User talk:Thatcher/Archive9

Thanks and about "attack sites"
Hi Thather131. Just to say thanks for semi-protecting the BKWSU page.

Regarding your post at the end of the article, I would like some guidance regarding the inclusion of negative content and links to negative sites. I removed the links to http://www.brahmakumaris.info because the site contains a page blatantly attacking and revealing personal information, complete with picture, of Riveros11. I would be OK with the link otherwise with the possible exception that most of the news articles on the site seem to libel the BKWSU or people within the BKWSU.

Do you think I am out of line here?

FYI I was intending to try and start a section on Controversies and/or criticism myself once I have gathered some sources. You have probably noticed I haven't made any "additive" edits yet, only "subtractive". I am aware of this and plan to develop a more balanced editorial style. I would be happy to work with other editors on this however so far the negative content tends to be poorly sourced and rammed into the article using what I can only describe as guerrilla tactics. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 09:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thatcher131
 * I am seeking direction concerning the removal by the BKs of the site http://www.brahmakumaris.info in the external links section. I note the following:


 * www.godhascome.com run by user avyakt7 is a self publishing site and listed as a citable source(multiple times).
 * www.godhascome.com is used to Proselytize, that “GOD HAS COME” and his original unscientific theory on the cycle of time based on 5000 years which is on its last days.
 * www.humangreatness.org which is a self publishing site  which serves as an avert to list current events.
 * www.brahmakumaris.info is a collaborative run by exBKs and associates, recognized by three cult awareness groups in the US (RickRoss, UK(Cult Information.org  and Australia(Cult Awareness and Information Centre      ).
 * The link to the Child Abuse http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~eromain/childprotection.htm report was removed because it was said it was self publishing even though it provides all the documentation of the process that and lists the tenets/beliefs of the organization.
 * Please note avyakt7's incessant attempt to reveal who I am and where I am. I find this very disturbing as he continues to show more and more hostility towards me. I have not encountered this sort of personal attack upon editing any other article. Is there a place where I can lodge a formal complaint?


 * Now, when I was in the arbitration case I didn’t want to go into the personal aspects as I don’t see it is necessary nor should be in any page/article within wikipedia. I do see this user avyakt7 as inciting people, attacking and mocking (with me in a sexist fashion filled with sarcasms).  All I ask is fairness in the implementation of the wikipedia regulations and guidelines.  I ask for guidance as I don’t want to get into a I revert them, they revert me as it only serves to bring about an unproductive editing environment.
 * Thank you for your assistance and time with regards to this matter. Sincerely, TalkAbout 04:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thatcher131,
 * avyakt7 continues with his personal attacks
 * and sexist comments. He has continues to rivert my work without regard in addition. I don't seem to have these issues on other articles as I always try to be polite and do the best possible work. Sincerely TalkAbout 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

BKWSU IT Team meat puppets still at their old revision tricks
Sir,

I discovered your block and note on my discussion site.


 * Please point out where I contravened the 3RR rule or withdraw your accusation.

Some people believe 03:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sir,


 * I have reviewed the situation. it would appear that I am already being vicitimized by this individual Riveros11 in the same way as others have before me.


 * At what point does it appear clear that these cult supporters are acting as a coordinated meatpuppet team for some illogical reason reverting entire article to defend some badly written version full of duplications that largely reads as an advertizement for their group avoiding any constructive discussion from outsiders?


 * Look at my edit. I followed the required protocol adding detail and references. I went to balance the article with previous given material. It takes two hands to clap. At what point does their behavior come under similar scrutiny?


 * I would not mind but I spent a considerable time trying to make sense of the topic and discussion; and yet they just revert back in one action. Where is the progression and development in that?

Some people believe 05:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

madam can you please fix it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suneetha_T.V. This article I created has some link problem. Sometimes it looks like a redlink. Can you please look at it and fix it? Mankaver 17:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Morton devonshire is stalking me again
Hi User:Morton devonshire followed me to an article that he never edited, and is now harrasing me. I ask him to stop, but he hasn't. I know you intervened with myself and User:Zer0faults before, can you ask him to please stop? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I can't get into anything new for a while (see the top of this page). In the past I have found admins  and  to be extremely helpful and fair-minded, and the same could be said for  as soon as his RFA officially closes. Good luck. Thatcher131 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see: User_talk:Tom_harrison. Travb (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think Morton was unnecessarily stirring the pot, and have removed a part of his comments that do not relate to the present case. Thatcher131 05:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks thatcher131, it is a shame that we all need third parties to get involved, and that we can't all act like adults here. I really appreciate your time and efforts--I wouldn't want you thankless job. Travb (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration
Please see the question and answer on my talkpage here and, if I have gotten anything wrong, please let me know. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 17:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Tor list
Thank you for doing the Tor house-keeping - four of the IP's you blocked this morning were involved in harassment yesterday. Here's another one: . Thanks again. - WeniWidiWiki 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nice web site, too.  I've added it to my toolbox. Thatcher131 00:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hay, I know you're busy... I just realized that all the tor blocks I did yesterday were anon only, account creation blocked. You think I should go back and reblock to kill the anon-only? Your point on ANI echoes my feelings on the matter (that if they aren't a hard block we get the possibility of abusive accounts), but apparently my fingers and my brain don't work in conjunction. At the least, with ACB we'd only have to worry about existing sleeper accounts from these tor nodes. Syrthiss 12:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this is the third time I've gone through the tor list, and the first time (and maybe the second), I also used anon only, account creation blocked. I ran it this time after Jpgordon's checkuser report on GoodCop, and I checked his logs and he was doing full blocks, so this time I did full blocks too.  Some of the existing blocks we find on the list are also AO/ACB,  I think you can argue for either version, and I note that the Tor advice doesn't really say all blocks should be soft, it says if you find a blocked node, you can ask for it to be made into a soft block.  For now I'm not going to redo my old blocks.  Next time I see Mackensen or Essjay I'll ask, or we could post the question to Talk:OPP.  Long winded way of saying "I dunno." Thatcher131 12:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, based on that I'm not going to redo them unless we get some guidance from Mackensen or Essjay. If I get time to block more of them though I'll start to use the hard blocks.  Thanks! Syrthiss 14:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwood points for Arbitration
I'm trying to draw up a brief, bulleted, to-the-point list of issues to be arbitrated but I'm uncertain where on the Starwood workshop page I should put them. Suggestions? Thanks. --Pigmantalk &bull; contribs 02:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right where my question is, in the "questions to parties" section. Thatcher131 02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Thatcher131. You wrote in the starwood arbitration "Parties engaged in removing Starwood links include ..."  I don't know if you intended to have a complete list whether the word "include" was meant to imply not necessarily complete.  You should know that I also removed starwood links (and I am obviously a party).  Sincerely, --BostonMA talk  03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. As it's just the workshop, you could add yourself or note it in the comments.  i;; add it now. Thatcher131 03:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf Education etc arbitration

 * Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

The primary editors involved have not let up the edit warring, and especially Pete K is edit warring at an even faster pace than he was before the arbitration. In under two weeks since the arbitration was closed he has racked up about 50 reverts, not all identified in the summary as such but it's still easy to see how many there are. . Even reverting to preserve plagiarized text. . This is the atmosphere there now. Pete K edits under his own fiat, he reverts under his own fiat, and orders everyone else to "take it to the talk page first" where he will, if he feels like it, grant someone else permission to make a particular edit too. While others have helped by finding sources by outside publishers, as we were supposed to do, he reverts those references if he feels like it, (just one here reverted with a false excuse, he later admits he hadn't even read the source). And he even continues to add new references to Steiner published materials, this one also just one easy for me to find quickly  He even edit wars over changes to talk pages. As maybe the ultimate symbol of what a mockery he's made of the arbitration process, instead of abiding by the terms and intentions of its decision, Pete K does his part by warring to put two "article probation" tags on the page instead of one,, saying two signs instead of one will "grab attention better". He's even received another 24 ban for 3rr edit warring, his 3rd one in 6 months. 

