Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thebee (talk | contribs) at 10:49, 7 February 2007 (→Concerns over future bias unjustified: Hope for post arbitration situation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitrators

These arbitrators were active for the original case and are still members of the arbitration committee.

Arbitrators active on this case

• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Morven
• Charles Matthews
• Dmcdevit (currently inactive)
• Raul654
• SimonP

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 particpate 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
• FloNight
• Blnguyen

Question

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)

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)

Ok, got that thanks User:Lethaniol 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf education blank page

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)

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)

Counter-example by way of illustration

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)

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)

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)

Regrettably, Venado's probably right. That fairly describes the dynamic on this article. - Wikiwag 02:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Several problems come up in relation to finding citations that apply to all or most Waldorf schools:

1) All Waldorf schools are inherently independent in that there is no mandated curriculum or administration as there are in public schools.

2) On the other hand, AWSNA, for example, does accredit North American Waldorf schools and holds the trademark for the term Waldorf. If they wanted to, they could rescind accreditation or the right to use the name Waldorf from any school that did not meet their criteria, and in doing so they could in effect create a mandate for curriculum and administrative policies.

3) Even if one could find citations that state what "all" or "no" Waldorf schools do, they would probably be disallowed by the previous arbcom ruling because they would most likely be from Waldorf sources like AWSNA.

4) Is the intent of a Misplaced Pages article to a) give an intensely detailed listing of all aspects of a topic or b) to provide general information about a topic? According to what I read in the encyclopedia article, we must consider who the target audience is for the article. Is the audience prospective Waldorf parents? Then we must be fairly detailed. Is it the general population? Then an overview would probably suffice. Unfortunately with such passionate editors, we struggle to include every little detail as crucial to our perspective of Waldorf.

Henitsirk 03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree with everything everyone here has said so far. As with any claim, this one would be disected. The first question, in my mind, would be - is the claim "true" according to my experience? Do Waldorf schools teach social responsibility and environmental stewardship? If the answer is "yes" then I wouldn't have a problem leaving the claim as is. I may look for the hidden language or the misunderstood phrasing in the article. If the "social responsibility" they are teaching is really a veiled phrase disguising an exercise in which students are taught about Steiner's three-fold social order, I would want to make that part clear, and yes, I may search for sources that demonstrate this. The next question, for me, would be - does this Waldorf school's activities represent what I know about ALL Waldorf schools? Again, is this claim consistent with what I have experienced? If not, and the claim is properly sourced, I may want to introduce language that limits the claim to the one Waldorf school that it applies to - because, in my experience, the claim is not applicable to all schools.

For me, my experience determines how I will approach each claim. My experience is 15+ years with Waldorf as a parent and 15+ years reading Steiner, my kids are 3rd generation Waldorf students, I was married to a Waldorf teacher who is the daughter of a Waldorf teacher and a biodynamic farmer - so I feel I have some pretty deep insight into Waldorf. My experience, in other words, is nothing to sneeze at and I take my own experience of Waldorf very seriously. Some claims are automatically disputable for me - "Anthroposophy is not in the curriculum" types of claims, for example, don't hold water for me even if some source is found that supports this (I know it's there, and at one time in my life, I insisted that it SHOULD be there). Other claims, like the one above, require careful consideration and investigation. While I wouldn't doubt that each Waldorf methods school has a garden, I may question if the lesson is "stewardship" or if work in the garden is sometimes used as punishment for children (as has been my own experience). Is such analysis appropriate for such a simple claim? If it's a claim that is surrounded by more brochure-like claims, then yes, maybe each claim should be carefully examined, properly sourced, and produced in exactly the form it is presented in the article (e.g. one school doing this). If the same claim is in a balanced article, then it becomes less important to the overall tone of the article itself. The Waldorf article suffered from a POV tone and unsubstantiated claims. Improvement has come at great expense and tremendous effort through careful analysis of claims like the one above. Pete K 15:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Public Figure

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)

Fred has indicated that it should be done via email. - Wikiwag 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Waldorf Education - Article/Discussion Page

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)

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)

Evidence Page

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)

Fred has added more information to suggest my edits were corrected by HGilbert. Again, these are not my edits that are being corrected - they were introduced by another editor. Pete K 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of propaganda techniques by Pete K

4) The use of information regarding an unfortunate incident involving an individual teacher in the manner information regarding Willie Horton was used is a propaganda technique inappropriate for use in a Misplaced Pages article.

