dominant focus of an article on anthroposophy. Hgilbert 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: I have been accused of having a financial interest in this article. I am employed as a teacher in a Waldorf school - a non-profit organization. I receive no money for anything connected with Wikipedia editing. My position is no different than someone working in any other field contributing to an article about that field. In addition, I have published a book on Waldorf education. Wikipedia policies explicitly allow editors to cite their own publications, making it further clear that those working and publishing in a field are in no way excluded from editing articles. I do not cite (and do not seek to cite) my own work in the field at present, however. To be very clear: I do not have any financial interest relating to this site. Hgilbert 16:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
One user claims here that editors who have had any contact with Waldorf education, including having a child enrolled in the schools or even merely having visited the schools, are inherently biased towards the educational approach. That same user, Pete K, and another user, DianaW, are extremely frequent contributors (often several times daily) to an extremely anti-Waldorf web forum and have emotionally charged personal issues with Waldorf education. Hgilbert 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Vis a vis Durova's questioning of "contradictory claims" and my quote of "an administrator's investigation" (see below); in a discussion on his talk page, Durova cited a particular sentence of the article Waldorf education as an example of what he considered problematic "brochure language". That particular section was, however, authored by an editor not involved in the current discussion and critical of, not supportive of Waldorf education, as proven by an independent editor; that editor, not me, provided the diff to prove the case on Durova's talk page (Durova might have missed this on his own talk page because it came from another editor, not myself). What is contradictory is then his use of this evidence to support his claim that I and other "pro-Waldorf" users are inserting such language when it was exactly an "anti-Waldorf" user who inserted this. Hgilbert 02:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
In the Evidence presented by Fergie section, you refer to the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and then write:
But you do not give any evidence in terms of specific diffs, that support your view, for others to look at to see if they agree. Can you do that? Thanks. Thebee 15:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
My question was a question to Fergie, not to you. I'm confident she can answer for herself. The Evidence page, as far as I understand, is meant for individual editors not only to make general assertions regarding the case at hand, but also to - themselves - provide diffs that support their assertions, not leave that to others. It is not a page for just general statements regarding a case. That was provided during the initial phase of the Arbitration. Thanks, Thebee 10:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
On 19 November, you wrote and I asked;
You answered:
Maybe you can provide them now on the three specific points mentioned? Thanks, Thebee 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Nothing of what you writes answers my first question, requesting that you provide evidence in terms of diffs demonstrating that I am personally, as you wrote, "financially connected to the success of Waldorf", implying that I personally would benefit economically from the "success of Waldorf education".
As I've told in my introducing statement in this case, I do not have any financial interest related to this article, and have not worked as a Waldorf teacher since the 1990s. That I at that time, more than ten years ago, and on a number of earlier occasions, have worked as a math teacher at different Waldorf schools is probably as loose a connection you can have to Waldorf education as an at one time, 20 years earlier, trained Waldorf teacher, being the primary basis for my interest in and contribution to the article. Before the 1990s and later, I have worked in other professions, as described at my personal site.
That the site http://www.americans4waldorf.org of which I am one of its five co-editors solicits economical donations in support of Waldorf education does not in any way benefit me personally, and I get no money out of it.
You also do not give one diff in support of your statement that I have been, as you have written, "responsible for the brochure langage" in the article on Waldorf education.
This is also the case for your statement that I have been, as you write, "frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article" on Waldorf education.
I am quite impatient for you to do this and provide such diffs with regard to the Waldorf article. As you write that you have concentrated on this article, that should not be too difficult. If you can't provide such documenting diffs, I would need to draw that conclusion that you have no such evidence, and that what you wrote was untrue, which (again) would contradict what you wrote on 5 Nov. ("I always tell the truth Sune. That may be the key difference between us.") in a similar way as I have documented on another point in my introducing statement in this case.
If you can't provide such evidence in terms of diffs, I'd be grateful if you would retract your statement with regard to the article on Waldorf education, to which your allegations referred.
Thanks, Thebee 23:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"Nothing of what you writes answers my first question, requesting that you provide evidence in terms of diffs demonstrating that I am personally, as you wrote, "financially connected to the success of Waldorf", implying that I personally would benefit economically from the "success of Waldorf education"." I guess I don't care if you don't think so. It's up to the arbitrators to weigh the evidence and make decisions. "This is also the case for your statement that I have been, as you wrote, "responsible for the brochure langage" in the article on Waldorf education, for which you do not provide one diff that documents this." I ran out of diffs with my case against HGilbert. I'm not going to build a secondary case on the discussion page just because, big surprise, you think I've said something about you that I can't support. "This is also the case for your statement that I have been, as you write, "frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article" on Waldorf education." I have supported all the claims I have made on the arbitration page. That's all I'm concerned with right now. I'm not going to get into a dialog with you about anything else. I notice you haven't made an assertion or provided any evidence on the arbitration page. Is this a timing issue, or do you have nothing to say in your defense? Having a side dialog on the discussion page is, in my view, counterproductive and the actual case has taken up more of my time this week than I can afford.
"I am quite impatient for you to do this and provide such diffs with regard to the Waldorf article. As you write that you have concentrated on this article, that should not be too difficult. If you can't provide such documenting diffs, I would need to draw that conclusion that you have no such evidence, and that what you wrote was untrue, which would contradict what you wrote on 5 Nov. ("I always tell the truth Sune. That may be the key difference between us.") in a similar way as I have documented on another point in my introducing statement in this case." I don't think I need to do any such thing at this time. Your impatience has nothing to do with me. "If you can't provide such evidence in terms of diffs, I'd be grateful if you would retract your statement with regard to the article on Waldorf education, to which it referred." I don't think I've said anything that requires retraction. Thanks! Pete K 23:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
PeteK:
That is not correct. What I have done is to point out that you have not provided evidence with regard to a number of specific allegations and ask that you (individually) do that at the Evidence page. That is the point of the Evidence page, supporting your allegations in this case with documenting diffs.
You write that you find this request intimidating, and that - instead - I should make your unsupported allegations about me here at this page, outside the Evidence page, part of my assertions and evidence at the Evidence page, as you refuse to support them with documentation, both here and at the Evidence page. That sounds like an expression of strange logic.
