Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence

message: 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. DurovaCharge! 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen, but you didn't take that advice, did you? Fred Bauder 15:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Durova.  I've got, for example, 15 diffs pointing to one editor who has deleted tags - mostly {advert} but some {NPOV} and some {Totally Disputed}.  I'd hate to use up 15 or my diffs pointing to each of these - but seeing *how many times* this was done is a good part of the case.  Does the Arbitration Committee generally take someone's word for it if they give an example and just say, this happened 15 times between May and June?  Personally, I'm hoping for the bifurcation, but this user's actions of owning the articles are common through several articles - so either way would be fine.  The only problem, again, becomes how to present all the evidence with only 100 diffs.  I'll take your advice above.  Thanks.  Pete K 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At WP:RFI and WP:PAIN I like to see specific diffs because anyone can claim that Editor X did such-and-such 15 times.  If the editor actually presents the diffs I'll see whether the claims stand up to the evidence - I'll also surf around the surrounding text as well to look for additional background.  Although I don't have any inside information about how arbitrators operate, from what I've seen it seems to be pretty similar. DurovaCharge! 02:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Durova.  I decided to focus my attention on the Waldorf Education article for now.  There are abundant diffs in the other articles too, and I'm still holding out hope for bifurcation.  It seems harder to pare down the diffs than I thought.  And I haven't even started looking at the discussion page yet.  Generally, when you look at this stuff, do you value diffs taken from the article more than diffs taken from the discussion pages?  I don't know, but for me, talk is cheap - what ends up happening in the actual article seems like it should be of more interest to the ArbCom. Pete K 04:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that policy is less important on talk pages than on articles.  Then again, some things such as vandalism matter less on a talk page because the average reader doesn't see them. DurovaCharge! 14:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to bifurcate

message: 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)
replies: text: As far as I know the arbitrators don't do that.  Very few admins can perform a checkuser.  Read up on the checkuser page to see whether this situation fits their requirements. DurovaCharge! 02:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of us can do checkuser, but having experience with it, often find it makes little difference. The question is behavior, not person. Fred Bauder 19:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll defer to your wisdom and experience on this. Pete K 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sock Puppets

message: Should material from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration relating to this case be moved here? Newyorkbrad 19:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, probably. Thatcher131 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for the Clerk 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Briefer statement 

message: 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, )
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 (, ). 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)
thread_title:  Original statement by [[User:Hgilbert|Hgilbert]] 

message: # The correct pronoun when referring to me is she.
# Some misunderstandings appear to have arisen from my statements shortly before this arbitration case opened.  WP:COI appeared to have influenced how ArbCom handled a particular prior case.  Normally I would recommend that parties try the entire Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process before coming to arbitration.  I also prefer to direct editors to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing whenever that could be a viable alternative to arbitration.  A lack of response at two RFCs and difficulties in gaining the attention of other administrators weighed in my recommendation to pursue a case here: community consensus was unlikely to develop.  I neither stated nor meant to imply that WP:COI should be the sole or primary topic of the committee's attention.
# Regarding brochure language, PeteK is correct about my assessment: it appears that certain editors have acted as gatekeepers at this family of articles, allowing and protecting changes that reflect favorably on Waldorf education while closing the door to edits that challenge Waldorf education or flag the POV problems.  The full post in which I first quoted the disputed phrase is here: I hadn't anticipated it would become a source of contention or I would have phrased my surrounding statement in terms that would have left no room for doubt.  Editors who act as gatekeepers for a family of articles violate WP:OWN, WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV - the walled garden remains a walled garden no matter who plants particular flowers. DurovaCharge! 03:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Durova.  I apologize if I misrepresented your position on weight of the COI portion of the request.  It was not intentional. Pete K 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology accepted.  I also checked the four central participants' userpages today and it doesn't look as if anyone has requested mentorship.  Arbitrators seldom comment until the final stages of a case, at which point it's pretty late to start making changes.  Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is one way to get into mentorship although Wikipedia:Mentorship mentions other arbitration-specific options.  I can't speak for the arbitrators, but my own standards are simple: do your best to shoot straight, own up to your misses, and try to get help at improving your aim.  That goes for everyone.  I'd rather not prepare another addendum and if everybody follows those suggestions the whole case will probably go much more smoothly.  I won't quarrel with straightforward corrections to whatever mistakes I might have made.  The editor who has done the most to summon me here is the same editor against whom I've supplied the most evidence.  It stands to reason that this person's interests would be best served by giving me no further reason to return to the case. DurovaCharge! 02:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It stands to reason that this person's interests would be best served by giving me no further reason to return to the case." LOL... Yes, I quite agree.  I've had more than my share of problems with him but even I feel like kicking him under the table to get him to give it a rest about his issues with you.  I think you're right - some people can't stop even when their actions are hurting them.  Oh well... Pete K 03:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - yet I'm completely serious about recommending mentorship to both sides.  WP:CIVIL applies on all around and it's a more obvious call against you and DianaW than against anyone else.  You're also accused of several other policy violations.  If you've browsed some past cases as I recommended you know that arbcom might invoke topic bans or revert parole on anyone in the case: editors who don't exercise enough self-awareness and self-control get external limits imposed upon them.  My recommendations to both sides might seem to carry a wink and a nod toward certain editors - I don't mean my words that way at all.  In fact I worry that my participation may inadvertently yield complacency in some quarters.  The evidence I submit against certain editors doesn't do much to defend others (tu quoque isn't something I cite only as convenient - it's a common human failing we all have to guard against).  Every named editor should take a close look at the evidence and prepare responses along with some mea culpa replies as appropriate and here's what I'm doing to fix that.  I can only say this so many times before it loses its meaning - so consider it said. DurovaCharge! 04:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understand.  I absolutely know I bear some of the responsibility for the problems here.  I'm aware that both Thebee and HGilbert have prepared long lists detailing what they claim are my personal attacks against them - I expect they will be presenting them at some point.  Administrators who have taken the time to look at these lists have seen them as exagerated claims for the most part, but I acknowledge that I lost my cool more than a few times especially when I first arrived here. In my defense, I was often frustrated and intimidated by their agressive reverting of my edits, repeated citings of Wikipedia policies.  After having posted a few things I regretted, there were regular attempts to get one administrator after another to ban me on the same evidence that previous administrators had dismissed.  I understand that is no excuse not to be civil.  I've been working on toning it down in the past month and hopefully the arbitrators will notice that I have improved considerably.  When I first arrived here I read through the back pages and saw how they had shut down and bullied other editors - Lumnos3, Fergie in particular. I felt (perhaps wrongly) that I had to come on strong when I started posting, lest they shut me down as well.  I acknowledge that this was probably a mistake on my part.  Hopefully, I will be able to defend against these claims again.  Regarding the other claims, I absolutely intend to address each one (I'm guessing the 1000 word limit doesn't include defending against assertions by others).  I will attend to this tonight and first thing tomorrow.  Thanks!!! Pete K 06:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few points 

