Case Opened on 01:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reopened for Review on 14:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC) at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review on the initiative of Fred Bauder 14:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC) as provided for here.[reply]

Review closed on 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 08:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 08:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 23:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

Articles at issue

Rudolf Steiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Deleted by me per AfD. - crz crztalk 23:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Userfied to my userspace in order to allow litigants to present diffs. Available at User:Crzrussian/Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. - crz crztalk 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Waldorf education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anthroposophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PLANS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dan Dugan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Statement by Hgilbert[edit]

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, [1]) One user claims here that editors who have had any contact whatsoever with Waldorf education are inherently biased towards the educational approach. Two editorsare extremely frequent contributors to an extremely anti-Waldorf web forum and have emotionally charged personal issues with Waldorf education. Hgilbert 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The list of editors above is complete and fair 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 ([2], [3]). 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; User:Durova cited as an example of such language a passage introduced by the "anti-Waldorf", not "pro-Waldorf" editors asdemonstrated by an independent editor. His use of this passage to show that "pro-Waldorf" editors are inserting such language is thus curious indeed.

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]

I do not have any financial interest relating to this article. Hgilbert 16:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fergie[edit]

The Waldorf education system, Rudolf Steiner, and Anthroposophy are fraught with contradiction and controversy, and it is this which is interesting to the casual reader.

There has been a concerted effort by Hgilbert, TheBee and others with a vested interest in Waldorf education to airbrush over various nasty (and therefore interesting) details, and clog up the articles with paragraphs of what can only be descibed as bland 'brochure material'.

The editors in the other camp (PeteK, DianaW, et al), have rightly added balance to the article, much to the annoyance of the aforementioned extreme pro-waldorf group. I can see that this has created confrontation, but I cannot say that any party has acted particularly unreasonably.

My own feeling is that the extreme pro-waldorf group have been dragged into line to some extent, and at this point in time the article is not quite so outrageously unwikipedian as it was.

The editors have rightly been inclusionist in their editing of the article, so rather than remove text, counterbalancing point of view has been inserted. This has lead to the article becoming rather 'fluffy' and uninteresting for the average visitor.--Fergie 10:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by venado[edit]

I have not been a part of this except in a few cases, minor changes. I was curious why there was all the changes back and forth, and nasty fighting in the articles, which turns out to involve the same editors, and why there was so much fingerpointing, and worse, character assassination. It seems like a lot of overcorrecting too. If something is POV, somebody else corrects it by putting the opposite. But it's just a POV the opposite direction which is no better and a lot of times worse. Venado 00:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who found the diffs and gave them on Durovas talk page that showed Hgilbert did not write that "brochure language", but someone who was critical. [4]. Durova criticized Hgilbert for brochure language there but there was no diff. I looked to find the truth, and Hgilbert was not to blame. When I gave the diff Hgilbert was still blamed. Who ever makes the accusation needs to give the diffs, that's only fair. That is the problem. People accuse but do not show it, so that's why I looked.

Now it's fair to say that when I looked there I found Pete K has a conflict interest too. He told on the wikipedia that he is a Waldorf parent and reformnist founded a Waldorf school [5], and author working now on a book about Waldorf.[6] He linked his own website [7], [8]. This website also tells why he came to wikipedia message

I believe all sides must stop accusing without first checking to see the blame is fair. People should not believe accusations that do not show diffs, and all sides must be more fair to the other sides. And don't point fingers to other people if you are really doing it yourself. Venado 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I also don't think it's fair that the request for arbitration keeps changing after it was voted on and people have made statements. [9]. Venado 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pete K[edit]

I don't think there is enough room here to describe everything that has been going on in the several articles that have been mentioned (and at least one that has been left out of the list - PLANS) so I'll try to confine my comments to the Waldorf Education article itself. The arbitration should cover this single article because the problem here (the direct conflict-of-interest of at least one of the editors of the Waldorf article) may not apply to the other articles.

