I don't know whether the motion to bifurcate will succeed, but whether or not it does I'll suggest a solution to editors who have large numbers of diffs to present. It could be helpful to take a small number of representative examples and explain those in depth, then offer a brief bullet pointed summary for the others. Durova^Charge! 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, but you didn't take that advice, did you? Fred Bauder 15:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova. I've got, for example, 15 diffs pointing to one editor who has deleted tags - mostly {advert} but some {NPOV} and some {Totally Disputed}. I'd hate to use up 15 or my diffs pointing to each of these - but seeing *how many times* this was done is a good part of the case. Does the Arbitration Committee generally take someone's word for it if they give an example and just say, this happened 15 times between May and June? Personally, I'm hoping for the bifurcation, but this user's actions of owning the articles are common through several articles - so either way would be fine. The only problem, again, becomes how to present all the evidence with only 100 diffs. I'll take your advice above. Thanks. Pete K 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:RFI and WP:PAIN I like to see specific diffs because anyone can claim that Editor X did such-and-such 15 times. If the editor actually presents the diffs I'll see whether the claims stand up to the evidence - I'll also surf around the surrounding text as well to look for additional background. Although I don't have any inside information about how arbitrators operate, from what I've seen it seems to be pretty similar. Durova^Charge! 02:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Durova. I decided to focus my attention on the Waldorf Education article for now. There are abundant diffs in the other articles too, and I'm still holding out hope for bifurcation. It seems harder to pare down the diffs than I thought. And I haven't even started looking at the discussion page yet. Generally, when you look at this stuff, do you value diffs taken from the article more than diffs taken from the discussion pages? I don't know, but for me, talk is cheap - what ends up happening in the actual article seems like it should be of more interest to the ArbCom. Pete K 04:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that policy is less important on talk pages than on articles. Then again, some things such as vandalism matter less on a talk page because the average reader doesn't see them. Durova^Charge! 14:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. It would be great if the Arbitration Committee determined if sock puppets are being utilized here. Is that part of the standard operating procedure in such cases? If sock puppets are being used, and they could be identified here, it would help us to establish patterns of behavior. In some areas, meat puppets have apparently been used as well - some users actually went on public bulletin boards calling for meat puppets. We had a time when it appeared at least two Waldorf high-school students arrived to give support to Waldorf (perhaps on behalf of their own teacher). I can't support what I am saying above, of course, but I think the Arbitration Committee could indeed identify sock puppets at least. The other issue is that early on in the articles we have unregistered users producing a lot of brochure language. If those unregistered users later became registered users, are we allowed to connect their anonymous edits to their registered edits through their IP address? Thanks! Pete K 16:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the arbitrators don't do that. Very few admins can perform a checkuser. Read up on the checkuser page to see whether this situation fits their requirements. Durova^Charge! 02:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us can do checkuser, but having experience with it, often find it makes little difference. The question is behavior, not person. Fred Bauder 19:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll defer to your wisdom and experience on this. Pete K 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should material from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration relating to this case be moved here? Newyorkbrad 19:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably. Thatcher131 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration Thatcher131 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted on HGilbert's talk page and subsequently removed by HGilbert. I've reproduced it here:

HGilbert, you placed the following on the Arbitration page: "Note: I have been accused of having a financial interest in this article. I am employed as a teacher in a Waldorf school - a non-profit organization. I receive no money for anything connected with Wikipedia editing. My position is no different than someone working in any other field contributing to an article about that field. In addition, I have published a book on Waldorf education. Wikipedia policies explicitly allow editors to cite their own publications, making it further clear that those working and publishing in a field are in no way excluded from editing articles. I do not cite (and do not seek to cite) my own work in the field at present, however. Hgilbert 16:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)"

It occurs to me that you may not be clear on the "conflict-of-interest" in this case. You have a financial interest in the success of Waldorf - you DO get paid a salary so I don't know what the "non-profit" stuff you mention above is about (clearly to throw people off the scent) - it's not as if you are a volunteer. The fact that you have produced and defended the brochure language on the Waldorf Education article is what points to the conflict of interest. You haven't made neutral edits - you have made POV edits. It's not like you have simply edited a few details - you practically WROTE the article from your own POV. Here are a couple of your early edits [1] [2]. You don't get to say you just edited like everyone else so conflict-of-interest doesn't apply. Your hand in this article is considerable PLUS you babysit this article to ensure your POV remains in tact. When many, many editors have pointed out to you that it is POV and brochure language, you fight them on it. So, no, you're not just editing like anyone else in the field of Waldorf, you are POV-pushing in the field of Waldorf, and you get paid and you have written a book - and THAT, my friend, is conflict-of-interest. Pete K 17:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Pete K 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The added material is verifiable, and you are welcome to request citations, in which case I can easily offer sources to support it (or see the books listed in the bibliography). Descriptions of the goals and actual curriculum of the schools are factual; the educational approach has these as stated goals and as its curriculum (as published in a number of standard works on Waldorf education). I doubt very much that you can find sources that dispute that these are the goals and curriculum. Hgilbert 21:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PeteK at the Arb page:

"Conflict-of-interest exists with one or more editors who are financially connected to the success of Waldorf. These editors include Walodrf teachers HGilbert and TheBee - both are primary culprits in the edit wars and responsible for the brochure langage as well as frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article. Pete K 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)"

1. Please document in what way I am, as you write, "financially connected to the success of Waldorf".

2. Please document with a number of diffs in what way I am, as you write, "responsible for the brochure langage" in the Waldorf article.

3. Please document with a number of diffs, that I have been, as you write, "frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article."

Thanks, Thebee 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe later... I think that's all part of the arbitration process. I'll do all this when we enter into arbitration. If I produce it now, you will start refuting it here and referencing your own websites - and we will never get anywhere. Let's let the arbitration begin and then we can both support our positions with evidence. Thanks in advance for your patience! Pete K 21:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm also going to claim that TheBee's role in these edit wars has been to remove links to websites and articles critical of or not completely supportive of Waldorf and to infuse the articles with links to his own self-published websites that are defamatory of people and organizations who are critical of Waldorf. There has been a tremendous effort by several editors to try to get TheBee to stop introducing links to his own self-published, original research, and defamatory websites and to stop removing links to legitimate websites and articles. This inappropriate linking not only occurs on the English version of Wikipedia, but on every language (that I know of) version of Wikipedia. This problem, then, spans ALL Wikipedia versions and should be corrected in each of them. Pete K 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: You should probably save this sort of stuff for the Evidence page if and when the case opens. Thatcher131 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There have been accusations and evidence all around that various parties are affiliated with organizations for and against Waldorf education or, obviously, otherwise love or hate Waldorf education. —Centrx→talk • 21:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. That's why I'm not providing evidence, but simply trying to clarify claims. Pete K 21:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking it's better to have these discussions here than on the Arbitration page. HGilbert wrote on the Arbitration page "One user claims here that editors who have had any contact with Waldorf education, including having a child enrolled in the schools or even merely having visited the schools, are inherently biased towards the educational approach. Hgilbert 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)" This is, of course incorrect. A look at the context of that discussion will show the statement above was talking about people who have a "connection to", not a "bias towards" Waldorf. Mr. Gilbert made a suggestion about which editors are "unconnected" to Waldorf. Having a child in Waldorf certainly connects one to Waldorf. An editor who has visited several Waldorf schools and had walk-throughs, parent orientations, brochure materials, etc. given to them is certainly not unconnected to Waldorf with regard to their opinion. It's like having an opinion about Las Vegas without ever having been there is different than having an opinion about Las Vegas after having visited the place. That's all that statement was meant to say. Mr. Gilbert is grasping at straws here. Pete K 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, you write: "You should probably save this sort of stuff for the Evidence page if and when the case opens." When would that be, at the earliest? Thanks, Thebee 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cases open 24 hours after the fourth net vote to accept. (If one more arbitrator votes to accept; if one votes to decline, two more would have to vote to accept.) If a case does not have 4 votes after being listed for 10 days, it is declined by rule. Thatcher131 00:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Thebee 10:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hgilbert wrote: "One user claims here that editors who have had any contact with Waldorf education, including having a child enrolled in the schools or even merely having visited the schools, are inherently biased towards the educational approach. That same user, Pete K, and another user, DianaW, are extremely frequent contributors (often several times daily) to an extremely anti-Waldorf web forum and have emotionally charged personal issues with Waldorf education." This is malarkey. I don't have an "emotionally charged personal issue with Waldorf education." My child left Waldorf years ago and is successful academically, well adjusted, and a normal, happy child. Neither he nor I nor my husband have any "personal issue" with Waldorf education, beyond the obvious, that it is natural for parents to be concerned with their child's education. Who else is going to criticize Waldorf education, if it isn't Waldorf parents or former Waldorf parents? Do we all have "personal issues" if we don't like Waldorf education? Hgilbert in particular is fond of saying things like this ("She has issues" or Diana is "emotional") hoping that some kind of sour insinuation will be taken by the reader. I do not have emotional problems, I do not have strange personal issues. I am a successful professional, happily married with a child who does not have problems. There has been a completely unsuccessful effort to dig up "dirt" on me personally that would somehow discredit me in things I say that are critical of Waldorf education, often merely hoping that the fact that I have kept on saying them for several years now will suggest that I am a fanatic, or that there must be some unrevealed aspect of my situation that would change everything if only the truth would come out. There's not. (name redacted) tries to make his insinuations very vague in this manner, to avoid deeper questioning, or sound like he's being delicate or discreet in not revealing something he knows. He's faking. I continue my activism in this regard for various obvious and transparent reasons, and which I am always willing to explain, such as the issue interests me, I know that information I provide is often helpful to prospective and current Waldorf parents, and it's an issue I actually know something about. Waldorf is a unique environment; people who've been inside and left, often under duress, are very much relied on by people who've recently left who find that outside, nobody can understand what they're talking about if they haven't experienced it. This is very similar to leaving a cult or other high-demand group.

