Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop

User_intimidating_people_who_have_supplied_evidence
How does this qualify as intimidation? Thebee's question looks pretty fair to me. I suggest withdrawing that motion. Durova Charg e! 06:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

TheBee writes: "In what way would a simple and very polite question to you and Fergie to provide supporting diffs for your statements - with regard to you, statements you made at the beginning of the Arbitration, and with regard to Fergie her main statement at the Evidence page without supporting diffs - ever intimidate anyone from providing evidence even remotely similar to the way your suggestions - twice - to me to knock myself out for asking the question - would to do ANYONE, except me? Though you make ANY intercourse with you continuously extremely unpleasant, as you have done from your first day here at Wikipedia, as you're probably fully aware of and demonstrate your seeming intention to continue to be with your suggestions and following request at this page, even during this arbitration under the eyes of reviewing arbitrators."

Well, I can barely understand what you are saying here - but I'm guessing you're asking why anyone would be intimidated by your "very polite" questions. For one thing, this and this is an example of what you do to people you don't like. You posted your list of complaints about me on your own public website as well. You've tried to stalk people on other lists and have asked me for personal information about my family in the past. Someone who doesn't know you and your actions like I do would certainly take them as innocent questions. So I'm not interested in an more dialog with you than is absolutely necessary. It's not the questions that are intimidating - I'd be happy to answer them for anyone else. It's your misinterpretation of the answers that is tiresome. Above, you suggest that "knock yourself out" means something akin to knocking yourself unconscious. The simplest of dialog turns into long explanations of why it is that you misunderstood - and that's on a good day - it often turns into more claims by you of personal "attacks" and accusations of "slander" and "libel" and who knows what. And then there's the neverending part - once a dialog is started, you will never stop. I've explained this to you before and you persist. So, yes, please avoid trying to have intercourse with me because I find it at least as unpleasant as you do. Thanks. Pete K 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The pages you mention have very little primarily to do with liking or not liking the persons in question. In earlier discussions I have documented that I have no personal grudge against Mr. Dugan as a person, just what he writes and does.


 * I also had no opinion of Mr. Staudenmaier until I started checking what he writes against the sources he writes that he describes, and discovered his repeated untruthfulness, that I started to dislike him. Not for anything else but for his writings as a repeated insult to the concept of scholarship, and for his way of just playing word- and mind games while repeatedly telling the untruth about published historical sources. But it only has to do with his easy to document repeated untruthfulness about published sources, nothing else personally.


 * As for your other allegations, I disagree with your description of them. The page at my site with a list of your repeated personal attacks and other incivilities I put up there just because I don't want them to remain on the net for ever, as they would here at Wikipedia. It is a not linked to page from anywhere else but her at Wikipedia, that I will remove when it has fulfilled its purpose.


 * I won't comment much on your other statements, just point out that to anyone else BUT you, who have told at my Talks page about your deep personal agression towards Waldorf education and schools, the simple question to provide diffs as evidence of what they have written probably does not stand out as something that would intimidate, neither them nor others from providing evidence at the Evidence page, as you alleged when you wrote your request.


 * You have also told at your own waldorf-critical mailing list that you from the start of your Wikipedia editing specifically came here to combat me, that you described as a "lunatic", and repeatedly have continued to call on a number of occasions in discussions here, and take control of the Waldorf article. This page, that I set up after I had gotten tired of your repeated personal attacks on me from day one of your participation here, documents how you started to implement what you told was your intention to do when you came.


 * You have repeatedly work to implement it: take control of the editing of the Waldorf article and combat me, expressing your to Wikipedia imported agression towards me since probably a number of years. That's OK. But it is one of the things you do that seriously violates the basic Wikipedia policy against doing it, as also repeatedly the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies.


 * On your two times suggestion to me to Knock myself out: As you know, I'm not American or English, and only know "knockout" from its basic meaning in boxing. Maybe you can tell me what civil and friendly meaning it has. Or that you intended it to have. Thanks, Thebee 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Pete, I told you yesterday that the place to make accusations is on the evidence page with evidence. If you don't want to raise those matters formally then don't raise them at all.  If Thebee hasn't done those things I'd expect him to resent the accusation and if he has done them he isn't backing down - which is one of the reasons you're in arbitration.
 * And Bee, knock yourself out is an idiomatic expression that means do your best or more figuratively, exert yourself until you drop from exhaustion. It's informal but not necessarily rude.  Pete has put you in an awkward position by raising the (Wikistalking?) issue on a talk page.  Ask an arbitration clerk: I doubt you're obligated to reply to an allegation that hasn't been made formally.
 * Both of you: see my most recent comment on the workshop page. Durova Charg e!  00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Durova. I guess now that I've raised those issues informally, it wouldn't be right not to raise them formally as well (and it might get TheBee to stop hounding me about it ).  I've just done so on the evidence page as you suggested. Pete K 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your section at the Evidence page some days ago was close to 5,000 words long, five times longer than the recommended, and I have difficulty finding the formal complaint you seem to refer to. Can you tell in which section you have placed it? If you have difficulty finding it too(?), knock yourself out ;-). Thanks, Thebee 14:44, 6 December 2006


