Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement by CanaryInACoalmine[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 uninvolved party, User:Dionyseus[edit]

I noticed that an anon edited User:CanaryInACoalmine's statement. [1] 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. [2] User:Punanimal allowed for the edit to remain, [3] 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. [4] Dionyseus 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links [5] and [6] from User:Dionyseus's statement above do not work. 67.117.130.181 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification regarding Robert Prechter (and Socionomics)[edit]

Socionomics is one of the articles at issue in this Arbitration. On January 27, it was listed as being considered for deletion. I've been a contributor to the Socionomics article, though not in the period since the Committee agreed to hear this case; the other editor in this Arbitration dispute and I have both observed an unspoken "cease-fire." I do not want to break that cease-fire.

The RfD has raised issues that edits to the article could address, but I have gone no further than to make my case to "Keep." Nevertheless, the editors who have voted "Delete" seem aggressively eager to proceed, despite knowing that Socionomics is part of this Arbitration. I would greatly appreciate guidance from the Committee regarding these issues. Thank you. --Rgfolsom 16:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is an offshoot of the problems caused by my 3 week Christmas vacation interupting the arbitration on Robert Prechter. It seems that User:Rgfolsom and myself are done putting in all our evidence, etc. on the Robert Prechter arbitration. I'd think it better if the ArbCom decided the issue as a whole, rather than have have socionomics deleted right away. I don't of course argue with editors rights to delete socionomics. Smallbones 18:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Request for deletion can run its course without affecting the arbitration. Fred Bauder 06:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Socionomics has now been deleted. I understand that the long delay in dealing with this matter has been caused by my long absence during my Christmas vacation, but may I ask if this matter will be taken up again, or what kind of schedule might be reasonable to expect? User:Rgfolsom has started up again with complete reversions [7] on articles where he has an obvious conflict of interest, this time on Elliott wave principle. Smallbones 09:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee may wish to note my direct appeal to User:Smallbones, imploring him to refrain from editing articles that are at issue in our arbitration case.
--Rgfolsom 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification (July 2007)[edit]

The Robert Prechter case (decided about four months ago) indefinitely banned smallbones from articles related to Prechter. Smallbones’ equally aggressive hostility to Technical analysis was a key point in the outcome of the case, as is clear from this comment on the workshop page by an arbitrator.

“The problem is that you go a little too far. It is TA [technical analysis] that you maintain is pseudoscience, not just the Elliot Wave. The problem for me is determining if editing restrictions are necessary for you as a result of habitual POV editing. Fred Bauder 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)”

In the past couple of days, smallbones has reappeared on technical analysis, with inflammatory comments and edits. I am requesting clarification from the Committee on whether smallbones’ participation in the technical analysis article is in keeping with the remedy in the Prechter case. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 00:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a third-party not involved in the original arbitration, I find Smallbones's edits to technical analysis be appropriate, modest, and consistent with Wikipedia rules. His only edits were to remove a passage that plainly violated WP:SYN/WP:NOR and to reinsert (once) a dispute tag that Rgfolsom inappropriately deleted through reversions on three occasions in 24 hours. The only POV-pusher here is Rgfolsom, who has WP:OWN issues with this article. THF 01:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Committee members may wish to assess the comment from THF in light of recent examples of incivility, name-calling, and unfounded suggestions of bad faith. --Rgfolsom 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to conclude that the "topic ban" would not apply to the technical analysis article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I will respectfully ask you and other administrators to please look again at the most recent activity on the Technical analysis article and talk page. smallbones has alleged a conflict of interest where none exists, erroneously argued on behalf of other editors, claimed a non-existent consensus, and then reverted edits that were in place just as a true consensus appeared at hand.
The previous arbitration took more than three months to decide. It would be tedious indeed for the Committee to go though it again regarding the same behavior, the same editor, and a very similar article. Thanks for your consideration.--Rgfolsom 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without wanting to try to speak on behalf of the rest of the committee, I think you'll find that the committee will move quickly if there is genuine evidence that the problem is unabated but has merely moved to another page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As of a few hours ago, I can offer genuine evidence that the problem is somewhat beyond unabated. Smallbones solicited a vote on THF’s talk page, in an AfD that smallbones himself is banned from. Smallbones had no doubt that this other editor would serve as his proxy (see THF's comment above), and that is indeed what happened. Thanks for your time and attention.--Rgfolsom 16:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note for the benefit of the committee that THF took it upon himself to inform a number of participants in AFD1 that AFD2 was underway. I reviewed those notes earlier this morning, and concluded that THF informed several respected editors on both sides of the AFD1 discussion, and did not engage in votestacking. GRBerry 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for modification (October-November 2007)[edit]

In the RfA for Robert Prechter Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter I was banned from editing articles related to Prechter, essentially because I was putting "too much" negative information into a WP:BLP. I consider this ban a stain on my reputation. I think that subsequent events have shown that the decision was wrong, and I request that you review the ban.