In addition, you then write that you're thinking of formally requesting somewhere that I - at this Talks page of the Evidence page - stop asking you and Fergie to provide diffs in support of some of your specific statements/allegations, questions for which this Talks page, but not the Evidence page, stands out as the proper place. What do you suggest we discuss here, where you have made the allegations I ask you to document supporting diffs for, but then left aside at the Evidence page, both in terms of statements and evidence in their support?
Thebee 01:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
"That is not correct. What I have done is to point out that you have not provided evidence with regard to a number of specific allegations and ask that you (individually) do that at the Evidence page. That is the point of the Evidence page, supporting your allegations in this case with documenting diffs." Yes, the arbitrators should decide if I have done this, of course. I have either supported my claims with evidence or I haven't. You are, however, trying to get me to support claims that I haven't made on the arbitration page - and that I don't need to support with evidence on that page. So again, I encourage you to bring your accusations to that page and I'll address them there.
"You write that you find this request intimidating, and that - instead - I should make your unsupported allegations about me here at this page, outside the Evidence page, part of my assertions and evidence at the Evidence page, as you refuse to support them with documentation, both here and at the Evidence page. That sounds like an expression of strange logic." No, it's where that activity should take place. I'm not required to support anything you claim I have said here on this page. You are here harassing me and intimidating others to keep them from posting their evidence.
"In addition, you then write that you're thinking of formally requesting somewhere that I - at this Talks page of the Evidence page - stop asking you and Fergie to provide diffs in support of some of your specific statements/allegations, questions for which this Talks page, but not the Evidence page, stands out as the proper place. What do you suggest we discuss here, where you have made the allegations I ask you to document supporting diffs for, but then left aside at the Evidence page, both in terms of statements and evidence in their support?" My friend YOU are the one suggesting we discuss things here, not me. This is not intended to be a place for sniping by people who have chosen not to participate in the case - about issues that are not part of the case. If you have trouble understanding what is part of the case, have a look at the project page. Those are the issues that are to be discussed here - not other issues. If you put the issues you believe are important on the project page, then they can be addressed there, and if needed, discussion can take place here. I'm not, as I said, interested in an ongoing dialog with you about this as, again, it is not part of the arbitration UNTIL you put it in there. Knock yourself out my friend. Pete K 03:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
PeteK 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC) on his removal on 31 October 2006 of the warning by Golden Wattle on 1 September 2006 for a personal attack from his Talks page:
Just out of curiosity, I have looked at the history of your Talks page, and have difficulty seeing any time when you have restored the original warning by Golden Wattle to your Talks page, and do not find it there today either. Maybe you can tell and show when you restored it, as you write that you believe(?) you did, writing that you were happy to do it? Thanks, Thebee 17:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
PeteK:
It's the one by Golden Wattle mentioned and linked to (at least) twice in the discussion above, the last time 17 lines upwards.
"Knock myself out"? A second time? You sure I'd survive that, even from myself, even though you've told me in discussions that I (187cm) am much smaller than you ...? The primary point is not that you deleted the warning as such, or that the warning is restored. The primary point is that you deleted obvious evidence of a number of personal attacks by you, as documented by the Warning by Golden Wattle, when faced with a second similar warning from Centrx, just minutes before you then went on to tell Admin Centrx that you did not think his warning had any validity:
and then in a second step also explicitly denying the validity of the first warning by Golden Wattle.
A new point is that you did not restore the warning by Golden Wattle to your talks page, as you today write to Durova that you believe you did, telling that you were happy to do it, in a similar way you told, when warned by Centrx, that you believed that you had not made any personal attacks, two minutes after you had deleted the evidence of it.
Such types of denial of simple and obvious facts belong to what regrettably makes it so difficult to discuss with you at times regarding what you do and write.
This is exemplified also by your comments regarding the
removal of a direct link in one article to a section in another Wikipedia article and replacing it with just a general link to the page. It did not work in its original form, and I had
fixed it. You described the replacement of the direct link to the relevant section with just a general link to the page, in the edit summary with "Repaired link". When I
reinserted the direct link, you
removed it again, and argued for this in the edit summary with: "You don't need this propaganda in the link.".
When I asked Admin Centrx for advice on
how to handle this problem, he did not answer. And you gave an untruthful description of what you had done: "Indeed, in the edit you made that we are discussing, you included with the link a POV description. That's what I removed then - and I have gone back and removed it again", describing my correcting linkfix as a vendetta", in a similar way you here at this page describe my simple and very polite question to you
second time to document allegations you made at the beginning of the arbibration with some substantiating diffs as "intimidation" of you.
in a similar way you here have dismissed my question to you to document the allegations about me, that you made at the beginning og the arbitration, unless I force you to answer it by asking at the Evidence page to do it, and calling my question, not your way of handling it and refusal to answer it, "intimidation".What you wrote in the first mentioned discussion was untrue, as you did not remove anything in my Edit summary, that you referred to with your comment, but the specificity of the link. When I
pointed this out, you dismissed this and did not address it,
Thebee 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to make a general statement about the stuff about mentorship, apologizing for incivilities etc. With all due respect, this is excruciatingly time consuming, and not the focus of my life. I think it's really great that there are people dedicated to making wikipedia better - it's a very worthwhile project and it's great that there are smart and focused people improving its quality, refining procedures etc. I'm not one of them. I'm not interested in becoming a "wikipedia citizen" etc. I've used wikipedia for various things and been grateful that there are volunteers working hard to make it what it is. I've contributed here and there in various other areas I have interest in. I'm working on adding critical sections on Jose Saramago's novels (big fan). I'm fighting with a white supremacist on the article about Nadine Gordimer. That's the extent of it for me. Having a job and family I don't have time to "become a wikipedian." In this Steiner/Waldorf/anthroposophy situation I am here to say what I have to say. I am generally a person able and willing to cooperate with others, but I'm just not interested in getting a mentor, and I've spent almost zero time learning my way around all these complicated procedures and rules. There's no doubt I've been incivil on a number of occasions and could play more nicely, especially with certain people. OTOH I'm unlikely to spend my limited time going through a long list of diffs provided by Hgilbert or whoever listing the times I've said "bullshit" or gotten (definitely) rather huffy and snotty with him. It is very difficult for me to be polite to "Thebee," who states publicly that I am associated with a hate group. I can certainly acknowledge it would be much better for me to stifle rude replies. For me however this is just reality - I am not good at playing games going through lengthy procedures to try to prove I can play the wikipedia game the wikipedia way. I will almost always choose to spend such time working on the article or discussing the issues. I make no secret of the fact that my main aim here is not "improving wikipedia articles" but "doing damage control" regarding the fact that these folks are using wikipedia for free advertising and a pulpit to preach from. I understand that attitude may be slightly frowned on at wikipedia, in which case I'll accept reprimands or advice. (This sort of thing is going on with many of the articles on small religious sects, and frankly the critics are doing wikipedia a service.) I'm not trying to say I'm blameless or always a pleasant individual to deal with - I accept full blame for any occasion where I've lost my temper or said something stupid or rude. I'll quote Durova: "I won't quarrel with straightforward corrections to whatever mistakes I might have made." (I'm also not quite done adding evidence, and this is literally all the time I'm going to spend replying to criticisms of my behavioral faux pas. DianaW 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
For instance - Thebee has noted correctly that I was wrong to accuse him of making a list on me. He made long lists on Pete, and I asked him if he had lists on me, too. I looked around to try to figure out if he had a list on me. I never found one. He never replied to my question. Though it may not have been an unreasonable question on my part, I was wrong to go on insisting there was a list when there apparently wasn't. In my own defense I'll say that I believed my own accusation. I was then a bit chagrined to look back through that dialogue and realize I had converted a suspicion into an accusation that never had any basis. DianaW 13:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The allegation that PeteK's book project constitutes a conflict of interest happens to touch on a subject where I have some expertise. Books-in-progress range from loose sheets of longhand notes (which seldom reach fruition) to final polishes on a manuscript for which the writer has already been paid in advance. The committee decides whether COI has been violated. I'll offer some relevant questions for consideration:
Durova Charg e! 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Durova. I'm happy to answer these questions.
