Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:24, 3 February 2007

Citations and references

Hello! Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I hope you enjoy your time here and find ways to make valuable contributions to the articles here.

The Waldorf education article (and associated articles) are in a clean-up and arbitration process with special attention being given to ensuring that statements are attributed to verifiable sources, preferably print-published and third-party reviewed. It will help if you ensure that such sources are given for new statements added. Original research is to be avoided; this includes all statements made on the basis of one's individual experience that cannot be supported by objective documentation that meets Misplaced Pages standards. All of us are learning to work within these constraints; it is, after all, an encyclopedia!

With best wishes! Hgilbert 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello WikiWag

I was sidelined yesterday so I especially appreciated seeing your efforts. There have been some restrictions on who can edit the articles because we had a few "visitors" dropping in at times. The restrictions are not intended to keep legitimate editors out. If you're having trouble getting access to edit a particular article, please let me know. I'm sure we can have one of the administrators extend permission to you. Thank you for your efforts! The articles are way too one-sided, as you noted, and your help in bringing them in to line is very appreciated. BTW, please don't be intimidated by the "tweed-jacket" editors who pretend to patiently be explaining the rules to you - they are sometimes confused about what is allowed themselves, and bend the rules in order to push their POV. Happy editing. Pete K 13:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

From TheBee's page

I tried to address the sources issue on TheBee's page, but he has deleted the discussion (I've added it back but he'll delete it again - it's very Waldorfian to try to control communications, wouldn't you agree?) Anyway, here is what I tried to say to you on TheBee's page:

It would be a good idea to actually get the gist of the arbitration agreement directly from the arbitration agreement (and not from TheBee). TheBee is rather confused about what the decision meant regarding reliable sources and polemic sources - and this has already led to edit warring. In the one instance where he brought this conflict to the arbitrators, he was shown to be wrong. Your edits have been fine and other than a couple of sources that are not allowed, waldorfanswer, for example, they are pointing to good sources. I'll be happy to keep an eye on your edits. BTW, I think TheBee thinks you are a former Waldorf parent named Margaret (M.S.?) He's fishing because it's important for him to know who you are in order to disqualify you - and by extension, your edits. Hang in there, and don't get discouraged by the authoritative and aggressive tone of TheBee's response. Best wishes. Pete K 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Pete K 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Pete,

Well if someone's fishing, they're going to be disappointed. I've never edited on Misplaced Pages before. I have no desire to turn this into a contest. But facts are facts. I've read the arbitration ruling and it is concise and to-the-point about what is allowed and what isn't, as well as what is "self published" and what isn't.

I will write facts and cite them where I can. We shall see if those who disagree have the courage to allow them to stand in the interest of NPOV.

- Wikiwag 07:02, 9-Jan-2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikiwag. I've been trying to put some reasonable edits in on the Waldorf article today. We'll see how long it takes them to revert everything I've done. I'd love your input on whatever you see that might be a bit too aggressive on my part. I'm trying to put in stuff I know to be true (like, have you ever seen a Waldorf school with a football team?). Pete K 20:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My Interpretation of the Waldorf Education Arbitration Ruling

Originally posted to Thebee's Talk page:

Greetings Thebee!

Well as promised, I thoroughly reviewed all the ground covering this whole group of articles. I think it's important to break down the salient points, beginning with the ruling itself (which might be more accurately referred to as a statement of probation rather than a ruling) and findings of fact. I've included my interpretations in parentheses:

1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and related articles contain large amounts of original research and information gathered from Anthroposophical related sources which are for verification purposes properly considered self-published by the Anthroposophy movement. (It was unanimously agreed by the arbitration panel that material gathered from Anthroposophical related sources is self-published, and therefore unacceptable for verification and/or citation purposes. They must therefore be removed.)

5) Hgilbert is a teacher in a Waldorf school and a writer regarding the educational theories used at the Waldorf schools. His edits are strongly supportive of the Waldorf schools and their philosophy of education, see an early edit. He has also edited Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and other related articles with a strong positive bias. He has made some edits to Homeopathy and related articles, but very few to other articles outside those related to Rudolf Steiner and the Waldorf schools. (It was unanimously agreed that Hgilbert is biased and in the sub-findings of fact , was unanimously found to have published original research or inappropriate references as fact.)

Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation 1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

It seems unequivocally clear, that panel's unanimous intent was that the Anthroposophy-related citations be removed, on the grounds that they are unverifiable as self-published and/or original research. Indeed, the matter appears that contrary to your assertion - only the controversial references be removed - Anthroposophical references by their very nature are controversial and must be removed entirely.

You and Hgilbert as two of the named parties in the arbitration, as well as the chief architects of its content, have therefore been specifically charged with this task. Indeed, you personally requested the arbitration. So presumably, you intend to abide by the panel's findings and remedies.

Being the civil person I am, I do not wish to do what you did to my edits before I was properly informed of the conditions applied to this particular article - meaning wipe the slate clean and pare it down the the barest of facts. With that said, I too was wrong for posting what I did - but my excuse was pure ignorance; you unfortunately cannot make the same claim.

However, it may simply be that the named parties in this matter are too close to this issue to see things clearly and perhaps it requires a fresh set of eyes, from someone who is enough of a student of Steiner (I loved the approach first, then grew to question it, then grow to doubt much of the basis behind it) to look at things from a more objective POV.

I can play that role, because I respect the Waldorf movement for much of what I believe it did for my children from a character perspective and preserving their childhood for as long as we could. But academically, as far as my own children's experiences and the experiences of their peers at their former school , the approach does not live up to many of the claims made by its practitioners. Moreover, the spiritual pseudo-science behind the method has no more basis in independent third-party research (meaning outside of Steiner/Anthroposophy/Waldorf), than Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other independent schools do. Childhood education at Waldorf remains what it always has been in general - experimental.

