all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority (9 active).

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Central policies

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability are core polices.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view

2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly represented.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Verifiability

3) 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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Though this smacks of a content ruling.[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conflict of interest

4) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, strongly discourages editing regarding an organization by those associated with the organization, especially in a public relations capacity. As applied to this matter, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies to those persons associated either with the Waldorf schools or with PLANS, an anti-Waldorf organization, who are aggressively editing Waldorf school and related articles in a biased manner.

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deprecation is not really explained on WP:COI, but the fact that COI can fuel edit wars and militates against their resolution is certainly important. Charles Matthews 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a battleground

5) Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or advertising, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, nor is it a battleground for struggle, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Declaratory judgement

6) In the case of a dispute where users editing in good faith have misunderstood basic policy, it is more appropriate to interpret the policy and expect the users to conform than to restrict their editing.

Please, let's all always move forward by assuming good faith. Good
people, trying to do a good thing for the world, balancing many complex and competing concerns. It's a complex mess. That's because the world is a complex mess. We're all doing our best here.
--Jimbo

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Article probation

7) An article or set of articles which have diverged significantly from encyclopedic standards may be placed on probation. Articles which are on probation shall be reviewed periodically and if they do not significantly improve, appropriate additional remedies restricting editing of those editing the article or articles may be imposed.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and related articles

1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and related articles contain large amounts of original research and information gathered from Anthroposophical related sources which are for verification purposes properly considered self-published by the Anthroposophy movement.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Polarized editing

2) "There tend to be two strongly polarized parties editing these articles, one sympathetic to the themes, one antagonistic to them." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Statement_by_Hgilbert. See this comment by Fergie.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Extended family

3) The extent and coverage of articles relating to Waldorf schools, Rudolf Steiner and Anthrosophy is quite large, extending to articles upon details of Steiner's philosophy such as Social Threefolding which may not have broken into mainstream culture and discourse.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editwarring and conflict

4) The principals in this matter, to varying degrees, have engaged in aggressive editing.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Hgilbert

5) Hgilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a teacher in a Waldorf school and a writer regarding the educational theories used at the Waldorf schools [1] [2]. His edits are strongly supportive of the Waldorf schools and their philosophy of education, see an early edit. He has also edited Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and other related articles with a strong positive bias. He has made some edits to Homeopathy and related articles, but very few to other articles outside those related to Rudolf Steiner and the Waldorf schools.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Original research by Hgilbert

5.1) Hgilbert has repeatedly added information, apparently from his own knowledge or studies, without providing references to a reliable source [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Inadequate and inappropriate references by Hgilbert

5.2) Hgilbert has sometimes advanced material as references which are not references, simply his own original research or tendentious assertions, while his references sometimes refer to books, they do not do so with specific reference to pages in the book [12] California court decision.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

DianaW

6) DianaW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a concerned activist, see mailing list post regarding editing struggle on Wikipedia on mailing list sponsored by PLANS. Apparently attracted to Wikipedia by the Waldorf school controversy, she has made some edits to unrelated articles.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Pete K

7) Pete K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an activist, see mailing list post regarding editing struggle on Wikipedia on mailing list sponsored by PLANS. Pete K's edits have generally been limited to articles related to Rudolf Steiner and the editing controversies connected with them. Pete K maintains a mailing list WaldorfQuestions [13].

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal attacks by PeteK

7.1) PeteK has directed personal attacks at his opponents "I think this shows mental instability and, coupled with his frequent wild accusations and unintelligible rantings, this hate page".

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Original research by PeteK

7.2) PeteK has inserted original material personal attack, citing himself

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Thebee

8) Thebee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an activist who supports the Waldorf Schools [14]. HIs editing has been limited to Rudolf Steiner related articles.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Venado

9) All edits by Venado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are related to Rudolf Steiner and associated editing controversies.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Professor marginalia

10) With a few exceptions all edits by Professor marginalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are related to Rudolf Steiner and associated editing controversies.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation

1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

My proposals are not comprehensive. Should proposals for individual user be offered, additional findings of those users' specific behavior would be appropriate. Fred Bauder 21:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

James F's edit summary on voting suggested that some more proposals may be added. Is the case still being discussed or is it cleared for closure? --Srikeit 10:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Close. Everything has passed. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Charles Matthews 11:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close Fred Bauder 22:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]