The arbitration failed completely. Even though nobody deserves it as much as Pete K, after all the time wasted by everybody to gather and check evidence the first time around, it might be a better use of time to just ban everybody for a long cooling off period, even me. I don't think I've done anything to deserve it, but if that's what it takes to avoid another marathon of diffs to get the picture, take out everybody involved from editing those articles. Venado 01:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, to start with I blocked Pete K and Hgilbert for 24 hours each for edit warring, and left a detailed message on the talk pages. Unfortunately, there are no more specific remedies in the arbitration case other than what generally applies to all editors.  It may be necessary to reopen the case to apply more specific penalties, but no one should look forward to that and think he/she will be the one left standing. Thatcher131 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thatcher131, I have read the arbitration ruling closely and have come to a somewhat different conclusion than you with regard to what are to be considered acceptible sources as citations for what types of info in the Waldorf related articles, based on the description of the Verifiability point, in the Final decision:
 * "Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."
 * I interpret that to say that for information that (on some unspecified ground) is to be considered controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are to be considered self published, and thus not reliable. But as far as I see, it also says that with respect to information which is not controversial in the Waldorf related articles, material published in Anthroposophy related publications are considered reliable. Do you find this interpretation to be wrong?
 * The unclear point is what is to be considered controversial in the articles, and that in the case of the Waldorf article refers to what in general is practiced at about 900 schools world wide, applying similar principles and curricula.
 * Pete K has stated that he's about to put 200 fact tags in the article on Waldorf education. That would put a demand for verification on the article in a separate category from probably all other articles at Wikipedia. It would constitute extremely bad faith hostile editing.
 * This comes to expression also for example, just to mention a fex examples, one of them mentioned above by Venado, his repeated insistence first that the Waldorf article has an Article probation info box not only at the Talks page, like all other articles on probation, but also at the top of the Article page itself calling the removal "aggressive editing", and then, when giving up on this, insisting, that at least two Article probation info boxes be placed, one directly on top of the other at the Talks page of the article, not only the one you put there, but also another more general one directly below it. Another - to me - strange repeated insistence by him is that the word anti-racism (and probably also not "anti racism" or "antiracism" either) cannot be used in a section title, arguing that it is not a word.
 * I think one must have sympathy for the difficulty for the ArbCom in penetrating the complex issue of how to come to a reasonable decision regarding the editing of the articles in question with on the one hand a tendency to bloat the Waldorf article with not immediately cited language, and on the other hand the extremely hostile editing practiced by Pete K.
 * As far as I understand, nothing in the Arbitration decision indicates that that part of the WP:NOR policy should not be applied in this case, that says:
 * "... research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
 * How to attain that reasonable goal?
 * If Pete K is banned for one or other reason, I'm confident that more level headed, reasoned and reasonable critics will take his place and contribute to a more normal situation for the editing of the articles. I'm sorry for my part in having contributed to the present situation four months ago.


 * Thanks, Thebee 08:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this part of WP:NOR also applies. There is some tension between "source-based research" and "drawing novel conclusions from primary sources."  When in doubt, use reliable secondary sources.  So for example, claims regarding racism being controversial, you can't use Waldorf sources to show that Waldorf is/was racist/anti-racist.  Pete K seems to have some disagreement over a supposed policy against wearing black.  He can not use school handbooks (self-published and not necessarily representative of the movement) or parent blogs as sources.  Pete claims that the high school cirriculum section leaves out key points.  If you can't agree on how to describe the cirriculum, then out it goes unless you can quote a third party source.  And so on.
 * This is not an ideal example, but I have previously dealt with a group of editors on the topic of goth metal music. They all know what goth metal is, and which bands are and which aren't, but since they each "know" something different, they edit war.  If one of them could quote a third party authority, it would have to stop.  Similarly on the active arb case involving Brahma Kumaris.  Two editors, one a current insider and one a former insider, now disenchanted, both have access to movement documents, teaching aids and scriptures that are not available to the general public.  One insists that BK is planning the end of the world and is a dangerous cult, the other denies.  Again, all based on personal knowledge, and personal interpretation and conclusion from primary sources.
 * You may have a case that Pete K is the most disruptive and that merely banning him will solve the problem for everyone else. Perhaps the committee will see it that way. Roll the dice if you must. Thatcher131 12:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer! On a first reading, I completely agree with your stance. What is stated as Waldorf theory says nothing about in what sense and to what extent the theory also is practiced. For that, systematical empirical sources are necessary. A difference in relation to Brahma Kumaris is that much of the original sources regarding anthroposophy in terms of what Steiner himself wrote or said is published on the net, and thus available for everyone to check against statements or articles about it, for example by such an author as a Mr. Staudenmaier. As for a possible ban on Pete K, as I see it, it would solve most of the issues regarding the articles involved, in terms of making the issues possible to discuss and agree on in a reasonable manner. My only real problem is with him, and he's the only one I'm polemical against (except the last days also "Wikivag"). I have experience of bullying, and I see no reason to accept it from him just to keep the peace in discussions. It's deeply degrading and insulting, both in personal terms and to reasonable thinking and arguing, and noone should have to be faced with it. But one issue is not clear. I have the definite impression that the "new" editor using the name "Wikiwag", though claiming to be a 62 year old man who likes to be adressed "Captain" or Sir(?), is a sock puppet for Diana W, set up after few days after Diana understood herself to have been blocked from editing an article on RS or anthroposophy. I have described the reasons for this impression at the Talks page of Durova, and asked her to look into it. So relieving to read someone sensible in all these discussions, as also I think Venado is. Again, thanks for your answer. Thebee 13:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As the only regular editor of the articles with NO actual or implied conflict of interest, I think it would be a very poor decision to ban me. I am faced with the difficult task (pretty much by myself) of bringing these articles from a very biased POV to a NPOV.  Nobody on the Waldorf Ed side of the fence seems interested in changing the well-biased articles in any timely manner.  I have, today, at the risk of being banned I suppose, removed the Anthroposophical references and requested citations - for the entire Waldorf Education article (including ones I have produced to support my views).  I've done this all at once because when we have tried to do this one by one, edit wars erupt over each and every issue - "this isn't controversial", "that is polemical", "my site is better than your site".  Frankly, I don't see why an administrator couldn't have just dropped by and done this to save all this back and forth, but I've done it now.  Each citation tag replaced must come from a non-Anthroposophical source.  I have suggested this should take a week before claims that are unsupported may be removed.  Later, if such claims find support, they should be reinserted into the article.  This is, I believe, exactly what the Arbitration Committee has asked for.  I'm taking this action, not as an insult to anyone, not as a shot over the bow of anybody's boat, but in complete compliance with what has been requested of us.  I don't intend to edit-war with anyone over this and I would appreciate the support of anyone who wants to move forward with what we have been asked to do. Pete K 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course you have a conflict of interest. Someone who has invested his time as an anti-X activist may have just as significant a conflict of interest as someone who's employment is based on public acceptance of X.  I have not looked at your edits in great detail, but it appears that at least some of your edits are designed to bring the organization into disrepute by referencing the stated beliefs of the founder, many years ago.  Note that reading primary sources to arrive at a novel conclusion is original research and is not permitted.  see Wp:or, among other places.  Regarding your most recent edits, the idea that Worldnet Daily is a reliable source is almost laughable, as it has a clearly defined agenda, and does not even quote "the other side".  It may be acceptable to use it as a source for the fact that a lawsuit was filed in 1999 (by the way, what was the outcome), but you are using it to drive a particular agenda of your own, and I do not think that one teacher training document cited in a one-sided conservative news web site's article about a trial that ocurred 6 years ago can reasonably be used to indict all of the Waldorf education movement.  I suggest you find some broader, more reliable, hopefully academic sources.  And no one involved in the arbitration case considers you "the only regular editor of the articles with NO actual or implied conflict of interest".  If the hammer drops, expect to be under it. Thatcher131 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, I'll take my chances with the hammer dropping (after a 40 hour investment in headbutting with the Waldorf teachers here over the past three days I can imagine it would be a relief at some point). A valid interest in the topic does not constitute a conflict of interest.  The teacher you refer to is Eugene Schwartz.  He was the HEAD of teacher training for Waldorf at the time the article was written, not just some teacher producing some teacher training document.  He set policy for all teacher trainers (as much as anyone does).  Regarding quoting Steiner, I have never directed the reader to conclusions - I have simply quoted Steiner's own words.  No editorializing, just providing the quote.  I get that we don't like this here, but unlike the Waldorf teachers here, I'm not introducing my opinions in the articles.  I have no reason to - I have no conflict of interest.  Pete K 05:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is getting worse; now an anthroposophic bookstore's review of a book by Steiner is quoted, as well. Nothing in the whole section is admissible by the arbitration verifiability standards except the first sentence; nothing whatsoever in the section relates to education. Hgilbert 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comment on 14 October 2006 in defense of your repeatedly aggressive postings in discussions about Waldorf related issues for long, when faced with a comment on it, could be understood to indicate the opposite, and seems to have been understood as such in a comment by one admin. Thebee 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not interested. Pete K 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thatcher131, you asked
 * "a lawsuit was filed in 1999 (by the way, what was the outcome),"
 * The Lawsuit is documented in full here. The transcript of the trial, when it finally took place September 12, 2005 is found here. According to the ruling by the judge (Conclusions of Law, p. 3/5)
 * "Plaintiff failed to carry its evidentiary burden of establishing that anthroposophy is a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or the other California constitutional provisions involved in this case, as stated in the Court’s pretrial order dated April 20, 2005. [...] Because the issue of whether anthroposophy is a religion is a threshold issue upon which the relevance of all other issues in this case depends, Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy its burden of proof on the threshold issue is dispositive of this action."
 * The Paintiff has appealed the ruling. The Defendants dispute the validity of the appeal. Thebee 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You guys get a lot of dishonest milage out of a technicality. The full case was never presented because of a technical issue.  Nothing has been resolved.  Pete K 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why you need reliable sources, in this case, some kind of article by or quoting a legal analyst who has reviewed the case as an expert. I could read the transcript and try to figure out whether it was really decided on the merits or a technicality, but I'm not a lawyer.  Neither are any of you, I expect.  Having one small group file suit in one state, in which the outcome is ambiguous or disputed, is very difficult to deal with fairly unless someone can quote a reliable independent third party report of the case.  We can't analyze the decision ourselves (interpreting primary sources to arrive at novel conclusions is disallowed original research) and without a third party to tell us what it means, we're left with stating, "a suit was filed and the outcome is disputed", which is about as informative as saying nothing at all.  It might be different if critics of Waldorf had filed lawsuits in multiple states, coming to the attention of national media and generating stories that could be quoted. Thatcher131 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying this in an official capacity? As it stands in the PLANS article, the court documents are being selectively harvested for quotes in order to paint a particular picture.  Are you saying that these documents should, instead, be reviewed by a third party expert (and not the writers of the article)for an evaluation of what they contain (and mean)? Pete K 19:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate second (duplicate) article probation tag added again
Wikiwag has returned and again added a second Article probation tag at the top of the article page on Waldorf education, in addition to the ArbCom tag at the Talks page of the article. Did you not argue on 12 Jan, Thatcher131, when you removed the duplicate tag from the Talks page of the article, after Pete K had added it as duplicate tag to the Talks page instead after it had been removed from the article page, that "there is no provision for issuing article or talk page bans, so the second template is inaccurate and should not be used"? Thebee 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per this comment to Wikiwag, tags placed improperly on the article page, or tags with invalid language placed on the talk page, may be reverted. For the sake of peace, don't go over 3RR, but notify me or another admin. Thatcher131 19:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I sincerely thought it was equally appropriate as the advertisement tag, as the usage states that it can be used "on the article page itself". - Wikiwag 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did not know that it said that. Let's say then that I would strongly prefer it be put on the talk page only.  Templates like neutrality offer guidance to both editors and readers who happen to find the article.  The probatation template really only offers guidance to editors.  In any case, the default template is incorrect for this article.  Thanks for your reply. Thatcher131 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf sources
I would like some clarity about the use of Waldorf sources. The arbitration seemed to say that they are acceptable for noncontroversial aspects. I am thinking of the section describing the curriculum (foreign languages, music, etc.) and the pedagogical ideas: for example, if the article says that Waldorf education emphasizes the arts in the elementary school - and no one disputes this to my knowledge - is an anthroposophical source not acceptable? Hgilbert 01:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dispute it. "The arts" is not what Waldorf emphasizes - in fact nothing of the traditional arts is emphasized, only special Waldorf /spiritual stuff like wet-on-wet painting and form drawing, eurythmy and such.  It's absolutely a controversial statement. Pete K 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs here saying that because wet-on-wet painting isn't mainstream, then it's not "the arts". It's an artistic activity. And I can't see that it's misleading to call it so. If it's a statement of fact that children do artistic activity in Waldorf school, then Waldorf sources should be acceptable.