Implications that I have "personal issues" can't be substantiated, or that I bear grudges against Waldorf for some undisclosed personal reason. I don't. The school didn't fire me, the school didn't kick out my child, my child did not cause a problem there, and I did not cause a problem there or have a personal conflict with anyone there. My child is not troubled or having academic difficulties for which I blame Waldorf. ((name redacted)'s tried that one specifically, claiming that I blame the Waldorf school for my son's "problems in reading." My son doesn't have any problem in reading, and never did. He's an A student in 8th grade. (name redacted) invented this scenario. I am not divorced, I have not had a custody battle or a dispute with my spouse about Waldorf education etc. We left the school on good terms and my husband is supportive of my activities. I'm an ordinary person; whatever (name redacted) hopes the reader will imagine about me from describing me as having "personal issues" is a fantasy of his.DianaW 03:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And no one, that I've noticed, has claimed that someone who has a child enrolled in a Waldorf school, or has merely visited the schools, is inherently biased in favor of the education. The question was whether a Waldorf teacher has a conflict of interest.DianaW 03:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover there is nothing "extreme" or "extremely anti" about the mailing list to which (name redacted) refers. Use of the term "extreme" often does double duty in his and TheBee's rhetoric, possibly hoping to suggest we are political extremists. He's referring to a mailing list that is one of the few that allows *any* critical perspectives on Waldorf education or anthroposophy (you'll be removed quickly if you try to say anything critical on pro-Waldorf lists). The range of opinion on the mailing list (name redacted) is referring to varies quite a bit; ardent Waldorf supporters post there nearly as often, if not just as often, as critics or parents who are questioning, concerned, or trying to sort out confusing experiences in Waldorf education, or simply gain more information if they are considering enrolling. The organization that sponsors the list, PLANS, is the sponsor of a lawsuit against two California school districts claiming that Waldorf education in public schools in the US violates church/state separation. They are not in any sense "anti" Waldorf education in the "extreme" sense Hgilbert would like people to wonder. They are critical. There is nothing "extreme" in any position expressed at the PLANS web site, and it is rare that anyone on the mailing list says anything "extreme" either, though it is a list that is only lightly moderated with open subscription. It is true that the list is often high volume with multiple conversations running daily, but this does not make it "extreme." I know of no one there whose views I could characterize as "extreme." (Unless perhaps you count the anthroposophist who linked to an antisemitic hate site the other day?) When these folks are challenged to produce the "extreme" statements from PLANS or their mailing list, they fall silent (not wanting to *actually* direct new readers to the site, which contains a lot of trenchant and convincing criticism.) The criticism, if I had to briefly summarize it, is that the schools need to be more forthright about their connections to anthroposophy, and people often express various objections to weaknesses or flaws in the curriculum, or report bad experiences their children have had in these schools, ranging from delayed reading to complaints of bullying etc. It is hard to take seriously someone calling such viewpoints from concerned parents "extreme." And if anthroposophists consider separation of church and state an "extreme" viewpoint - well, that explains why the lawsuit was necessary.DianaW 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HGilbert writes: "Administrators who have recommended taking the issues to dispute resolution include User:Longhair, and if my memory serves me rightly User:Centrx and possibly User:Cormaggio, in addition to User:Durova." I would like HGilbert to support this statement. I think it is incorrect but perhaps his memory is better than mine. Administrator Longhair, as I recall, recommended mediation. I don't believe Administrators Centrx or Cormaggio recommended Arbitration. I could be wrong - but I believe HGilbert was referring to Administrator Durova in his initial statement.

"Note that though he claims in the last-cited diff that the list of editors I originally provided on this arbitration page did not include the full (or a fair) range of editors involved with the article, the user making this accusation has not added any further involved editors. The list as I originally placed it appears to have been complete and fair; it certainly is to the best of my knowledge." I'm reluctant to modify the arbitration request since you beat me up for months when I modified the mediation request. You have left at least two editors off the list. I believe I have brought this to your attention. I have contacted 999 and Hanuman Das on their talk pages but they have not responded so perhaps they aren't interested (who can blame them). Still, they were there making edits recently (reversing some of the more outlandish stuff) and you chose not to invite them.

"Frequent accusations of "brochure language" have been launched; an administrator's investigation made it clear that such language has been introduced by those hostile to the subjects as well as those in favor of them." This is apparently a fabrication by Mr. Gilbert. Here's what the administrator had to say about this:

"I most certainly did examine Venado's diffs above. I also read Pete K's response to the one diff of his edit, a rebuttal which you fail to mention. Your own repeated assertion that Pete K has inserted brochure language remains unsupported as does the related implication that other involved editors named in the arbcom request inserted brochure language. I strongly caution you against attempting further guesses, particularly when referring to my role as an administrator in your statements to the arbitration committee. That sleight of word looks like very bad faith. DurovaCharge! 04:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)"

HGilbert continues: "Vis a vis Durova's questioning of "contradictory claims" and my quote of "an administrator's investigation" (see below); in a discussion on his talk page, Durova cited a particular sentence of the article Waldorf education as an example of what he considered problematic "brochure language". That particular section was, however, authored by an editor not involved in the current discussion and critical of, not supportive of Waldorf education, as proven by an independent editor; that editor, not me, provided the diff to prove the case on Durova's talk page (Durova might have missed this on his own talk page because it came from another editor, not myself). What is contradictory is then his use of this evidence to support his claim that I and other "pro-Waldorf" users are inserting such language when it was exactly an "anti-Waldorf" user who inserted this." Mr. Gilbert is again, mistaken here (see Administrator Durova's comment above). The whole point, that Mr. Gilbert continues to miss, apparently, is that the article is riddled with brochure language that Mr. Gilbert is continually defending. How it got there is really unimportant (even though Mr. Gilbert IS responsible for much of it). That Mr. Gilbert has sorted editors into "pro" and "anti" Waldorf screams volumes about why we are having problems here. (name redacted) - everyone here is supposed to be "pro" a good article. Maybe the "assume good faith" template should be posted here. Pete K 05:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of clarifications to the above that may help the Arbitration team, who are probably largely unfamiliar with what this controversy is about. I wrote above: "There is nothing 'extreme' in any position expressed at the PLANS web site, and it is rare that anyone on the mailing list says anything 'extreme' either." That mailing list is primarily for criticism of Waldorf education and anthroposophy. Typical topics include the anthroposophical influences in the Waldorf curriculum that are downplayed for parents (unless the parents happen to be anthroposophists). Anthroposophy is an esoteric/occult doctrine (some call it esoteric Christianity), and some parents are dismayed to learn it is influencing their child's education when they were initially assured that the school was "non-sectarian." Anthroposophy, critics claim, is in many of the teaching materials and themes of the lessons, in the school-wide festivals, and guides the teachers' discussions of the children's development. Waldorf teachers in training spend a full year studying anthroposophy before they study teaching methods. Commitment to anthroposophy is often the main criterion for success as a Waldorf teacher. Academic standards, critics claim, are often low.

The critics don't want to interfere with anyone's right to run an anthroposophical school or put their children in an anthroposophical school. And the critics don't say Waldorf schools are all bad; most of us liked many things about the Waldorf school and still agree with many of the teaching methods. They just want the schools to be forthright about the extent of anthroposophy in the curriculum and in the life of the school, before they enroll children. (And in the case of public schools, anthroposophy does not belong at all, because it violates church/state separation; that's what the PLANS lawsuit is about.)

