Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Brochure and Soapbox Language
Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

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

Opening Statement
A reasonable examination of the issues here will reveal an underlying problem in several articles on Wikipedia. In essence, what has happened is a small group of agenda-pushing activists have determined Wikipedia is a good place to advertise and promote a narrow set of ideas framed loosely as "Anthroposophy". Anthroposophy is a religious philosophy by Rudolf Steiner. Steiner's followers are agressive about proliferating and controlling information regarding their spiritual leader, his philosophy and his offshoot enterprises, one of which is Waldorf education. At Wikipedia, we will find dozens of articles started by this small group of people describing Steiner's enterprises and various Anthroposophical buzz-words like "spiritual science" and "three-folding". Their intention is to get readers to perceive some importance in their spiritual "movement". So we have articles about Steiner, Waldorf, bio-dynamics, eurythmy, the Goetheanum (Steiner's church/headquarters), and lots more. At last count there were at least 20 articles on Wikipedia about stuff nobody but Anthroposophists would be more than casually interested in. Additionally, they have started or influenced negatively articles about live people and organizations critical of Anthroposophy and Waldorf. As I've exhausted my allotted diffs, I'm hoping someone else will help demonstrate this.

So what we have here is a group of editors closely affiliated with Waldorf and/or Anthroposophy who are pushing concepts like "trained clairvoyance" and supporting them with references to their own (Anthroposophical) literature, research papers and brochures. In an article in "Lancet" a claim was made that "Waldorf students are healthier" than other students with regard to a narrow view of immunity. Indeed, anybody who is not vaccinated has a very slight advantage in one particular area (IOW, it had nothing to do with Waldorf). This silly reference was eventually removed when I, in the discussion pages, produced citable evidence that indeed Waldorf children, for the same reasons, are succeptable to many diseases including pertussis - and epidemic outbreaks have occurred in some Waldorf schools. Suddenly, the "Waldorf students are healthier" article/angle wasn't so important to these editors.

As we read through the articles and discussion pages listed here, we see efforts to disguise the truth, to disguise the bias in the references they have produced, and to discredit people who have brought the problems associated with Waldorf and Steiner to the attention of the public. We see tricky wording and slight-of-word (as Durova described it) to get around the truth. We see serious issues being tricked into Wikipedia and editors teaming up to game the 3RR rule. One such example is in the debate over Steiner and anti-Semitism. The debate is essentially about whether support of cultural assimilation of the Jews constitutes anti-Semitism. After all, it's better than killing them, or expatriating them - so should Steiner be painted as a friend of the Jews because he instead supported stripping them of their culture, language, religion, "Jewishness", even their Jewish thoughts? Complaints, debate and indeed edit wars have revolved around attempts to point out these things fairly and honestly with the suggestion that he was against the more "extreme" forms of anti-Semitism.

Then we have debates about terminology and translations. Use of the word "spirit-individual", for example, to describe what Steiner meant when he said "individual". Steiner meant a spirit being that passes through incarnations in different physical bodies. Nobody doubts this. Anthroposophists would, however, rather disguise this and use the term "individual" (something most people consider a physical being) - so that it sounds like Steiner's racist remarks were not directed at "individuals" - they want to promote that he held "individuals" to be above race.

Uncovering little nuances like this will require the focus and concentration of anyone interested in examining this case thoroughly. I hope that administrators and especially the arbitration committee will examine the discussion pages of these articles thoroughly, including archived discussions of which there are many, to get a feel for exactly what is happening here.

HGilbert is a Waldorf Teacher
HGilbert is (name provided) - and he, himself, has provided his full name that appears in the references section of the article he produced here (at least according to the history page, he produced this page and has edited it and here is where he added his full name) - where it references a book he has written about concepts used in Waldorf education. He is employed as a Waldorf teacher and is listed here as a high school math teacher.

HGilbert has a conflict of interest while agressively editing the Waldorf Education article
Waldorf education is artificially supported by Wikipedia if Wikipedia appears to endorse Waldorf education. The successful promotion of Waldorf education benefits Mr. Gilbert's personal worth and demand as a Waldorf teacher. Additionally, the success of Waldorf education benefits Mr. Gilbert through the sales of his book. Therefore, a conflict of interest may exist if editor HGilbert is editing Waldorf Education and related articles. I assert that this conflict of interest does indeed exist because since his arrival at Wikipedia Mr. Gilbert has been agressively attempting to own those articles and infuse them with language that is perhaps appropriate for Waldorf brochures but absolutely inappropriate for Wikipedia. This has been brought to his attention several times.

HGilbert admitted and then later removed from his statement (see edit at line 219) under the pretext that he needed to shorten his statement, that he is indeed a Waldorf teacher and that he has written a book related to Waldorf education.

HGilbert's earliest edits to Waldorf Education article added POV brochure language:
 * 
 * 

HGilbert adding brochure language in Waldorf Education article:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * - calling people who remove it vandals.
 * 
 * - reverted two different editors
 * 
 * - reverted again
 * 
 * 
 * - Huge POV addition
 * - Added lots of brochure language here
 * 
 * - Added lots of brochure language here

Editors have tried to tag the article
When people have realized that useful NPOV edits in the article would be instantly removed, they have tried to simply tag the article.

Editors Adding {Advert} tag
 * Inner Justice
 * Fergie
 * Fergie
 * Pete K

HGilbert has agressively removed the tags
HGilbert has agressively removed tags that accurately describe the article as representative of an advertisement or POV.

HGilbert Deleting {Advert} tag (note the deceptive edit summaries)
 * 
 * 
 * - edit summary "Trimmed Article"
 * 
 * - edit summary "Revised intro and early sections; please work out further issues on talk pages"
 * 
 * - edit summary "merge edits in, restore waldorf resources"

HGilbert Deleting other tags
 * - edit summary "erroneous tag".
 * 
 * 
 * - edit summary - "vandalism"
 * 
 * 

HGilbert agressively removes criticism of Waldorf
HGilbert (primarily and others secondarily) has agressively removed criticism and critical/controversial content from the Waldorf Education article.

Deleting criticism article that does NOT say what he claims it says.
 * 
 * 
 * - note the edit on line 140
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * - HGilbert removing "Critical" section completely and replacing it with "discussion" - where he cites, as support for his claims, an

It is my claim that while agressive editing is somewhat common on Wikipedia on controversial articles, a single editor with an apparent conflict of interest has owned this (and other) articles. This is not only inappropriate, it breaks Wikipedia policy on many levels. It would be appropriate action if the Arbitration Committee, after considering this evidence and finding it to be accurate, restricted HGilbert from editing Waldorf Education and associated articles.

Disagree with Evidence produced by HGilbert
HGilbert has, in his statement, produced a diff that demonstrates the frustration that has resulted from the aggressive editing of this article. After repeated re-insertions of a links to several defamatory original research websites operated by TheBee, the frustration led to my characterization of those websites.

TheBee is Sune Nordwall. While he has recently removed his last name from the talk pages here, he has repeatedly linked his own websites which contain his personal information, his full name and even his photograph - note that at this page he indicates that he works "at times" as a Waldorf teacher. He is the author of this site which contains a lot of defamatory original research material about anyone critical of Waldorf, and this site (notice, again, confirmation that Sune Nordwall is a Waldorf teacher), practically a clone of the Waldorfanswers site except that they request donations of financial support.

TheBee's primary goal in these articles (with HGilbert's assistance) has been to lure readers to his own websites where rules of citation and reliable information don't apply.

Here is TheBee using his own defamatory websites to suggest that an organization that is critical of Waldorf Education is a "hate group" or promotes "hate speech" or (weasel worded) "arguments consistent with hate groups". He has repeated this claim many times on Wikipedia.


 * - on his own website
 * 
 * - notice the edit summary

Here is a small sampling of HGilbert and TheBee inserting the same defamatory websites in the article:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

These links were determined to be inappropriate before I arrived here. Here is Fergie removing the links:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

This action, on TheBee's part, represents a clear violation of WP:COI which states here:
 * Self-promotion


 * Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor adding the material, or of his associates.


 * Examples of these types of material include:


 * 1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
 * 2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages
 * 3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

At the same time, HGilbert and TheBee have been deleting links to critical website PLANS:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

And all other critical websites:


 * 
 * 

These actions by HGilbert and TheBee demostrate that theyare attempting to own the article and pushing their POV while deleting content critical to their own POV.

HGilbert has produced the following diff claiming that I have made a false claim that he has posted an article *about himself*. It appears to me that he has misread my statement above which claims he has produced an article where he *identifies himself*. The evidence below refutes his characterization of my claim being false:
 * Here is the article
 * Here is the history page that shows he created the article
 * Here is where he added his full name - Harlan Gilbert.

In his claim against administrator Durova, HGilbert has produced two diffs (that he claims are three diffs) to suggest that the editor who produced them, Paka33, is critical of Waldorf education. In examining the diffs below, I find it hard to believe anyone would consider what is contained in them is "critical" of Waldorf. HGilbert has used "critical" to mean something he doesn't want to appear in the article. The two examples are, in my view, legitimate information about Waldorf schools. Here are the examples HGilbert claims are critical:
 * - Correctly explains that Steiner's philosophy, Anthroposophy, is in infused into Waldorf education
 * - Describes the significance of gnomes in Waldorf early childhood play

It seems to me HGilbert has no reason to object to the inclusion of these paragraphs on the basis of them being "critical" - although I would say they are rather "puffy" and probably could be trimmed down. His apparent need to characterize editors as "critical" of Waldorf is part of the problem here. Each edit should stand or fall on its own, regardless of who produced it.

HGilbert removes references to Anthroposophy, religion and prayer in Waldorf schools
Waldorf educators falsely claim that Anthroposophy, the religious philosophy that all Waldorf teachers are required to study, doesn't find its way into the classroom. That they misrepresent this is one of the major criticisms of Waldorf education. HGilbert, a Waldorf teacher, has indeed been removing claims that Anthroposophy is in Waldorf curriculum and/or guides interactions of teachers with Waldorf students.

HGilbert removing references to Anthroposophy, religion and prayer in the Waldorf education article.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

POV Pushing - Rudolf Steiner's Views on Race and Ethnicity Article
There have been two main areas of contention in the article that have caused significant problems. Both demonstrate an attempt by HGilbert, TheBee and others to push a POV agenda. The first is the inclusion of a report by a commission appointed by the Dutch Anthroposophical Society. This commission was appointed from within the Dutch Anthroposophical Society - in other words, they had a specific bias - they were Anthroposophists - followers of Steiner religious philosophy. The report basically excused Steiner of racism (this is the equivalent of Catholic priests excusing fellow priests of pedophilia). One group felt the fact that this commission was made up of Anthroposophists needed to be expressed in the article. The other group (basically HGilbert and TheBee) did not want this fact disclosed. Here they are repeatedly inserting the reference to the report without this important fact - despite other editors trying - not to exclude the report, but to include this information.

- Edit by HGilbert disguising the Anthroposophical bias of the commission to represent them as unbiased. This begins the edit conflict.
 * - Here an editor is attempting to point out the obvious bias. In this very early version the wording was accurate - "commission of its members".  Later, the wording changed to disguise this fact.
 * - Here is HGilbert INTRODUCING the "commission of its members" language back in June (i.e. the commission was completely comprised of Anthroposophists - which is an accurate statement). Yet in October, he says claims that the head of the commission is an Anthroposophist are "unsupported" essentially wasting the time of editors who are arguing a point he had himself confirmed back in June. Note the statement being made by HGilbert is similar to the argument he issued to administrator Durova about no conflict of interest - in this case a group of Steiner's followers excusing him of racism.
 * - Edit by HGilbert - In this early version the wording changed to "Academics closely connected to Anthroposophy".
 * 
 * - Goethean
 * - Goethean
 * - HGilbert
 * - Unsigned editor
 * - TheBee
 * - Here is the discussion page about this topic with the details of the complaints.

The second issue is an article by Professor Sven Ove Hanssen (note the heavy edits by TheBee on this page to discredit this man). That this report by Professor Hansson was critical of Rudlof Steiner's views of the races was enough to move HGilbert and TheBee to continually insert whatever they could to discredit the report (linking him to skeptical societies). Here are the edits and the discussion page:


 * 
 * - Note edit summary
 * - Note edit summary
 * - Note edit summary
 * - Note edit summary
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * - Here is the discussion about this article.

Both issues were discussed again in detail on the discussion page of the now closed mediation request. Those discussions can be found here and here. The entire page is worth a read although early on it became quite jumbled.

Disagree with HGilbert's Evidence of My POV Pushing

 * HGilbert provides this diff as evidence of POV pushing on my part. This particular edit has been defended by at least two other neutral editors here and here.  In support of this edit, considerable discussion transpired here and continues here.  At the heart of the matter is that HGilbert wants to introduce as evidence of Steiner's campaign against anti-Semitism, a couple of sentence fragments that he has harvested from an article written in German - an article that I translated using a translation program and discovered that the bulk of the article disagreed with what HGilbert is suggesting it said with his selective quotations.


 * HGilbert provides this diff and claims this was the "removal of cited material". A look at the edit summary will reveal that this was removed with the intention of adding it back - IOW, it was an interim removal during a series of edits.  Again, one issue here is HGilbert's introduction of references making remarkable claims that are written in German and not available for review or verification.  No English sources have been provided to support these claims.  If Steiner was a against anti-Semitism, you would think one English-speaking author would publish something that says so.  All English texts (as far as I know and apparently as far as anyone can produce so far) including English translations of Steiner's own words claim the opposite.


 * HGilbert provides this diff which he calls a "complete distortion" - which he supports with this diff by an editor who, it seemed to both DianaW and to myself, was a high-school student. In the edit summary, this editor directed me to, not surprisingly, TheBee's original research website which, naturally, refutes my claims.  So, as his evidence of my "complete distortion of cited material" HGilbert has provided a high school student (perhaps one of his own students) who refered me to TheBee's original research.


 * HGilbert claims this diff supports his assertion that "The editors have made frequent claim that authors sympathetic to or connected to Waldorf education or anthroposophy should not be included as they are "biased", while critical authors are "unbiased", in direct contravention of Wikipedia's NPOV policy". The diff states "To me, astonishing claims supported by sources that are directly connected to Anthroposophy (i.e. Anthroposophists) don't belong in an article. Claims that are supported by sources OUTSIDE Anthroposophy should indeed be made here."  If something is unbelievable, and it is supported only by Anthroposophists and no outside sources, that claim should, in my opinion, be considered suspect.  If only Anthroposophists claim that black people evolved on the planet Mercury, for example (and they do make this claim), I don't think this can be asserted as a fact, despite having been published in Anthroposophical publications.  I don't think asking for a neutral/non-Anthroposophical source is POV editing, I think that is responsible editing.


 * HGilbert claims and cites the following: "*suppression of cited evidence not fitting a particular POV, " I was hoping he would present this as it is an obvious example of what has been happening in many instances in several of these articles.  HGilbert has, under the guise of presenting a "balanced" POV, insisted that each discussion point should be weighted to his POV.  So, when an issue like racism comes up, he insists that the appropriate treatment of this is to have a simple claim, make the claim look unsubstantiated (even though it is properly cited) and then harvest selective quotes from Steiner to apparently refute that claim.  Additionally, he and others continue to produce this type of language in a way that makes it appear as if critics of Steiner don't fully understand his material.  Every effort has been made by HGilbert and TheBee in these articles to remove legitimate criticism and to defame or cast doubt on the personality, credentials or level of understanding of Steiner in order to dispel even the slightest critical word - no matter how well referenced, researched and presented the critical material is.  HGilbert's examples above demonstrate this adequately.

Disagree with HGilbert's Claim of Editorializing

 * HGilbert provides this diff to support a claim of editorializing - and as support provides this diff as support. In fact, the second diff explains thoroughly the reason for the edits in the first diff.  Keeping in mind that all of Steiner's works are written in German, some meanings when translated are different than they appear.  As I explained this in my opening statement and the second diff explains this in additional detail, there is no need to further explain it here.


 * HGilbert provides this diff to suggest I have made claims based on original research. The diff points to discussion on administrator Durova's talk page, it does not provide any evidence that original research found its way into the article.


 * This diff is an edit that editors have been trying to produce in the article since the article was created. I asked HGilbert to provide evidence that Waldorf schools adequately identify the presence of Anthroposophy in the schools. He simply wants to remove the edit and has done so since he arrived at this article.  Here is a list of Waldorf schools from the AWSNA (Association of Waldorf Schools of North America) website. Here is the first website on the list.  No mention of Anthroposophy.  The second website on the list is a teacher traing facility - so of course it mentions Anthroposophy as Anthroposophy is the main course in teacher training.  Let's go to the next site.  Again, no mention of Anthroposophy.  On and on, through the list (and I encourage everyone to go through this list and see for themselves) schools do not include the slightest mention of Anthroposophy.  It is an absolutely legitimate claim that Anthroposophy is not usually mentioned.  The frequent attempts by HGilbert to remove anything that mentions Anthroposophy in connection to the curriculum (listed above) demonstrates that this is intentional.


 * HGilbert also claims this diff is editorializing. There are, of course, ongoing debates on the benefits of looping, but eight year cycles are not usually covered in such debates.  Mr. Gilbert may make the brochure claim that Waldorf schools "strive" to achieve this implying that 8-year looping is beneficial, but there is no evidence to support this.  Balancing his POV with something that says it isn't always a good idea is a reasonable edit in my view.


