Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review

message: Arbitrators active on this case (includes arbitrators who participated in the initial decision and any other arbitrators appointed since that time who have chosen to participate)
*Fred Bauder
*Jdforrester
*Morven 
*Charles Matthews
*SimonP
*FloNight
Raul654 is inactive effective March 1), not participating.
New arbitrators inactive on this case
The newly appointed arbitrators did not hear the original case and may not feel qualified to participate in this review.  Arbitrators who wish to participate will move their names to the top list and the voting majority will be recalculated accordingly. (Or, an arbitrator may simply vote and the clerks will make the adjustments.)
*Flcelloguy
*Kirill Lokshin
*Paul August
*UninvitedCompany
*Jpgordon
*Blnguyen
*Mackensen
There are now 6 participating arbitrators, so the majority is 4. Newyorkbrad, updated 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators 

message: A quick question about the Evidence providing stage of this Review:
Are we just to provide evidence of how users have not conformed to the ArbCom probation ruling, or can we also give a statement of what we think has gone well/wrong since the ruling, as well as any remedies that we think might be useful/appropriate? If the statement/suggested remedies are not appropriate in this section where should we put them?
Many thanks, User:Lethaniol 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below, I think I covered it all.  This will deal with conduct after the prior case.  Evidence is helpful; comments or proposals should go on this talk page. Thatcher131 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, got that thanks User:Lethaniol 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Is this arbitration a continuation of the first one, with the same procedures for evidence?  And the rules of the arbitration say that none of the material removed over the dispute over wikipedia:biography_of_living_persons can be used in the arbitration.  But all of the article has been blanked and removed, does this mean no evidence at all can be shown from that article, only other articles? Thank you.Venado 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The is a continuation/reopening of the previous case.  However, remember in the previous case the editors were basically pointed at the right policies and given a chance to edit the articles according to those policies (no original research, no edit warring, etc.)  So the point of this case is to consider whether editors have continued to edit against editorial policies and standards of community behavior, so that article or site-wide bans or probation might be considered.  So the old evidence is not really relevant.  If you would like to present evidence of edit warring and other bad behavior since the close of the prior case, you can do so.  I would avoid mentioning the most recent problem (since Fred is dealing with it already) and focus instead on other incidents or editors who you believe have behaved improperly. Thatcher131 17:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Waldorf education blank page

message: The Albany Times Union for March 21, 2004 has a story headlined Beyond the bottom line; Hawthorne Valley School students learn how to make a difference in the global economy.  What would happen if somone tried to use this one article to illustrate the claim that all Waldorf Method schools teach social responsibilty and environmental stewardship? Thatcher131 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I found it, I would include it and cite the article. If someone else placed it, I would allow it to stand unchallenged, because it's true. With that said, in my brief experience here, there seems to be constant bickering over minutiae and demand for citations on the smallest of points. Is this the way it's supposed to be? - Wikiwag 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Regrettably, Venado's probably right. That fairly describes the dynamic on this article. - Wikiwag 02:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-example by way of illustration 

message: How do we discuss if someone represents a public figure for the BLP portion of this arbitration?  Pete K 16:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred has indicated that it should be done via email. - Wikiwag 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Wikiwag, but how is that a discussion?  I think it becomes a one-way conversation at that point KWIM?  I'd like to know what you think, and what others think.  I already know what I think - and I think this has all been blown out of proportion.  If I hear from other editors that they agree or disagree with me, I might re-think my viewpoint, but conducting this discussion by email doesn't afford me the opportunity to do this.  We can certainly determine if someone is a public figure without discussing the details of the article or any other issues.  If someone is a not a public figure, what are the criteria for making making that assessment.  This whole issue hinges on that determination and the charges against me are based on someone making a decision about this.  I'd like to know how that decision was made and what criteria were used to make that determination.  Is there a Wiki-page that describes exactly what the criteria for "public figure" are, or is this someone's judgment call?  If it's the latter, I'd like them to explain themselves.  Pete K 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Figure 

message: Is it appropriate to harvest evidence from the Waldorf Education discussion page?  The page itself has been locked and blanked.  Is the evidence contained on that page also off limits?  How about diffs from user contribution pages that are referenced on that page?  Are certain topics off-topic and others OK to bring to the evidence page?  I've already posted some diffs from that page.  Have I done something that needs correction?  Pete K 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so nobody is answering my question.  I'm just going to make my case and if something insensitive shows up, it can be deleted by the clerks and at the ArbCom's option, I can be further accused of intentinally trying to do something wrong.  Pete K 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waldorf Education - Article/Discussion Page 

message: Fred writes:
5) In this edit by Pete K he distorts the information found in his source; the distortions are subtle, but substantially change the tone of the information conveyed. Essentially any scrap of negative information is being used to advance a negative point of view.
The link doesn't seem to be working exactly right - but the edit you're pointing to is me reverting an edit by someone else - an edit that contains, I believe, information that was added by several editors.  If I have distorted anything, could you please provide an edit that shows me actually introducing distortions?  Thanks! Pete K 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence Page 