Additionally, my authorship of this "book" could most accurately be described as a hobby. In it's current form it is loose pages of scribbled notes - and publication, if it were to occur, would be in several years, if ever. Pete K 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
An issue that needs to be dealt with in some form by this arbitration is whether the advert label is appropriate for the Waldorf education article. Venado has now shown that it was originally put there by a vandal who was labelling many articles this way, and who has since been blocked from editing. Some editors feel it is appropriate; other editors, coming without predispositions, have indicated that they see no justification for such a label. An opinion by the arbitrators would be helpful. Hgilbert 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions to both sides: use a light touch with the edit button during arbitration. Nobody looks good if a new skirmish breaks out over a template. Arbitrators usually remain tight lipped until the voting phase so don't ask depend on them to settle this. You might petition another admin to make the call about whether the template stays or goes (I'm staying out of that one). If both sides agree to that solution and abide by it then that's a piece of evidence you can cooperate, which looks good all around. PeteK adds a side comment that amounts to
meatpuppetry. If that's a serious allegation then present it in a serious manner rather than as an insinuation on a talk page.
Durova
Charg
e!
05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The evidence page asks:
and advices:
So far, the section by Pete has grown to appr. 6,700 words, exceeding the suggested limit with soon seven times. This makes is probably close to impossible to read for anyone, including arbitrators, and adress for any of those adressed in the different sub sections in a reasonable way. How have similar situations been adressed and handled in the past? Thanks, Thebee 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher, Pete does raise a very good question about the motion to bifurcate. I think the lack of response is slowing down this case: if it doesn't bifurcate then a lot of withheld evidence is going to come into play rather late, which will repeat the process of examination and rebuttals on an already long evidence page. Could you request some responses on whether bifurcation is likely to happen or not? Durova Charg e! 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else has any comments on this? Thebee 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else has any comments on the request by PeteK for space for 7,000 more words of comments? Thanks, Thebee 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else has any comments? Thebee 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Based on that, would you have any suggestion for the present case? Thanks, Thebee 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Since this case deals with the actions of one group of editors on one group of articles, I doubt there will be any bifurcation. You should get all of your evidence out at the start. Take as much space as you need, but be aware that the suggested guidelines on evidence are for the arbitrators' benefit, as they are busy and cases can become very complicated, and are therefore for your benefit as well. Having an extremely long evidence page does not gain you an advantage, and possibly the reverse. If the evidence is too long, there is a provision in arbitration policy where the arbitrators can ask the clerks to clean up and summarize the evidence. I don't think this has ever actually been used, and I'd rather not be a pioneer. You may be able to condense your evidence somewhat by reducing the argumentation and letting the diffs speak for themselves, where possible, and by focusing on the behavior of other editors rather than trying to prove a case about Waldorf education. For example, the user Instantnood is banned from editing articles about Singapore, not because his views were wrong, but because he could not edit collegially and cooperatively with others. Thatcher131 05:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Durova! On "maybe you've heard of Judge Wapner from The People's Court": If you have it on American TV, we mostly have in on Swedish TV too in some form after the introduction of commercial TV a number of years ago. It's re-broadcast from one week to many years later, and includes from Boston Legal and The West Wing down to Soap and The Jerry Springer Show. The People's Court I only remember having seen a few times in its parodied form though (regrettably). Thebee 10:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether the motion to bifurcate will succeed, but whether or not it does I'll suggest a solution to editors who have large numbers of diffs to present. It could be helpful to take a small number of representative examples and explain those in depth, then offer a brief bullet pointed summary for the others. Durova Charg e! 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Another question. It would be great if the Arbitration Committee determined if sock puppets are being utilized here. Is that part of the standard operating procedure in such cases? If sock puppets are being used, and they could be identified here, it would help us to establish patterns of behavior. In some areas, meat puppets have apparently been used as well - some users actually went on public bulletin boards calling for meat puppets. We had a time when it appeared at least two Waldorf high-school students arrived to give support to Waldorf (perhaps on behalf of their own teacher). I can't support what I am saying above, of course, but I think the Arbitration Committee could indeed identify sock puppets at least. The other issue is that early on in the articles we have unregistered users producing a lot of brochure language. If those unregistered users later became registered users, are we allowed to connect their anonymous edits to their registered edits through their IP address? Thanks! Pete K 16:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Should material from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration relating to this case be moved here? Newyorkbrad 19:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This was posted on HGilbert's talk page and subsequently removed by HGilbert. I've reproduced it here:
HGilbert, you placed the following on the Arbitration page: "Note: I have been accused of having a financial interest in this article. I am employed as a teacher in a Waldorf school - a non-profit organization. I receive no money for anything connected with Wikipedia editing. My position is no different than someone working in any other field contributing to an article about that field. In addition, I have published a book on Waldorf education. Wikipedia policies explicitly allow editors to cite their own publications, making it further clear that those working and publishing in a field are in no way excluded from editing articles. I do not cite (and do not seek to cite) my own work in the field at present, however. Hgilbert 16:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)"
