Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thebee (talk | contribs) at 15:59, 15 January 2007 (→Adoption: "Big issue" big only in demagogical anti-Waldorf campaigns. Big ego big at all times.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user seeks adoption by an experienced editor. (Users offering adoption)

Archived Talks page, 29 Oct 2006

Archived Talks page 12 Jan 2007

PLANS

As a friendly suggestion: reduce your arguments to a cogent paragraph or two; this is more effective and leaves a better impression than sprawling pages. Even I, sympathetic to your point here, shudder at the format! Best wishes. Hgilbert 14:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling. I don't like long drawn out discussion back and forth about details. That's why I try to be as thorough as possible from the beginning in my argument. But the thoroughness does't seem to impress my main opponent. Or maybe I just read too much Steiner ... ;-) --Thebee 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation of Arbitration Ruling

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)

Analysis of Arbitration decision

I disagree with much of what you write on the among other the following points and for the following reasons:

The Final decision may stand out as unclear and partly maybe contradictory with regard to what is to be considered to be acceptible sources for different statements in the articles. A closer look shows it is not. You only need to read it closely.

According to Final decision, Findings of Fact (14.2.1.):

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.

This is an unclear statement and does not tell if it refers to every statement in the articles. It only states that such statements are found in the articles for which Anthroposophical related sources for verification purposes are to be considered not permitted sources, "self-published (by) the Anthroposophical movement".

The Final decision Principles - Verifiability (14.1.3) is more detailed:

"Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

This is more specific than the Findings of facts point and tells that with regard to controversial information in the articles, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are considered self published and thus not reliable sources. But for information that is not controversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered as reliable sources.

This comes to expression shortly and in an incomplete way in the Remedy - Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation section:

"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."

This needs to be seen and interpreted in relation to the first two sections, telling:

- All original research in the articles needs to be removed. To understand this, one needs to look more closely what Misplaced Pages means with "Original research", defined by one of seven listed characteristics, and is much more limited that what superfifially may be understood with the word, that someone investigates something by him- or herself and tells about the results.

For Misplaced Pages purposes:

"An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

• It introduces a theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument,

that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments

in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis

or synthesis to a reputable source;

• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."

That is a much more narrow use of the term, than normally probably is understood.

The "No Original research" policy also tells this:

"... research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

To summarize:

For all information in the articles that is uncontroversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered reliable.

For any information in the articles, that (on an not clearly defined basis) can be considered controversial, Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered unreliable.

With regard to what is well known to most people involved in Waldorf education, as teachers and parents, much if not most of what has been found in the article (on Waldorf education), before Pete K again started to hack into it, probably is uncontroversial.

What is "controversial"? That is the big, not cleared out point, about which the Arbitration decision is not clear, and that creates the probably largest difficulty in the continued editing of the article.

Pete K has written somewhere I think, (don't have the time to search for it now) told that he's about to put 200 fact tags in the Waldorf article.

That's clearly absurd, and would demand that every sentence be verified by a at least one cited source. That is not the case with ANY other article at Misplaced Pages, and an expression of extremely bad faith hostile editing, if implemented by him.

You write:

"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."

Your sweeping statement and conclusion is false. I'm not an architect of the arbitration request. Hgilbert wrote it without asking or consulting with me.

With regard to who is expected to do what, the Final decision only says in general that "editors" of the articles ar expected to edit them in accordance with the arbitration decision. It does not put the responsibility for this on any special party, as you do, and expresses its expectation in the seeming hope and good faith that the editors (all editors) who continue to edit the article will make them better in accordance with the arbitration decision (described above).

Your comment and conclusion on this point therefore stands out as biased and untrue.

Thebee 23:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Report from Mainz

Hi TheBee,

You are right about the title, and Pete K's title is probably far to long and needs to be condensed. I would make one suggestion though:

In the section, see Talk:Waldorf_education#.22Report_from_Mainz.3F.22, you give links to your own Original Research and a quote/letter from a parent which appears only to be referenced from an anthroposophical website (though I may be mistaken on this last point) - please do not do this. These links add little to the discussion, and if there is any argument of note it can be cut and pasted in or paraphrased. I see little point in linking to such references in this case as they can not influence the talk page argument as they can never be used in the main space article.

