Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 11 November 2007 (→‎Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys#Parties instructed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Amendment request: PIA Canvassing none (orig. case) 30 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Macedonia

Initiated by Future Perfect at Sunrise at 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

(possibly others to be added).

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

Not applicable, this is a long-term pattern of disruptive nationalist behaviour spanning dozens of articles, multiple users and more than one content issue.

Statement by Fut.Perf.

The next big nationalism case after Azerbaijan-Armenia, Eastern Europe etc. There are three main disputes between four neighbouring nations here:

The players in this edit war are a relatively small number of established ringleaders, plus a large and volatile group of short-lived accounts. The balances of edit-warring firepower are such that the four nations involved have established a local pecking order of POV-pushing: Greek tendentious editing can generally get away with murder; Bulgarian tendentious editing will have its way as long as it's not against the Greeks; Albanian editors get their way because Greeks and Bulgarians come to their aid just to annoy the Macedonians; and most Macedonian editors are immobilized to such a degree they can hardly get an edit through without having it reverted immediately - leading to predictable outbreaks of sock attacks and other forms of retaliatory disruption from their side.

We need topic bans for a couple of ringleaders and revert paroles for at least a dozen others, plus administrative carte blanche for dealing with new disruption, à la Armenia-Azerbaijan.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ·ΚέκρωΨ·

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's claim that "Greek tendentious editing can generally get away with murder" is baffling, given that the "fragile consensus" he mentions has been struck at the expense of the Greek position, and any dissent is immediately censored. The name Macedonia is used throughout Wikipedia in a way that is highly offensive to Greeks, especially Macedonians; see Macedonia naming dispute for further information. Furthermore, his portrayal of one side as the perennial victims is unhelpful in a complicated dispute of this nature. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sam Blacketer

I have been drawn into this a few times, for example declining Xstatik's unblock request (see User talk:Xstatik and note the belief that any administrator who disagreed with him must be part of a Greek conspiracy), and taking action against Dimorsitanos who was disruptively attempting a copy and paste page move to change the title of the (ex-Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia to Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia. I am not sure I follow Future Perfect at Sunrise's analysis of the 'pecking order' here but I do endorse his encouragement of an arbitration hearing to settle what administrators may do to prevent disruption on this set of articles. Sam Blacketer 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avg

It is true that this is a very sensitive issue to all parties involved. However, being sensitive does not equal being nationalistic. The recent surge in edit warring occurs because tensions are extremely heightened outside Wikipedia. These weeks or even days are a turning point in the Macedonia naming dispute, since UN is drafting a final plan to be accepted by both RoM and Greece before RoM's entry to NATO. Apart from that, I'm disappointed that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is clearly taking sides in this dispute. Perhaps he's been long enough to these topics to have lost the balance he should have as an administrator? As a Greek I feel insulted by the use of an expression such as "Greeks can get away with murder", especially without any diff supporting it. So I certainly support this is escalated, in order for ArbCom to establish some guidelines for both editors and admins. --   Avg    14:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

Strongly urge acceptance; Macedonia has been a hotspot of nationalist edit-warring ever since Wikipedia started, see User:Moreschi/The Plague and relevant subpages. It's high time this troublesome topic was finally dealt with properly. Take the case, ban a couple of the most egregious wrongdoers to show the rest we mean business, and then apply sweeping remedies as in Armenia-Azeri Round 2: ones that give us Alliterative Admins Plentiful Powers to dole out Beautiful Blocks. Cheerio! Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by occasionally involved jd2718

I have occasionally edited Macedonia-related articles. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was interested in fixing up Thessaloniki. What I found, however is essentially what Future Perfect at Sunrise reports. This is a long term, usually low-level case of POV-pushing back and forth across many articles.

When I saw this RfArb, I looked at Thessaloniki - first thing. I'm not saying this is evidence, just that it is the first article I looked at -- and here's what I found: In late September, there was an edit war over the term "Macedonia" in the lead. It was resolved on the talk page and user talk pages and the article itself, largely through the efforts of NikoSilver, FPaS, and myself (see Talk:Thessaloniki#Periphery, region etc). Kekrops was involved. But what did I find this morning? Kekrops waited a month and quietly reverted to his favorite version. I don't mean to single that user out, it was just the first example I found. But the low-level warring over the term "Macedonia" and the historical claims to its usage never stops.

