Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 379: Line 379:
:::That would be somewhat problematic, as the Arbitrators (which some of the candidates will presumably become) have traditionally avoided enforcing case decisions personally. I'd prefer to avoid setting up a situation where we'd need replacement mentors come January. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::That would be somewhat problematic, as the Arbitrators (which some of the candidates will presumably become) have traditionally avoided enforcing case decisions personally. I'd prefer to avoid setting up a situation where we'd need replacement mentors come January. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::::I've emailed Mackensen offering to be a mentor, I personally think the mentors need to get cracking ASAP - the articles locked now and after scanning through it, there seems to be quite a bit of disruption on the page. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::::I've emailed Mackensen offering to be a mentor, I personally think the mentors need to get cracking ASAP - the articles locked now and after scanning through it, there seems to be quite a bit of disruption on the page. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The committee has appointed {{user|Daniel}}, {{user|Ryan Postlethwaite}}, and {{user|Angusmclellan}} as mentors to [[Great Irish Famine]] in fulfillment on Remedy 1.1. For the committee, [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


===Jimbo Wales===
===Jimbo Wales===

Revision as of 18:21, 8 November 2007

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/3/0
[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: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland none (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 21 June 2024

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Article Title for 3rd US Infantry

Initiated by TabooTikiGod at 05:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Notifications provided by the Clerk. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by TabooTikiGod

Other evidence of this can be found and is outlined in The U.S. Army Regimental System (AR 600-82) 5 June 1990 on page 19 as 3rd Infantry.

There is a Special Designations for the nickname of the unit, THE OLD GUARD on the Center of Military History website which is further explained in Page 16, Chapter 6 of AR 870-5.

There are innumerous sources for the colloquial term of the 3d Infantry, even on the "official website" the unit itself refers to itself under various names. These sources can be found on The Old Guard's official websites.

With the new transformation of the U.S. Army, there are now what are called Brigade Combat Teams, of which the 3d Infantry is now part of since it is comprised of several battalions which form the "Regiment" although the organization is now officially a BCT.

There are other United States Army units which are titled differently than the "official name" for example 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) is titled 101st Airborne Division (United States); 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment and the Wikipedia article is 2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States). There are just two examples where the MILHIST project failed to uphold to the "official names" of units versus what is practical in terms of naming units for Wiki organizational purposes. An example where an official name of an organization can be used would be the Americal Division formerly, the 23rd Infantry Division.

Furthermore, there is already a precedence of the structure of Category:Regiments of the United States Army on Wikipedia as well as Category:Battalions of the United States Army, Category:Divisions of the United States Army, Category:Corps of the United States Army, etc. which can all be found on Category:Military units and formations of the United States.

Reply to Kirill Lokshin
On the contrary, this debate was heated and there was no resolution that came out of the mediation, this case needs to be resolved by a third party and there needs to be a definitive answer to the title of this article on Wikipedia.com Furthermore, for yourself Kirill to comment on the case is bias since you were the one who was participating in the mediation. This user has already commented:

Interesting point. I'll admit that I don't know enough about the arcana of US military lineage to make an intelligent decision as to how authoritative the CMH site is relative to the regiment's own site. There are several possibilities here as to which name the US Army currently uses for the regiment (which may not necessarily be the same as the name the regiment uses internally, to boot); the question of which name is more official is probably best left to experts in this particular topic area. Kirill 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:3rd_US_Infantry#Title_of_article Having said that, this user has nothing constructive to bring to the table in terms of presenting an arguement or producing evidence to prove otherwise. -TabooTikiGod 06:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

This is merely a slightly abstruse content dispute, really—and one that's neither very prominent nor very heated, at that. I doubt the Committee will find any user conduct issues worth examining here. Kirill 05:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryecatcher773's response to TabooTikiGod

The debate was only heated on your part TabooTiki. The mediation issue was closed and the mediator himself admittedly could not see quite what the issue was. I see no point in arbitration for this. The arguments have all been made, and the only party who is continuing to debate what has already been basically agreed on by consensus is yourself -- a consensus that I will point out included an Admin for the WP:MIL HIST project, whom you sought out for support in your argument and now are attacking as biased. Do you plan to continue until you get your way, regardless of what the majority has already -- and sensibly -- argued? Ryecatcher773 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/1/0)

  • Recuse. Kirill 05:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Content. -jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, a content dispute. Primarily, arbitration cases deal with user conduct problems. I see nothing here needing our involvement. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Content dispute issues outside our remit; user conduct issues not yet ripe for arbitration. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian

Initiated by Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) at 12:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not applicable in this situation

Statement by Nwwaew

Per this CheckUser, it appears Eyrian has either gone rogue or created sockpuppets. I hereby request that the Arbitration Committee desysop Eyrian immediately as an emergency measure to prevent vandalism.