I understand that these articles are close to your heart but the best way to reach consensus on the talk pages is to only use links/refs that are likely to be able to be used in the article. Cheers Lethaniol 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"In the section, see Talk:Waldorf_education#.22Report_from_Mainz.3F.22, you give links to your own Original Research and a quote/letter from a parent which appears only to be referenced from an anthroposophical website."

If you look closer at the section you refer to, you'll see that what I mention and link to is an advertisement published in the General Jewish Weekly, March 3, 2000 by a former Waldorf student and daughter of a former Chairperson of the Central Jewish Council in Germany, Heinz Galinski, who got so upset at the defamatory TV-program you defend as a reliable citation in the article on Waldorf education, that she even paid for an advertisement in the General Jewish Weekly, telling about it. That I have a copy of her ad at my personal site is irrelevant with regard to its nature, though her ad probably cannot be used as citation in the article. Or can it?

In the discussion, you also comment on "egos". Try http://www.thebee.se/WPPA/PersonalCommentsByPKatWikipedia.html for ego. Thebee 09:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay yes I thought I was wrong about the child's letter, as I mentioned above though I may be mistaken on this last point. It is still not a good source to use though as compared with the TV program it is an anecdotal report, notably non-notable and if added gives an emotional bias to an Encyclopaedia that should be fact based. Cheers Lethaniol 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for cleaning this up, sorry Cheers Lethaniol 18:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The daughter is and was not a "child". It is a grown up adult woman. I'm puzzled by the carelessness with which you as mentor, teaching others how to edit Misplaced Pages, describe citations, as also by the superficial way you read and interpret sources, like the Worldnetdaily article. It does not say what it stated in the citation. What teachers read and think is one thing. What they teach is not all they read. And you have readded the citation, even though it says nothing at all about Saint Michael, nor about Saint Martin as described in the text, based on it as citation, nor anything about it being taught to the pupils. I assume you will correct this by removing the citation and the reference at least to 'Lucifer' in the text. Thebee 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are things being claimed that you contest (St. Michael, St. Martin), then put a fact tag next to them. It's very simple. You tag it and someone has to find a citation that confirms this. IF they can't, THEN it can be removed. Pete K 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right TheBee I have not read the Worldnetdaily article end to end, all I know is that it does mention about Lucifer (and hence directly infers it is taught, as taken from a teaching aid - The Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide). Hence the reason that this ref DOES apply to the text (specifically) Lucifer - and should not be removed with the reason - Citation says nothing about Saint Michael, Saint Martin, or that children are being taught about "Lucifer". Check before readding.

Personally I think this ref is weak - hence why I brought it up for discussion on the talk page but you have not contributed. I added back the ref and Lucifer bit so that people would get up to the talk page and discuss the issue which has not happen yet - so get to it.

In terms of the Saints - fact tag it or delete citing no sources - I do not care - it is up to Pete/Diana to come up appropriate sources for these if they are to be kept. I suggest fact tags for a few days.

The child is not a child but a parent, again I did not read the document completely. You do not need to, to see that it is an inappropriate source for which I have already given good reasons for. Cheers Lethaniol 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and why do I not read every reference given to me end to end - because I have better things to do - I have been taught to read through documents quickly and find the info I need - it is yours, and Pete's etc... job to check all the tiny facts, it is my job to help mediate and get the article up to scratch - oh and I forget help stop you lot getting banned. Cheers Lethaniol 19:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You improperly readded the citation, after I explicitly had described that it does not say anything about teaching to the pupils on the three points is is used as citation for in the newly added OR text, St Michael, St Martin or 'Lucifer', added AFTER the Arbitration in direct violation of it, by probably DianaW as "Captain Wikivag" (now silent after I asked Durova to investigate the sock puppet problem, while Diana W has reentered the scene again).