 * While this diff looks like it is editorializing, it preceeded the inclusion of an article that made the same or similar clarifications using essentially the same language. While my original edits might have appeared to be "editorializing" they were clarifications that were later supported by the article referenced.  Again, at issue here was HGilbert and TheBee attempting to disguise the identity and affiliation (Anthroposophists) of the members of the Dutch commission who filed a report excusing Steiner of all but 16 charges of racism.   From this article: "Steiner's supposed clairvoyance and his ideas about karma and reincarnation play an overwhelming part in their appraisal. This should come as no surprise, since all of the members of the commission belong to the Dutch Anthroposophical Society."  "This absurd stance obviously cancels whatever worth the study might have had for those outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner. The commission's own epistemological framework is astonishingly primitive, even by anthroposophist standards."  "This is a ludicrous pretext for the commission's failure to do any hermeneutic work of its own. A sympathetic reading of Steiner's work is one thing, willful ignorance quite another — especially in light of the commission's notorious 'argument' (really a mere assumption) that Steiner's scattered anti-racist comments both absolve and negate his much more numerous racist remarks."  By comparison, my "editorializing" was rather tame.


 * With this diff, HGilbert also seeks to demonstrate editorializing. This is, in fact, a perfect example of me gently trying to soften the brochure language that permeates this article.

Disagree with HGilbert's Claim of Personal Attacks

 * HGilbert provides this diff as an example of a personal attack. I have already explained the issue with misusing the term "individual" in this sense.  Steiner's use is different than common use and Anthroposophists use this confusion to claim that racist remarks by Steiner were not directed at individuals. I regretfully characterized HGilbert's intention to revise history as BS.  While I hold this belief, and the belief I stated later in the paragraph, that he is being dishonest when he makes this claim, I agree I should not have verbalized it.


 * In this diff, I don't see a personal attack.


 * In this diff, I don't see a personal attack.


 * In this diff, I admit I was frustrated. While DianaW was away on vacation, HGilbert produced this on her talk page, followed by this.  I felt it was rude to do to someone while they are on vacation.

Disagree with HGilbert's Claim of Rejection of Policies of Good Faith

 * In his claim, HGilbert produced this diff to suggest I have rejected policies of good faith. A reading shows that I am asking TheBee to show good faith, not the other way around.  Indeed, it also details a discussion where TheBee had been edit-warring without discussion - while an ongoing discussion about those edits was underway.  TheBee simply went in and reverted edits in order to push his POV.

Harassment by HGilbert and TheBee
Two Waldorf POV editors have, since I arrived here, harassed me relentlessly.

Here is TheBee collecting everything he believes I have said to slight him: Here's HGilbert doing the same thing:
 * 
 * 

Here is TheBee complaining to Administrators administrators about me and the responses from the administrators when they have responded:
 * Oct 26 - Golden Wattle - Note the website page devoted to my "personal attacks"
 * Golden Wattle's response
 * Oct 22 - Longhair (no response from Longhair)
 * Response from Longhair about a complaint of the removal of links
 * Centrx (no response from Centrx)

Here is HGilbert doing the same thing:
 * 
 * 

And Goethean piles on:
 * 

Here are HGilbert and TheBee starting topics about me in articles:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Reckless Editing by TheBee and HGilbert

 * Another response to TheBee's reckless editing by Golden Wattle
 * Yet another attempt by (the very patient) Golden Wattle to explain the problems of the Waldorf and Steiner articles to TheBee.
 * - Comment by Trueblood
 * - Similar comment by Trueblood to HGilbert
 * - And again to HGilbert

Brochure Language Edits by TheBee
Here are some odd edits by TheBee which clearly introduce brochure language into the Waldorf article.
 * - Removes Steiner's own flowery description of eurythmy as an essential part of the Anthroposophical movement (all attempts to connect Eurythmy to Anthroposophy without actually quoting Steiner had previously been shot down by the "owners" of the article).
 * - Adds back brochure language description by Steiner "The realisation of this fact of human evolution might well give one courage to develop ever further and further this art of Eurythmy, which has been borne on the wings of fate into the Anthroposophical Movement. For it is the task of the Anthroposophical Movement to reveal to our present age that spiritual impulse which is suited to it." He removes the summary that claims Eurythmy is a spiritual exercise - and a quote from Steiner that, among other things, states "It is the task of Anthroposophy to bring a greater depth, a wider vision and a more living spirit into the other forms of art. But the art of Eurythmy could only grow up out of the soul of Anthroposophy; could only receive its inspiration through a purely Anthroposophical conception." and goes on to describe the children's faces while performing this spiritual exercise as being "in danger of appearing grotesque; and, if made use of in an exaggerated manner, given an appearance of crudity, even of vulgarity."

TheBee Frustrating Editors
TheBee reproduces edits that I believe he knows are ridiculous - but through persistence, he gets editors to give up on refuting them.


 * - Bee adds uncited Hate Group language
 * - Lumos3 removes it
 * - Bee adds it back again - same day, slightly reworded
 * - Lumos3, frustrated, leaves it in for the moment
 * - Same day, TheBee is encouraged by Lumos3's frustration and tries to solidify his claim by citing his own organization, Americans for Waldorf Education which consists of him and four other members listed here: http://www.americans4waldorf.org/AboutAWE.html


 * - Lumos3 moves on to another section
 * - TheBee produces another outrageous edit - note the intimidating tone in the edit summary
 * - Lumos3 tries to correct the misrepresentation by TheBee
 * - Again, this is not accusatory enough for TheBee so he edits it to sound worse.
 * - TheBee calls this "small editing" - removing the reference to "occultism" which is exactly what Steiner taught.


 * - Here, HGilbert makes a nice link to AWE in support of the Hate Group claim.
 * - Here, TheBee makes another unfounded claim without citation.
 * - Here, TheBee is weasel-wording his Hate Group claim.

Through persistence and assistance from HGilbert, the absolutely unfounded claim of Hate Group remained in the article until other editors, DianaW and myself, arrived to remove it. The claim itself was malicious and the repeated reinsertion of the claim was intended to frustrate the efforts of the editor who objected to it.

Here is TheBee going into some of his long, incomprehensible discussions intended to frustrate editors:
 * - To Lumos3 about the portals edits listed above
 * - Here's Lumos3 objecting to the description of PLANS as a Hate Group and the following discussion about the Hate Group language Note the language intending to defend the Hate Group label:


 * The referred to actions, assertions, and argumentation are described by http://www.americans4waldorf.org/Myths.html and summarized in an overview of the issue, found here, based on documentation in the form of published Newspaper articles in 1997, a number of published postings in the the archives of Mr. Dugan's mailing list at his site through about ten years, a published Press Release by PJI in 1999, a deposition by Dan Dugan in 1999, the application by PJI to ADF, published by Mr. Dugan at his WC-site, publicly available legal documentation, a public policy statement on immunization by ECSWE, published research on Waldorf pupils, postings by a Mr. Staudenmaier, found in the Topica archives, published lectures by R.S., found on the net, published articles by P.S., found at the WC-site, a paragraph by paragraph analysis by a Daniel Hindes of Mr. Staudenmaier's first solo paper on anthroposophy, and published research on Waldorf pupils, extensively referenced in the summary.


 * That PLANS publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups in their early stages of development, as described and documented in the summarizing overview, is well documented. So is the fact, that AWE, based on what is described in the summarizing overview, linked to above, describes PLANS as a group that at its site publishes argumentation characteristic of hate groups.


 * The final sentence in the introduction describes this well documented situation, that refers to point three in the arumentation published by PLANS described here: http://www.thebee.se/comments/plans1.html#Summarizing_comments --Thebee 17:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the example above provides evidence that demonstrates many attempts by TheBee to frustrate the editing efforts of at least one editor. That he has frustrated me on many occasions is evident. His actions are consistently agressive and biased and sometimes lead to strong, equally agressive actions by others who have to deal with the frustration he causes with his editing techniques. That he can frustrate neutral editors into allowing him to call a group of people COMPLETELY undeserving of the label a "Hate Group" is evidence, I believe, of the level of frustration many of us feel when having to deal with him on these pages.

Inappropriate Behavior by TheBee

 * Here Admin Longhair declines to contact Thebee off-line at Thebee's request.
 * DianaW and I have both pointed out this edit from TheBee as the point where he introduced and directed the claim of "hate group" to PLANS. It is also important to draw attention to the fact that in the same edit, TheBee went to the trouble of identifying BY NAME the top members of the PLANS organization that he had just smeared.  This, I believe, more than anything demonstrates the personal nature of the vendetta TheBee has with this particular critical organization and the extent to which he will go to defame them.  Again, it is important to remember that this claim was a claim only supportable by TheBee and four other members of his Americans for Waldorf Education website team - HGilbert apparently supported the edit.  This violates WP:NPA and WP:HA at the very least and applying the false claim of "hate group" to persons  and naming them by name goes far beyond what is detailed in these policies and perhaps into legal areas.

Discussion by Administrators
Here is a case of two editors discussing the problems of the Waldorf article. They are talking about comments made by neutral editor Fergie whose comments I have also included here.


 * 
 * - from Fergie's talk page

Fergie
 * 
 * 

Refuting Evidence by Venado
Venado claims: "Evidence Pete K accuses Hgilbert of a conflict of interest because Hgilbert is a teahcer that wrote a book about Waldorf while Pete K is himself a school founder who is writing a book of critical viewpoints of Waldorf education  a ." This claim is remarkable in its attempt to grasp at straws. A statement by me that "a book is in the works" does not constitute a conflict of interest. There is nothing that says I have produced a book, nor that it has or ever will be publishied, or that I stand to benefit from it. Even if I *did* produce a book and *did* have it published, there is nothing that says I would benefit from it financially (the proceeds could be earmarked for charity). Nonetheless, none of this has transpired. As an author, however, I would certainly be benefitted by lots and lots of people being attracted to Waldorf and it would hurt my prospects for selling a book about Waldorf if people read an article about Waldorf on Wikipedia and were turned off of Waldorf education. IOW, there's a benefit to producing brochure language about Waldorf for people who write books about Waldorf.

Venado claims: "He has just edited his user page to remove mention of the personal involvement  " I agree, it was probably not too smart to edit this information during the arbitration process, but my motives were not to disguise anything for the arbitration process. It's my user page and rather than make too much information about myself available to the casual user while I'm in a conflict with people here and while my kids are still attending Waldorf school, I decided for their safety that it would be better to remove that information from prying eyes here. I fully acknowledge that I was, at one time, very enthusiastic about Waldorf, even started a Waldorf school about 15 years ago, and I am still a Waldorf parent - currently interested in reforming Waldorf. None of this represents a conflict of interest in any way, shape or form.

Venado further claims that "An edit war ensued after over removing/keeping the original bad faith tag." I think my evidence showed that the tag was justified, at least in the eyes of other editors - regardless of who put it there initially. To support the fact that the article reads (and has always read) like an advertisment, a Waldorf Project team was formed to address this specific issue. The tag has been removed by HGilbert and others with no attempt to address the brochure language and little discussion other than to falsely accuse critical editors of introducing the brochure language themselves. Indeed, as I have shown above, many of the tag removals included deceptive edit summaries clearly intended to disguise what they were doing. This is extreme bad-faith editing.

For my part, here are a few of the edits I have made to attempt to remove language that is an advertisement for Waldorf:


 * Notice fake German reference to support claim
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Weasel words
 * 
 * 
 * 

There are many, many more. Extensive editing, while necessary and appropriate for this article, has been blocked thus far.

Venado writes:"This arbitration is partly the result of an event in which Hgilbert was criticized for insisting on the preservation specific brochure language – related to that passage, Pete K heavily edited the writing surrounding the contended brochure language, leaving it intact, but did not write it himself either."  No - not unless HGilbert now agrees that he initiated this arbitration process based on this issue and not based on a suggestions by various administrators over the past several months. "It was a written by paka33 probably trying to keep NPOV balance in  section criticizing Waldof brochures."  There seems to be no end to the speculation going on here. If we could stick to what is actually known, then this "evidence" might carry some weight.

Venado writes: "Durova was told by Pete K that Hgilbert "is a Waldorf teacher, biased (of course) and depends on the success of Waldorf education for his livelihood". lHgilbert objected that being a teacher was an automatic coi, m, and it appears a prejudgement for blame followed.  In this situation, the responsibility for quoted brochure language was put on Hgilbert:n, "That phrase and many others like it violate WP:NOT and WP:NPOV; insistence that the article read this way violates WP:OWN."  However, Hgilbert did not write it, and did not edit protectively to keep it there."  I suspect administrator Durova may answer this herself, but the statement by Durova is perfectly clear. There is no accusation that HGilbert introduced the material, only that it exists and that "insistence that the article read this way" is what demonstrates violation of the Wikipedia policies she mentions.

Venado continues: "Durova also blamed Hgilbert in that message, "As an administrator I strongly recommend you reconsider that position and collaborate in accordance with site policies", which is an unfounded determination in that instance." That Venado has misunderstood, apparently, the foundation for Durova's statement is probably most at issue here.

Venado states: "It was originally added to serve as an example of brochures by an editor who was contributing arguments about criticizing brochures. Afterwards, no editor argued to remove that passage quoted, and nobody is any more or less to blame it is in the article. Pete K objected to it once only indirectly, in a single edit in which he inserted 241 verify source tags. o. That tag was not treated seriously because the entire edit was judged "excessive tagging" and reverted by an administrator.  p  "  I guess who added what is of some significant importance to Venado - but it is of little importance to anyone else except where the brochure language has been added by HGilbert as this relates to the conflict of interest claim. The issue is that the article is replete with brochure language and HGilbert, a Waldorf teacher, has introduced and faithfully defended most of this brochure language.

Regarding the citation of lots and lots of brochure language by me: "Another administrator concurred that the edit had the appearance of bad faith. q"  Well, I was fairly new to Wikipedia at the time I made the edit - but it was on the recommendation of an administrator that I placed the tags there. I didn't realize, at the time, that we weren't allowed to indicate everything that was problematic in the article all at once. Continuing: " Other than this frivolous tag, it doesn't seem that any editor objected to that brochure text in any way until Durova, and Hgilbert didn't put it there or act as gatekeeper to protect it." That is plainly not true. There are dozens of edits among several editors trying to delete the brochure language - lots of them from before I arrived. The only consistent factor in the brochure language remaining in the article is HGilber's presence here defending it. Venado continues: "The section where the article's discussion of brochures appears has been edited extensively by Pete K, but in all his edits, he left the brochure quote there and just added opinions to it, or changed a few words. r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, aa, bb" Sure. So what? After having been scolded for producing cite tags on everything that was problematic, I was more careful about my edits. If it were up to me, as the edit with the cite tags indicates, I would re-write the entire article. I have been trying to be sensitive to the editors that feel an article about Waldorf education cannot exist without a bunch of references to "head, heart and hands" and false claims about Steiner's accomplishments.

Venado sums up: "That brochure language Hgilbert was criticized for was not a factor in the edit war since neither Pete K nor Hgilbert made serious objection to it " That particular brochure language just happens to be what Durova picked out of dozens of examples of brochure language in the article. If you will note the edit history, you will see that I had removed several cases of brochure language just previous to this. HGilbert has ensured that every edit to correct the brochure language will require several go-arounds, edit battles, endless discussion and intimidation. That particular piece of brochure language had simply not found its way to the top of the list of necessary edits for this article.

Statement by Trueblood misses the point
Trueblood makes the following statement: "It is already so obvious that there are several editors who are out on a mission from this page that i feel i don't need to add. Everybody would probably benefit if all parties involved would be restricted from editing the articles in question. In my view the most entrenched editors are petek, dianaw, hgilbert and thebee. if any of these gets restricted from editing the articles, all of them should." The issues in question here refer to Wikipedia policies WP:OWN and WP:COI and others. All the editors Trueblood mentions are NOT guilty of violation of these policies. There has, indeed, been a lot of editing by both sides, but the conflict of interest and the attempt to own the articles by HGilbert in particular (with a good helping of bullying by TheBee) is the reason why so much editing and edit-warring takes place here. If other editors were allowed to make reasonable edits that would actually stick for more than 5 minutes, there would be far less editing on these articles. The desire of one side to control the existing POV content is where the problem is.

Trueblood also writes about administrator Durova: "Again evidence is all there, seeing that the edit war is going both ways, why did s/he position himself so clearly on one side. as an admin s/he should be a lot more careful." I don't see anything that has not been neutral here on administrator Durova's part. All her cautioning and advice has been to both sides equally. As a matter of fact, it wasn't too long ago that Durova issued a 24 hour block on me. It doesn't seem like she is playing favorites. She seems to be calling 'em how she sees 'em. Pete K 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood now writes: ''"This example shows everything. Petek in his evidence points out to an edit war (about four words) he is engaged with Hgilbert (and others) at the moment, but petek lays all the blame on hgilbert (here on this page). Neither is trying to accomodate the other person's view and they are just reverting to their respective version. petek forgot to mention that after vindheim reverted (again) he himself reverted vindheim a couple of hours later:
 * "''

This is an incredible claim. First, and most obviously, I "forgot" to mention it because it hadn't happened yet. It's pretty hard to write about the future - I leave that sort of thing to Steiner. Second, and more importantly, is that there is a very accommodating discussion that is ongoing here where Vindheim hardly participates except to act as a cheerleader for HGilbert who wants to selectively harvest quotes from an article that represents the opposite view of what he has managed to mangle the qutes into saying. Later in the discussion, Vindheim demonstrates that he has little if any understanding of assimilation and history or even what constitutes racism and can shows clearly that the facts (even Steiner's own words) don't take precedence over defending Steiner's perceived image here on Wikipedia. His lack of understanding of these things prompted one neutral editor to state: "Man, are you blind? "The Negro race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course quite absurd that thisrace is now playing such a large role in Europe" quoted just above is clearly and undeniably racist. Ask anybody who doesn't have an agenda of whitewashing Steiner like you do. -999 (Talk) 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)"

With regard to my own actions, I regret having lacked the self-control to leave the edit alone during this arbitration process. I feel, as I believe I have demonstrated above, that this is all part of the general strategy to frustrate editors into leaving in material that they disagree with. I suspect and hope, now that they have tested my mettle, that we might not see this sort of passing cars during the the yellow flag (NASCAR reference) during the arbitration process. Pete K 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Trueblood is back again with more accusations that need to be addressed. Here he states: "The example also show in my view the general problem. Steiner wrote articles criticising and condemning anti-semitism and also made anti-semitic statements." Yet, amazingly, no such articles showing Steiner dondemning anti-Semitism can be found that are translated into English. Examination of the articles cited, which are in German (using translation software) don't confirm this statement at all. At issue, of course, is what is considered anti-Semitism and what Steiner himself thought constituted anti-Semitism.

