(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 00:46, 12 December 2006 (→‎Ral315: removed, 24 hours after 4th vote to reject). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox Motion none 10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 12 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also




Current requests

Deltabeignet

Initiated by — Sebastian at 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

provide diffs showing that the involved parties have been notified on their talk pages

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


Statement by SebastianHelm

I am only a witness, I don't have any stake in this other than

  1. the desire to trust administrators and
  2. a minor disagreement about some deletions he did in a couple of articles, which is why I became aware of this. However, this request is not about a content dispute; I didn't write that part of the articles, and even if I did I would be able to solve this in a civil discussion.

I only want to initiate this quickly before I might get blocked. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected identity theft and User talk:Deltabeignet#Two more unexplained reverts to vandalism and take it from there. — Sebastian 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regard this as a case of fraud, which is a crime in the real world. In any functioning society, it would be persecuted in the interest of the community.

We should hold our administrators to the same standard. I think it should go without saying that an administrator who commits fraud and diruption of Wikipedia for months should be blocked immediately and be stripped of his admin status, and a community effort should be initiated to mitigate the harm he did. Moreover, if we find this is indeed a case of fraud (I'm not a lawyer), then those of us who live in the same country as the defendant have a moral obligation to considere if this person should be tried for fraud by the laws of his country.

Furthermore, I think we should conduct a serious intraspection why our community failed to act appropriately:

  1. This could go on for three months without being noticed. (Maybe his actions weren't beyond the threshold of normal vandalism initially, but we don't know. Someone should take a look at his and his sockpuppet's history to find out.)
  2. No administrator reacted when this case was brought up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (At least not until I raised it here, more than 24 hours later.) Instead, people were fiercely discussing cases such as a user who had a medieval quote on his user page.
  3. Even after I listed it here, there was nobody who know how to react, other than one person who asked me on my talk page. That feels to me as if I went to the police to report that I witnessed a crime, and the officers would just stare at me and ask: So what should we do about it?

It seems to me that we are not prepared to deal with the criminal energy of some of our users. If that was the WP:POINT of Deltabeignet's "experiment" then we should do our best to learn from it.

Minor note: Despite my statement that I am only a witness, someone listed me as an involved party. I strongly object to this; I don't know any legal system that would, as a rule, equate a witness with a suspect. This would only further discourage people who already take a big burden on themselves - people who have no personal gain from reporting crimes, but subject themselves to possible retaliation and expend much of their time for no other reason than that they feel it is their moral duty. There can be no doubt that I am reporting this for the sake of the community; as I explained, I have no stake in this matter. I therefore removed this entry.

It is already long past my bedtime; I already invested far more time than I had though I needed to. I have no desire to invest more time in this; I will observe the case sporadically; but if the honorable ArbComm feels I can be of service I will do my best to help. Please alert me on my talk page as I am taking this page off my watchlist for now. I apologize if this is not the correct way to bring this up, and if I said something I wouldn't have said if I had been more awake. — Sebastian 09:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC) — 10:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deltabeignet

thumb|I resign as an admin, but not as an editor.

The ArbCom is for the solving of disputes. This matter is clear-cut and does not require any of the Committee's time. I have fooled the community. I have abused my powers for tenuous reasons. I have already voluntarily admitted guilt and I apologise again. I thank Sebastian for his help in the matter, and politely request that he not make legal threats.
This was not a campaign of disruption; it was a loosely associated string of edits. (Begun, incidentally, when I forgot to log in one day.) Most of my actions were breaches of either WP:POINT or WP:DICK. None of the anonymous edits were themselves in bad faith. Rather, my chief mistake was the use of my admin powers (namely, rollback) for personal reasons.
After some thought, and considering my abuse of rollback, I have resolved to ask for voluntary de-adminship.
Naturally, I would prefer that I not be blocked. I have no further intent to disrupt, and, once my desysop comes through, no power to disrupt.
I have been scaling down my Wikipedia usage for a while now, and, due to some new commitments, will not be monitoring these events closely. (I'm not officially leaving, especially not when I'd be remembered for a stupid experiment rather than for making Layla a featured article.) Still, send any questions to my talk page, and I'll try to answer them in a timely matter. Deltabeignet 22:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Idont Havaname