It occurs to me that you may not be clear on the "conflict-of-interest" in this case. You have a financial interest in the success of Waldorf - you DO get paid a salary so I don't know what the "non-profit" stuff you mention above is about (clearly to throw people off the scent) - it's not as if you are a volunteer. The fact that you have produced and defended the brochure language on the Waldorf Education article is what points to the conflict of interest. You haven't made neutral edits - you have made POV edits. It's not like you have simply edited a few details - you practically WROTE the article from your own POV. Here are a couple of your early edits [1] [2]. You don't get to say you just edited like everyone else so conflict-of-interest doesn't apply. Your hand in this article is considerable PLUS you babysit this article to ensure your POV remains in tact. When many, many editors have pointed out to you that it is POV and brochure language, you fight them on it. So, no, you're not just editing like anyone else in the field of Waldorf, you are POV-pushing in the field of Waldorf, and you get paid and you have written a book - and THAT, my friend, is conflict-of-interest. Pete K 17:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Pete K 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The added material is verifiable, and you are welcome to request citations, in which case I can easily offer sources to support it (or see the books listed in the bibliography). Descriptions of the goals and actual curriculum of the schools are factual; the educational approach has these as stated goals and as its curriculum (as published in a number of standard works on Waldorf education). I doubt very much that you can find sources that dispute that these are the goals and curriculum. Hgilbert 21:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe later... I think that's all part of the arbitration process. I'll do all this when we enter into arbitration. If I produce it now, you will start refuting it here and referencing your own websites - and we will never get anywhere. Let's let the arbitration begin and then we can both support our positions with evidence. Thanks in advance for your patience! Pete K 21:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I'm also going to claim that TheBee's role in these edit wars has been to remove links to websites and articles critical of or not completely supportive of Waldorf and to infuse the articles with links to his own self-published websites that are defamatory of people and organizations who are critical of Waldorf. There has been a tremendous effort by several editors to try to get TheBee to stop introducing links to his own self-published, original research, and defamatory websites and to stop removing links to legitimate websites and articles. This inappropriate linking not only occurs on the English version of Wikipedia, but on every language (that I know of) version of Wikipedia. This problem, then, spans ALL Wikipedia versions and should be corrected in each of them. Pete K 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Clerk note: You should probably save this sort of stuff for the Evidence page if and when the case opens.
Thatcher131
21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher131, you write: "You should probably save this sort of stuff for the Evidence page if and when the case opens." When would that be, at the earliest? Thanks, Thebee 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
HGilbert writes: "Administrators who have recommended taking the issues to dispute resolution include User:Longhair, and if my memory serves me rightly User:Centrx and possibly User:Cormaggio, in addition to User:Durova." I would like HGilbert to support this statement. I think it is incorrect but perhaps his memory is better than mine. Administrator Longhair, as I recall, recommended mediation. I don't believe Administrators Centrx or Cormaggio recommended Arbitration. I could be wrong - but I believe HGilbert was referring to Administrator Durova in his initial statement.
"Note that though he claims in the last-cited diff that the list of editors I originally provided on this arbitration page did not include the full (or a fair) range of editors involved with the article, the user making this accusation has not added any further involved editors. The list as I originally placed it appears to have been complete and fair; it certainly is to the best of my knowledge." I'm reluctant to modify the arbitration request since you beat me up for months when I modified the mediation request. You have left at least two editors off the list. I believe I have brought this to your attention. I have contacted 999 and Hanuman Das on their talk pages but they have not responded so perhaps they aren't interested (who can blame them). Still, they were there making edits recently (reversing some of the more outlandish stuff) and you chose not to invite them.
"Frequent accusations of "brochure language" have been launched; an administrator's investigation made it clear that such language has been introduced by those hostile to the subjects as well as those in favor of them." This is apparently a fabrication by Mr. Gilbert. Here's what the administrator had to say about this:
HGilbert continues: "Vis a vis Durova's questioning of "contradictory claims" and my quote of "an administrator's investigation" (see below); in a discussion on his talk page, Durova cited a particular sentence of the article Waldorf education as an example of what he considered problematic "brochure language". That particular section was, however, authored by an editor not involved in the current discussion and critical of, not supportive of Waldorf education, as proven by an independent editor; that editor, not me, provided the diff to prove the case on Durova's talk page (Durova might have missed this on his own talk page because it came from another editor, not myself). What is contradictory is then his use of this evidence to support his claim that I and other "pro-Waldorf" users are inserting such language when it was exactly an "anti-Waldorf" user who inserted this." Mr. Gilbert is again, mistaken here (see Administrator Durova's comment above). The whole point, that Mr. Gilbert continues to miss, apparently, is that the article is riddled with brochure language that Mr. Gilbert is continually defending. How it got there is really unimportant (even though Mr. Gilbert IS responsible for much of it). That Mr. Gilbert has sorted editors into "pro" and "anti" Waldorf screams volumes about why we are having problems here. (name redacted) - everyone here is supposed to be "pro" a good article. Maybe the "assume good faith" template should be posted here. Pete K 05:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the editor opening the case provides the brief summary of the situation. I attempted to do so without personalizing or contested accusations. When a user added a personal and contested accusation, I moved it from there to his own statement. That is the source of the above and below concern. The editor in question, Pete K, has since replaced the original accusation back into the brief general summary. Hgilbert 11:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not an NPOV paragraph; rather, it contains accusations against two parties, stated as fact ("both are primary culprits"). It appears that paragraph was originally part of Pete K's statement and signed by Pete K, in the same position to which HGilbert restored it, but is now an unsigned part of the "Brief summary". (It was not part of the original summary section when the case was added to WP:RFAR.) – SAJordan talk contribs 08:55, 20 Nov 2006 (UTC).Conflict-of-interest exists with one or more editors who are financially connected to the success of Waldorf. These editors include Walodrf teachers HGilbert and TheBee - both are primary culprits in the edit wars and responsible for the brochure langage as well as frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article.