The use of the words emotionally charged words "propaganda technques" and their implication is, indeed, a propaganda technique in and of itself. If the head arbitrator is going to use these types of emotionally-charged terms in the proposals in an attempt to sway other arbitrators, it's pretty clear to me that there is a good reason to suggest recusal. Earlier, on Thatcher131's talk page, he stated "Removed another attempt by Pete K to include information violating WP:BIO" - implying that discussion of an issue is an "attempt" to violate WP:BOI. I implore fair-minded arbitrators to please not be swayed by Fred's obvious bias in this issue and to please judge this arbitration fairly. If the articles here have to be NPOV, then certainly the templates for these proceedings also need to be. Thanks! Pete K 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This may probably be deleted, but addressing the actual claim of #4, it is inaccurate to say "incident" here - it was two incidents a year apart. Again the use of "propaganda technique" is inappropriate to describe this - it was a very simple case of producing material for an article that was proberly sourced. There is no evidence provided ANYWHERE to suggest that this was an isolated case. Pete K 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick Suggestion on Proposed remedies

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)

Further Question on Review Process

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)

Note to Fred Baurer about supposedly "removed" links

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

A question on Pete K and this Arbitration

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)

I think I'm about to coin a new word... "Wiki-hunt". Take that Stephen Colbert. Pete K 14:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring by Pete K in Waldorf article and at Waldorf talks page

As the first example of general incivility on my part, Wikiwag at the evidence page links to this diff.

What is the background for it?

21:59, 9 January Wikiwag adds a duplicate Article probation tag to the main page of the article, in addtion to the one already added to the article talks page by Thatcher131. Wikiwag motivates the duplicate tag with: "Added Article Probation tag (I think it's important everyone remember this, and it is appropriate for it to go here))"

17:14, 10 January 2007 I remove the duplicate article probation tag from the article page, arguing "Removed probation tag, only used at Talks pages, see http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Articles_on_probation"

19:33, 10 January 2007 Pete K readds the duplicate article probation tag to the main article page again, writing: "Reverted aggressive editing. No discussion was attempted before editor reverted article again. Tag removal unjustified. Please see discussion and try to participate in it."

The edit by Pete K also readds a broad Google search on 'Waldorf Checklist' as citation leading to the self published site of "Open W", used by Wikiwag to circumvent the prohibition against using self published sites for citation. The "OW" site was used directly by Wikiwag for the same purpose earlier, but had been removed by me as a violation of Misplaced Pages policies for citations.

22:54, 10 January 2007 I remove the inappropriate duplicate article probation tag from the main article page again, telling: "Remove arbitration tag at the top of article in accordance with standard at Misplaced Pages only to have such tags at Talks pages of articles"

22:57, 10 January 2007 Pete K instead adds the duplicate article probation tag to the article talks page, and puts it directly below the already existing article probation tag at the page, added to the page by arbitration clerk Thatcher131, arguing: "OK, let's put it here."

00:08, 11 January 2007 I again remove the inappropriate duplicate article probation tag from the article talks page, telling: "Removed duplicate article probation tag, added by Pete K, saying the same thing as existing article probation tag just above it"

00:12, 11 January 2007 Pete K readds the inappropriate duplicate article probation tag to the talks page again, arguing: "Reverting - let's leave both as one has a graphic that grabs the attention better than the text version"

23:44, 7 January 2007 Pete K had described an edit war to his mentor regarding the PLANS article as a "pissing contest" that he had lost, writing "BTW, the word "expose" doesn't mean that much in all of this - it was just part of the pissing contest (that I lost)." He had gotten a 3RR block for it.