That being said, I am not certain what ArbCom can do here. My sense is that most of those saving changes on these groups of pages are advocates first, editors second. Even where more reasonable editors have worked towards consensus, that consensus can be badly flawed by representing compromise amongst advocates at a table, rather than an attempt to reach NPOV. Minorities, groups that edit less, and groups no longer in the region consistently get short shrift. The articles tend to represent relative strength on WP rather than consensus. Can ArbCom find a remedy for that?

Statement by Francis Tyers

I concur with the point of view of Fut.Perf. In areas such as this, uninvolved admins need more leeway to forcefully arbitrate disputes and get rid of obvious trolls. Part of the problem comes from demographics and wealth, there are more Greeks, and more Bulgarians on the internet than Macedonians. This follows through to Wikipedia. There is a tendency for both Bulgarians and Greeks to "gang up" on Macedonians as Fut. Perf. describes.

Talk pages also generally get filled with nationalist rubbish and personal attacks / comments, one example of the off-topic stuff that goes on in most pages here. Fortunately Fut. Perf. had the good sense to remove this particular lot, but there is so much more.

Topic and article bans would be very welcome for the more disruptive users. Particularly those found engaging in "tag-team" reverting to avoid the 3RR.

I'd like to add that it isn't all users, many Greek, Macedonian and Bulgarian users manage to work on articles together perfectly well (see for example Macedonia (terminology) as suggested by Niko below). I'd like to add that not "practically adopting" the Greek position does not mean the same thing as "practically adopting" the ethnic Macedonian position.

Statement by NikoSilver

I agree with most of Fut.Perf's comments, and with the necessity of certain of his remedies proposed. I have tried to serve the cause for Wiki-serenity in Macedonia related articles through a featured contribution (Macedonia (terminology)) and various other articles (notably Macedonia naming dispute and WP:MOSMAC), always preserving the established consensus. As a Greek, I must note that doing so is extremely difficult, given that the consensus in Wikipedia, as established by the related policies, practically adopts the ethnic Macedonian position. I am noting this only to suggest that there may be an apparent excuse on behalf of the Greek editors, who can never swallow that "Macedonian" refers to anything other than their northern compatriots. On the other hand, the ethnic Macedonian users start from a consensus that matches their views in most issues, therefore there shouldn't have been as many needs for editing abuse. As such, I am deeply concerned about the "getting away with murder" comment, since Greeks aren't apparently successful in killing anybody, so I don't see what there may be to "get away" from. NikoSilver 20:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ireland101

I fully agree with the comments of Fut.Perf. The whole issue with Macedonian related articles has gone too far. As mentioned before the fact that members of the other ethnic groups gang up or "tag-team" against the edits of Macedonian users is quite apparent and troubling. This has gone so far that I have even seen ethnic Macedonian users leave Wikipedia because of this sort of injustice. Although some Greek users may not agree Fut.Perf is correct when stating that Greek users can get away with almost anything. The edits speak for themselves as in almost any conflict the Greek side has won. The several users that push the Bulgarian POV are quite successful mainly due to their organization. It is rare that I see edits from Macedonians that aren't reverted within 10 minutes. Besides the fact that it is proven that many of these users use socks I think some more investigation needs to be done as I suspect multiple users may be using those accounts to achive what they have. And as Fut.Perf also mentioned it is quite disappointing to see these users supporting the Albanians just to annoy the Macedonians. A solution must be found for this. Ireland101 21:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Winter Soldier 2

Initiated by Heimstern Läufer (talk) at 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[2], [3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Heimstern