I arrived here to find an article about Waldorf education that was literally like reading a Waldorf school brochure. A project team was developed. At first, I joined the project in good faith until I started reading comments in the project outline like "8 Criticism and debate - The criticisms people make of the system (presented in a clear and non-hysterical fashion)" [10]. As I didn't think criticism of Waldorf was generally presented in a "hysterical" fashion, I started looking through the list of participants, I started to realize that many of them were heavily invested in Waldorf. I decided there would not be a possibility for an unbiased article by a group of Waldorf people.

Most heavily invested in Waldorf is HGilbert, who is, in fact, a Waldorf teacher. As a Waldorf teacher, he directly benefits as Waldorf benefits - the more demand there is for Waldorf education, the more in demand Waldorf teachers are. Mr. Gilbert has been responsible for a good deal of the brochure language in the article, and has defended it tooth-and-nail against removal. This is a conflict-of-interest. He is essentially being paid (indirectly) to edit the same articles I am editing for free. Furthermore, Mr. Gilbert, himself, has produced a book called "At the Source: the Incarnation of the Child and the Development of a Modern Pedagogy" published by AWSNA press (Association of Waldorf Schools in North America) - and he has written a Wikipedia article promoting his own book in the reference section.

Another problem here is that references to the language that touts Waldorf methods is citable most often in Waldorf or Anthroposophical literature - i.e. Waldorf brochures are being referenced to justify the brochure language in the article. So if a Waldorf brochure says "All Waldorf students learn to speak two foreign languages" - it ends up in the article - and it is, technically, properly referenced. The fact that all Waldorf students DON'T learn how to speak two foreign languages becomes difficult to defend since nobody has bothered to publish this fact (why would they?). So we end up with weasel words saying "some Waldorf students learn to speak two foreign languages" or "many children are reading by the age 8" - and for most readers at that point, it’s... well... "big deal". So, Mr. Gilbert has decided that the Waldorf article should talk about "goals" - what the school "tries" to achieve... wording like "educate the whole child" creeps into the article when we start describing the "goals" of the educational system. It is clear that to a Waldorf teacher, or to many of the Waldorf supporters who are invested in Waldorf, an article describing what actually happens in Waldorf wouldn't describe their "impressions" of the schools. They want this article to make Waldorf sound like more than it actually is because a healthy, positive article about Waldorf means more people will be interested in Waldorf schools. If you're a Waldorf teacher or run a Waldorf home school, that's good news. But even if you are just an Anthroposophist, Waldorf schools are great places for people to learn about your religion - so lots of Waldorf schools means lots of people contacting and learning about Anthroposophy. That's why the brochure language keeps proliferating in the Waldorf Education article. It's not only motivated by financial reasons, it's motivated by reason of spreading "the word" of Steiner.Pete K 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: There is discussion on the discussion page Pete K 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HGilbert's statement is now 950 words long and growing. Both Diana W and myself have indicated that we would have provided more in the way of a statement if we weren't trying to be brief and stay within the guidelines (I know my statement went over the 500 word limit too). Are we suspending these guidelines now (can I expand my statement too) or should Mr. Gilbert be asked to trim his statement? There are allegations made here that are out of order and that need to be addressed. Thanks! Pete K 04:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DianaW[edit]

This is not a full statement as it's not really even clear to me what's being "arbitrated" now, but a brief reply re: previous mediation attempt. The notion that Pete or I somehow ruined their effort is nonsense. We insisted on mediating real issues not invented or craftily worded ones, like "whether it's okay to say anything positive about Steiner," as if we could or would justify simply taking out anything positive about Steiner. It was like arguing with kids in junior high. In addition, many of the issues they wanted to "mediate" were simply things that are basic wikipedia policies and aren't negotiable, like using acceptable sources. Additionally, they wanted any source from someone "critical" labeled with some kind of big sign "This person is critical." It never got anywhere because their understanding of the issues was basically juvenile. Similarly this nonsense about removing biographical material readily demonstrates the almost pathological devotion they feel to Steiner as a guru. I merely suggested shortening the biographical section to an appropriate length and removing fluffy silly stuff only of interest to his groupies, stuff that was likely to appear truly goofy to ordinary readers of an encyclopedia. Admittedly I was a little satirical about it, but the thing just read ridiculously; it was comical, and I actually feel Steiner deserves the respect of being portrayed as he was - nobody else is going to believe he practically walked on water anyway, so why not write a *real* encyclopedia article on him? Their problem is simply that they can't STAND to see Steiner portrayed as less than a grand master and benefactor of humanity. You'd think he was Nelson Mandela. I don't see this new attempt as much more promising, consider once again it's hopelessly vague as to what exactly someone is aiming to "arbitrate."DianaW 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I really love the "egregious violations" I'm accused of above. I urge people to check out my egregious violations!DianaW 19:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova[edit]