Trueblood continues: "The pro steiner fraction is trying to put steiner in good light and take of the edge of criticism. The anti steiner fraction is basically trying to prove that steiner was protofascist or protonazi." This is an incredible misrepresentation of what has happened here. I would challenge Trueblood to support this with anything that resembles actual evidence. This is, after all, the evidence page.

Later, Trueblood goes on to say "petek should not be too outspoken about other people's lack of understanding of assimilation and antisemitism since he proved his rather muddled understanding on several occasions" and provides
 * this diff as an example. An examination of the diff in fact refutes the statement by Trueblood. It demonstrates not only an understanding on my part of assimilation, but also of exactly what Steiner's view of the treatment of the Jews should be. A stronger case that Steiner was an assimilationist and was, indeed, supporting an anti-Semitic position need not be presented. Pete K 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And today Trueblood has ammended his statement to say: "petek should not be too outspoken about other people's lack of understanding of assimilation and antisemitism since he proved his rather muddled understanding on several occasions. in this diff he quotes a wikipedia article on a nazi policy (germanization), this has nothing to do with anything steiner ever proposed, it does not have anything to do with jews. it is just this annoying 'if you don't agree with me you are a nazi' pseudo argument." I have not said or suggested any such thing - and I have certainly never called anyone here a Nazi. I'm inclined to say more, but the ridiculous accusation by Trueblood speaks for itself. Pete K 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Refutation of Argument Presented by TheBee
At long last, TheBee has produced his statement. After considerable claim that my evidence has exceeded a reasonable maximum here, he was do doubt hoping I would be scolded for providing too much evidence and prevented from refuting what he has now produced. As a favor to the Arbitration Committee, I'm going to try to address only a few points of TheBee's diatribe as much of his evidence refutes itself. His first complaint seems to be about bold formatting of text. In his diff, he complains that placing emphasis on the numbers $235,000 and $238,000 represents pushing a POV. The *whole point* of the article in question - PLANS, is that PLANS is challenging separation of church and state and that taxpayer money is being used to fund Waldorf education. The *amount* of taxpayer money funding a single for providing Waldorf is a significant point of the article and it certainly isn't pushing a POV to emphasize the significance of it. However, when TheBee questioned an administrator about the appropriate use of bold text, and an answer about this was given, I immediately removed the bold text myself, as TheBee himself confirms.

In his next complaint, TheBee points to this diff and suggests that I have generalized his link. I acknowledge that this may have happened inadvertently. The intention of my edit was to remove the phrase "scathingly attacked" and replace it with "attacked" - as "scathingly" is nothing but POV sensationalism. That Steiner "attacked" anti-Semitism is a very controversial point that I left in at the time. Steiner was an anti-Semite by many reports and an assimilationist of the worst type (this has already been discussed) The intention of removing the "scathingly" comment is supported by my own comment at the time (that TheBee presented in his argument) "You don't need this propaganda in the link".

The rest of TheBee's discussion in the first section of his complaint confirms my claim that TheBee has long-standing personal problems with me and has attempted to have me expelled from Wikipedia ever since I started editing here. Some of his claims are hard not to address. For example he states "On 10 Sept, after I had gotten tired of his repeated deeply insulting personal attacks during his first weeks here, I had asked an admin to warn him about them, which he did,, and also for the memory put up a page that documented his attacks, incivilities and other Wikipedia violations up to then, as they would look in a Wikipedia complaint report, as a preparation for a more long term formal complaint about them."  TheBee has apparently has a time machine which he lent administrator GoldenWattle. Having asked GoldenWattle on September 10th, GoldenWattle was able to travel back in time and issue a warning to me on August 31st. That anachronism notwithstanding, of TheBee's claims of "personal attack", a very small percentage are justified and those have all occurred quite some time ago. There is nothing fresh there but I wouldn't be surprised if the evidence I have produced against TheBee in this arbitration is also finding its way onto his personal attack scorecard.

TheBee makes the statement "He has disregarded repeated requests by different admins and editors to stay civi" followed by 10 diffs. Examination of those diffs reveals only two requests by administrators, and the rest are a concoction of TheBee's comments and those of other editors. Again, these are old issues and I have taken the words of administrators to heart in recent months.

TheBee ends his first rant (of what I assume will be several as he has place an ominous "more coming") with a bunch of complaints about what he believes are my activities and motives on other forums, my personal life and issues he has attributed to my divorce. I hope the Arbitration Committee will understand if I don't answer this particular "evidence" by TheBee. I would prefer not to discuss these types of issues in public. If there is anything of TheBee's claims that the Arbitration Committee believes has the slightest merit and that I should answer directly, I will be happy to do so.

I suppose I must address this claim by TheBee: "I'm sorry to have to tell this here, but think it is necessary and important to understand the aggression towards everything related to Waldorf education, that repeatedly on different levels come to expression in PeteK's editing of Waldorf related articles and relation to other editors here at Wikipedia, violating the WP:COI, the WP:NOT, the WP:NPA, and the WP:CIVIL policies, and having the by himself expressed goal of violating the WP:OWN policy (taking control of the editing of the Waldorf- and Waldorf related articles)." TheBee claims I have "aggression towards everything related to Waldorf education" and he proposes a number of reasons I won't go into here. The "agressive" comment was about editing agressively, BTW, not about any agression towards Waldorf. I do, indeed, have kids who attend Waldorf school. I don't see how that can be considered a conflict of interest. My standing within the Waldorf community is good, many Waldorf teachers consider me their friend - a few, I suspect, consider me less than a friend. I support my kid's activities in their school, and I support the school, I volunteer for fundraisers, clean classrooms, set up chairs for events, go to class meetings, go to basketball games, go on field trips (even create them), supervise kids on camping trips, Bar-B-Que for 500 people at a time. I've even been invited by two different teachers to come in and teach a class on mechanics. Last week was the 5th year in a row I have been invited to play the roll of Bishop Nicholas (Dec 6th) for a local Waldorf school (not my kid's school) - to hand out treats to the kids. I do this willingly. I meet weekly with Waldorf teachers and former teachers to discuss all things Waldorf. I have no agression towards Waldorf and I support the Waldorf community and movement. None of this represents a conflict of interest - it represents an interest and nothing more. I am a Waldorf reformist. I think there are some things wrong with Waldorf that can be corrected - and this would ultimately improve Waldorf. I am vocal about these things. Sometimes there are particular teachers who are causing harm not just to Waldorf, but to the children in their care. I am vocal about bringing their actions to the attention of the community. Some people don't like this. Some people would like bad behavior to go unnoticed. Some people would like me not to be so vocal. TheBee is one of those people. HGilbert is another. What TheBee characterizes as my "agression towards everything related to Waldorf education" is unsupportable.

Edit-Warring by HGilbert During the Arbitration Process
HGilbert has taken this arbitration as an opportunity to continue long-standing edit wars. He may be going for broke here as administrator Durova cautioned us all yesterday to avoid controversial editing during the arbitration process. Despite this, HGilbert today produces a controversial edit that has been rejected by at least four different editors over the past week or two.


 * - Dec 1st, HGilbert tests my nerve during the arbitration process and removes heavily contested language
 * - Dec 1st, I replace it
 * - administrator Durova's suggestion for a "light touch on the edit button".
 * - Dec 5th (today) HGilbert removes it again
 * - Dec 5th Ekajati replaces it
 * - Here is the history page that demonstrates how many times we went back and forth on this particular sentence previous to HGilbert's current edits. This is the same edit going back and forth as far back as November 24th (maybe further - I got tired of looking).
 * - Here is the discussion about this edit.

That HGilbert is TODAY continuing this on-going edit war is remarkable in its bad taste and lack of good judgment. It is exactly the type of behavior that has frustrated many editors who are trying to objectively edit these articles. Pete K 16:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I posted this only a few minutes ago, Vindheim has chosen to revert this edit again. Pete K 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 

Fresh edits today show HGilbert continuing this edit-warring behavior:


 * Editor ScienceApologist correctly tags Anthroposophy as psuedoscience.
 * Editor Lumos3 appropriately identifies Anthroposophy as a psuedoscience in the body of the article.
 * HGilbert wipes out legitimate references to critical report by Professor Hansson. We've already been through this in the Rudolf Steiner articles - HGilbert knows this report is legitimate and the references to it belong in this article.  HGilbert introduces {fact} tag.
 * I supply source to {fact} tag introduced by HGilbert.
 * Editor Lumos3 replaces reference removed by HGilbert.
 * HGilbert removes the reference again and re-introduces the {fact} tag. Produces statement that the idea of racial bias in Anthroposophy is the "suggestion" of a single person.
 * I revert this ridiculous edit.
 * HGilbert then produces editorial commentary and cites, as a reference, the controversial and extremely biased Dutch Commission report - and, as always, omits the fact that the commission was comprised completely of Anthroposophists.
 * I revert the edit again.
 * Here is where I was trying to discuss the edits during the edit war.
 * Here is the discussion previous to the edit war.
 * Here HGilbert once again inserts a POV edit and supports it with a controversial document (the completely biased report of the Dutch Commission of Anthroposophists - again without acknowledgment that they are all Anthroposophists). The absurdity of the report by the Dutch Commission of Anthroposophists, by the way, is described here by a supporter of Steiner and here by a historian who is critical of Steiner.  Both sides agree that the report of the Dutch Commission of Anthroposophists was a ridiculously sloppy attempt at covering up racism in Steiner's works and the Steiner supporter had this to say: "Absurdities in the Commission’s work... As was demonstrated before by many authors, the Commission has chosen a method of research that is invalid; a method that has been used for years by opponents of Anthroposophy, like Toos Jeurissen and Bram Moerland. As far as the total absurdities of the report go, it is unfeasible to go into all its contradictions. The reader of the report is constantly astonished. ..."  The entire text of this Steiner-supporter's review is worth a read.  This is indeed the report HGilbert has edit-warred for months to included as a reference (without mention of the fact that the report was generated by Anthroposophists) - and now uses as a reference to substantiate the claim that "Steiner advocated the equality of all races".  The report, itself, is something like 750 pages long and costs $85.00 US to purchase... so verification of the contents of the report (written in German) is difficult, and one would think that if Steiner actually "advocated the equality of all races", he might have mentioned it in one of the 6000 lectures and 30 books that he wrote, so we wouldn't have to purchase a ridiculous 700+ page report written in German to verify this claim.  It's easy to see why so many editors who have tried to produce helpful edits on these articles have turned away in frustration.
 * Lest I be accused of hiding anything, this is me reverting the edit by HGilbert.
 * HGilbert's new reference for another astonishing claim - that Steiner advocated the equality of all races. The reference is, naturally, in German and apparently HGilbert can come up with no reference in English that supports this claim.  Several edits and reversions later, I was able to find an English translation from the SAME cited reference of a quotation (different page) that says exactly the opposite.  The quotation says:
 * "Each person proceeds through race after race. Those that are young souls incarnate in the races that have remained behind on earlier racial levels. In this way, the races and souls that live around us take on a physical and spiritual structure. Everything makes sense, everything becomes clear and explicable. We are moving closer and closer to the solution of this puzzle and we can realize that in the future we will have other epochs to go through, we will have other paths to follow than the ones made by race. We must be clear about the difference between soul development and racial development. Our own souls once lived within the Atlantean race, and they then developed themselves upward to a higher race. That gives us an image of the evolution of humankind up until our time. In this way we can comprehend how to justify the principle, the core principle of universal brotherhood without regard to race, color, status, and so forth. I will explain this thought in particular later. Today I simply wanted to show how the same essence appears in different forms, and in fact in a much more correct sense than natural science would have us believe. Our souls march from one level to the next, which is to say from one race to the next, and we come to know the meaning of humanity when we examine these races." (Steiner, Die Welträtsel und die Anthroposophie pp. 153-4)

This, once again, demonstrates HGilbert's inclination to obfuscate the truth and to push his own POV while agressively editing the articles and while selectively harvesting quote snippets that imply the opposite of the body of text. I suggest this violates WP:POV and WP:OWN.

Yesterday and today (Dec 13th and 14th), HGilbert has gone on a rampage of editing during the arbitration process. I have asked HGilbert about the wisdom of producing these edits at this time but he seems to think they are appropriate. While one can assume good faith in these edits (I think he believes referencing every statement to a Waldorf brochure, Waldorf teacher or Anthroposophist is a worthwhile activity) he is slipping in even more brochure language here and here and here during this blitzkrieg of editing. Now, it seems, other editors will need to wade through these edits to determine what of value was removed with his "reduced bulk" edits and what was added that further promoted Waldorf. And, of course, we will have to verify all the new references he has added - especially in light of the fact that sometimes his references don't actually say what he claims they say. This onrush of editing by an editor who is, at this very moment, being evaluated for WP:COI and WP:OWN and WP:POV violations seems inappropriate. While I appreciate the effort to substantiate the brochure language he has produced in these articles, the amount of work he is generating for editors wishing to straighten this out is enormous.

POV pushing
Two editors, Pete K and DianaW, have repeatedly and consistently pushed their hostile POV in articles relating to Waldorf education and anthroposophy. This includes removing cited information from both primary and secondary sources:
 * After repeatedly attacking others for preventing Steiner's own words from appearing,, , Pete makes a concerted effort to delete Steiner's own words and replace them with his own version, with no verifiable basis for these: removal of cited material, which was a complete distortion of cited material. (Note: this is the issue over which Pete accuses others of edit warring.)
 * ,, , ,
 * even if published in the Lancet
 * suppression of cited evidence not fitting a particular POV,

The editors have made frequent claim that authors sympathetic to or connected to Waldorf education or anthroposophy should not be included as they are "biased", while critical authors are "unbiased", in direct contravention of Wikipedia's NPOV policy:
 * 
 * here inserted into an article
 * Replacing verifiability with sourced in critical authors
 * 
 * 
 * on-going

Insertion of editorializing/original research
These same editors, especially Pete K, frequently introduce editorializing comments ("No surprise, huh?", "highly biased", etc.) into articles. They also introduce original research, often in the form of weasel words: "Some people", or make statements reflecting their own judgments: "Most of these websites have insufficient amount of information about anthroposophy", or change terminology arbitrarily to reflect their own opinion of what an author must have meant rather than what s/he said:
 * , changing an author's terminology arbitrarily. Pete reverts all references to Steiner's actual language, substituting his own interpretation (without any citation) repeatedly *same; Steiner critiques all anti-Semitism again and again cites, editor changes this to "extreme forms of anti-Semitism" without any justification
 * Claims based upon original research
 * ,
 * 
 * 
 * 

The intent to remove biographical or factual information to "make room" for critical information has been repeatedly voiced and exercised:
 * 
 * 
 * And then denying such intent when it is raised as a mediation issue
 * 

Personal attacks and personalization of issues
A constant flow of personal attacks, and a pervasive tendency to turn editorial issues into personal statements about other editors, makes editing articles with these editors exceptionally difficult and humanly unpleasant
 * "dishonest BS"
 * 
 * Pete K suggested that my original statement for this arbitration was longer than recommended. I shortened it in response, and he then attacked me for taking out material!
 * justifying the removal of citations of published and verifiable articles,
 * after a reminder of the policies on avoidance of personal attacks and on good faith
 * 

Rejection of Wikipedia policy of good faith
The above-mentioned editors have frequently rejected Wikipedia policies, including that of WP:good faith:
 * 
 * 

Refutation of assertions that I have removed criticism
The evidence above, presented by Pete K, is partly not removal of criticism at all:, , , Retitling section in line with Wikipedia guidelines, nothing removed.
 * What I did remove was unfounded assertions using [[WP:weasel] words of the form "Some believe...", which represented the editor's beliefs without citation. ,
 * In one case I removed criticism with a citation that contradicted, not supported, the statement; my edit summary stated this clearly.

No conflict of interest
I have no financial benefit from this article, and it is ridiculous to assert that I do. I am employed within the field, in one of more than 900 independent Waldorf schools. I have indeed written a book on Waldorf education, but it is not even cited here (though Wikipedia specifies that authors may cite their own works).

Refutation of false claims
Other false claims made include the:
 * false claim that I have posted an article about myself (I never have done so)
 * false claim that I selected the editors to include in this arbitration excluding certain editors. I gave what I believed was a complete list, and since none have been added since by any other editor, others seem to find it complete as well.
 * False claim by Pete K above that I inaccurately cited an article. A direct quote from the article follows: "The schools give priority to educating the "whole child", with a strong emphasis on creativity"
 * False claim that I removed a link to a critical site here. The site was listed in two different places under "Links"; I only removed the duplicate listing.
 * False claims that I modified my original statement on the arbitration page in order to withdraw or conceal elements of this. After Pete K criticized my statement's length as exceeding the guidelines for this, I shortened it in response with a clear explanation of the reason in the summary and here; he and others then repeatedly attacked me for having been flexible in response to his criticism! For clarity, I then posted the original statement on the talk page.
 * True but very misleading is Diana's claim that I created an article about transferring between Waldorf schools and traditional schools. Actually, another editor had created this content as part of the main article. In response to very valid criticism that the main article was getting too long, I moved out a variety of less central sections, including this one, into separate articles. In a note on the discussion page I explained this to Diana and said that I was open to completely deleting the article. Her raising this as an issue here without mentioning the previous discussion is very curious.