<I am not very aware of the dispute between Deltabeignet and SebastianHelm; if I have the time, I will look into it further and perhaps make additional comments about it. However, I do know that User:Leyasu, a community-banned user who has gone through two arbcom cases, is in on this as well and continues to edit war with me [1], Deltabeignet [2], and SebastianHelm. He now calls himself the "rogue bandit" who can keep getting back on Wikipedia despite what the community says about him [3], consistently cries admin abuse, and refers editors who don't agree with him to policies, while all the while breaking WP:BAN. If any case in which Leyasu is involved, directly or indirectly, is accepted, I would like the arbcom to formalize his ban and make it permanent. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SebastianHelm just clarified a few things on my talk page. I do intend to look into the Deltabeignet case further. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by leyasu

I myself have no formal part in this except what i understand from Sebastian. I saw a vandalistic edit made on the Gothic Metal article; a blanking of cited material claiming it as cutting weasel words [4]. After this Sebastian left a messahe on the IP talk page i was using [5]. Alls i understand of this is that Deltabeignet blanked cited material, blanked a perfectly reasonable warning about the nature of vandalism [6] [7] (i was unaware of this or his adminship at this point), and then from reading his talk page found out about his abuse of admin powers which he freely boasted about.

Other than that, ive done nothing more than revert noted vandalism and pointed out the reason for doing so is the abuse of admin powers that Deltabeignet so freely and proudly boasts about commiting. 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Leyasu[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)


Midnight Syndicate

Initiated by Durova at 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Checkuser cases

Statement by Durova

I present this to the committee because it appears that most of the dispute's participants are embittered former business associates who have carried a longstanding dispute onto Wikipedia. Therefore further attempts at dispute resolution are unrealistic. Midnight Syndicate is a music group that produces Gothic rock primarily for computer games and haunted house attractions. The band's Wikipedia article has been the focus of an edit war that has waged for 2 months and collected 4 archive talk pages of debate in that time. The edit war has focused on whether the article should emphasize current or past membership and accomplishments, whether certain interviews that have been published in the music press claim undue personal credit for band achievements, and potential financial conflicts of interest regarding claimed affiliate firms (label, distributor, publisher).

Both sides have accused each other of sockpuppetry and one confirmed sockpuppet has been indefinitely banned.[20] [21] Some of the named parties in this dispute may be sockpuppets; I am uncertain. When I tried to mediate this dispute I recommended some WP:DR steps. The RFC was unsuccessful and the disputants declined other options. I then offered a compromise solution, provided links to several featured music band articles, and stressed that a neutral and informative article would benefit all concerned with specific suggestions about how to add the line referenced interviews and reviews, images, and music samples that the active editors were probably uniquely qualified to provide. The participants rejected the compromise proposal and made a few improvements before embroiling themselves in mutual accusations, much of which carried disturbing implications for Wikipedia's credibility. When I lifted the most recent block I did so with the caution that I was on the verge of submitting this matter for arbitration and repeated my advice to collaborate in accordance with policy. The edit war promptly resumed in bitter recriminations:

  • Unprotecting this page will quickly return us to these lenghty tirades from Mr. Vargo & his other chat names.[22]
  • Well, now you see how Skinny and his cohorts try to make this article into a press release and promotion for the band and it's business partners.[23]
  • Yes, we could do that. I suppose it would probably prove that Joseph Vargo is a despicable human being who has been defaming Midnight Syndicate every chance he gets.[24]

Applicable policies include WP:NOT, WP:OWN, WP:VANITY, WP:COI, WP:ADVERT, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOCK, WP:VANDAL, and WP:NPA. Given the nature of the dispute and multiple sockpuppetry, I doubt a community solution is feasible. Durova 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dionyseus