Anthroposophists, in reply, have very few cogent rebuttals to any of this, other than to say we're wrong, it doesn't happen the way we say it does, or we must all be people with "personal problems" or we'd never criticize their wonderful schools. Sometimes we're told we're enemies of spirituality, or something childish like that; if we "hate" anthroposophy (we don't), we must hate all religions. In fact, Waldorf parents are a wide variety of religious backgrounds and obviously don't hate all forms of spirituality (and the critics are merely a typical cross-section of average Waldorf parents, and are also of all manner of faith backgrounds). Or we're told probably our children just didn't do well in school, that must be why we're chronic complainers. The criticisms of anthroposophy itself are probably too complex to go into on this page - some people have religious qualms about anthroposophy (Christians often think it's sort of pagan, while pagans may be offended by the Christian elements), others have philosophical or personal disagreements. Criticizing a religious doctrine or religious institutions is perfectly acceptable, even desirable, a right and an obligation that falls under free speech and freedom of religion in democratic societies. Public scrutiny of religion and religious ideologies is a public service. It's the reason, for instance, that the Catholic church has slowly but surely had to remove pedophile priests. The controversy around anthroposophy/Waldorf overall is very similar to the controversies that often develop around other unpopular religious sects ranging from Scientology, Christian Science, Opus Dei, to smaller fringe groups like UFO cults or tiny radical groups. They all have their critics, and they often have "critics of critics" trying to figure out how to get them to shut up.DianaW 14:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This demonstrates HGilbert's attempt to remove the actual issue of the arbitration from the summary. I will replace it. See Durova's statement concerning the reason for the arbitration recommendation. Pete K 05:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This demonstrates HGilbert modifying MY OWN statement. Apparently, I'm not allowed to make a statement without interference from him. Pete K 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the editor opening the case provides the brief summary of the situation. I attempted to do so without personalizing or contested accusations. When a user added a personal and contested accusation, I moved it from there to his own statement. That is the source of the above and below concern. The editor in question, Pete K, has since replaced the original accusation back into the brief general summary. Hgilbert 11:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting we should open a NEW arbitration case to cover your conflict-of-interest? Are you suggesting that it was just coincidence that you opened this arbitration case based on what other administrators had suggested months ago, and not based on (and on the heels of) administrator Durova's suggestion that we should arbitrate YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Get real, (name redacted). Everyone here isn't as stupid as you apparently think they are. Administrator Durova suggested here and here that arbitration should be started to discuss the issue of your conflict of interest. That you preemptively opened the arbitration about something else is, as with the highly disputed mediation request you opened, artfully dishonest. We were discussing your conflict of interest, an administrator suggested we should arbitrate this, and YOU opened the arbitration about SOMETHING ELSE. And when the INTENDED topic was put into the brief summary, YOU removed it. This is not a "personal or contested accusation" - it is the REASON for the arbitration. Arbitration can be personal, it can be about personal conflicts, and it can be about personal misbehavior (as conflict of interest is). Your actions here are disingenuous in my view. Pete K 15:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HGilbert appears to have moved a short paragraph from "Brief summary of situation" to "Statement by Pete K":

Conflict-of-interest exists with one or more editors who are financially connected to the success of Waldorf. These editors include Walodrf teachers HGilbert and TheBee - both are primary culprits in the edit wars and responsible for the brochure langage as well as frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article.

This is not an NPOV paragraph; rather, it contains accusations against two parties, stated as fact ("both are primary culprits"). It appears that paragraph was originally part of Pete K's statement and signed by Pete K, in the same position to which HGilbert restored it, but is now an unsigned part of the "Brief summary". (It was not part of the original summary section when the case was added to WP:RFAR.) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 08:55, 20 Nov 2006 (UTC).

SAJordan, what would you suggest with regard to the personal accusation that PeteK has inserted in the Brief summary of situation in the Arbitration Request, trying (unfoundedly) to allege that I, assumed by PeteK to be working as a Waldorf teacher, have a financial interest in promoting Waldorf education in the article on Waldorf education? Thanks, Thebee 11:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As perhaps I should have stated in my prior comment, Thebee, I'm not ArbCom, nor Mediator nor Admin nor anything else official, merely another user, and a relative newbie at that (less than two months). I was not attempting to make any decision or motion or suggestion, but only a factual observation with cites to diffs. I think that much was within anyone's rights, not depending on position. My opinion of the matter need not interest nor concern anyone. . . . That said, if you still want my suggestion, it would be to add your statement to the others on the project page, so that your view can be considered along with theirs. Look over the suggested format, and follow it. Bring up and refute false accusations against you; address any other serious unresolved complaint (by or against you) in this dispute. Be calm, factual, specific. Cite diffs. Make your very best case now. That much I'd advise anyone entering arbitration. (But my opinion won't count; ArbCom's will.) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 12:56, 20 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Thanks SAJordan, for the opportunity to clarify this. The statement was originally added by me to the brief summary here. It was removed from the summary by HGilbert here and added to my statement here. When I noticed that my signature wasn't at the end of my statement, I assumed it was a mistake on my part (not the shenanigans of HGilbert) and I moved my signature down to the end of what I thought was my original statement here. I didn't notice at the time that HGilbert had, in fact, revised my statement. Also, please note Durova's statement - the arbitration was intended to be about the conflict-of-interest issue and HGilbert has attempted to make it about something else and to move the conflict-of-interest portion out of the summary and into my personal statement.Pete K 13:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And more shenanigans . . . Hgilbert, with the noble aim of "reducing his statement," has removed the comments that I am responding to above, so that (not for the first time) I appear to be replying to someone or something imaginary. Hgilbert's statement used to say that I had "emotionally charged personal issues" regarding Waldorf; now this inappropriate personal remark does not appear. I really wish there were less of this sort of altering the record later. He did this on the Waldorf talk page way back when, also, making outrageous (and false) personal comments about Pete and then removing Pete's name when I objected. (So I appear to be sputtering 'How dare you' over something that now reads very benignly.) Now Pete of course can and certainly will reply to recent things posted about him on the arbitration page that are false and make no sense, but as long as I'm here, "Venado's" recent comments are way off base, too. I don't think Pete has a financial interest in a school he once helped found that has long since closed. To suggest that he has a "financial interest" in the way these articles on wikipedia read because he is writing a book is goofy. Whether the articles here read positively or negatively or neutrally, it would be impossible to guess whether whether this could affect book sales; it seems very unlikely. It's fairly unlikely that the author of *any* book on Waldorf (whether praising or criticizing) would earn enough money from it to be influenced to edit content on wikipedia in any particular direction, from hope of increasing the book sales. Basically, that's ridiculous. This is a desperate maneuver in reply to the obvious conflict of interest presented by Waldorf teachers, who straightforwardly draw a salary from a Waldorf school, feed their families with this job, and are here editing the Waldorf/Steiner articles to read exactly like the promotional literature that is passed out to parents. Also, while I'm sure the school is not paying him to do this, it sure makes him look devoted to the cause, and that's the leading criterion for on-the-job advancement in Waldorf.

I'd also like to clarify that when I write that I'm not divorced etc., have no family disputes about Waldorf etc., this is not to imply that if a person is divorced etc. this disqualifies them from having a cogent opinion on Waldorf or contributing to these articles. I'm pointing out that the Waldorf cheerleaders here are merely grasping at straws to attempt to disqualify critics of their movement, using any kind of inappropriate personal material that has fallen into their hands, and the only reason they post personal junk about Pete and not me is that they don't *have* it on me. This is why I'm merely said to have "personal issues." They will try *whatever* angle they think has a prayer of working. It is really unconscionable to start talking about people's marriages and children here; I don't think Pete or I or any other critical editor on these articles would ever have the gall to comment on other people's marriages or families.DianaW

Yes, deletion of the record... I'm sick of it too - but I can't say I blame him. If you're going to trim a statement, best to trim out the stuff that offended everyone and the stuff in your original statement that has been shown to be false already. We can just use diffs to show what you responded to. I'm getting in the habit of producing them for everything I say these days anyway. Here's what he trimmed out - in case anyone is interested. He trimmed out the part where he called me "anti-Waldorf" and so, as he did to you, it now appears to the reader that I, too, have responsed to something that was never there. He still kept the bizare claim about the "brochure language" portion though. Also, and I'm sure it was probably unintentional, but he removed the statement where he ADMITS his conflict-of-interest (even though he apparently still does not understand that it really *is* a conflict-of-interest to be a Waldorf teacher and produce brochure language in a Waldorf article). It admission read:

"Note: I have been accused of having a financial interest in this article. I am employed as a teacher in a Waldorf school - a non-profit organization. I receive no money for anything connected with Wikipedia editing. My position is no different than someone working in any other field contributing to an article about that field. In addition, I have published a book on Waldorf education. Wikipedia policies explicitly allow editors to cite their own publications, making it further clear that those working and publishing in a field are in no way excluded from editing articles. I do not cite (and do not seek to cite) my own work in the field at present, however. To be very clear: I do not have any financial interest relating to this site." Hgilbert 16:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And he has replaced this admission with a simple (Nixonesque): "I do not have any financial interest relating to this article." Hgilbert 16:23, 19 November 200 So all we can really do is just be prepared for more of this sort of thing. Digging in the history for diffs will be the focus of this exercise - oh, and being sure the diffs (and impressions) that are produced by others are in the proper context. I suspect by the time this is through, the arbitration team will have gotten a dose of what we've had to put up with for months. Pete K 01:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also deleted mention of the "extremely anti-Waldorf web forum." Did this seem less important to him suddenly, or or did he realize that he'd just be encouraging interested parties to go check out this forum for themselves, and that once they were there it would be very clear that there aren't any "extreme" views being posted there by Waldorf critics? It's an interesting forum at the moment since a zealous Waldorf defender recently posted links to a virulently antisemitic hate site - a contribution that makes interesting reading in light of the wikipedia fights over just how important Steiner's racism and antisemitism were, and whether they influence anyone in Waldorf today. Twice in the past few months we've had a nasty dialogue with an anthroposophist posting racist or hate materials on that list; the last one was a Holocaust denier - defending another well-known anthroposophist who is a Holocaust denier. If anything, this phenomenon seems to be on the increase. Could the seemingly increasing boldness of these people in anthroposophy be connected to the fact that anthroposophists generally can't admit there's any racism in Rudolf Steiner?