 * I have closely read the section (another link) you added to the Evidence page seven minutes before you wrote to Durova, that you now formally had documented that I had been "wikistalking"(?) you. For some reason, the section that you have added purely seems to be about the issue of whether is is proper to understand and describe the small anti-Waldorf fringe group PLANS as a group that at its site publishes argumentation, characteristic of hate-type of groups or not. Did not Durova ask you to provide evidence that I had been stalking you around? Or maybe you consider your new section to be evidence that I have been stalking you around? Please explain. Thanks, Thebee 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, perhaps you can show me where Durova asked me to provide evidence that you have been "stalking me around". I must have missed that.  I didn't claim you were stalking me around.  I claimed that you asked me for personal information.  Not that it matters.  Again, the evidence page is for the evidence I choose to supply.  Even if Durova made the suggestion that I should present a particular set of evidence, which I don't believe she did, it's completely up to me whether or not I choose to supply it.  Again, I don't believe I was asked by her to provide this.  So far, the only person asking me to provide evidence of things I am not interested in providing is YOU. Pete K 21:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You:
 * "You posted your list of complaints about me on your own public website as well. You've tried to stalk people on other lists and have asked me for personal information about my family in the past."

Durova to me above about this:
 * "Pete has put you in an awkward position by raising the (Wikistalking?) issue on a talk page. Ask an arbitration clerk: I doubt you're obligated to reply to an allegation that hasn't been made formally."

You directly following this:
 * "Thanks Durova. I guess now that I've raised those issues informally, it wouldn't be right not to raise them formally as well (and it might get TheBee to stop hounding me about it ). I've just done so on the evidence page as you suggested."

If you don't refer to yourself, when you wrote "You've tried to stalk people on other lists ...", and Durova tells me I don't have to answer to this seeming allegation of (Wikistalking?) (the only thing she mentions), unless you make the allegation formally with evidence and that you then seem to refer to in your answer to her, writing that you have done as she suggested, can you tell what you refer to, that Durova asks you to describe and document formally, and that you then tell her that you have done?

Or do you mean that the descriptions of Mr. Dugan and Mr. Staudenmaier at the site of Americans for Waldorf Education, here (that I have not written) and here (that I've written in part) constitute what you refer to with "You've tried to stalk people on other lists". Can you clarify? Thanks, Thebee 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hold up, Bee. I said I don't think so and referred you to an arbitration clerk.  Please don't assign my opinion that much finality.  In case I'm mistaken - and I might be - I wouldn't want to steer you wrong.


 * There's a larger point I hope you'll both appreciate. Arbitration isn't fun and the evidence phase is as good as it gets.  You all get to build your cases, air your grievances, and nobody's account privileges are restricted.  The case moves so slowly that it becomes routine and editors can get careless.  I don't know whether Survivor (TV series) airs in your country, Bee, but if you follow the analogy it's like when the participants forget the cameras are rolling and show their nasty side.  Well people, if you've had problems before and don't straighten yourselves up now, the message it sends is you never will.  Then the voting phase begins and all those mistakes catch up.  I've never been on the wrong side of that scrutiny, thank goodness, but I've watched the people who are.  It's slow agony.  First the workshop starts to collect proposals and responses.  Those don't carry real weight but it must be misery to watch names collect beneath something that goes against you.  Then the arbitrators start to list proposed findings of fact.  At first these are just ideas and the different arbitrators take their time about choosing whether to sign on.  This stretches out over days, sometimes more than a week.  Overlapping that they start to discuss what to do about it.  I suppose a last minute contrition is possible but I haven't seen it happen.  Instead a problem editor makes the same mistakes worse than before.  Due to stress?  A last hurrah?  I don't know - and maybe this will case be different enough from the earlier ones I've watched unfold.


 * In real life, years back, I spent some time as a semi-professional athlete. Once I took a fall and tore a chunk of skin off my elbow in front of a Belgian television crew.  So maybe as many as 10 million people saw me humiliate myself.  I'm pretty sure they weren't all watching.  My Alexa stats are a little out of date, but the last I checked Wikipedia's traffic was 30 million visitors a month.  Your case pops up on the Signpost one click from the Community Portal and when the decision comes down they'll list names.  Fortunately the video of my fall is locked in a vault somewhere but your case will remain public, just a few clicks away for anybody on earth who has an internet connection and the desire to find it.  Durova Charg e!  04:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * TheBee, this is unbelievable (but becomming less so with each post). You raised questions about claims I made but hadn't supported here- 1)conflict of interest (I have since posted evidence of it), 2)brochure language (I have since posted evidence of it), 3) frustrating the efforts of editors (I have since posted evidence of it).  I posted all the evidence in response to YOUR questions.  Then you accuse me of posting too much evidence here.  Now, you have confused my statement that I had supplied the evidence in response to Durova's suggestion that your questions were legitimate, with claims of Wikistalking.  The claims I made about "other lists" refer to other lists.  Why would I present this as evidence here?  It has nothing to do with your activities at Wikipedia - but it has to do with my personal evaluation of your integrity and ability to intimidate people.  Now if we want to get into your activities on other lists, I'm more than happy to supply evidence about that... but we will need a few more pages to do this and I can't imagine the arbitrators are remotely interested in this - and no, I wasn't referring to articles you've written about people - and I suspect you know this - but now I regret mentioning it because it will just wind you up even more.  Out of respect for others here, I'm going to let this one drop.  If you want to beat me up about it - knock yourself out.  Pete K 04:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Durova. I'll take your advice to heart.  TheBee, this means I'm not going to engage you in more dialog as it tends to bring out the worst side of my character.  I hope you will be understanding in this.  Pete K 04:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If either of you have made statements on these talk pages that you regret, it would be a sign of good faith to perform strikethroughs of your own earlier words. That also goes for anyone else in this case. Please confine this action to your own posts only and substitute milder terms as needed in some identifiable manner such as italics. Durova Charg e! 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments and suggestion, Durova! Yes, we do have Survivor (TV series) in Sweden. As I've told I'm not American and have difficulty at times knowing how what I write may look to an American eye and soul. With regard to Pete, I've tried to sort out and understand the logic of what he writes and has written, as documented above. If there's anything I've written in this Arbitration case, that you would have have stricken (strikethrough) if you had written it by mistake, please tell me and I'd be more than happy to strike it all. With regard to what Pete writes and has written above, I rest my case. Thanks for your helpful answers and suggestions! Thebee 11:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's best if each editor decides that for himself or herself. Regards,  Durova Charg e!  14:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I should add that per WP:AGF the arbitrators would probably extend the benefit of the doubt regarding a second language if other actions appear to be undertaken with thoroughness and good faith. Durova Charg e!  15:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For Durova
Thanks for the explanation.

