Arhive of Talks page 12 January 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Invitation to join a Project

Dear TheBee, I am starting a project to overhaul and balance the article on Waldorf ed. I would like to invite you to take part because of your ongoing contributions to the page. Please le me know at my Talk page if you would like to participate. Wonderactivist 16:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wonderful Bee,

I will send your friend an invitation to join the project and will be thrilled to list you as a participant. Unfortunately I broke a finger last week and have not been typing much - I will set up the project pages later today.

I understand everyone's concern...and I also love Waldorf ed...but I also love Wikipedia and find that it is just necessary to intervene to make this a fair, unbiased page which is notthetopc of ongoing edit wars. Please understand that one of the ideas I plan to advance with this project is no outside links other than to scholarly articles. This step alone would end many of the ongoing problems.

My own page and other homescholing pages have been removed from this page - as the homeschooling page offers resources which will help them find everything - and has gone through its own process of reducing huge numbers of links to just a few.

I hope you know that I respect your contributions to the page over time and will welcoe you asa member of the team to make this a more stable article.

Best wishes,

Lucie Wonderactivist 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Project Page

Dear Bee, I just want to again invite you to join the project - the project page has been moved to its proper Wiki place (I am here a year and still a newbie really),User:Wonderactivist/Waldorf Project Team Page. I really think you have a whole lot to offer this project amnd with the help of unbiased Wiki editors, I believe we can end the ongoing edit wars that have been the waste of so much time for so many really good people. Please do join us, we're currently talking about the introduction. Wonderactivist 02:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you contact me?

I'd prefer to keep all wiki related discussion on-wiki if you don't mind. When conversation goes behind closed doors there's always somebody ready to shout Cabal!!! or similar. If your question relates to the Waldorf Education article it's in the best interests of everybody to keep all discussions open and transparent. That said, how can I be of assistance? I'm also looking into the other points you raised now and will help out shortly if I'm able to. -- Longhair 00:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Wikipedia has several levels of dispute resolution detailed at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If there's editor behaviour that you are not happy with, feel free to provide me with the actual diffs where you feel the editor concerned may be breaching Wikipedia policy. I will be happy to act accordingly if it is proven breaches of policy are occuring. Of course, you are welcome to initiate any dispute resolution procedure you deem necessary without my intervention. I trust this advice is the best course of action for now considering the size and length of the dispute, but if there's any other way I can be of some assistance please let me know. -- Longhair 07:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and a belated Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, Thebee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 07:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf debate

Pete K was the one who mentioned this debate had been raging for decades. I never made any assumption as such but I'm aware this issue hasn't recently began here at Wikipedia. He's currently serving a 24 hour block from editing, imposed by myself for a violation of the three revert rule. He is welcome to return once his block expires. Please be mindful of this policy so it doesn't catch you or anyone else out. I'm not interesting in taking any sides, but I will keep the article free of edit warring and personal attacks from both sides. Thanks for your assistance to date. I'm here to help further if any other issues arise. -- Longhair 01:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Decades" is an overstatement, maybe typical of Pete. Maybe 9 years in a more organized form initiated by "PLANS, starting its anti-Waldorf campaign by picketing against a public Waldorf methods school, spreading and supporting allegations that anthroposophy is a satanic religion and that public Waldorf methods schools teach Wicca to the pupils.

Some years later, the President and Secretary of PLANS then hired a Private Detective to "in secret" sneak in at a voluntary, private, off campus, outside school hours Advent celebration with K-grade 3 children of the coming Christmas with a video camera hidden under his coat, to prove to school districts that Waldorf methods schools are religious in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution. See the history of the WC.

Maybe you can call that debate.

How do you - strictly as Admin at Wikipedia - view the repeated insertion of identical material in a short introductory page to a sub section of an article, that belongs in the sub section, and is discussed there, by someone (PK) who refuses to discuss the issue in connection with its proper page? Or can't I ask you how you - purely as Admin - view Wikipedia guidelines and their application?

To tell you honestly, this debate at Wikipedia is killing me.

Thanks for your comment and support,

--Thebee 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding NPOV

You asked on my talk page a Question regarding NPOV - my response: Talk:PLANS#NPOV_-_In_support_of_Plans and [1]. I agree with the issue you raised. This is not really a content dispute I want to get dragged into but I am happy to support the observation of Wikipedia policies, if necessary expalining them to users.--Arktos ^talk 09:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will you do this in this case? Thanks, --Thebee 10:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide my opinion on matters of policy, but I know all but nothing about Waldorf or PLANS. The way out of content issues to my mind is with citations of reliable sources and I think the Wkipedia policies and guidelines provide useful parameters to operate within.--Arktos ^talk 10:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you implement what you tell with a request at the page? Thanks, --Thebee 10:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, or are you looking for more?--Arktos ^talk 10:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you suggest I delete the argumentative section, referring to violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#The_neutral_point_of_view or take some other action? --Thebee 10:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow 24 hours for a response to the tag and in the mean time think how to phrase more neutrally if possible rather than remove altogether. Replace with more neutral text after 24 hours (some will say 24 hours isn't long enough but on a volatile article I think it is) - perhaps having allowed discussion on proposed replacement text on talk page first. If you had placed what others deemed controversial text, how would you like it to be dealt with? - how would good faith be demonstrated? The end state needs to be neutral though, so its not only about being nice.--Arktos ^talk 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! How about the long quote at the end from a general and Copyright perspective?

I don't see it as a copyvio, it is properly attributed and clearly a quote if we are both talking about the speech extract within the section PLANS#Waldorf_Master_Teacher_talks_about_PLANS. I think a cite is needed about the consequence of the speech. I don't know enough as to whether the whole thing is sufficiently notable to be included. Would naything be lost if it wasn't. Could it be referred to more briefly, ie paraphrase to give something like:

Waldorf teachers have noted that Dan Dugan, noted critic of the Waldorf system was not the cause of the problem but rather shed light on to issues with the Waldorf education system (and give cite to speech already referenced)

Just my two cents. What is there doesn't breach any policy or guideline but is perhaps unnecessarily verbose for the purpose.--Arktos ^talk 11:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have described how the speech is used by PLANS at its site in a comment at the Waldorf:Talks page. It is also described here. Can that be described at the PLANS page as addition to the quote? --Thebee 11:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On "If you had placed what others deemed controversial text, how would you like it to be dealt with?":

Well, I try to avoid violating Wikipedia guidelines, not argue in articles, describe facts using neutral language and stick to statements that I can provide references/citations for. --Thebee 10:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I hope all goes well with your editing :-) I know it isn't always that easy but it helps if your editing has met all the guidelines.--Arktos ^talk 11:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's sort of not quite my experience from discussions at the Waldorf:Talks page. --Thebee 11:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding possible personal attack

