Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

Original clarification request and amendment 08:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Initiated by

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ) (initiator)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [5]
• Jellypear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [6]
• Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [7]
• A13ean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [8]
• EPadmirateur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [9]

Statement by hgilbert

The original arbitration indicated that "Information may be included in articles if they can be verified by reference to reliable sources. As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources."

There are frequently sources proposed that are from peer reviewed presses or journals, but whose authors have a strong or weak connection to Waldorf education or anthroposophy. Some editors of this article argue that these sources are to be considered reliable due to the peer-reviewed publishing process. Other editors argue that any connection of an author to Waldorf/anthroposophy makes all publications by that author unreliable sources for an article on Waldorf education, independently of how they were published.

It seems to me that the latter stance would be in flagrant violation of

A currently disputed source, as a concrete example, is:

• Carlo Willmann, Waldorfpädogogik, Kölner Veröffentlichungen zur Religionsgeschichte, v. 27. Böhlau Verlag,
  ISBN 3-412-16700-2
  . The press is a highly regarded academic press, the book volume 27 of a highly regarded series on the history of religion. The author is a Catholic theologian who has been connected with Waldorf schools in various ways.

• Whether to implement the recommendations for wording and sources made by an outside editor at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Other_sources (I have wanted to implement these, Alexbrn has not).
• Whether the following quote, introduced by me, is NPOV: "A UK Department for Education and Skills report noted significant differences in curriculum and pedagogical approach between Waldorf/Steiner and mainstream schools and suggested that each type of school could learn from the other type's strengths: in particular, that state schools could benefit from Waldorf education's early introduction and approach to modern foreign languages; combination of block (class) and subject teaching for younger children; development of speaking and listening through an emphasis on oral work; good pacing of lessons through an emphasis on rhythm; emphasis on child development guiding the curriculum and examinations; approach to art and creativity; attention given to teachers’ reflective activity and heightened awareness (in collective child study for example); and collegial structure of leadership and management, including collegial study. Aspects of mainstream practice which could inform good practice in Waldorf schools included: management skills and ways of improving organizational and administrative efficiency; classroom management; work with secondary-school age children; and assessment and record keeping."
• Whether to include the many studies done of Waldorf education (Alexbrn removed every one of these to a subarticle, I believe they are important here and have tried to bring these back).

Frankly, I don't see how my role in any of these can be seen as POV-pushing or evidence of COI.

• On the other hand, Alexbrn has seriously proposed the content of an anonymous anti-Waldorf website as a critical response to a Karlstad University professor of education's research report published by the Karlstad University Studies series. This reflects a extremely unbalanced view and use of RS.
  talk) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have been editing the Waldorf education article for several weeks now, and I am personally not convinced the issue at hand is contested for most editors. As I have written on the talk page there, I use the following rough rules of thumb for evaluating sources in the light of the Arbcom ruling:

• Peer-reviewed nearly always okay; University Presses nearly always okay; mainstream news media nearly always okay for reportage.
• Of the remainder:
• Authored by somebody "involved in Waldorf", or from an Anthroposophical source: generally bad.
• Dissertations, general books, conference papers, research reports etc.: assess on the basis of whether there is evidence of editorial oversight, whether they are cited by good RS publications, and how "heavy" the claim they are making is.
• Normal WP caution to apply to web sites, self-published, primary, etc.

I don't think any editor is contending that peer-reviewed sources by Waldorf-involved people should be automatically out-of-bounds – and indeed we do include such sources: e.g. Robert A. McDermott is a leading anthroposophist and Waldorf advocate yet his work is frequently cited by us when it appears in peer-reviewed journal articles.

Any difficulty has arisen for statements which are maybe controversial and/or maybe written by a Waldorf-involved-author and/or from a source which may be of high quality. This is the case for the Willmann source that hgilbert mentioned. Willmann is senior academic at a university teaching Waldorf education but appears to be published in a reasonable (but not peer-reviewed) book. Because this case is unclear, I tagged this source {{rs}} rather than remove it, and was expecting some Talk page discussion.

In such cases as these, my view is that if the statement being sourced is truly uncontroversial, and notable enough for WP, then a neutral non-Waldorf source will exist for it that can be used. This was indeed the case for Willmann, where hgilbert graciously changed the source to a better one: a peer-reviewed journal article by Heiner Ullrich. The problem was solved, and solved well.