On the workshop page, you write:
 * "Pete withdrew the motion. Let's be sparing with the accusations on both sides. You'll never be friends; that's established. What the arbitrators probably wonder is whether you can work together at all. And if either of you lack the self-control to collaborate productively then the question becomes what external controls to impose. Do you really want to introduce those doubts?"

I think that's the wrong question and a secondary question to put. The right question in this case would be - with regard to Pete and me - to what extent have Pete and I violated basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines in our editing?

These are two different issues, that the arbitrators need to judge separately.

Have I come to Wikipedia with any other goal than to help contribute to articles on issues that I in cooperation with an American Waldorf teacher have built a site on: Waldorf Answers, one of the few sites recommended by AWSNA (encompassing some 170 Waldorf schools in North America) with:
 * "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."?

No.

Why has Pete come here? At my Talks page he has described his deep agression towards Waldorf education, telling he does not apologize for expressing it in discussions here. At his own waldorf critical discussion list he has told that he has come here specifically to take control of the article on Waldorf education and combat me, something he then repeatedly has worked at through repeated personal attacks, incivilites and debasing comments on me and what I write.

Have I made any personal attacks on him, been incivil or made any debasing comments about him? Yes once, when I had had too much of them, I told what I felt for a spur of amoment about them, before telling about it, leading to a number of further personal attacks from him. I think that's about it with regard to Pete. Once I also answered three incivil comments by DianaW in the same wording she had used, some weeks ago, after having gotten tired of them too.

But I'm not the only one he combats. He combats everyone that dares disagree with him, repeatedly acting like a Mastodont in the seeming view of one admin who has recommended him to read the Wikipedia article on this problem, repeatedly disputing the validity of Warnings for personal attacks by admins, completely replacing the description of a request for Mediation with his own, after the majority of the invited editors has accepted the invitation, making two of them withdraw from the invitation, and in this Arbitration case adding personal accusations to the description of the Arbitration after it has been has been requested, as noted by I think two other editors.

He also has come here, after divorcing a woman, that he (here at Wikipedia) has told is a Waldorf teacher, importing his agression here, judged by his way of expressing his agression towards Waldorf education and Waldorf schools at my Talks page, in a similar way he has imported his expressed since long personal agression towards me, that he seems to view as his personal arch enemy, repeatedly letting it free, basically any time I write anything.

The arbitrators need to judge our cases separately, as also Pete's way of relating to other editors.

While I have described the main problems as I see them with links in my introducing statement, I'll try to add to the Evidence page too, to provide the arbitrators with more details, not yet found at the page, as basis for their decisions.

Thanks, Thebee 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What part of "Let's be sparing with the accusations on both sides." didn't you understand? BTW, I've never mentioned my family here.  I arrived here because I was alerted to the fact that HGilbert was discussing my family publicly.  Maybe *that's* where you heard it.  I would appreciate it if comments about my family were not made part of this public discussion.  Thanks! Pete K 04:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll answer that at the Evidence page.  'Thebee 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)'