Statement by Isotope23

This has already been brought up in the Alkivar arbitration several days ago. As far as I can tell, Eyrian has not committed any vandalism since this was brought up there, so I'm not sure I see a reason for an emergency desysoping, though if Eyrian's behavior isn't being considered as part of the Alkivar arbitration (sorry, I've not kept up with it enough to know if this is now being rolled into the original case) it might be worth accepting a case simply to look into the allegations.--Isotope23 talk 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the proposals at the Alkivar case. It may be worth reviewing Eyrian's behavior separately, though I still don't see this as an emergency situation.--Isotope23 talk 14:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

I suggest that the most dignified solution here would be for Eyrian to resign the tools. Eyrian has not been added to the list of parties in the Alkivar case and two arbitrators have moved to close. To the best of my knowledge, Alkivar did not operate any sockpuppets. Eyrian, by contrast, has multiple sockpuppets in violation of the good hand/bad hand provision of WP:SOCK and has placed himself in an untenable position by both denying and confirming that one of them was his. I had identified that sockpuppet as functionally indistinguishable from JB196, a banned vandal, and blocked it indefinitely. I have no objection to the proposed arbitration case, however, if Eyrian thinks these actions are defensible. DurovaCharge! 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by W.marsh

The more I look at this, the more I think ArbCom either needs to pull the Alkivar case back into the voting phase or even evidence phase, and/or remove anything related to Burntsauce/etc. from the proposed decision, and add a finding to explain what ArbCom thinks of the connection between Alkivar and Burntsauce. Which to do hinges on whether there's evidence that Alkivar was a major player in the Burntsauce/etc. thing, or just a peripheral admin who happened to support Burntsauce on occasion. As the ANI thread, the new evidence on the Alivar evidence page, and this ArbCom case show... there's a lot of unanswered questions here related to JB196 and perhaps Alkivar's relation to him.

In other words, before closing the Alkivar case, we should figure out specifically how it related to the JB196/Burntsauce thing. I might be wrong, but there seems to be a lot of confusion in the air. --W.marsh 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Rocksanddirt

My observations on the Alkivar situation are that the case should be completed esentially as is by the Committee and that the actions of Eyrian should be looked at separately by the committee. --Rocksanddirt 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher131

The situation as I see it is that Eyrian has had a long-standing objection to extensive trivia/pop culture sections in articles [2]. After the Alkivar/Burntsauce situation came up on the admin noticeboard, Eyrian useds sockpuppet accounts JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs) and Varlak (talk · contribs) in an intentional breaching experiment [3]. Because the edits were identical in style to triva-blanking edits by Burntsauce, the initial assumption that the accounts were Burntsauce socks was reasonable. The edits were controversial less because of their content than the manner in which they were made. (I have recently significantly trimmed the trivia and pop culture sections of two of JohnEMcClure's targets without controversy.)

Copying Burntsauce in the middle of a controversy over Burntsauce's edits was definitely not admin-approved behavior, and retiring with tools intact is an unsatisfying resolution. But, Eyrian's breaching experiment was rather brief and did not involve the misuse of admin tools, in marked contrast to the evidence and findings in the Alkivar case. The solution I would recommend is to remove Eyrian's sysop tools immediately, without holding a case, and ask him to have a discussion with ArbCom about the situation. If he has permanently retired, then no further action is needed. If he wishes to return and can make a satisfactory explanation (and apology) to the Committee, the Committee can restore his privileges at that time, or open a case for a full review if it is divided. I'm not sure a 2 month public flogging benefits anyone at this point.

Statement by Lid

My connection to this case is through that I was the person who posted the checkuser on JohnEMcClure and that I also posted a thread on ANI about Eyrian asking for his actions to be analysed however it was concluded that it was part of the Alkivar arbitration case nd thus a committee matter.

There seems to be some misinformation and misrepresentation of the facts of the Alkivar case being spread around; Alkivar is not a puppet master, Alkivar is not intimately related to JB196 and the relationship of Alkivar to JB196 was JB196 using Alkivar to disrupt articles. This is not the sole part of the case, in fact until I posted my evidence it was only mentioned once on the evidence page and even then it wasn't the crux of my evidence. My evidence was largely based on the preferential treatment Alkivar gave to Burntsauce in many content disputes.

In regards to Eyrian I believe this case should be taken as it has had a peculiar sequence of events that include lying, sockfarms, disruption and incivility all from an admin.

  1. The Alkivar arbitration case is opened and it is noticed a new user JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs) has been created and immediately started editting in a matter similar to banned vandal JB196's MO, including following around Burntsauce's edits to revert to Burntsauce.
  2. Durova blocks JohnEMcClure as a sock of JB196
  3. JohnEMcClure posts a request for unblocking stating "I'm nobody's sockpuppet; is it impossible to agree with someone else?"
  4. AGK declines pointing out that even if he was not a sock and only agreeing with Burntsauce and Alkivar he was also incivil, disruptive and all-round poorly behaved user.
  5. Inactive admin Eyrian then appears on ANI posting a request for block review stating that JohnEMcClure is his puppet and he did not think he had violated any puppet policies.
  6. The revelation it was Eyrian confused many users as Eyrian had at no point been connected to the case at all and Eyrian was an inactive administrator.
  7. During the discussion Eyrian made reference to another sockpuppet of his and also that the accounts were "disposable" disruptive accounts, an admission considered bizarre by users as it flew in the face of numerous obvious policies and that an admin didn't see the problem was confusing.
  8. Eyrian then disappears deleting his userpages and some of the JohnEMcClure pages just before he goes.
  9. I post a RFCU due to that some users aren't even sure Eyrian is in fact the sockmaster and may just be messing around, and if he was to find the puppet he made reference to before.
  10. CU completed uncovering two socks and "numerous IPs".