From other people, I would expect them not to add citations they do not know actually state what they are used as citations for in the text. On the help from getting banned part: you mean help Pete from getting banned? Let people edit according to their nature. Then it will show who stays and who goes. Thanks, (and will you remove the citation you incorrectly readded again, including the 'Lucifer part in the text, that is absolutely incorrect?) Thanks again, Thebee 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Right TheBee I have read the article from end to end - I now reply on the talk page - where you should have brought the issue in the first place. With respect to banning - I will try and help you all - if you will take my advice you will not get banned I would bet my life saving on it. Cheers Lethaniol 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a very serious question for you TheBee, and I suggest you answer it carefully, but do answer it - this will have a great impact on how we work together in the future.

Above you have got upset about the Lucifer quote being left in - I assumed that this was because the insinuation that by teaching about Lucifer in school this was in some way occult or evil etc... From an outsiders perspective this seems like a controversial subject - and therefore needs excellent references. I went to some effort to try and sort the situation out - and hopefully with a bit of talk on the Waldorf talk page we will get there.

What I have just found though is that a quick google search of Waldorf and Lucifer comes up with a massive number of hits - including . and at a quick pick - which makes it look like concepts around Lucifer is part of Anthroposophy. Now obviously these sources are unlikely to be used in these articles - but the question that I am now coming to arises:

Why were you so determined to get the reference in question and in particular the concept of Lucifer being taught removed - when in all likelihood you know that it is taught? Am I missing something obvious - please answer this ASAP. Many thanks User:Lethaniol 21:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Diana intended her comment to be here as TheBee makes the accusation again above "by probably DianaW as "Captain Wikivag" (now silent after I asked Durova to investigate the sock puppet problem, while Diana W has reentered the scene again)" Regarding Lucifer, kids are absolutely taught about Lucifer, they have a Michaelmas festival in which (and they are told this) Lucifer is represented by the dragon. They are also taught about Lucifer in the Old Testament part of the curriculum, of course. I'll butt out now. Pete K 22:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay Pete - I thought it was more directed at an Admin than TheBee, but it can be moved if needed. Thanks also for your input Pete, but I want TheBee to give me his reasonings on this matter. Cheers Lethaniol 22:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The only reason I mentioned it was that it appeared to me Diana was looking for a response from TheBee as well. Pete K 22:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that much is has been happening her, when I have been working at an answer to you Lehaniol. Maybe it's too long, but it's an effort an answer your question. If something is unclear, I'd be happy to answer any other question you have to the best of my ability:

In Steiner's view, diferent spiritual beings on different levels, in the Judeo-Christian tradition described as Angels, Archangels, Archai, and higher spiritual beings have not all developed in a 'normal' way at different stages of the evolution of Cosmos. Some have remained behind at different times, and act in a way contrary to the normal evolution of Cosmos. To these - in Steiner's view - belong two types of beings that in Ancient times were called 'Ahriman' (Persian time) (The 'god of darkness') and 'Lucifer' (possibly also during Persian times) (The 'god of light'). In the Bible, they are referred to "Satan" (being of darkness) and the "Devil" (the twisted being of light). According to Steiner and anthroposophy, they work in opposite directions in cosmos, and also in man.

They are viewed as inevitable real part of cosmos and in the life of man, between which man has to find the balance, as "matters of fact", as "necessary" and important parts of the evolution of man. From this perspective, what stands out to us as evil is not evil in a simple way as such, but something originally "right" that works in the wrong way and in the wrong place. In Steiner's view, what helps man keep the balance between them and stay human is Christ. This is difficult to explain in a short way, that makes it understandable to most people at first - that spiritual beings that we experience as evil in themselves are not evil as such, but beings who work in the wrong (un-normal) way in relation to their actual nature, as also in relation to other spiritual beings of the same category (not as normal angels, but as 'fallen' angels, not as archangels, but as 'fallen' archangels).