Looking back at the diffs that Hgilbert posted purportedly to show that Pete claims anyone who ever visited a Waldorf school is biased in favor of Waldorf, the contention was only about who, among recent editors, had been invited to the arbitration dialogue. It was not about trying to claim these people had a "conflict of interest" in editing the article.DianaW 12:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think HGilbert was suggesting that I made the claim of bias (not conflict of interest). I certainly don't believe everyone who comes in contact with a Waldorf school is biased "in favor" of Waldorf... LOL! I know lots of people who have come in contact with Waldorf who are definitely not in favor of Waldorf - some who have had very ugly experiences with Waldorf, some who like Waldorf, some who hate it, some who have their kids in Waldorf, some who have pulled their kids out of Waldorf, some who have sued Waldorf, and so on. As the statement clearly shows - I was indicating a "connection" to Waldorf, not a bias towards Waldorf. This was in response to HGilbert's statement that certain editors were "unconnected" to Waldorf. Pete K 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I listed here which editors I felt ARE biased toward Waldorf education and why. Pete K 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to this statement in his original statement, now reprinted below, and which he says he still stands by: "They [meaning Pete and Diana] have also claimed that anyone involved in anthroposophy or Waldorf education is by nature too biased to be cited or to be an editor, whereas their own and outside critics' views are unbiased." Yes, "biased" - but he says you're saying "too biased to be cited or to be an editor," which would mean they couldn't even work on the article. He's trying to paint us as so thoroughly unreasonable that we wouldn't even let ANYONE INVOLVED IN WALDORF work on the article, and wouldn't allow Waldorf authors to be cited in reference lists - to deflect attention from the ACTUAL claim - that a Waldorf teacher has a conflict of interest editing the article.

Neither of us has ever claimed anything like what he's attributed to us. I'm also slowly understanding that Hgilbert has had a lot of trouble understanding what "brochure language" means - he thinks it is just a nasty word that means stuff he puts in that we don't like, or stuff we put in that he doesn't like. "Brochure language" refers to the sort of sales pitch that is found in schools' promotional literature. It is very silly to suggest Diana or Pete want to put in "brochure language." Waldorf schools hand prospective customers a glossy brochure with smiling children eagerly engaged in something in the classroom, or romping in the sunshine; the rhetoric is all the stuff that we can document (with dozens and dozens of diffs) is in *actual* Waldorf brochures. Maybe we need to get some hard copies of Waldorf brochures for comparison; these days, of course, the main purveyor of Waldorf "brochure language" is school web sites. We can easily show that in many cases Hgilbert inserts language that is IDENTICAL to what is found on Waldorf school web sites and is clearly not what would normally appear in an encyclopedia article. "Head, heart, and hands" "whole child" "Rudolf Steiner was a Renaissance man" type stuff. One of my personal favorites is "fastest growing independent school movement in the world." I've been literally begging - for years - for somebody in Waldorf to source this. If a Waldorf supporter could even suggest a means by which such a claim COULD be sourced, it would be interesting. (Is somebody out there counting different types of new schools opening and closing every year, worldwide?) If there is a "fastest growing" one in 2006, it is probably evangelical Christian schools in (for instance) Africa or South America. Yes, we have many diffs that show Hgilbert inserting brochure language - boasts about how great Waldorf is, or how amazing a man Rudolf Steiner was - completely unmoored from claims that can be objectively documented.DianaW 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have shortened my statement in response to a reminder that there is a word limit for these. The original statement appears below and still stands.Hgilbert 11:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original statement by Hgilbert

There tend to be two strongly polarized parties editing these articles, one sympathetic to the themes, one antagonistic to them. Attempts to achieve an objective point of view in the article have been stymied, in part due to extremists on both sides seeking to put in what they see as "truth" and remove anything contrary to their POV. (Examples:Talk:Waldorf_education#Weasel_words, [3])

There is also a failure of good faith; see here, here and here, where even opening this request for arbitration (as suggested by several administrators over several months) stimulates accusations. Administrators who have recommended taking the issues to dispute resolution include User:Longhair, and if my memory serves me rightly User:Centrx and possibly User:Cormaggio, in addition to User:Durova.

Note that though he claims in the last-cited diff that the list of editors I originally provided on this arbitration page did not include the full (or a fair) range of editors involved with the article, the user making this accusation has not added any further involved editors. The list as I originally placed it appears to have been complete and fair; it certainly is to the best of my knowledge.

The refusal by the two editors most antagonistic to the subjects of these articles, User:Pete K and User:DianaW, to enter mediation has blocked further progress along these lines. The former has been repeatedly warned about his incivility; the latter has also had egregious violations ([4], [5]). The incivility has dropped off considerably in the last weeks, it should be noted. User:Thebee has also been incivil on occasion.

Frequent accusations of "brochure language" have been launched; an administrator's investigation made it clear that such language has been introduced by those hostile to the subjects as well as those in favor of them.

The same two parties, Pete K and DianaW, have suggested that certain themes, such as the actual life of Rudolf Steiner, should not be given due weight (see Talk:Rudolf_Steiner/Archive_2#Proportion_and_subarticle in order to make room for critical questioning exposing the "reality" of his views. They have also claimed that anyone involved in anthroposophy or Waldorf education is by nature too biased to be cited or to be an editor, whereas their own and outside critics' views are unbiased.

The polarization visible elsewhere in the articles comes to a crux over the delicate subject of Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity, see Talk:Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Steiner's views were complex, as he came out strongly against racism and anti-Semitism but made comments about individual races and ethnic groups that are offensive or at least questionable to many modern sensibilities. This article is itself currently recommended for deletion as it is in many respects a quote farm.

I feel that these articles need to be verifiable and NPOV. The term "brochure language" has been unhelpful, as it tends to be used to refer to anything one point of view wishes to strip away from the article; especially anything that might cast the subject in a positive light, even if this is relevant and verifiable information.