00:28, 11 January 2007 Following the third addition by Pete K of the duplicate article probation tag (two of them readditions), to the article/article talks page, after I have removed them as inappropriate duplications of the already existing tag, I ask, regrettingly at this point losing my temper, referring to his comment three days earlier on his edit warring as a "pissing contest":

"What is this, Pete? One of the pissing contests you at times mention that you engage in?" ()

Pete K defends this ()

During the same time, Pete K repeatedly insists that "anti-racism" is not a "word" and cannot therefore be used in the Waldorf article to describe the the markedly greater anti-racism of Swedish Waldorf pupils in relation to public school pupils, reported by a recent academic study in Sweden. (, , , , ...)

The following day, 13:58, 11 January 2007, Wikiwag tells Pete K he is wrong, and that the word "antiracism" exists, according to the Oxford American Dictionary, ...

00:59, 11 January 2007 Wikiwag describes my question to Pete K about his repeated inappropriate edit warring addition/readdition three times of the duplicate article probation tag to the article, that Wikiwag had been the originator of in the first place, as a "personal attack" on Pete K.

"From where I'm sitting Thebee, you are the one on the (personal) attack.

"Please, please continue. Then the ArbComm can see your behavior and we can be rid of your vitriol once and for all. And FYI - yours was an objectively "polemic" statement. Don't bother using it to describe the comments of others, if you can't avoid it yourself - it's insulting and serves only to diminish your own credibility."

02:59, 12 January 2007 Thetcher131 removes the duplicate Article probation tag from the Talks page, and later tells There is no provision for issuing article or talk page bans, so the second template is inaccurate and should not be used.

15:41, 18 January 2007, after all discussions about it, and final removal by Thatcher131 and explanation of the reason for it, when Wikiwag reterns after a break, Wikiwag again adds the inapproproate duplicate article probation tag to the article page ... After I inform Thatcher131 about it, he removes it again.

In general, the edits by Pete K and Wikiwag stand out as systematic long term efforts to build and cultivate an air of controversy around Waldorf education, from beyond to far beyond what can properly be motivated from reliable and balanced sources.

This is life editing "with" Pete K and Wikiwag at Misplaced Pages.

I'm sorry about the "pissing contest" question to Pete K. I lost my temper for a short time after all his edit warring over simple self evident issues, and should not have done it.

Thebee 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, editing with you here has always been such a pleasure. It's refreshing that you finally acknowledge that everyone else is at fault. Better to whine for months to administrator after administrator, make false accusations "sockpuppet", "libel" to get rid of those opinions you don't like instead of putting some effort into building an article that fairly describes Waldorf. Even Waldorf supporters are embarassed by your tactics here and elsewhere. Pete K 14:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

For my own part, as a new user I'll cite WP:TRI and my associate belief that I was improving this Misplaced Pages article; I submit that the body of my edits to the article and my calls for cooperation bear out that assertion. Moreover, on the issue of the "double probation tag," the rules describing its use are contradictory; a point I made to Thatcher131 here, which he conceded here. There has been no attempt by me to re-add the tag since this issue was clarified.

Conversely, there is copious evidence already submitted that Thebee has routinely failed at both WP:NPOV and the second rule (the crude term for which I will not write here, as Fred has already admonished its use). It should be likewise noted that Thebee excels at the third rule WP:IAR in a mostly negative fashion. If Thebee's submission is properly entered into evidence, I will support this last assertion with the necessary diffs. - Wikiwag 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry - third apology

After I above have described the background for what Wikiwag as evidence links to and describes as general incivility by me, my short loss of temper at one time after the inappropriate addition by Wikiwag of a duplicate article probation tag to the article page in addition to the existing one at the talks pag, and the following baiting by Pete K in his repeated three times addition of the same duplicate article probation tag to the article/talks page after i had removed it, Wikiwag has retracted the acceptance of the second of two apologies by me in connection with a suspicion I have had that Wikiwag might have been a sock puppet of the user Diana W .