The above assertion by Hgilbert, 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, appears to refer to a discussion at my user talk page in which Hgilbert claimed, much of what you might call brochure language has been contributed by a range of editors, including Pete himself.[11] Hgilbert provided no page diffs in support of that assertion and, although I never endorsed that viewpoint, this editor now appears to attribute the opinion to me as an investigative conclusion: I know of no other administrator who took an interest in this case prior to the arbitration request.

I suggested arbitration after Pete K alleged that Hgilbert has a financial conflict of interest at Waldorf education. My recommendation was conditional and based upon the precedent at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel, in which evidence of conflict of interest appeared to affect the acceptance and outcome of a case that had not gone through the entire WP:DR process. I referred the editors to the arbitration clerks for an evaluation of whatever evidence might constitute conflict of interest. Hgilbert implicitly admits part of Pete K's allegations here.[12]

My conditional recommendation changed to a definite recommendation when a long thread ensued at my user talk page shortly before this request opened.[13] This family of articles has been stalled for months over a dispute that runs deep and that has been conducted on rather subtle terms. An example is a post by Thebee two days after this arbitration request opened, ostensibly to ask for a policy clarification, that included a long series of examples.[14] Those examples all tended toward a single point as the response by DianaW demonstrates.[15] Also see Pete K's response.[16] I had already referred the entire matter to arbitration, and specifically referred conflict of interest questions to the arbitration clerks, so it is difficult to read Thebee's question as anything other than disruptive provocation.

From what I have seen of this dispute, certain editors - particularly Hgilbert and Thebee - have attempted to WP:OWN the article in violation of WP:NPOV to create an advertisement for Waldorf schools. In interactions with me they have done very little other than make contradictory and unsupported accusations: I fail to see why Pete K and DianaW would add pro-Waldorf "brochure language" if, as Hgilbert also alleges, those editors were radical anti-Waldorfers. Hgilbert's and Thebee's references to site policies have ranged from self-serving to provocative. Unless Hgilbert referred to some administrator other than myself, of which I am unaware, this editor has grossly misrepresented my position to this committee. In a word: sophistry. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thebee[edit]

This problem started in July with a dispute over whether the site of a small anti-Waldorf group PLANS (WC/Waldorf Critics) qualified as external link in the article on Waldorf education, and was necessary to avoid censorship of its views in the Waldorf article, in addition to first one and then two internal Wikilinks to the article on the group in four sections on criticism of Waldorf education in the Waldorf article, as the article on the group in full documents its background, history, views and actions. I have no personal grudge against the representatives of the group but argued against this, and as one argument pointed out that the group, as one part of its anti-Waldorf argumentation at its site publishes argumentation, similar to and characteristic of hate types of groups as a factor that disqualifies the site as external link.

This drew the two probably most active Waldorf critics on the net to Wikipedia in August in defence of PLANS, DianaW, former officer of PLANS as described by herself, and PeteK, divorced Waldorf parent since some years (as commented on by himself at Wikipedia). Both have told their full personal name. I have not. After her first period here, she commented on it at the mailing list of the WC.

In connection with his divorce, PeteK the last years during two periods has made 1000+, in the main from critical to defamatory postings about his children's continued Waldorf school, Waldorf education and anthroposophy as its main philosophical basis in two public discussion forums (outside PLANS). He also at a Waldorf-critical discussion list he owns has criticized me as one of two editors of a site on Waldorf education, Waldorf Answers. The site is recommended by AWSNA (the Association of Waldorf Schools in North America) as “A site dedicated to providing in depth answers about Waldorf education for parents and prospective parents”.