This is part of the anthroposophical background of how also probably many Waldorf teachers view the world. Anti-waldorf (WC) campaigns allege that not only nornal subjects are taught to the pupils at Waldorf schools in a way that supports their development and relation to the world in a creative way. They allege that anthroposophy is taught as such in the theoretical way I describe here, to the pupils, and quote the concepts of anthroposophy in a way that makes them stand out as strange by presenting them without the complex context necessary to understand them.

This is the context for the allegation by WCs (Diana W has been on the board of the WC) who argue that anthroposophy not only constitutes a world-view background for, bur also is taught as such to the pupils. That must not happen, and Steiner properly and strongly also argued that that must not take place. Anthroposophy is for those grownup people who take an interest it it. Anthroposophy must not be taught as such to children.

In their anti-Waldorf campaign, WCs like Diana, and PeteK (a WC in the principal but not formal sense) use what can be found as catch words to as much as possible make Waldorf education stand out as strange/weird. "Lucifer" is such a catch-word used for that purpose, as it has a strong negative character in normal language. That makes it so useful in anti-Waldorf campaigns, as also anything referring to the properly very strongly negative word "Aryan", used to refer to Indo-Europeans a hundred years ago. For more on this, see here. In the theosophical tradition, developing at the end of the 19th century, the present development since the last glacial ages, out of its assumed origin in the little known Asian culture, referring to itself as "Aryan" is referred to as an "Aryan" (Indoeuropean) epoch. That concept was misused by the later nazis in support of anti-Semitism.

In Steiner's view, the figure standing as the origin of both the original Indian ("Aryan") culture, described as 'Manu', and 'Noah', standing out as the origin of the Semites in history, are one and the same figure, pointing to the identity of the origin of the Semites and the Indo-Europeans.

The use of the term as understood in that way, and where Steiner - when seeing how the term was misused by the anti-Semites - stopped using it to describe human post-glacial development and used a more neutral term, is one of the other most catchwords used in anti-Waldorf demagoguery. One of the tools in that campaign is to try to imply that anthroposophy has some 'friendship' with nazis and protonazis (as seen from the "Mainz" broadcast), which also Pete works at introducing into the article, via the German TV-broadcast.

It's pure demagoguery. Many of those in leading positions in anthroposophical ant Waldorf contexts have a Jewish background and Steiner explicitly made the origin and dramatic history of the Jews into a central subject of the teaching in grade three at Waldorf schools, to build the understanding of ot if as one of the important elements in human culture, followed by a dedicated study of other cultures, a broad interest being part of the background that both the former chairperson of the Central Jewish Council in Germany, as also the former German Chancellor Helmuth Kohl and others belong to those who at different times have chosen a Waldorf school for their children, as expressed by the daughter of the chairperson of the Central Jewish Council in Germany. That is of no interest to anti-Waldorf demagoguery, using any catchword they can to try to defame Waldorf education.

This became somewhat long, but I just wanted to give a small picture of the complex background to what Pete and other WC's push for for different principal or personal reasons.

Is an understanding of 'Lucifer' one part of the anthroposophical background for Waldorf education? Yes. Do Waldorf schools teach children about 'Lucifer' in the way implied by the the way this is described using the false citation? No, and they REALLY should NOT do it in the way implied by the erroneous description of the citation.

I don't know if that in some way answers your question? It something is unclear about this, tell me and I'll do my best to answer how I see things.

At the site of Waldorf Answers I have tried to contribute my share to a possible understanding of what anthroposophy and Waldorf education are, the relation between them and different myths at time cultivated about them, as it takes some time to understand, and the subject is so complex and vast.