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

message: Sorry more questions from me, but better to get them sorted at the start.
Is this the definitive ArbCom review on this matter, or is it likely that if current users who are behaving or users that are inactive, misbehave in the future they can also be brought to account. I ask because if this review focuses on the worst of users, possibly with bans/blocks, it may leave other users to still push their POV on these articles. Hopefully this will not happen but if it does I would like to known whether it will be coming back for review or it needs to be dealt with elsewhere.
Cheers Lethaniol 21:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Question on Review Process 

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

message: May I ask why it is that the arbitration page at this time - indeed from the very moment it was reopened - appears to focus solely on Pete K? I want to be clear that there is no doubt he should be held accountable for his actions. But with all due respect, Thebee's conduct is likewise inconsistent with proper etiquette, as evidenced in both Pete K's and my submissions. Thank you in advance for your answer. - Wikiwag 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm about to coin a new word... "Wiki-hunt".  Take that Stephen Colbert.  Pete K 14:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question on Pete K and this Arbitration 

message: A User:EdwinHJ has unprotected the Talk:Waldorf education page, that Fred Bauder protected and blanked 14:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks TheBee, I was about to announce that we are free to continue discussions there.  EdwinHW unprotected the page on his own.  The material that was at issue had previously been removed so there shouldn't be a problem - but I left it to EdwinHJ's discretion about restoring it.  Pete K 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected and restored [[Talk:Waldorf_education|Talk:Waldorf education]]

message: Hi all - can someone explain to me in the edit by Fred here , what No basis exits for imposition of editing restrictions means. 
If I take it to mean No basis exists for imposition of editing restrictions - is this statement applicable to just Wikiwag or all users? Cheers Lethaniol 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It applies to Wikiwag, but unless I find some strong evidence, I will not propose editing restrictions on anyone other than Pete K. It is possible the rest of the arbitrators will adopt a more balanced approach and put mild editing restrictions on everybody. Fred Bauder 16:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiwag 

message: It has been a while now since the review started, and the vast majority of evidence has been placed. Also there has been no major additions to proposed decisions for a while. My question is, that with the ArbCom looking like it has all the information it needs to make a decision on the review, how long we should expect before other Arbitrators start to vote, and the review is concluded? Cheers Lethaniol 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The review is listed for voting now.  The arbitrators may be discussing it on their closed mailing list, but we'll never know.  Other arbitrators could add their votes at any time; however there is currently the largest number of cases open for voting at any one time since I can remember. Thatcher131 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks Thatcher - I appreciate that the workload of the ArbCom is very high, and will be patient for their votes. Cheers Lethaniol 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay time to query again. There is basically no movement here at this Review, and yet it still hangs over the editing at Waldorf Education etc..., leaving me and probably others feeling in limbo. Any chance of this review being closed soon? Respectfully User:Lethaniol 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline for review decision 

message: TheBee has provided "context" for his latest ridiculous claim that is equally ridiculous.  I hope the ArbCom will look carefully at what was said in its TRUE context and not the fabricated context that TheBee has manufactured.  Thanks! Pete K 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TheBee's latest ridiculous claim