At the PLANS:Talks page one user writes to me: "You have replied to a request for documentation, with a bunch of sleaze." Does that fall within the category of personal attack? Thanks, --Thebee 11:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably - are you sure you want to escalate though or just ignore - it reflects badly on the writer not you doesn't it?--Arktos ^talk 11:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a limit to accepted number of personal attacks at Wikipedia. If they do not start to be pointed out at some time, how do you know when the limit has been reached? --Thebee 11:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can record instances via using diffs - all instances contribute. The user who made the comment above has been warned by me [2]--Arktos ^talk 11:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, these personal attacks are killing me. --Thebee 11:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a description by User DW herself 3 September of how she relates to the expected reasoned discussion culture here at Wikipedia, and the warning she received against making personal attacks in the discussion here, see here. For some comments on the issue she writes that she would bring into the discussion, if she did not get her will through, see here and here --Thebee 10:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - I didn't understand the latter two refs - I am not into the content! She noted that she was chastised, hopefully she will behave here in future (ever the optimist). The page you need by the way is WP:PAIN to report instances of personal attacks and/or lack of civility. Please note the rules at the top of the page.--Arktos ^talk 10:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ref! The main bait used by the WC's since some years, to get people hooked up and enraged in their anti-Waldorf campaign, after the first allegations that Waldorf schools teach the pupils witchcrft, is to cultivate a myth that Steiner was an anti-Semite. The two links analyze some of the main arguments used by the WC's to achieve this, and describe the view of R.S. of Jewry and Judaism and how it is related to in Waldorf education. The first mentioned link and other articles at Waldorf Answers try to document the baselessnes of and dismantle the myth, and other demagoguery by the WC's.

On "hopefully she will behave here in future (ever the optimist)": Her own description of her habitual way of "arguing" can seem to speak against your hope. But optimism is what keeps the world up and running ;-)/ How do you suggest arguing against self described "rants and raving, and rants and ravings" every second hour by people here, using it seemingly to try to "prove" that the WC-group is not a hate-type of group ...?-/ --Thebee 11:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay unenraged (is that a word? perhaps stay calm is better) and reference your assertions with reliable sources. Be reasonable. Edit elsewhere too - there is a tonne to do :-)--Arktos ^talk 11:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding revert

Does the three revert rule refer to three reverts in three different articles, three reverts of different edits in one article, or three reverts of the same edit in the same article? Thanks, --Thebee 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR - refers to three reverts concerning the same content in one article. 4th revert and you will be blocked if reported. Please read the policy - there are a few exceptions (egregious vandalism for example).--Golden Wattle (formerly known as Arktos) ^talk 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Thebee 07:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charter school case

Arktos, You suggest that a special article be written on the charter school case by the WC against two public school districts. It is already described in detail in the article on PLANS. --Thebee 21:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly worth breaking into a separate article. There are formats and templates to writing up cases - no reeason that they can't be employed iwhtin a section though. I recommend the use of info boxes as an easy way of summarising the case. I would aso recommend a categorising into a relevant category , eg Category:United States First Amendment case law and Category:United States church-state separation case law and adding to the body of similar articles - see Abington School District v. Schempp or Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet. The more important point though was if the placement of the court transcripts wasn't OK and there is no link to government transcripts (not sure why not, there is in Australia), place the transcripts on wikisource to resolve the website dispute. A write up about the case occus here on Wikipedia.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on limit to acceptable Edit warring by User P.K.

Hi Golden Wattle,

Can you look at 25+ examples of Edit warring by User P.K. in different articles from 20 August up to 9 September (seven of them today), 8 personal attacks, and spamming of Talks page with duplicate POV quotes from vandalism of main article on subject, belonging in other article, there as part of NPOV, and spamming of Waldorf article with duplicate links to anti-Waldorf site in different link categories, documented here, and tell where the acceptable limit is for such personal attacks and vandalism of articles, including the latest one, using false and defamatory allegations as motivation, making another admin block the article from further editing, and with the user then telling he's Rolling on The Floor Laughing?

Where's the limit to where you go from warning and 24 hr block to permanent blocking? 10 Edit warring examples? 15? 20? 25?

Do you have a standard?

Just curious, sort of ...

Thanks, --Thebee 18:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a standard, not I believe do other admins. There have been editors blocked indefinitely for exhausting the community's patience. It usually gets discussed on the admin noticeboards. I strongly suggest you take it to WP:PAIN or Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and admins who have not previously been involved can look at it - this applies to a more immediate response required - I have no experience with the latter, forum but issues raised at PAIN get dealt with quite promptly. For the longer term, you can raise a Request for Comment and gauge the community's reaction that way - I would recommend that as the next step rather than a dialogue with just one or two admins. See WP:RFC#Request comment on users. It may be that you want to raise an article RfC instead.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(For some comments on the spelling of the word accept/i/a/ble, see below.)

Waldorf Project Update

Hey Bee, so sorry to read of the problems. I know you haven't formally signed up for the project, but since you expressed interest on my Talk page, I wanted to give you an update as I am doing with all project members. You are so welcome to join in at Wikipedia:WikiProject Waldorf Project

Consultation Stage

We are currently in a stage of consulting with unbiased Wiki administrators about project management and plan to proceed with our next steps in 2 or3 days.

At that point we will also surely have final project pages set up outside of my user. Wonderactivist 04:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a copy of my note to admin and input has already begun. Wonderactivist 05:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Longhair and Cormaggio, Thank you immeasurably for your help with the Waldorf project so far. As you will note below, I am planning shortly to move the project pages to within alt ed - just want to clarify structure first. It is currently at User:Wonderactivist/Waldorf Project Team Page

With your admin experience, and the amount of back-n-forth this article has undergone - actually speeding up since the proposed project - I would like your opinion on strategies to manage the project if you should have time.

I see two major issues:

1 there are "sides" within the group instead of a single focus on creating a good article. While this is somewhat to be expected, I also expected a greater level of professionalism. Is there a known strategy to begin to turn this around?

2 Unbelievably, I think,we have actually reached almost a consensus on the Introduction. I would like to focus on this positive and if possible have it become a springboard for examining just one section at a time. 3 On the current project page, a format for the article has been proposed, while the person actually rewrote the whole article, I propose taking just the OUTLINE - the section names 0- and beginnning with agreeing upon the sections.

Other than the administrative questions, my project strategy will be to set up two pages within the alt ed project:

1 to lay out a structure - outline only - for the page 2 to finalize with formal agreement, the introduction. 3 ONLY begin work on the next section when we have agreed upon the above two, then moving just one section at a time.

My hope is that it will disarm the ongoing wars over fine points and pet projects.

What is your opinion?