And more shenanigans . . . Hgilbert, with the noble aim of "reducing his statement," has removed the comments that I am responding to above, so that (not for the first time) I appear to be replying to someone or something imaginary. Hgilbert's statement used to say that I had "emotionally charged personal issues" regarding Waldorf; now this inappropriate personal remark does not appear. I really wish there were less of this sort of altering the record later. He did this on the Waldorf talk page way back when, also, making outrageous (and false) personal comments about Pete and then removing Pete's name when I objected. (So I appear to be sputtering 'How dare you' over something that now reads very benignly.) Now Pete of course can and certainly will reply to recent things posted about him on the arbitration page that are false and make no sense, but as long as I'm here, "Venado's" recent comments are way off base, too. I don't think Pete has a financial interest in a school he once helped found that has long since closed. To suggest that he has a "financial interest" in the way these articles on wikipedia read because he is writing a book is goofy. Whether the articles here read positively or negatively or neutrally, it would be impossible to guess whether whether this could affect book sales; it seems very unlikely. It's fairly unlikely that the author of *any* book on Waldorf (whether praising or criticizing) would earn enough money from it to be influenced to edit content on wikipedia in any particular direction, from hope of increasing the book sales. Basically, that's ridiculous. This is a desperate maneuver in reply to the obvious conflict of interest presented by Waldorf teachers, who straightforwardly draw a salary from a Waldorf school, feed their families with this job, and are here editing the Waldorf/Steiner articles to read exactly like the promotional literature that is passed out to parents. Also, while I'm sure the school is not paying him to do this, it sure makes him look devoted to the cause, and that's the leading criterion for on-the-job advancement in Waldorf.
I'd also like to clarify that when I write that I'm not divorced etc., have no family disputes about Waldorf etc., this is not to imply that if a person is divorced etc. this disqualifies them from having a cogent opinion on Waldorf or contributing to these articles. I'm pointing out that the Waldorf cheerleaders here are merely grasping at straws to attempt to disqualify critics of their movement, using any kind of inappropriate personal material that has fallen into their hands, and the only reason they post personal junk about Pete and not me is that they don't *have* it on me. This is why I'm merely said to have "personal issues." They will try *whatever* angle they think has a prayer of working. It is really unconscionable to start talking about people's marriages and children here; I don't think Pete or I or any other critical editor on these articles would ever have the gall to comment on other people's marriages or families. DianaW
He also deleted mention of the "extremely anti-Waldorf web forum." Did this seem less important to him suddenly, or or did he realize that he'd just be encouraging interested parties to go check out this forum for themselves, and that once they were there it would be very clear that there aren't any "extreme" views being posted there by Waldorf critics? It's an interesting forum at the moment since a zealous Waldorf defender recently posted links to a virulently antisemitic hate site - a contribution that makes interesting reading in light of the wikipedia fights over just how important Steiner's racism and antisemitism were, and whether they influence anyone in Waldorf today. Twice in the past few months we've had a nasty dialogue with an anthroposophist posting racist or hate materials on that list; the last one was a Holocaust denier - defending another well-known anthroposophist who is a Holocaust denier. If anything, this phenomenon seems to be on the increase. Could the seemingly increasing boldness of these people in anthroposophy be connected to the fact that anthroposophists generally can't admit there's any racism in Rudolf Steiner?
Looking back at the diffs that Hgilbert posted purportedly to show that Pete claims anyone who ever visited a Waldorf school is biased in favor of Waldorf, the contention was only about who, among recent editors, had been invited to the arbitration dialogue. It was not about trying to claim these people had a "conflict of interest" in editing the article. DianaW 12:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither of us has ever claimed anything like what he's attributed to us. I'm also slowly understanding that Hgilbert has had a lot of trouble understanding what "brochure language" means - he thinks it is just a nasty word that means stuff he puts in that we don't like, or stuff we put in that he doesn't like. "Brochure language" refers to the sort of sales pitch that is found in schools' promotional literature. It is very silly to suggest Diana or Pete want to put in "brochure language." Waldorf schools hand prospective customers a glossy brochure with smiling children eagerly engaged in something in the classroom, or romping in the sunshine; the rhetoric is all the stuff that we can document (with dozens and dozens of diffs) is in *actual* Waldorf brochures. Maybe we need to get some hard copies of Waldorf brochures for comparison; these days, of course, the main purveyor of Waldorf "brochure language" is school web sites. We can easily show that in many cases Hgilbert inserts language that is IDENTICAL to what is found on Waldorf school web sites and is clearly not what would normally appear in an encyclopedia article. "Head, heart, and hands" "whole child" "Rudolf Steiner was a Renaissance man" type stuff. One of my personal favorites is "fastest growing independent school movement in the world." I've been literally begging - for years - for somebody in Waldorf to source this. If a Waldorf supporter could even suggest a means by which such a claim COULD be sourced, it would be interesting. (Is somebody out there counting different types of new schools opening and closing every year, worldwide?) If there is a "fastest growing" one in 2006, it is probably evangelical Christian schools in (for instance) Africa or South America. Yes, we have many diffs that show Hgilbert inserting brochure language - boasts about how great Waldorf is, or how amazing a man Rudolf Steiner was - completely unmoored from claims that can be objectively documented. DianaW 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have shortened my statement in response to a reminder that there is a word limit for these. The original statement appears below and still stands. Hgilbert 11:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There tend to be two strongly polarized parties editing these articles, one sympathetic to the themes, one antagonistic to them. Attempts to achieve an objective point of view in the article have been stymied, in part due to extremists on both sides seeking to put in what they see as "truth" and remove anything contrary to their POV. (Examples: Talk:Waldorf_education#Weasel_words, [3])
There is also a failure of good faith; see here, here and here, where even opening this request for arbitration (as suggested by several administrators over several months) stimulates accusations. Administrators who have recommended taking the issues to dispute resolution include User:Longhair, and if my memory serves me rightly User:Centrx and possibly User:Cormaggio, in addition to User:Durova.
Note that though he claims in the last-cited diff that the list of editors I originally provided on this arbitration page did not include the full (or a fair) range of editors involved with the article, the user making this accusation has not added any further involved editors. The list as I originally placed it appears to have been complete and fair; it certainly is to the best of my knowledge.
The refusal by the two editors most antagonistic to the subjects of these articles, User:Pete K and User:DianaW, to enter mediation has blocked further progress along these lines. The former has been repeatedly warned about his incivility; the latter has also had egregious violations ( [4], [5]). The incivility has dropped off considerably in the last weeks, it should be noted. User:Thebee has also been incivil on occasion.