The actions of Eyrian fly in the face of how an admin should behave and his departure should not disguise the fact that he has retained his admin tools, and to another extent his account. Although he has not used his admin tools maliciously they should not be in the hands of a user who is an admitted sockpuppeteer with disruptive sockpuppets that leaves when public opinion does not agree with his.

Statement by Casliber

I'd second Lid's summary above. To put it simply: An administrator is someone who can be trusted with the tools. At the bare minimum, Eyrian has admitted lying above WRT User:JohnEMcClure. He also admits here [4] to 'tested the line somewhat more than necessary' (i.e. trolling). Also, there is no record of remorse or concession in any of his postings, leading one to the conclusion that he thinks he has done nothing wrong. Thus, he cannot be trusted and shouldn't be an admin regardless of whether he ever edits again.

I concede I'm not uninvolved, I entered into one edit war and several other discussions on AfDs where I was taken aback by the hardline uncompromising attitude and disruptive mass deletions taking place. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikidemo

I was trolled by JohnEmcClure, an administrator's sockpuppet. Eyrian admits he conducted an "experiment" in going "over the line". Eyrian's provocation cost time and aggravation to me and various others participating in the Alkivar arbitration. We were alarmed at yet another in a series of content deleting sockpuppets, deflected its contentious edits, went through three rounds on AN/I, a block, a block review, a check user, and now this case. Eyrian lied by denying it, and made bad faith accusations against me of WP:BITEing and stalking a new user when he knew I was getting close to uncovering his deception. He vowed an uncompromising edit war, in which one of us would force our opinion on on the other. When caught he was defiant and not forthcoming about his other sockpuppets. Now he is absent from this arbitration. At best he exercised terribly poor judgment; at worst he sabotaged Wikipedia for his obscure ends. There is no reason to believe he will not sockpuppet again. We lend administrative tools for overseeing the project, not as a personal entitlement. Whether he used tools or not in this instance, we cannot trust them to someone who has been so erratic and improper. We need to take them back. ArbCom is the community's only recourse, and the only viable solution is an indefinite de-sysop and/or block.

Detailed background I have no prior dealings with Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) or his apparent sockpuppets JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs), Varlak (talk · contribs), 68.163.65.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and

. The Alkivar incident, where I first encountered Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Burntsauce (talk · contribs), involved Alkivar's use of administrative tools to defend Burntsauce's contentious deletion of "popular culture" sections from 168 articles in league with a notorious puppetmaster. During the subsequent arbitration Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs). identified a new suspected sockpuppet who was re-deleting content from the same articles.[5]. LGR provided a link[6] to the mystery user's contribution history, which revealed Burntsauce-like "popculturectomies" to five of Burntsauce's 168 articles ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) and two new ones ([12], [13]). The very first edit from this new account proclaimed "Burntsauce is correct"; others summarized "I agree with Burntsauce and Neil", "More trivia junk gone", "Terrible. Gone", and "None of that is important whatsoever. It needs to stay gone". He also nominated an article for deletion [14] and voted in an AFD.

I reviewed each deletion in depth and decided that four of the seven contained material likely to be sourceable that was relevant to the article. I restored these ([15], [16], [17], [18]) with appropriate summaries: ("After reviewing, much of the material is useful. Please discuss or source", "There is no blanket policy against lists. This one is useful, and it is annotated.", "Depictions of a mythological being are a relevant part of the mythology. The material is sourceable so please be constructive and add sources rather than delete", "info re. ghostbusters is useful. I don't agree with deletion"). I integrated the content into one article[19] as WP:TRIVIA suggests, and explained on another that I left material deleted because it was irrelevant[20], before turning to more important wikibusiness, creating two new articles, here and here, improving two others here and here, voting in some WP:AFDs, assessing articles for a wikiproject, etc.

Eyrian would have none of that. I learned from LGR[21] that Eyrian's sockpuppet had accused me of "stalking" him and had re-deleted all four sections ([22], [23], [24], [25]) with summaries ranging from rude to uncivil ("Did you actually read the section?", "Re-purge the trivia junk. No, it's not important. Whatever "Reviewing" you're doing is flawed. Reading up, it seems to be a habit of yours.", "Not a chance. Go stalk someone else"). I left a warning for civility, disruption, and edit warring[26]. Altough convinced now that the edits were in bad faith, I patiently explained the WP:TRIVIA guideline and the WP:CONSENSUS policy to follow if he wanted to change the articles, and left a courtesy notice that a claim had arisen in the Alkivar case that he was a possible sockpuppet. I restored the content a second time ([27], [28], [29], [30]), and began improving two of the other articles ([31], [32]) per the guidelin. I explained what I was doing and why to arbcom [33].

Shortly thereafter Durova announced she had blocked JohnEMcClure as a suspected sockpuppet of JB196.[34], [35]. Eyrian used its talk page [36] to accuse me of biting him as a "new user", to announce that he had reviewed my edit history and deemed me a promoter of trivia, to vow continued edit warring ("There will be no compromise. One of us will force our opinion on the other."), to deny that it was a puppet of anybody, and to say "I don't think anything I've said is over the line." Hours later Eyrian asked for a block review [| block review], admitting JohnEMcClure was an alternate account he created "designed to be entirely disposable" as an "experiment" to "see what would happen if I tested the line somewhat more than necessary." He claimed he was "making a determination if I would be any happier if I returned; it's clear I wouldn't be" and said he had "no investment" in the account.