Thatcher131...please please please clarify the ruling on sources...we're spending a huge amount of time disputing what is controversial and what is an acceptable source. Pete K states he thinks this article should have no Waldorf/anthroposophical sources whatsoever. I think for pure statements of fact they should be acceptable. We've had great momentum on cleaning this article up and we're getting bogged down again. Thanks. Henitsirk 03:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not art at all, it's spiritual activity disguised as art. Wet on wet painting is a spiritual activity - no question about it.  Eurythmy, same thing.  This is definitely not splitting hairs, it's seeing through the language to the truth.  Waldorf teachers always disguise what eurythmy is.  They hide the spiritual significance of the advent spiral, Michaelmas, wet-on-wet painting or drawing without outlines.  Parents have a right to know about these things and not to have Waldorf teachers give them the same double-talk on Wikipedia that they produce in parent meetings.  If cleaning up the article, for some, consists of replacing the Waldorf sources, then why did any of this transpire?  Please, please, let's have legitimate sources to support this material.  Everything that has a citation tag on it is controversial and requires a non-Waldorf source.  Doing this with Waldorf sources is not accomplishing anything. Pete K 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete K, I agree that all artistic activity has a spiritual component. But just because teachers may not explain that component to parents doesn't mean that you can't call painting art!! The truth is, children paint in Waldorf school and that is art. Thanks. Henitsirk 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That children paint is not the part that's controversial. But to make that statement without addressing what lies behind the painting - to pretend that when they paint they are not spiritually engaged in something else (according to Waldorf) is a lie... and that makes it controversial. Pete K 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the article mentions the spiritual basis of Waldorf. Why is it necessary to say that each separate item is spiritual? Maybe it would help me if you could give an example of how you think art should be presented in the article. And maybe we can discuss this on the article's talk page and not here? Thanks. Henitsirk 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'd be happy to if you want to open a discussion there. In the mean time, I think it should be made clear in the article that EVERYTHING in Waldorf is done for spiritual reasons.  This point does not come across in the first sentence.  Gardening is spiritual,  eurythmy is spiritual, science is spiritual, math is spiritual, geography is spiritual, recess, snack, lunch - all spiritual, morning verse, spiritual/religious.  Ringing bells to get the children's attention - spiritual, lighting candles when reading a story, spiritual.  Everything from making eye contact with the child each morning to the tone of voice used during the day by the teacher, to lighting a candle in parent conferences and faculty meetings long after the children have gone to bed is intended to be spiritual. If we include a paragraph like the one above instead of a "mention" of spiritual, then we wouldn't have to keep saying this.  The whole point of the article is to give a legitimate, truthful representation of Waldorf.  "Mentioning" that they are spiritual is nothing close to giving a complete picture of the extent of the spiritual nature of these schools.  So, for now, all we have is the citation request as a tool for getting to a true picture of Waldorf - and as long as we have sentences that disguise the spiritual aspects of everything, I will be asking for citations to support this.  It is, of course, frustrating to me how many people can write articles about something they have such a superficial understanding of.  This naiveté on the part of reporters works greatly to Waldorf's advantage - reporters can be fooled by the brochures and the wooden toys just like anyone else.  Very few are willing to investigate deeply into what is being claimed and what is actually happening in Waldorf.  Pete K 17:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

TheBee keeps making personal attacks
Thatcher131: I've had enough of Thebee's personal attacks against me (ADDITION) and other editors: here (one attack), here (two attacks), here (three attacks) and now here (numerous and at length where he accuses me of being a "meat puppet" or "sock puppet") that up until now, I've largely let go without comment or retaliation.

