Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner

Rudolf Steiner

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Closed due to inactivity.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 02:39, October 8 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Articles involved

Two further articles involved, removed from the list by Pete K on 14 October, in seeming violation of the rule for Requests for mediation

"Non-committee members may not remove anything from this page or accept/reject cases; this may only be done by members of the Mediation Committee." are

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy
User:Longhair help from an administrator

Issues to be mediated

Initial list

Most signatures to the mediation process were given in response to this list of mediation issues

Exclusion of works by members of the Anthroposophical Society as sources on anthroposophy; in particular a report by a Dutch commission on Steiner's comments about race. (This is at issue in two articles)
Consistency of a policy on identifying authors' affiliations (should authors not members of the A.S. be protected from any identification of their background or affiliations).
Extent and number of quotations by Rudolf Steiner on race/ethnicity related topics in the main article Rudolf Steiner when an entire sub-article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity is devoted solely to this question, and provides room for all such quotations.
Use of links to pages including original research, or use of such pages as sources.
- Use of links to pages not including original research (transcripts or articles) residing on websites that do include original research
Inclusion of editorial commentary on sourced material ("This conclusion is not surprising given the author's obvious bias...", etc.)
Appropriateness of biographical information in the article about Rudolf Steiner (this is contested)
Objectivity of information in and tone of Waldorf education article
Tone of comments on talk pages, including the question of whether Wikipedia policies such as the assumption of good faith and avoidance of personal attacks are being followed.

Amended list by a second party

On October 14, after all of the below signatures were given, the above list was deleted and replaced with the following (by Pete K)

Disguising the sources of information/reports when such sources are clearly biased - specifically disguising of works by members of the Anthroposophical Society as sources on anthroposophy; in particular a report by a Dutch commission on Steiner's comments about race. (This is at issue in two articles)
Editors "teaming up" to file unwarranted complaints about editors with opposing POV's in an attempt to ban editors
Repeated deletion of properly cited quotations that are critical of Steiner or Waldorf
Repeated selective citing of Wikipedia policy to intimidate new users
Producing / reverting edits on controversial pages without discussion
Editors "teaming up" to revert edits and gaming the 3RR rule
Editors who appeal to administrators to protect or semi-protect articles not involved in an edit war in an attempt to preserve their POV
Abuse of the mediation process
Abuse of the Wikipedia Guidelines
One editor's continued implication of and smear campaign against watchdog group PLANS in a related articles - including allegations of "hate group" and "activities characteristic of hate groups" - citing his own self-produced reference.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. Hgilbert

Agree --Vindheim 09:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Comments on discussion page.DianaW 12:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree~~ trueblood 19:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)-withdrawn trueblood 07:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree~~ Professor marginalia 22:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)-Withdrawn Professor marginalia 01:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. — goethean ॐ 13:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Thebee 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Fergie 20:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Lumos3 09:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Wonderactivist 22:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accept:

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 02:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.