And thank you from the bottom of my transplanted Texas heart! Wonderactivist 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner edit warring

This edit warring has to stop. I am warning all three parties involved, yourself, Pete K and Hgilbert. I am also not going to be a mediator in this content dispute. But I am warning all three of you, if anymore diffs I see are revert warring on this article or any other related article, all three of you will be reported for 3RR vioations. Please don't put yourself and others in conflicts which result in edit warring. Please discuss this until resolved and then make the appropriate change, ok? — The Future 19:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete does not describe his repeated spamming of the article with ever new and earlier POV quotes as 'reverts'. He does not accept to bring them to the proper article for discussion and editing there, and has refused to accept any such suggestions whatsoever. It's the same type of spamming of the waldorf article he engaged in with repeated duplicate links in all sorts of link categories, to an extreme anti-waldorf site when he entered Wikipedia. What do you suggest? Just leaving them as they are in the main article? Or do you not consider them to constitute spam of the article? Thanks, --Thebee 20:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in this case, nor do I want to mediate it, as I said above. My suggestion to you if the other party is unwilling to discuss it with you to ask for a third parties intervention, maybe kindly ask someone at the Incidents noticeboard for someone's opinion on the situation. — The Future 00:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different quotes even though on the same topic do not breach the 3 revert rule. Removing quotes to revert the article to the state before the quotes quite possibly would breach the rule.

All editors need to spend some time on very meaningful edit summaries explaining their rationale for the edit. In my view, PeteK's edit summaries are better than most of the editors contributing to the Rudolf Steiner article in explaining what he is doing and why.

When you removed the Jewry quote [3], you said in the edit summary Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - Revert repeated vandalism of article by spamming with POV quotes that belong in other article. You didn't however, place the quote there appearently. In reviewing the Rudolf Steiner article after your edit summary, I feel you removed information that had been cited and the referral on to the other article disguises the extent of the issues with this topic. The lead does not say strongly enough that there were issues with his approach.

I don't in any way wish to be provocative, but if you said about another famous Austrian that only The views of [this famous Austrian-born person] on the subject of race and ethnicity take up less than [X, X being very small] percent of his lifetime's work output it would not wash. There is a difficulty with anachronism, ie were his remarks reasonable at the time. There is a difficulty with what he should be remembered for. But apparently there are also difficulties with what Steiner said.

Joan Sutherland, very famous Australian singer is noted mostly for her singing but did make racist comments in 1994 (Although, she does say she's sorry for saying in public in 1994 that she was not pleased to be interviewed in an Australian post office by a Chinese or Indian to get an Australian passport.) and the controversy is recalled more than a decade later.Profile with Australia's national broadcaster - note the lead position for the controversial remarks for somebody who is noted for singing. Similarly, Australian politician, Arthur Calwell, is remembered for his racist quip "Two Wongs don't make a White". Perhaps the difference between Calwell and Sutherland is that Sutherland's sphere of endeavour was nothing to do with leading thinking on the way people treat other people. As a politician, Calwell was in the sphere of people relations and thus his remarks on racism are more important. As an educator, philosopher and social theorist, Steiner was also in that field, thus a different standard applies as to whether his remarks are reported and are considered important.

One's views, and the impact of those views, are not summed up by the percentage of effort spent making those views. However the views can be put into the context of the time. For example, Aristotle was in favour of slavery - though in the context of his time this was hardly a surprising view. Were Steiner's vews in line with European views in the 1920s etc?

My two cents. Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I really appreciate them! I will try to answer them later. Just some comments! I've put them temporarily here for the time being. Again thanks for the comments! --Thebee 01:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't link to that site - maybe it is just busy but just in case can you please check the address? Regards Golden Wattle ^talk 11:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted that too. It seems inaccessible since some hours. But ... it seems to just have come online again.

What effects does WE have on the pupils regarding the issue discussed?

According to a recent study of a number of Waldorf pupils in Sweden, (summary of 4/6 parts of it here, original here, none seemingly accessible though the basic domain seems to be), the research showed that the majority of the pupils at both public and Waldorf schools repudiated Nazism and racism. However, the proportion of pupils who suggested anti-Nazi and anti-racist solutions, i.e., solutions that involved counteracting or stopping Nazism and racism was considerably greater among the Waldorf pupils (93%) than among pupils at municipal schools (72%). How much comes from the social backgrounds of the pupils, and how much from the education as such? This is not immediately clear from the study. Best wishes, --Thebee 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Remove indents) - thanks - read your comments.

You say The culture and time RS lived in and much commented on with regard to all cultural, partly political, and natural scientific aspects of in some 6,000 lectures and several books during the first decades of the 20th century was pervasively racist, and all social thinking took place within a conceptual frame, dominated by race thinking. - I understand that would be the defence. You would have to substantiate that assertion, but I think the point is worth making in the article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. The assertion there at the moment is less than one percent of his lifetime's work output this sounds like an apology and is not useful even if factual.

As I said with Calwell above, of the many many words he spoke, he is remembered for one phrase - that many others in Australia were anti-Chinese does not excuse the phrase, that he did many good things does not excuse it, it may be tough but any article on Calwell has to deal with it. If racism is a matter raised frequently by Steiner's critics, then the main article and the subsidiary one has to deal with the topic.

Under the Neutral point of view policy there are some important points about fairness of tone and undue weight. As an outsider I cannot judge undue weight. If this is a topic frequently raised then it needs to be dealt with. If the comments reported were made in a coffee break and taken down covertly, qualify them as such and distinguish them from his formally published works. Your respons to me at your website makes sense but I see none of those arguments in the article.

Hope this helps. Happy to comment as an ignorant outsider. Iam afraid to confessing that I still don't get it. I am prepared to acept that Steiner thought and wrote a lot and his views have influence even today. I don't see what is diffferent though about his educational approach to the more mainstream approach. As I commented to Longhair when discussing administrator roles in relation to these articles at one stage:

There is a part of one of the local institutions here in Canberra that names itself The Centre for Excellence in XYZ - someone asked whether anybody would ever name themselves the Centre for Mediocrity in XYZ? Some of the stuff in the Waldorf sphere seems to be of the same mentality - you have children, you teach them - who is going to aim to teach the fragmented child? Anybody ever educate without taking into account the developmental stages of children? Anybody try to educate without PE and art to balance academic studies? It just seems waffle - I guess parents pay fees for the waffle - they want to believe but perhaps they are actually buying smaller class sizes, more patient teachers, or like-minded fellow parents rather than their child being treated as a whole child. No school is going to treat 1/2 a child but they may run out of patience.

Is it this last point that is the difference? From reading the article, the only significant difference that I could highlight from the Waldorf Education article as opposed to what might be characterised as the more mainstream education such as my children experience, was the position on textbooks. I think the articles need to be tightened.

Wikipedia:The perfect article has some guidance - specifically what I was thinking could be improved was is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject. I am not inferring that editors have an imperfect grasp of the subject, but staying away from generalities night help the reader understand the essence of Waldorf Education as distinct from the more general topic of Education. Regards Golden Wattle ^talk 23:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops on Waldorf

Oops! I stand thoroughly corrected. For the Waldorf project, I have actually sought out the opinions of one admin, one unbiased Wikipedian, and one involved, yet highly experienced and demonstrated-to-be-fair Wikipedian.