 * Thanks, I'm looking forward to it. Pete K 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are? Thebee 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. I've been asking you for a week now to present your case.  I really wish you would do it. Pete K 19:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Read my post above. Durova Charg e! 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymity
While some of us are having our activities on other websites presented as evidence, others in this action remain anonymous. People who have used nom-de-plumes have escaped scrutiny of their activities outside of Wikipedia. I'm wondering if that is fair. I know, for example, who Professor Marginalia is, and that she is one of five people who have, according to TheBee's repeated references, labeled PLANS as a "hate group". She is an active participant on many websites and a pro-Waldorf activist if not an Waldorf extremist. Yet, she is allowed to fly under the radar because she chooses not to reveal her identity while I have had to endure people spotlighting my divorce and child custody among other things, and characterizing me based on connections to other material not on Wikipedia. While I understand that others, DianaW, HGilbert and TheBee have also seen this type of scrutiny to a lesser extent (I would consider it both crude and rude to talk about their personal lives in public), other participants in this process have been exempt from this type of connectivity. We haven't a clue who Vindheim or Trueblood or Goethean are - yet their participation in the edit wars here has, at times, been significant. If we are to use labels such as "Waldorf activist" or "anti-Waldorf activist" for the individuals who have revealed their identities and based on their activities outside of Wikipedia, and not identify others to whom these labels may also apply, then a spectre of impropriety hovers over these proceedings. Pete K 15:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We can't figure everyone out and aren't going to try. What matters is their editing. Please don't out anyone. I'm not sure I have your label right, but certainly if almost all your edits are to Waldorf related pages, you are here for that. Fred Bauder 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't deny that I am interested in Waldorf and Steiner. It's something I know about.  It's not the connection to Waldorf that I'm concerned about (or denying) - it's the connotation of "activist" and the implication that there is something formal about my activities here.  I'm just a guy who discusses stuff about Waldorf privately and publicly.  I'm not an "activist" in the sense that I take any action (the dictionary says "militant action") other than simple discussion. Pete K 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe that Mothering.com, according to a posting by you on your mailing list last Nov, blocked you from further participation in the discussions and deleted five of your six threads from their Waldorf forum discussions last year, after you had made some 700 postings in the Mothering Waldorf forum during in the main six weeks, and your expressed view of this as a kind "ethnic cleansing" by Mothering of Waldorf critics in the discussions, that you intended to expose, can be taken as an indication of your level of active involvement in such discussions, and the nature of what you wrote, as viewed by Mothering.  Thebee 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The behavior by Mothering.com reflects poorly on Mothering.com, not me. I was posting there for months before you and your AWE group arrived and poisoned the debate driving all the members of the list crazy and ultimately getting us both banned along with others.  I guess if your intention was to silence me, it worked out for you in some way.  Yet, while several of my threads were wisked away (after thousands of views)  they did open the door for this discussion regarding the negative experiences people have had with Waldorf education.  It has been viewed almost 18,000 times.  Obviously, people are interested.  On a related note, here's an interesting article about Waldorf activists like yourself - and the energy they are willing to expend to suppress criticism about Waldorf.  Here's a snippet:
 * Now lawsuits and notes of protest are legitimate means of defense - but the content of many of these letters are not, as Eric Friedler reports. Letters and telephone calls which the editor of the controversial broadcast received allegedly certified that he was the "reincarnated anti-Christ" and that he belonged "behind bars." Even the friendlier instructions sounded gruesome: "If you go along with Steiner's ideology of repeated life on earth, then the souls of the Atlantans are still among us," said one, and another, "As far as the Negroes, name one who has founded a university." The mother of one student was surprising with her fatal logic, "We are not racists, that is all Jewish propaganda!"
 * Now isn't that special? Pete K 22:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The TV-program, mentioned in the Rick Ross article clearly upset numerous people of all kind. What you don't tell is that one former Waldorf pupil, whose father - an Auschwitz-survivor and Chairman for many years of the Central Jewish Council in Germany - consciously had chosen a Waldorf school for her after the war, became so upset by the TV-program, described by Rick Ross, that she considered to be a pure defamation and smear program, initiated by a small anti-Waldorf lobby group, that she published an ad in the General Jewish Weekly, "Action Solidarity against the Defamation of Waldorf education", telling her view of the program and her experience of her time at a Waldorf school:
 * "I personally have only had good experiences during my school time; it was liberal, antiracist, tolerant of every faith and not missionary. It was not without reason that the Waldorf schools were prohibited during the Nazitime!


 * That makes it even worse to now verbally defame the Waldorf schools without presenting concrete proofs and names, as for example is being done by Report Mainz ...".
 * I find that to be special. Thebee 23:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't you KNOW Waldorf schools remained open far longer than other private schools during the Nazi era... and were under the watchful eye of Rudolf Hess and others?  Pete K 23:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You're taking this far outside the issue of whether you're an anti-Waldorf activist or not. Are you trying to demonstrate that you're just a "waldorf activist"?

The second link you give is severe mishmasch by a Reichean, promoting human development through sexual liberation in the tradition of Wilhelm Reich, and hostile towards Waldorf education. For some comments on the issue of the Waldorf schools during Nazi time, see this and this.

Thebee 00:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to demonstrate anything. You're trying to demonstrate who you think I am.  I'm not an "activist" about anything.  But I'll suggest to you that you are far more "anti-Waldorf" than I am.  Think about it. Pete K 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Links
Can we anticipate some arbitration on the links to websites? Of particular concern to me and to other editors are links to TheBee's original research websites. Links or references to these websites and TheBee's relentless attempts to attract attention to his research have flooded the articles and the talk pages for months. TheBee seems to manufacture reasons to produce links to his websites with almost every post. The content on these websites ranges from extremely biased to defamatory and occasionally borders libelous. It seems to be TheBee's focused intention to provide abundant opportunities to detour the reader's attention from Wikipedia to his own original research. Is it appropriate for a non-arbitrator to propose that this topic be addressed or should this be left to members of the arbitration committee to determine? Pete K 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have only mentioned such pages in discussions, when they contain material and original documentation relevant to discussions, that I have worked much at penetrating.


 * With regard to articles related to Waldorf education, I added a link to an overview of research on Waldorf education the last 80 years at the site of Waldorf Answers (the probably most complete one on the net), and all legal documents related to the litigation by the WC against two public sthool districts in CA for supporting two Waldorf methods charter schools, not found in that complete form elsewhere on the net. I also at one time in the Waldorf article added a link to a widely published FAQ on WE in the article on Waldorf education, that contained info on the celebration of Festivals at Waldorf schools.


 * But I have added very little of such links to articles, in the main two, the one on WE and the one on the WC, before I became clear about that in articles adding links to sites you've been involved in building is not good at all. I really regret I did it a few times in the two articles, and have never done it again in articles. I have also never in discussions mentioned and linked to pages at sites I've been involved in building to detour anyone from anything, just to contribute to an understanding of issues discussed, that I happen to have tried to penetrate in some depth.