Refutation of "brochure language"
There is a claim, repeatedly made by various editors, that I have inserted "brochure language" into this article. I have not seen any editor provide evidence of this whatsoever, however. The closest any editor has come is Pete K's list of supposedly "advertising" language he has removed from the article. The diffs he offers, which are of his removing information, not my adding it, largely consist of:
 * A claim that a reference is "fake"; it is genuine see here (there are two articles in a sequence; the referenced passage is found in the second article)
 * His own insertion of POV language!!!, also see here
 * His removal of sections describing the importance of rhythm to Waldorf education's approach to early-childhood:, ,
 * His removal of the word "movement", as in "Waldorf movement", to describe a broad range of educational situations and approaches all based on Waldorf pedagogy

Refutation of latterly added material
DianaW has now added diffs to seek to support this claim. All of these diffs are addressed in the following:
 * Several of these show edits that are simply factual, describing the education's history and goals:, . One is in the middle of a section explicitly covering Steiner's views about life phases; if it is for some reason not obvious to all readers that it continues within this context, the addition of a clarifying phrase such as "He also described" would be welcome and sufficient. I believe that it is appropriate to describe an educational philosophy's expressed goals so long as these are clearly identified as such. I suggest that it would be inappropriate to claim these as achievements without providing further verification, however.


 * Her claim that one editor's edit summary said my previous edit "sounded like a sales pitch" is untrue; in fact, the summary said "Removing some material sounding like a sales brochure" and most of his edit addressed older material (exception: he changed my "Based on the foundational work..." to "...is principally based ...")


 * Her claim that this edit cited a Waldorf PR source is untrue; the source is a multi-volume (German) standard reference work on education, one volume of which is about Waldorf education; the work is published by a mainstream publishing house (Schneider Verlag).


 * Diana has raised the issue of the Transferring between Waldorf and non-Waldorf schools article. I wrote months ago on the article's talk page that I was open to it being deleted; why did she (or does she) not simply go ahead and delete it? I do not feel it should be merged back in to the main article, and thus I removed the merger tag. Hgilbert 13:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Claim about brochure language by Durova
This situation is very curious. Durova claimed and claims that I, and pro-Waldorf editors generally, put in "brochure language". Never has s/he cited a single diff to demonstrate this. Once s/he cited a passage from the article to show that such language is in the article. That passage, it has been demonstrated, was inserted by an editor who was actively anti-Waldorf education. S/he now criticizes me for my "logical fallacies" and "contextomy" because I pointed out the truth of this situation. S/he cannot understand why a supposedly anti-Waldorf editor would enter a statement that Durova finds to be positive about Waldorf education. Therefore, she concludes, it must not have happened (despite the diffs demonstrating this on his/her talk page and below).

It did happen, however. The editor, I suspect, did not believe the added material would be interpreted positively. The assumption that this was meant as a positive edit is the fallacious step in the reasoning.
 * Durova's original criticism of the brochure language
 * The edit that put in this language
 * Another edit by this editor that demonstrates he was actively critical of Waldorf education, and another

I am sorry if Durova felt there was any incivility. I certainly didn't intend any. The discussion here and on the arbitration page can be examined; I am suprised to hear that she was offended by anything I said. She has, however, accused me of many things now: financial conflict of interest, OWN, incivility, without providing any evidence of these things.

Violations of WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT
As a regular participant at WP:RFC for many months, and more recently as an administrator who specializes in maintaining the WP:RFI and WP:PAIN noticeboards, I spend a significant portion of my Wikipedia time defusing situations that might otherwise go into arbitration. When Waldorf Education was the subject of two requests for comment I visited the page briefly. The dispute looked ugly and I avoided it. After I became an administrator a related request came to a noticeboard and, initially, all participants appeared about equally blameworthy.

I looked closer when I noticed the prominent role that logical fallacies and contextomy play in Hgilbert's conduct. The example that first caught my attention occurred on 15 November. I'll discuss this and some related examples to illustrate what I now deem to be habitual behavior. Shortly beforehand, PeteK had queried me about about possible WP:COI and I had given a neutral recommendation for arbitration. Hgilbert responded to me as follows:
 * If you wish to suggest that Wikipedia bans doctors from editing articles on medicine, scientists from editing articles on science, teachers from editing articles on education, and so on - because they all have a "financial interest" in the success of the subject in question - well, this is an interesting idea. It must be noted that most encyclopedias actually seek out people with expertise in a subject, rather than people with no experience therein.

This is a combination of the straw man fallacy and ignoratio elenchi: first Hgilbert presents a weak caricature of the conflict of interest objection, then attributes that distortion to me and refutes it. Next he makes a valid assertion (that encyclopedias should encourage professionals to contribute in their area of expertise) which is tangential to the matter of whether a Waldorf teacher would violate policies by systematically screening critical statements out of an article about Waldorf schools. The rest Hgilbert's post is an exercise in contextomy:


 * ''Also see WP:VANITY#COI_in_POV_disputes, which suggests that in cases of a POV dispute, "it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. This is negative advice, but the existence of conflicts of interest as a fact of life here does not mean that assume good faith is past its sell-by-date. Quite the opposite."

Hgilbert's quote omits the next sentence of the actual guideline:
 * (This guideline will not help you win an edit war, but no guideline here is intended to, except as far as all guidelines are intended to help improve the encyclopedia.)

By ignoring that qualifier and the entire subsequent WP:VANITY section, Hgilbert attempts to cite WP:VANITY for the opposite of its expressed purpose: he mines the page for the only nugget he can forge into ammunition at his edit war.

Hgilbert's entire post is subtly, but rather profoundly, uncivil. Essentially it claims that my administrative recommendations understand neither policy nor logic. Its tone is both provocative and condescending. Although I assumed better faith when it was posted, Hgilbert's subsequent actions leave little doubt that this was also an attempt at baiting: he has tried in every manner possible to cite my response against me.

Had I anticipated that my next post would become a point of contention I would have parsed the statement even more carefully to preclude any ambiguity, but the gist ought to be sufficiently clear:
 * If a medical doctor edited a Wikipedia article so that it read like a public relations release for that particular doctor's medical practice or a university professor edited an article to make it resemble promotional literature for that professor's university then my advice would be the same. A Waldorf school is not just an alternative to public schools or another independent school; its curriculum and philosophy proceed from the worldview and the insights into the nature of the child that Rudolf Steiner has given us in Anthroposophy.  That phrase and many others like it violate WP:NOT and WP:NPOV; insistence that the article read this way violates WP:OWN.  As an administrator I strongly recommend you reconsider that position and collaborate in accordance with site policies because I would support a request for arbitration related to Waldorf education.  Having read the above post, I am now considering opening that request myself.

Nowhere do I accuse Hgilbert of adding a particular phrase: I would have posted a diff if I had intended such a thing. That quotation highlighted one illustrative passage out of many that mar the article with a hagiographic tone. My criticism centers on the inherent problems when editors act as POV gatekeepers and the particular contributor of a given passage is irrelevant to that argument. An unrelated WP:FAC discussion offers a good description of the harm that POV gatekeepers cause:


 * I stumbled upon this article in December of 2004 and, hoo-dilly, was it not even close to featured. The biggest issue was its neutrality (or lack thereof). At the time the page was being owned by a couple of folks with a specific viewpoint. They weren't necessarily forcing their POV, they just weren't letting certain views in (same thing, I guess). I was one of many folks that tried to work through a compromise, but not knowing much too about the subject, couldn't do too much and eventually moved on.

To express the thought in a nutshell: Bad faith gatekeeping results in a walled garden regardless of who plants particular flowers.

Hgilbert's subsequent posts have focused on the fact that he was not the editor who added the particular sentence to the article.   This includes assertions at this arbitration: Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education   Prior to the evidence phase of this arbitration Hgilbert advanced an unsubstantiated tu quoque argument that a spectrum of editors including PeteK and DianaW were responsible for the article's POV language. Not only does that contention miss the point, it could not constitute a sustainable premise even if accepted at face value. Suppose PeteK and DianaW did edit favorable statements about Waldorf schools into the article: Hgilbert's allegation would demonstrate that these other editors are responsible Wikipedians who respect WP:NPOV by adding both points of view into the article. That would operate in direct contradiction to Hgilbert's other claim that these are embittered anti-Waldorfers. This contradiction is so striking that another involved editor initially thought I had misunderstood the case until Fergie reread the diffs and decided that Hgilbert's assertion was bizarre.

A point unanswered is a point conceded, so unless Hgilbert presents new evidence we may conclude that he has been in violation WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT and that his claims that PeteK and DianaW added brochure language are groundless accusations. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are probably also applicable. Rather than respond to the substance of my criticism or offer any evidence in support of the contention about PeteK and DianaW's brochure language (which might be interesting even if off point), Hgilbert now asserts that I made a false claim that Hgilbert added the passage I had quoted. I find it interesting that Hgilbert attempts to substantiate that by linking not to any of my posts but to a statement by PeteK. Eight days before Hgilbert submitted this evidence I had given him an explicit reprimand for having mischaracterized my investigation:


 * I strongly caution you against attempting further guesses, particularly when referring to my role as an administrator in your statements to the arbitration committee. That sleight of word looks like very bad faith.

When I first encountered this dispute I approached it with pure neutrality. I have no opinion at all about Waldorf Education or Rudolf Steiner and cannot recall interacting with any of these editors on other matters. The operative dynamic soon became transparent: if Hgilbert and Thebee are accused of a conflict of interest they accuse PeteK and DianaW of conflicts of interest, if Hgilbert and Thebee are accused of pro-Waldorf bias they accuse PeteK and DianaW of being anti-Waldorf, and when Hgilbert perceives an accusation of brochure language he accuses PeteK and DianaW of the same: blow as much smoke as possible in hopes that outsiders will leave without noticing the shortage of evidence and the abundance of contradictions. That plan succeeded for months (it even drove me away repeatedly) and only after Hgilbert overreacted to my suggestion about conflict of interest did I open the window wide enough to clear the air. Now that I have accused Hgilbert of falsehood he - true to pattern - accuses me of the same. I am one of roughly 5% of administrators who participate in Category:Administrators open to recall: if six editors agree there has been anything false, incompetent, or otherwise inappropriate about my actions I will stand for reconfirmation. I explain this to the Wikipedia community in a disclaimer through a prominent link from my user talk page. I also explain administrator conduct RFC as necessary to disgruntled editors - as a regular at PAIN and RFI I encounter quite a few unhappy editors - and no one has opened a request against me.

PeteK and DianaW have not been above reproach. Diana's statements in particular have tended toward inflammatory and sarcastic. Yet I have detected no contradictions in their statements or misrepresentations in their page diffs. They have also admitted their shared fault of sometimes losing patience at the keyboard. These are signs I look for when I estimate whether a participant at a dispute would be productive or a provocateur.

Unfortunately the tactic of quarreling to win each individual point - although useful in a court of law - is fundamentally inimical to collaboration at an encyclopedia. I am not an expert on human nature, yet my experience has been that people who do this habitually seldom drop the habit even when it works against their own interests. Since Hgilbert cannot respect a caution about misrepresenting an administrator's statements to the arbitration committee, it is difficult to suppose that this editor would act in good faith about anything else related to this case or the articles in question. It saddens me to note that enough expertise and talent exist here to have written several featured articles during the time that has been wasted on POV squabbles: a series of balanced pieces on Wikipedia's main page would reflect far better on Waldorf education than an arbitration case does. Had I thought an WP:FA possible with the personalities at this case I would have proposed it to them as a common goal.

Addendum
45 minutes after I posted the above, Hgilbert altered his statement to remove the allegation of falsehood against me that linked to PeteK's post. He neither acknowledges the error nor claims it was innocent - so again it looks like bad faith. He made no further edit for the next 2 1/2 hours.

Hgilbert has created a new section devoted to rebutting me. The following excerpt exhibits the proof by assertion fallacy and the straw man argument:


 * Durova claimed and claims that I, and pro-Waldorf editors generally, put in "brochure language". Never has s/he cited a single diff to demonstrate this.

No, I do not and have not made that claim, but Hgilbert consistently attributes it to me. My main evidence statement provides the relevant diffs and refutes that allegation at length. My main statement also clarifies my actual position. Naturally enough, I haven't cited diffs to support a position I haven't taken. PeteK's evidence already provides sufficient diffs to demonstrate my real contention that Hgilbert is a longstanding violator of WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT who removes criticism that would balance Waldorf-related articles and deletes templates that would notify readers of the resultant shortcomings. Another straw man argument appears below:


 * S/he cannot understand why a supposedly anti-Waldorf editor would enter a statement that Durova finds to be positive about Waldorf education. Therefore, she concludes, it must not have happened (despite the diffs demonstrating this on his/her talk page and below).

Once again, Hgilbert fails to support his prior allegation that PeteK and DianaW added brochure language. Rather than address my real argument on its merits he creates a fictitious one, attributes it to me, and refutes it. Hgilbert's claim about my conclusion is entirely false. I conclude not that it must not have happened but that it is irrelevant whether it happened: it has no bearing on my contention that Hgilbert selectively deletes competing points of view. He posted these claims after I posted my main evidence statement so there can be no remaining good faith assumption that his assertions result from some ambiguity in my prior posts: if there is a better explanation than the following I have not yet seen it - but it really looks as if he tried to snow me with sophistry as long as conceivably possible and is now trying to snow the arbitration committee. A little bit of ad hominem occurs in his post with the assertion about my comprehension and some poisoning the well is also present in the supposedly anti-Waldorf editor description - I don't know that inactive editor's frame of mind and Hgilbert has made consistently inaccurate guesses about my own thinking. Arbitrators may weigh my understanding of the underlying principle from a paragraph I added to the essay No angry mastodons on 22 August 2006:


 * On the positive side, many Wikipedians set aside their personal beliefs when they act as editors. Sometimes the fair understanding of site policy means a particular source they agree with just fails to meet WP:V, or they delete something they really like because it violates WP:NPOV, or they play devil's advocate and cite references that contradict their own beliefs because an article has a shortage of contributors and they need to balance other statements. In the interests of assuming good faith, it is best to suppose that each editor observes these high standards until proven otherwise.

Another ambiguous statement by Hgilbert deserves comment:


 * The editor, I suspect, did not believe the added material would be interpreted positively. The assumption that this was meant as a positive edit is the fallacious step in the reasoning.

If this refers to the original inactive editor who added the statement, then this is another bad faith effort to poison the well leveled against someone who is not present to defend himself or herself. Might it not be possible that the editor in question was a neutral and productive Wikipedian who adds both positive and negative citations to articles generally? WP:AGF requires us to suppose so and we have nothing but Hgilbert's unsupported contention to say otherwise. Hgilbert consistently frames this dispute in terms of warring camps regardless of other editors' self-described views. It not entirely clear whether Hgilbert attributes the fallacious step in the reasoning to the editor who originally added the passage or to me, but Hgilbert's pattern of tu quoque continues: now that fallacious reasoning is at issue, Hgilbert levels it against some other editor. He does that rather than clarify whatever statements of his I might have erroneously interpreted in his disfavor - which amounts to conceding all related points I previously identified.

Regarding his concluding statement:


 * She has, however, accused me of many things now: financial conflict of interest, OWN, incivility, without providing any evidence of these things.

As I state above, WP:OWN is sufficiently documented in PeteK's evidence and needs no duplication. I have never accused Hgilbert of violating WP:COI. When PeteK queried me about it I referred that question to arbitration; when PeteK attempted to submit evidence to me I deleted the evidence immediately and repeated the referral (diff withheld out of respect for Hgilbert's privacy but available through e-mail upon appropriate request); I have never posted agreement with that allegation and I have never cited it against Hgilbert. When Thebee raised a COI question I also referred that to arbitration. My only reference to COI in this case has been to note that Hgilbert's own statements amount to partial validation of PeteK's claims. This particular instance is a close enough call that I have not attempted it unilaterally. Since Hgilbert now raises the subject I will note what I had earlier refrained from commenting: Hgilbert's interaction with me changed radically from the moment WP:COI came into discussion. Up until that point he had been cordial and respectful; from that moment onward he has been hostile and disrespectful. He seems to have jumped to an erroneous conclusion that I agreed with PeteK, then opened the request for arbitration preemptively in an attempt to frame it on his own terms. The extent that I regard COI as a credible possibility owes itself almost entirely to Hgilbert's actions. When a person overreacts to an allegation they often do so because it comes uncomfortably close to the truth. I leave it to the committee to determine whether that has happened here.

Hgilbert's overreaction certainly made the difference regarding my participation in this arbitration case. I had hoped to provide a simple referral with no direct involvement because I avoid arbitration whenever I can. I measure my success as a Wikipedian in part by how much conflict I help resolve without arbitration and as one of the primary authors of Disruptive editing I hope I keep the arbitration caseload as light as possible. Hgilbert roused my curiosity with an inflammatory response to the COI allegation, then compelled me to reply when he misrepresented my investigation in his opening arbitration request, then compelled me to provide evidence when his evidence claimed I had made a false statement, then compelled me to supplement my statement when he deleted the allegation of falsehood without comment and substituted other misleading claims.

I wouldn't have participated in the evidence phase at all if Hgilbert had heeded my suggestions from 20 November:


 * I recommend the most heavily involved parties seek mentors and avoid continuance of the conflict on all other pages... It probably helps to be forthcoming about one's own mistakes and take personal initiative toward improving them as early as possible in this process. I mean this advice equally toward both sides.

Hgilbert's claim to feel sorry shines with sterling insincerity: if he were actually sorry to have offended my standards of civility then he would have adopted my advice. Instead he admits nothing, increases the use of fallacious reasoning, and adds unsupported derogatory surmises about my frame of mind. An equally perfunctory apology opens a post to my user talk page in which he accuses me of incompetent research. In both instances the meaning remains identical if one substitutes I am sorry with I am not the least bit sorry. This is the type of incivility that wears a tweed coat with elbow patches and perhaps smokes a pipe.