Cormaggio has made an excellent point: several of the ongoing editors of the Waldorf page have chosen not to take part in this project. It may be that mediation is a better choice. I am happy to spearhead a project, but just as happy to turn it over to mediators. Considering the conflict you have witnessed in the past month, which do you recommend? Personally, I would just like for the edit wars to stop and for the page to be just a bit more stable. Wonderactivist 20:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WonderActivist,

I have chosen not to participate in the project as I fully trust that most of those involved in the article so far - until some WC's entered the stage - are fully competent to do a good job, I have a lot of other things to do, and as much as possible don't want to get sucked in to discussions with WCs, if not absolutely necessary.

With regard to the edit wars, I personally would not suggest turning the issues over to mediator as I have a feeling they in the main will come to an end in a short time. HGilbert is good at finding diplomatic consensus solutions. Best wishes, --Thebee 20:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding BOLD typeface in articles

What is the standard for using BOLD typeface in articles, for example with regard to stressing one point in a described article, that supports one's view, but that is not stressed in the original article described? Thanks, --Thebee 06:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no, bold typeface should not be used this way. Wikipedia:Manual of Style is the guide. At Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles it states when and how bolding is always used in articles - ie to draw attention to the article title in the lead paragraph. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (bold) states Avoid using bold for emphasis. Use italics instead. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (emphasis) reiterates The use of bold is discouraged for emphasis since it is reserved for headings, subheadings, and article names. In general, I would discourage emphasis that was not in the original quote. If emphasis is necessary or appropriate though, it should be italics as per the MoS. Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My question referred to the use of bold by user P.K. in an article about a group he supports. You may have noted. After I asked, it seems to have been corrected, via a change to CAPITAL for another part of the sentence, now changed by someone else to normal text ... --Thebee 09:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Hgilbert 02:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are you being honest?

hey thebee, i just looked at your very first edit [[4]], some people check out the place first, but you launched right into a controversial topic, made a controversial edit (changing 'us-based parent group' into 'anti waldorf lobby-group that some describe as a hate group'), quote your own website as a reference and give the whole thing a unconspicuous edit summary. wow. i did not follow the rest but is that your general style. i find pete k. edit style highly disruptive but if you are complaining about his abuse (it is killing you, you say), is it maybe that he rightly criticises you but does it in his noisy, impolite, way over the top manner. it seems like with your first edit you managed to abuse so many wikiguidelines or just good manners, that there should be an antibarnstar for it. or am i getting this all wrong. please enlighten me.trueblood 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now imagine your 13 year old daughter pops in and sees that according to Wikipedia, Daddy participates on a hate group discussion list. I know I sound "over-the-top" but this kind of editing is what puts me there. Pete K 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay, my fault, somehow i forgot that the oldest edit would be at the bottom. sorry about that. but also in your first edit you quoted yourself. of course i know that because i checked you out. you could call that stalking, but it is a nice feature of wikipedia, that helps you to get an idea where people are coming from. i still think the edit mentioned above is not defensible. if this is your way to edit then i am not surprised about the edit warring. i did offer my two cents of opinion to pete k. too btw. it seems to me that you guys are very much alike. will there be a chance that you get over this enemy thing? trueblood 08:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh and after through pete k. comment below, since he is using my comment as ammunition, that was not intended by me and i think it is dishonest by him. all this personal arguing just fills up space, as it fills up your talk page now and makes it hard to find the issue related arguments. it scares people away that are less emotionally involved. and you probably agree with me that you are both very worked up about things here. i don't think that playing on getting the other side blocked is the ultimate solution here. as soon as you are both starting to look for compromises i'll be there and will flood your talk pages with the appropriate barnstars. promised.trueblood 08:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trueblood, for the record, TheBee's edits are ammunition for me whether you point them out or not. I don't see what you see as being dishonest about it. Did I misunderstand or misquote what you have presented here? TheBee's edits were dishonest, inflamatory and defmamtory - intentionally made to incite hate. That you noticed this to some degree (perhpas not to the degree I noticed it) is good news. It allows him to re-evaluate how his edits are being perceived, just like I have to consider how people have viewed, understood and reacted to my edits. Pete K 14:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking me here at my own personal talks page

Only 90 minutes after Trueblood writes a personal question here to me - not you PeteK - at my personal talks page, you PeteK appear here and address his question, before I do. Aren't you the one who has accused me of stalking you, because I had noted a number of personal attacks by you on me as personally, not someone else, and I made a list of them, after I got tired of them.

Some very few of your personal attacks on me are, just to mention two:

the clear libel, "... S[...] Nord[...], once voted one of the 250 craziest people on the internet, is known among critics for his dishonest portrayal of Waldorf education...",
"... you have a fanatical viewpoint. Someone who washes their hands a hundred times a day may be an expert in hand-washing, but they may also have serious mental problems."

So, you have my talks page on your watchlist, and I shall expect you to come here and address all questions to me here before I do? Should I take this to be "non-stalking"?

For you trueblood: thanks for your question! I started to write an answer to you, but don't want to post it here, after P.K. has started stalking me here on my own personal Talks page. Will try to see if I can find another way to do it. Just a first small comment: the edit you link to was not my first comment here on Wikipedia. I made some 50 ones before that for about three weeks before writing it and I then came to an agreement with the other "critic" on a reformulation of it. If you look at my 'Contrib' page, you'll see that they start on 6 July, three weeks before the one you mention. For an overview of what is found at the WC site, see here. For an overview of the third part of the argumentation, published at the site of the WC, see here. The second description is based on 10 years of experience of the WC. Greetings, --Thebee 21:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you bet you're talk page is on my watchlist. Did you think this was a private email? And your expectations of me are your own. I really can't help what you think. Do you think what you have cited me as saying comes anywhere close to the "hate group" label you tried to throw around? Actually, I don't really care what you think. And, sure, I don't blame you for trying to keep your personal vendetta out of the public view and dragging editors and administrators aside to give them your point of view out of earshot of those who could show it for what it really is - bullshit. If I was dishonest, I might do the same thing. Pete K 21:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I have written regarding the WC site and list refers to the WC-site and list, not to what you have written, though you seem to feel attacked by what I have written about the WC. The answer I started to write to Trueblood had nothing to do with any personal vendetta against you, as you hint. As for what you write as "I don't blame you for [...] If I was dishonest, I might do the same thing.": That's another personal attack according to Wikipedia:NPA. Just keeping track ... ;-( --Thebee 22:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You smear me by association when you smear that group of people because even though I don't belong to their group, lots of Anthroposophists around the internet have tried to suggest that I do. I don't believe you weren't going to attack me personally, but I think you know you lost any chance at appearing credible to me a long time ago. Keep track of all these comments, none of which are personal attacks except by your own standards. BTW, you continually accuse me of slander. That is slanderous in and of itself. You should go back and re-read what I wrote that you keep trying to refer to - it is not slanderous at all. Watch what you say Sune, I'm keeping my eye on you. Pete K 22:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On "Keep track of all these comments, none of which are personal attacks except by your own standards." Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples_of_personal_attacks For some examples of them, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thebee/WikiViolationsByPK On 9 october, you added another five to the list, except for all those preceding them. And these don't start to include what the Wiki:NPA refers to as "religious [...] epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."