After having read everything the last weeks, I don't suspect that Wikiwag is a sock puppet of Diana W, and apologize for this expressed suspicion. The "voices" of Diana W and Wikiwag, while exhibiting similarities, are too different for me to continue to suspect this. This is now also supported by the result of a Request for checkuser.

What made me suspect it in the first place was a number of things. Admin Durova also seems to have agreed with me and suspecting some form of puppetry too, though more leaning towards a meat puppet , .

My first apology was for addressing Wikiwag as "Mylady" asking implicitly if Wikiwag was Diana W, during an escalated baiting by Pete and Wikiwag. I apologized to Wikiwag shortly afterwards. and Wikiwag accepted the apology .

My second apology to Wikiwag was for hurting Wikiwag's feelings with my suspicion of sock puppetry, and leaving some personal attacks by Wikiwag to the side , .

Thebee 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the acceptance of my second apology, Wikiwag also apologized for the two personal attacks . Thebee 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thebee: An apology is supposed to clear the air and serves as a promise not to behave in the same offensive manner in the future. The problem here is that each time you have "apologized," you have followed it up with another attack - another "bite."

Specifically, you apologized for calling me a woman ("Mylady"), only to go on an extended campaign to label me a sock-puppet after I accepted your apology. You then apologized for the whole extended sock-puppet episode, only to indict me on this page in front of the ArbComm after I accepted your apology. You even bite me again in this so-called "third apology."

When I have apologized for my own ignorant conduct and to you again for my single episode of incivility, I have shown the discipline to not reoffend. As far as you and I were concerned, I was fully prepared to let bygones be bygones. But frankly, I have seen you repeatedly behave in this exact same manner with Pete; the mistake he made was in "fighting fire with fire" as he put it - and now appears that he will likely be banned as a result of him allowing you to provoke him.

I assure you that I will not make that same mistake.

I will therefore conclude by saying simply that I do not believe you, and I regard your repeated apologies for repeated misdeeds as hollow and without substance. This is your third strike with me, and I am done with indulging this behavior of yours. Kindly take care that you similarly avoid behaving in a way which reflects poorly on you, and we will let the ArbComm settle this appropriately. But in my opinion, the only just consequence would be your removal, since I do not believe you are able or willing to change you behavior in order to reach consensus.

Sincerely,

- Wikiwag 15:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

TheBee: LOL! Yeah, now after your accusations have been proven to be false. You're interested in smearing me and Diana. The truth is, you look for any excuse to get critics of Waldorf banned from editing - ANYWHERE. Both you and HGilbert are initially friendly to new editors and then become intimidating when a new editor challenges your gushing praises of Waldorf. TheBee, your "apologies" are hollow and disingenuous and always include some additional slam against the editor you are apologizing to. They are clearly intended to get you off the hook with any administrators that may be watching. The truth is, I am not ashamed to identify myself and I don't have any hidden agendas - I have no reason to hide anything. Can you say the same about yourself, and Linda, and Deborah, and Serena? You guys are all over the internet pretending to be multiple people, always pushing your pro-Waldorf/slam critics agenda. You are nothing more than a small group of organized Waldorf fanatics who have made anyone who sees fault in Waldorf your enemy. No left-handed apology necessary - you are who you are. Pete K 15:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Libel Question - Are we just going to let the accusation hang in the air?

There was a charge of "libel" made by TheBee. This not only smears my name but violates Misplaced Pages policy. The research into this claim has been or is being conducted out of view of the participants here. When are we going to get the results of this review. I am very concerned that this claim/attack against me has been made without any type of disciplinary measures taken. This is VERY serious and I have asked several times that the air be cleared about this. Can we PLEASE have an answer on this issue? Thanks! Pete K 15:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected and restored Talk:Waldorf education

A User:EdwinHJ has unprotected the Talk:Waldorf education page, that Fred Bauder protected and blanked 14:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC), pending resolution of Biographies of living persons dispute. In response to a question by Pete K, EdwinHJ has also restored the contents of the page. Is this issue resolved now? Thebee 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Concerns over future bias unjustified