TDC and Xenophrenic have been edit warring for quite some time at various articles: Winter Soldier Investigation, Mark Lane (author) and Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The edit warring lasted for days at times, for example, in late August and early September at Mark Lane (author). The first arbitration case on this topic concerned TDC and an anonymous editor known as 165.247.xxx; this checkuser request suggests that Xenophrenic is likely the same as the anonymous editor in this case. After seeing a recent three-revert rule report against TDC, I brought this to the incident noticeboard in the hopes of pursuing a community sanction, but the discussion has been unproductive. Several allegations and denials make this case complex: TDC accuses Xenophrenic of being a sockpuppet, which Xenophrenic denies. Xenophrenic, furthermore, denies being the same editor as the anon in the original arbitration case, though few others seem to believe him. In short: I feel this case is too complex for community sanctions and that the Committee should determine a proper solution to this problem. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by partially involved Chaser

I think we may be able to dodge arbitration here. TDC was happy to go to 1RR in the ANI thread (with conditions), and Xenophrenic just added a voluntary editing restriction to his own userpage [4]. These two have no shortage of other bad blood, but I think earlier steps in dispute resolution, like article RFCs, might benefit the situation more than arbitration if we aleady have the 1RR editing restriction in place.--chaser - t 07:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TDC

I don’t believe that this arbitration is warranted. I proposed several remedies over at ANI that would end any editing conflicts on the articles mentioned, dead in their tracks. I also do not think this is warranted because the other editor involved, user:Xenophrenic, is a sockpuuet of another user (yet to be clearly determined who that user is but obviously a sockpuppet), and no one, except for him naturally, disagrees with that. Holding me to the same level of scrutiny as a disruptive WP:SPA, and unconditionally providing that SPA with a forum is madness. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xenophrenic

I came here all fired up with a statement to defend myself against charges of edit warring. Now I see by the statements of three other involved parties that edit warring isn't the real issue. Heimstern suggests the edit warring issue wouldn't require ArbCom attention, if not for a more "complex" issue. Chaser also suggests the edit warring isn't an ArbCom issue, but alludes to an "other bad blood" issue. TDC also feels the edit warring doesn't warrant ArbCom attention, saying he could easily stop the wars "dead in their tracks," but he mentions another issue instead.

My turn now. I'm am going to agree with with the other three parties that this issue of edit warring doesn't rise to the level requiring ArbCom attention. Heimstern says we, "have been edit warring for quite some time at various articles," when in fact we have not. At the VVAW article, we each made about 20 competing edits over a two month period, then Chaser intervened, mediated, edited and built consensus, and neither TDC nor I have returned to that article in the past month. On the Lane article, we made about 30 competing edits each, and spent a lot of time on the talk page itemizing and hashing out every conflict we had. We resolved the issues (with some help from the Mediation Cabal on the last issue), and neither TDC nor I have returned to that article in the past month. TDC and I are presently editing the WSI article, and discussing some of our conflicts on the talk page, but it's been a bumpy road. I have requested and received a week long page protectionand also a 3RR editing block when I felt there was too much reverting and too little consensus-building. Progress is slowly being made.

The real issue: TDC's persistent accusations of sock puppetry and related harassment. This is a serious user conduct issue. Since I first started editing here, TDC has accused me of being an IP-user in an old ArbCom case, or a sock puppet of that user. He has also accused me of being User:Reddi, or a sock puppet of Reddi. He has also accused me of being a sock puppet of some yet to be revealed person known only to him. On talk page discussions, he disruptively refers to me as Anon or Reddi or Rob or Mr. Redding or anything other than my editing name. He even created an attack page containing insults and offering monetary rewards to Wikipedians that provide him with more fodder for his accusation tirade. Several Administrators immediately admonished TDC and speedy-deleted his creation. I mean, come on! Now other users are coming out of the woodwork, claiming they, too, are being falsely accused of sock puppetry by TDC during editing disputes with him. There is much more, but based on the above information alone I am urging the ArbCom to accept this case. Please have TDC present all of his sock puppet conspiracies for your review, determine their merit, and then explain how they justify his harassment and edit warring. I believe such a review would go a long way toward quelling current or future conflicts. Xenophrenic 23:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Jasenovac concentration camp

Initiated by Rjecina at 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

dispute resolution is not possible because this is simple question with only possible answers Yes or No. Mediation is not possible because voting will become nationalistic fight between users from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia.