I find User:GuardianZ to be highly disruptive. He has used his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1 to tagteam in the Midnight Syndicate article. [25] User:GuardianZ continues to wrongly accuse me of blanking a request [26] [27] that I clearly never blanked. I highly suspect that User:Peacekpr is a sockpuppet of User:GuardianZ, it was created the day after User:GuardianZ was blocked for sockpuppetry and the very first edit was an investigation into me and User:Skinny_McGee. [28] Notice that User:GuardianZ, making his third edit under his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1, claimed to be investigating the Midnight Syndicate article, [29] this is quite similar to the investigation User:Peacekpr made into me and User:Skinny_McGee. If User:Peacekpr truly is a sockpuppet of User:GuardianZ, then User:GuardianZ has violated policy by evading a block despite being warned by User:khoikhoi on November 20 not to do so. [30] Dionyseus 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC) User:GuardianZ has violated NPA by referring to User:205.139.10.130 as a vandal [31] despite being previously warned by User:Friday not to make such claims. [32] Dionyseus 06:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC) User:GuardianZ, editing under his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1, again violated NPA by referring to User:Indigo1032's and User:Skinny_McGee's edits as vandalism. [33] [34] On November 1, User:GuardianZ, editing under his sockpuppet User:Oroboros_1, again violated NPA by calling User:Skinny_McGee "paranoid." [35] Dionyseus 06:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skinny McGee

I was surprised to see that Durova was initiating this request. While I have had extensive problems with GuardianZ, I thought we were getting close on the article despite how difficult she is to deal with. But, I’m probably too optimistic. GuardianZ has a history of lying and twisting facts. She claims to have clear evidence of certain claims, but then when you press her on those facts, you find she is making great leaps. Please see here [36] and here [37] (look at the section titled ‘Line Citations’ for the discussion of the “Star Beacon Journal”) for examples . Admittedly, I sometimes let my temper get the best of me, but I’ve been dealing with this woman’s penchant to lie and twist the truth for several months now and it gets very frustrating.

Most recently, after the protection was removed from the article, I made several edits to GuardianZ’s version of the article (see here for a comparison of GuardianZ’s version to the sum of my edits [38]). I moved some things around, removed one reference since she had cited a release date twice, and removed a few phrases we were still debating on the talk page. Overall, I felt the edits were very minor, but in classic GuardianZ fashion she blew it all out of proportion (please see here [39] for her response and my reply).

This whole thing started back in October when someone, using an anon IP address, posted a link to a website created by Joseph Vargo and Christine Filipak to defame Midnight Syndicate and Edward Douglas. Due to the highly biased nature of the site, I felt it had no place on Wikipedia. I removed the site, it was added back, etc. Eventually, GuardianZ decided to take advantage of the opportunity to add Vargo promotional material to the article and it all spiraled downward from there. All edits made by GuardianZ, banned sock puppet Oroboros 1, Peacekpr, and way back to Blooferlady have one goal: to promote Joseph Vargo and subtlely diminish the accomplishments of Midnight Syndicate. I thought we should use the credits as stated in the CD booklets since those were clearly agreed upon by all parties, and especially since the booklets were designed my Vargo's graphic design firm, Monolith Graphics, but apparently those aren't good enough.

Since I’ve never been involved in something like this before, I’m not exactly sure what my statement should contain. If I’ve gone in the wrong direction, please let me know. Thanks. - Skinny McGee 16:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding GuardianZ’s statement

Even in her statement below, GuardianZ continues to make claims that simply are not true. This is a prime example of what I’ve been dealing with for months now.