The record shows that I started out being completely civil, even when I disagreed with him; I've even supported his position at times and called for restraint in the edit wars. Yet he persists in insisting that I'm someone he's encountered before. I warned him here that next time he engaged in this behavior, I would take it to the arbitrator...so here I am.

For my own part, I took a few days to focus on other more pressing matters in my life and was absent - but that's no excuse for speculation or his ongoing attempts at character assassination, fallacious speculation about my identity and his dismissive tone. I am out of patience with him and his disruptions.

Thank you in advance for reminding him that this is not acceptable and telling him to stop.

- Wikiwag 15:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as a small side note, above you write:
 * "I've had enough of Thebee's personal attacks against me: here (one attack), ... " (corrected URL after archiving)
 * There's no "Wikiwag" mentioned or participating in the section you link to, where you write that I attack you, just Pete K and Diana W. If you're right in what you write, that I attack you in the section you link to, that would require that you're one of them. Diana W has fiercely protested against the possible suspicion that she might be "Wikiwag". This - again assuming you're correct that I attack you in the section (or shouldn't I?) - it seems to imply that you identify with what I write to Pete K in the section, and take that as a personal attack on you. Regards, Thebee 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * TheBee, would you please just stop it? This editor did NOTHING to deserve what you are doing to him.  Please leave him alone. Pete K 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * TheBee: if it's missing now, you must've deleted it yourself. I don't have the time or the inclination to comb through your CYA edits. So let's suppose I am mistaken on that point, it doesn't come close to overshadowing the rest of your conduct, which IS spot on and impossible for you to explain away. - Wikiwag 21:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the compliment on my quick-study skills. I delights me to no end that you regard me as an editing "expert."

More stories by Wikiwag
Do you refer to the section Waldorf project? In what you write, you now for the fourth time 1, 2, 3, 4, assert that I have made a personal "attack" on you in that specific section, even after I tell and point you to that no editor/user has made any postings as "Wikiwag" in the section. You also assert about the alleged "personal attack" on you as "Wikiwag": "if it's missing now, you must've deleted it yourself".

The only one who can have felt "attacked" in the section is Pete K.

All discussion in the section took place on 18 and 19 Oct. last year (2006). The user "Wikiwag" made the first edit as such here at Wikipedia on 6 Jan 2007. That means you for some reason must have made some comment in the section you link and refer to after you registered as "Wikiwag" and I must have made such an attack as you refer to after that.

All the contributions by "Wikiwag" at the Talks page you mention are listed here. In total, the user "Wikiwag" has made 16 edit at that specific Talks page from your first edit as "Wikiwag" up to today. None of them has been in that section. As you continue to insist, and have done it four times, that I have attacked you in that specific section, it must be assumed - if true - that you participated under another username in the discussion in the section.

The only ones that participated in the discussion in the section last October are Pete K, I (Thebee), a "goethean" and Diana W. As DianaW has furiously denied and insisted that she is not "Wikiwag" and this seems reasonable, and I make no comment on "goethean in the section, the only one left, who can have felt "attacked" in the section you have asserted that I have "attacked" you, is Pete K.

Nothing in your total User contributions list as "Wikiwag" tells that you have participated in the discussion in the section as "Wikiwag". Nothing anywhere tells that I have removed the alleged "attack" on you as "Wikiwag" in the section, after you first accused me of having attacked you in the section. You have at no time specified or quoted from the alleged "attack" by me on you that you refer to, and you do not provide any evidence whatsoever for what you state above about the alleged "attack":
 * "if it's missing now, you must've deleted it yourself".

The only one that who can have felt "attacked" by me in the section you four times have referred to is user Pete K.

As you asserted on 9 Jan, the fourth day you edited as "Wikiwag" here at Wikipedia, "I've never edited on Wikipedia before.", and Pete K has edited extensively since last Aug., what you wrote on 9 Jan means that you assert that you are not Pete K.

You do not and have not provided any evidence in any form of the alleged "attack" on you as "Wikiwag" in the section you four times have referred to as a place I have "attacked" you (as "Wikiwag")

And you do not provide any evidence that I have "deleted" it either.

Do you think what you write stands out as credible? Thebee 01:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

'''CAN AN ARBITRATOR PLEASE LOOK AT THE ABOVE BY THEBEE AND COMMENT. THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE CASE OF HARASSMENT OF A NEW USER. Pete K 02:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)'''


 * It's just a logical analysis of what Wikiwag writes in relation to what is easily documented from user contribution history lists. The analysis shows that Wikiwag has made two false accusations, one of having made a personal attack on Wikiwag (as Wikiwag) in a specific discussion section, and the other of having deleted the attack. None of the two accusations have been documented by Wikiwag in any form and they are contradicted by lack of evidence that would have existed, if the accusations were true. On the basis of this, I have questioned the credibiity of the two accusations. Thebee 10:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (Just in parenthesis, of what Wikiwag as a second point refers to as two personal attacks on Wikiwag in another section, one is a question to Pete K, the other is a question to Wikiwag. Thebee 10:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC))


 * So, do you admit then that you are never going to stop harassing Wikiwag? Pete K 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, Thebee: Point 1: I don't tell stories; I erred. The correct statement SHOULD have said "and other editors" in addition to myself; an oversight that I have now corrected. It is irrefutably clear that it is your standard modus operandi to make personal attacks. Leading me to:


 * Point 2: Let me spell it out for you and everyone else reading this:
 * Attack 1: "I only remember Hgilbert and DianaW as editors who have used the word "egregious". Funny. And instructive. And for someone, who two days ago wrote that you have never edited at Wikipedia before, you edit, format your postings, and use different forms of links and write Edit summaries like an expert.) Thebee 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)" here
 * Attack 2.1: "You mean encumbered by COI the way you are? Thebee 20:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)" here
 * Attack 2.2: "Sooner or later the colors show? Thebee 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC): here
 * Attack 3.1: "What is this, Pete? One of the pissing contests you at times mention that you engage in? Thebee 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)" here
 * Attack 3.2: "Mylady, am I right that you are a person who likes people to tell their real names in discussions? If yes, do tell. Thebee 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)" here
 * Attack 3.3: "You confuse me, making me all dizzy ... You sure you're talking of Steiner and not of "Wikiwag"? Right? Thebee 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)" here
 * Attack 4: An entire SECTION is devoted to whether I am some sort of impostor for another user, where I am mentioned by name no fewer than 15 times here. Do you like the sound of it or something?


 * Point 3: Your so-called "logical analysis" is a ridiculously-transparent attempt to divert attention from the fact that you for some reason, are obsessed with the meritless notion that I am someone other than whom I claim to be, combined with your almost Ahab-like rationalizations and justifications to that end. Indeed, the fact that you are able to continually get away with this sort of behavior - in clear violation of the rules and to the rebuke and displeasure of the mentors you invited ("...Do you folks have any idea how much drain your endless dispute places on scarce volunteer time?...ask yourselves whether Wikipedia is better off with the lot of you editing Waldorf/anthoposophy or topic banned from it. That's the question I'm asking right now. ArbCom would answer it if I posed it to them, so act like the educated adults you all are and write an encyclopedia instead of a soap opera. DurovaCharge 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)" here).


 * I said pretty much the same things here, here, here and here.


 * So...what...does that mean DurovaCharge is a puppet for me or vice-versa? Face it pal, there are more than just a few people who use the word "egregious," the expression "oh for goodnesss sake," and similar writing patterns and styles - that's what dictionaries and style guides are for. Not that you would know, I suspect - since I doubt you've ever used the latter. That does not mean that we are one in the same person. Moreover, there are clearly more people who take issue with you than support you; if you have a problem with everyone else, everyone else is not the problem. Capisce?


 * Come to think of it - why DO you get away with these things? Why DO you get away with breaking the rules?; getting other people blocked for doing the same thing you do as a matter of course. Are YOU a puppet for an admin or an arbcom member? Some alter-ego for conduct that would be otherwise unbecoming of a person in that position? To my mind, there's only one way that question can be put to rest - and that's to see you blocked once or twice for your chronic and enduring misconduct, your edit-warring, your personal attacks, your persistent citations of disallowed sources.