I would be reassured if the committee could re-affirm the original ruling and its intepretation as evidenced by the current

I also have some lingering concerns about cherry-picking of sources in many of the articles related to Steiner's work, but this was not addressed in the original arbitration, and I don't know any way it can be addressed except by the very dedicated on a case-by-case basis. a13ean (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would expand my original comment to note that I believe civil POV-pushing is still a problem at WE and related pages. a13ean (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Though few of us who are currently active remember the Waldorf case, it was serious enough to be handled by Arbcom twice before, once in 2006 at

Actually, there is one admin-enforceable sanction in

WP:RS/N if needed), and if they would not do so, they could be restricted from those articles by any admin. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not have time for an extensive comment, but I have observed that biased pro-Steiner sources have crept back into the article since the 2006 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education, an ArbCom final decision. Hgilbert especially seems to push for pro-Steiner sources, in violation of the ArbCom ruling, and he works against negative material. Binksternet (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Since nobody has commented on this request so far, in order not to give the impression that we are ignoring you, I'll start by saying that I'm awaiting further statements before expressing my opinion (also, I need to familiarise myself with the original case, which was quite before my time). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not persuaded we should modify the previous committee's decision regarding the reliability of sources; following the standard they set appears to have protected the article from bias and, considering that what works should not be changed without a compelling reason, I am inclined to decline this request for amendment. That said, regarding article probation, on the other hand, I agree that it should be updated to the standard set of discretionary sanctions, as DSs allow for more leeway: admins may impose a wider array of remedies, including article-level restrictions. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The principles passed in the decision reflect the interpretation of the 2006-2007 committee of the policies and guidelines as they existed at the time of the decision. Our policies and guidelines governing reliable sources and self-published sources have undoubtedly evolved in five years, and the sources should be judged under our current standards instead of the one interpreted five years ago. The question whether any particular source is a reliable source is a content matter for
  WP:RS/N, and outside the jurisdiction of this committee. T. Canens (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• We would be remiss to assume that because the community was unable to regulate this topic in 2006, it is unable to do so today. The Wikipedia community has expanded its capacity to resolve disputes over contentious topics, and for that reason I am minded to vacate (by motion) the article probation remedy that was passed in 2006 and confirmed in 2007.
  [•] 15:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I think that, even if the committee felt the need to retain jurisdiction over that particular matter, we would need to reevaluate the situation according the current context and not the situation as it was over six years ago (which is an eternity in Wikipedia terms). I'm open to arguments that there remains a problem needing Committee intervention, but it seems clear to me that the original ruling has long been overtaken by our evolving policies on reliable sourcing. — Coren ^(talk) 16:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't mind revising this to discretionary sanctions given that the situation seems more under control and that the additional flexibility is desirable. — Coren ^(talk) 19:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• After reviewing the case and reading Alexbrn's comments, it appears that care is needed to keep these articles from drifting toward inappropriate bias, and the sanctions have been working. The words quoted above: "Information may be included in articles...." are from a findings of fact in the case, and while they informed the decision, are not a formal part of the sanctions, which are that Waldorf education and related articles are placed on probation (and later that Pete K is banned indefinitely from those articles). ArbCom article probation asks that editors are especially mindful of content policies, such as
  WP:RS/N. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As regards Alexbrn's question regarding this line in the remedy: "Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications." I think Alexbrn's own comment, "if the statement being sourced is truly uncontroversial, and notable enough for WP, then a neutral non-Waldorf source will exist for it that can be used" matches that in

WP:SELFPUBLISH which says: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". As for the actual sources used in the Waldorf education article - that is a matter for contributors to discuss, not for ArbCom. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree with EdJohnston that the main points are made in the first sentence of the remedy. And it does seem that

Wikipedia:Article probation. Though wording does differ in some places, it appears as though the intent and effect is the same. Is it worth us looking at Article probation, and which articles are affected by that remedy, and perhaps updating that remedy to be replaced in its entirety with Discretionary sanctions? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I note that last year Prem Rawat was updated from probation to Discretionary sanctions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the arbitrator comments made so far, especially those emphasising that the reliable sources noticeboard is the best place to attempt to resolve such disputes, though a summary to point to about how sources in this particular area are handled may help. EdJohnston's suggestion to replace or modify the existing case to include discretionary sanctions is worth considering. I'll wait for more comments from my colleagues and others, especially as to what level of problems is needed for discretionary sanctions and when other (more specific) remedies work better. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Waldorf education discretionary sanctions

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

By motion, the committee resolves that:

1. Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Waldorf education, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy set down in Waldorf education, remedy 1 and re-affirmed in the Waldorf education review, remedy 2
   .