In early August User:Rgfolsom quit editing Wikipedia following two major set-backs (for him not for Wikipedia). In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination) it was again decided that Socionomics be deleted (it was supposed to be put into a tempory redirect to Prechter and is still there.) Folsom offended many editors in that debate with his attack-dog style. As the closer said:

Discussion. — This is a very unwieldy discussion, so for the sake of efficiency I am simply discounting anything written by Rgfolsom (talk · contribs), who is being paid to promote and defend Robert Prechter's concept of "socionomics" and has a conflict of interest. As volunteer editors, we are simply not playing in the same league as he.

About the same time he fought unsucessfully to have the following deleted from the Prechter article:

In July 2007, the Hulbert Financial Digest, published by Dow Jones, reported that Elliott Wave International's Elliott Wave Financial Forecast had a 15-year annualized return of negative 25.4%/year and a return of negative 17.8% over the life of the newsletter.[17]

This is well documented, and other editors would simply not put up with his demands anymore. I think this is why he quit editing - everybody could easily see his bullying tactics, and the community would not let him use them anymore.

Since I was banned for putting too much weight on negative material, I think this fact needs to be considered (the negative 25.4% annual return over 15 years). When an investment advisor has a negative 25.4% annual return duing the biggest bull market in history, I don't see how the documented quotes from major news sources that I put in the article could be considered to be overly negative.

Combined with his attack-dog style which has offended just about everybody he's dealt with, I'd like you to reconsider the ban.

Sincerely,

Smallbones 23:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was partially involved during the mediation stage of this case. Rgfolsom was a most-disagreeable person to deal with via e-mail, and I think the restrictions on Smallbones were a bit too much. Personally, I would endorse a restoration of Smallbones' full editing rights. ^demon[omg plz] 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smallbones I think I understand your situation but I have two questions to be sure. Is the "negative" information stuff like: William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal. ? While "positive" information comes mostly from him or his company? If the answers to both questions are yes, IMHO you are actually abiding by WP:NPOV and shouldn't be punished just because the sources say what they do. (Sometimes sources have more negative things to say than positive). Anynobody 08:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. All the negative information was in the form of quotes, from the most reliable business press - e.g. the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, the Financial Times, Barron's. When I put 1 of these sources in the article, Folsom reverted it, when I put 2 in he reverted, 3 ..., 4.... Maybe when I put nine in, it was a bit of overkill. The "positive" sources, if I recall correctly, were exclusively from Folsom's boss Prechter. When I started editing the article, it was a copyright violation, taken directly from Prechter's website. Smallbones 20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That, for lack of a better word, sucks. This is exactly the type of situation I thought WP:UNDUE was meant to address. (Certainly we can mention Prechter's belief in his system, but the bulk of our article should come from sources like Wall Street Journal, Fortune, the Financial Times, Barron's.
Banning people like you from editing a topic for citing reliable sources is a big mistake and I hope the arbcom will notice this oversight. Anynobody 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To prove my point, it looks like Smallbones was topic banned because his version seemed overly negative. However the "negativity" isn't a product of POV pushing on his/her part but simply what the sources say. The two versions given and their references:
Anynobody 02:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks to the 2 above editors for their support. Just to be clear, I'm not asking for the case to be be re-arbitrated (even though I disagree with the decision, and think that, in retrospect it should be clear to the arbitrators that the decision was wrong). All I am asking for is that the indefinite ban on me editing articles related to Robert Prechter should be lifted, because a) it's been 7 months and b) nobody seems to have any major disagreement anymore with the edits I made on the Prechter article. And please do remember, Prechter's advice costs his clients 25% of their investment every year (as measured by Hulbert Financial Digest). Do you really want Folsom/Prechter or that type of editor putting his adverts on Wikipedia again? Smallbones 02:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee may find it useful to know that I have contacted ^demon by email about the above comment of his. I asked him why he characterized me as being "most-disagreeable" during the Socionomics mediation, but he has not replied. I am bewildered by what ^demon has said now, because my messages to him were civil and respectful; he even offered his help to me in filing the request I brought to this Committee (help which I accepted and found useful indeed). I do not know why ^demon has done this, but I can show that he is plainly mistaken in what he claims. I kept my entire email exchange with ^demon, and I am willing to make all those messages available to him and to the Committee for the asking. If necessary, I will provide Committee members with my gmail user name and password so that they can access my gmail account to verify the content of those emails, including the dates and time stamps.
As for Smallbones' request, I will only note that what he says now is more of what he said then to the Committee during the Arb case. This will be obvious enough to any Committee member who reviews the evidence, workshop, and unanimous vote from that case. Thank you.
--Rgfolsom 18:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smallbones has edited Elliott wave principle, an article related to Robert Prechter. This is a clear violation of the remedy from the arbitration case.
Rgfolsom 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned Smallbones that any further violations of the remedy will be met in blocks. In the future, please report violations at WP:AE. I'll archive this section tomorrow if no arbitrators show interest in modifying this remedy. Picaroon (t) 03:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is being considered; we'll likely have an answer in the fairly near future. Kirill 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee does not wish to lift this sanction at the present time. Kirill 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to consider this. If anybody wants to explain why this decision was reached, I'd be pleased to see it; either here or on my talk page. Smallbones 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_Prechter&oldid=759234747"