Eyrian has a history of contentious edits and runs in the same circles as JB196, Alkivar, and Burntsauce. His methods, attitude, and language are the same: deleting professional wrestling bios months ago, and now popular culture sections, with deception and rude, insulting treatment to any who would oppose him. A prior RFC raised sockpuppeting and other issues here. A checkuser confirmed JohnEMcClure as a sockpuppet and found others he had not yet disclosed[37]. He must have known he was interfering with a matter in arbitration - he deleted the same articles, he reviewed the history, and I told him explicitly. He left Wikipedia a huff, deleting and salting his and his sockpuppet's pages on the way out [38].

Clerk notes

Four votes to accept and open, noted. To open Friday absent some change. Newyorkbrad 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Accept to examine the matter in detail; there seems no need for emergency action at this point. Kirill 04:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Kirill. I think the matter needs review. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. As Kirill, no emergency; misuse of admin powers doesn't appear to be happening Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Railpage Australia

Initiated by Thin Arthur at 08:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[39]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[40][41][42]

Statement by Thin Arthur

Tezza1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has over a long period engaged in disruptive editing of Railpage Australia. This has already been the subject of RFC[43], requests for admin assistance[44] and WQA[45]. Tezza1 did not respond to a request for mediation.[46] Tezza1 responded by filing COI complaints against regular editors of the article[47] (User:Doctorjbeam), and has most recently accused myself and another user of being sockpuppets.[48] Others have commented that "tezza was frustated that he could not get his edits to stick, and made the COI accusation in that spirit",[49]This has now extended to accusations against several users on his talk page.[50] The accusations themselves fail to assume good faith.

I consider all of the above actions to demonstrate a history of personal attacks and now harassment as part of his lone campaign against Railpage Australia.

As this user has been dismissive of the dispute resolution process, has a long history of disruptive editing and makes personal accusations against users whom he disagrees with, arbitration is now needed. Disruptive editing has gone on long enough and he is now resorting to harassment. Thin Arthur 08:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: The vexatious allegation of sockpuppetry is part of this complaint. Earlier actions were merely disruptive but this allegation is harassment. Thin Arthur 10:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tezza1

Thin Arthur is a suspected sock puppet of Dbromage and I have raised allegations of his behavour here - Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage and Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Pending review of my allegations by Administrators and other users, the request for arbitration is premature. Tezza1 10:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated on the Railpage talk page I have an interest in the subject, but NOT a conflict of interest. Recently Thin Arthur interrupted an in good faith discussion with another editor who admits he has a COI with the Railpage article content. I'm pretty stubborn, when I see something which is not right I dig my heels in. It may be just a small case of COI (who cares?), but if you ignore that then you might as well let everybody else with a COI to edit their articles, then this place will fall down. I'm awaiting the outcome of the sock puppet proceedings, which only in PART relate to the Railpage article. Hopefully then we can move on.Tezza1 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that two editors involve in dispute resolution proceedings a cited by Thin Arthur have since either admitted having a WP:COI Johnmc or have had found to have a COI Doctorjbeam. Tezza1 13:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnmc comments moved - see "Statement by Johnmc"`Tezza1 11:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response, Johnmc, if you want to comment can you please keep these separate to mine under a different heading. I have not taken action against you, nor do I intend too. Quoting you from the Railpage talk page you said "let Cesar decide". Can we do that please? Tezza1 20:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Arbitrator's
Wouldn't it be a good idea to hold off arbitration until a determination is made of my sock puppet allegations? Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage
Potentially the umpires decision could go one way in this arena, and the opposite way in the other. Regardless of the outcome, I will accept the umpires decision. Regards Tezza1 11:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnmc

Hold it right there, Tezza. I have not hidden the fact that I am a member of Railpage, and - since August - a Railpage moderator. But that does not indicate a COI, and I would challenge the notion that a moderator of a forum automatically has a COI in relation to that forum's article. I am not a forum admin, and do not create site policy or direction. By being open about my involvement in Railpage, and from refraining from making large edits to the article - both of which are suggested guidlines under the WP:COI policy - I believe that I have circumvented the possibility of suggesting that I have a COI.Johnmc 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Was this quote my "admission"? (From the "Need help on Railpage Australia" request): "Yes, I am a Railpage member (not moderator/admin), and I do have concerns (raised with Tezza, but with no direct reply), as to Tezza's motive behind his edits. If that makes me in COI, then so be it" (At the time of writing that, I was indeed not a moderator, but I'm not sure it constitutes a confession of any sort.Johnmc 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved here Tezza1 11:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Sjakkalle

To me, this looks like an obsession with getting the article in question deleted, and if it cannot be deleted, to make life as miserable as possible for those who are working on it. This edit in particular sums up the entire disruption, sticking a {{db-spam}} template on an article which has already been through, and survived AFD, and sticking maintenance templates, such as {{advert}} on each and every section, more or less destroying the entire appearance of the page. When I see behavior like that, with a refusal to let an issue rest after the discussion is over, it does not surprise me at all that the recent contribution list of Tezza1 shows nothing but posts to Railpage Australia's talkpage, and posts on various dispute resololution pages regarding behavior. The last 100 edits reveal no constructive contributions to the encyclopedia outside of that field. Moreover, are any of the edits reasonable attempts to fix any perceived problems, or are they just complaints?