 * Self promotion beyond trying at times to contribute to understanding complicated issues, that I have tried to penetrate, is not my style.


 * Thebee 00:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the mountain of evidence speaks against what you say. I'm hoping the arbitrators will bring up this issue, but if they don't or if they tell me I can address it in the arbitration, I will.  For the record, in your last three posts, you have linked to your websites three times. Pete K 01:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is generally addressed by article probation. Assuming no one else is banned from editing the articles by this decision, you will be allowed to return to editing the articles with the expectation that you will follow the principles contained in the final decision, certainly "wikipedia is not a battleground" and "reliable sources" will be among them.  This will mean removing original research and personal experience (pro and con) and relying on independent third party sources.  It will also mean having an external link section that conforms to the external links policy and is relatively balanced (a few pro and a few con assuming they meet the external link guildelines).  Editors who can not follow the rules after having been clarified here may be banned from the articles under the terms of article probation.  Hopefully this won't happen. Thatcher131 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thatcher has explained this well; those who continue to disrupt editing can expect bans from editing articles in this area. Second time around will be rough. Fred Bauder 02:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thatcher131. How does this apply to the discussion pages?  Can we anticipate restrictions on linking to original research websites to be extended to the discussion pages? Pete K 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the point would be. Linking to pro and con sites to make points about Waldorf education could be seen as disruptive, since the talk pages are for discussion of the article, not the subject itself.  Linking as analysis might be all right, I suppose.  It would depend on the context, I guess. Thatcher131 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Diana
I am going to make just a few comments this evening as I am unable to participate at the level I was previously due to an ongoing family emergency. I don't know if this means I should pull out of the arbitration, perhaps an administrator or arbitrator will advise. I have read some but not all of what has happened in the past 10 days or so. I will add a few things I have seen that I have comments on but I will be unable in the next few weeks or perhaps indefinitely to reply daily and I will probably not reply in all cases to comments addressed to me though I will try when I have time.DianaW 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have put this to voting. My remedy is quite liberal, however, and, especially with new arbitrators coming aboard soon, it is hard to predict what will happen. Please monitor the Proposed decision and try to protect yourself should punitive remedies be proposed or supported. Fred Bauder 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentorship as a remedy?
I'll raise this informally on the talk side instead of formally on the workshop because it's something I've recommended repeatedly and none of the editors have taken up. The committee has the power to insist on mentorship as a remedy, I believe?