  • First, I have not removed any references today, so I couldn’t possibly have removed one while GuardianZ was making her statement (see edit history of article [40]).
  • Second, GuardianZ pretended to disagree with her proven sock puppet, Oroboros 1, to make herself look better. Clearly deceptive. Defender99 is my husband and he took it upon himself to add one innocuous fact to the article here [41] that had nothing to do with anything going on with me and GuardianZ, so to keep bringing that up is clearly her attempt to muddy the waters.
  • Third, she states “Almost all of the editing done per Skinny has been done by unsigned users”, implying I have some sort of vast web of editors working for me – not true. I don’t hide what I’m trying to accomplish.
  • Fourth, GuardianZ continues to insist that “Skinny removed a cite, claiming repetition, but that radio interview I cited was not to support a release date but in support of the album concept being created and produced by Joseph Vargo.” However, that reference was added at the end of a sentence which read "Published by Vargo's Monolith Graphics and distributed through Douglas' Entity Productions, Born of the Night was released in September 1998, just in time for the Halloween season." (see here [42]) The interview does not support that statement at all and the statement was cited twice, so I took that one off.
  • Fifth, how do you warp CD credits – they are what they are. And I never removed a Wiki link to the definition of producer (unless I removed the producer credit altogether since that is not how Vargo is credited on the CD booklet).
  • Finally, I am not fixated on removing credit for Vargo. I just think he should get the proper credit for his contributions and Midnight Syndicate should get their proper credit, too.

Sorry to get a little long here. I just felt it was important to point this out right away. Thanks. - Skinny McGee 21:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here [43] for proof that GuardianZ is misquoting two articles she cites. Thanks - Skinny McGee 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GuardianZ

Skinny McGee and Dionyseus have repeatedly removed verifiable statements and cites posted in the article. Their ONLY argument for doing so is that it promotes a former member and producer, Joseph Vargo, who helped establish the band between 1998-2000. Skinny (who I believe is Edward Douglas, the current band member), would rather never mention Vargo because the current members of this band are engaged in a subtle yet misleading form of warfare against their former member—using Wikipedia and the Press to propagate an entirely different version of history, one that is disputed by older press materials. The website that Skinny speaks of simply shows how the current band members have attempted to alter the band history in order to deceive the public and diminish the credits of it's former member. The [http:www.legionofthenight.com website] offers a lot of external sources to interviews "then and now", (some of which are still hosted by the band’s own website), plus copyright forms, letters from people that the band had dealings with, and a 1998 radio interview that shows undeniable proof that this "revisionist history" is occurring. I cannot help that their current statements to the Press are completely disputed by their past statements. The problem is that in showing the actual history, it also shows how the current members have been twisting things to suit their own purposes. I have cited each and every edit using the external sources only, none of which are defamatory. [44], and yet here Skinny removed them even as I was here making my statement!
I have only corrected the inaccuracies posted by Skinny and his suspected sockpuppets. I removed certain statements made by Oroboros_1 that did seem inflammatory [45]. I requested a second check into Oroboros_1 to clear my name [46], and though it was performed only in part it was inconclusive (the one that included Peacekpr turned up nothing in regards to myself). However, Dionyseus began harassing my user page. [47]
Skinny McGee admits to using his spouse Defender99 as a means to edit on his behalf right after he removed my content. [48] [49]. Almost all of the editing done per Skinny has been done by unsigned users whose IPs point to Chardon, Ohio, which is the home city of Midnight Syndicate. Dionyseus has tag-teamed with Skinny in reverting and removing all my cites and statements and has never once cited any of his own material. [50]. Skinny has made very obvious statements that serve only to promote what I believe to be his own company, and further removes any significant cited contributions made by the former band member.
Skinny removed a cite, claiming repetition, but that radio interview I cited was not to support a release date but in support of the album concept being created and produced by Joseph Vargo. Skinny pretends to be ignorant [51], but is only using that as an excuse to remove the verifiable content so he can change the credits to suit himself. Skinny also warps the CD credits, trying to alter the definition of Executive Producer and publisher (he once removed the Wiki link to the definition of a producer.
My stance has always been to honestly and fairly present the history, not to over-inflate anything and to give equal attention to each band member. My very first edit listed about 7 or 8 members that were in the band before Vargo, yet unsigned editors along with Midnight Syndicate's promoter Lizstjames removed the names and album credits, until it was later pointed out that she and Midsyndicate (who claimed to be Edward Douglas) could not use Wiki as a platform for promoting the band. The only reason I have been adamant on Vargo's credits is because Skinny has been so fixated on removing them time and again. GuardianZ 20:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny McGee is simply lying when he gives reasons for removing cites. The citation I added for the radio interview was to support a statement by Edward Douglas that Vargo suggested to Edward they create a Halloween CD and that the CD was based upon Vargo's own gothic works. The latter part of the sentence mentioned that the CD was published via Vargo's company. Both the first and second parts of the sentence were supported by 2 separate sources, the 1998 radio interview and a newpaper article in the Plain Dealer. Skinny (whi I believe is Douglas) in his attempt to alter the facts kept removing the citations in previous and more recent versions of the article so that Douglas' 2006 statements to Haunted Attraction Magazine will appear valid, however, those statements to that press source (an unreliable source given the amount of nepotism that appears on the magazine's forum) are disputed by the earlier statements that were made by unaffiliated press sources—and which were made prior to the dispute between the two band members. It is my belief that the earlier press is more reliable and therefore verifiable because it occured before the dispute.