Collectively Hgilbert's posts go a long way toward validating PeteK's and DianaW's defense against one of his more serious claims: they say they refused mediation because the request was opened on such prejudicial terms that they feared they could not get a fair hearing. Hgilbert's actions also undermine his allegation that PeteK and DianaW violate WP:AGF. Although the other two editors' responses are uncivil their underlying message is meritorious - no one assumes good faith indefinitely when it manifestly does not exist. The ongoing evidence phase also underscores my contention that people who engage in habitual sophistry persist even when it works against their best interests. Besides disrupting the articles in question this draws out arbitration. If I feel like wasting time I prefer to get few a chuckles out of it.

Addendum II
Regarding Venado:
 * Trivial objections: Several Wikipedians have asked the committee to determine whether a group of editors have been long term violators of site policies at a family of articles. Venado's evidence attempts to atomize the discussion by concentrating on small and tangential elements of that substantial allegation.
 * Argumentum ad nauseam: Venado repeats Hgilbert's proof by assertion even though I have already answered those talking points repeatedly.
 * Proof by example: I have accused Hgilbert of WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. PeteK and DianaW have supplied ample diffs in support of that contention on a variety of pages.  Venado's counterargument consists of a single edit by one inactive editor and and a summary of that brief passage's subsequent history.  This evidence does not support a broader conclusion that he respected those policies.
 * Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Venado alleges that I prejudged Hgilbert because PeteK made a WP:COI accusation before I criticized Hgilbert. Venado essentially claims to have read my mind regarding a decision for which I had already given the committee a consistent explanation.
 * Cherry picking: Venado claims that I have singled out Hgilbert unfairly with a contrast against PeteK, yet fails to note that the only user block I imposed in this dispute was against PeteK. Specific attention to Hgilbert is now warranted because an important issue under contention is whether pro-Waldorf bias exists across a group of articles, not whether Waldorf-critical bias exists.
 * Tu quoque: Venado asserts that Pete K heavily edited the writing surrounding the contended brochure language, leaving it intact, but did not write it himself either. As with Hgilbert's related tu quoque claim, this actually amounts a partial defense of PeteK with regard to WP:NPOV since PeteK is a critic of Waldorf schools.  PeteK has addressed Venado's more substantive claim about excessive tagging.  In general I object to conflating such allegations.

The WP:NPOV and WP:OWN policies do not demand that Wikipedians intuit the original motives of inactive editors. Such analysis would require a professional license in clinical psychology. The salient factor is whether a site visitor downloads an encyclopedic article. If not, why not? Has the page been neglected or has it been the target of some POV campaign? If an edit dispute exists, can these people reach some productive agreement?

Venado attaches undue importance to one edit in precipitating this arbitration case. That post was actually the third time I referred this matter to arbitration (see previous diffs). I had considered arbitration the likely destination of this dispute since at least September. As I expressed earlier, the main effect of PeteK's COI allegation was to supply a reason for bypassing the remaining dispute resolution avenues.

If Venado wishes to imply that I resort to arbitration too readily or with prejudice, my history has been the opposite. At both the Agapetos Angel arbitration and the Gundagai editors arbitration I doubted that arbitration was necessary. In both of those cases I defended the accused probably longer than was appropriate. That slowness to abandon WP:AGF was the only reason my candidacy for administratorship came one neutral vote short of unanimous. At Jason Gastrich's RFC and its |its talk page I was among the last editors to hold out hope for reform before finally endorsing his ban at arbitration. Those three examples are the only prior arbitration cases where I had any involvement. As this essay demonstrates, I recuse myself from matters where I doubt I can be objective, sometimes to |to the chagrin of editors who ask for my intervention. I haven't counted the number of RfC cases where I've participated - it is probably in the hundreds - yet this is the first time I recommended arbitration. This particular rabbit hole goes unusually deep.

Addendum III
Regarding trueblood: I am neutral about the intrinsic merits of Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf education. One side of this case has been invoking my name with consistent misrepesentations. This compels my participation and opens the door to related evidence. The other side of the dispute hasn't been making that mistake.

Addendum IV
The arbitrators are welcome to double check my links above or any other reference work that defines logical fallacies and confirm that each of my examples is indeed an accurate description of the relevant material.

Venado's original section "Hgilbert unfairly singled out for blame in edit war" had one good point to make - unrelated to the section's title - and that was how PeteK had overly tagged an article. The rest either rehashed points I had already answered without addressing my replies or attempted to manufacture new claims around faulty arguments. Oddly, Venado's new statement appears to retract the tagging accusation. I had objected only that the issues were conflated: each editor's behavior deserves evaluation on its own merits and is simpler to read and reference in its own section.

At the risk of painting with too broad a brush - I've already devoted a great deal of space to defending myself - most if not all of Venado's new contentions are as spurious and repetitious as the ones I identified before. I don't see how Venado can interpolate any psychological overtones to my dry explanations of argumentum ad nauseam and post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is (he?) who attempts to surmise how I think - and does so a second time in dual violation of WP:AGF. I had already explained my actual reasoning in some detail. So Venado not only accuses me of prejudice but implicitly accuses me of having given a misleading statement to the committee. These are unfair charges.

As a second and more general point, several accusations have arisen during this arbitration regarding my administrative and editorial competence. So as background I submit that yesterday I received the Sherlock Holmes deductive reasoning award and the Barnstar of Diligence in connection to a different investigation. Durova Charg e! 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've received two more barnstars subsequently: the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar and the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Durova Charg e!  00:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentorship
At last there's some good news. Pete K and DianaW have entered membership with Lethaniol, an experienced Adopt-a-user participant. Thebee has expressed willingness to try formal mentorship and at present I am attempting to guide this editor into the program. Durova Charg e! 19:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proliferation of Anthroposophy/Steiner/Waldorf articles on wikipedia
As Pete mentioned, Waldorf/Steiner/anthroposophy related articles have proliferated amazingly on wikipedia. Here is a sample list. I emphasize ‘sample’ because this is what I’ve been able to find just looking around unsystematically, getting ideas and seeing where they lead. . . clearly, those who really know what’s here, know there are a lot more. Groups like Scientology are using wikipedia in the same manner - as free advertising and a pulpit to preach from.

Anthroposophy

Anthroposophical Society

Astral body

Biodynamic farming and gardening association

Biodynamic agiculture

Biodynamic wine

Camphill movement - there are various entries for individual Camphill sites, too

Demeter International Etheric body

Eurythmy

List of Waldorf schools

List of works on Waldorf education

Rudolf Steiner and the Theosophical Society

Rudolf Steiner's views on races Social Threefolding

Spiritual science

Anthroposophical medicine

History of Waldorf schools List of Rudolf Steiner's works on education

Goetheanum

Rudolf Steiner

Waldorf education

Albert Steffen

Ita Wegman

Sergei Prokofieff Valentin Tomberg

Karl Konig

Botton Village

Here's one I just discovered that crystallizes what anthroposophists are up to on wikipedia. This one is a classic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_Economics

"Associative Economics" is an anthroposophical endeavor. Note that this is not mentioned. This article should be deleted. A couple of people found it and commented on the Talk page that it is clearly an advertisement, and that is what it is. It is also 100% deceptive. There is not even a mention of Rudolf Steiner except to note disingenuously that a recent issue of their newsletter is "given over" to Steiner, assuming the casual reader will not know that *every* issue is given over to Steiner. The list of related topics includes "Rudolf Steiner, Economist." Rudolf Steiner was not an economist. This is the sort of egregious misuse of wikipedia that really somebody has got to be concerned about if wikipedia is ever to develop a reputation for credibility. It's religious proselytizing. Other than as a promotion of a particular faith-based missionary project, the article is content free. No one responded or made any changes after an objective reader noted the problems on the Talk page. Why should they? It's free advertising for them. They will not respond to criticisms unless they are forced to be accountable in processes such as this arbitration. There are at least a few dozen anthroposophy-sponsored "articles" of this nature that should simply be deleted. "PLANS" is another one, and I will formally propose it be deleted. It's no different from my church having a rummage sale and putting up a notice on wikipedia. It reads superficially academic but it is not.DianaW 12:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert has personally created a number of these articles and written most of the content; on others he has either contributed copiously or provided substantive edits. That they are all quintessentially “POV” and that pushing this POV – the promotion of anthroposophy - is his mission on wikipedia is easily shown. Here are some diffs showing the general nature of his writing here and his edits.

Hgilbert's contributions on Waldorf topics
Hgilbert single-handedly constructed the “List of Rudolf Steiner’s works on education”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Rudolf_Steiner%27s_works_on_education&action=history

and also the “List of works on Waldorf education”: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_works_on_Waldorf_education&action=history

Hgilbert created the article “History of Waldorf schools”

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Waldorf_schools&action=history

Here’s he’s adding major content:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Waldorf_schools&diff=69774989&oldid=69738687

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Waldorf_schools&diff=69777029&oldid=69775117

Here he’s adding boosterish stuff, continually upping the number of schools worldwide (note that documentation is always from internal Waldorf sources):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Waldorf_schools&diff=70137553

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Waldorf_schools&diff=69777412&oldid=69777029

Here he claims Waldorf is “world’s largest independent school system” – source is an internal Waldorf source; unverified by any source that is not a Waldorf PR mouthpiece, and unlikely to be true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Waldorf_schools&diff=70468473&oldid=70466986

Here Pete K flags the statement that there are 2,000 Waldorf kindergartens worldwide with a “fact” tag: Hgilbert replies that the citation for this is already in place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Waldorf_schools&diff=77941949&oldid=77921401

So take a look at where the reference that is cited goes:

http://www.waldorf.net/rs.htm

Pete then asks “for verification of 2000 kindergartens - and does this include the kindergartens in the 900 Waldorf schools or is this in addition? Are these inflated numbers based on estimates?)”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Waldorf_schools&diff=78116043&oldid=77941949

(there has been no reply)

Here’s Hgilbert claiming for Waldorf education a place in a “socially responsible” social-reform movement (also coming out of anthroposophy). This movement will help in “harmonizing. . . three realms of economy, polity and culture”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Threefolding&diff=60245597&oldid=60245507

A fairly common concern parents have about placing a child in a Waldorf school is the fear that it will be difficult to transfer the child to another school later, as the Waldorf curriculum and the nature of the child’s experiences in the school are very different from more mainstream schools. So Hgilbert created an article assuaging these fears, to urge parents not to worry and choose Waldorf anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transferring_between_Waldorf_and_non-Waldorf_schools&action=history

How many encyclopedias have articles on how to transfer your child from one type of school to another?

Every single piece of information in this article comes from the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, hardly an unbiased source of information on the academic and other successes of their own pupils.

Here he's removing the tag placed by another editor suggesting merging this silly excuse for an article into the main "Waldorf" article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transferring_between_Waldorf_and_non-Waldorf_schools&diff=82807737&oldid=82288147

Hgilber has also provided an entire article on “Waldorf schools’ organization and administration”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waldorf_schools%27_organization_and_administration&action=history

Note that this article contains not one single reference, other than a link to the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America (AWSNA), not one single shred of objective evidence from an outside source regarding how, in reality, Waldorf schools are managed - well or poorly, or whether the the aspects of Waldorf administration that are aimed at are actually achieved, or whether its unique organizational structure has positive or negative consequences or both. While the language itself is not too "brochure-y" as Hgilbert's contributions go, it's flatly impossible to view the existence of this article on wikipedia as anything but an advertisement for Waldorf education. It can function in no other way than to draw readers to the AWSNA web site.

Hgilbert’s contributions on other anthroposophical topics
Anthroposophy has a much larger, farther-reaching agenda than Waldorf education, such as biodynamic agriculture and biodynamic wine; anthroposophical medicine, a major source of whose clients is families in the local Waldorf school; and eurythmy, a type of spiritual dance invented by Steiner - Waldorf parents are often urged to sign their children up for “curative eurythmy” at great expense.

Hgilbert is active in many of these areas in adding wikipedia content.

Diffs showing Hgilbert contributed the bulk of the text to the article “Anthroposophical Society,” the main body of organized anthroposophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthroposophical_Society&diff=32444109&oldid=

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthroposophical_Society&diff=48095425&oldid=44076088

and especially:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthroposophical_Society&diff=59973865&oldid=59017930

Here’s a fairly substantial contribution to the article on the Goetheanum, the worldwide headquarters of anthroposophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goetheanum&diff=33000646&oldid=32883851

He also contributed the picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goetheanum&diff=32883851&oldid=32882445

Always looking for a chance to advertise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goetheanum&diff=47795838&oldid=46956861

“The Goetheanum is open for visitors seven days a week and offers tours several times daily.”

Diffs showing Hgilbert contributing much of the substantive material in the “Eurythmy” article (turned it from a stub into a real article):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurythmy&diff=37086949&oldid=37032028

and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurythmy&diff=37229934&oldid=37088682

and just a few others of many showing that he largely constructed that page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurythmy&diff=59550538&oldid=59549124

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurythmy&diff=59553681&oldid=59552327

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurythmy&diff=60424156&oldid=59553681

Just adding a little of the flavor of the brochure language of which this article almost entirely consists: "The art of eurythmy arises when the eurythmists' inner experience of the music, and of the feelings this expresses, infuses the whole objective expression of the piece, just as a musician must master playing the objective tones, yet fill this with inner life."

(Remember - Waldorf parents pay through the nose for this; extravagant claims are made for the supposed ability of eurythmy to cure all sorts of ills from dyslexia to crooked teeth.)

Hgilbert makes the following claim in this article, for instance, about the benefits of "pedagogic eurythmy" (i.e., this is what it will help your little girl or boy with):

"These include many geometric or dynamic movements (such as form metamorphoses), exercises with (usually copper) rods to develop precision in movement and expand the experience of space, and exercises with (usually copper) balls to objectify the movement experience."

There aren't any sources given indicating eurythmy actually improves "precision in movement" or "objectifies the movement experience" (whatever that means). The parent is given to understand that eurythmy will do this better than - say - soccer or swimming.

Hgilbert wrote the article on “Philosophy of Freedom,” one of four books that anthroposophists consider Steiner’s major works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner_and_the_Theosophical_Society&

Hgilbert wrote the article on “Rudolf Steiner and the Theosophical Society” (Anthroposophy was originally a schism of Theosophy):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner_and_the_Theosophical_Society&oldid=72581028

Hgilbert wrote the page on “Spiritual Science” (another name for Anthroposophy):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_science&diff=33174019&oldid=29246312

Countless other diffs could be cited from this page showing Hgilbert bulking up this article and removing critical viewpoints – a few examples:

Removing NPOV tag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_science&diff=61357410&oldid=61343031

Another editor adds it back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_science&diff=61362115&oldid=61360591

And Hgilbert removes it again (note misleading edit summary):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_science&diff=61380494&oldid=61380014

and removes the Pseudoscience tag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_science&diff=61382303&oldid=61380494

and removes “Pseudoscience” tag placed on the page by another editor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_science&diff=50113477&oldid=50112930

One more substantial addition of text:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_science&diff=67034067&oldid=65953568

Hgilbert created the “Anthroposophical medicine” article: Note that anthroposophical doctors are often affiliated with Waldorf schools; there is a "scratch each other's backs" financial relationship there (as there is with the biodynamic farms that are often adjacent to Waldorf schools).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthroposophical_Medicine&action=history

and proceeded to add a great deal of content later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthroposophical_Medicine&diff=64966834&oldid=63511031

Here is Hgilbert adding misleading information on the supposed healing properties of mistletoe, an anthroposophical remedy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthroposophical_Medicine&diff=64968340&oldid=64966834

Note weasel wording: “Journal articles reviewing the effects of mistletoe on cancerous conditions include:” – in medical terms, this translates, none of the studies cited are clinical trials showing effectiveness of this agent in treating cancer in humans

More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthroposophical_Medicine&diff=65010983&oldid

Here he substantially expands this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthroposophical_Medicine&diff=65013750&oldid=65010983

Hgilbert created the article on Ita Wegman (co-founder, with Rudolf Steiner, of anthroposophical medicine):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ita_Wegman&action=history

Here, he changes the category for this article from “Alternative Medicine” to just “Medicine” (obviously a better seller):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ita_Wegman&diff=41840213&oldid=41840142 He also started the article on Bernard Lievegood, another anthroposophic physician:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_Lievegoed&action=history

and then later fleshed it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_Lievegoed&diff=38938851&oldid=38811971

Hgilbert created the article on “Rudolf Steiner’s influence on major cultural figures”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner%27s_influence_on_major_cultural_figures&action=history

(Note that this pathetic article has a total of 3 references documenting all the supposed extensive influence of Rudolf Steiner on the wider culture today. Two of the three refs are to anthroposophical publications; the third is in a language I can’t read and it may well be anthroposophical also. One of the three is Thebee’s site, a self-published anthroposophical promotional site; another of the editors here attempting to “own” the Waldorf/Steiner articles, and citing himself ad nauseum in the articles.)

Hgilbert’s promoting of Waldorf theories in other areas
Here are some interesting diffs showing Hgilbert’s contributions to the (general, nonanthroposophical) “Philosophy of education” article. They are often classic brochure language:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&diff=36149358&oldid=34791380

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_of_education&diff=36157794&oldid=36154920

This one is interesting for several reasons. The material added is on Aristotle. Anthroposophists believe that Rudolf Steiner was the reincarnation of Aristotle.

Then, extensive “brochure language” is added regarding Waldorf education:

“The children are given opportunities for free play both inside and outside; this is considered vital for their healthy development, as this is the way they digest their impressions and develop their will forces, feeling life and intellect in an age-appropriate manner.”

There is a balance between academic, artistic and practical (crafts) subjects. The arts play an especially large role at this time; all subjects are to be presented with artistic feeling and permeated with imaginative approach.”

“Generally the attempt is made to keep a main teacher with a class for longer periods of time, often from first grade right through the end of the elementary school.”