Support

1. Proposed. Adapted from a previous motion regarding the similar article probation remedies passed in Prem Rawat.
   [•] 19:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Note though that the principles about the removal of original research and unverified information still are applicable. NW (Talk) 19:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. As I've noted above, this seems like the reasonable next step. — Coren ^(talk) 19:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Risker (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Although we wouldn't be adopting this motion without reason to believe there is some ongoing controversy on this series of articles, it should be clear that we haven't closely scrutinized the recent editing in this area, and that the motion isn't targeted at any particular editor or group of editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Initiated by - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} at 04:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Waldorf education arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) (specifically its review, Waldorf education/Review arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t))

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 1 and 1.1 of the Review, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_ban_clarified

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Penwhale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Pete K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who is currently operating under a series of IPv6 addresses
• A13ean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

• As the Pete K has not edited using his account since 2007, there is no good way to log it. I will instead post the link to this in a section in which Pete K has started on my talk page.
• A13ean notified
• Hgilbert notified

Information about amendment request

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_ban_clarified

• Details of desired modification

• Update them to standard topic-bans (so it can be more easily logged under
  editing restrictions
  , which will satisfy Pete K's request to remove template messages on article talk pages that states that he is prohibited from editing said articles)

Statement by Penwhale

Back in March 2007, I placed a template on Talk:Waldorf education as part of the requirement when an editor was banned from contributing on articles. The wording at the time allowed Pete K to contribute to the talk page, until a later motion (Remedy 1.1) also limited Pete K's ability to edit the talk page.

Nonetheless, it is unfortunately clear that Pete K may have missed the additional restriction, and recently has taken to both Talk:Waldorf education as well as my talk page to rant about both his inability to edit the talk page as well as the template message on top of the Waldorf education talk page. I believe the best solution would be to modify Remedy 1 and 1.1 of the Review to use the current TBAN wording; this way, the templates could in theory be removed since there will be a centralized place to log the edit restrictions.

As a side note, back in 2012

Sounds fine to me. I asked if the template could be removed because at the time Pete K had not edited for several years, although he resumed editing shortly thereafter using an IP. a13ean (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse as initiator (and due to certain reasons at my talk page). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf education: Arbitrator views and discussion

• If standardizing the sanctions to the modern topic ban practices will minimize disruption, I see no reason not to. I'll get a motion together to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraphimblade. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Same here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Pete K restrictions changed to standard topic ban

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

Remedies 1 and 1.1 in the

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 07:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

Motion carried. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

:# In the absence of community objections, I see no reason why we should keep discretionary sanctions open for a minor dispute that's over a decade old, in which most parties have subsequently retired. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CleanCopy has voluntarily agreed on talk to avoid COI edits, and if they deviate from that in the future, the community can deal with it. We do not need to retain discretionary sanctions to deal with (maybe) one editor. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:# Makes sense to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Parking here for now in case this moves too quickly. I'd like to look at Hgilbert/User:Clean Copy's contributions more closely as concern has been raised regarding his contributions just a few months ago: [10], in which he was told: "I will ask ArbCom to consider privileged information and issue a broad TBan in light of your agenda-driven editing and whitewashing of articles." SilkTork (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Concerns have recently been raised about the articles: [11], though that seems related to the concern raised on Hgilbert/Clean Copy's talkpage; however, given that concerns have recently been raised, I'm not comfortable lifting DS at the moment. Indeed, it may be that the community needs to look closer at those articles rather than declare them unproblematic. SilkTork (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   I would be really happy to have an objective third party look at this, SilkTork. The wording you quote and the attacks on me on this page stem from the same editor; below, I have gone through all the diffs he cites to show the claims made against me are simply untrue. Clean Copy^talk 20:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. All right, all right, I'm convinced. I don't think this dispute would reach arbcom or have DS applied in the "modern" Wikipedia. If this dispute had started yesterday, I'd have every reason to expect that normal community processes would handle it. But it didn't, and there's obviously still disputes and disruption in the area, and that makes this a "don't rock the boat" case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Happy to see this archived whenever. It was worth asking this question, but from skimming the discussion below, it seems it's worth retaining these discretionary sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain/Recuse

Arbitrator comments/discussion

• Submitted for community comment. This case is from 2006, when Wikipedia was still in its infancy. The discretionary sanctions in this topic area have not been used since 2014. Most editors involved in the original dispute no longer edit Wikipedia. Looking at the original dispute, it seems likely the community could have resolved it if the dispute occurred today. This seems like a case where, after over a decade of article probation and discretionary sanctions, ArbCom should step back and hand this back over to the community. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: There's no real WikiProject for this, and most of the editors involved in the initial dispute/topic area simply are no longer editing Wikipedia, in many cases, for nearly a decade. I'll drop a note at Talk:Waldorf education, but there's not many people to even potentially notify about this anymore, based on editing patterns of the original parties. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      WP:ANI could not handle this? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]