Furthermore, a look at the Railpage Australia talkpage displays an exceptional amount of disruption, with six different bad-faith AFDs from single purpose accounts. I note that an account named User:Tezza2 started several of those, and would be surprised if this is not related to any of that.

This behavior is destructive, and demoralizing to those who work on it. Asking them to fix a problem with an article is of course OK, but the sheer magnitude of this is blatantly excessive. Every time a demand is answered, more demands are made, and the bully appears to be impossible to satisfy and starts frivolously demanding the speedy deletion of the article. Then starts attacking the integrity of the people who have spent time and effort to create a reasonable article to which there was a consensus to keep. ArbCom should set a clear standard that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC) -[reply]

Statement by Durova

I urge the Committee to accept this to examine the behavior of all sides. I was approached with multiple requests for administrative intervention and dispute resolution hasn't solved the issues. If either side is even partially right, then there are policy issues involved. DurovaCharge! 18:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jreferee

I've spent some time reviewing the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dbromage request to provide admin intervention, which brought me here. Ground zero for this matter appears to be Railpage Australia. Seven of it's eight AfDs were incomplete[51]. What Links Here for Railpage Australia brings up Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DFC Free Oz, 3RR, ANI reports, Community enforceable mediation; Conflict of interest reports; this request for arbitration; requests for checkuser; requests for comment; Suspected sock puppets; WikiProject Spam/COIReports; and Wikiquette alerts. This matters seems to have been growing since at least January 2007. Administrative intervention and dispute resolution hasn't solved the issues and it appears to me that the behavior of all sides needs to be reviewed by arbitration. -- Jreferee t/c 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Four votes to accept and open, noted. To open Thursday evening/Friday morning absent further developments. Newyorkbrad 05:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Helicopter (elix/helix)

Initiated by Anthony Appleyard at 06:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Anthony Appleyard

Whether the Greek original of the "helic-" part of the word "helicopter" was "helik-" or "elik-". The concensus of the evidence points to the 'h' being present. But Born2flie says that there was no 'h', because of one stray case when someone missed out the Greek rough breathing sign. I know Ancient Greek well and I have reference books about it. I want to avoid a long edit war. Anthony Appleyard 06:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Born2flie

Comment by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

This isolated content dispute is unlikely to be accepted for an arbitration case, and it might be best to withdraw the case. Instead, I suggest seeking a third opinion or filing a content request for comment to obtain further input from editors with the relevant background who might not otherwise happen across that particular page. In addition, I believe one of the arbitrators has ancient Greek expertise and he might be induced to comment (qua editor, not qua arbitrator) once the request for arbitration is resolved. Newyorkbrad 14:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Kmweber

Initiated by Mercury at 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Current discussion on WP:AN

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber

[52]

[53]

[54]

Talk and archives

Statement by Mercury

I'll be brief in this summary. In the event this case is accepted I'll introduce evidence and comments at the appropriate places. This editor has commented to Requests for adminship, time and time again, with the same comment. "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. The opinion is unhelpful and contains a bad faith assumption. That in itself is not an issue. The issue is that this editing style has been discussed many times, and linked below. The editor insists on a consensus the he should stop, before he stops. However, the fact that we are having these discussions in a perennial frequency is causing disruption. Making these comments after so many discussions about them, appears to be trolling, tendentious. The editor has been blocked for disruptions recently, and unblocked. I will not reblock, or file yet another RFC, for more discussion. I request the committee to look into the behavior here. Mercury 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved AnonEMouse

Strongly advise this be withdrawn. Fast. If this case is accepted, I suspect it will not end the way Mercury thinks it will. Indefinitely blocking a user for opposing RfAs, when the ongoing Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber has overwhelming commentary that criticise Kmweber, but strongly emphasize that "Kmweber cannot and should not be blocked for his opinions" ... I would not like to lose an administrator for this. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tangentially involved Neil

Agree with AnonEMouse. An indefinite block was appallingly poor judgement, particularly given the outcome of the RFC. Neil ☎ 00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by kinda involved Amarkov

The issue is indeed being brought up perenially. But if there is never a consensus to do anything, why is that a problem? We can't start blocking people because others like to complain a lot. -Amarkov moo! 23:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Mr.Z-man

I simply cannot believe the outcome of that RFC. How the community would be willing to tolerate such bad faith assumption is beyond me. The RFA nomination procedure explicitly allows self-nomination. It even puts it before nominating other people; one could make the argument that it implicitly encourages it. Kmweber is opposing people's RFAs with the same reason, apparently without even looking at their contributions. "But he's only expressing his opinion" - but his opinion is almost completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. How is opposing based on something explicitly allowed helpful? My opinion is that we have too many of some types of articles; I'm not going to nominate things for deletion with that reasoning though - that would be disruptive as AFD comments are supposed to be based in policy. And then there's the assumption of faith; I'm completely bewildered how people don't see calling a user power-hungry (I thought admins were janitors) based on the user doing something explicitly allowed without reviewing their editing history is not an assumption of bad faith. If you want to get the rules changed to disallow self noms, the venue for that is WT:RFA. Going on the RFAs of every self nom to give the same opposition reason in some attempt to change the rules is a blatant violation of WP:POINT. The fact that this dispute got this far, when it should have stopped with some warnings to Assume Good Faith is just absolutely ridiculous. (Sorry if this came off a little rant-like) Mr.Z-man 00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Heimstern