Talk of “will forces” and “feeling life” is anthroposophical jargon and unverified in any way. The suggestion that Waldorf is doing something unusual or praiseworthy in allowing “free play” as vital for children’s “digesting impressions” is brochure talk. (Other schools have free play, too.) The assertion that Waldorf education achieves an ideal “balance” between academic and artistic and practical subjects is pure brochure talk, and the claim that the teacher “often” stays with a class from first grade “right through the end of the elementary school” is unsourced and almost certainly not true.

In a general (nonanthroposophical) article on “temperament,” Hgilbert has added Steiner’s theory of the four temperaments, one of the most important notions in Waldorf pedagogy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temperament&diff=60731202&oldid=57595785

Thebee's contributions on the "Dan Dugan" article
Dan Dugan is the secretary of PLANS, an organization that campaigns against the public funding of Waldorf schools and it is this that has attracted the interest of Thebee to this article.

A stub article on Mr. Dugan appears to have been created by someone with no interest in Waldorf/Steiner, and it merely described his achievements as a sound designer, sound engineer, and inventor of the automatic microphone mixer.

Thebee found this article and began adding highly inflammatory information of this nature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Dugan&diff=62879378&oldid=62427230

... describing Mr. Dugan's activities as a "skeptic activist" but clearly showing his hand with the addition of terms such as "offensive" and "crusading" when describing Mr. Dugan's activities. Clearly, whether the activities of the East Bay Skeptics Society are "crusading" and "offensive" is a matter of your own ideology. He produces a statement that Mr. Dugan campaigned "against audiophiles" to characterize a campaign that, in fact, was exposing consumer fraud - the clear aim was to cast Mr. Dugan as somehow sordid. To support this claim, he finds an ideological opponent of Mr. Dugan's - possibly a business competitor - writing in an audio-related publication that Mr. Dugan's campaign was "McCarthyesque." Nothing, anywhere, describes what Mr. Dugan might have done that was “McCarthyeseque" - I sorely doubt Thebee knows what it might have been. (If this were *really* an article about controversies over audio equipment, this would be pathetic; but it's only here because it's the best dirt he's been able to find on Mr. Dugan personally.)

This is about as blatant as misuse of wikipedia gets. This is personal vindictiveness. Thebee has no demonstrable interest in audio equipment; this sort of thing is the result of digging for dirt on an ideological opponent, finding somebody else he once had a dispute with about something else – entirely unrelated to the topic of these articles – and quoting this because this other person once spit an insult at Dan.

Presumably, he believed that having pegged Dan as a McCarthyite, this paved the way to add a great deal of inflammatory and defamatory content that I later removed, after lengthy discussions of similar material on the talk pages of related articles such as "PLANS," as it is completely unsupported by facts, and a really malignant POV twist on the events it purports to describe.

Thebee repeatedly added citations to his own web sites to the Dugan Dugan article too, in this case "Waldorfanswers," one of his three personal web sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Dugan&diff=63053219&oldid=62899315

A number of other blatantly POV edits to the “Dan Dugan” page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Dugan&diff=89652708&oldid=89650256

Here he moves the fact that the PLANS lawsuit is under appeal to the last possible moment in the text, preferring that the summary read as if the case were over. He dismisses my insertion of the fact that the case is under appeal as "argumentative." The case IS under appeal; there's really no arguing about this fact. (And note that his own revision of my edits is so ungrammatical that it actually appears to say that PLANS ruled against itself, as if PLANS were the court.)

The PLANS organization and the related court case has its own article at Wikipedia – and could easily have been linked there instead of having this redundant information reproduced in the "Dan Dugan" article. The misrepresentation of the details about the PLANS case were produced on the Dan Dugan article, again, to discredit Mr. Dugan personally.

It is very clear who is adding POV material to this article. Thebee wants it to read that the case is over, when it is not, and wants it to suggest that the judge ruled against the plaintiff's substantive claims when in fact he did not and no court has done so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Dugan&diff=89653516&oldid=89653000

More brazen POV editing. Thebee prefers to characterize Mr. Dugan's efforts as a "campaign against anthroposophy" rather than more accurately as a "campaign against public funding of anthroposophy." If Thebee would like to show that Mr. Dugan "campaigns against anthroposophy" in a general sense, then the article would need to include evidence of this. It doesn't.

This sort of edit is typical of Thebee: (same diff as above)

Original- "Later, he has engaged in a 10 year long public campaign against public funding of Anthroposophy and Waldorf schools,"

Thebee's edit - "he has engaged in a 10 year long public campaign against Anthroposophy and the public funding of Waldorf schools, based on an anthroposophical view of man,"

The original is correct. The campaign is against the misuse of public funds. To say that it is "against anthroposophy" is vague and meaningless; it sounds like Mr. Dugan and PLANS are very mean people but what does it mean? The campaign is not aimed to close these schools, damage these schools, or discourage people who want an anthroposophical education for their child from enrolling. It has the specific and limited aim of getting a ruling on whether tax funding of them is permissible, and thereby hopefully dissuading school districts in the US from establishing "Waldorf methods" charter schools.

The case is based on the considerable legal precedents that exist that disallow *taxpayer funding of religious schools* because such funding violates church/state separation in the United States.

So if there is a "campaign" or a "crusade" on Mr. Dugan's part, it is against taxpayer funding of religious schools. This is a constitutional issue in the United States. The courts will eventually rule on whether public Waldorf schools violate the establishment clause of the US constitution. Mischaracterizing this campaign as a "campaign against anthroposophy" is thoroughly wrong and thoroughly unhelpful in an encyclopedia article, which ought to correctly represent the legal issues the court is asked to address.

Stating the facts that are under dispute in the court case - that it is *taxpayer funding of these schools* that the court will rule on - is what will make it read right, make it factual, and explain the controversy to the uninformed reader. Again, an entire article on PLANS describes the PLANS court case in detail and most of the court case information is redundant. Thebee has essentially taken an article about a man whose notability is in the field of audio engineering and made the article about Thebee’s pet gripe, criticism of Waldorf schools.DianaW 15:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A reply to Hgilbert
As I've said I don't aim to reply to each and every diff supplied by Hgilbert supposedly showing me being nasty. I'll reply to this one where there's an actual issue under dispute.

Hgilbert writes: "The editors have made frequent claim that authors sympathetic to or connected to Waldorf education or anthroposophy should not be included as they are "biased", while critical authors are "unbiased", in direct contravention of Wikipedia's NPOV policy" and supplies this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Rudolf_Steiner&diff=prev&oldid=82350933

This is a good example of what is perhaps simply his misunderstanding of what makes a source "biased" and the basic wikipedia guidelines for citing sources. The quote from me is in reply to another editor (I think trueblood) who said that if an article by an historian (Staudenmaier) who is critical of Steiner is to be included, Staudenmaier must be labeled "critic of Steiner." I reply with a laugh and perhaps sound dismissive, because if the quote from Staudenmaier is included, no one will be left in doubt that he is a critic of Steiner. The quote will be critical of Steiner! Staudenmaier has no affiliations or credentials that must be "revealed" - and the same argument has raged elsewhere re: Sven Hansson. These are independent, university-affiliated, credentialed, published (not self-published) scholars who have no "biases" that disqualify them or that must be somehow "tagged" to suggest something is tainted about their work. Staudenmaier's position on Steiner is clear and never disguised.

The Steiner defenders try to play a little tit-for-tat game regarding sources and their credentials: if we (critics of Steiner) insist on labeling anthroposophical authors as anthroposophical authors, it is because the Steiner-sympathetic authors wish to DISGUISE these organizational and ideological affiliations of their pet authors. The critics, conversely, are not attempting to disguise anything at all in the sources we cite for these articles. There is evidence in heaps all over these articles of the Steiner defenders trying to clean up, disguise, whitewash and prettify the fact that the only sources they have in defense of Steiner are usually anthroposophical. Outside, objective *favorable* sources on Steiner are few and far between. Critics do not have an analogous problem, so Hgilbert strains to construct one. He has constructed a laborious "Well you're doing it too" straw-man argument when no basis for such exists.

In short, you have to "reveal" or label an author's institutional or ideological affiliations where such suggest bias on the topic they're writing about. The analogy I have often used is Catholic priests writing about whether there is pedophilia in the Catholic church. In the absence of such conflicts of interest or evident biases, you do not have to do this. Anthroposophical authors defending anthroposophy, as in the question of Steiner's racism, can't be disguised as objective scholars. Individuals who ARE IN FACT objective scholars, with no axes to grind, don't need tags, labels, and signs hung round their necks alerting readers to a problem that doesn't exist.DianaW 14:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Venado
Venado wrote: "The advertisement tag was first put in the article by a vandal during a 24 hr spree of random, bad faith edits." I'm not sure it matters to the history of this, and I frankly think where that particular little piece of "brochure language" came from is a horse that's been beaten to death - it is true that it came from an editor not presently involved here and its intent seems to have been misunderstood by later parties. But my question is, What's the evidence that the "advertisement" tag was put on in bad faith? This argument of Venado's reads (unless I am misunderstanding) as if he/she would like to have the whole issue of whether the article is an advertisement dismissed if the person who put it on the first time can be discredited. This strikes me as irrelevant to whether the article is an advertisement. But if it was added deliberately and thoughtfully and not by a vandal, all the more reason to have opened the issue. I didn't evaluate whether that person's other tags were all reasonable and reasoned, but I did think this one made sense, and it seems too big a coincidence that a vandal would *happen* to tag the Waldorf article an advertisement.DianaW 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Hgilbert who says that no diffs have been supplied regarding his addition of "brochure language" to the Waldorf education article
We must have forgotten!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waldorf_education&diff=51132754&oldid=51065218

This is where Harlan added the following:

"With a goal of educating the 'whole child', Waldorf educators place a strong emphasis on balancing the child's natural stages of development with creativity and academic excellence. There is a strong emphasis on the arts, social skills, and spiritual values."

“Whole child” is the most basic example of “brochure language.” This is what you find on all the web sites and in all the brochures. (Not necessarily only in Waldorf.) “Whole child” is faddish jargon, not neutral description of an educational approach. Other schools do not aim to educate part of the child. The “natural stages” that Waldorf works with are not the same “natural stages” identified in child development today; they are unique to Waldorf (see Hgilbert's info on "seven-year cycles"), but the uniqueness is not explained: “natural” this-and-that simply appeals unthinkingly to holistically minded parents.

Note that here Harlan also carefully removes reference to the “anthroposophic educational model” – deletes a factual label for the educational model in order to make room for the sales pitch.

Note the edit summary describes this edit as “reversion of vandalism”!

Here’s a classic example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waldorf_education&diff=32807429&oldid=31772989

This adds the famous Waldorf “head, heart, hands” slogan, and stuff on how European “political and cultural leaders send their children to Waldorf.” Even most brochures don’t say idiotic stuff like this. (In fact, the schools where the children of “political and cultural leaders’” really go certainly don’t mention it in their promotional materials; this is a hack-level hucksterism.)

Hgilbert also here adds apologetic language such as “the schools are becoming increasingly professional.” Some day maybe these guys’ll figure out that we’re doing them a favor removing embarrassing snippets like that.

In this edit he also adds some PC stuff about “multiculturalism” – stuff found in every brochure for practically any school nowdays; no objective or verifiable claim is made about Waldorf here.

Also a pitch that in Finland children read late, as is done in Waldorf schools. Implies this somehow validates Waldorf practice, but no reference is given. Brochure talk. Describes the schools as having “a social environment of cooperation and mutual appreciation,” again a brochure description of a school selling itself, not appropriate encyclopedia content.

Note that another editor noted almost immediately that this edit “sounded like a sales pitch”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waldorf_education&diff=32811636&oldid=32808643

Here’s the (almost certainly bogus) “largest independent school system in the world” claim, with link to Waldorf PR source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waldorf_education&diff=70466889&oldid=70435354

(he literally provides a *list* of Waldorf schools perhaps genuinely believing this supports the claim)

Here’s a more minor example but this is Hgilbert adding 7-year cycle gibberish (7’s are big in esotericism in general, and the “7-year cycles” are apparently a particular preoccupation of Hgilbert’s, as he has written a book on them). Here he makes the straightforward and astonishing claim that seven-year cycles “define human biography.” Perhaps we’d class this less a case of “brochure language” and more straightforward proselytizing of his religious views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waldorf_education&diff=33191726&oldid=33001687

DianaW 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Another reply to Hgilbert
Hgilbert wrote: "True but very misleading is Diana's claim that I created an article about transferring between Waldorf schools and traditional schools. Actually, another editor had created this content as part of the main article. In response to very valid criticism that the main article was getting too long, I moved out a variety of less central sections, including this one, into separate articles. In a note on the discussion page I explained this to Diana and said that I was open to completely deleting the article. Her raising this as an issue here without mentioning the previous discussion is very curious."

I'm happy to concede this point. I didn't recall the events that led up to the creation of that article stub, and in my research didn't correlate them with what was simultaneously happening at the main article page. The talk page does show Hgilbert agreeing to delete the spinoff article, and I'm happy to accept his version of why he created it. I would still suggest that his apparent sincere belief that to solve a space problem in the main article creating a spinoff article of this nature - how to transfer from Waldorf to another school or vice versa - tells you just about everything you could possibly want to know about what this person is using wikipedia for. Honestly, hgilbert encyclopedias do not include articles on how to transfer your child to a new school. Furthermore the belief that some paragraphs cut and pasted from AWSNA made even a *start* to such an article is very telling. Do you not understand that AWSNA's business is to promote Waldorf education? I can't imagine a more blatant misuse of wikipedia for the promotion of a particular, branded product, in this case a school system.DianaW 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And a reply to my own reply, more or less taking back what I concede above regarding the "Transferring" article
Hm – I may have conceded this small matter to Hgilbert too quickly. I note above that I didn’t correlate this with the discussion at the main Waldorf ed. page, but it wouldn’t have been possible for me to do so anyway, since there is no such discussion there.

Here’s the history page for the Transferring between schools article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transferring_between_Waldorf_and_non-Waldorf_schools&action=history

Trying to reconcile the history of the page, info on its Talk page, info on the Waldorf ed. article Talk page, and Hgilbert’s claims here in this arbitration process about its origin leads us down a rabbit hole.

Here’s the history of the “Transferring schools” stub:

Hgilbert created the article on 27 August

User Goethean made a very trivial edit on 18 Oct and at this time he/she put a “Merge” tag on it, apparently viewing it as inappropriate standing on its own and belonging in the main article (note that Goethean’s contributions have been been generally to side with Hgilbert and Thebee in these disputes)

I then wrote on the discussion page for the “Transferring” article on 20 Oct:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transferring_between_Waldorf_and_non-Waldorf_schools)

This doesn't need to be merged, it should be deleted. What kind of encyclopedia has an entry on how to transfer from a particular school to another school? This piece is mostly a quote from the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, in other words this is a piece of a Waldorf brochure and belong on wikipedia.DianaW 13:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(my statement's a little messed up; it's supposed to say "doesn't" belong on wikipedia)

Hgilbert deleted the “merge” tag – note that he certainly did not add a “delete” tag, merely removed the tag seen as presently jeopardizing the continued existence of this material on wikipedia - and he then wrote in reply (and note that this, along with my comment above, is the full extent of discussion on that page - ever):

Then don't put a merger request on it. This is here because it was in the main article and seemed inappropriately long, so it was booted out to a subsidiary site. Someone (I don't know who) found it an important enough subject to put the information in; if it needs deletion, I am open to this. Hgilbert 13:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

“Someone (I don’t know who)”? Hgilbert created this article. "It was booted out" sounds like he's a passive observer of this process. *He* booted it over to its own new page. Someone else may have contributed this section *to the original article* on Waldorf education. Now he tries to disown responsibility for the material that he’s actively trying to salvage. Someone else may have written it (I have not checked; might be interesting, but just this tiny project took me half an hour). In any event Hgilbert is the person creating an article from this content. In my book, when you create an article, you’re, well, the author of the article. In this case there is really no arguing that he is the author, as no one else has ever changed a word in it.

So then I try to find the discussion in which the rest of us were supposedly informed that this information was being used to create a whole new article, and which makes it "curious" that I should bring this up here.

From the Waldorf education article talk page (archived) I find Hgilbert writing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldorf_education/Archive2

“Now that some sections have been moved to subsidiary articles, I don't see that there are very many sections left that should be moved out. There is a general introduction for those who only want that. Then there is a table of contents to help guide those who are interested in special aspects; they can jump to their section of interest. The educational philosophy definitely needs to be represented!! Improving the balance of this is certainly a worthwhile goal, however.”

It took some scrounging, but I think I reconstructed for myself the discussion that preceded this. Unless I am missing it (please alert me), there was no prior discussion of moving out the material that later became the "Transferring" article. There is some mention that the article is too long, but this section was *not* mentioned as possibly useful for creating a whole new article. Possibly there was such a discussion offline but it did not take place on that talk page, and we were not alerted on that talk page that the material had been moved to a subsidiary article, that in fact a new article had been created - unless you count the oblique reference above, "Now that I've done this . . ." which reads as if everybody must know this has happened when in fact everybody did not.

Now it appears not so “curious” that I have “raised this as an issue here without mentioning the previous discussion” as he accuses me. Not only was I not part of that discussion, that discussion *did not occur* on the talk page on which it should have appeared if there was really a public discussion of moving some material into subsidiary articles.

This is very typical of my interactions with Hgilbert.DianaW 19:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The personal vendetta of Thebee and his associates on wikipedia
'''Thebee and Hgilbert to a lesser extent are guilty of defamation many times over here. Thebee’s principal business on (not only the English-language) Wikipedia, as part of a long-running Web campaign, is a vast and bizarre vendetta against critics of anthroposophy. This is a religious dispute; to the best I can determine he must feel his religion is under attack. His attempts to stifle criticism of it are legendary. He may have set some sort of Internet record. It is hard to overstate how far his smear campaign goes. I’ll attempt to document a few of its facets at wikipedia.