Frequent accusations of "brochure language" have been launched; an administrator's investigation made it clear that such language has been introduced by those hostile to the subjects as well as those in favor of them.
The same two parties, Pete K and DianaW, have suggested that certain themes, such as the actual life of Rudolf Steiner, should not be given due weight (see Talk:Rudolf_Steiner/Archive_2#Proportion_and_subarticle in order to make room for critical questioning exposing the "reality" of his views. They have also claimed that anyone involved in anthroposophy or Waldorf education is by nature too biased to be cited or to be an editor, whereas their own and outside critics' views are unbiased.
The polarization visible elsewhere in the articles comes to a crux over the delicate subject of Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity, see Talk:Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Steiner's views were complex, as he came out strongly against racism and anti-Semitism but made comments about individual races and ethnic groups that are offensive or at least questionable to many modern sensibilities. This article is itself currently recommended for deletion as it is in many respects a quote farm.
I feel that these articles need to be verifiable and NPOV. The term "brochure language" has been unhelpful, as it tends to be used to refer to anything one point of view wishes to strip away from the article; especially anything that might cast the subject in a positive light, even if this is relevant and verifiable information.
The articles should mention any controversy over the subjects, as also their positive reception, but these themes should not dominate over an exposition of the actual subjects themselves. The goals, model of child development, teaching methods and curriculum should be the dominant focus of an article on Waldorf education; Steiner's life, work and philosophical development should be the dominant focus of an article on Steiner; the ideas, institutions and historical development of anthroposophy should be the dominant focus of an article on anthroposophy. Hgilbert 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: I have been accused of having a financial interest in this article. I am employed as a teacher in a Waldorf school - a non-profit organization. I receive no money for anything connected with Wikipedia editing. My position is no different than someone working in any other field contributing to an article about that field. In addition, I have published a book on Waldorf education. Wikipedia policies explicitly allow editors to cite their own publications, making it further clear that those working and publishing in a field are in no way excluded from editing articles. I do not cite (and do not seek to cite) my own work in the field at present, however. To be very clear: I do not have any financial interest relating to this site. Hgilbert 16:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
One user claims here that editors who have had any contact with Waldorf education, including having a child enrolled in the schools or even merely having visited the schools, are inherently biased towards the educational approach. That same user, Pete K, and another user, DianaW, are extremely frequent contributors (often several times daily) to an extremely anti-Waldorf web forum and have emotionally charged personal issues with Waldorf education. Hgilbert 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Vis a vis Durova's questioning of "contradictory claims" and my quote of "an administrator's investigation" (see below); in a discussion on his talk page, Durova cited a particular sentence of the article Waldorf education as an example of what he considered problematic "brochure language". That particular section was, however, authored by an editor not involved in the current discussion and critical of, not supportive of Waldorf education, as proven by an independent editor; that editor, not me, provided the diff to prove the case on Durova's talk page (Durova might have missed this on his own talk page because it came from another editor, not myself). What is contradictory is then his use of this evidence to support his claim that I and other "pro-Waldorf" users are inserting such language when it was exactly an "anti-Waldorf" user who inserted this. Hgilbert 02:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
In the Evidence presented by Fergie section, you refer to the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and then write:
But you do not give any evidence in terms of specific diffs, that support your view, for others to look at to see if they agree. Can you do that? Thanks. Thebee 15:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
My question was a question to Fergie, not to you. I'm confident she can answer for herself. The Evidence page, as far as I understand, is meant for individual editors not only to make general assertions regarding the case at hand, but also to - themselves - provide diffs that support their assertions, not leave that to others. It is not a page for just general statements regarding a case. That was provided during the initial phase of the Arbitration. Thanks, Thebee 10:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
On 19 November, you wrote and I asked;
You answered:
Maybe you can provide them now on the three specific points mentioned? Thanks, Thebee 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Nothing of what you writes answers my first question, requesting that you provide evidence in terms of diffs demonstrating that I am personally, as you wrote, "financially connected to the success of Waldorf", implying that I personally would benefit economically from the "success of Waldorf education".
As I've told in my introducing statement in this case, I do not have any financial interest related to this article, and have not worked as a Waldorf teacher since the 1990s. That I at that time, more than ten years ago, and on a number of earlier occasions, have worked as a math teacher at different Waldorf schools is probably as loose a connection you can have to Waldorf education as an at one time, 20 years earlier, trained Waldorf teacher, being the primary basis for my interest in and contribution to the article. Before the 1990s and later, I have worked in other professions, as described at my personal site.
That the site http://www.americans4waldorf.org of which I am one of its five co-editors solicits economical donations in support of Waldorf education does not in any way benefit me personally, and I get no money out of it.
You also do not give one diff in support of your statement that I have been, as you have written, "responsible for the brochure langage" in the article on Waldorf education.
This is also the case for your statement that I have been, as you write, "frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article" on Waldorf education.
I am quite impatient for you to do this and provide such diffs with regard to the Waldorf article. As you write that you have concentrated on this article, that should not be too difficult. If you can't provide such documenting diffs, I would need to draw that conclusion that you have no such evidence, and that what you wrote was untrue, which (again) would contradict what you wrote on 5 Nov. ("I always tell the truth Sune. That may be the key difference between us.") in a similar way as I have documented on another point in my introducing statement in this case.
If you can't provide such evidence in terms of diffs, I'd be grateful if you would retract your statement with regard to the article on Waldorf education, to which your allegations referred.
Thanks, Thebee 23:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"Nothing of what you writes answers my first question, requesting that you provide evidence in terms of diffs demonstrating that I am personally, as you wrote, "financially connected to the success of Waldorf", implying that I personally would benefit economically from the "success of Waldorf education"." I guess I don't care if you don't think so. It's up to the arbitrators to weigh the evidence and make decisions. "This is also the case for your statement that I have been, as you wrote, "responsible for the brochure langage" in the article on Waldorf education, for which you do not provide one diff that documents this." I ran out of diffs with my case against HGilbert. I'm not going to build a secondary case on the discussion page just because, big surprise, you think I've said something about you that I can't support. "This is also the case for your statement that I have been, as you write, "frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article" on Waldorf education." I have supported all the claims I have made on the arbitration page. That's all I'm concerned with right now. I'm not going to get into a dialog with you about anything else. I notice you haven't made an assertion or provided any evidence on the arbitration page. Is this a timing issue, or do you have nothing to say in your defense? Having a side dialog on the discussion page is, in my view, counterproductive and the actual case has taken up more of my time this week than I can afford.