Last sentence in a photo caption (Plain Dealer, October 30, 2000) reads: 

"In 1998 Monolith Graphics produced the cd Born of the Night which streamlined 
the music of local band Midnight Syndicate to appeal to a gothic audience. The success 
of Born of the Night spawned Midnight Syndicate's latest release, Realm of Shadows. "

The 1998 radio interview for the release of Born of the Night: Edward Douglas states: 

"Joe suggested we do a Halloween CD...  Joe wanted to create a Halloween CD that 
would have music that would reflect his artwork... to conceptualize a CD that would go 
along with the gothic artwork that you create... am I right Joe?"

I don't know how much clearer you can get than that. GuardianZ 19:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Izanbardprince

Initiated by Imgi12 (talk · contribs) at 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Note: Although no diffs were provided by Imgi12 in this section, the response by Izanbardprince indicates he/she is aware of the request. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Imgi12

Member Izanbardprince is consistently changing information to read at a liberal bias instead of NPOV. Over time I have attempted to provied a neutral point of view in both the "homosexuality" article and the "Family Pride" article, however one member, Izanbardprince, continually shows his bias against opinions other than his own and reverts or changes my posts. I ask that the respective posts be reviewed and a decision made as to the appropriateness of either.

Statement by Izanbardprince

Imgi12 is referencing extremist groups in article homosexuality and mis-labeling them as conservatives, I hardly think that an organization that wants homosexuals murdered and/or arrested is "conservative". I don't have an issue with their opinion being cited, but referencing them as conservatives in order to sway the reader towards your point of view is something else entirely, I feel I described Family Research Institute accurately with "anti-gay religious organization".

Said user is also degrading articles such as Family Pride by weasel wording, refering to homosexuals as "deviants", it's understood that homosexuals deviate from the social norm, and it's not necessary to inject words like this in such a venomous and derogatory tone.

I have reported this user for vandalism, and he's done the request for arbitration for "revenge", as you can clearly see on my user talk page. Izanbardprince 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Daniel.Bryant

Reading over this request, the articles in question (and their talk page), as well as the two users' talk page, I honestly don't believe this rises to a level where the ArbCom needs to intervene. As shown by the blank spot below the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" header, very minimal effort has been put in to sort out this problem, with users instead opting for the "throw insults at each other and hope that they go away" method. So, in summary, in my opinion, this case should be rejected and the parties sent to either MedCab, MedCom or RfC, or even the good ol' "talk it over and be civil" approach (as much as I have my doubts that this would work). Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Wildnox

It appears that there have been no attempts at dispute resolution, both users have violated 3RR, and Izanbardprince appears to be wikistalking Imgi12 [52]. My opinion looking at this is that not only should this request be denied but both users should be blocked to stop the edit wars that are brewing over into their talk and user pages and allow both users time to cool off. --Wildnox 05:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

Request for arbitration: Rgfolsom

Initiated by --Rgfolsom 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User talk:Smallbones

Confirmation that other steps in have been tried

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Socionomics Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Robert Prechter

Statement by Rgfolsom

After a dispute with User:Smallbones regarding Socionomics, I requested a mediation that has failed. The dispute followed me to Robert Prechter (the biography of a living person), and affects several other articles. I request arbitration.