Fred's solution at the proposed decision looks very mild, and based on my observations - if I were a betting woman - I'd wager that rank and file admins would wind up performing repeated blocks and possible bans on most of the editors in this case. I think there would be better chances of a good outcome if some sort of mentorship or guidance were part of the solution. Durova Charg e! 05:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, what is mentorship and how does it work. It sounds like Wiki-therapy. Pete K 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Informally I've mentored several editors on these talk pages during arbitration. I don't have the time to do that long term because of other sysop responsibilities.  Think of a mentor as someone who can answer your questions and shortcut you through a lot of tedious searching when you want to get stuff accomplished.  And once in a while a mentor might offer a friendly heads up before an admin like me comes along and blocks you again.  Durova Charg e!  17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so is it up to the editor being mentored to continually ask for help? Or is a mentor is like a "big brother" who keeps an eye on an editor's edits?  Pete K 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends on whether the mentored editor acts like a little kid. Durova Charg e!  17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Pete K 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what can mentoring do for me that I cannot do for myself. Here's an example of what I am faced with on a daily basis: I have issues with editors who carefully extract a line of text out of a source and produce it to suggest the opposite of what the source says. Technically, they are allowed to do this - so it's really up to me to stand in their way (or let them get away with this). How would a mentor help? Pete K 03:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A mentor could point you to Template:Citecheck, which you could use to flag the article or relevant section. Wikipedia does have solutions to many of the problems you've encountered.  Usually you make uncivil posts in outbursts of frustration before you locate those solutions, which seriously hampers their effectiveness on the occasions when you do find them.
 * All of the major participants at this dispute have very narrow editing experience at Wikipedia. Yes, you're all adults - and probably very well educated and successful - but at this site you're all floundering.  That's a prime situation for mentoring, which is why I've advised it so consistently.  If the reason still isn't as clear to you as it is to me then maybe you can accept this on trust: I've been around this site for a while and helped resolve many disputes.
 * If Fred Bauder's current proposal becomes this arbitration's final decision, this arbitration would end with the appearance of a slap on the wrist - but really giving all the editors enough rope to hang themselves. My take on that is at least four different people would probably get sitebanned within six weeks after the decision.  So I've been asking myself what are the alternatives?  And frankly, enforced mentorship is the least intrusive.  Durova Charg e!  16:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that forced mentorship can work. Like mediation, mentorship can only work if the mentoree is willing. Thatcher131 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming I were willing, how much of my time is involved in mentoring, and where would I go to recieve this mentoring? Pete K 16:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:ADOPT is the voluntary program. If you're actually set to volunteer I know an excellent mentor whom I recently awarded a barnstar.  I could see whether that editor would be willing to take you on.  Your question about time commitment would be better directed to the mentors themselves, but generally I suspect a good mentorship would save your time by making it more productive.  Durova Charg e!  17:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm off to a meeting - but I'll consider this carefully.  If you like, please have the mentor you have in mind contact me (if he/she is interested and available). Pete K 17:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've left a message. Durova Charg e!  23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope enrollment in the mentorship progam isn't a mistake - from the standpoint that it "appears" to be a solution to this arbitration. While I appreciate that there are good reasons to follow through with mentoring, on both sides, I hope it doesn't appear that by accepting this program, I am in any way suggesting or supporting that the editors here should be sent off to run along and play nicely. There have been some very serious issues here that call for some action on the part of the arbitration committee and I feel strongly that those issues need to be addressed. Pete K 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the proposed decision page, it is essentially an amnesty for all editors involved in this case. It sets forth some principles as guidance, and some findings of fact to show where individual editors may have violated policy, but imposes no real penalty (like a ban from editing Waldorf-related articles).  I think the hope is that all the editors involved are sincere intelligent people who can put aside their differences and work on a neutral encyclopedia style article.  Editors don't have to be neutral, but the outcome should be; someone reading the article should not be able to tell the editors' opinions of the subject.  Mentorship is one way for you to get some experience in how we do things, but it is not required.  You could take a break from Waldorf and go edit articles related to other topics you are interested in, such as hobbies, favorite sports teams, or even TV shows.  Whatever you do to get some experience in how this place works will be to your benefit.  If, after a reasonable grace period, certain editors have learned how to work within the system and others continue in the behaviors that led to this case being accepted, stricter remedies will probably be handed out against those editors.  An editor who accepts a mentor but continues to edit Waldorf articles will still be subject to renewed sanction, and an editor whose behavior improves without formal mentorship will not be a target if this case is reopened. Thatcher131 03:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? Are you saying the arbitration is all but over?  Pete K 04:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup. Fred has taken the proposals he feels accomplish what needs to be done, listed them on the Proposed decision page, and listed the case for voting.  (See the big orange pink box on the side of the main WP:RFAR page.)  The majority in this case is 5; frequently arbitrators vote to support Fred's proposals and when the vote is 5-0 the case will be officially closed.  Sometimes the arbitrators disagree; it could be that after reading the evidence and workshops, one of the arbitrators will find Fred's proposals too lenient and will offer alternatives, which will also go into voting.  You can discuss the proposed decision on its talk page. Thatcher131 04:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "I think the hope is that all the editors involved are sincere intelligent people who can put aside their differences and work on a neutral encyclopedia style article." Hmmm... not intending to be a smart-ass here, but that seems to be the one conclusion that none of the evidence supported. Pete K 05:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbcom really only has three enforceable remedies; outright ban from Wikipedia, ban from certain articles (which amounts to a site ban for single-purpose editors), and probation (allows any admin to block an editor from the site or ban from an article for levels of disruption that would normally only rate a warning). I suppose Fred feels that the past problems were not quite serious enough to justify probation or banning, or maybe he just has the Christmas spirit.  Either way, as he noted above, those who continue to disrupt editing can expect bans from editing articles in this area. Second time around will be rough.  Hope this helps. Thatcher131 12:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you interpret that only one additional member of the Arbcom has voted on Mr. Bauder's one proposed remedy, six days after he has proposed it, and that three of the five active members of the Arbcom in this case have not? How often does that happen, after six days? And if just one more member of the Arbcom supports the proposed remedy within a specific(?) time, does that mean that the case has been decided by a majority, and is then closed, if noone else has added a vote in either direction. Or do all five members have to vote before the case can be closed? Thanks, Thebee 13:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Normal delay. Cases generally take two months from open to final close, and 2-3 weeks for voting is not unusual.  There are either 8 or 9 active arbitrators, depending on whether that is determined as of the case open (8) or as of the start of voting (9); either way, a majority would be 5. Thatcher131 13:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "5" as majority then means five as a majority of the total number of present members of the Arbcom, in this case nine(?), and if five support the proposed remedy, that closes the case, even if one (sixth Arbcom member) opposes the suggestion and/or suggests a reformulation or replacement of it with somethng else?
 * This is getting very process-wonky, but yes, if there are 5 votes for a decision, the case can close even if the other 4 arbitrators oppose it, which is why cases often close 5-0 (no point in waiting for the other votes which can't change the outcome). However, once the decision is voted on there is a separate vote to close the case (which is set up to make it fairly easy for one or two arbitrators to delay closure) and an arbitrator who wants more time to consider alternate remedies can usually get it. Thatcher131 14:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In one week, a new Arbcom is elected, is that right? If that is the case, this would mean that members of the present Arbcom then not any more can vote in this case after that time? How does this influence the voting in this case, and what is to be considered a majority of votes from then 18(?) people (two different Arbcoms)? Just reflecting. Thanks, Thebee 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually new members don't vote on past cases and we usually don't throw out old votes of departed arbitrators. Fred Bauder 14:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The explanation for my attitude is pretty simply. I have faith in both camps. I think you have great resources which can be drawn on to create useful articles. A shame to simply ban you all based on past misunderstandings. Fred Bauder 14:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get why it has to be all or none. We have each gone to significant effort to present evidence in this case.  Some editors stand out, in my view, for COI and OWN violations, disruptive editing and remarks that push the boundaries of decency.  One guy has spawned 30 articles about his religion and won't allow edits that disagree with his POV.  Another guy can't put two sentences together without referencing his OR websites and has been slanderous in his attacks on people.  The edit wars have continued right through the arbitration process.  This is difficult and frustrating work, Fred.  Neither side has fully understood that it has made a mistake here, apparently.  Both sides have received your comments as a vindication of their views.  Supporting non-action on the part of this committee is no Christmas present.  Pete K 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr Bauder, you write:
 * "The explanation for my attitude is pretty simply. I have faith in both camps. I think you have great resources which can be drawn on to create useful articles. A shame to simply ban you all based on past misunderstandings."