 * Indeed, Thatcher131, please consider this a formal request. If there is any legitimacy at all to the rules that govern the responsible conduct of editors on Wikipedia, Thebee should get a clear message to that effect by being blocked or suspended for at least 72 hours. The evidence presented here alone should certainly be sufficient to warrant such action, as a deterrent against future misconduct and a warning to others who might be tempted to partake in it.


 * In any case Thebee, I suppose I should be flattered that I've stirred up such a tempest in your little teacup. I've obviously hit very close to home - touched a nerve and pushed you out of your comfort zone to give me so much attention and give me so much time out of your life. That delights me tremendously and I cannot help but be honored by such a generous gesture. Unfortunately, I do not have that kind of time to spare - I have a life. So, I shall continue to do what I've done since my arrival barely 3 weeks ago and leave you to your outrageous musings with this one bit of ancient wisdom: "No matter how the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow to it."


 * Not withstanding your generous gift, I find your conduct rude, discourteous, combative, disruptive and antithetical to the spirit of this community, as well as the reason that I and most of the other editors came here: to write factual and responsible articles that contribute to the knowledge of this community and the world at large. I intend to get on with that now, and sincerely hope you do the same. Until you do though, howl to your heart's content, Thebee; I am the mountain and I will no longer listen, because you have nothing to say that I consider of any value what-so-ever.


 * Apparently, nobody has yet mustered the resolve to stop you and you plainly lack the self-control to police yourself. Perhaps that will change now. We shall see.


 * Regards,


 * - Wikiwag 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't find what you write to be credible, and have already stated the reasons for this. I will therefore not here further address this battle that Pete K started already during his first week here at Wikipedia in violation of WP:NOT, and has continued to pursue during the autumn and winter in different discussions and articles up to the present. Thebee 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, your harassment of ME during my first few weeks here is well documented as well. Thanks for the reminder. Pete K 17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Boy. Sure is windy today. No matter. - Wikiwag 18:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's windy here too... hey wait a minute... TheBee will certainly find an issue here. Hmmm... windy in two places at once - coincidence?  I think not.  Pete K and Wikiwag MUST be the same person.  Pete K 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, no doubt he's going to bestow another generous gift of his time on this. I'm glad my writing commands this much attention. :-) - Wikiwag 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you used the same wet finger to check where the wind was coming from I WOULD say that would indicate, not that Pete K and Wikiwag MUST be the same person, but - with some degree of probability - that you probably are (though one can have checked the wind direction, and then told the other about it ...). Just a small generous reflexion, as you both seem to think highly of yourself (Pete K earlier as a Tower, and Wikiwag now as a mountain, hm, seems to have grown ...) and like attention. Thebee 14:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey! Looks like a nice day for kite flying outside. Then again, the wind seems too unpredictable and gusty. Unfortunately, one can't control the wind by any means...and only the wind can decide how strong and in what direction it will blow...or if it blows at all. - Wikiwag 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we both know hot air always rises. So those of us who are filled with hot air can rise far above a mountain or a tower.  Hopefully, they will take their hot air with them. Pete K 17:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PLANS trial: court decision erased from article
As you ask about the decision in the PLANS court case, PeteK has removed all references to the judge's having made a ruling in the PLANS article. It is as if the trial never took place, except that an appeal is mentioned. Hgilbert 11:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Consistent with most of your comments about me, this one is, again, not true. Legal documents and procedures are very technical, and sometimes what appears to be done for one reason is done for a completely different reason. You guys can't INTERPRET what the documents say or the implications of the various courtroom maneuvers, filings, requests or decisions. You're not experts in legal matters. Pete K 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of article
Here a user "132.162.249.195" has vandalised the article on WE. I've reverted it. The user has vandalised other articles earlier and gotten two "last warnings" for it by an admin. Can you look at this? Thanks, Thebee 21:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia
Please be aware that the express condition on miltopia's unblock from his indefinite block was that he stay as far away as possible from MONGO ->. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 12:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have, save the times MONGO brings up pointless threads about me on ANI. Thanks.  Milto LOL pia 21:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mess of the Arbitration Noticeboard
Apologies for making a huge unrelated change on that page. I've no idea how that happened. Will check diff after save in future to be safe. Regards Bksimonb 06:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Arb Template
Aplogies for the confusion. Perhpas a note could be added to the main page that indicates that 'hitting' edit brings up a blank form. Nik Wright2 14:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Marsden - another DRV
I just spotted WP:DRV on DRV again. I can't make head-or-tail of the controversy and you probably know all the lines by heart by now, so I suppose you'd better look in, or least thought you'd want the option of doing so. Newyorkbrad 18:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tharper's edit.
I've explained it on the talk page of the case. Will (talk to me) 20:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwood arbitration
Since other editors seem to have no problem approaching the arbitrators in this matter, I'll take the chance that this is not improper. I am rather upset that Fred Bauder has supported a proposal to ban me indefinitely from not only the primary article this arbitration is about, but ANY edits on ANY article by ANY speaker or presenter whoi has appeared at an ACE event, regardless of the nature of the input. This means that I can't edit an article concerning most of the notable people in the American Neo-Pagan community, and quite a few Celtic and World music artists. I have created about 40 articles that would other wise not exist, and contributed bibliographies, discigraphies, and other encyclopedic material to over 60 others, and this would pretty much make it impossible for me to contribute anything to wikipedia at all unless it is about a subject I neither know or care about.

I hope you would expand on some of the statements you have made concerning the real guidelines, and whether it is proper to place an indefinite ban on so wide a basis. This doesn't seem to be something generally the case in Wikipedia; certainly the editors on the other side of this issue regularly contribute to articles they are just as closely related to. All the time I have been involved in editing, I've seen people contributing who are passionately intrested in their subject matter, and IMO who better? Certainly other encyclopedias are edited by people who are involved in their subjects, and the measure is what they contribute, not who they happen to be.

I am truly afraid that I am about to be tossed out of any real contribution to Wikipedia in spite of all my hard work to try to satisfy the demands of people who are part of my own community, and have their own biases as to the work I've done. I think this would be a very sad thing, since I have something to contribute that perhaps no one else would take the time and devote the energy to do, but many would like access to. Rosencomet 21:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:User article ban
I screwed up and didn't catch it. Thanks for reverting.
 * Oh, but I only placed a tag in my sandbox, so what do you mean by "Most of the article bans are indefinite, but you seem also to have applied the ban to more articles than are documented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. in Please go back through the list of articles you put this on and fix it, so I don;t have to." { Slash -|- Talk } 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you please refactor ...
... personal information (my username linked to my full name, and a EL that ties my user name to my full name) from User_talk:Nik_Wright2? I would do it myself, but would prefer not to touch that user's page. It would be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reopening of arbitration
I have reopened the arbitration case concerning this article for review Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Fred Bauder 15:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwood
I'm advocating for User:Jefferson Anderson and our goal is that, as Checkuser has proven that he is not related to any of the suspected sockpuppeteers, to have him out from the Involved Parties and the arbitration. And, of course, lifting all bans related to him for these reasons. Nothing else. --Neigel von Teighen 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The RFCU by Dmcdevit, which he didn't record and UC again, showed that Frater and JA are related. Also, I put a diff where Dmc checked the Ip we found of Hanuman Das and it fitted with the other three. I plugged it into your analysis section as well. Is that analysis section only for you? Can I put stuff there? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to your workshop proposal, I was wondering why you thought that Ek = AR = ToS was definite but Ek = HD was likely. Dmcdevit said that they were all very likely, as in, of similar likelihood. Frankly, all the edits are interweaved, with 999 as well, so I am sceptical about meatpuppetry. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I was just being conservative/cautious. Whoever sets up the proposed decision page for voting can reword it, of course, if it is even accepted. Thatcher131 12:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you need it
Hi Thatcher. Newyorkbrad and I had a discussion on my talk page; I expressed willingness to help out with arbitration related tasks if needbe, and he recommended I drop my name here. Although I haven't done much arbitration business before (read: practically nothing but the occasional copyedit), I take an interest in it and am willing to learn. So, if you need some extra help, I'm willing to pitch in.