Statement by Rjecina

Question is simple if Jasenovac is one of Holocaust extermination camps. From my knowledge and from US Holocaust museum (list of Holocaust extermination camps) knowledge he is not because there is "only" 6 Holocaust extermination camps and this are Auschwitz · Bełżec · Chełmno · Majdanek · Sobibór and Treblinka. I have come here to ask for decision so this question which has started in 2006 with edits of single purpose account User:Soece so that this question will be solved. Even PaxEquilibrium know that there is "only" 6 Holocaust extermination camps [5] but he is reverting. What I, he or somebody else think is personal thinkings and nothing more or less. Wikipedia need to accepted historical truth in articles and not warmonger nationalism. I ask for decision so that all future similar writing that Jasenovac is Holocaust extermination camps can be reverted without looking to 3RR rule. Similar to that if your decision will be that he is 1 of historical Holocaust extermination camps all edits which say different can be reverted without problem.

Clerk notes

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

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



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 (0/5/0/0)

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 As this has now been archived I have replaced the link with a permanent link to the archive --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber

[6]

[7]

[8]

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. [9] 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]

Some further responses: Nick, if you knew the community was split, why did you place the block? Kscottbailey, Kurt's self-nom of himself at RfA was raised at the RfC. Kurt's response can be seen here. As for the reference to Speakers' Corner by Dorftrottel, let's not paint Kurt as the Brian Haw of Wikipedia. Those who are responding to Kurt are creating far more drama and time wasting than he has ever done. Carcharoth 14:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But is it easier to educate people to ignore/tolerate his comments than to ask (or make) him stop and reconsider his approach and goals? Btw, I don't think this reasoning amounts to fighting xenophobia by deporting foreigners, in case that's what you meant. — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between asking someone to do something and making them do something. It worries me that you seem to be happy to consider one or the other without really differentiating them ["ask (or make)"]. As for your xenophobia and deportation analogy - that ranks up there with the Speakers' Corner analogy or my Brian Haw analogy. I think we should stop trying to come up with analogies, as none really seem to work. But really, WP:RFARB is not the place for discussion. That should take place back at the RfC. Carcharoth 16:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, an RfC has no real consequence. An RFArb does. His low-level disruption was exactly what Jimbo was talking about when he indeffed Miltopia. This is exactly the forum for this discussion. K. Scott Bailey 16:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't claim to speak for Jimbo (I'd suggest asking on his talk page if he thinks Kurt's actions and Miltopia's actions are comparable), and please, let's not get into a discussion here. The RfC is the place to discuss this. It says at the top of the page in bold "This is not a page for discussion". It also says, "You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail." I've probably overdone things here as well, but there as been low-level back-and-forth going on here for days, and it is probably coming close to disrupting the requests for arbitration process. Let's stop it. Now. Carcharoth 16:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Note: this is not suppressing discussion, merely moving it to the correct venue. If anyone wants to compare moving this discussion to the RfC to kicking Kurt off the RfA pages, then please do so, but not here. Clerks, feel free to remove all this threaded discussion, but please leave a link to the page history.[reply]
Jimbo? Miltopia? Lulz? I don't see any connection. Also, ok, no more analogies then (although I have another dozen or so up my sleeve). With regard to RfC/RfAr: The most important point imo is precisely that the kind of rationale that drives Kmweber is in the wrong place in individual RfAs. Irony? I think so! — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was unclear, but my point is simply that this sort of discussion should either be at the RfC, or at an opened arbitration case. This is just a request stage. If rejected (as seems likely), the RfC is the place to return to. If opened, all this should have taken place on the evidence/workshop pages. This long discussion (that shouldn't be taking place), is more comparable to the threaded discussions that sometimes erupt at RfAs when an oppose vote annoys people. Similarly, the filing of this case has led to people engaging in discussion at an inappropriate length, and in the wrong place and time. We should have more respect for the arbitration process, even if people think that Kurt's opposes show disrespect for the RfA process. And I'm not going to say any more. Please, if we must continue, do so at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kmweber#Continuation of discussion from the arbitration request. Carcharoth 11:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<----undent