I'm not quite sure where to put this reply. IF this is the improper place, please let me know or I give you absolute permission to place it in the proper section. But specifically I think the benefit of ArbCom sanctions is to forgo the bureaucratic burden of ANI. As I said below, "community" is an interesting term to use in this case, given the very fringe nature of these topics. Typically, the only people who become interested in editing in these areas are people familiar with the material from real life. I have to confess I am an exception, having only encountered these topics on wiki. But most other editors involved are either passionate about the philosophy inherent to the Waldorf movement's background, or have some bone to pick about the school system (former pupils, scorned ex-employees, etc). So the "community" is intensely polarized. ArbCom sanctions enable and promote the involvement of uninvolved administrators, and give these admins authority to enforce rulings set down by ArbCom that, in my opinion, are on the nose. Relegating these issues back to the community via ANI will only increase the bureaucratic burden necessary to resolve any disputes, and create barriers for any uninvolved editor wishing to help restore NPOV and counter COI in these articles. --Shibbolethink ⁽♔ ^♕) 16:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and comments (Waldorf education)

• If discretionary sanctions aren't being used then either (a) there is no need for them, or (b) the threat of them is keeping the topic area calm. There is no quick or easy way for an outside observer to tell which - have you (BU Rob13 or another arbitrator) sought the opinions of those editors working in the topic area? Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the comments below from those that are involved in this topic area, I'm convinced that now is not the correct time to be rescinding these discretionary sanctions. Whoever is right or wrong regarding the COI/POV/etc allegations (I don't have an opinion) the topic area is clearly not uncontroversial and the best way forward is to get more editorial involvement with the topic with the discretionary sanctions available to be deployed quickly should the need arise, especially as there is a high likelihood that newcomers will be strongly polarised for or against before they arrive at the article - it feels similar to the Scientology topic area in this regard. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have not personally seen disruption on this topic area over the past 18 months, and have no reason to believe it to be more controversial than similar topics such as
  π, ν) 17:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Reply I would dispute that Waldorf education is less controversial (or equivalent) when compared to the Montessori system. Montessori schools have no connection to pseudoscience, are not related to a large-scale system of mystical occultic traditions, and have not been accused of abusing special-needs children or neglecting pupils, encouraging bullying, or intentionally ignoring or subverting vaccination requirements. Waldorf school officials in several countries have been accused (and in some cases, found criminally guilty) of all of these. Off the top of my head, I don't believe the same is true of any Montessori school. I've never heard of anyone filing lawsuits alleging that Montessori schools are anti-science or subverting the teaching of evolution, etc. pursuant to the legal requirements of educational institutions. This has happened in several US states re: waldorf schools. --Shibbolethink ⁽♔ ^♕) 20:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Two editors (of opposing POVs) have presented the case for why this remains a dispute. I don't immediately see why the dispute requires Discretionary Sanctions, but have not read those comments in detail yet. Simply being contentious is not sufficient to require discretionary sanctions.
    π, ν) 18:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

You're absolutely right. I think it is the nature of that dispute that requires discretionary sanctions to be maintained. Certainly not every article discussed on the Fringe Theories noticeboard requires ArbCom intervention. I just think this one does, for the reasons outlined above.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As an editor who, in the past, has attempted to bring these articles to NPOV, I am very opposed to your lifting any sanctions. I noticed this set of articles related to Anthroposophy a few months after I resumed editing back in 2014 after a very long hiatus. What I found was a set of articles that were slowly, but surely, whitewashed by a set of agenda-focused editors. At least two, if not most of the five or so editors were directly connected to Waldorf schools or Anthroposophical professional societies. Whenever any editor from the outside of this world showed up, this set of very involved editors systematically blocked all changes that added peer-reviewed, science-based content. Eventually, the outside editor gave up, and then slowly, over the next several months, Hgilbert/Clean Copy and a few other editors picked away at the added content and restored the article to its original biased POV-ridden state.

This happened even in the presence of sanctions, though the threat of such sanctions was helpful. But this is why any idea that the "community" can police itself is a farce to my eyes. Especially in these very fringe areas of the wiki, the "community" consists of many many people with agendas for and against the topics discussed. I will admit that, as someone completely unfamiliar with the topic material when I arrived, I became quite biased myself and had to restrain any urges to POV edit in the other direction. When you read the outside sources available on the topic, and then read the wiki article itself, it becomes clear very quickly how biased the article is.

It's a bureaucratic nightmare to make a difference, though, and I'm not the only editor who has complained. A quick glance through the talk page archives will show several other editors who have also failed to penetrate what has been described by others as "Fort Steiner." The only difference in the recent months is that old editors who used to appear out of thin air to voice support for this whitewashing appear to be inactive. But I would caution that this is no reason to lift sanctions... The process of reinstating them takes so long, and the process so drawn out, that it only adds to the bureaucratic burden of any editor who wishes to bring these articles to a NPOV. It will only cause more whitewashing.