I have seen concerns expressed here that the articles in this group will become biased in the future if only editors sympathetic to Waldorf education are active. I believe this concern is misplaced for the following reasons:

1. I believe that the last months' editing has shown that particularly these editors are aiming for a balanced presentation; see the version before the last edit conflicts. All relevant sides of a source's presentation are being included; see this edit.
2. A great deal of what may have seemed to be and was criticized as original research in the pre-arbitration article has now been shown to be well-supported through objective documentation by verifiable sources, and has also now been rephrased to correspond more closely to such sources. The pre-arbitration presentation may have been more casual and freely worded, but in the majority of cases diverged suprisingly little from what mainstream sources have now been found to say; in the relatively few cases where material was not found to be verifiable, it has been excluded and no one has any desire to bring this back.
3. I personally seek to improve the objectivity of all of these articles.
4. There is little danger that only sympathetic editors will be present; there are presently and will continue to be a number of editors who are in no way at risk of being overly sympathetic (to put it tactfully). Hgilbert 21:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an incredible appeal coming from the person who wrote the biased articles in the first place. The articles are only slightly less biased now because of months of butting heads with this and other pro-Waldorf editors who insisted on POV pushing well after the arbitration. Additionally, it was shown in the previous arbitration and to some extent in this one that these particular pro-Waldorf editors are aggressive toward newcomers, and are intent on frustrating the efforts of editors who are interested in working toward balanced articles. Editors, Lumos3 and Fergie seem to have been chased out of the articles completely. DianaW, a professional editor, has apparently found it fruitless to battle these aggressive editors. Right up until this renewed arbitration, the pro-Waldorf contingent was still producing Anthroposophical sources and still insisting that controversial material was not controversial in order to slip it in without sourcing it properly. When they tried to slip a Master Waldorf Teacher, Jack Petrash, in as a neutral source, they were caught red-handed. They tried the same thing with Henry Barnes. It would be incredibly naive to think that Waldorf activists and Waldorf teachers left on their own would produce balanced articles with acceptable sources. And we have only scratched the surface of the biased articles here. A hard-fought battle ensued over the "psuedoscience" tag on the Anthroposophical Medicine article. In the Steiner article, it took months to get the pro-Waldorfers to remove the findings of their own Anthroposophical Dutch Commission report that they interpreted as having excused Steiner of racism (it didn't). The material here is extremely complex and NOBODY will be able to identify all the weasel-worded, false claims that are supposedly supported by the references. While I don't consider myself an expert, I am able to spot this type of material when it is produced (I don't think anyone here can deny this). Without meaning offense, the pro-Waldorf group cannot be trusted here to avoid the temptation to push their POV, and they shouldn't be. Pete K 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lumos3 and Fergie are good examples of editors who have worked on this article and will surely continue to work on it. Hgilbert 00:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They've been inactive for months - and who can blame them. Fergie, as it happens, just recently wrote me here expressing that Misplaced Pages needs me. I'm guessing this is because few people have been able to stand up to the relentless onslaught that customarily follows any critical edit. Pete K 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In my work on this article, I have observed that if ALL editors keep cool heads and refrain from any "onslaughts" or personal attacks, then actual constructive work is accomplished. In the same vein, if we can try to remain as objective as possible and not become personally defensive, we will be able to keep on guard against POV problems.

I think dissenting/critical viewpoints are important, if only as a natural check against bias. Anyone with the knowledge and inclination to edit this article will probably be inherently biased, either pro or con. All of these problems have occurred because people are not assuming good faith, and taking things very personally/pushing personal agendas.

Let's move forward by remembering the principles of consensus and civility. Henitsirk 03:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Proposed findings of fact by the main arbitrator identifies one editor, who last year compared himself to Christ crucified and identified himself as "King of the Critics" of the type of school where he has told that his now divorced wife works, as having distorted information and using propaganda techniques in what he has added to the article on Waldorf ed. The identified editor is not Hgilbert or a pro-Waldorf editor. Hopefully the situation will change into a more neutral and reasonably balanced serious discussion climate with the closing of this reopened arbitration. Thebee 10:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)