His primary weapon against the organization PLANS (which is suing two California school districts for running Waldorf-methods charter schools, which it claims are in violation of church/state separation – the case is under appeal and may go to the Supreme Court), is to call this group a “hate group.”'''

This is bizarre, libelous, and frankly lunatic. Even many of his peers plead with him to back off on this – to no avail.

No documentation anywhere, of any sort, supports the accusation of “hate group” against PLANS. Thebee has had this pointed out to him on countless occasions but the lack of facts behind his accusation does not faze him.

PLANS article

Thebee, backed by Hgilbert, repeatedly added the defamatory “hate group” accusation to the PLANS article.

First addition of “hate group” stuff to PLANS article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=67782302&oldid=67554327

Elaborates this with his usual gobbledygook about how they (PLANS) “support,” “cultivate,” and “publish” a bunch of things he doesn’t agree with – this is supposed to be what makes them a hate group:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=67793725&oldid=67792289

Adds links to his own web sites repeatedly, against, one gets the impression, the better judgment even of his buddies – “hate group” accusations are detailed on all three of Thebee’s personal websites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=67870862&oldid=67814752

Accuses PLANS – falsely – of illegal acts in obtaining evidence for their case – a private investigator filmed an event at the school (a public school), and there were certainly no laws broken; the edit summary is a libelous statement in its own right

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=67875717&oldid=67870862

(Note that merely reading the edit summaries on the History page will quickly show that he was met with opposition immediately, and not from the notorious PeteK or DianaW but from editors not presently involved here) – they read, for instance, “Balance to opponent views” and “This is a point of view”

Inserting more links to his own web sites, where the “hate group” accusations are detailed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=66930748&oldid=66880881

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=66939024&oldid=66935804

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=66940579&oldid=66939024

Pete K removes “Hate group” stuff, noting that “Americans for Waldorf Education,” the source cited, consists of five individuals who have formed a group with the sole purpose of antagonizing PLANS; the site consists entirely of self-published original research and one of the owners is Thebee:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=72297508&oldid=72249691

Thebee is also proud of comparing PLANS to “Jew Watch,” an infamous antisemitic hate group:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=63118576&oldid=63116325

(the citation he gives is to his own web site)

He compares PLANS to Jew Watch in a really supremely repugnant effort to turn the tables on critics of Steiner and anthroposphy who point out that Steiner was himself an antisemite. Steiner’s views on the Jews are along these lines:

“Jewry itself has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Steiner, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur p. 152)

Thebee eventually gave in on the inappropriateness of the “hate group” accusation at wikipedia, and has not persisted in adding similar rhetoric since this time, in the face of my and Pete’s repeatedly pointing out to him that he cannot document his claim. So perhaps it’s not necessary to document the many reverts and re-reverts that eventually accomplished this. (Meanwhile I mentioned on a mailing list that Thebee had “cried uncle” on the hate group accusations; he then accused me on wikipedia of a “personal attack” because he apparently thought “Uncle” was an insult to . . . somebody. I’ll find this diff if somebody wants it, but . . . really . . .)

Here’s Dan Dugan, the secretary of PLANS, stating his objection to the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PLANS&diff=66716941&oldid=63667623

And Hgilbert, doing his part to obfuscate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PLANS&diff=66819243&oldid=66716941

This reply befuddled a lot of us, until we figured out that Hgilbert was a Waldorf teacher – see line 25 – here is Hgilbert also on record with the libelous assertion that PLANS is a hate group

My first objection, the beginning of a long battle, to the hate group rhetoric:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PLANS&diff=72211860&oldid=72087958

His reply to me, total obfuscation, denial of the obvious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PLANS&diff=72222260&oldid=72211860

"Secret Action Group" At one point, Thebee tried to document sinister-sounding activities on the part of the organization PLANS by pointing to the existence of a yahoo group whose only crime, as far as I can determine, is that it excludes Thebee from membership:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PLANS&diff=71780300&oldid=71409386 (this admittedly was seen as pretty funny among some members of the “Secret Action Group” – it’s just a yahoo list - particularly for Thebee’s ruminations on the number of postings on various mailing lists, and Thebee’s apparent belief that conspiracies can be thusly documented)

Okay that’ll do it for the PLANS article. More to follow on “hate group” accusations and other slander he and Hgilbert have attempted to either add to this family of articles or at least promote on Talk pages.

Assertion Pete K uses a double standard standard for WP:COI

 * Evidence Pete K accuses Hgilbert of a conflict of interest because Hgilbert is a teahcer that wrote a book about Waldorf while Pete K is himself a school founder who is writing a book of critical viewpoints of Waldorf education  a .  He has just edited his user page to remove mention of the personal involvement   bVenado 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Assertion both Pete K and Hgilbert are responsible for Waldorf education edit war over advertisement tag

 * Evidence
 * The advertisement tag was first put in the article by a vandal during a 24 hr spree of random, bad faith edits c. The vandal was soon after blocked for the bad faith taggingblock log d
 * An edit war ensued after over removing/keeping the original bad faith tag. Hgilbert removed it 7 times (diffs in Pete K statement above).  Pete K restored it 7 times e, f, g, h, i, j, k.  Fergie edited x2 to keep it, Goethean and an anonymous both edited once to remove it.  Neither Fergie nor Goethean made any edit at all to remove or fix brochure language or other content to remedy the advertisement tag.  Both Hgilbert and Pete K made numerous edits to address the issue, but disagreed whether the edits were sufficient.   Neither party bears more blame for the edit war than the other and both editors made edits during that edit war to improve the article.  In a strict sense it is true that 2 editors besides Hgilbert vocally supported removing the tag while only 1 editor besides Pete K vocally supported leaving it there. Venado 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Assertion Hgilbert unfairly singled out for blame in edit war

 * Evidence
 * This arbitration is partly the result of an event in which Hgilbert was criticized for insisting on the preservation specific brochure language – related to that passage, Pete K heavily edited the writing surrounding the contended brochure language, leaving it intact, but did not write it himself either.  It was a written by paka33  probably trying to keep NPOV balance in  section criticizing Waldof brochures.
 * Durova was told by Pete K that Hgilbert "is a Waldorf teacher, biased (of course) and depends on the success of Waldorf education for his livelihood". lHgilbert objected that being a teacher was an automatic coi, m, and it appears a prejudgement for blame followed.  In this situation, the responsibility for quoted brochure language was put on Hgilbert:n, "That phrase and many others like it violate WP:NOT and WP:NPOV; insistence that the article read this way violates WP:OWN."  However, Hgilbert did not write it, and did not edit protectively to keep it there.  Durova also blamed Hgilbert in that message, "As an administrator I strongly recommend you reconsider that position and collaborate in accordance with site policies", which is an unfounded determination in that instance.
 * It was originally added to serve as an example of brochures by an editor who was contributing arguments about criticizing brochures. Afterwards, no editor argued to remove that passage quoted, and nobody is any more or less to blame it is in the article. Pete K objected to it once only indirectly, in a single edit in which he inserted 241 verify source tags. o. That tag was not treated seriously because the entire edit was judged "excessive tagging" and reverted by an administrator.  p  Another administrator concurred that the edit had the appearance of bad faith.  q Other than this frivolous tag, it doesn't seem that any editor objected to that brochure text in any way until Durova, and Hgilbert didn't put it there or act as gatekeeper to protect it.
 * The section where the article's discussion of brochures appears has been edited extensively by Pete K, but in all his edits, he left the brochure quote there and just added opinions to it, or changed a few words. r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, aa, bb
 * That brochure language Hgilbert was criticized for was not a factor in the edit war since neither Pete K nor Hgilbert made serious objection to it Venado 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to Durova against me
Response to Trivial objections: Response to Argumentum ad nauseum: Proof by example: Post hoc ergo prompter hoc: Cherry picking: Tu quoque:
 * My evidence “attempts” to accurately sort out the facts for myself. I was pulled into this arbitration, asked to provide evidence for judges.  This goes back thousands of edits counting articles and talk pages.  The arbitration should judge what is happening now, not 6 months or a year ago.  I don’t have same time to work with so many other editors obviously have.  I don't even know how to do this so I have to learn it.  I also don't have facts at the top of my head or ends of my finger tips since I wasn't involved in that article before.  So don’t criticize my contribution so far for being “trivial”.  To do this fair, I have to begin by taking each accusation of current behavior at a time and check it out.  That’s what I’m trying to do.
 * I made the argument here once. With all due respect, I don’t think Durova’s willing to see that someone else, in good faith, would feel unfairly accused by what she said then.   What should be a patched up misunderstanding by now has turned into a big part of the arbitration because Durova interpreted so much from Hgilbert’s objections to that particular accusation and entered her interpretation into evidence here.  I think Durova is overly psychologizing about the reaction to her sharp words and turned it into an ad hominem analysis to prove someone's insincerity.  It's simple.  Hgilbert thought he was accused unfairly, which is understandable since he didn't do what he was accused of at the time.  When someone feels unfairly accused, they don't act all contrite and go "Mea culpa. I promise I won't do it anymore."
 * The evidence I gave so far was not a counterargument against anyone else’s diffs, they’re my own argument. I have investigated many of Pete K’s diffs, and I do intend to respond to as much as I can but this is a lot of stuff.  If everyone is really checking things, they know it takes time.  I will say now, most of those diffs I have seen so far are very old, when I believe that the issue here should be current behavior.  Much of it in those edits I’ve looked at so far is gone from the article now, many times it turns out through Hgilbert’s own editing, so what importance would those examples have to the current situation except to show him making constructive improvements to problems with his own material?
 * All I can say in my own defense there is if Hgilbert wasn’t prejudged because of Pete K’s accusation, the prejudgement was based on apparently no basis at all except Durova’s skills as a “mind reader” which also shows up in her “analysis of conduct” of Hgilbert in her evidence section.
 * Durova says that “Specific attention to Hgilbert is now warranted because an important issue under contention is whether pro-Waldorf bias exists across a group of articles, not whether Waldorf-critical bias exists.“ The arbitration request said, “Editing of a number of related articles Editing of a number of related articles (Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity) is in a log-jam due to edit conflicts, revert wars, accusations of POV-pushing, accusations of conflict of interest, and personal attacks on talk pages. The appropriateness of the advert tag for Waldorf education is a contested issue.“  Wikipedia’s COI and NPOV guidelines don’t apply just to those with pro-biases, it also covers competing bias.
 * The fancy term doesn't fit in this case. My idea wasn't to do a “you too”.  My idea was to show that the “brochure language” that was so obvious to Durova to be in need of fixing and presumed to be one problem that needed to be fixed to remove the Advert tag and end the edit wars there was definitely a bit of text that nobody involved in the article was warring over, nor “gatekeeping” to keep it.  By retracing the edits and discussions, it doesn’t look like anybody has been willing or able to pinpoint directly any obvious, specific problems.  There’s a lot of complaining going on about brochure language but no clear guideline about what needs to be changed or where to fix it.  When it comes to what should go and what should stay, the editors are contradicting each other, contradicting other editors they argree with, and even contradicting themselves.  It's not just that the editors on one side or the other side won't cooperate, the discussions go in circles with lots of insults and incivility instead of direct talk.  As a result, there is too much editing which is based just on plain old independent and arbitrary decision making.
 * I also did not intend to broaden the accusations by mentioning Pete K’s excessive tagging. What’s done before is not a problem to fix here unless it is also a current problem.  I mentioned the incident to show that the only prior objection to that text was not taken seriously by editors, including two administrators.  Pete K’s tag called for source verification, where as the article already described the source exactly and linked it.  If mention of this objection was left out by me completely, then I wouldn't be accurate to say that nobody objected at any time at all.Venado 23:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sankrian
As editors of a web-site critical to the Waldorf/ Steiner movement, (www.steinerkritikk.no) and actors in the public debate in Norway we’ve been followed by Thebee. In a recent debate in the local paper, the editors removed his post on the ground that his statements were considered an action for libel, and in the end they had to close down the debate because of Thebee’s never ending campaign. We have this in writing from the editor. The same thing happened with our own discussion-forum on our web-site, Thebee using it for libelling the persons stating critique against the Waldorf/ Steiner schools. It seems Thebee is trying to remove any post voicing critique against anthroposophy in general and the Waldorf schools in particular - everywhere.

The Norwegian Wikipedia had a discussion going on whether to permit our site as a link or not on the word /Steinerskolen/ (Waldorf school). We were made aware of the debate and found that our link was put in by someone and removed by Thebee, and put back in again by someone else, removed again by Thebee. Finally we put the link in ourselves, under a name /Lone/, breaking the rules. Primarily to find out how come the administrator Kph was so sceptical to our link, and how Thebee could remove it simply stating that we were lying in our articles, without pointing out what exactly is not true. In fact, Thebee seems to have carte blanche when it comes to removing critical links, such as ours.

It took two minutes from we put in our link until it was removed by Wikipedia administrator Kph claiming we had broken the rules by adding a link of our own. How did Kph know our IP-address? We have never communicated with Kph in any way. And we have never edited anything else on the Wikipedia. Thebee, however, knows our IP-address after numerous debates. The administrator Kph also claims that we are ‘spamming the English wikipedia pages’. We have never, ever edited anything on the Wikipedia pages – until this very moment. It sounds like an accusation of Thebee’s. Are Kph and Thebee communicating outside the Wikipedia pages?

Thebee has many links to his pages. Some of his links bear our names, claiming we are attacking the Waldorf schools in an untruthful and vicious way, spreading lies about the movement. It has never, ever, been pointed out on what grounds these accusations rest. It seems to us Thebee has a large network, and that he gets away with his claims without having to explain them.

Disclaimer
my experience on this conflict is from editing the related articles Rudolf Steiner and to lesser extend anthroposophy, i have not edited the article on waldorf education and cannot judge what went on there. i think i said what i have to say and will not modify my statement any more. trueblood 14:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Several editors have to much time on their hands
It is already so obvious that there are several editors who are out on a mission from this page that i feel i don't need to add. Everybody would probably benefit if all parties involved would be restricted from editing the articles in question. In my view the most entrenched editors are petek, dianaw, hgilbert and thebee. in their dispute they call themselves by their first name (even if not evident from username) and create a walled garden atmosphere. if any of these gets restricted from editing the articles, all of them should. i agree that hgilbert and thebee edit with their point of view in mind and try to play down or even hide criticism from any of the discussed pages. but petek and dianaw also edit and discuss very aggressively. often enough one finds himself put in a fascist corner for not agreeing with their conclusions, often enough based on original research. examples for petek on rudolf steiner discussion page: and dianaw:
 * 
 * 
 * 

Durova should have been more neutral
Again evidence is all there, seeing that the edit war is going both ways, why did s/he position him/herself so clearly on one side. as an admin s/he should be a lot more careful.

Recent Edit-warring at Rudolf Steiner
This example shows everything. Petek in his evidence points out to an edit war (about four words) he is engaged with Hgilbert (and others) at the moment, but petek lays all the blame on hgilbert (here on this page). Neither is trying to accomodate the other person's view and they are just reverting to their respective version. petek forgot to mention that after vindheim reverted (again) he himself reverted vindheim a couple of hours later:
 * 

The example also show in my view the general problem. Steiner wrote articles criticising and condemning anti-semitism and also made anti-semitic statements. The pro steiner fraction is trying to put steiner in good light and take of the edge of criticism. The anti steiner fraction is basically trying to prove that steiner was protofascist or protonazi. Both sides can find quotes to harvest and both sides go for their view only. It is also difficult to find sources of neutral and outside analysis. Both sides spent a lot of time fighting about how or if to quote the endless number of defending steiner and respectively anti-steiner web sites.

petek should not be too outspoken about other people's lack of understanding of assimilation and antisemitism since he proved his rather muddled understanding on several occasions. in this diff he quotes a wikipedia article on a nazi policy (germanization), this has nothing to do with anything steiner ever proposed, it does not have anything to do with jews. it is just this annoying 'if you don't agree with me you are a nazi' pseudo argument.
 * 

Introduction
I have described what I personally find important to understand the background for this arbitration in my initial statement, and also some of my clear errors on some points in my editing of Wikipedia.

I fully trust that the arbitrators will look carefully at and judge all arguments and diffs behind the buzz words, and will readily admit any clear violations of good editing principles at Wikipedia they may find that I have committed, especially at the beginning of my editing.

In a number of cases with regard to PeteK and DianaW, I however don't think their diffs support their allegations, and will try to show this.

Mentorship
With regard to mentorship, mentioned by admin Durova, I would have no problem with this. I have twice asked administrators for advice to avoid an edit conflict with PeteK from developing into an edit war. I'll describe the instances in some detail, as they document how difficult co-editing and discussing with him can be.

In the first instance (15 Sept.), PeteK had insisted on using bold formatting ($235,000) ($238,000) to stress what he personally thought was important important in one article (PLANS). When I removed the bolding, , as non-wikipedian POV pushing, he reinserted it first in its original form, , and then as ($235,000 federal grant).

Puzzled about the Wikipedia justification for this, I asked admin Golden Wattle about the specific rules for using bold in articles. He immediately answered. PeteK, who has told that he continuously supervises my personal Talks page, then instead replaced the bolding with capitalizing (19 Sept)  ($235,000 FEDERAL GRANT). As he seemed determined to continue pushing his POV, I did not want to get into further discussion with him, not to upset and enrage him further, something he repeatedly has become in discussions here at Wikipedia, as indicated by other editors. Two weeks later (3 Oct.) the capitalized text was replaced with plain text by "Planssecretary", that he supports, then without opposition by PeteK. Later, PeteK (as far as I remember) has described my question to Golden Wattle, to avoid getting into an edit war with PeteK, as "whining" to administrators.