According to himself PeteK came to Wikipedia 20 August with the expressed goal “to bring this (the article on Waldorf education) under control”, and describing especially me as a member of “the lunatic fringe of Waldorf supporters” he seemed intent on fighting. On arrival, he started this by spamming the Waldorf article with repeated links to the anti-Waldorf group PLANS and his own Waldorf critical mailing list, and making repeated personal attacks and personally debasing comments on me and what I write, something he then repeatedly has continued to do in discussions and edit summaries. At my Talks page he has defended this with

”I'm agressive. I don't apologize. Waldorf hurts children every single day. It destroys families every single day. [...] Do you think I feel bad about being agressive toward people who do this? People who hurt children? Believe me, I don't.”

The types of Waldorf pupils through the years and their comments on their education don't seem to support him as a general experience.

Here at Wikipedia, he has described the site of “Waldorf Answers”, as a site

“replete with defamation and non-verifyable (outright lies) information.”

without substantiating it, deleted all links to it in articles and answered a request to substantiate his allegation with

”Your own website substantiates my statement for me. It's a waste of my time to continue to argue with you over the validity of your website.

When recently faced with the question if his participation here does not violate the Wikipedia policy regarding what Wikipedia is not, he has answered:

“I have no aggression AT ALL toward Waldorf education [...]“

He has also commented to me:

”I always tell the truth [...] That may be the key difference between us.":

I do not have any financial interest related to this article, and have not worked as a Waldorf teacher since the 1990s.

Have I done anything wrong here? Yes. Before I became clear about the policy against linking to sites you've been involved in the creation of, I added such links in some articles, as the sites are filled with information related to Waldorf education, and to the criticism of it, in the main originating from PLANS. I'm sorry about that, and should have left such linking to others.

At one time, I also had had too much in terms of bullying from PeteK, and told him what I felt for the spur of a moment about it, before writing a posting about it, which led to a number of further personal attacks from him. An administrator who at the request of PeteK looked at this decided not to take any action against me for it. Thebee 23:46, 22 November 2006

Statement by Trueblood[edit]

Speaking without much experience of the conflict at the waldorf article (but of the one at Rudolf Steiner) I confirm that there are two antagonistic camps. In my view the sympathetic camp is generally interested in extending the articles (making them more infomative), but also to put anthroposophy and steiner in a positive light, for example add famous people that had positive views on steiner and water down criticism. that sometimes gives the articles a unnecessary preachy tone. A lot of articles on movements share this tone and also a tendency to be a little too detailed for the generally interested reader.(for instance veganism, permaculture, maybe organic farming). The critical camp again in my view goes way over the top with noisy accusation of racism, cultish character etc. Both camps a involved in editwaring, but the critical camp had a sharper and more aggressive tone.

The controversy tends bloat certain subsections, for example the steiner and racism section (something that in my opinion could be sufficiently covered in 5-6 sentences) into a whole article, and swamps discussion pages . Readability and general interest seems to be very low on the agenda of most involved people. Accusations of financial interest seem ridiculous to me and maybe an attempt to game the process. People are ideologically and emotionally involved, but that is true for both sides.trueblood 12:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lumos3[edit]

Firstly I agree completely with user Fergie ‘s assessment of the situation.

I have been involved in long arguments over what constitutes a good citation on this page. If a cite supports Waldorf Education (WE) then it is permitted as an objective fact even if self published by a partisan author. If a cite opposes WE then only the most rigorous academic standards are permitted. Any mention of the organisation PLANS was excluded from the article for months yet this is the most public vocal critic of WE. Still not one sentence of the kind of criticism it gives is present in the article. See See Discussion page archive

The WE camp see WE as divinely revealed and inspired and any form of critical voice as a kind of blasphemy or religious persecution. Yet Wikipedia needs to report all notable opinion.

My remedy would be to have a short criticism section, setting out what critics say about WE. It would be difficult for the supporters to see things in print they disagree with but this situation applies on almost every Wikipedia article where there is heartfelt opinion.Lumos3 14:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Professor_marginalia[edit]

There are three problems involved in the two articles I've tried to help edit, Waldorf education and PLANS.

The first are the personal attacks that fill the talk pages, and at times go into the articles themselves. This is an almost fanatical compulsion for a few editors who won't stop it even after repeated reminders from other editors and administrative reprimands. Those articles will never improve through collaboration or consensus in this atmosphere.