This is not a content dispute. In the evidence pages I will detail how Smallbones violated several core Wikipedia policies:

  1. A pattern of bias in articles related to technical analysis, manifested by edits that do not adhere to a NPOV. These edits were labeled as such and considered disruptive by contributors to those articles. The bias also appears in Smallbones' different tone in the edits to articles on fundamental analysis. (Definitions below.)
  2. Incivility toward contributors to articles related to technical analysis, plus harassment and personal attacks against me for the stated purpose of stopping my contributions.
  3. Abuse of the mediation process in order to continue the personal attacks and biased edits.
  4. Overtly negative edits to the biography of a living person: smears, demonstrable falsehoods, and a calculated overemphasis on quotes of critics.

To understand the bias I allege, I respectfully ask that arbitrators grasp the difference between "technical" and "fundamental" analysis. One description is here. Put more succinctly, fundamental analysis says that "externals" (e.g. news events) drive financial markets, while technical analysis says that "internals" (e.g. sentiment) drive those markets.

This distinction can seem arcane. Yet the debate is a real one and is argued vigorously at all levels of finance, from millionaire traders to Nobel laureates. That said, the evidence page will speak for itself.

As for myself, my contributions have mostly been to Elliott wave principle, Socionomics, and Robert Prechter. These articles were overrun with bias and had few if any active editors. No contributors were improving the articles in keeping with Wikipedia standards.

I welcome scrutiny of my history as an editor, particularly my contributions to Elliott wave principle and John Calvin's biography. [53] [54] I have shown that I can write a neutral text about thorny issues (Calvin), and write neutral articles where there is a potential COI (Elliott wave principle). I have expanded and included specifics for the "criticism" sections of articles with a potential COI.[55] [56] [57] [58]

I am a writer with a long-running financial column. My Internet readership runs well into the tens of thousands. I am an employee of Elliott Wave International; by using the handle "Rgfolsom" to contribute to Wikipedia regarding Elliott wave, it is self-evident that I did not intend to disguise my identity.

I deeply regret that my contributions were part of an edit war, and that my tone was sometimes less than civil. I trust that the arbitrators will recognize that the conflict is with this one other editor; Talk:Socionomics shows my painstaking attempts to satisfy his demands, and that I cited chapter & verse of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have let the mediator know that he is free to release all of my emails from the socionomics mediation.

Thank you. --Rgfolsom 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Smallbones

Smallbones' statement includes several claims that are contrary to the facts.

  • He states that I "essentially" deny the applicability of WP:V, and that at some earlier point my citations were "all from Robert Prechter." These are the facts:
  1. The first citation I included in Robert Prechter's biography was the New York Times.
  2. Three of the first six citations I included were to credible third-party publications.
  3. Ten of the 13 total citations I have included are to credible third-party publications (NYT, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, USA Today, et al.).
I did this because of the need for verifiability from neutral sources. And for the record, I have never said and do not believe that I am "the only person capable of editing the Prechter article."
  • As the arbitrators are well aware, no editor can "threaten" another editor into the voluntary process of mediation. Indeed, that process is supposed to be a rational step toward resolving a dispute. To wit, the remarks about mediation we exchanged on the day before I made the request:
If you still find all of this to be unsatisfactory, then I think it's fair to conclude that we should go to Wikipedia with a request for mediation. Rgfolsom 16:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do request mediation if you'd like. Smallbones 18:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, is bizarrely ironic for him to claim that I "didn't discuss anything" during the socionomics mediation. Smallbones asked that the process be private, and I agreed (instead of insisting on the public exchange that I had requested first). Now I'm obliged to state what is beyond obvious: He cannot know what I discussed because my emails to the mediator were privileged.
  • The mediation cabal request was filed on December 7; I did not "ignore" it, but spoke directly to the proposal:
You can take the mediation or mediation cabal route, but I suggest that first you do some more due diligence regarding Smallbones and me. You may save time that you'd later regret having wasted.
I was preparing my arbitration request to submit on the very next day (December 8), which I did. The socionomics mediator can confirm that my decision to request arbitration came as early as December 5.