It seems few dispute that Kurt Weber's actions are annoying; however, the discussion at the admin noticeboard suggests some widespread disagreement among admins and others concerning whether or not Kurt's actions were disruptive. I think this could boil down to the question of where to draw the line between disruption and mere annoyance. (Edit summaries like this one as well as comments like this one tip the scales marginally toward disruption, at least in my mind.) The committee may wish to consider if it can shed light on the answer to this question in deciding whether or not to take this case, since this seems to be a contested issue within the community. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Nick

I think this can be resolved without the need for Arbitration, but I remain slightly disappointed that a user is able to use the consensus from an RfC to make comments which some people find upsetting, others find annoying, and a few find disruptive. We're a collaborative project that relies upon editors all trying to get along, sadly, simply being annoying or upsetting never warrants a block, but it's damaging to the community none the less. There was no consensus to uphold the block, there's no consensus for a topic ban and there's possibly no consensus his comments are still acceptable. I know Arbcom likely wouldn't make any judgements on the actual comments in question, which makes any topic ban or site ban completely unlikely.

Just a quick clarification about the block, I had no intention for it to be a permanent block, had I wished that, I would have gone for some sort of community ban, it was always going to be overturned, I hoped that would be when there was some resolution, such as a pledge to cease making those comments, there was no consensus for unblocking solely on that basis alone, and he was unblocked because there was no consensus to do anything otherwise, i.e keep him blocked, something I was completely happy with, as I made clear within a matter of minutes of the block. I knew it would be controversial which is why I started the discussion on the Admin Noticeboard, and why I made it perfectly clear anybody could unblock and I would be fine with that. Nick 10:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

So long as thoughtcrime is not contrary to policy, there is nothing actionable in civil expression of minority opinion. So long as consensus can change is part of policy, we have to allow alternative and minority opinions to be expressed in the appropriate discussion forums. Accepting this case attacks our policy Wikipedia:Consensus, so it would be worse for Wikipedia to accept this case than for Kurt to consider offering this opinion in RFAs. I urge the committee to realize that rejecting the case is in the best interests of Wikipedia. GRBerry 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Citicat

While Kmweber's motivations cannot be known, it does seem clear that his actions have a tendency toward being disruptive (or at least annoying), and that he has no interest in being influenced by any guidelines other than his own. In addition to the RFA issue, KM also comments on many AFDs, usually stating that if something exists, it deserves an article. [55] Again, while I don't know Kmweber's motivations for doing this, I feel the end result is only to antagonize other editors without anything really useful being accomplished. Does any of this require arbcom action? I doubt it. But it would be a real positive if Km could just state his positions on his user page and stop advocating them in these discussions. CitiCat ♫ 05:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Carcharoth

I strongly support GRberry's statement above. I was amazed to see arbitrators considering acceptance of this case. If they do accept it, I would urge them to look at the actions of the blocking admin and those who encouraged/supported him. I would also ask FloNight if she is really proposing a topic ban on voting at RfAs, and to consider the consequences of this. Carcharoth 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kscottbailey: I am urging the Arbcom to examine the actions of User:Nick, who carried out the block of User:Kmweber, not User:Mercury, who filed the arbitration request. I am not the only user pointing this out. User:AnonEMouse has said "If this case is accepted, I suspect it will not end the way Mercury thinks it will." (though I am presuming here that he is referring to the arbcom examining the judgment of Nick), and User:Neil, who said "An indefinite block was appallingly poor judgement, particularly given the outcome of the RFC". User:Splash has also stated the same thing. As for whether it is so cut-and-dried, have you seen the response to the opposes that User:Mikkalai has been giving recently? See, WT:RFA#Response to recent bullying. Once you start saying people like User:Kmweber cannot hold their opinions, where does it end? Once, there was a problem with people not pointing out that some RfA opposes were silly. Now there is a problem with people sometimes ganging up to shout down a lone oppose. RfA has never been about producing a "perfect" discussion, or result, but the moment people start saying that certain things "are not allowed", or should be restricted to a protest notice on a talk page, then discussion is being stifled and that can have a chilling effect on a community. In my view, the true disruption to the project comes from those who think they can micromanage things and insist on making a big deal about Kmweber's comments, thus exacerbating the situation. Carcharoth 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus to suggest the block I placed was "bad". Please cease acting like there is. The community is as split on my block as they are on whether or not Kurt's comments constitute disruption. Nick 10:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Splash

Clearly, this was a monumentally bad block, and spouting stuff about Jimbo Wales's RfC is just misleading, since Jimbo explicitly and repeatedly said not to go banhammering all over the place. This is the trouble with some admins - they like being able to leverage greater power than they actually possess, and the Arbcom, Foundation and Jimbo need to be more acutely aware of this than they have been up to now. Admins equally should more aware that you possess in general only your own authority, and attempting to exercise a higher authority is generally to attempt to suspend your own judgement in favour of someone else's - almost never a smart idea. I do not think the block is arbitratable, though, but even so I'm mystified as to why the blocking admin is not named as a party to the request.