The second problem is confusion about how the articles should reflect or report about the controversial subjects. The Waldorf education article was judged, properly, as lacking in its coverage about related controversial issues. However much of the material added wasn't sourced at all, or came from sources which are normally not qualified at wikipedia, such as self-published articles, blogs and the personal reports and opinions of the editors themselves. The unqualified sources were easier to provide than the wikipedia-suitable published sources, and rather than doing the homework to find good source material for improving the balance in the article, editors became sucked in to battles over whether the rules about sources should be suspended there to provide more balance to the article.

Edit wars developed when editors with a strong POV stubbornly edited as if a "special case" should be made to allow the nonconforming material they chose to be included into the article. Another inappropriate means taken to provide balance was to put snear quotations around editor furnished words and terms, which is both unallowed editorializing but also confuses readers when the article intersperses the snear quotes with legitimate quotes from sources and terms put in quotation marks to denote use/mention distinctions.

There is also a strong push by some editors to turn the articles themselves into official hearings for arguing the truth or falsity of the controversies rather than simply reporting the nature of them. This creates edit wars over what kind of direct evidence can be introduced as if this is the place to "prove" one or "disprove" one side or the other in the controversy as "right" and the other "wrong".

And the third problem is the arbitrary reverts. Editors used revert like their own personal veto and offered what I consider bad faith excuses as their objection. Statements they didn't like have been reverted first with the excuse "no valid source". And when valid, published sources (newspaper articles for example) are referenced, it would be reverted again with the excuse "that's just one source", so another would be found. Then it would revert again with the catch-all excuse "weasel words" even in contexts where that definition doesn't remotely apply. An editor would even revert something as "unsourced" while at the same time admit the statement was technically true. In many cases, an edit was arbitrarily reverted before the editor bothered to find any reason to object to it, borrowing time with a false excuse like "not discussed on talk page" even though a full justification was already given on the talk page, including instances where the arbitrary editor had personally agreed to the edit before it was made. This kind of gamesmanship disrupts the process toward improving the articles. Professor marginalia 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by goethean[edit]

I have been more involved in the Rudolf Steiner articles, having only edited the Waldorf Education article twice.

A major problem with the topic is that, unlike most other intellectual figures, there is little to no Steiner scholarship done by academics. Most of it is either worshipful pro-Steiner material, or debunking by advocates of a dismissive point of view. This makes the Steiner articles genuinely difficult to edit. This is aggravated by the lack of objectivity on both sides and by an utter lack of civility on the side of the anti-Steiner editors.

I believe that many of the editors here, particularly DianaW, PeteK, TheBee, and Hgilbert, are single-purpose accounts. Essentially, their fight over Steiner, which had already existed on other websites, was moved to Wikipedia. It seems that the pro-Steiner people were the first to 'colonize' Wikipedia in this way. All four of these editors have not taken the time to understand Wikipedia policies before attempting, with seemingly unlimited time and unflagging effort, to make Wikipedia reflect their opinions regarding Steiner. For example, PeteK consistently refers to "original research websites", referring to external websites. This in my opinion shows a poor grasp of the concept of "original research" as defined by Wikipedia. All four editors, but especially the anti-Steiner editors, have only taken an interest in Wikipedia policy when forced to, for example by this arb case.

Although the four editors have added lots of material to the Steiner articles, much of the anti-Steiner material is of questionable value, since it appears to be highly selective Steiner quotations carefully pulled from his voluminous writings in order to prove a point. I have pointed out on the Steiner talk page that the editors of the Nietzsche article, for example, have all but banned the addition of Nietzsche quotations to the article, because of how widespread this practice of abusive quoting is. My advice, was, of course, dismissed immediately by Pete_K.

I don't think that the four editors that I listed above are capable of working together on the Steiner articles. Apart from the bad blood, there was never any inclination to do so, no motive to compromise or to cooperate. This is because there was never any buy-in or commitment to the project of Wikipedia. The articles are the field for a zero-sum game. — goethean ॐ 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Accept to look at all issues. Charles Matthews 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. - SimonP 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 02:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 21:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)