 * Am I to understand that you consider this to be included in what you refer to as past misunderstandings?


 * I also wonder if you have any advice on how to relate to a personal attack by PeteK on the undersigned on 10 Dec. in one discussion. He then accused me of dishonesty for allegedly "during these proceedings" having altered one site, that I coedit (Waldorf Answers), that he had expected to prove him right in an assertion that Waldorf Answers and Americans for Waldorf Education - according to him - "clones" of each other.


 * PeteK:
 * "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."
 * When he has seen - when now looking - that this is not the case, he accuses me for having tampered with what he considers to be "evidence" in this case. When I in full document all changes that have been made at the site of WA, using archive.org as reference, showing that this disproves his accusation of dishonesty, and in full linking to all archived pages at the site at different times by archive.org, he answers that he will not discuss this further. His accusation is a personal attack. It is unfounded. Objective documentation on the internet shows this. When I yesterday request that he documents the truthfulness of his accusation, using the objective documentation available at archive.org since long, of which I'm not in control, to prove his allegations: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.waldorfanswers.org and http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.americans4waldorf.org he refuses, and refers to the objective documentation showing his accusation has been false, as "the next rabbit hole".


 * He (yesterday) thereby implicitly stands by his false accusation that I have tampered with "evidence" in this case and of dishonesty in (allegedly) having done this, referring simply to his memory as proof of the truthfulness of what he writes, which - by dismissing the objective documentation - now constitutes a second personal attack.


 * I'd be grateful for your comments and suggestions regarding this.


 * Thanks, Thebee 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think at this point, TheBee has decided to try to get us both banned. It's really clear cut - one group has a conflict of interest, one doesn't. Pete K 23:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "I think at this point, TheBee has decided to try to get us both banned."
 * No. I ask Mr. Bauder for advice on how to handle new, continued personal attacks by you during this arbitration, and your refusal to adress the objective evidence in the case. Regards, Thebee 11:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't refused to address any evidence in this case. Pointing out that you have a conflict of interest is NOT a personal attack - it's providing evidence.  Pointion out that you have been disingenuous is also providing evidence.  That you seem to think consider anything I say about you is as a personal attack is more evidence.  It's not a personal attack when someone is pointing out what you are actually doing.  That's what arbitration is for - getting to the bottom of the behavior of the participants. Pete K 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Working together
I propose that you work together to locate third party sources and create the best article you can. No one needs to be banned. Fred Bauder 12:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My question to you was not a question that you ban anybody. The listing of a number of personal attacks by PeteK the last four months on the undersigned and others, aldo documenting his repeatedly demonstrated disrespect for the social-legal processes at Wikipedia, for admins and for others, is just a documentation of his habitual way of relating to them, as background for my question.


 * It is a question to you as the - as I understand - in practice highest admin at Wikipedia, except Jimbo Wales, in your central position on the arbitration committee, if you have any suggestion on how I should handle a new demonstrably unfounded (repeated) personal attack by PeteK the last days during this arbitration, and his refusal to adress the objective documentation regarding it, showing what he writes is untrue.


 * In your position not adressing the importance of objective evidence in argumentation at Wikipedia with regard to personal attacks as in this case, as far as I see it, sets a precedence for the future of Wikipedia, in this case telling: making personal attacks contradicted by objective documentation and refusing to adress the objective evidence for the untruthfulness of the personal attacks when requested to is OK. That should be accepted by the one attacked, and need not be adressed by any admin, if requested to.