message: In the Evidence presented by Fergie section, you refer to the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and then write:
:"Much of the Waldorf Education article as it stands in its locked state reads like a brochure trying to sell Waldorf Education. Many passages are unverified (WP:VERIFY) and biased to the point of violating WP:NPOV."
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)
replies: text: You saw the diffs I provided, right? Pete K 17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question to Fergie

message: 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)
thread_title: Reply to Durova and others, mentorship etc.

message: 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:
*Has PeteK received an advance from a publisher for this project?
*Has PeteK entered a contract with a literary agent?
*Has PeteK submitted book proposals or queries for the project?
*Does PeteK have special qualifications that make his project likely to find a publisher at some future date, such as prior book authorship or an MFA in writing?
*Has PeteK received financial compensation for other writing connected to Waldorf or Anthroposophy criticism, such as magazine or book articles, employment or contract work for a Waldorf-critical organization, or a website that gets AdSense revenue?
DurovaCharge! 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:COI]] and [[User:Pete K|PeteK]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: There is nothing to suggest that the user in the diff HGilbert presented above is "coming without predispositions".  There have been a lot of predisposed people pretending to be neutral here.  Additionally, there is nothing to suggest that the blocked "vandal" was vandalizing the article by placing the tag there (as it appears several people agreed that it belongs there).  As vandals go, and we've seen lots of them, that seemed like a very reasonable edit.  I suspect the Arbitration Committee will review the article carefully with respect to all the claims that have been made.  Pete K 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the diff provided by Venado to suggest the placement of the {advert} tag was "vandalism".  The diff shows clearly that the edit summary for the block does not describe the tag placements as vandalism.  The edit summary says "Bad faith edits (nothing but applying templates, many inaccurate, plus snarky comments on user's pages)" - so this was not called "vandalism" as Venado and HGilbert have characterized it - but "bad faith edits".  That may not seem like too big a difference, but notice the assessment of the tag placements by the administrators who comment "many inaccurate" - which means even the administrators issuing the ban on this "bad faith" editor found at least some of the tag placements to be accurate.  Additionally, the ban was at least in part issued for "snarky comments on user's pages".  We don't know how much weight the "snarky comments on user's pages" had on the decision to ban - and this activity apparently didn't occur with respect to the Waldorf article or any of the editors editing that article so there's no reason to suspect that a malicious intent was the reason for the {advert} tag.  In any case, the editor was NOT banned specifically for placing the {advert} tag on the Waldorf article, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this was a malicious, controversial or anything but a legitimate, well-considered and appropriate edit.  I'm quite sure Durova has a latin phrase that appropriately encapsulates this - but I like Shakespeare's term - much ado about nothing. Pete K 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Durova.  I'm not making a formal charge here - I'm happy to assume good faith.  The guy may have been predisposed to removing tags for no reason - for all we know.  We've had a suggestion that someone else was predisposed to adding them for no reason - so why not?  I'm not willing to concede any assumptions at this point.  All we know is he removed a tag.  There has been no evidence to support HGilbert's claim that he did this without predisposition - just like there's no evidence to support his claim that the guy who added the tag was a vandal.   Pete K 06:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I make an assessment about whether a tag belongs on an article I ask whether the template describes the article accurately.  Rarely does the tagging editor's possible motivation come into play. DurovaCharge! 06:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert label on Waldorf education page