In this same edit, I'm also adding a space to a long line that was stretching your talk page. Hope you don't mind. Picaroon 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See my response to David MEstel below, and see WP:AC/C and the talk page there. Thatcher131 12:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Just wanted to say thank you for all your help over time. Seems I am going to need a change of clothes to shake off the stigma of an Arbcom hearing. I actually had the 3RR admin not accept my report because I had an Arbcom against me in the past. Says enough about no scarlet letter ... I am glad you believed it was not, but it seems the majority of people on Wikipedia feel otherwise. It was nice contributing here, but unfortunatly a waste of time it seems in the end. Thank you again for all your help. --Nuclear Zer0 18:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There may be a reason that the latest RFAR filed (as well as the two complaints at WP:AE) are not being acted on. Thatcher131 12:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Holidays
Wrt our earlier two conversations, do you regard the holidays as over or would you prefer to wait until the end of February before arranging stuff? David Mestel(Talk) 14:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi David. I have rewritten the description of clerks' activities at WP:AC/C. There are many things that non-official clerks can do to help out at RFAR (this being a wiki). (See also my comments on the talk page) If you are interested in clerking, you should keep an eye out on the arbitration areas and help out with the less critical stuff; we will select the next clerk candidates from among the people who show an aptitutude and reasonably consistent interest in helping out. Thatcher131 12:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men link dispute
Regarding your removal of another editor's request, what would you suggest to be the appropriate step to resolve the aforementioned issue? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Start by asking for the opinions of editors who are not involved in the dispute, either through a request for third opinion or a request for comment. You describe both sides of the argument and ask other editors to give you their opinions.  It's not binding, but it shows which way consensus is trending. Thatcher131 12:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat
Thanks for your tidying up on [] At some point, if the "anyone can ask for arbitration" is to be meaningful - a simpler process that allows the concerns of non Wikipedians who are affected by Wikipedia articles to be more easily heard, needs be put in place. I have now made the appropriate additions, however it seems unlikely that the case will go foward.

Nik Wright2 10:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Assistance requested
Could you look at this from ANI? It was archived with no comment or admin action, and has now been sitting on ANI, reposted, without any comment from admins. It seems a clear policy violation to me. I am not involved in the dispute, but do think it deserves attention. Thanks. Jeffpw 10:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Libel Accusations
Dear Thatcher131,

An urgent request please - TheBee has accused Pete K of libel on my talk page see User_talk:Lethaniol, which I believe is infringing upon No legal threats, and I have responded in what I believe is an appropriate way. Would it be possible to have a look yourself and give some advice/opinions/support Cheers Lethaniol 15:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Fred Bauder has already taken care of this. Thatcher131 12:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How has Fred "taken care" of this? The accusation still stands as far as I know, TheBee has neither supported the accusation, nor has he withdrawn it.  No action has been taken against TheBee.  No apology has been offered by TheBee.  This is an attack on my character.  This is what TheBee does - it's ALL he does, attack the character of people he considers critical of Waldorf.  Today, he again attacks me on my talk page - continuing his harassment of me.  He has made this comment: "In the opinion of the independent Thatcher131, after just looking superficially at you editorial contributions to the Waldorf article here, one of your agendas clearly is to bring Waldorf education into disrepute."  Is this indeed your position?  If it is, you couldn't be more mistaken. Reform of Waldorf is something that is necessary - and many, many, many people agree.  I meet regularly with, and am close friends with members in the Waldorf movement, people at top levels of teacher training, high-ranking Anthroposophists to discuss these very difficult issues of reform.  I am no more bringing Waldorf into disrepute than people critical of the actions of the current presidential administration in the US are bringing America into disrepute by being critical of that administrations actions. If Fred has taken care of the "libel" issue, I would like to know how - because so far, I don't feel as if my name has been cleared.  Pete K 13:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By reopening the case, Fred has indicated that he wishes to consider additional remedies in the case. In other words, the parties were let off the hook for disruptive editing and given a chance to learn how wikipedia works.  It hasn't worked out.  If you have evidence of dsruptive editing by TheBee, including (but not limited to this accusation) you should list it in evidence at Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review.  However, I should point out that the source you cited does not say there is a lack of state oversight, does not say there is a lack of a strong central authority, does not blame the alleged actions of one person on the lack of such oversight and authority, and does not call the individual "disturbed" or "unqualified."  Furthermore the report is merely of allegations, albeit allegations that the school took seriously.  BLP applies to all individuals mentioned in an article, even if they aren't the main subject, and it is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia's entry on Waldorf Education to single out one person to drag through the mud.  If there is a reliable, independent and thorough examination of Waldorf education showing that this is a pattern, that might be a different situation.  As it is, one misdeed does not reflect on the entire system.  Otherwise, I could just as easily claim that public school teachers' lack of training and oversight is responsible for the exploitation of young male students by female teachers. Thatcher131 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Waldorf DOES make similar claims about public school teachers - but that's not the point here. We are permitted, by my understanding, to write as well as edit.  If "disturbed" is a bad word, a tag can be placed on it or another editor can change it (I think it describes her actions perfectly but somebody else may not - maybe somebody who thinks it's normal to do this to children).  If there is indeed an overseeing authority in Waldorf, somebody can produce that information and dispute what I have claimed, or ask me to support that individual claim.  This is exactly the process we have here.  My claims are certainly no more fantastic than the claims that "Rudolf Steiner was a clairvoyant" or similar other claims made here.  If it's a matter of wording things differently, that's fine - other editors have tried re-wording the material to adhere more closely to exactly what is in the article and still the material is removed.  Why?  This person is a public figure and, as such, has relinquished some rights to privacy - the WP:BLP talks about this.  I'm not interested in making claims here that are untrue - but I'm also not interested in covering up incidents that have happened.  Here is a thread that discusses incidents like this one having occurred around the world.  It's one of the most viewed threads at MDC.  Abuse is a common problem at Waldorf - but because there is a religious system in place to cover these things up - you HAVE to accept this religious belief system to be a Waldorf teacher (for any serious position) - incidents don't see the light of day.  Does someone pointing to pedophelia in the Catholic church have a right to complain if priests who are found to be pedophiles are simply moved from one parish to another?  Is it any surprise that the Catholic church did everything they could to cover this up?  That they offered to police themselves?  Is it any surprise that exposure caused hundreds of victims to speak up?  What we have in Waldorf is a closed system that is very aggressive in attacking people who would expose them.  If you will look at the dynamic between TheBee and myself, you will see that this is what's happening here.  Pete K 14:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to discuss the specifics of this edit any more so let me give you a hypothetical example. Let's suppose I were to write in an article on public education, "Public education suffers from the interference of teachers' unions, which often hide problem teachers within the system rather than allow them to be fired."[1] linking to a newspaper article about a teacher who was accused of sexual misconduct, was placed in a nonteaching job rather than being fired, and was accused of misconduct a second time.  That violates wikipedia's editorial policies and guidelines in three ways.
 * First, it is original research or opinion, because it draws a novel conclusion from a source that does not support it. There is no basis in the newspaper story to say that public education "suffers", or that the suffering is due to the teachers unions. If I found a good academic study on public education that blamed certain problems on the unions, I could describe the study's findings.  But my statement as it stands is my conclusion drawn from a source that does not state the conclusion itself.
 * Second, it is undue weight. There is no reason, in this source, to think that unions do this in other school districts, or that similar cases have ocurred elsewhere, or that this is a significant problem.  Again, if there was a good academic survey showing, let's say, 3 times more sexual misconduct against students in public vs parochial schools, I could cite that.  But generalizing from one example to a blanket condemnation of the system violates the undue weight clause of the neutral point of view policy.
 * Third, it is a violation of the living persons policy. The individual in the story is accused, not convicted.  It is completely against policy to name, or cause that person to be named.  I don't agree that she is a public figure; if one became a public figure by having one's name published in a newspaper story, Richard Jewell wouldn't be a millionaire now.  Also, there is no way to provide balance, as would be required if the person was the named subject of an article.
 * I don't think you'll have much luck convincing a majority of the arbitrators that your interpretation is correct. Thatcher131 15:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[Removed another attempt by Pete K to include information violating WP:BIO].