Hgilbert/CC may have verbally agreed to avoid editing COI, but days later resumed editing the article. He has not adhered to the traditional idea of a COI restriction, which is voluntarily requesting edits on the talk page. Instead, he edits large swaths of the article, reverting other editors, exhibiting characteristics of "wiki-ownership." It is this behavior in particular that I would think discretionary sanctions are deterring.

Ultimately, it is the ArbCom's call, but I know personally that if another editing dispute happens in these articles, I won't want take the time or the effort to bring it back to ArbCom. It's much easier to let "Fort Steiner" return to what it was...An obscure corner of the internet where a few POVs have successfully white-washed educational institutions that are on record promoting alternative medicine, magical thinking, anti-science views, racial hierarchies, eugenics etc... I think the article in question is in a much better state now than it was a year ago. Or five years ago. But it doesn't take more than a few weeks for all of that to be reversed.

If requested, I am happy to find diffs or talk page archives to support the above statements, subject to interpretation of course. The only reason I haven't already done so is that I'm right smack dab in the middle of writing my PhD thesis (on hemorrhagic fever vaccines), and I don't think my advisor would take kindly to my spending a few hours on this instead... --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps a word of explanation of my situation here as the only remaining editor who was involved in the disputes long ago.

1. Other editors received severe penalties from those disputes. I did not. There were very aggressive POV editors involved in these disputes who were sanctioned for their hostile, bullying attitude and refusal to adequately source material.
2. It was never clear that my connection to Waldorf education -- that I work in the field -- makes me a COI editor; I receive no payment for anything related to PR work, benefit in no way from this article, etc. I compare my situation to a professor in the New York State University (SUNY) system; such a person should ensure that edits are well-sourced and unbiased, but would not be prevented from editing.
3. I have not been in problematic disputes over the article for many, many years--at least until this issue was just raised. I have always worked with other editors in a harmonious fashion. When I was recently accused of having a COI conflict, I stated my belief that this was not the case but offered to voluntarily avoid any edits that possibly could be considered as questionable in this regard.
4. For many years, my emphasis has been ensuring that material in the article was well-sourced. People have frequently called for "more criticism" on the talk page (which sounds already POV); I have always requested verifiable sources for this. I have added critical material when this was well-sourced and have never removed sourced critiques of WE (exception: I have tried to keep both critique and praise about individual schools (out of the more than 1000 Waldorf schools in the world) out of the article; there is far more positive news of this type than negative, but either way it isn't really relevant to an article about the education as a whole.
5. I have no stance on whether sanctions should be removed; I am only clarifying my own editing position. My priority is to keep the editing environment harmonious and mutually supportive and to maintain WP standards, including NPOV and V. Clean Copy^talk 03:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment Perhaps the most persnickety part of the POV in Waldorf-related articles is the hyper-erudite nature of the background material. As an esoteric society, the Anthroposophical movement has a massive back catalog of pseudo-academic sources to draw from, many of which are still publishing today. I believe an ArbCom ruling in the past has dictated that these Anthroposophical sources are useful for matters of fact, but not for matters of opinion or analysis, given their inherent pro-Waldorf bias.

It is these sources which Hgilbert/Clean Copy has drawn from in large fashion, given his background in Anthroposophical higher education. It is also these sources which he prizes higher than the many many news articles and investigative and editorial magazine pieces which depict criticisms of the Waldorf system. These journalistic pieces have been published in venues like The Atlantic, The New Yorker, National Geographic, The Chronicle of Higher Education, BBC, NPR, The Guardian, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, and others. I can think of many instances off of the top of my head when Hgilbert/Clean copy has removed these journalistic WP:RS in favor of hyper-erudite Anthroposophy-adjacent pseudo-academic literature sources. He then has made an argument that, since his sources are academic journals, that they should be more reliable for matters of fact and analysis of Waldorf school theory. I think the COI inherent in these actions speaks for itself.

I would caution the Arbitration Committee to deliberate thoroughly and for a long period of time about the nature of COI and Waldorf schools. From an early period, Rudolf Steiner knew the benefits of separating Waldorf education from his philosophical movement. His intention was to create a system of schools to train children in the ways of thinking of Anthroposophy (a quasi-religious mystical movement), without the trappings of esoterica or mysticism that would turn most parents away. Rudolf Steiner himself actually said this! "We have to remember that an institution like the Independent Waldorf School with its objectively anthroposophical character, has goals that, of course, coincide with anthroposophical desires. At the moment, though, if that connection were made official, people could break the Waldorf School’s neck."