In a second instance, PeteK (11 Nov.) deleted a direct internal wikilink from one article to a specific section in another article to which it referred and replaced it with just a general link to the page. In his edit summary he described the reduction of the link as "repaired link", and argued against the proper direct link with a POV argument that reflected his view, that I disagree with. When I repaired the direct link to the relevant section, PeteK again reduced the direct link to the relevant section to just a general link to the page , arguing against the direct interwikilink to the proper section at the second page with the non-wikipedian argument in the edit summary: "You don't need this propaganda in the link".

To avoid an edit war with PeteK, I asked admin Centrx for advice, as he had been engaged in supervising the editing of the PLANS article, where PeteK has edited heavily, and had warned PeteK for personal attacks at one time. Centrx did not answer. Instead, PeteK told me I should have discussed my repair of the link with him first on the Talks page, described my repair of the link as a "vendetta" against him, and ended his answer with "Insert a juicy insult from me here______".

Regrettably, his accusation and suggestion ticked me off, and in three comments, , , in addition to in detail analyzing the error of his edit and argumentation for it, I also pointed out his way of not only having made a number of personal attacks on different people from his first week at Wikipedia, but also then disputed the validity of warnings by admins for having made them (see below). When he answered, but did not adress my analysis of his argument, as far as I remember I left the issue at that point as seemingly meaningless to discuss further.

===PeteK's editing of Wikipedia violates the WP is not a battleground and WP is not a soapbox policies, and repeatedly has violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL from his first day here at Wikipedia=== In a posting on a mailing list he owns, as pointed out by Venado in his initial statement, PeteK on Aug 26,, one week after he started editing at Wikipedia, and one month after I started editing here at Wikipedia, has indicated that combatting me has been one of his primary reasons for coming to Wikipedia, to "take control" of the situation with regard to the article on Waldorf education, though he during this arbitration then has found that I have done very little editing of the Waldorf article. His expressed goal in addition to the Wikipedia policies mentioned violates the WP:OWN policy.

From the first week PeteK started editing at Wikipedia, PeteK (who's full name has been mentioned by himself or DianaW here at Wikipedia) then has worked at implementing the agenda that he told in his posting has been his goal to implement, engaging in a continuous bullying campaign against me in the form of of repeated personal attacks and incivilities, and starting his editing by repeated spamming of the Waldorf article with repeated links to the site and mailing list of the most Waldorf critical site on the net, and his own Waldorf critical mailing list. (For a background to this, see below). For just some few of his personal attacks, see, , , (For a somewhat larger sample, see here). This has been the case basically in every discussion, where I have written something that contradicts his views, and a number of times also when he has engaged in discussions with other editors.

On 10 Sept, after I had gotten tired of his repeated deeply insulting personal attacks during his first weeks here, I had asked an admin to warn him about them, which he did,, and also for the memory put up a page that documented his attacks, incivilities and other Wikipedia violations up to then, as they would look in a Wikipedia complaint report, as a preparation for a more long term formal complaint about them.

When he on 9 Nov discovered that I had documented his repeated personal attacks as a sub page of my personal page, he accused me of "mental unstability", described me as a "sick man" , a "compulsive liar" and of "incoherent blatherings", and suggested that I get "professional help".

When I at one time told him, when I had removed something he had written at my personal Talks page, because all his personal attacks up to then made me want to vomit when I saw it, he told me "Deal with it!" .

When I later again at one time, after he had made a number of further personal attacks, told him what I had felt for the spur of a moment about them, this lead to a number of new personal attacks , among other things telling me:
 * “For the record, I think you would quickly change your mind, and probably have to change your underwear, if you saw me in person.”

He has disregarded repeated requests by different admins and editors to stay civil, , , , , , , , , , and denied the validity even of warnings by administrators for his personal attacks.

When he was warned a second time by one admin (Centrx) at Centrx' own initiative, on 31 Oct, that time for personal attacks, this time against Professor Marginalia, he deleted the first warning he had gotten  by another admin (AYArktos/Golden Wattle) from his talks page as belonging to "irrelevant stuff" , and then told that did not "believe" he had violated any Wikipedia policy except at one time committing a 3rr violation. He then explicitly disputed the validity also of the first warning by AYArktos/Golden Wattle.

Pete has a WP:COI with regard to Waldorf related articles at Wikipedia
PeteK, who has told his full name here at Wikipedia, is a Waldorf parent since 15 years. Some years ago he divorced a woman, that he has told is a Waldorf teacher, as commented on/told by himself here at Wikipedia (falsely accusing of me of having mentioned it at Wikipedia) (my answer, PeteK's confirmation of my answer, and  PeteK tells ex-wife is a Waldorf teacher).

In connection with and after his divorce, he has made 1000+ in the main from critical to defamatory postings in two different public Waldorf discussion forums outside the WC-discussion list, where he participates regularly. One of the discussions took place last year in the Waldorf sub forum of Mothering.com, where he participated with appr. 700 in the main from critical to defamatory postings about Waldorf education and anthroposophy during in the main six weeks.

I participated too (with maybe a tenth as many postings) in the Waldorf discussions (as I have a Waldorf teacher training, and some expertise of its basis, but no children of my own that would make participation in other discussions, related to mothering, meaningful). Having trained as a Waldorf teacher, I thought I could contribute to the discussions. As I disagree with PeteK on a number of points, I among other things contradicted what he wrote in a number of postings. In Nov 2005, he was blocked from further participation in the Waldorf discussions, and five of his six threads were deleted by the forum moderator.

In a posting on his own Waldorf critical mailing list, he has told about his banning from the Mothering Waldorf forums, and describes it as a “kind of” "ethnic cleansing" by Mothering of Waldorf critics, that he intended to expose. I was also blocked from further participation in the Waldorf discussions, not for anything I had done or written, but – indicated by a moderator - for participating too little in other chats about mothering issues (lacking children of my own), as the primary purpose of the forums is the social building of the mothering community through chatting, and the penetration of special issues only is a secondary purpose.

PeteK seems to view me as responsible for his ban from the Waldorf discussions at Mothering.com, as I had contradicted him and in a discussion here at Wikipedia he has described this as a "Pawn for Rooks sacrifice". Only, no-one played me. I participated in the same discussions that interest both him and me (Waldorf education), as we do here at Wikipedia.

Faced with criticism (original Talks page now deleted) by one editor for his repeated aggression in discussions here at Wikipedia by (DogNewTricks, 22:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC):
 * ”"Pete K, you are being incredibly aggressive. Please stop attacking editors. Disagreements are normal. Accusing someone of playing naive to do harm is, in my opinion, very inappropriate and demeaning. I cannot comment on the article because I know very little about it. But I can say that you are way out of line regarding Wikipedia’s policies in handling disputes."

PeteK has defended it, on 14 Oct. expressing his deep personal aggression towards Waldorf education, Waldorf schools and the Waldorf movement, writing:
 * ”Yep, 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.”

On 5 Nov, he then wrote to me:
 * ” I always tell the truth Sune. That may be the key difference between us.”

Two weeks later, 19 Nov, he then wrote, when pointed to among other things his (by himself commented on) divorce from a Waldorf teacher and his following here expressed deep aggression towards Waldorf education and Waldorf schools as part of his COI with regard to Waldorf education:
 * ”...I have no aggression AT ALL toward Waldorf education. I have had problems with a few misguided Waldorf teachers and administrators. ...”

I'm sorry to have to tell this here, but think it is necessary and important to understand the aggression towards everything related to Waldorf education, that repeatedly on different levels come to expression in PeteK's editing of Waldorf related articles and relation to other editors here at Wikipedia, violating the WP:COI, the WP:NOT, the WP:NPA, and the WP:CIVIL policies, and having the by himself expressed goal of violating the WP:OWN policy (taking control of the editing of the Waldorf- and Waldorf related articles). I have in the main only told what PeteK himself has told in discussions here at Wikipedia, and at his own public mailing list. If I have mentioned something that violates any WP policy, I'm sorry.

Refutation of false allegation by PeteK about an economical COI on my part
In a personal addition to the "Brief summary of situation" at the Arbitration page on 18 Nov, after thee arbitrators had agreed to it, PeteK added the allegation about me, as part of his view of the central reason for this arbitration:
 * "Conflict-of-interest exists with one or more editors who are financially connected to the success of Waldorf. These editors include Walodrf teachers HGilbert and TheBee".

At this page, PeteK tries to prove his allegation of an economical COI on my part in passing as a side issue in the section “Disagree with Evidence produced by Hgilbert”, by referring to three sites I've been and am involved in (my personal home page, Waldorf Answers, and Americans for Waldorf Education).

He writes that I am Waldorf teacher, and that my personal site indicates that I work at times as a Waldorf teacher.

What he writes is untrue. The Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf (Education) sites write that I have “trained as a Waldorf teacher”, and at times have “later taught mathematics at Waldorf schools”, but says nothing about the present.

My personal site also does not, as stated by PeteK, indicate that I "at times" work as a Waldorf teacher.

What the page, that was last updated 20050803, instead tells is something else, not told by PeteK:
 * “During the last years I have been working as a computer technician and network administrator”

This was also told by the preceding version of the main page, dated (uploaded) 20020203.

I have not worked as a Waldorf teacher since the beginning of the 1990s, then as a math teacher. This summer, an uncle passed away. I inherited some money, which has made it possible for me to spend my time as I wish the last months. This has given me opportunity also to participate at Wikipedia as editor on a subject that interests me, in which I have some special expertise, and about which I in cooperation with an American Waldorf teacher have built a site, that as fully as possible tries to inform about the nature and background of Waldorf education in a non-advertising way, leaving people free to think for themselves, and decide if a Waldorf school is something for their kids or not.

According to PeteK, it repels people from putting their children in Waldorf schools. That's OK. It does not try to be an advertisement, but an informational site. According to AWSNA (Association of Waldorf Schools in North America, encompassing appr. 170 Waldorf schools), that recommends it as informational site, it is
 * ”A site dedicated to providing in depth answers about Waldorf education for parents and prospective parents. This site also serves to clear up some of the misconceptions that may exist about Waldorf education.”

With regard to AWE, AWE has not received any money from anywhere yet, except from one member of the group itself (not me) in the form of payment for the domain and web hosting. If it gets any money at some time, it will be used for taking over that cost. I doubt it will get more in a foreseeable future, considering its ranking at search engines. If it does, none of of it will go to any members of the group.

Thebee 16:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on "refutation" by PeteK of my evidence
In one section above (2:22), PeteK has commented on my statement.

WHAT HE WRITES is misleading with regard to the first point described under "Mentorship" in my statement.

In a Wikipedia article on PLANS, a small anti-Waldorf fringe group in CA, he had used bolderizing of $figures given in an article, cited in the Wikipedia article. In his answer, he denies that this constituted the pushing of a POV with regard to the cited article "School is teaching witchcraft, critics say", published by The Sacramento Bee May 16, 1997. He writes: "The *whole point* of the article in question [...] is that PLANS is challenging separation of church and state and that taxpayer money is being used to fund Waldorf education.". He also writes that "The *amount* of taxpayer money funding a single for providing Waldorf is a significant point of the article and it certainly isn't pushing a POV to emphasize the significance of it."

What he writes is a misdescription of the article. Its central point is not what he writes, but what is described in the first sentence of the article of the main argument used by critics of the Waldorf methods charter program to push for their view of its non-appropriateness:
 * "An experiment with the Waldorf teaching method at Oak Ridge Elementary School in Sacramento has come under fire from critics who claim the public school's program is emphasizing witchcraft instead of basic skills."

The article then tries to penetrate to what extent the argument is true or not.

The amount of money used to train teachers in Waldorf methods at the charter school and where it comes from is a side issue in the article. Bolderizing this single point in the article constitutes a one-sided POV pushing by PeteK with regard to the main theme of the article: the possible truthfulness of the arguments used by critics of the program to promote their view of the Waldorf methods charter program, that Waldorf methods promote witchcraft.

PeteK also writes that he "immediately removed the bold text" after the answer by Golden Wattle to my question regarding use of bolderizing in text. Golden Wattle had answered "In general, I would discourage emphasis that was not in the original quote." and referred to the MoS, that among other things tells: "Initial capitals and all capitals should not be used for emphasis." PeteK then removed the non-appropriate bolderizing of the figures and replaced it with non-appropriate capitals instead as emphasis, to continue to promote his POV, while in his answer here seemingly trying to indicate that he followed the recommendation by Golden Wattle and stopped his POV pushing. At that point I gave up, not to enrage PeteK, as he repeatedly has become in discussions, when contradicted.

PETE K ALSO COMMENTS on the example, describing his inappropriate reduction of a direct interwikilink from one page to a relevant section at another page, to just a general link to the page as such. He asserts that he just intended to "remove the phrase "scathingly attacked" and replace it with "attacked" ".

That is contradicted by his renewed reducation of the direct link to the appropriate section to just a general link to the page a second time, also after I had removed the word that seemingly upset him ("scatchingly"). He then, when I asked Centrx for advice on how to handle the problem, told I should have discussed my correction with him first before implementing it (claiming the WP:OWNership (control) of the article he had told was his agenda to implement when entering Wikipedia), described my correction of the link (after my removal of the word that upset him) as a "vendetta" against him, and suggested that I insert "a juicy insult" of myself "here______." in his answer to me.

In addition to constituting a personal attack, the inappropriate destructive reduction of the direct link a second time, after I had removed the word that upset PeteK, and suggesting that I insult myself, probably can be categorized as (one of the many instances of) harassment by him.

HE ALSO COMMENTS on the comment he wrote on the request by (DogNewTricks, 22:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) now deleted from a Talks page at Wikipedia), telling him he's being incredibly aggressive, ans asking him to "Please stop attacking editors".

According to PeteK, writing "I'm aggressive. I don't apologize. Waldorf hurts children every single day. It destroys families every single day." is not an expression of aggression towards Waldorf education, and he gives a rosy picture of his relation to his children's Waldorf school and Waldorf teachers. He writes:


 * "The "aggressive" comment was about editing aggressively, BTW, not about any aggression towards Waldorf."

I leave to other to judge the credibility of what he writes about the comment he made on 14 October in defence of his repeatedly aggressive editing and comments in discussions here at Wikipedia.

Continued personal attacks by PeteK during this arbitration
While PeteK above writes that "I have taken the words of administrators to heart in recent months" with regard to his repeated personal attacks on among other the undersigned from the beginning of his editing of Wikipedia, and he in the Workshop section writes about his many personal attacks "I have tried to tone it down.", he has continued to make such personal attacks (Negative personal comments) also during this arbitration.

One is a false accusation of dishonesty on my part during this arbitration, based on another false accusation of having altered the site of Waldorf Answers "considerably" as an alteration of "evidence" "during these proceedings" of what PeteK has written about it.

The background for his accusation is that he earlier has written that the two sites Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf education are "clones" of each other, and has used this as argument to remove all links to the Waldorf Answers site from the Waldorf article and the article on PLANS. When he now seemingly has looked closer at the two sites, he finds that he has been wrong, and that the two sites in the main have different contents. He then has drawn the "conclusion" that I have "altered" the Waldorf answers site considerably as "evidence" that he has been right in what he has written, and that this demonstrates dishonesty on my part.

PeteK (10 Dec.):
 * "The fact remains, you recently altered your WaldorfAnswers website considerably when it became a point of criticism during these proceedings. This alteration of the evidence might not seem dishonest to you".

He also writes:
 * "For a sample of what used to be on WaldorfAnswers, I believe the clone site AWE still has some of the material that was available on WaldorfAnswers."

What he writes is untrue on all three points. In an answer, I have documented - using and linking to copies of the two sites (WA and AWE) archived by archive.org on the net - that what PeteK writes is untrue, and that I have made no such alterations of either site, that PeteK accuses me of. When I have done this, he has answered:
 * "I'm not going to engage in this discussion and will attempt not to engage TheBee in any discussions not directly related to edits in the articles themselves."

PeteK also on 10 Dec. has made another false and defamatory accusation regarding an edit by me of the Wikipedia article on PLANS.

At one time (23 Aug.), the secretary of the group requested a speedy deletion of the article. Eight minutes later, one admin User:Fang_Aili deleted the request. In his comment 10 Dec., PeteK accuses me of having "inflated" the number of members of the group to 44 in an edit I made on it 8 July in the article, where I added the info, telling the number that the secretary of the group had given at one time for its membership. "In 2000, it claimed to have 44 members.".

According to PeteK, the purpose of my telling what the secretary of the group had told about the number of members of the group was to prevent the article from later being deleted, as the number of stated members would make the group too signicant for the article to be deleted, and that I had "inflated" the number to prevent this, to be able to continue to add what PeteK describes as "defamatory" material to the article. He writes (10 Dec.):


 * "With 44 'members', the article wouldn't qualify for swift deletion and you could continue your defamation campaign on Wikipedia."

When I tell and document the specific origin of the number, given by the secretary in a posting on his own mailing list, in direct answer to a question (26 Dec 2000), and write:
 * ""What you write about me telling an untrue story about the number of "members" of PLANS being "44" to prevent an admin from at one time deciding not to delete the page, seven minutes after the secretary of PLANS at one time 23 August 2006 requested this, is a total fantasy."

PeteK describes my answer and documentation as a "straw man", writing:
 * "I didn't say this, you did. Another strawman argument."

When I ask him to be more specific about what he refers to as "strawman" argument", as I don't quite understand what he means, he does not answer.

The continued unfounded personal attacks during this arbitration, (falsely) accusing me of dishonesty for something I have not done, and of ill willed intent because I at one time added the elementary info on the number of claimed members of PLANS to the article on the group, based on the direct info by the secretary of the group about it, under the scrutinizing eyes of the five amins in the arbitration, while claiming he's trying to "to tone it down" on his personal attacks during this arbitration, don't very much make me look forward to what PeteK will write, after his "toned down" period during this arbitration.