 * Regards, Thebee 13:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so you will understand - I don't HAVE to address ANY evidence you have provided AT ALL. You could produce evidence that my mother wears combat boots, and I don't have to say a word about it because the evidence is absurd and demonstrates more about you than it does about me (or my mother).  So the addressing of evidence is not an issue at all.  I don't know if there is anyone left who hasn't read your laundry-list of "personal attacks" but I encourage everyone to read it.  Again, this list says more about you and what you are trying to do by preparing it and continually referencing it than it says about me. You and HGilbert have conflict of interest and are still allowed to edit these articles agressively.  THAT is the danger to Wikipedia precedence - that Wikipedia would allow conflicted editors to continue to harass others after such editors have demonstrated clearly that they intend to WP:OWN the articles is a problem for everyone here.  It opens the door for Wikipedia to become a depot for advertising - just as the Waldorf article is being used to advertise Waldorf.  The best way to ensure this will not happen is to be diligent in refusing access to and agressive editing by editors with a demonstrated direct conflict of interest.  This would be TheBee and HGilbert. Pete K 16:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My reference to personal attacks refers to the ones you made on 10 Dec. in a discussion of one artice. One of them (also quoted above) was
 * "...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."
 * The objective evidence that this has not been the case can be found by comparing the present version of the site with the earlier versions of it found at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.waldorfanswers.org and my reference to your refusal to document the truthfulness of your accusation by using the objective documentation at the site of archive.org refers to your comment here. Regards, Thebee 16:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not a personal attack - it's a statement of fact. You have altered your website - DianaW also mentioned this in her evidence.  That's fine with me - it's yours to alter as much as you like.  Frankly, I'm happy to see that you have removed some of the hate-speech from it.  Maybe you can talk AWSNA into removing some of the hate-group language from their publications.  In the mean time, you should move on to something more productive instead of harping on this point.  You made a fool of yourself with the "forgery" claim where you harped and harped about some dishonesty and suddenly dropped the subject when it was proven YOU were the one who was completely dishonest about this.  Now you've moved on to something else (as you always do - finding the next rabbit hole) to try to make some ridiculous point - which is nothing more than another attempt to waste whatever time it would take for me to prove you are being dishonest, again.  There's no point to it for me - once you have succeeded (on your own) in proving to everyone here that you are dishonest, what possible motivation would there be for me to prove it again, and again, and again.  I refuse to allow you to annoy me with your pestering.  In my view, there is nothing of value in what you have presented here - and I suspect this is obvious to everyone but you.  Pete K 17:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On
 * "...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."
 * you write
 * "That's not a personal attack - it's a statement of fact."
 * No, it isn't. I have not altered the site of Waldorf Answers considerably, I have not done it as alteration of evidence, and I have not done it dishonestly. The second assertion by you (accusation of dishonesty without subtantiation of what you write) constitutes a personal attack. In one answer on 17 Dec, I have described all alterations/additions that have been made at the site since 1 Aug. It tells:
 * "The last time something was edited slightly at the site of Waldorf Answers was on 21 Oct, when this page was updated. For the latest former version of the page, documented on the net, from 27 April, see here. All the other pages at Waldorf Answers, updated 1 Aug. or later are:this (updated 1 Oct.), version from 26 Dec. 2005: here, this (uploaded 4 Sept, no former version documented by archive.org), this (uploaded 4 Sept, no former version documented by archive.org), this (uploaded 4 Sept, no former version documented by archive.org), this (uploaded 18 Sept, no former version documented by archive.org), this (uploaded 18 Sept.), latest former version from 19 Feb. documented by archive.org here, this (uploaded 22 Sept.), latest version from 6 May documented by archive.org here, and this (uploaded 10 Oct), latest version documented by archive.org from 10 May here.


 * All pages at both sites have been documented regularly by archive.org from 7 Jan 2004, resp. 20 Dec. 2005. None of the documented versions of the sites supports PeteK's allegation that I have changed any of them considerably, that I have altered any of them as "evidence" in these proceedings, or that I have been dishonest in (allegedly) doing this."


 * None of the alterations can be described as considerable and none has been made as "alteration of evidence". You have at no time specified what you refer to beyond what I describe, and you have not provided any evidence of your allegation, also not when I have pointed you to http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.waldorfanswers.org that documents all pages that were found at the site up to 27 April this year. Please tell what was found at the site up to that time and that I later according to you have removed as "alteration of evidence" (that you have been right when you have described the two sites of WA and AWE as "clones" of each other?).


 * On
 * "You made a fool of yourself with the "forgery" claim where you harped and harped about some dishonesty and suddenly dropped the subject when it was proven YOU were the one who was completely dishonest about this."
 * Nothing of what you have referred to is relevant to the issue if the lecture that Mr. Staudenmaier asserts that he describes in the introduction to his first solo article on anthroposophy exists anywhere as he describes it. The lack of evidence that it exists anywhere as he describes it, and the failure of Mr. Staudenmaier to provide a specific citation for it up to this day (date, publisher, pp and some quotes from it as he "describes" it), almost seven years after he wrote the article, is evidence of his unreliability as author on anthroposophy, despite repeatedly assertions of a number of untruths about it at different times, both with regard to its existence and content, has not given a specific citation telling what it can be found as he describes it, giving some quotes from it that support his description of it.


 * Everything you have referred to as writings from Mr. Staudenmaier are still pure smoke screens. Until he gives a specific citation for the lecture he repeatedly has asserted the existence of as he "describes" it, nothing else is interesting with regard to the issue.
 * On
 * "suddenly dropped the subject ..."
 * It's Christmas time. I do other things at times that engage in discussions at Wikipedia... But I'll be back on Mr. Staudenmaier's latest smoke screen. It's already adressed in part at AWE.


 * Regards, Thebee 19:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And thus we keep going farther down the rabbit hole. It's not my job to straighten out your confusion. Mr. Staudenmaier, himself, was unable to straighten out your confusion to YOUR satisfaction - but any reasonable person reading these discussions will, I'm sure, walk away shaking their head when they see this nonsense for what it is. It is your willingness to cling to such ridiculous points in order to arrive at ridiculous conclusions that make this such a worthless effort. I don't want any part of the nightmare that awaits anyone who tries to have reasonable discussions with you and, frankly, I don't believe anyone takes your posts seriously at this point anyway. Mr. Staudenmaier has pointed out you are completely wrong - that you have misunderstood what was in the article. There are many examples right here on Wikipedia where you demonstrate how you easily misunderstand what has been said - and rely on others to explain everything to you. It's not my job to explain this stuff to you.

Regarding your web archives - your "evidence" doesn't prove ANYTHING other than there have been no archives since April. Pete K 20:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility parole?
Fred, how about civility parole? Think it would help? Durova Charg e! 23:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dare I ask what civility parole is? Pete K 23:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Something like the following.  Durova Charg e!  10:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any examples in the second case, but the incivility cited in the first case was extreme - not at all like what has been demonstrated here. Do you really think the examples are comparable? (Merry Christmas, BTW)... Pete K 16:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)