message: There is yet another edit war going on - in which I am not involved - between Pete K and another editor, Venado. From what I can tell, Venado is making a genuinely good faith effort to replace dubious sources used by Pete (an article signed only by the first name of an author and "published" on a blog) with at least somewhat higher quality sources, even using ones as close to the original in spirit as possible (thus ending up with anarchist-press published material, which is pretty doubtful in itself). Pete is holding onto his blog source, with multiple reverts. This is pretty clearly against the spirit and letter of the arbitration ruling.
Probably the whole citation should be excised, but the edit warring and dubious sourcing is part of a larger pattern.Hgilbert 11:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is under discussion above. The "larger pattern" is that of biased editing on both sides. Pete K 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please give the link to this Amazon search - I can not find that this info is at all correct. Cheers Lethaniol 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here Lethaniol .  As I said, I have already used this reference to verify the claim.  Toward the bottom of the page amazon shows 9 books citing this one.  I want to say again that in this book there are 2 separate authored essays and Staudenmaier's essay was not relevant for the verification, only the coauthor's essay.  Staudenmaier's significance as historian is getting exaggerated greatly here.Venado 16:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, Peter Staudenmaier is not a 1st year PhD.   Pete K 03:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is Mr. Staudenmaier's dissertation topic at Cornell - "Occultism, Race Thinking and Fascism: Race and Politics in German and Italian Anthroposophy, 1900-1945".  Ya think maybe he knows what he's talking about?  Geez. Again, I encourage the Arbitration Committee to look at the sources that are claimed as "acceptable" in the PLANS article - editorials in neighborhood newspapers.  Sources like Mr. Staudenmaier are gleaming examples of good authorship and peer reviewed material.  Pete K 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peer review - where? A PhD dissertation is not an example of peer review research until published (at best). Really we need either books or journal articles on Anthroposophy - which this PhD student does not have yet. Cheers Lethaniol 16:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me?  Are you asserting that a doctoral dissertation does not undergo peer review?  That's wrong, at least for doctoral degrees earned at reputable institutions in the United States.  The dissertation is a very thoroughly peer-reviewed publication complete with oral defense by a dissertation committee usually composed of several faculty in the student's department and at least one from a different department/field.  They are often reworked into a publishable journal article or monogram but that is largely a change in style rather than a change in content.  --ElKevbo 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I should have been clearer. This PhD appears in this case not yet to be published/finished, but when it is published I agree it should have undergone a peer review. The reason I added (at best) was that I am not sure whether the University that this PhD student is at is reputable or not (I am from the UK). I try to take care not to give absolutes. If I had said that any published PhD dissertation is appropraite to reference, then this may have come back to bite if someone found a thesis from a dubious institution.Cheers Lethaniol 19:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a very reputable university but the dispute is not over the dissertation which probably isnt even written yet.  Pete_K has been claiming other self-publish uploads to a website were peer reviewed, not the dissertation.  None of his arguments have been on point.  He gave irrelevant links and exaggerations and wasted hours of our time following checking out his non-useful links and other information.  He has given to much red herrings and distracting dead ends just like this one, because there is no dissertation.Venado 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're kidding - right?  Cornell is the top university in the U.S.  This isn't a fly-by-night internet university.  Cornell is Ivy League - like Harvard or Yale or Oxford.  Please look it up before you call it a "dubious institution". Pete K 19:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not call it a dubious institution, I said I did not know. Sigh. Cheers Lethaniol 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If I had said that any published PhD dissertation is appropraite to reference, then this may have come back to bite if someone found a thesis from a dubious institution."  This wasn't you? {sigh} Pete K 20:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also the sad fact is, that if you have worked with the Wikipedia system, and waited for this PhD student to publish, then I would have likely supported the use of their work to a certain degree. If you are soon banned then this info may now never be incorporated. Cheers Lethaniol 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust that others will arrive and continue here long after I am gone.  The "PhD student" is already published, and an expert in this field.  The research he has done is valid and cited, peer reviewed by professors at the top university in the US - and, again, he has been published on this very topic.  There is no reason to suspect the Wikipedia nonsense will stop if I wait long enough. Pete K 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, no... you've misunderstood - it needs to be peer reviewed by a Commission of Anthroposophists to pass muster here <sarcasm>. Pete K 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's about his expert status here - and yes, why not use his other material - or even invite him here as an expert.  His credentials are much more easily verified than, say, Essjay's.  Pete K 16:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another edit war 

message: I am afraid to tell all, that I have ended my Adoption/Mentorship of Pete K.
It seems to have got to stage where Pete K is going for broke - using unreliable sources, regularly edit warring, breaking WP:3RR and using Wikipedia as a general Soapbox for his POV. 
I strongly suggest and appeal to the ArbCom to get on with voting and closing this ArbCom review. Cheers Lethaniol 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the effort Fred Bauder 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and thanks for helping to move this forward finally.  Let's just get it over with, shall we? Pete K 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of Adoption/Mentorship 

message: I am copying this here from Fergie's talk page:
:Fergie, I have to say I find your evidentiary statement upsetting. As Venado also stated, I think it would have been better for you to back up your claims of single-issue editing and POV pushing with concrete examples.
:I can only speak for myself here. I am NOT single-purpose at Wikipedia. True, I have spent a lot of time on anthroposophy articles, because that is an area in which I have interest. However I have also been involved with numerous random articles as a member of the League of Copyeditors (I assume that's what you meant by the "to be fair" comment by my name). There is nothing wrong with contributing to articles in areas of interest, as you do with cycling. And I question what you would know about my activities in any other web forums.
:I take the ethos of Wikipedia very seriously. I feel that calling me "not wikipedian" and a "manipulator" of articles is insulting. I have gone out of my way to work for consensus, and have made specific efforts to work cooperatively with editors whose opinions I do not always share.
:While I understand that you may have wanted to point out that there is a group of editors who may have difficulties with objectivity and bias, I wish you would have used a less aggressive tone and kept more to factual statements.
:Henitsirk 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I now realise that my statement did unfairly give the impression that everybody mentioned was extremely POV in their editing so I have modified it. However I stand by the core assertion that the articles in question suffer due to a preponderance of single-issue editors. --Fergie 08:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence by Fergie 

message: I noticed that some pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education still carry a warning about Pete K.  It looks like he hasn't made an edit since 2007, so is it OK if we take them down?  a13ean (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old notifications?