Therefore challenge is this: that much of the facts and experience both pro- and anti- Waldorf (in particular), is original research, anecdotal, or self-published as defined by both the Misplaced Pages guidelines and the Arbitration Panel.

Perhaps if the parties involved up until this point were all courageous enough and respectful enough of each other's POV earlier on in the process to allow both PsOV to co-exist in the interest of crafting a well-written, honest and balanced article...matters might be different now. But it seems that we have no alternative but to strip the whole thing down to its most fundamental facts - meaning those that can be verified by independent 3rd-party research and publications. What we and the public will be left with, will utterly fail to inform the people who need it most - those who are considering a Waldorf education for their children.

I look forward to your reply.

Wikiwag 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with much of what you write and have put up an analysis of the Arbitration at my talks page, telling on what points I disagree and why. Thebee 00:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag, I hope you haven't let TheBee bully you away from editing here. We need your help in these articles. He has done the same thing to many editors who have tried to help. Please hang in there. I have tried to address the Waldorf Ed article recommendations on the Waldorf Ed talk page. Pete K 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Captain Wikivag,

Still here? Thebee 12:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries gentlemen, I'm still here. It takes more than this to deter me. I frankly had to take a breather and focus on other more pressing matters. The first thing I did was restore the arbitration probation tag to the top of the article page. It needs to be there and it should be there. Give me a day or two to get caught up and I'll be participating once again. For my own part, I intended to concede Thebees point about differentiating between controversial and non-controversial matters with respect to anthroposophical references. I did however, find it heartening that my interpretation of the probation statement seems to be firmly in line with the arbitrator's intent - Thebee's assertions to the contrary, not withstanding. See you in the Talk. - Wikiwag 16:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikiwag. I'm glad you're back. Pete K 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Article probation

Please do not place the article probation tag on the article page. Such tags belong on the talk page only. Also, the generic {{article probation}} template is not appropriate for this article, as the specific probation language in this case does not authorize admins ban disruptive editors, as shown here. Thanks. Thatcher131 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I think then, that this reference needs to be corrected. - Wikiwag 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a "sock puppet" or "meat puppet" or whatever...

Apparently, Thebee thinks that if someone takes a few days off to actually focus on something called ... uh ... LIFE! that they're automatically someone else who took issue with him - in a different guise. That's either extreme paranoia, or extreme conceit - and I haven't decided which one.

I've had enough of your personal attacks here (one attack), here (two attacks) here and now here (numerous and at length) that up until now, I've largely let go without comment or retaliation.

So you've finally gone too far and exhausted my civil tone. Therefore, here's what I have to say back: Grow up, pal. And try getting a life yourself, before your own little "meat puppet" becomes your only friend.

- Wikiwag 06:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe the Misplaced Pages markup was a stretch for you to grasp. But I assure you, that many others (myself included) aren't similarly handicapped.

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review

Pursuant to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Waldorf_education_and_related_articles_placed_on_probation I have initiated a review of the behavior of the editors of Waldorf education at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review. This review will consider appropriate editing restrictions on editors of the article. Fred Bauder 02:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest. You will discover that my editing has been professional, in good faith, civil and in pursuit of the NPOV facts on this issue. - Wikiwag 02:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He's not talking about you Wikiwag. He's inviting you to give testimony on the other editors - possibly based on my suggestion that current editors should be invited to the arbitration. I'm quite sure you're not being considered for editing restrictions. Pete K 02:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. Was worried that I'd accidentally touched the "third rail." - Wikiwag 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... that would, apparently, be me... <G>. Pete K 13:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings with my suspicions that you might be a sock puppet, based on the description of Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Characteristics_of_sock_puppets at Misplaced Pages, while Durova more seems to have lent towards meat puppetry. Then, who are you, and what made you come to Misplaced Pages specifically now to edit the Waldorf Ed article with such passion ?-)) Thebee 11:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition on your comment above, that I did not see before:

"... here's what I have to say back: Grow up, pal. And try getting a life yourself, before your own little "meat puppet" becomes your only friend."

Hm, Durova would probably suggest that I disregard it... Thebee 12:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As also this:

"P.S. Maybe the Misplaced Pages markup was a stretch for you to grasp. But I assure you, that many others (myself included) aren't similarly handicapped."

Thebee 12:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Thebee. I have to admit to being more than a little surprised. Nevertheless, apology accepted - even if it did come with another admonition.

I'll grant you that those two comments of mine were less than civil. Frankly, I was angry and out of patience (I still maintain I had every right to be). But as I've been known to say, you cannot expect behavior from others that you cannot demonstrate yourself.

So with that said, I offer my apologies to you for this singular loss of my good temper. I sincerely hope this is the last time I have to ask for civility and good faith from anyone - most from especially you.

As far as who I am and what brought me here, my user page says all I am prepared to say, as I have my own reasons for maintaining a certain level of anonymity. Moreover considering the atmosphere I've encountered since coming here with an abundance of good faith and civility, it's going to take a lot more demonstration of those qualities by others, before I reveal anything more, should I ever choose to do so. - Wikiwag 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU

I noticed you mentioned a checkuser request a couple of days ago, but I didn't see anything up on that page. Did you actually file that? I'd support your effort to clear the air. Durova 20:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't ever clear on the actual process. I thought it might be enough to make the request in front of admins. Thanks for your support and thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I'll do it now. - Wikiwag 01:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Durova: I'm afraid I'm still not clear. The only options I see involve drawing links between different users for alleged sock-puppetry. Are you suggesting that I request a CheckUser between me, Diana W and Pete K (as those users Thebee asserts that I actually am)? Thanks again. - Wikiwag 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, BTW. Pete K 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)