This necessity for a "clean slate" public image extends to Wikipedia. If one were to examine the many articles written on sites like Quackwatch, The Center for Inquiry, and Skeptic Magazine (1, 2, 3) about Waldorf schools from the perspective of former students and secondary education experts, and then compare these interpretations to the image presented on Wikipedia several years ago, it becomes clear exactly how much has been censured. This is the extent of a long-term campaign online on the behalf of Steiner societies and their adherents.

All it takes is one google search of "Waldorf education criticism" or "Waldorf schools history" to see how many throwaway SEO-ridden websites exist to repeat the same whitewashed material about these schools and their founding father, Rudolf Steiner. I would caution you, the committee, to consider thoroughly what needs to be done to protect the wiki from a similar fate.

Google and other internet behemoths have given Wikipedia an annointed position for its integrity, its verifiability, and its cozy relationship with the truth. Will removing sanctions further this project, of cataloguing and describing an unbiased view of the world? Or will it further the goal of Waldorf educators, in making their mystical and occult educational institutions appear more mainstream and less mystical than they actually are?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wild accusations: diffs, please. Clean Copy^talk 18:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are examples of CC advocating the exact position I ascribed to him in the above: (1 2 3 4 5)

Here are some diffs of CC or another editor removing well-sourced material from sources I mentioned above (or similar RS), in what I would interpret as "white-washing" (particularly in 6, 7, and 8, info watered down by CC was later removed wholesale. It was completely gone two months later): (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8).

And here CC adds pro-Waldorf material from dubious Anthroposophical sources: (1 2 3 4 5). An interesting aspect is that most of these pro-Waldorf sources are in German. It makes sense, since Waldorf education started in Stuttgart. It also obscures the ability for English editors to verify the RS-nature of these sources. But I also happen to read German, and am very confident in saying, in my opinion, these studies do not meet the quality necessary for inclusion on Wikipedia in terms of peer-review, wide circulation, etc. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Let's walk through these diffs one-by-one.

1. Set of 8 diffs with claim that cited material was being removed: #3 and #4 are exact duplicates, as are #5 and #8. (1) refers to solely a single school (2) content moved within same diff (also copy edits to wording, but I don't think that's what's being referenced here) (3,4 [duplicates]): second part of a two-part move of text to another section, as noted in edit summary. I even added the material to the new section before removing it from the old one to avoid misunderstanding (5,8 [duplicates]) slightly compressed excessively long text (6,7) in both cases, removing claims made that were clearly not in the citations given .
2. User:Shibbolethink later replaced (4) and (8), but the new diffs show rearrangements rather than removal of text, not sure what the problem is. Clean Copy^talk 21:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Set of 5 diffs with claim that these insert anthroposophical sources: Only #2 uses an anth. source, and this is to present the organization's own position, which is validated by
   WP:ABOUTSELF says organizations are verifiable sources for their own positions. (3) sourced to a book published by an independent academic press with peer review (4,5) Die Welt is a mainstream newspaper Clean Copy^talk 20:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]

In both newspaper articles, they refer to actions or studies conducted by what I am calling Anthroposophy-adjacent sources. Yes, the newspapers themselves are RSes. But only so far as the statement that the study was conducted and that people read about it.

These are not readily useful for confirming reliability or peer-reviewed nature of the study. Nor are books usually "peer-reviewed" in the same way that academic journal articles are peer-reviewed. Otherwise, as an analogy, we could be using the plethora of newspaper articles about studies to say that vaccines cause autism. And books about climate change published by mainstream publishers to say that it's fake. I don't think either would go over quite so well. Especially as a practicing scientist, I don't think that's exactly the "standard" we should be striving for here on the wiki.

I think I've probably spoken enough and said my piece, as a participant. I'm gonna go back to writing my dissertation. I suggest we let the chips fall where they may... Or at least let other people from the community have their turn.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Several years ago, I was looking over the
  Alexbrn
  was right when he said that "WP's mechanisms are currently inadequate to deal with the POV spin being put on [Waldorf education]".