The articles should mention any controversy over the subjects, as also their positive reception, but these themes should not dominate over an exposition of the actual subjects themselves. The goals, model of child development, teaching methods and curriculum should be the dominant focus of an article on Waldorf education; Steiner's life, work and philosophical development should be the dominant focus of an article on Steiner; the ideas, institutions and historical development of anthroposophy should be the dominant focus of an article on anthroposophy. Hgilbert 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have been accused of having a financial interest in this article. I am employed as a teacher in a Waldorf school - a non-profit organization. I receive no money for anything connected with Wikipedia editing. My position is no different than someone working in any other field contributing to an article about that field. In addition, I have published a book on Waldorf education. Wikipedia policies explicitly allow editors to cite their own publications, making it further clear that those working and publishing in a field are in no way excluded from editing articles. I do not cite (and do not seek to cite) my own work in the field at present, however. To be very clear: I do not have any financial interest relating to this site. Hgilbert 16:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One user claims here that editors who have had any contact with Waldorf education, including having a child enrolled in the schools or even merely having visited the schools, are inherently biased towards the educational approach. That same user, Pete K, and another user, DianaW, are extremely frequent contributors (often several times daily) to an extremely anti-Waldorf web forum and have emotionally charged personal issues with Waldorf education. Hgilbert 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vis a vis Durova's questioning of "contradictory claims" and my quote of "an administrator's investigation" (see below); in a discussion on his talk page, Durova cited a particular sentence of the article Waldorf education as an example of what he considered problematic "brochure language". That particular section was, however, authored by an editor not involved in the current discussion and critical of, not supportive of Waldorf education, as proven by an independent editor; that editor, not me, provided the diff to prove the case on Durova's talk page (Durova might have missed this on his own talk page because it came from another editor, not myself). What is contradictory is then his use of this evidence to support his claim that I and other "pro-Waldorf" users are inserting such language when it was exactly an "anti-Waldorf" user who inserted this. Hgilbert 02:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The correct pronoun when referring to me is she.
2. Some misunderstandings appear to have arisen from my statements shortly before this arbitration case opened. WP:COI appeared to have influenced how ArbCom handled a particular prior case. Normally I would recommend that parties try the entire Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process before coming to arbitration. I also prefer to direct editors to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing whenever that could be a viable alternative to arbitration. A lack of response at two RFCs and difficulties in gaining the attention of other administrators weighed in my recommendation to pursue a case here: community consensus was unlikely to develop. I neither stated nor meant to imply that WP:COI should be the sole or primary topic of the committee's attention.
3. Regarding brochure language, PeteK is correct about my assessment: it appears that certain editors have acted as gatekeepers at this family of articles, allowing and protecting changes that reflect favorably on Waldorf education while closing the door to edits that challenge Waldorf education or flag the POV problems. The full post in which I first quoted the disputed phrase is here:[6] I hadn't anticipated it would become a source of contention or I would have phrased my surrounding statement in terms that would have left no room for doubt. Editors who act as gatekeepers for a family of articles violate WP:OWN, WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV - the walled garden remains a walled garden no matter who plants particular flowers. Durova^Charge! 03:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Durova. I apologize if I misrepresented your position on weight of the COI portion of the request. It was not intentional. Pete K 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I also checked the four central participants' userpages today and it doesn't look as if anyone has requested mentorship. Arbitrators seldom comment until the final stages of a case, at which point it's pretty late to start making changes. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is one way to get into mentorship although Wikipedia:Mentorship mentions other arbitration-specific options. I can't speak for the arbitrators, but my own standards are simple: do your best to shoot straight, own up to your misses, and try to get help at improving your aim. That goes for everyone. I'd rather not prepare another addendum and if everybody follows those suggestions the whole case will probably go much more smoothly. I won't quarrel with straightforward corrections to whatever mistakes I might have made. The editor who has done the most to summon me here is the same editor against whom I've supplied the most evidence. It stands to reason that this person's interests would be best served by giving me no further reason to return to the case. Durova^Charge! 02:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It stands to reason that this person's interests would be best served by giving me no further reason to return to the case." LOL... Yes, I quite agree. I've had more than my share of problems with him but even I feel like kicking him under the table to get him to give it a rest about his issues with you. I think you're right - some people can't stop even when their actions are hurting them. Oh well... Pete K 03:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - yet I'm completely serious about recommending mentorship to both sides. WP:CIVIL applies on all around and it's a more obvious call against you and DianaW than against anyone else. You're also accused of several other policy violations. If you've browsed some past cases as I recommended you know that arbcom might invoke topic bans or revert parole on anyone in the case: editors who don't exercise enough self-awareness and self-control get external limits imposed upon them. My recommendations to both sides might seem to carry a wink and a nod toward certain editors - I don't mean my words that way at all. In fact I worry that my participation may inadvertently yield complacency in some quarters. The evidence I submit against certain editors doesn't do much to defend others (tu quoque isn't something I cite only as convenient - it's a common human failing we all have to guard against). Every named editor should take a close look at the evidence and prepare responses along with some mea culpa replies as appropriate and here's what I'm doing to fix that. I can only say this so many times before it loses its meaning - so consider it said. Durova^Charge! 04:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. I absolutely know I bear some of the responsibility for the problems here. I'm aware that both Thebee and HGilbert have prepared long lists detailing what they claim are my personal attacks against them - I expect they will be presenting them at some point. Administrators who have taken the time to look at these lists have seen them as exagerated claims for the most part, but I acknowledge that I lost my cool more than a few times especially when I first arrived here. In my defense, I was often frustrated and intimidated by their agressive reverting of my edits, repeated citings of Wikipedia policies. After having posted a few things I regretted, there were regular attempts to get one administrator after another to ban me on the same evidence that previous administrators had dismissed. I understand that is no excuse not to be civil. I've been working on toning it down in the past month and hopefully the arbitrators will notice that I have improved considerably. When I first arrived here I read through the back pages and saw how they had shut down and bullied other editors - Lumnos3, Fergie in particular. I felt (perhaps wrongly) that I had to come on strong when I started posting, lest they shut me down as well. I acknowledge that this was probably a mistake on my part. Hopefully, I will be able to defend against these claims again. Regarding the other claims, I absolutely intend to address each one (I'm guessing the 1000 word limit doesn't include defending against assertions by others). I will attend to this tonight and first thing tomorrow. Thanks!!! Pete K 06:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Evidence presented by Fergie section, you refer to the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and then write:

"Much of the Waldorf Education article as it stands in its locked state reads like a brochure trying to sell Waldorf Education. Many passages are unverified (WP:VERIFY) and biased to the point of violating WP:NPOV."

But you do not give any evidence in terms of specific diffs, that support your view, for others to look at to see if they agree. Can you do that? Thanks. Thebee 15:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You saw the diffs I provided, right? Pete K 17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question was a question to Fergie, not to you. I'm confident she can answer for herself. The Evidence page, as far as I understand, is meant for individual editors not only to make general assertions regarding the case at hand, but also to - themselves - provide diffs that support their assertions, not leave that to others. It is not a page for just general statements regarding a case. That was provided during the initial phase of the Arbitration. Thanks, Thebee 10:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 November, you wrote and I asked;

PeteK at the Arb page:

"Conflict-of-interest exists with one or more editors who are financially connected to the success of Waldorf. These editors include Walodrf teachers HGilbert and TheBee - both are primary culprits in the edit wars and responsible for the brochure langage as well as frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article. Pete K 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)"

1. Please document in what way I am, as you write, "financially connected to the success of Waldorf".

2. Please document with a number of diffs in what way I am, as you write, "responsible for the brochure langage" in the Waldorf article.

3. Please document with a number of diffs, that I have been, as you write, "frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article."

You answered:

Maybe later... I think that's all part of the arbitration process. I'll do all this when we enter into arbitration. If I produce it now, you will start refuting it here and referencing your own websites - and we will never get anywhere. Let's let the arbitration begin and then we can both support our positions with evidence. Thanks in advance for your patience! Pete K 21:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can provide them now on the three specific points mentioned? Thanks, Thebee 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you haven't read the evidence that supported these claims. You wrote to me above about the arbitration page "It is not a page for just general statements regarding a case. That was provided during the initial phase of the Arbitration." My statements were general. I believe (and it's not up to you to decide) that I have supported them. Maybe you haven't noticed that I have provided evidence that:

1. That you have "worked at times as a math teacher at Waldorf schools" (by your own admission on your own website) and that you are a priniple of a website (AWE) that solicits donations for providing Waldorf support and supplying defamatory content about critics of Waldorf.

2. I admit, the bulk of brochure language that is still in the Waldorf education article has been added by HGilbert. Most of the edits you have made have been so outrageous they haven't seen more than a few moments in the article itself - editors, even sympathetic to Waldorf, have been quick to remove your outrageous claims (see the section on "hate groups" in my evidence - I only cited three examples but there were dozens). I later added to my original statement that your primary purpose has been to detour people to your own original research websites - and there has been plenty of evidence provided to demonstrate this.

3. I believe I have demonstrated this adequately, but I can certainly go back through and produce more edits from you, edit warring and so forth if you think I haven't made my point clearly. I tried to concentrate my efforts on the Waldorf education article - which you have done comparitively little edit-warring in. If I focus my attention on the Rudolf Steiner and the RS views on race and ethnicity and PLANS articles, I can, of course, provide many, many more examples of your POV edits.

IOW, I am constrained by the space allotted here and not by any lack of evidence of your wrongdoing. I have made a motion to bifurcate the Waldorf article from the others for this very reason. There is so much evidence of your activities that there isn't enough room on these pages to produce it. I believe more is on its way, however, so please don't be impatient. Thanks. Pete K 16:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of what you writes answers my first question, requesting that you provide evidence in terms of diffs demonstrating that I am personally, as you wrote, "financially connected to the success of Waldorf", implying that I personally would benefit economically from the "success of Waldorf education".

As I've told in my introducing statement in this case, I do not have any financial interest related to this article, and have not worked as a Waldorf teacher since the 1990s. That I at that time, more than ten years ago, and on a number of earlier occasions, have worked as a math teacher at different Waldorf schools is probably as loose a connection you can have to Waldorf education as an at one time, 20 years earlier, trained Waldorf teacher, being the primary basis for my interest in and contribution to the article. Before the 1990s and later, I have worked in other professions, as described at my personal site.

That the site http://www.americans4waldorf.org of which I am one of its five co-editors solicits economical donations in support of Waldorf education does not in any way benefit me personally, and I get no money out of it.

You also do not give one diff in support of your statement that I have been, as you have written, "responsible for the brochure langage" in the article on Waldorf education.

This is also the case for your statement that I have been, as you write, "frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article" on Waldorf education.

I am quite impatient for you to do this and provide such diffs with regard to the Waldorf article. As you write that you have concentrated on this article, that should not be too difficult. If you can't provide such documenting diffs, I would need to draw that conclusion that you have no such evidence, and that what you wrote was untrue, which (again) would contradict what you wrote on 5 Nov. ("I always tell the truth Sune. That may be the key difference between us.") in a similar way as I have documented on another point in my introducing statement in this case.

If you can't provide such evidence in terms of diffs, I'd be grateful if you would retract your statement with regard to the article on Waldorf education, to which your allegations referred.