On "You smear me by association when you smear that group of people because even though I don't belong to their group, lots of Anthroposophists around the internet have tried to suggest that I do." If you don't feel associated with them, why did you start spamming the article on Waldorf education with repeated and duplicate links to them the first thing you did the first three days after you arrived here at Wikipedia on 20 August 2006?

After you got your first warning by Arktos on 1 Sept, at least two other people have requested that you stop your personal attacks. Just a week ago a DogNewTricks required that you stop them:

"Pete K, you are being incredibly aggressive. Please stop attacking editors. Disagreements are normal. Accusing someone of playing naive to do harm is, in my opinion, very inappropriate and demeaning. I cannot comment on the article because I know very little about it. But I can say that you are way out of line regarding Wikipedia’s policies in handling disputes." (To this, you answered "Kiss my ass! (Just kidding)")

At some time, you'll be banned for them, and you seem to continue to work at it. --Thebee 00:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PeteK on Waldorf education

Yep, I'm agressive. I don't apologize. Waldorf hurts children every single day. It destroys families every single day. Parents and children and teachers are psychologically abused, sometimes physically abused, always emotionally abused by Waldorf schools around the world. I'm agressive towards people who defend these activities, who cover them up, and who lie about the people like me who expose them. Did what Trueblood wrote above even sink in Sune? Re-read what he wrote. You are the issue here, not me. You are the one with poisonous edits that are intent on spreading hate, not me. You are the one defending the most horrible practices and producing a smear campaign against the whistle-blowers, not me. Do you think I feel bad about being agressive toward people who do this? People who hurt children? Believe me, I don't. Pete K 01:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't see all these questions: "If you don't feel associated with them, why did you start spamming the article on Waldorf education with repeated and duplicate links to them the first thing you did the first three days after you arrived here at Wikipedia on 20 August 2006?" I started linking to the PLANS website because it was clear to me that the Waldorf education article was a Waldorf brochure, not an encyclopedia article. Others have agreed with this assessment and the Waldorf education article is currently being overhauled by Waldorf supporters (which won't help). So there was a very unbalanced POV about Waldorf education being displayed here - and I put links to the critical PLANS page in to try to balance the very lopsided links section. Considering you had duplicate defamatory websites containing your own, what I would characterize as demented opinions - but Wikipedia would politely call them "original research", and many additional links to those same defamatory websites throughout the article, it would have been difficult to balance even YOUR presence with links to PLANS - let alone all the other pro-Waldorf websites. It was, and still is an extremely biased article.

"After you got your first warning by Arktos on 1 Sept, at least two other people have requested that you stop your personal attacks." So what? "At some time, you'll be banned for them, and you seem to continue to work at it." I listen to the administrators when they tell me stuff - I don't listen to every person who doesn't like the tone they read into my posts. You probably could have gotten some help from administrators if you didn't abuse this with your whining complaints about every little thing - wild claims of slander to complaints about bold text. You and your Anthro buddies tipped your hand here - you were all complaining about every piddly thing and it was, no doubt, driving the admin's crazy. I'm guessing the administrators realized at some point that, indeed, this was an effort on your part to game the system and have a good editor banned. That's why, I suspect, they suggested mediation - because YOU'VE been behaving badly, not because I have. The main goal here is to produce good edits that are verifyable and documented. You haven't done that - you've produced sneaky edits that you have "verified" by creating your own groups to say malicious things - and documenting those statements (as Trueblood pointed out above). That is not only bad editing - it is behavior that should get you dismissed from Wikipedia. In any case, it documents your true character. I may be agressive, but I don't falsify information in order to attack people. That type of behavior is what I am hoping the mediators will be concentrating on when this mediation process begins (if it does). Pete K 04:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link removal by PeteK

You asked me to look at this edit. As this forms part of the content dispute you chaps are involved in and was explained by way of a reasonablly decsriptive edit summary, it does not breach any Wikipedia policy. I feel it's best taken up with the editors involved on the relevant talk page or the current mediation process which I believe is underway. -- Longhair\^talk 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I can make any deletion I like too, and motivate it with

"Deleting ... as it seem to be the next front for edit wars. I suspect we should delete all controversial edits or statements in the article until the Steiner/Waldorf Mediation Committee decides what to have in the article", as long as it does not violate the 3rr rule, or I don't add a personal attack to the description?

On the part: "I suspect we should delete ALL the links until the Waldorf project puts NPOV links there". As you may have noticed, The Waldorf project is on hold since Pete left it. He has not accepted the invitation to the Mediation, and also did not accept the invitation even after he on 14 October deleted two articles from the described list of articles involved, and completely replaced the described points for Mediation with his own personal list, after 9 of the 11 invited editors had accepted it, and that two editors withdrew from the Mediation as a result. --Thebee 22:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete has made an answer to this. I've moved it to his personal Talks page here for documentation. Thebee 08:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burying discussion you don't like is what you seem to be quite good at. You pretended to "archive" my comment - then you moved it off your page with a link. Sorry, but separating it from the discussion it relates to is inappropriate. Here is my comment again - which, BTW, shows your claims above to be more of the same nonsense and dishonesty that has characterized your involvement here at Wikipedia.

"Oh my... what drama... I spent 6 days documenting my viewpoint on the mediation issue. I did nothing wrong - and I described what I was doing. Sorry your mediation scheme didn't pan out. I'm always open to mediating the issues, but I won't mediate the personalities. Feel free to make another mediation request that actually addresses the issues. Pete K 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Pete K 13:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After all your personal insults and personal attacks the last months, with just your personal attacks, slander, denigration, libel and false accusations during your first ten days here at Wikipedia documented here, reading your new comments here at my personal talks page makes me want to vomit, just seeing them. That's the reason I moved your comment to your personal talks page and gave a link to it. Thebee 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deal with it! And have a peek at what your friend did to Diana's talk page if you want to see some vandalism. Pete K 13:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

sure, no prob

sure, sorry about that trueblood 15:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report on WP:PAIN

I'm sorry but I've had to remove your report on User:Pete K. The personal attack intervention board is only to deal with stopping a user going off on a string of attacks. It looks like you've already gathered all the material to start an RfC which I think would be the best place to handle the situation. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 12:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adding my grain of salt

i had to add my grain of salt to your comment at cerx 's talk page. in case you succeed, will you shape up too and edit in a more neutral and objective way (no quoting of your own websites etc.)?trueblood 19:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

Nope, just a long-time editor with a good understanding of policy. -999 (Talk) 23:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block re: Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

There is a current request for arbitration relating to the articles Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Hgilbert 01:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is acceptable, and what is acceptible, that is the question

Thanks Symode09 and David Levy for taking this and this interest in the correct spelling of the word at this page.