"I am quite impatient for you to do this and provide such diffs with regard to the Waldorf article. As you write that you have concentrated on this article, that should not be too difficult. If you can't provide such documenting diffs, I would need to draw that conclusion that you have no such evidence, and that what you wrote was untrue, which would contradict what you wrote on 5 Nov. ("I always tell the truth Sune. That may be the key difference between us.") in a similar way as I have documented on another point in my introducing statement in this case." I don't think I need to do any such thing at this time. Your impatience has nothing to do with me. "If you can't provide such evidence in terms of diffs, I'd be grateful if you would retract your statement with regard to the article on Waldorf education, to which it referred." I don't think I've said anything that requires retraction. Thanks! Pete K 23:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
PeteK:
That is not correct. What I have done is to point out that you have not provided evidence with regard to a number of specific allegations and ask that you (individually) do that at the Evidence page. That is the point of the Evidence page, supporting your allegations in this case with documenting diffs.
You write that you find this request intimidating, and that - instead - I should make your unsupported allegations about me here at this page, outside the Evidence page, part of my assertions and evidence at the Evidence page, as you refuse to support them with documentation, both here and at the Evidence page. That sounds like an expression of strange logic.
In addition, you then write that you're thinking of formally requesting somewhere that I - at this Talks page of the Evidence page - stop asking you and Fergie to provide diffs in support of some of your specific statements/allegations, questions for which this Talks page, but not the Evidence page, stands out as the proper place. What do you suggest we discuss here, where you have made the allegations I ask you to document supporting diffs for, but then left aside at the Evidence page, both in terms of statements and evidence in their support?
Thebee 01:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
"That is not correct. What I have done is to point out that you have not provided evidence with regard to a number of specific allegations and ask that you (individually) do that at the Evidence page. That is the point of the Evidence page, supporting your allegations in this case with documenting diffs." Yes, the arbitrators should decide if I have done this, of course. I have either supported my claims with evidence or I haven't. You are, however, trying to get me to support claims that I haven't made on the arbitration page - and that I don't need to support with evidence on that page. So again, I encourage you to bring your accusations to that page and I'll address them there.
"You write that you find this request intimidating, and that - instead - I should make your unsupported allegations about me here at this page, outside the Evidence page, part of my assertions and evidence at the Evidence page, as you refuse to support them with documentation, both here and at the Evidence page. That sounds like an expression of strange logic." No, it's where that activity should take place. I'm not required to support anything you claim I have said here on this page. You are here harassing me and intimidating others to keep them from posting their evidence.
"In addition, you then write that you're thinking of formally requesting somewhere that I - at this Talks page of the Evidence page - stop asking you and Fergie to provide diffs in support of some of your specific statements/allegations, questions for which this Talks page, but not the Evidence page, stands out as the proper place. What do you suggest we discuss here, where you have made the allegations I ask you to document supporting diffs for, but then left aside at the Evidence page, both in terms of statements and evidence in their support?" My friend YOU are the one suggesting we discuss things here, not me. This is not intended to be a place for sniping by people who have chosen not to participate in the case - about issues that are not part of the case. If you have trouble understanding what is part of the case, have a look at the project page. Those are the issues that are to be discussed here - not other issues. If you put the issues you believe are important on the project page, then they can be addressed there, and if needed, discussion can take place here. I'm not, as I said, interested in an ongoing dialog with you about this as, again, it is not part of the arbitration UNTIL you put it in there. Knock yourself out my friend. Pete K 03:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
PeteK 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC) on his removal on 31 October 2006 of the warning by Golden Wattle on 1 September 2006 for a personal attack from his Talks page:
Just out of curiosity, I have looked at the history of your Talks page, and have difficulty seeing any time when you have restored the original warning by Golden Wattle to your Talks page, and do not find it there today either. Maybe you can tell and show when you restored it, as you write that you believe(?) you did, writing that you were happy to do it? Thanks, Thebee 17:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
PeteK:
It's the one by Golden Wattle mentioned and linked to (at least) twice in the discussion above, the last time 17 lines upwards.
"Knock myself out"? A second time? You sure I'd survive that, even from myself, even though you've told me in discussions that I (187cm) am much smaller than you ...? The primary point is not that you deleted the warning as such, or that the warning is restored. The primary point is that you deleted obvious evidence of a number of personal attacks by you, as documented by the Warning by Golden Wattle, when faced with a second similar warning from Centrx, just minutes before you then went on to tell Admin Centrx that you did not think his warning had any validity:
and then in a second step also explicitly denying the validity of the first warning by Golden Wattle.
A new point is that you did not restore the warning by Golden Wattle to your talks page, as you today write to Durova that you believe you did, telling that you were happy to do it, in a similar way you told, when warned by Centrx, that you believed that you had not made any personal attacks, two minutes after you had deleted the evidence of it.
Such types of denial of simple and obvious facts belong to what regrettably makes it so difficult to discuss with you at times regarding what you do and write.
This is exemplified also by your comments regarding the
removal of a direct link in one article to a section in another Wikipedia article and replacing it with just a general link to the page. It did not work in its original form, and I had
fixed it. You described the replacement of the direct link to the relevant section with just a general link to the page, in the edit summary with "Repaired link". When I
reinserted the direct link, you
removed it again, and argued for this in the edit summary with: "You don't need this propaganda in the link.".
When I asked Admin Centrx for advice on
how to handle this problem, he did not answer. And you gave an untruthful description of what you had done: "Indeed, in the edit you made that we are discussing, you included with the link a POV description. That's what I removed then - and I have gone back and removed it again", describing my correcting linkfix as a vendetta", in a similar way you here at this page describe my simple and very polite question to you
second time to document allegations you made at the beginning of the arbibration with some substantiating diffs as "intimidation" of you.