On the topic of Kmweber. Well, his opposes on RfA fall below the "do I care?" threshold. I would urge everyone to ignore them as the worthless posturing they are. The crats know what to do with such things, we can be certain of that. Just leave them be: do not indent, do not 'innocuously enquire' for the reasons (you fool noone doing that), do not mark as for crat attention, do not write on his talk page. They fall below the relevance threshold.

However. It is apparent to anyone with eyes that Kmweber's posturing is disturbing the flow of things. This is fine, ordinarily, if we are learning something by it, as long as it stays away from experimental demonstration of a point. However, we have moved far beyond such a point (if ever we were the educational side of it), and clearly time and energy is being absorbed by it. This despite the obviousity of my previous paragraph (people don't know what's good for them). I would therefore suggest that the matter is arbitratable, by way of wishing to squelch things that detract from productivity and cause disruption without any foreseeable good emerging from it.

On the much-vaunted RfC. Please, everyone, get over it. It's just people wanting to say holy things about RfA, openness, freedom, blah and blah. It isn't useful. Splash - tk 13:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slightly involved User:Kscottbailey

I equate what Weber is doing at both RfA and AfD to what the Jimbo-banned Miltopia (sp?) did for a long time: low-level disruption that's JUST low enough to keep from getting banned, but high enough to effectively (if only in a minor way) disrupt the project. Additionally, such votes often cause a "pile-on" effect. As oppose votes are worth MUCH more in an RfA (in a practical sense; I know it's technically not a vote), as there have to be 4 supports for every oppose to nearly guarantee passage, this is NOT a minor issue at all. As such, I would support acceptance of this request. K. Scott Bailey 14:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Carcharoth: Surely you're not using threats to attempt to get Mercury to drop this request? That there are ArbCom members who support taking up the dispute should tell you it's not nearly so cut-and-dried as you would like to believe. -Struck per my misunderstanding of the target of Carcharoth's comment.- K. Scott Bailey 15:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Kscottbailey's original response refactored here - my response is in my section above. Carcharoth 16:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Nick: While I strongly disagree with Weber's behavior, and have made that opinion well-known, I would not have made the same decision with the tools that you did. However, as I do not have the tools, it's quite easy for me to do some "Monday morning quarterbacking" on the issue. I don't think your block was "bad", just not what I would have done in the same circumstance. K. Scott Bailey 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to GRBerry: It's not about "thoughtcrime", it's about disrupting at RfA with blanket opposition, with no rationale other than that self-noms (explicitly allowed--and even encouraged--by the RfA rules) are "prima facie evidence of power hunger." This is both bad faith and disruption. Both are against policy, and as such should be taken up by ArbCom. K. Scott Bailey 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to 'Crats : No one is persecuting Weber, or saying that "minority opinions" are not allowed. What we're saying is that Weber is being disruptive, albeit at a low level, by placing spurious non-votes at RfA. This is most certainly not allowed, and I would hope you would reconsider based upon a misunderstanding of what the real issue is. K. Scott Bailey 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Decline. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to consider a topic ban or other editing restrictions since there is not agreement among the Community at large and administrators in particular about how to handle the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Kirill 00:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. The community seems to be handling this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Charles Matthews 16:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept for a quick clarification of disruptiveness. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. If no one is swayed by Kurt's actions then he's one man fighting the system. If many are then perhaps consensus is changing. In a similar case, Boothy443, the Committee did recognize this kind of RfA participation as disruption, but things had gone a good deal farther. Furthermore, the Committee did not enjoin Boothy443 from participating in RfA. Mackensen (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up. Given that RfA is not a vote, I'm not sure what a 'spurious non-vote' would be. Bureaucrats are free to exercise their discretion in determining the outcome of a discussion; they're free to strike invalid comments. Mackensen (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Minority views are allowed. Paul August ☎ 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

RFAR/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

I've been contacted by User:Certified.Gangsta, who left the project in June 2007 in consequence of the sanctions imposed on him in the Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram RFAR. He was finding it impossible to edit under them, and was feeling very frustrated. User:Ideogram is now under a community ban, where he was found to have baited Certified.Gangsta and attempted to drive him off the project (successfully). CG is thinking about returning, and wonders if he might possibly have his editing restrictions revoked, despite the infractions he has indeed committed. Would the arbitrators like to take a look at this case, please? To remind you of how it went, I've written up a short overview of the circumstances here. Other users should feel free to add their views of the matter at that subpage, or at this notification, whichever works. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Committee is discussing this matter. Kirill 13:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Remedy 1.1 of the case calls for 3~5 administrators to serve as mentors... However, almost two months since the decision of the case, and no mentors have been chosen for the article. Could we do something about this? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who just began editing Great Irish Famine a few days ago and immediately ran into problems that the earlier case was meant to address, I'd like to second Penwhale's call for action. Dppowell 03:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen made a request for volunteers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Great Irish Famine. Problem is finding volunteers 3-5. Maybe we can get the current election candidates to do it? Picaroon (t) 04:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be somewhat problematic, as the Arbitrators (which some of the candidates will presumably become) have traditionally avoided enforcing case decisions personally. I'd prefer to avoid setting up a situation where we'd need replacement mentors come January. Kirill 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed Mackensen offering to be a mentor, I personally think the mentors need to get cracking ASAP - the articles locked now and after scanning through it, there seems to be quite a bit of disruption on the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The committee has appointed Daniel (talk · contribs), Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs), and Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) as mentors to Great Irish Famine in fulfillment on Remedy 1.1. For the committee, Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales

Moved to talkpage for any further discussion, and also so that it will eventually be archived and preserved, as there are no archives for this page and there is no related casepage that it could be moved to. Newyorkbrad 22:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Regarding Robert Prechter remedy

User:Newyorkbrad suggested this was the place to come for this problem.