According to a search at Google, "acceptible" seems to used at about 331,000 pages, indexed by Google, and "acceptable" at about 114,000,000 pages. The latter version is also what is suggested by my dictionary, and according to Merriam Webster Online, "acceptible" is not a word entered in the dictionary, while "acceptable" is. So I think I'll go for the latter version. Thanks for the interest guys! What brought you to this very marginal page at Wikipedia?

Ir you don't want to answer here, you can find my email address at the bottom of this page.

Thanks,

Thebee 17:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest request

Sune,

I would like to recommend that you withdraw your request for editors to be banned from the article. Even if certain editors' comments seem to indicate that they intend to put a hammerlock on the article, and even if it feels like they are in fact doing so at the moment, it is important to recognize that errors have been made on all sides, and that (in the spirit of Christmas) a general amnesty is a generous gesture all round. I suggest easing off here. The important thing now is to find verifiable sources, and to clarify with those responsible the status of sources previously cited. This seems to be more fruitfully done by discussing this directly with the administrators now involved, rather than engaging in fruitless circling around the same points with editors who seem confident that their interpretation will ultimately prevail anyway, and show little or no motivation to find workable compromises at the moment. Hgilbert 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation for my request is a question of survival of the soul. During the arbitration, even when Pete has stated that he's trying to "tone down" on his personal attacks (under the supervising eyes of the arbitrators), he has continued making them (on me) disregarding issues regarding the reliability of sources, and continued to act as if he owned all articles he's involved in. It's really draining the soul of all energy having to devote all this time and soul power to substantiate that his repeated hostile personal attacks lack substance.

My request reveals his repeated expressed/demonstrated contempt/disrespect not only for me, but for Wikipedia civility policies in general towards all sorts of people, that have dared criticize him (like Vindheim), for the social mediation/arbitration processes, for administrators who have dared to criticize him for his personal attacks, and his contempt for other editors (other than me), who have asked him to stop his personal attacks and stay civil.

Such repeated and continuous behaviour destroys Wikipedia in the long run for everyone. That's the reason I have made the request.

Thebee 23:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well good luck with your request, Sune, but in looking over your lists, it seems you are taking everything I say personally. I'd suggest to you that this has more to do with you than it does with me. Not everything you list as a personal attack is indeed a personal attack. Several administrators have told you this as well. Disagreeing with your edits is not a personal attack. Pointing out that you mistaken about something is not a personal attack. These are exactly the kinds of things editors do when they work on articles. If challenges to your edits are weighing heavily on your soul, maybe this type of work is not for you. Pete K 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that you at one time suggested to Hgilbert that trueblood or Goethean had a too sensitive soul for editing at Wikipedia - in relation to your comments. Wikipedia should be no problem for sensitive souls. If it is, there is something wrong somewhere, that needs to changed. My request tries to contribute to that. Little that you have done has. Thebee 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people who throw around horrible false accusations and spend their life producing material and websites intended to defame honest criticism of Waldorf have little room to talk here. If your soul is heavy, it's because YOU have made it heavy, my friend. None of the people you relentlessly lash out at has done anything to you - including me. I notice you dropped the dialog about Peter S when you realized I knew the facts. You know what you're saying is dishonest and it has been proven to be dishonest, and you continue repeating it instead of doing the honest thing and removing it from your websites and retracting your statements here. This is the type of thing that leaves marks on your soul. Pete K 00:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On:

"... people who throw around horrible false accusations and spend their life producing material and websites intended to defame honest criticism of Waldorf have little room to talk here.

There is honest, more ideological, and dishonest, purely ideologically based defamatory "criticism" of Waldorf education, published in different forms at the site of PLANS. At my personal site I describe the three types. The site of AWE describes the third form.

"If your soul is heavy, it's because YOU have made it heavy, my friend."

No, it is because of all your - and DianaW's - personal attacks here at Wikipedia.

"None of the people you relentlessly lash out at has done anything to you - including me."

I'd say the same to you. I've done nothing to you or your children, except answer your defamation of Waldorf education in different forms at different times. Neither your nor DianaW's name is mentioned anywhere at any of the three sites I've been involved in building, my personal site, and in cooperation with others: WA and AWE. If you feel personally criticized by what I write about the WC, it indicates that you closely identify with that group, which then constitutes a COI problem with regard to editing Waldorf related articles at Wikipedia.

"I notice you dropped the dialog about Peter S when you realized I knew the facts."

"dropped the dialog"? I do other things occasionally than edit Wikipedia, during the night, for example, like, ... sleep.

I'll be back ...;-)

Thanks, Thebee 08:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, what's published at PLANS is mostly actual experiences of parents who have been dissatisfied with Waldorf. I identify, very much, with the people who have had bad experiences at Waldorf. It's important for you to believe that this is all orchestrated by PLANS because these individual experiences, when put together, demonstrate the huge problems in Waldorf. People like you, who organize (as with AWE) to try to cover up the truth about these problems are also part of Waldorf's problems. You are the one who has organized to push a POV, not me. You are the one with a COI, my friend. Pete K 15:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Friend"? No suggestion to me to insert a juicy insult of myself at the end of what you write this time? I'll just buzz off then. Thebee 15:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Pete K 15:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete K Adoption??

Hi Thebee,

Thanks for your note on my Talk page, but I would prefer it if I could discuss with Pete K himself what he wants out of any Adoption/Mentorship before I start to offer any advice. I understand that Arbitrations can be hard on all involved, and do not think it would be a very good idea, me coming in as a new participant, telling people how to act.

Personally if Pete K takes up the offer, I hope that we have an open relationship and that I act more as a sounding board for Pete K than an advisor. If you really want Pete K to get the most out of this, and so help de-escalate any arguments, I suggest you let us be, and we will see what can be worked out. Lethaniol 23:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider mentorship? I noticed you posted at Lethaniol's talk page. Frankly I recommend the program for everyone who's heavily involved in this case. Pete gobbled up Lethaniol first, but there are plenty of other good mentors to go around. Durova^Charge! 04:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of my statement at the evidence page, I have expressed my view of mentorship. I have already on different occasions asked administrators for advice on how to handle problems with edits by PeteK. I would have no problem with it, if suggested by the arbitration group. Regardless of this, I doubt however, if I would survive at Wikipedia, if PeteK is allowed to stay, considering his continued new personal attacks even during this arbitration, when he has told that he has tried to "tone it down", and refusal to adress my refutation of his attacks, twice [5],[6], referring to full documentation by archive.org of the untruthfulness of his accusation, sticking to his own memory as "proof" that he's right, and describing penetration of the objective documentation in this case as a "waste of time":

"The accusation is not false. I've read your websites in the past, and they have changed considerably. Since you have control over those changes, there is no point in arguing this with you. It's not important enough for me to waste my time tracking down what changed since you are in control of the evidence."[7]

and

"I don't need to "re-assert" my accusation. But thanks for the offer to follow you down the next rabbit-hole"[8]

with "the rabbit-hole" referring to the objective documentation in this case.