in a similar way you here have dismissed my question to you to document the allegations about me, that you made at the beginning og the arbitration, unless I force you to answer it by asking at the Evidence page to do it, and calling my question, not your way of handling it and refusal to answer it, "intimidation".What you wrote in the first mentioned discussion was untrue, as you did not remove anything in my Edit summary, that you referred to with your comment, but the specificity of the link. When I
pointed this out, you dismissed this and did not address it,
Thebee 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to make a general statement about the stuff about mentorship, apologizing for incivilities etc. With all due respect, this is excruciatingly time consuming, and not the focus of my life. I think it's really great that there are people dedicated to making wikipedia better - it's a very worthwhile project and it's great that there are smart and focused people improving its quality, refining procedures etc. I'm not one of them. I'm not interested in becoming a "wikipedia citizen" etc. I've used wikipedia for various things and been grateful that there are volunteers working hard to make it what it is. I've contributed here and there in various other areas I have interest in. I'm working on adding critical sections on Jose Saramago's novels (big fan). I'm fighting with a white supremacist on the article about Nadine Gordimer. That's the extent of it for me. Having a job and family I don't have time to "become a wikipedian." In this Steiner/Waldorf/anthroposophy situation I am here to say what I have to say. I am generally a person able and willing to cooperate with others, but I'm just not interested in getting a mentor, and I've spent almost zero time learning my way around all these complicated procedures and rules. There's no doubt I've been incivil on a number of occasions and could play more nicely, especially with certain people. OTOH I'm unlikely to spend my limited time going through a long list of diffs provided by Hgilbert or whoever listing the times I've said "bullshit" or gotten (definitely) rather huffy and snotty with him. It is very difficult for me to be polite to "Thebee," who states publicly that I am associated with a hate group. I can certainly acknowledge it would be much better for me to stifle rude replies. For me however this is just reality - I am not good at playing games going through lengthy procedures to try to prove I can play the wikipedia game the wikipedia way. I will almost always choose to spend such time working on the article or discussing the issues. I make no secret of the fact that my main aim here is not "improving wikipedia articles" but "doing damage control" regarding the fact that these folks are using wikipedia for free advertising and a pulpit to preach from. I understand that attitude may be slightly frowned on at wikipedia, in which case I'll accept reprimands or advice. (This sort of thing is going on with many of the articles on small religious sects, and frankly the critics are doing wikipedia a service.) I'm not trying to say I'm blameless or always a pleasant individual to deal with - I accept full blame for any occasion where I've lost my temper or said something stupid or rude. I'll quote Durova: "I won't quarrel with straightforward corrections to whatever mistakes I might have made." (I'm also not quite done adding evidence, and this is literally all the time I'm going to spend replying to criticisms of my behavioral faux pas. DianaW 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
For instance - Thebee has noted correctly that I was wrong to accuse him of making a list on me. He made long lists on Pete, and I asked him if he had lists on me, too. I looked around to try to figure out if he had a list on me. I never found one. He never replied to my question. Though it may not have been an unreasonable question on my part, I was wrong to go on insisting there was a list when there apparently wasn't. In my own defense I'll say that I believed my own accusation. I was then a bit chagrined to look back through that dialogue and realize I had converted a suspicion into an accusation that never had any basis. DianaW 13:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The allegation that PeteK's book project constitutes a conflict of interest happens to touch on a subject where I have some expertise. Books-in-progress range from loose sheets of longhand notes (which seldom reach fruition) to final polishes on a manuscript for which the writer has already been paid in advance. The committee decides whether COI has been violated. I'll offer some relevant questions for consideration:
Durova Charg e! 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Durova. I'm happy to answer these questions.
Additionally, my authorship of this "book" could most accurately be described as a hobby. In it's current form it is loose pages of scribbled notes - and publication, if it were to occur, would be in several years, if ever. Pete K 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
An issue that needs to be dealt with in some form by this arbitration is whether the advert label is appropriate for the Waldorf education article. Venado has now shown that it was originally put there by a vandal who was labelling many articles this way, and who has since been blocked from editing. Some editors feel it is appropriate; other editors, coming without predispositions, have indicated that they see no justification for such a label. An opinion by the arbitrators would be helpful. Hgilbert 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions to both sides: use a light touch with the edit button during arbitration. Nobody looks good if a new skirmish breaks out over a template. Arbitrators usually remain tight lipped until the voting phase so don't ask depend on them to settle this. You might petition another admin to make the call about whether the template stays or goes (I'm staying out of that one). If both sides agree to that solution and abide by it then that's a piece of evidence you can cooperate, which looks good all around. PeteK adds a side comment that amounts to
meatpuppetry. If that's a serious allegation then present it in a serious manner rather than as an insinuation on a talk page.
Durova
Charg
e!
05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The evidence page asks:
and advices:
So far, the section by Pete has grown to appr. 6,700 words, exceeding the suggested limit with soon seven times. This makes is probably close to impossible to read for anyone, including arbitrators, and adress for any of those adressed in the different sub sections in a reasonable way. How have similar situations been adressed and handled in the past? Thanks, Thebee 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher, Pete does raise a very good question about the motion to bifurcate. I think the lack of response is slowing down this case: if it doesn't bifurcate then a lot of withheld evidence is going to come into play rather late, which will repeat the process of examination and rebuttals on an already long evidence page. Could you request some responses on whether bifurcation is likely to happen or not? Durova Charg e! 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else has any comments on this? Thebee 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else has any comments on the request by PeteK for space for 7,000 more words of comments? Thanks, Thebee 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else has any comments? Thebee 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Based on that, would you have any suggestion for the present case? Thanks, Thebee 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Since this case deals with the actions of one group of editors on one group of articles, I doubt there will be any bifurcation. You should get all of your evidence out at the start. Take as much space as you need, but be aware that the suggested guidelines on evidence are for the arbitrators' benefit, as they are busy and cases can become very complicated, and are therefore for your benefit as well. Having an extremely long evidence page does not gain you an advantage, and possibly the reverse. If the evidence is too long, there is a provision in arbitration policy where the arbitrators can ask the clerks to clean up and summarize the evidence. I don't think this has ever actually been used, and I'd rather not be a pioneer. You may be able to condense your evidence somewhat by reducing the argumentation and letting the diffs speak for themselves, where possible, and by focusing on the behavior of other editors rather than trying to prove a case about Waldorf education. For example, the user Instantnood is banned from editing articles about Singapore, not because his views were wrong, but because he could not edit collegially and cooperatively with others. Thatcher131 05:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Durova! On "maybe you've heard of Judge Wapner from The People's Court": If you have it on American TV, we mostly have in on Swedish TV too in some form after the introduction of commercial TV a number of years ago. It's re-broadcast from one week to many years later, and includes from Boston Legal and The West Wing down to Soap and The Jerry Springer Show. The People's Court I only remember having seen a few times in its parodied form though (regrettably). Thebee 10:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)