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:

Template:Multicol

Smallbones version, includes 20 references:

1. ^ William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal: 1. 2. ^ Robert McGough (July 17, 1997). "Bears Will Be Right On Stocks Someday, Just You Watch --- So They Missed 5,000 Points, It's No Reason They Ought To Stop Prognosticating". The Wall Street Journal: 1. 3. ^ Levy, Adam (February 2003). "The Ultimate Bear". Bloomberg Markets: p. 69. 4. ^ a b c d Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (various dates). "Elliott Wave Theorist". Elliott Wave International. 5. ^ Best Sellers List (11 August 2002). "Book Review". New York Times: p. 24. 6. ^ Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (1999). The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics. Gainesville, Georgia: New Classics Library. 7. ^ Penn, David (June 2003). "Social Mood and the Markets". Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities: p. 50. 8. ^ McCaffrey Brecht, Kira (July 2003). "Trader's Hall of Fame Award - Robert Prechter - An Interview with the Elliott Wave Guru". Stocks, Futures & Options Magazine: p. 42. 9. ^ a b Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (1996/2004). Prechter's Perspective. Gainesville, Georgia: New Classics Library, p. 6. 10. ^ Lazarovic, Karen (30 April 1985). "Elliott-wave technician sees 2d-half blastoff". New York Post: p. 36. 11. ^ Shaw, Russell; Landis, David (9 Oct. 1987). "Prechter flees Wall St. for Georgia hills". http://www.usatoday.com/ USA Today]: p. B1. 12. ^ Myerson, Allen R. (October, 1985). "Robert Prechter: From Lake Lanier, He Can See Wall Street Clearly". Georgia Trend: p. 26. 13. ^ Hendrick, Bill (July 15, 1990). "Unbelievers Don't Worry Prechter". Atlanta Journal Constitution: p. H-4. 14. ^ Robert Prechter (October 20, 1987). "The Crash of '87: Bull Market Guru Predicts Further Dow Average Fall". The Wall Street Journal. 15. ^ (October 22, 1987) "Corrections & Amplifications: Robert Prechter". The Wall Street Journal. 16. ^ William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal: 1. 17. ^ Constance Mitchell (December 27, 1988). "Doomsayers Now Are Salient Among Market Bears". The Wall Street Journal. 18. ^ 'Elliott Wave' Forecaster Ends Public Appearances, The Wall Street Journal, March 10, 1989 19. ^ Geoffrey Colvin (16 October 2000). "The Wheelers, the Wavers, and the Star-Struck". Fortune: p. 84. 20. ^ Jonathan R. Laing (26 October 1998). "Ride that Wave! Is Bob Prechter's long-forecast economic and market collapse finally at hand?". Barron's. Template:Multicol-break The "balanced version" excludes citations from some Wall Street Journal articles, leaving 15 references. How can that be called balanced?

1. ^ Best Sellers List (11 August 2002). "Book Review". New York Times: p. 24. 2. ^ Levy, Adam (February 2003). "The Ultimate Bear". Bloomberg Markets: p. 69. 3. ^ a b c d Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (various dates). "Elliott Wave Theorist". Elliott Wave International. 4. ^ Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (1999). The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics. Gainesville, Georgia: New Classics Library. 5. ^ Penn, David (June 2003). "Social Mood and the Markets". Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities: p. 50. 6. ^ McCaffrey Brecht, Kira (July 2003). "Trader's Hall of Fame Award - Robert Prechter - An Interview with the Elliott Wave Guru". Stocks, Futures & Options Magazine: p. 42. 7. ^ a b Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (1996/2004). Prechter's Perspective. Gainesville, Georgia: New Classics Library, p. 6. 8. ^ Lazarovic, Karen (30 April 1985). "Elliott-wave technician sees 2d-half blastoff". New York Post: p. 36. 9. ^ Shaw, Russell; Landis, David (9 Oct. 1987). "Prechter flees Wall St. for Georgia hills". USA Today: p. B1. 10. ^ Myerson, Allen R. (October, 1985). "Robert Prechter: From Lake Lanier, He Can See Wall Street Clearly". Georgia Trend: p. 26. 11. ^ Hendrick, Bill (July 15, 1990). "Unbelievers Don't Worry Prechter". Atlanta Journal Constitution: p. H-4. 12. ^ Hulbert, Mark (4 October 1998). "Is the Time Right for Market Timing?". New York Times: p. C-7. 13. ^ Brimelow, Peter. Is Prechter's bearishness permanent?. Retrieved on 2006-12-4. 14. ^ Geoffrey Colvin (16 October 2000). "The Wheelers, the Wavers, and the Star-Struck". [Fortune (magazine): p. 84. 15. ^ William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal. Template:Multicol-end

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]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page.)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=170141245"