As for Smallbones' other claims regarding my conduct, those I'll address in full with the facts I've prepared for the evidence pages. --Rgfolsom 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CanaryInACoalmine

I attempted unofficial mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Robert Prechter but this has apparently failed. I tried to comment about the process and conduct of both User:Rgfolsom and User:Smallbones at Talk:Robert Prechter where the substance of my attempts at mediation can be seen. I have no interest in sponsoring one case or the other, but I found the conduct of both parties to be disruptive.
Smallbones was insistent on making his posts which sharply diverged from Rgfolsom's views. Rgfolsom aggressively and repeatedly removed anything that didn't meet his approval, as if he "owned" the article and ignoring many WP guidelines despite insisting vehemently that he compliant. Smallbones continued either to revert or to create new versions, none of which met with Rgfolsom's approval and triggered more nuclear responses.
Rgfolsom however has a material WP:COI since he is an employee of Robert Prechter. He has serially failed to address this issue (which in my opinion makes him ineligible to contribute to this article) preferring to continue to war very aggressively and to attack Smallbones personally; often these attacks were venomous and nasty. Of the few editors contributing to this article, most were aligned around Smallbones' view; none that I know of took Rgfolsom's side. However the apparent nastiness of the anger and energy that Rgfolsom invested in asserting control over the argument saw other editors fade away; Smallbones continued to make his case and this led to escalation of the edit war.
Lastly, it seem that Rgfolsom presumes that his understanding of WP rules has "absolute status" and that any divergent view must be ignore, attacked or silenced. However, he complains about the same behavior in others. This "asymmetry" is difficult to deal with as he rejects any attempt to discuss his tactics as being "discussing the editor and not the subject". My early attempts to do so were met with hostility, but only after I cited rules & guidlines from WP did this hostility reduce. I did not achieve successful resolution of discussing either eligibility under COI rules or behavior.
Regardless of the COI, I feel that both parties have violated many WP rules and guidelines and if forced to express a view I would say that Rgfolsom is the more culpable. I do not suggest that Smallbones is unimpeachable.
Please note, I do not endorse either view, but the direction of the conflict is clear. This my considered opinion. CanaryInACoalmine 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated my user page to explain that my sole interest is to mediate. I have no preference for which way arbitration goes, I just seek resolution. CanaryInACoalmine 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to statement by Dionyseus
Dionyseus, Punanimal is known to me but we are not the same person. I will also confirm that I used to edit the Socionomics article, when I was very unsophisticated in my understanding of Wikipedia. I have reflected much on this over the last few months, and have realised that WP is a valuable asset to humanity and that, probably, I suffer from the objectivity/subjectivity problem. I'm not sure I'd make a good editor for this issue, but mediation is something I feel capable of. This is why I have adopted a stance of "mediation only". Perhaps I should have pre-declared this, in the interests of full disclosure? If you feel that I am should therefore also be a subject of the arbitration places, then please feel free to pronounce your verdict. CanaryInACoalmine 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 19:40, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts
I would also like to note that I found my attempt at mediation very difficult, and will be happy no longer to be involved. It's been a learning experience, in many respects. I think my ambitions to be a general mediator will be short-lived and I intend to cease contributing to Wikipedia completely. I'll use my energies elsewhere. CanaryInACoalmine 10:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smallbones

User:Rgfolsom is Robert Folsom a longtime senior writer employed by Robert Prechter and his “Socionomics Institute.” [59] Thus Folsom has a financial stake in the articles “Robert Prechter,” “Socionomics,” and “Elliott Wave Principle.” Socionomics and Elliott Wave Principle are marketing tools used to sell Prechter’s “Elliott Wave Theorist” investment newsletter, but they masquerade as scientific theories.