Thanks, Thebee 23:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing of what you writes answers my first question, requesting that you provide evidence in terms of diffs demonstrating that I am personally, as you wrote, "financially connected to the success of Waldorf", implying that I personally would benefit economically from the "success of Waldorf education"." I guess I don't care if you don't think so. It's up to the arbitrators to weigh the evidence and make decisions. "This is also the case for your statement that I have been, as you wrote, "responsible for the brochure langage" in the article on Waldorf education, for which you do not provide one diff that documents this." I ran out of diffs with my case against HGilbert. I'm not going to build a secondary case on the discussion page just because, big surprise, you think I've said something about you that I can't support. "This is also the case for your statement that I have been, as you write, "frustrating the efforts of many editors to produce NPOV language in the article" on Waldorf education." I have supported all the claims I have made on the arbitration page. That's all I'm concerned with right now. I'm not going to get into a dialog with you about anything else. I notice you haven't made an assertion or provided any evidence on the arbitration page. Is this a timing issue, or do you have nothing to say in your defense? Having a side dialog on the discussion page is, in my view, counterproductive and the actual case has taken up more of my time this week than I can afford.

"I am quite impatient for you to do this and provide such diffs with regard to the Waldorf article. As you write that you have concentrated on this article, that should not be too difficult. If you can't provide such documenting diffs, I would need to draw that conclusion that you have no such evidence, and that what you wrote was untrue, which would contradict what you wrote on 5 Nov. ("I always tell the truth Sune. That may be the key difference between us.") in a similar way as I have documented on another point in my introducing statement in this case." I don't think I need to do any such thing at this time. Your impatience has nothing to do with me. "If you can't provide such evidence in terms of diffs, I'd be grateful if you would retract your statement with regard to the article on Waldorf education, to which it referred." I don't think I've said anything that requires retraction. Thanks! Pete K 23:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After you had gotten two warnings for personal attacks at different times, one by admin GoldenWattle on 1 Sept. and one by admin Centrx on 31 Oct, you wrote, 31 Oct, two minutes after you deleted the first warning from your Talks page, as part of what you described as "irrelevant stuff":

"For the record - I don't believe I have broken ANY Wikipedia rules with one exception - the 3RR rule a couple of months ago."

Against this background, what you write that you think on this point stands out as less interesting, as long as you do not provide any diffs in support of your serious personal accusations against me in this case from a Wikipedia perspective, made at the beginning of this arbitration, which you haven't, leaving it out of the many things you write and comment on at the Evidence page - on the Waldorf article, that your allegations about me referred to - pointing to that what you wrote more had the character of harassment than statements of facts.

Thanks, Thebee 00:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above belongs at the Evidence page. I'm sorry for having made the comment here. Thebee 12:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should make all this part of your assertions and evidence on the arbitration page Sune. Then I'll have to address it. You know what happened there as you've levied these charges before and I've answered them. So far, what you seem to be doing here on the talk page is intimidating people, first Fergie then me, for providing evidence. Why not make a statement and then we can go from there? Thanks! Pete K 01:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it - I'd may formally request that you stop intimidating people who are providing evidence here. Make a statement like everyone else and support your evidence - like everyone else. People who are interested in providing evidence in this case may be detered by your intimidation here. Pete K 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PeteK:

"... what you seem to be doing here on the talk page is intimidating people, first Fergie then me, for providing evidence."

That is not correct. What I have done is to point out that you have not provided evidence with regard to a number of specific allegations and ask that you (individually) do that at the Evidence page. That is the point of the Evidence page, supporting your allegations in this case with documenting diffs.

You write that you find this request intimidating, and that - instead - I should make your unsupported allegations about me here at this page, outside the Evidence page, part of my assertions and evidence at the Evidence page, as you refuse to support them with documentation, both here and at the Evidence page. That sounds like an expression of strange logic.

In addition, you then write that you're thinking of formally requesting somewhere that I - at this Talks page of the Evidence page - stop asking you and Fergie to provide diffs in support of some of your specific statements/allegations, questions for which this Talks page, but not the Evidence page, stands out as the proper place. What do you suggest we discuss here, where you have made the allegations I ask you to document supporting diffs for, but then left aside at the Evidence page, both in terms of statements and evidence in their support?

Thebee 01:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"That is not correct. What I have done is to point out that you have not provided evidence with regard to a number of specific allegations and ask that you (individually) do that at the Evidence page. That is the point of the Evidence page, supporting your allegations in this case with documenting diffs." Yes, the arbitrators should decide if I have done this, of course. I have either supported my claims with evidence or I haven't. You are, however, trying to get me to support claims that I haven't made on the arbitration page - and that I don't need to support with evidence on that page. So again, I encourage you to bring your accusations to that page and I'll address them there.

"You write that you find this request intimidating, and that - instead - I should make your unsupported allegations about me here at this page, outside the Evidence page, part of my assertions and evidence at the Evidence page, as you refuse to support them with documentation, both here and at the Evidence page. That sounds like an expression of strange logic." No, it's where that activity should take place. I'm not required to support anything you claim I have said here on this page. You are here harassing me and intimidating others to keep them from posting their evidence.

"In addition, you then write that you're thinking of formally requesting somewhere that I - at this Talks page of the Evidence page - stop asking you and Fergie to provide diffs in support of some of your specific statements/allegations, questions for which this Talks page, but not the Evidence page, stands out as the proper place. What do you suggest we discuss here, where you have made the allegations I ask you to document supporting diffs for, but then left aside at the Evidence page, both in terms of statements and evidence in their support?" My friend YOU are the one suggesting we discuss things here, not me. This is not intended to be a place for sniping by people who have chosen not to participate in the case - about issues that are not part of the case. If you have trouble understanding what is part of the case, have a look at the project page. Those are the issues that are to be discussed here - not other issues. If you put the issues you believe are important on the project page, then they can be addressed there, and if needed, discussion can take place here. I'm not, as I said, interested in an ongoing dialog with you about this as, again, it is not part of the arbitration UNTIL you put it in there. Knock yourself out my friend. Pete K 03:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the removal of a warning template: Wikipedia has no consensus that restricts the removal of warning templates from an editor's own user space. The matter has been subject of extensive discussion because this sort of thing happens fairly often in edit disputes. My recommendation is for any editor who objects to a template to request that an administrator remove it because that action usually places the removal above reproach, but I know of no other administrator who makes that particular recommendation. At any rate - since that isn't even at guideline level - I recommend the editors in this case concentrate on more substantive issues. Durova^Charge! 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova. I believe I replaced the templates immediately (reverted my archiving) when TheBee complained soon after I archived them. It is not, nor has it ever been, my intention to hide anything (which is, always available in the history anyway). I was just trying to do some housecleaning and when there was an objection - I reverted it back. Frankly, I thought my user space was mine to do whatever I wanted with - but when I saw it was going to cause a controversy (for TheBee) I was happy to restore it. Pete K 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors do have more leeway in user space than elsewhere. So far the community has leaned on placing some sort of restrictions on warning removal but hasn't agreed on what type of restriction to impose. When the removal happens during an edit war it usually goes over as antagonistic regardless of whether the warning was legitimate or frivolous, which is why I advise editors to request an administrator do the deletion - it's like letting a referee make the call. I'm not deleting your warnings BTW. Durova^Charge! 15:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PeteK 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC) on his removal on 31 October 2006 of the warning by Golden Wattle on 1 September 2006 for a personal attack from his Talks page:

"I believe I replaced the templates immediately (reverted my archiving) when TheBee complained soon after I archived them. It is not, nor has it ever been, my intention to hide anything (which is, always available in the history anyway). I was just trying to do some housecleaning and when there was an objection - I reverted it back. Frankly, I thought my user space was mine to do whatever I wanted with - but when I saw it was going to cause a controversy (for TheBee) I was happy to restore it."

Just out of curiosity, I have looked at the history of your Talks page, and have difficulty seeing any time when you have restored the original warning by Golden Wattle to your Talks page, and do not find it there today either. Maybe you can tell and show when you restored it, as you write that you believe(?) you did, writing that you were happy to do it? Thanks, Thebee 17:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you will show me exactly which warning you are referring to, I'll be happy to restore it for you. Do you have a diff with the actual warning? Again, I'm not trying to hide anything. Pete K 17:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Sune, I'll do you one better. Feel free to restore anything you want to see on my talk page yourself. You have my permission to restore anything you believe I have deleted that you feel needs to be on the page. Knock yourself out... Pete K 17:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PeteK:

"If you will show me exactly which warning you are referring to, I'll be happy to restore it for you. Do you have a diff with the actual warning?"

It's the one by Golden Wattle mentioned and linked to (at least) twice in the discussion above, the last time 17 lines upwards.

"Actually, Sune, I'll do you one better. Feel free to restore anything you want to see on my talk page yourself. You have my permission to restore anything you believe I have deleted that you feel needs to be on the page. Knock yourself out..."

"Knock myself out"? A second time? You sure I'd survive that, even from myself, even though you've told me in discussions that I (187cm) am much smaller than you ...? The primary point is not that you deleted the warning as such, or that the warning is restored. The primary point is that you deleted obvious evidence of a number of personal attacks by you, as documented by the Warning by Golden Wattle, when faced with a second similar warning from Centrx, just minutes before you then went on to tell Admin Centrx that you did not think his warning had any validity:

"For the record - I don't believe I have broken ANY Wikipedia rules with one exception - the 3RR rule a couple of months ago."

and then in a second step also explicitly denying the validity of the first warning by Golden Wattle.