At this point, it probably goes without saying that I'm very much inclined to oppose lifting discretionary sanctions covering Waldorf-related articles. The problem is not that the sanctions are unnecessary; it's that they're unused. It's a relatively obscure topic, meaning that it gets less traffic than, say, Falun Gong or Scientology. As a result, Waldorf education and anything to do with anthroposophy are largely ignored. I haven't read through either in a long time, but judging by the "reads like an advertisement" template at the top of the main article (dating back to November 2018, a mere three months ago), it's a safe bet that the issues persist to this day. Removing discretionary sanctions would be a step in the wrong direction. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect: when you posted that long post on the WE talk page, asking for more critical views, you listed several websites that you stated, were in your opinion not reliable sources, but gave no sources of such critical views that you felt were reliable. This has been a consistent pattern: a wish for criticisms of the education but no ability to provide sources for these. WP articles are not obligated to dig up dirt, no matter what the source of the dirt; they are obligated to represent the verifiably sourced views. Offer a verifiable source and it will be represented. I guarantee this. Clean Copy^talk 12:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for User:Kurtis, but I can say that I've had a remarkably similar experience. Actually, I have attempted to incorporate a number of WP:RS describing facts about Waldorf Education, and you or another editor systematically wrote them out of the article every time. Wherever you didn't do this, you slowly edited the article to provide counterpoints and weasel words that marginalized negative viewpoints. In this way, you exhibited a sense of WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, as you still continue to do. You're doing it right here. Saying that you guarantee any viewpoint will be represented, etc etc. You should not be guaranteeing this, as it isn't your article. The fact that every edit to the article is filtered through your COI and POV is the problem. Really what this article needs is an infusion of new voices and new people! Not me, not you, not anyone who either comes in with a bias or has developed one. It needs new editors. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, give me diffs to show where either of you ever tried to introduce reliably sourced material that is no longer in the article, or that I ever tried to remove. So far you have only given diffs that show text being moved around in the article, and complained about me introducing material that did reference reliable sources. Clean Copy^talk 17:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are serious about removing unreliable sources, there is material referenced to a blog post in the Anthroposophy article. Take it out. (Here's the diff for when it was added) Clean Copy^talk 17:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty large diff, so I apologize, but you'll have to tell me which source you are referring to. Quackwatch? As per this 2007 ArbCom decision, Quackwatch is a WP:RS for some specific cases. Especially when no other citable material exists on the internet. But in that case, Quackwatch is reprinting an article published elsewhere, and I cited that article to put forward the position of a particular person. In these cases, citing tertiary sources is acceptable, as you often point out and use on the Waldorf education article. Anthroposophist sources are reliable for their position statements, the same is true for critics of Anthroposophy and Waldorf school systems. But again, if the material in the article is backed up by several absolute easy-to-vet books that are WP:RS, and then also Quackwatch, I have no interest in removing the material. Are you referring to Quackometer Blog? The same is true in that case. The site is being referenced for the position of a prominent critic.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, yknow I didn't realize it but there's actually an infobox about Quackwatch, because its use as a RS is so often questioned! See below. This wouldn't necessarily apply to Quackometer Blog. But it probably does apply to Sciencebasedmedicine.org, which is itself a blog. Being a blog in and of itself is not a means to say something is not a WP:RS. It matters more about the use of the source in context, the editorial process of the site, etc. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Quackwatch as a source An Amendment to a previous ArbCom finding has been made. In the process, important observations were made about the use of Quackwatch as a source. Other significant discussions can be found at: -- RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery -- RS/N: How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? -- DR/N: Medical uses of silver

It is a Quackometer blog by someone named Andy Lewis. How is this a verifiable source?Clean Copy^talk 01:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my reply? Or just skim? Here's the relevant part:

Are you referring to Quackometer Blog? The same is true in that case. The site is being referenced for the position of a prominent critic.

— Shibbolethink, Wikipedia Arbitration Motions (26 February 2019)

If it makes you feel better, I'll remove that citation. Not because it's an improper use, or because of any reliability issues, but because compromise is the soul of progress. And that citation just isn't that central to the claim it's tacked onto. Again, the claim is just about the fact that many prominent critics exist. I won't remove the content itself, though, as it remains backed by the several other citations referenced.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are only verifiable sources if they stem from notable authorities. Lewis has no credentials as an educational specialist, or anything else relevant, so far as I can tell.

Similarly, how do you justify including statements by a random former Waldorf pupil Roger Rawlings and an acoustical engineer Dan Dugan in the lead? Are these supposed to be authorities on the subject? By what standard? Do all former Waldorf pupils and parents qualify as reliable sources? Would you accept positive statements on the same basis? If not this is clear POV editing (double standard). Clean Copy^talk 02:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore: how is this site even remotely a reliable source? In the same diff, you added it to the lead, as well. Clean Copy^talk 03:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confused about why I think the article has a POV. It had a POV because it only presented positive outlooks on the material and very few, if any, negative receptions of it. I never said I was against the positive-POV material wholesale. If I was, that would have been a double standard, as you say. What I have been criticizing is that the article only presented positive perceptions of the material. It also used positive-leaning sources to present misleading, false, or biased facts. These are two distinct issues.

Our job as editors is to provide a summary and reflection of what is known about the subject of an article, with proportional attention paid to positive and negative criticisms. It is clear that a number of negative opinions exist about the Waldorf educational system and the Anthroposophical movement itself. A number of positive opinions exist as well. This is reflected in the many primary (or in-universe secondary) POV pro-Waldorf sources. Most of which are suitable as far as opinions go, but not as far as facts go.