Folsom has been politely asked to refrain from editing articles where he has a conflict of interest. [60] [61]His explanations of his edits are almost always accusatory or contain personal attacks. He has reverted the last 9 edits in a row that I’ve made to Robert Prechter and 8 out of the last 9 edits I’ve made in Socionomics.

In one recent comment he essentially denies the applicability of the rules WP:V and WP:NPOV and basically states that he is the only person capable of editing the Prechter article. [62]

Socionomics is a non-scientific theory based on the Elliott Wave Principle. It has little or no support in the academic community, there are no peer-reviewed articles that use the term socionomics, and essentially everything published about it is self-published by Prechter. I’ve asked Folsom for examples of scientific acceptance and he has produced 4 (a footnote in a peer-reviewed journal, a vague quote from a popular science magazine, a conference paper from a Prechter employee, and 2 questions accepted for a political science survey).

While getting this information on scientific acceptance, made clear he was not going to accept the word “non-scientific” in the article and threatened me with mediation. He did not mediate in the sense that he didn’t discuss anything. If the committee for some reason wants to look at Folsom’s e-mails, they should also look at all 10 of my e-mails with the mediator.

In the Prechter article, he refuses to let a quote from the front page of the Wall Street Journal in. The quote is paralleled by a quote from Fortune, which he cuts out as well. When I put in 9 citations (Business Week, Esquire, more Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, etc.) he says there are too many citations. He has improved his own citations recently. Previously they were all from Robert Prechter, now there are a few minor business publications among them. Anything that can be viewed as criticism of Prechter, Folsom cuts or cuts down to a minimum and puts at the end of the article in a small section called criticism.

Folsom has turned down the chance to mediate this through the mediation cabal, by simply ignoring the request.

I do get angry when Folsom denies me the opportunity to edit his “boss’s pages” and I apologize for my anger. Smallbones 17:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

addition Given the behavior of the 'mediator' which only draws attention to himself and away from the main points, I'll ask that this RfA be strictly limited to issues involving user:Rgfolsom and myself. Smallbones 14:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved party, User:Dionyseus

I noticed that an anon edited User:CanaryInACoalmine's statement. [63] I was about to revert it, but then I looked at the anon's contribution history and it revealed that the anon has an interest in the Socionomics article just like User:CanaryInACoalmine does. Further investigation revealed that the anon had edited User:Punanimal's userpage. [64] User:Punanimal allowed for the edit to remain, [65] this suggests that the anon and User:Punanimal is the same person. Why is this relevant? It is relevant because a look into User:Punanimal's contribution history reveals that the user has an interest in the Socionomics and Robert Prechter articles, just like User:CanaryInACoalmine does. What made me more certain that these three users are the same person is that just minutes after the anon edited User:CanaryInACoalmine's statement, User:CanaryInACoalmine apparently logged in and modified the statement, using the same edit summary that the anon used, and modifying the signature replacing the anon ip with his own. [66] Dionyseus 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Threaded discussion in Dionyseus's statement section by CanaryInACoalmine has been moved to a subsection of CanaryInACoalmine's original statement, entitled "Reply to statement by Dionyseus". Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0)


Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.



Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture

The following was copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Popular culture and fiction some time ago:

[...] when a substantial body of material is available [...] the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

Some questions have risen as to the interpretation of that phrase ("can't work out what it's trying to say" [67]). Could the arbitrators clarify what the above sentence means? Or would they say the sentence should be clear in its context (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture)? --Francis Schonken 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep the discussions on a single spot, may I ask the Arbitrators to post their clarifications at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Unclear sentence? Tx! --Francis Schonken 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's unclear? In the context of the case, it says that, given a large corpus of material on a topic, that has not been subject to scholarly analysis, it is acceptable to quote selectively and with qualification from it. Charles Matthews 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=93703571"