Best wishes! Thebee 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay that is better, your reply covers most of my concerns. What I strongly suggest you do in future is to explain on the talk page / edit summary why you revert/remove/delete stuff - if only for the following reason - other Wikipedains inc. Admins will need to be given a good reason for ANY deletion/revert. So in this case you should have brought up the fact that the way concept of "Lucifer" was been written was incorrect and derogatory - and either rewrote to explain significance, link to an article/ref which explains the significance or at the worst deleted and given detailed reasonings. I hope this makes sense - this argument could have been avoided totally if you had done the above - and all of us would have been much more effective. If you have any questions on this feel free to ask Cheers Lethaniol 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Only one problem here. My kids are in Waldorf and all three have been taught about Lucifer. So now what? You may say, "they shouldn't have been" - but you see, that makes NO difference to me - they WERE taught this and that's what is important. The article describes the reason for this - Waldorf teachers rely on this understanding of Lucifer. Fine for them, but when they are imbuing this into the students, parents rightly have cause for concern. If you think all you have to do to defend Waldorf is to point to the ideals, that's not going to fly with critics. You have to point to the realities, like critics do, when you talk about Waldorf education. The reality is, Waldorf students are taught certain things that are inappropriate and this is done without the knowledge or consent of the parents. Explaining away everything as a misunderstanding of the critics isn't going to cut it here like it does for new Waldorf parents. We will address what Waldorf education IS, not what it's supposed to be. Pete K 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The main myths that the WC-group in CA have cultivated as defamation of Waldorf education the last 10 years are described here. The myths that Diana resp Wikiwag and Pete at present work hard to introduce in different forms into the article on Waldorf education at Misplaced Pages are this, this, this, this. For a version of the first myth, for which Pete has used the basically interview of the WC in WorldNetDaily as citation to support, he now uses a citation from a person, representing a Christian Fundamentalist group, the Chalcedon Foundation on an ideological basis opposed to Waldorf education, at the site of another group, on an ideological basis opposed to Waldorf Education Christian Education Awareness Network (CEANet), having bought into myth 1, cultivated by the WC. The new reference, used by Pete, refers to the WorldNetDaily interview with the WC as source for its statement, quoted by Pete in the WP article. Thebee 11:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Dear TheBee - I see you have put the Adoptme userbox on your page - I think having a mentor will be great for you - so I have two suggestions. If you do not get an experienced editor along soon to offer Adoption - add a comment to the bottom of your talk page briefly explaining the situation and why you would like a mentor. If this fails I will ask at WP:ADOPT for an experienced Adopter to come help if that is okay with you. Cheers Lethaniol 14:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite OK. Only one question: What would you consider to be "soon"? Thanks, Thebee 14:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Before you get a mentor TheBee I have two pieces of advice that if you follow you will help you greatly:

1. Obviously the Lucifer business seems to be a big thing. The easiest way to sort it is to write up a section (maybe in the anthroposophy article then have a link to this section from the Waldorf article) explaining the significance of Lucifer and Archai etc..., and how they differ from traditional views. So explaining exactly what it is all about and putting it in context - I do not think there is any need to hide this information at all.
2. When discussing Misplaced Pages articles forget about who the other users are, and discuss the points. Only talk about a user's conduct when it is being disrupt, and keep such discussions off talk pages. Basically if you are discussing point A about article X, do not bring up any issues about person B, if you need to discuss person B's attitude, discuss on their or your talk page, separate from the issues of point A on article X. By separating the two far less uncivil behaviour will occur, people will focus on the article not the ego - and everyone will be more effective. There is a time and a place for each of these discussions but they MUST be separated. If you need an example where this is an issue - see above at your reply to my question. The answer was good but there was no need to bring the opposing ego's into the matter - the issues on the principle were enough.

I think I have already made these sort of points to Pete and Diana, if not there same advice goes to you. I hope you can see how this would make the whole situation easier to deal with. Cheers Lethaniol 14:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

On

"Obviously the Lucifer business seems to be a big thing."