I'm relatively certain that most people understand I wasn't claiming to "speak for Jimbo" on this matter. That's a red herring if ever there was one. I was simply saying that Weber is doing a similar thing as MILTOPIA was doing, when he was banned by Jimbo: low-level disruption, just below the threshold that would cause ArbCom to unanimously take up this case. If he were putting "Oppose I view this self-nomination as evidence that this user is a bad-faith a--hat", that would be above the threshold, and he would be banned. By staying just below the threshold, he disrupts a bit less, and keeps from being banned, or (it seems) even having his case taken up by ArbCom. That's a mistake, in my opinion, but one I can do nothing about. And seriously now, how could you have POSSIBLY thought I was "speaking for Jimbo" in my previous post? K. Scott Bailey 21:08, 9 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]

Response to ArbCom Follow-up: Everyone "knows" that RfA is not a vote, but everyone KNOWS that it really is, even if not in the strictest definition of the term. Officially, the 'crats could promote a candidate with 50% or less of the non-vote vote. They don't do this. Officially, they could refuse to promote someone with 90% of the non-vote vote. Neither do they do this. Instead, they determine "consensus" based upon some relatively strict guidelines, that appear to be as follows: less than 70%=automatic non-promote; over 80%=automatic promote; their VERY limited discretion--which allows for the claim that RfA is not a "vote" seems to come between 70-79%. With that said, spurious "responses" (for your sake, I won't call them "votes") like Weber's game the system, causing low-level disruption, as it takes three legitimate support "notes" to outweigh Weber's spurious one in the final decision-making process. Does everyone know that RfA isn't supposed to be a vote? Definitely. Does everyone know that in many ways, it really is a vote? Just as definitely. Thus, Weber's behavior in citing spurious non-reasons for his opposes constitutes low-level disruption, and deserves this committee's attention. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 12:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mercury

I would ask the committee to reconsider for a clarification on disruption and low level disruption. I am not asking the committee to arbitrate the actual content of the RFA view, but the reactions (plural) surrounding it. The many discussions caused by what appears to be bad faith statements. I see disruption, but with the unblock, I can not reblock. This is what I would like arbitrated. User conduct. I ask for reconsideration. With respect, Mercury 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by — Dorftrottel⁠

I have no particular opinion on whether a block or RfA-ban could resolve the issue or would do more good than bad or the other way around, but as far as Kmweber's self-nom opposes are concerned as the underlying issue of this request, I'd like to point out that although minority opinions are welcome anywhere on Wikipedia, Kmweber's way of commenting (i) has had no merits with regard to any RfA so far, and (ii) the tendency is that it serves as a mild disruption, unduly diverting concentration of other participants away from more important points within the process to a meta-level that should be reserved for board discussion at WT:RFA or VP. Again: Minority opinions are welcome, but —vote or !vote— RfA is not Speakers' Corner for anyone bent on changing the process from within. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note from Kscottbailey, Regarding Weber's Previous Self-Nom

I just discovered, via Weber's talk page, that he has actually nominated himself for adminship. The community turned down the nomination. This could very well go to a very point-y reasoning for his opposes, and bolster the case that they are disruptive. K. Scott Bailey 13:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the previous self-nom. K. Scott Bailey 14:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in case anyone misses my response above, Kurt's response to this issue being raised at the RfC is here. Carcharoth 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also for the record, this was simply offered as supporting evidence that Weber could well be making a point, instead of an actual, good-faith contribution. His protestations aside, it strains credulity to believe that one could actually go from self-nomming to considering them "prima facie evidence of power hunger" (a disruptive, bad-faith position if ever there was one). K. Scott Bailey 15:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

The best outcome of this case would be that the wider community prevail upon those who have brought this case, in the face of the multiple expressed opinions on the RFC, to stop hounding kmweber, and in particular to stop threatening him with blocking him for expressing an opinion with which they (and I, for that matter) strongly disagree. In short, the community can resolve this matter, and has expressed considerable support for kmweber's right to state his opinion at RFA. --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/5/0/0)