His attitude to objective documentation with regard to the unreliability of one author on anthroposophy, that he insists on using as citation in the article on Anthroposophy is similar, repeated resistence [9], [10] to consider the objective documentation in the case, and insistence to continue using the unreliable source as citation.

Thanks, Thebee 10:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bee, I've got to say that's a pretty odd way of presenting things. It's like one of those old Western films where a man who wears a revolver on his hip tells another gunslinger to get out of town. I had a second mentor in mind I would have referred you to but his user page says he's come down with pneumonia. So I hope you'll head over to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and try your luck; they're good people. Ideally we're all here to collaborate. Not necessarily be friends, just collaborate. Regards, Durova^Charge! 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheBee, I'm pretty sure I'm not going anywhere. Maybe you should consider getting some help - as people here have suggested to you. It really couldn't hurt, and it might even help you to not take everything so personally. Pete K 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, it may be better to sit this one out considering Bee's statement. Remember how you posted that you were going to disengage because you recognized Bee brought out the worst in you? Be as good as your word. Durova^Charge! 17:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Pete K 18:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Bee, I've got to say that's a pretty odd way of presenting things." This is in no way meant to be an offense, but can you tell what you find to be odd in the posting by me that you comment on?

What I write in my comment is:

If PeteK is allowed to stay and edit articles related to Waldorf education, considering his expressed deep personal agression towards Waldorf schools and Waldorf education, based on his relation to people at his children's Waldorf school, his defense at one time of his attitude with "I'm brash", that this was his style, and telling people should get used to it, his history so far in relation not only to me, but also his acted out contempt/disrespect in different forms for the mediation/arbitration process, his repeatedly expressed disrespect for different admins when they have warned him for personal attacks, twice disputing the validity of their warnings, and his expressed disrespect (at the evidence page, during this arbitration) for other editors (than me) for their requests to him to stop his agression and stay civil, and his continued personal attacks on me also during this arbitration under the supervising eyes of five arbitrators, while telling he's "trying to tone down" on his attacks, followed by expressed disrespect for factual objective documentation telling he has been wrong when falsely accusing me of having altered "evidence" (the site of Waldorf Answers) he had hoped would have proved him right in describinbg the sites of Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education as "clones", and then a second time expressed refusal to actually document the truthfulness of his accusation based on objective evidence (the by archive.org archived sites of WA and AWE), referring to the objective documentation of the lack of basis for his accusation as "the next rabbit hole" - to me - indicates that little will change in his attitude towards me and others more than superficially also under mentorship.

And I have not yet had the time and energy to show he's false also in his descriptions of a number of points in his allegations about me at the evidence page (for example I have never tried to hide the nature of the Dutch Commission as alleged by PeteK, but the opposite. When I at one time, after trying to recuperate some weeks from his many personal attacks returned to the discussion, I saw that its nature was an issue, checked with my copy of the intermediary report by the Commission, that told all its members were members of the A.S. in Holland and then added this info to the article.) Nothing I've added to the Waldorf article has had the character of adding "brochure language" to it, as alleged by PeteK.

Will see if I can bring together enough soul energy to adress also his (and DianaW's) other allegations and misdescriptions of what I have done. I'll also try to adress the issue of the WC-site there.

Am I a "gunslinger"? No. A few times I've made the mistake of editing articles I should not have edited (one on Mr. Dugan, and one on the WC-group). I have also a few times, sparingly, added links to sites I've been involved in building (for the WA site one FAQ on WE, and extensive documentation of research on WE and the basically full legal documentation on the WC litigation), and the AWE site, that I should have left to others to link to. I regret this, but it is a limited basis for describing me as a "gunslinger".

Otherwise, I've tried to abide by and strictly to uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines especially in spirit and repeatedly - in vain, as documented by the example above - tried to get PeteK to respect objective documentation when discussing issues.

Am I the only one to bring out bad sides in him? His attitudes to admins and other editors he disagrees with tell he has a much broader problem than his problem with me.

With regard to the "gunslinger" issue (where you have supported the addition by PeteK of a picture of a gunman to this discussion by replacing it with another Wild West guy with the same text "This encyclopedia ain't big enough for the two of us?"):

One can notice that PeteK, after Hgilbert has asked me to withdraw my Motion regarding PeteK and DianaW, in the spirit of Christmas, and continues to try to cooperate with PeteK, while repeatedly being bullied by him with regard to sources, has suggested that Hgilbert be permanently banned from editing the article on Waldorf education and imposed a ban of 90 days with regard to other articles.

As for me, I'm a conscientious objector, as I once told PeteK in a discussion.

Thanks, Thebee 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the hardest things to translate is humor and maybe this effort didn't go across very well. It's an old Western movie cliché to say This town ain't big enough for the two of us. I hoped I was deflating the oppositional stance by exaggeration. I would have recommended you to Lethaniol if you'd responded first on the arbitration workshop talk page. My mentorship recommendation extended to everyone. Regarding Pete's post about get used to it, you don't have to. Site policy doesn't say everybody be civil except Pete K; it's civility all around (you too). The arbitration decision is likely to cover that. Durova^Charge! 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that I be restricted from editing the article on PLANS and on Mr. Dugan, based on my personal relation to both since a number of years. If Pete K (and DianaW) is (are) restricted from editing articles related to Waldorf education, anthroposophy and the anti-Waldorf group PLANS for the reasons I have listed, and I'm permitted to do it (with the restrictions I suggest), I'll happily try to find and accept any mentor you suggest. I have no wish, and have never tried to add broshure language to the Waldorf article. My primary interest has been to contribute to an understanding of the complex difficult issues related to Waldorf education and anthroposophy, to make it possible for Wikipedia to publish well written, balanced and reliable well researched and well documented articles on the issues, free of any personal argumentation in the articles. Thanks, Thebee 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't happen to know a great number of the mentors at WP:ADOPT. Occasionally I run into one of them on the rare case when mentorship doesn't work. Usually when people take my recommendation they just install the adoption request template on their user page. A mentor drops by and starts a conversation. Then they see whether they can work together. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been issued at the above link. 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.

For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edits

If you want to keep your re-formatting edits, make them BEFORE the edit you know I'm going to revert. Also, it would be helpful if you read the discussion pages. Thanks! Pete K 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring Concerns

Hi Thebee,

I do not wish to get into the argument here - Talk:Anthroposophy#Edit_wars_continue, I wish it to stop, and for you and Pete K to get on with discussing editing on the subject at hand.

I want to clear up the issue of the diffs. Yes I did add in the information on a range of other options after I left the message on Talk:Anthroposophy. But still the comment on take extreme care in paraphrasing any of my advice is still valid without the extra information - the reason because you said:

PeteK's new mentor suggests that he gives up P.S. as citation, and that the section he has added and worked at building in the article be reduced to a reasonable size.