In Waldorf education? No. It's only a big thing to WCs, as it us so useful as catchword in their anti-Waldorf demagoguery. It's one of their main defamatory insinuations in their anti-Waldorf campaign. They would love it if this as much as possible would be made a big issue in the context of the Waldorf education article, as Pete now does, quoting a Christian fundamentalist, who quotes the interview with the WC in WorldNetDaily a source. The voodoo/Wicca/"Satanic religion" was one of the first myths cultivated by the WCs in their witch hunt against the use of Waldorf methods at public Waldorf schools. When it was critizised even by one of the more serious supporters of the WC. In response, the secretary of the WC defended this with:

"What I say 'in defense of the Waldorfians' is that 'they don't eat babies.'" "Am I pandering to the prejudices of Christians? Personally, yes I am!"

They and Pete would love to have this made into a big issue in the Waldorf article, the way he now works at cultivating it, and you suggest be developed further with a special article on it.

On

"The answer was good but there was no need to bring the opposing ego's into the matter ..."

You commented on it at the Talks page of the article in a comment to me. I did not address it at the Talks page of the article, but here, at my own Talks page, where you suggest such issues to be addressed. I did it as it still amazes me how Pete has been allowed by administrators to get away with his four month repeated insulting bullying campaign, not only against me but all sorts of people and Misplaced Pages procedures with few to no comments, and even was given absolution with regard to it by the ArbCom. His bullying started from basically the first day Pete K arrived here at Misplaced Pages, and even continued with false and unsubstantiated accusations during the arbitration.

When I asked Mr. Bauder if such accusations (the serious accusation of considerable having "altered evidence" in the arbitration case - referring to claimed considerable alterations of the Waldorf Answers site, alleged by Pete K), if referring to statements about verifiable facts as basis for the personal attack/false accusation, need not be substantiated, he stayed silent and just left the issue question about the personal attack hanging in the air.

Pete still has not verified the basis for his personal attack, the accusation of having "tampered with evidence", or been specific on any point about it, just referred to his own memory as "proof" he's right and something unspecified, that Diana - according to him - wrote at some time, without telling what he referred to.

Only at one point has any admin made one comment on the long term bullying by Pete from his first day here at Misplaced Pages, suggesting I take it to RfC. I assume those addressing it there would be other editors with no admin rights to take any action with regard to it. So why should I? And Mr. Bauder - retired lawyer - now has given Pete and the ArbCom has given Pete absolution for it.

And during the time after the ArbCom decision, he repeatedly has continued his bullying. Not as much as direct personal attacks, except once, but acting as the Emperor of all Waldorf related articles and discussions related to it, relentlessly at all times commenting on all issues and postings by others, telling who should and who should not answer his questions, and telling in discussions what people can do and not do, relentlessly reverting the edits of others (some 50 since the arbitration according to a comment by Venado) and filling hiw edit summaries with emotional personal comments in different forms. "Arrrg", what type of comment is that in edit summaries? Pure emotional outburst.

Builds confidence in the justice system of Misplaced Pages? No.

Do I feel it was justified to point out one of many possible demonstrations of his big ego in my answer to you as answer to your comment on my ego? Yes.

Thebee 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP

Hi Bee, I was sick for a few days and missed the action on the account you suspected as a sockpuppet. I'll clear up a few points:

1. Misplaced Pages doesn't have any technical way to block a particular editor from editing a particular article. I could block all non-admins from editing a page or I could block an account from editing to the site, but the type of situation Diana commented on must have been a technical issue at her end.
2. Per WP:AGF and WP:BITE, the default assumption is that each new account is a new user. You may notice some threads on my user talk that converse in a different tone. Those are follow-ups on lengthy investigations where (in most cases) a disruptive editor has been banned and has an established sockpuppet pattern. That's one type of problem the Waldorf/Steiner articles haven't typically seen.
3. WP:SSP and WP:RFCU are the two standard venues for posting your kind of request. Only 1%-2% of administrators have the checkuser function and its use is restricted. If Diana had actually been blocked and a suspicious account appeared while she couldn't edit, that would be cause for requesting a checkuser. You can check Diana's block log here. Other accounts follow a similar syntax: here's the sockmaster of one of the troublesome accounts where people post follow-ups at my talk page.
4. This is the kind of information that a mentor would provide you if you entered WP:ADOPT. Although I do what I can, when I take the time to explain these things that's time away from other investigations. I became very involved in the Waldorf arbitration because no other administrator was available and that reduced my productivity in other areas. The English language Misplaced Pages has the third lowest ratio of sysops to registered accounts - fewer than 1 in 2700.