Requests for clarification

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

I've blocked DreamGuy initially for one week for abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring. I am requesting a review of his sanctions because there are additional factors that ArbCom was unaware of at the time. I recommend increasing the length of the block, and also a checkuser to confirm what appears to be an obvious case of sockpuppetry. See ANI thread and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2. In brief, DreamGuy appeared to be laying low during this case, but was actually editing with an IP sock puppet to avoid scrutiny. Just five days after the case closed, his sockpuppet was used for incivility and edit warring. I view this behavior as cynical manipulation that calls for stronger sanctions. - Jehochman Talk 15:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulties following Jehochman's exposition; i.e. links to more links to more links, etc. El_C 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys#Parties instructed

Hi - I need clarification on this instruction. My concern is that the other party has taken this instruction as a license to own articles; do I need to avoid any article he edits, and stop editing whatever articles I edit if he edits them too? As the arbitration came to a close he immediately went to one of the disputed pages and made the exact same changes that I and several other users had been protesting. Is this behavior considered reasonable, and am I expected to just ignore any page he chooses to edit? Or are his actions considered a violation of the spirit of this instruction? csloat 04:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom instruction was that we are "instructed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way." But we might need a formal practical rule on that. So I proposed the following: "I will not edit any articles where you made any edits before me, however minor these edits might be; and you promise do the same with regard to articles I have ever edited." [10]. Is that reasonable? So far I followed exactly this rule. It is easy to see who of us edited an article first. We are both treated equally. This has nothing to do with own, since all remaining WP users are very welcome to edit any article in question. It is not possible to edit the same article without communication. Biophys 20:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not believe that is reasonable; it smacks of ownership of articles. Especially when one party to the arbitration has immediately taken the close of arbitration as a license to return to the extremely objectionable behavior of the recent past. I would like an arbitrator's view on the matter. (I would also like clarification on whether even this particular interaction violates the instruction; I don't think so but it is vague enough that it might). csloat 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only said that I am not going to follow edits of another user (as ArbCom requested) and asked for the same in return. If that is not reasonable, some clarification may indeed be needed.Biophys 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Biophys proposes is reasonable; neither one of you should edit an article the other is already engaged in editing. Splitting the articles formerly in conflict is somewhat arbitrary. If you guys can live with dividing them by which of you edited them first, that's fine. The alternative—which I suspect will be less to your liking—will be to restrict both of you from editing any article you've been in conflict over in the past (as was done in the WLU-Mystar case). Kirill 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only articles where there was a significant problem were Communist terrorism and Operation Sarindar -- I would be ok with the solution that neither of us edits those two articles. csloat 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list of articles that we edited both is much longer, including Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, Intelligence Summit, California in focus, and others. So, let's follow the official ArbCom decision as clarified by Kirill. We do not need ArbCom sanctions as in WLU-Mystar case.Biophys 17:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are simply articles you stalked me to -- none of them were articles were we had actual substantive conflicts. I am asking for clarification of the arbitration decision; I think for the two articles named a better solution will be necessary as I have significant substantive problems with your use of original research on them. csloat 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that we had a conflict in all articles that we both edited, and there are too many of them. So let's follow good advice by Kirill.Biophys 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Comment. I would not personally recommend a lifting of the restriction, since Ideogram was not the only editor that encountered his edit warring and I fail to see a pressing need in the absence of his primary antagonist. Giving such a user the extra wiggle room of two to three non-vandalism reverts seems like a poor idea for an established edit warrior. However, I would not be opposed to the editing restrictions being lifted, since the community tends to take a dim view of continued nonsense from editors with a problematic history. If CG were to relapse towards poor behaviour, I'm fairly confidant it would be handled quite quickly without kid gloves. I doubt great harm would result from allowing him the chance to participate in Wikipedia productively without editing restrictions. Additionally, the endorsement of Bishonen and Jehochman for the lifting of restrictions is a strong point in its favour. A bit of thought on both sides of the coin. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Disclosure: I was the blocking sysop for the most recent parole violation.[reply]

Thank you, Vassyana. Some recent developments: in his edits of today, November 10, Certified.Gangsta points (on request) to his positive contributions to the project.[11]. Please note especially his appeal here, and the new section "Contribution" on his talkpage, which he's in the process of adding to. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 10 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]
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]

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=170652438"