Regarding /Review, I am treating it as a proposed decision page. I would welcome submissions by users in the evidence section and on the talk page. Fred Bauder 18:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thatcher131: Ok. I put the same question to Fred via email and though I haven't heard back from him yet, I think I understand the basis a bit better now. The problem I have is that Waldorfers paint themselves in a way that makes it seem as though this sort of thing can't happen in a Waldorf school. That's obviously untrue. So how do we deal with this responsibly? - Wikiwag 19:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If all you have are occasional stories like this, you probably can't do anything on Wikipedia. As Fred says on the review page, it's guilt by association (in addition to the objections I raised).  Certainly if one Waldorf teacher accused of a misdeed can indict the entire method, then one nun accused of a misdeed indicts all parochial schools, or one public school teacher indicts all public schools, and I suspect you'll agree that isn't the case.  What you need are independent studies.   If we were talking about a laundry detergent that claimed to be a better stain fighter than all others, we have Consumer Reports to tell us whether that is so.  If the Waldorf method claims to be superior (better teachers, less bullying, smarter kids, or whatever) then hopefully there is some academic or professional analysis of that.  If not, then the best you may be able to do on Wikipedia is tone down the pro-Waldorf rhetoric and leave the rest to other web sites. Thatcher131 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fred, if what I wrote above, that you deleted, again violates policy, how in the world is this issue going to be arbitrated? By email?  Are emails going to be shared with the other editors so that they may review and comment?  I rather object to the tone of your comment "Removed another attempt by Pete K" - how about next time just saying "deleted comments in violation of"?  How about if you don't make assumptions about what I'm "attempting" to do?  You have apparently made some kind of personal issue out of this - how about recusing yourself from this process? Pete K 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thatcher131: I see your point. And I certainly don't believe it's any more endemic to the Waldorf system than other ed. approaches. Like I said before - they make it out to be a virtual impossibility and that deserves to be countered somehow. But back to responsible the editing question, the next edit I was about to make before it got locked down was on the point of Immunizations [also at Hawthorne Valley]. Would that have been disallowed as well? - Wikiwag 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't raise the same kinds of biography concerns. However, let me raise two points: Thatcher131 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Albany Times Union story headlined "Values, health concerns clash" doesn't say anything about the lack of immunizations being a part of Steiner's system. It says that a lot of local parents object to vaccination, that Harlemville is seen by neighbors as "Woodstock in 1969 without the music."  A school spokesman said "a lot of Waldorf parents object to immunizations on religious or philosophical grounds" and that "We don't discriminate on the basis of race, creed or immunization."  It is true that a public school by law can force children to get immunized, and that Waldorf seems to allow parents to skip their recommended shots.  But is there any indication that this is a general problem to the Waldorf method, or is it more likely to be a reflection of that fact that parents who enroll their kids in new agey/alternative schools are the kinds of parents who object to vaccination?
 * How would you feel about using the favorable Albany Times Union story "Beyond the bottom line; Hawthorne Valley School students learn how to make a difference in the global economy," or the fact that Hawthorne Valley has a 650 acre organic farm, to show that Waldorf school teach social responsibility?


 * I know you didn't ask me, but... Vaccinations are a taboo for Waldorf - and this comes directly from Steiner. Here is Dr. Philip Incao, one of the top Anthroposophical doctors, discussing vaccinations.  At the bottom is a quote directly from Steiner that discusses the evils of vaccination.


 * The article about the 650 acre farm that teaches social responsibility is a very good and positive thing to add to the Waldorf Ed article. Some of the things Waldorf does right (like this) haven't been properly represented in the articles and should be.  If there were ever an opportunity to introduce the good stuff, instead of fighting over the misrepresentations of the not-so-good stuff, I know I'd be very interested in adding that in.  Unfortunately, I suspect the group here wouldn't be interested in stopping at the good and very positive aspect of *social responsibility*, but would use the opening to imply, suggest or produce some questionable material about the "health benefits" of biodynamic agriculture - something that hasn't been proven.  That's where the frustration comes in (for me) and why we are arguing.  There are lots of good things about Waldorf - but not everything about Waldorf is good - and some things are very bad. Pete K 23:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What Pete K mentions as a generalization is another myth cultivated by the WC-group as part of another myth some of them like and promote: that Waldorf schools want children to suffer. For more on this, see here. For the consensus view of the ECSWE, where the AWSNA is an associated member, see here. Does Pete K know of all this? Probably. Thanks, Thebee 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't belong to the "WC-group" or any group. I don't promote anything.  I didn't say anything about Waldorf schools wanting children to suffer.  I don't think I know anyone who has made such a claim other than you.  Thanks! Pete K 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the immunization question is a good example of the problem we face editing this article: Waldorf schools allow parents to refuse vaccinations in the states that allow waivers. No Waldorf school I am aware of forces parents to do this, it is a parental decision and the schools' official policies are neutral. Anthroposophical doctors such as Dr. Incao do discourage vaccinations, and it is an established part of anthro/Waldorf culture. People outside Waldorf/anthro see immunizations as good, and believe that allowing children to be unimmunized is detrimental to public health. Communities such as Boulder, CO or Harlemville, NY see higher rates of disease, but again within the Waldorf/anthro culture, disease isn't believed to be inherently bad.

Both of these "sides" are based on opinion as well as scientific fact. Presenting the immunization issue as a "problem" within Waldorf is already a POV, because within the Waldorf/anthro community, it's not a problem. We could all agree that teaching children social responsibility is good, but we don't all agree that allowing children's immune systems to develop without vaccinations is good.

Henitsirk 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you Henitsirk, immunization is a very good example. There is some debate about whether immunization is safe or unsafe, and Waldorf sometimes pretends to be in that debate - pointing to mainstream sources that question the safety of immunizations.  BUT, the reason they point to these sources is NOT because they agree with them, but because they follow parallel paths to Waldorf's intended result - no immunizations which is a spiritual, not a medical matter for Anthroposophists - as Steiner believed vaccines to hinder the development of the soul.  So, at issue in such a case might be, do we point out the reasons that are really behind the Waldorf public front, or do we just report Waldorf's position and ignore that they are claiming something publicly that is different than what they believe privately?  Similar questions might be asked of issues like religion, Anthroposophy in curriculum, racism and more.  Even things that seem innocuous, like biodynamic farming, which many Waldorf people compare to organic farming, have public and private faces.  Vegetables grown organically contain no animal products, for example, but vegetables grown biodynamically do.  People who are vegans or vegetarians for such reasons see the public (organic) face of biodynamics, not the private (made with animal products) face - unless they research biodynamics.  There are lots and lots nuances like this that don't make it into these articles because the public face is all that's supposed to be discussed in public - and there are definitely people planted here to make sure that's the way it stays.  Pete K 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Priddy
Priddy must have followed the discussion and he now combines his anti-SSB websites on his other homepage. Andries 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Shivers.
Most of what Was put int o that article was not 'unproven allegations'.

Its a FACT that he was paid to leave Perrettes house. It is a FACT that the house was vandalised. It is a fact that the court actions mentioned have taken place, including the actions against Buell.