The latter part is correct, the former part is incorrect. What I said was:

The ref you are trying to add back in is not worth the edit warring - so do not get caught in a WP:3RR, certainly not over this.

Which means do not edit war, not that he should remove the citation.

If you see my comments above - best, if at all possible to use, neutral, notable references, not from a source that is a set up for the prime purpose of criticising Anthroposophy. I understand this may not always be possible - but try very hard. In this case this ref is backing up a very strong position bias has been identified, as so needs to be a top notch reference (if not references)

Which means the reference for this info needs to be top-notch. I have not judged the standard of the reference - indeed I did not even look as that is not relevant to the principle.

You may read my comments differently, which is natural - but all the more reason not to paraphrase my comments. Anyway I am glad to see (as far as I can) that you have not paraphrased any further my comments or linked to the talk page in question.

What I have also done (or more precisely will do in a minute) is remove all the discussion on this meta discussion from the talk page in question - as is not relevant to the article - please do not put it back - the request will be the same for Pete K.

Again I stress the sole reason I am doing this is to stop you and Pete K from arguing over details that do not matter with respect to the article - we need to move on and focus on the article. Furthermore even if you and Pete K decide to carry on this discussion elsewhere - I will not take part, or answer any further questions on this issue. Cheers Lethaniol 15:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "polemical"

Thebee: the issue of Waldorf education is "polemic" by definition [[11]]. Therefore, "non-polemical" references on this issue are not only unrealistic, but impossible...by definition. With all due respect, the Waldorf movement holds no greater monopoly on truth than the critics. All avenues must be examined and the viewer must be able to make their own choices.

Moreover, it is unfair to delete references simply because they interfere with a one-sided position. That presumably is the reason the admonition "This article or section is written like an advertisement" appears, along with the request "Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view per Wikipedia policy," at the top of the article. That is precisely what I intend to do.

To that end, Steiner's research was "original" and "un-cited." The fact that it now has thousands of followers is convenient. However, that fact does not assure or affirm the scientific validity of the approach. Remember, people were absolutely certain that the Earth was the center of the universe and the Sun, Moon and stars revolved around them for centuries. That is, until a pair of dissenters called that into doubt and got excommunicated for their trouble.

Prolific writings and studies by students of Steiner and the Waldorf method[[12]] (through dissertation and other personal study from within the movement) are no substitute for genuine, independent, scientific study. No such study has been completed with sufficient recency to be scientifically legitimate...Sorry...

That's not to say that I believe the Waldorf approach is without value. I am proud of who my children are as people, and I believe that comes from their Waldorf experience. But all successes that come out of Waldorf Education are anecdotal or experiential, at best. Likewise, the criticisms and bad experiences are by-and-large, experiential and anecdotal; they are therefore equally valid and must be given due consideration.

Let us also recognize that those who do not fear the complete truth, do not seek to cover it up. By deleting such references and quashing a contrary POV, you only serve to reinforce the justification of the very criticisms that are being leveled against the Waldorf movement and violate the Wikipedia NPOV mandate. I encourage you and your peers not to damage the issue in that manner.

...and you can rely on me to be civil... ;-)

- Wikiwag

Dear Wikiwag (M.S.?),

I definitely experience you as a very civil person, I'm sorry I have felt it necessary to delete probably most of what you have added to the article on Waldorf education the last days. I can understand that you disagree with the deletion of polemical, and other in part unreliable sources, as I have done, including citations referring to the WC, AWE or Waldorf Answers. This is based on earlier heated discussions, comments by the main arbitrator of the arbitration committee on Waldorf related articles, and the ruling in the case. I have made an overview of what is related to the ArbCom here.

The deletion of what you have written is based on the WP:NOR policy, especially after the arbitration regarding the Waldorf related articles. I don't disagree with probably most of what you have written. Only, it needs to be cited in a proper way, referring to acceptible sources according to the ArbCom decision and existing policies. Also it needs to be integrated into the article in a proper way and a proper place, possibly at the end of the article, after the basic description of the subject.

The article is rather long now, and I haven't read it for some time. But I have the feeling a number of the points you have mentioned already are included and integrated in different ways in the article. I think Hgilbert, who has written most of the article, and been the main editor of it, has absorbed most of the comments by different critical editors in a very diplomatic, flexible way, at all times trying to work cooperatively and build consensus with other editors, though some edits not have been explicitly sourced or sourced in a proper way. The ArbCom ruling and comments do not at all points make it completely clear what is acceptible as citations.

Regarding style in the article, in the background of my mind I ask myself how things would be written by for example Encyclopedia Britannica. Against this background, I personally would not write something like "It is important to note" ..."no ...", "Likewise, there is no ...", "Moreover ...", in the critical tone you use and also not use other similar types of personally evaluating or commenting expressions in the opposite direction. The language of the article should neither be positive nor negative, but neutral.

When you refer to what is required by different Waldorf schools, you just link to the sites of the schools, but do not - as far as I see - provide citations for specifically what you write about them..

I hope Hgilbert can also contribute to the good integration of your contributions as the - in my view - best editor so far of the article, except for the at times lacking and incomplete citations

Regards, Thebee 17:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Thebee (not sure who M.S. is...I'm brand new),

Fair enough and your points are well taken. But what of this admonition from the arbitration? "Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications." If I'm not mistaken, that includes just about every single reference in the article.

Therefore, we get no closer to the truth. I think we all want the same thing - a fair, reasoned and equal examination of Waldorf Education, such that people can make their own decisions.

Steiner's teachings are a double-edged sword. You cannot rightly present one side of the philosophy without presenting the other. Likewise, you cannot rightly pick and choose which things you will say that come from the same source.

Please understand that if my references and additions continue to be deleted on the grounds you've cited, one can only conclude the same doctrine must apply throughout the article as dictated by the Arbitration. Anthroposophy - whatever one calls it (religion, philosophy, movement, pseudo-science, cult) - all boils down to one fundamental and inescapable fact: it is all based on the self-published works of a single man. Then where - I ask you - will we be?

I look forward to your response.

- Wikiwag

P.S. Upon further review of the Arbitration statement, it appears that what I asserted above is supported by the Arbitration statement in the passage which reads "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". Therefore, virtually all of the references cited in the original article fall under this definition of "self publishing," and must therefore be removed under the terms of the Arbitration. So, who will handle that? Thank you for your participation in this process and thank you for pointing me in the right direction - Wikiwag

According to the arbitration decision, Anthroposophy related publications are only disallowed as citations for controversial statements in the article. All non-controversial statements and issues can be cited using publications from Anthroposophy related publishers. Little in the article is controversial in any serious sense. As for the site of OW, it is completely self published, and not allowed to use as citation for anything in the article. Thebee 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It's clear I need to better familiarize myself with the ground that's already been covered. Please forgive my ignorance. I promise the next time I edit this article, I'll be better educated and [hopefully] better prepared to do a good job. Thanks again! - Wikiwag 04:12, 8-Jan-2007 (UTC)