But there are also a number of WP:RS unbiased fact-based sources that depict negative critical opinions, and some primary sources of those critics themselves. This content is WP:notable if the critics have received coverage in WP:RS. But we can also cite the primary sources as well, to depict the criticisms themselves, as long as we've established notability. That is what I've done with regards to the diffs you're referencing. What you and other editors were chastised for in the 2007 ArbCom decisions was using POV sources on matters of fact, couched in objective language. In the diffs you're referencing, I'm using them to depict negative opinions, not any objective facts.

But also, please don't go and add a bunch of positive opinions to the article to counteract the very few negative ones we've added, because then you'll also be unbalancing the scale and not depicting a proportional view of the subject material. The articles already have a huge amount of positive subjective and objective content. If you do this, I will take it to ANI and find an uninvolved administrator who will most likely agree and impose the temporary topic bans allowed under discretionary sanctions.

I won't be removing the waldorfcritics.org reference, as it is again a reprint of an article held in an encyclopedic book (The Encyclopedia of Unbelief), and that book itself is arguably a WP:RS, especially for matters of opinion and notability of those opinions. And that's what the citation reflects. It was published in a book, and reprinted on that website. These criticisms are also depicted in the WP:RS I linked to above which establish their notability, the very same ones you or other editors removed. For example, Dan Dugan's criticisms are depicted in pieces published in The Atlantic, EdWeek, SfGate, The Chicago Tribune, and The Independent.

I think it's high time we take this back to the talk page. I, for one, have said what I think I needed to say here, and then some. At this point, we're talking in circles. We should take it back to the talk page and attempt to reach a broader consensus from the community on specific edits. Discussing the broader ideas of the article and accusing each other of things won't take us anywhere else. We've already shown it's a contentious set of articles.

If you remove those sources or that content, I will call for comment and get a community consensus on its inclusion. If you edit to remove this "negative" content even if we reach a consensus attesting to its conclusion, I think it will be clear enough that you'd be making decisions that depict your COI. At that point, I will take it first to administrators, who can employ the discretionary sanctions while they still exist. After that, perhaps back to ArbCom as User:Winged Blades of Godric advised previously. I'll take it one step at a time. But let's leave this poor Motions section alone. This is definitely not what it's for.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Clean Copy: Where did I ever say that they were unreliable sources? Are you referring to the comments directly below the external links? If so, then I think it's fair to remind you that I'm not the one who added those. For the record, I'm not saying that they were the greatest citations ever, but they were, as I said at the time, a start. Also keep in mind, you did add one of the links I provided to the article in this revision, along with what I would describe as biased-sounding text. My experience with this article has been similar to Shibbolethink in that there seems to be a pattern of systematic whitewashing of unfavorable opinions. It might be better now than it used to be (still haven't read through it a second time), but it does need to be monitored for neutrality. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In exactly that post, you listed several websites where you had found criticism and then stated, "I don't consider any of these domain names to be reliable sources." See the diff here. Incidentally, these are exactly the sort of domains to which criticism is now being sourced in the recent additions. It would be nice if you would weigh in on the quality again. Clean Copy^talk 10:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring exclusively to these two sources, which I still feel are probably too biased for Wikipedia. The ones in the subheader directly below my original analysis, however, I do feel are generally more reliable. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, one of these sources (waldorfcritics) has been added to the Anthroposophy article's lead. If you feel it is too biased, please weigh in there.Clean Copy^talk 22:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is fascinating to me that you continue to repeat this claim without replying to my clear and extensive description of exactly why and how that content should be included. It isn't content from waldorfcritics.org. The source is an article from a published and fairly extensively circulated anthology of articles about pseudoscience. It just so happens that it is ideologically digestible to the critics of waldorf schools and hence is reprinted on waldorfcritics.org. But all of that is immaterial since the criticism is covered extensively in over a half dozen WP:RS newspaper and magazine websites. That coverage in secondary WP:RS is what gives the criticism notability and supports its inclusion. Your focus on the reprint which I included for ease of reference is confusing. Are you offended by its usage? Do you have a prior history with the website? I would ask you to please check these biases at the door and adhere to the voluntary COI restrictions you agreed to previously. Please do not continue this campaign to remove criticisms from these anthroposophical articles. I would appreciate it if, going forward, you instead worked together with us to improve the overall accuracy of these articles, instead of obfuscating any attempt to include the many prevalent and widespread criticisms.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that Waldorfcritics.org was a respository of reliable third-party sources. Please disregard my above comment about it being unreliable. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This hornet's nest has been poked. Keep the DS on.
  π, ν) 01:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Original discussion