I thought an encyclopedia was about FACTS? These are FACTS!!!! Now revert it back....... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lincspoacher (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Philwelch RFAR
Hi Thatcher, I just saw your comment regarding Philwelch's RFAR removal. Do you think it will be a good idea if it was clarified what means he will need to employ to get the adminship back? Or is that already understood? &mdash; Lost (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * When someone loses their sysop status "under a cloud," they have to go through a new RFA if they want to get it back. This was stated in the Giano case and applied in the Konstable and Husnock cases, so it's pretty well settled. Thatcher131 18:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks &mdash; Lost (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We have yet to see an application of the standard set by ArbCom in the Giano case. ArbCom made explicit remedies about Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, Konstable and Husnock. The test will come when a former admin who has not had a specific remedy about them reapplies. The bureaucrat discretion could be quite broad in that case. The principle may seem settled, but how the application of it goes, when ArbCom has not made a decision, is still quite uncertain. I have been watching for the first trial case ;). NoSeptember  19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the final wording in the "Giano" decision applies to admins who voluntarily resign their sysop access "under controversial circumstances" (I suggested the change in wording, which Raul 654 adopted, because people who might otherwise step down gracefully might resist being tarred as having left "under a cloud", plus that phrase has other connotations that I thought inappropriate). I think it's pretty clear that an admin who relinquishes adminship in the face of a pending arbitration filing has done so under controversial circumstances, so I agree that there's no need to maintain the case just for a finding that he did so (although some arbitrators have pursued cases in the past for that very reason, but in those instances the cases were already opened). Newyorkbrad 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is clear that a case was about to be accepted at the time, what you say may be the case, but many RFARs are submitted prematurely in the mediation process or are just weak cases. A request for Arb is hardly a clear definition of "controversial circumstances" by itself. Controversy can be artificially generated, and it will fall to a bureaucrat to judge all of these factors. NoSeptember  19:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you have to ask yourself two questions. First, would the bureaucrats fail consider a lengthy AN thread, and an RFAR request with 2-1 approval as "controversial circumstances"; second, would the benefit to the encyclopedia of a one to two month-long arbitration process, with evidence and workshop pages, just to confirm what has already happened, outweigh the possible harm.  Or rather, the arbitrators have to ask themselves that question. Thatcher131 21:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I just posted in the case discussion, perhaps the answer here is that the case should be rejected or withdrawn, but only after a couple of arbitrators noted their understanding in the discussion. Newyorkbrad 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not advocating any position on any particular case including this one. I try to get a feel for desysoppings and departures of admins in general. Whenever a desysopping occurs or someone decides to leave the project I look into the circumstances of why they left. Some just burn out, but a lot are involved with a controversy. I ask myself questions like, if either Zoe or Lucky6.9 had requested desysopping would they be considered leaving under controversial circumstances? (One with an Arb request filed, the other with a reprimand from Jimbo) Each departure is unique and each bureaucrat is a unique person (and they often disagree), so ArbCom really can't expect a certain outcome from bureaucrat discretion, nor can a bureaucrat honestly read the intent of ArbCom unless it is spelled out. And don't forget a returning admin can cherry pick which bureaucrat they approach with a resysopping request. One day a case that many considered settled is going to resolve quite differently than expected, and I for one will not put the blame on the bureaucrat. ArbCom can't expect every bureaucrat to be on top of a principle tucked away in a months old case. If ArbCom wants a result, they must ask for it explicitly. To their credit, they have done just that for the 4 admins I mentioned in the first of my posts above. But when they don't make an explicit ruling, none of us can expect a certain result months from now when the details of the event are but a fuzzy memory. Thats my philosophy of the day :). NoSeptember  21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm trying to read the arbitrators' (or the community's, because ArbCom typically doesn't make policy) minds here, but to me the intent of the rule is (or should be) "you can't resign while you're at risk of being desysopped, to evade the desysopping or the case where maybe desysopping you is being discussed, and then come back later when the heat is off. But if you want to step away for awhile and take a break, or you decide to leave but then you change your mind, feel free to pick up where you left off." So by that standard, Lucky 6.9 would have left in the middle of a controversy over an ArbCom case that came close to being accepted, and so would have needed a new RfA, while Zoe was not the subject of a case at all (in fact, Jimbo specifically urged her to say). But I agree there are borderline cases; I just don't think Philwelch's is one of them, for this purpose. (If you want to reply, feel free to come to my page; we'll soon owe rent on this page to Thatcher.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I myself am surprised that the ArbCom appears to be accepting the case as it seems to be a pretty clear cut instance of the earlier principle. Perhaps the new arbitrators are simply eager to cut their teeth. If there is a case it may afford an answer to some of the other issues, e.g. the appropriateness of the question on Werdna's RFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

After Philwelch posted a statement in the case last night, acknowledging that some of his challenged actions were mistakes, I tried to give him an opportunity to demonstrate that the case was unnecessary by asking him to confirm that he wouldn't seek adminship again without a new RfA. As you will have seen on RfAr, he very much didn't confirm that, and at this point seems almost to want to have the case go ahead, so we'll see what the arbitrators do. Newyorkbrad 11:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip episodes
Hi, a few days ago you made this edit. I reverted it, in fact the image is still there, if you are using a baneer blocker addon on your browser, it is probably the reason the image didn't show up (look at the folder name at upload :s). I wonder if there is any use filling a bug rport, since it is not a bug but a problem with media wiki but that the folder is called Ad... What do you think? Regards, -- lucasbfr talk 12:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted the original image Image:Studio 60 - B-12.png so I removed it from the page. You re-added an image with a slightly different name Image:Studio 60 B-12.jpg. 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Woops weird... Seems there was in fact 2 images then (I was wondering why it didn't show up on my computer) and you deleted the one on the page. Why did you remove that image? Good thing Orphanbot ran by luck on the other image after your deletion. (That is not criticism I am just trying to understand what happened). Regards, -- lucasbfr talk 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom
Don't you think that me and Sceptre deserve to get what happened in the arbcom discussions? Sceptre was the blocking admin, and I'm one of Nathan's friends. Of course, not that I found arbcom trustworthy to begin with...  ♥ Fr  ed  il  23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't even know what happened in the private discussions. I am not an arbitrator, and do not have access to their private mailing list.  You may ask any arbitrator.  I suspect, however, that they will decline to provide you with that information.  I'm sure they have informed Nathan privately of the results of their discussions. Thatcher131 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Album cover
Thatcher, just a quick thanks for updating Image:TheGoldenSection1.jpg - too busy on the relevant article to note it was now 'unorphaned'... Cheers, Ian Rose 08:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

195 user
I appreciate you are very busy right now but it seems that banned user 195.82.106.244 is likely to keep coming back in various shapes and forms. I suspect this user is now using the Japan proxies again to troll the discussion page as 125.204.39.116. I have reported this on the admin noticeboard.

I, and some other editors, obviously find the behaviour of this user very disruptive and much of what he/she says and wants to push into the article to be offensive. To me, it looks like a classic case of someone taunting and ridiculing a minority out of what seems to be malice and hatred. I could quote examples but I believe you are already familiar with the style by now.

The disruption also seems to have a chilling effect on the involvement of other editors who have no affiliation for or against the BKWSU. Users Smeelgova, Sethie and Jossi were just starting to make edits to the article before the first bout of disruption from Japan started. I haven't seen them since on the article.

So we don't take up too much of your time I am asking for clear guidelines on what we can and can't do when it is clear this user is up to his/her tricks again. For example, can I delete any conversation from the talk page if I have reasonable suspicion that it is this editor trolling?

Otherwise, can you please recommend another admin I can discuss this problem through with or suggest what action I should take?

Thanks & regards, Bksimonb 07:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the discussion to remove the comments by the suspected banned user. Let me know if this is not acceptable. Please accept that I did try to seek guidance first. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 07:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally that response is fine. If it becomes more persistent, it would be better to semi-protect the page rather than get into a pissing contest over reversion, which itself would be disruptive.  You can ask at WP:RFPP, and link to the first arbitration enforcement case on the 195 editor showing the Japan IPs.  (archived in Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive4). Thatcher131 13:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help and advice. Regards Bksimonb 20:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Two items
Clearly I have some learning to do on how autoblocks, etc. work. Do you know if there is there a primer for newbie admins on this somewhere? Unrelatedly, your input would be very welcome on my proposals (especially the first) on the /Workshop of the Philwelch arbitration. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, maybe WP:AUTOBLOCK? Also, there is a link to the autoblock tool in my toolbox at the top of this page. Thatcher131 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, had never seen that page. In a perfect world, username blocks wouldn't trigger autoblock, but it appears that a perfect world is still a few years away. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that depends. Autoblocking can be turned off when applying a block, although it is on by default.  In many cases autoblocking is specifically needed, for example vandals such as Willy or cplot who might create a large number of sleeper accounts and then go on a spree.  Autoblocking at least forces them to get a new IP after each block, whether by connecting to a new proxy or unplugging their modem and reconnecting.  For less technically savvy vandals, autoblocking may stop them in their tracks. It's just something to be aware of. Thatcher131 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes total sense, I see your point that we would want to block the IP of User:WillyTrollingDrama and not of User:InadvertentDuplicate. FYI, it looks like someone (more experienced than I) should edit/update WP:AUTOBLOCK, which still claims that "administrators do not have the ability to shut off the autoblocker." Thanks again. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)