I wouldn't mind being a supplement to a mentor the same way I drop by at Lethaniol's page, but I feel uncomfortable about the current situation. I read trouble between the lines of the thread that collected on my user talk this week. It represents a series of questions that ought to have been asked but weren't and a set of solutions that got overlooked as a result. Diana and Pete have a go-to person who can point them in the right direction, but you and the other pro-Waldorf editors are out on your own. The bottom line to all of this is that you're post-arbitration, which means it's possible that someone would follow up with an enforcement request aimed at any or all of the named editors. If it comes to that I won't be the admin to act, but any who does act would weigh Pete and Diana's mentorship favorably. Little problems and bad timing can add up - such as sniping at a suspected sockpuppet without filing an investigation request through formal channels. I assume you meant well by coming directly to me, but I happened to have a bad cold and wasn't online to respond until several days afterward. I don't think you have much to worry about this particular incident. Yet if someone establishes it as part of a pattern of disruptive behavior you would have cause to worry and that can happen rather quickly because arbitration is already completed. I hope you take this sincere caution to heart. Durova 19:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like this addressed: thebee accuses me of using multiple accounts. This can easily be proved or disproved. Admins can check, and I would appreciate if they would do so. I would like thebee to retract the accusation once it is disproven, please. I write under my own name, always.DianaW 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I was never blocked as far as I know. I have not tried to make any edits to these pages in several weeks with the exception of trying to correct a typo in references. I found on trying to edit that article that I could open and edit other sections but not the reference section. I wasn't sure if I was blocked for some reason pertaining to the arbitration, since the page was semi-protected, or if it was a technical glitch, but as I had no plan to edit more extensively then anyway I didn't pursue it. When I checked again a day or two later the problem seemed to have disappeared anyway.DianaW 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova wrote to thebee: "Diana and Pete have a go-to person who can point them in the right direction" - yes, but keep in mind this only works if we KNOW what someone is saying about us, accusing us of, etc. Thebee has a longstanding pattern of working down lists of admins, moving to the next name when one doesn't give him satisfaction, and if you want to know what he's up to, you have to try to stay a couple of guesses ahead of him. Well forgive me but I have a life! I had stopped watching Durova's talk page and only found out via a circuitous route that thebee had accused me of sockpuppetry. There ought to be some way a person is notified if someone's running around finding people to whisper to about him/her. I can't monitor the talk page of everyone who's ever participated in these articles. If someone is going to make accusations they need to do it formally and the person accused needs to be notified. I don't think my mentor even know anything about it, and obviously, he can't wander around listening at keyholes to see what thebee is saying about me elsewhere on wikipedia either.DianaW 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Easy there, Diana. Out of 1000+ administrators only about 17 have access to checkuser. I'm not one of them. I've left a query regarding whether we could get one in this situation - they aren't easy to come by. That final paragraph levels a serious accusation against Bee without any supporting evidence. We call that forum shopping or admin shopping and it's seriously frowned upon when it's demonstrated. This sockpuppetry allegation looks like a simple misunderstanding that should have defused itself in five minutes at most. If you really mean to make that accusation then raise it formally with diffs and supporting evidence or else don't mention it at all. Sniping from both sides, bypassing mentorship, and escalating the accusations after an administrator is on the matter does not help. I still doubt the seriousness of arbitration has impressed itself on the parties in this case. Durova 23:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be hard to give long lists of diffs showing his repeated appeals to many admins. In fact, Durova, this is documented somewhere in the arbitration evidence, I believe. He complained to one admin after another about Pete's "incivilities." At least one admin simply ignored him. I can indeed document this if it requested, but I don't think this is worth anyone's time. He also has pages at his own web site that document it. I also think merely reviewing his contribs list looking at Talk pages of admins would document it. Read his contribs list chronologically, and the pattern is there. It is easy to compare this, for instance, with my own record. I have