A new point is that you did not restore the warning by Golden Wattle to your talks page, as you today write to Durova that you believe you did, telling that you were happy to do it, in a similar way you told, when warned by Centrx, that you believed that you had not made any personal attacks, two minutes after you had deleted the evidence of it.

Such types of denial of simple and obvious facts belong to what regrettably makes it so difficult to discuss with you at times regarding what you do and write.

This is exemplified also by your comments regarding the removal of a direct link in one article to a section in another Wikipedia article and replacing it with just a general link to the page. It did not work in its original form, and I had fixed it. You described the replacement of the direct link to the relevant section with just a general link to the page, in the edit summary with "Repaired link". When I reinserted the direct link, you removed it again, and argued for this in the edit summary with: "You don't need this propaganda in the link.".

When I asked Admin Centrx for advice on how to handle this problem, he did not answer. And you gave an untruthful description of what you had done: "Indeed, in the edit you made that we are discussing, you included with the link a POV description. That's what I removed then - and I have gone back and removed it again", describing my correcting linkfix as a vendetta", in a similar way you here at this page describe my simple and very polite question to you second time to document allegations you made at the beginning of the arbibration with some substantiating diffs as "intimidation" of you.

What you wrote in the first mentioned discussion was untrue, as you did not remove anything in my Edit summary, that you referred to with your comment, but the specificity of the link. When I pointed this out, you dismissed this and did not address it, in a similar way you here have dismissed my question to you to document the allegations about me, that you made at the beginning og the arbitration, unless I force you to answer it by asking at the Evidence page to do it, and calling my question, not your way of handling it and refusal to answer it, "intimidation".

Thebee 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I have stricken above belongs at Evidence page. I'm sorry I brought it up here. Thebee 12:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you insist on bringing all this on the talk pages. As I have said, restore anything you like on MY talk page and make whatever claims you feel are valid on the arbitration page. I don't know how to be more accommodating to you. If you have a gripe, bring it where it's supposed to be. Right now, my time is limited (I work for a living, believe it or not) and I can't possibly engage you in an on-going dialog here - and there is no reason to believe that even if I answer your complaints here, that this will be the end of it. The arbitration page is there for these kinds of claims. At the moment, I barely have time to read all your complaints - let alone answer them. BTW, I've filed a request, as I said I would above, asking the arbitration team to have a look at your behavior here. It's inappropriate to attack from the sidelines here. Again, if you have something to bring to this process, it should be on the arbitration page. I will happily accommodate you there. Hopefully, you will take this to heart. Thanks in advance. Pete K 20:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, both sides would serve their interests better by devoting attention to policy issues. Durova^Charge! 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make a general statement about the stuff about mentorship, apologizing for incivilities etc. With all due respect, this is excruciatingly time consuming, and not the focus of my life. I think it's really great that there are people dedicated to making wikipedia better - it's a very worthwhile project and it's great that there are smart and focused people improving its quality, refining procedures etc. I'm not one of them. I'm not interested in becoming a "wikipedia citizen" etc. I've used wikipedia for various things and been grateful that there are volunteers working hard to make it what it is. I've contributed here and there in various other areas I have interest in. I'm working on adding critical sections on Jose Saramago's novels (big fan). I'm fighting with a white supremacist on the article about Nadine Gordimer. That's the extent of it for me. Having a job and family I don't have time to "become a wikipedian." In this Steiner/Waldorf/anthroposophy situation I am here to say what I have to say. I am generally a person able and willing to cooperate with others, but I'm just not interested in getting a mentor, and I've spent almost zero time learning my way around all these complicated procedures and rules. There's no doubt I've been incivil on a number of occasions and could play more nicely, especially with certain people. OTOH I'm unlikely to spend my limited time going through a long list of diffs provided by Hgilbert or whoever listing the times I've said "bullshit" or gotten (definitely) rather huffy and snotty with him. It is very difficult for me to be polite to "Thebee," who states publicly that I am associated with a hate group. I can certainly acknowledge it would be much better for me to stifle rude replies. For me however this is just reality - I am not good at playing games going through lengthy procedures to try to prove I can play the wikipedia game the wikipedia way. I will almost always choose to spend such time working on the article or discussing the issues. I make no secret of the fact that my main aim here is not "improving wikipedia articles" but "doing damage control" regarding the fact that these folks are using wikipedia for free advertising and a pulpit to preach from. I understand that attitude may be slightly frowned on at wikipedia, in which case I'll accept reprimands or advice. (This sort of thing is going on with many of the articles on small religious sects, and frankly the critics are doing wikipedia a service.) I'm not trying to say I'm blameless or always a pleasant individual to deal with - I accept full blame for any occasion where I've lost my temper or said something stupid or rude. I'll quote Durova: "I won't quarrel with straightforward corrections to whatever mistakes I might have made." (I'm also not quite done adding evidence, and this is literally all the time I'm going to spend replying to criticisms of my behavioral faux pas.DianaW 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For instance - Thebee has noted correctly that I was wrong to accuse him of making a list on me. He made long lists on Pete, and I asked him if he had lists on me, too. I looked around to try to figure out if he had a list on me. I never found one. He never replied to my question. Though it may not have been an unreasonable question on my part, I was wrong to go on insisting there was a list when there apparently wasn't. In my own defense I'll say that I believed my own accusation. I was then a bit chagrined to look back through that dialogue and realize I had converted a suspicion into an accusation that never had any basis.DianaW 13:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation that PeteK's book project constitutes a conflict of interest happens to touch on a subject where I have some expertise. Books-in-progress range from loose sheets of longhand notes (which seldom reach fruition) to final polishes on a manuscript for which the writer has already been paid in advance. The committee decides whether COI has been violated. I'll offer some relevant questions for consideration:

• Has PeteK received an advance from a publisher for this project?
• Has PeteK entered a contract with a literary agent?
• Has PeteK submitted book proposals or queries for the project?
• Does PeteK have special qualifications that make his project likely to find a publisher at some future date, such as prior book authorship or an MFA in writing?
• Has PeteK received financial compensation for other writing connected to Waldorf or Anthroposophy criticism, such as magazine or book articles, employment or contract work for a Waldorf-critical organization, or a website that gets AdSense revenue?

Durova^Charge! 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova. I'm happy to answer these questions.

• Has PeteK received an advance from a publisher for this project? - No.
• Has PeteK entered a contract with a literary agent? - No.
• Has PeteK submitted book proposals or queries for the project? - No.
• Does PeteK have special qualifications that make his project likely to find a publisher at some future date, such as prior book authorship or an MFA in writing? - Possibly - by some stretch. I am the primary author of a technical book on AutoCAD which was published in 1995. The publisher was John Wiley and Sons, Inc. I'm certain they wouldn't be interested in a book about Waldorf education. I have also had published several articles in trade magazines about the subject of AutoCAD drafting - also back in the 1990's. As a technical illustrator, my illustrations (not my writing) are sometimes published in technical books about ADA (handicap access).
• Has PeteK received financial compensation for other writing connected to Waldorf or Anthroposophy criticism, such as magazine or book articles, employment or contract work for a Waldorf-critical organization, or a website that gets AdSense revenue? - No.

Additionally, my authorship of this "book" could most accurately be described as a hobby. In it's current form it is loose pages of scribbled notes - and publication, if it were to occur, would be in several years, if ever. Pete K 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An issue that needs to be dealt with in some form by this arbitration is whether the advert label is appropriate for the Waldorf education article. Venado has now shown that it was originally put there by a vandal who was labelling many articles this way, and who has since been blocked from editing. Some editors feel it is appropriate; other editors, coming without predispositions, have indicated that they see no justification for such a label. An opinion by the arbitrators would be helpful. Hgilbert 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to suggest that the user in the diff HGilbert presented above is "coming without predispositions". There have been a lot of predisposed people pretending to be neutral here. Additionally, there is nothing to suggest that the blocked "vandal" was vandalizing the article by placing the tag there (as it appears several people agreed that it belongs there). As vandals go, and we've seen lots of them, that seemed like a very reasonable edit. I suspect the Arbitration Committee will review the article carefully with respect to all the claims that have been made. Pete K 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the diff provided by Venado to suggest the placement of the {advert} tag was "vandalism". The diff shows clearly that the edit summary for the block does not describe the tag placements as vandalism. The edit summary says "Bad faith edits (nothing but applying templates, many inaccurate, plus snarky comments on user's pages)" - so this was not called "vandalism" as Venado and HGilbert have characterized it - but "bad faith edits". That may not seem like too big a difference, but notice the assessment of the tag placements by the administrators who comment "many inaccurate" - which means even the administrators issuing the ban on this "bad faith" editor found at least some of the tag placements to be accurate. Additionally, the ban was at least in part issued for "snarky comments on user's pages". We don't know how much weight the "snarky comments on user's pages" had on the decision to ban - and this activity apparently didn't occur with respect to the Waldorf article or any of the editors editing that article so there's no reason to suspect that a malicious intent was the reason for the {advert} tag. In any case, the editor was NOT banned specifically for placing the {advert} tag on the Waldorf article, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this was a malicious, controversial or anything but a legitimate, well-considered and appropriate edit. I'm quite sure Durova has a latin phrase that appropriately encapsulates this - but I like Shakespeare's term - much ado about nothing. Pete K 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to both sides: use a light touch with the edit button during arbitration. Nobody looks good if a new skirmish breaks out over a template. Arbitrators usually remain tight lipped until the voting phase so don't ask depend on them to settle this. You might petition another admin to make the call about whether the template stays or goes (I'm staying out of that one). If both sides agree to that solution and abide by it then that's a piece of evidence you can cooperate, which looks good all around. PeteK adds a side comment that amounts to meatpuppetry. If that's a serious allegation then present it in a serious manner rather than as an insinuation on a talk page. Durova^Charge! 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova. I'm not making a formal charge here - I'm happy to assume good faith. The guy may have been predisposed to removing tags for no reason - for all we know. We've had a suggestion that someone else was predisposed to adding them for no reason - so why not? I'm not willing to concede any assumptions at this point. All we know is he removed a tag. There has been no evidence to support HGilbert's claim that he did this without predisposition - just like there's no evidence to support his claim that the guy who added the tag was a vandal. Pete K 06:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I make an assessment about whether a tag belongs on an article I ask whether the template describes the article accurately. Rarely does the tagging editor's possible motivation come into play. Durova^Charge! 06:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence page asks:

"When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise"

and advices:

"Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, ..."

So far, the section by Pete has grown to appr. 6,700 words, exceeding the suggested limit with soon seven times. This makes is probably close to impossible to read for anyone, including arbitrators, and adress for any of those adressed in the different sub sections in a reasonable way. How have similar situations been adressed and handled in the past? Thanks, Thebee 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a provision in the arbitration policy allowing the arbitrators to ask the clerks to condense and sumarize long evidence presentations, but I'm not aware of it ever being used in a case. My personal feeling is that it should be possible to make a good case within those limits by being focused and concise. If the arbitrators have a problem with the presentation I am sure they will let Pete know. Thatcher131 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. How many cases are you aware of where an editor has used 6-7000 words to present his or her views? Thebee 00:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't kept track. Thatcher131 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I asked for bifurcation of the case from the outset. I've tried to be concise in my initial presentation of evidence, but adding rebuttals has, of course, expanded my evidence. I suspect TheBee will be using far less words and but many links to elaborately constructed pages on his own websites... just a guess of course. Pete K 00:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, that's a WP:AGF foul. Durova^Charge! 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Thatcher, I seem to recall that happening in the Gundagai editors case. It doesn't seem worth dredging through the diffs to verify whether some posts were condensed as well, but one of the editors' submissions definitely needed a lot of moving and template-signing. I'm glad there are people who volunteer to be clerks and arbitrators because somebody's got to do it, but whew. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the Gundagai case it was a problem of getting all her contributions organized in one place since she didn't pay much attention to the "post in your own section" rule. I've been a clerk for 3 months or so and watching closely for a couple months before that and have not seen for myself a request from the arbs to the clerks to re-work the evidence in any manner other than purely clerical. Thatcher131 03:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pete, that's a WP:AGF foul." Yes, you're right... sorry. Apologies to TheBee. I shouldn't have assumed you will be providing numerous links to your web pages. Please forgive me. Pete K 03:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, Pete does raise a very good question about the motion to bifurcate. I think the lack of response is slowing down this case: if it doesn't bifurcate then a lot of withheld evidence is going to come into play rather late, which will repeat the process of examination and rebuttals on an already long evidence page. Could you request some responses on whether bifurcation is likely to happen or not? Durova^Charge! 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, so far, Pete - according to the word stats of a text editor - has used appr. 7,000 words to describe and argue for his views regarding in the main two articles (including the one on WE) but also other of the articles in this case before a possible bifurcation. I would expect Pete has used this space to cover what he views as the most important issues in his view.

If the main problem for the arbitrators is to get a picture of the behaviour of different editors - possibly in the main PeteK, DianaW, Hgilbert and me - in our editing, just as a possible reflexion: do you expect adding possibly 7,000 more words from Pete, in addition to all possible additional comments and answers by others, would add important information with regard to this problem?

Thanks, Thebee 16:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to limit my evidence to the Waldorf education article - an article TheBee has not done too much editing in. I could present, as DianaW did, lots of evidence from other articles relating to TheBee's activities. I'm certain that my desire to limit my evidence to this article has benefitted TheBee overall. Another editor, Professor Marginalia, who I happen to know is one of the five members of the controversial Americans for Waldorf Education group (the 5 member group responsible for suggesting PLANS is a hate group) has escaped criticism completely despite heavily biased editing in the PLANS article because of her relatively few edits in the Waldorf article that I concentrated on. If more space were available, I would certainly have the opportunity to address her edits along with TheBee's to demonstrate a pattern of inappropriate and conspiratory activity there. I'm not sure 7,000 more words would be enough, however. Pete K 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else has any comments on this? Thebee 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to comment that so far TheBee hasn't provided one word of evidence in this case. Not one word. Instead he as been "buzzing" around the talk pages issuing demands for evidence from me and others. I suspect that if TheBee ever gets around to producing his evidence, I may have a few thousand more words to add to the evidence page. If TheBee had produced his evidence in a timely manner, his evidence could have been refuted along side the evidence produced by HGilbert, Venado, and Trueblood. I certainly don't want to rush him, but this process started before Thanksgiving (that's Nov. 23rd Sune). I understand this case covers a lot of material, but I want to be sure there is adequate time to address and possibly refute each and every point TheBee presents in his evidence. Pete K 21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else has any comments on the request by PeteK for space for 7,000 more words of comments? Thanks, Thebee 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think I've used up too much space, maybe you won't mind leasing me the space you were going to use but never did. Pete K 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else has any comments? Thebee 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to another recent case where I participated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Evidence. With the notable exception of the first statement from the anonymous editor, these presentations are neat and to the point. The editors described major patterns and provided sufficient diffs to illustrate each contention. Durova^Charge! 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that, would you have any suggestion for the present case? Thanks, Thebee 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My graduate studies were in writing and I've done some tutoring and teaching assistantship in the subject. The biggest mistake most people make is to start a draft too soon. Read the existing submissions carefully. Take notes on paper or a text editor to identify your points of interest. Eliminate whatever's already covered unless you have something new and valuable to add. Dig around with some research to verify your hunches - I usually have three or four browser windows open in addition to my word processing program. Then decide which points are most important and structure a presentation. Write something out, then sleep on it. Give it another look and some changes. Perhaps my most important piece of advice is the strangest: don't post it while you're hungry. People tend to be quarrelsome when they're hungry.

When it comes to addressing me in particular, I'd prefer if you don't. The real heart of the matter is with the article editors. If you spot a factual error or contradiction in something I've posted then just present the correction and evidence in a straightforward manner. If something seems unclear about my meaning it's okay to query me. This reference might be obscure to someone who lives in Sweden, but maybe you've heard of Judge Wapner from The People's Court. Talk to him fairly and show him your evidence. If you think he's missed something point it out and he'll pay attention, but what everybody said about Wapner's courtroom was "Don't talk back to the judge!" Anyone who tried to insult his competence got the lecture of their life right there in front of everybody with the cameras rolling. He only gave those lectures when they were appropriate and he didn't seem to hold a grudge afterward: basically a nice guy who didn't tolerate nonsense. I don't judge at this arbitration of course, but in administrative roles I try to be like him. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this case deals with the actions of one group of editors on one group of articles, I doubt there will be any bifurcation. You should get all of your evidence out at the start. Take as much space as you need, but be aware that the suggested guidelines on evidence are for the arbitrators' benefit, as they are busy and cases can become very complicated, and are therefore for your benefit as well. Having an extremely long evidence page does not gain you an advantage, and possibly the reverse. If the evidence is too long, there is a provision in arbitration policy where the arbitrators can ask the clerks to clean up and summarize the evidence. I don't think this has ever actually been used, and I'd rather not be a pioneer. You may be able to condense your evidence somewhat by reducing the argumentation and letting the diffs speak for themselves, where possible, and by focusing on the behavior of other editors rather than trying to prove a case about Waldorf education. For example, the user Instantnood is banned from editing articles about Singapore, not because his views were wrong, but because he could not edit collegially and cooperatively with others. Thatcher131 05:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Thatcher for looking into the bifurcation issue. Pete K 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, Durova! On "maybe you've heard of Judge Wapner from The People's Court": If you have it on American TV, we mostly have in on Swedish TV too in some form after the introduction of commercial TV a number of years ago. It's re-broadcast from one week to many years later, and includes from Boston Legal and The West Wing down to Soap and The Jerry Springer Show. The People's Court I only remember having seen a few times in its parodied form though (regrettably). Thebee 10:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]