never yet appealed to or contacted an admin to protest thebee's actions, or anyone's - I have only replied when accused of something. Hgilbert wrote about me here as having lied and misrepresented my experiences, and he suggested publicly here that Waldorf critics are people who do not have custody of their children. I am accused, repeatedly, of being a member of a hate group. This is a criminal accusation. Members of hate groups are violent and dangerous people. I speak up for myself - I do not beg admins to help me. I think I deserve an apology from thebee if his serious accusation against me is shown to be untrue. This does not come from me, it comes from HIM and I don't understand, in reply to this situation, the meaning of repeated references to the seriousness of the arbitration, unless once again it simply means, Pipe down or you'll get banned. I would rather be banned than repeatedly threatened. I am confident I have done nothing in any way to violate arbitration rulings.DianaW 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Diana, I know you've got your hands full. I'm going through his contribution list right now and will document this activity. Then we can have a better picture. Pete K 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Right guys please can we draw a line underneath this (I lit have :) ) so that we can give TheBee back his talkpage - I think all the points have been made, and if discussion needs to go on - please take it to mine or Durova's talk page cheers.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lethaniol (talk • contribs) 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry - I actually forgot this was TheBee's talk page. Apologies to TheBee. Pete K 23:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I please just note that I am not even remotely interested in documenting this, I have absolutely no interest in drawing up long lists of grievances against people, and I would NEVER consider pursuing this with diffs or engaging admins in discussing thebee's behavior, except that Durova has suggested that I'm the one being uncivil. I had already told Lethaniol fine drop it. But then I was told it needed documenting! Thank you Pete. I wouldn't spend long, then again it won't take long will it.DianaW 00:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the line, now I can't figure out how to move it.DianaW 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Diana, if the diffs are somewhere in the arbitration case then a link to the appropriate page section would be sufficient. The larger point I've set out to make is step back and disengage. According to WP:AGF, the onus is on Bee to make a case for you having a sockpuppet. It's very forthcoming to offer to undergo checkuser voluntarily to clear the air. The point where you crossed the line was in making a reciprocal accusation without backing it up - especially on Bee's own talk page. What Lethaniol and I are striving to do is to depersonalize this whole affair. Just the facts, ma'am. Durova 02:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova: Please. I'm begging now. Please find someone who can check user. He has repeated the accusation above: "The myths that Diana resp Wikiwag and Pete at present work hard to introduce . . ." because you all have more or less assured him that he can get away with this, that nobody is going to check. Please. Set it to rest. It is not a matter of my being "forthcoming." I should not have to be forthcoming to disprove accusations against myself, when I never did anything to make anyone even suspect I was using a sock puppet, and there there is a mechanism by which it can be determined if I was Wikiwag. If it is still required that I document something against him, I will do so, but I admit I feel really burned that the tables have been turned on me here. Could we at least deal with one incivility at a time? My point was lost when accusations of incivility were turned on me: my point was how am I to even know when accusations are made against me by someone who deals with so many different admins? Could we deal with the accusation HE made against ME before requiring me to go on some kind of field trip providing diffs against HIM on something unrelated? (a pattern that, furthermore, already IS documented - this is wikipedia, and all you have to do is review this user's contribs log.) Please.DianaW 12:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore there has never ONCE been a request made to him, by any admin, that he document the accusations he has made against me here. Practically every post equates (incorrectly, but never mind) "WC = PLANS" and PLANS is a group he refers to, without documentation, as a "hate group." This is a libelous accusation against me, it is so serious it could prevent me getting a job, it could get the POLICE interested in me. And no one asks him for "diffs"! Could we please deal with reality here. His record of trying to game the system here is blatant, and my own record is equally transparent to any admin who wishes to review it - merely review our respective contributions. Thank you.DianaW 12:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user