Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).
| Evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (.) | (p) | (w) | Midnight Syndicate | 12 Dec 2006 | Sr | |
| (.) | (p) | (w) | Naming Conventions | 11 Dec 2006 | Ea | |
| (.) | (p) | (w) | Brahma Kumaris | 10 Dec 2006 | Sr | |
| (.) | (p) | (w) | Sex tourism | 4 Dec 2006 | Sr | |
| (.) | (p) | (w) | Waldorf education | 23 Nov 2006 | TT | |
| (.) | (p) | (w) | Iran-Iraq War | Motion | 16 Nov 2006 | FN |
| Voting | ||||||
| (.) | (e) | (w) | RPJ | 11 Dec 2006 | TT | |
| Motion to close | ||||||
| (.) | (e) | (w) | Seabhcan | 12 Dec 2006 | ||
| Recently closed (see all) | ||||||
| Hkelkar | 10 Dec 2006 | TT | ||||
| Konstable | 10 Dec 2006 | Sr | ||||
| ScienceApologist | 8 Dec 2006 | Sr | ||||
| Elvis | 5 Dec 2006 | TT | ||||
The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.
0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.
This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.
See also
- Arbitration policy
- Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
- Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
- Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
- Developer help needed
- Arbitration template
Contents
|
[edit] Current requests
[edit] Deltabeignet
- Initiated by — Sebastian at 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Involved parties
- Deltabeignet (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) (u t c m p b p d)
- User:69.245.41.105 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) (admitted sockpuppet)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
provide diffs showing that the involved parties have been notified on their talk pages
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
[edit] Statement by SebastianHelm
I am only a witness, I don't have any stake in this other than
- the desire to trust administrators and
- a minor disagreement about some deletions he did in a couple of articles, which is why I became aware of this. However, this request is not about a content dispute; I didn't write that part of the articles, and even if I did I would be able to solve this in a civil discussion.
I only want to initiate this quickly before I might get blocked. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected identity theft and User talk:Deltabeignet#Two more unexplained reverts to vandalism and take it from there. — Sebastian 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I regard this as a case of fraud, which is a crime in the real world. In any functioning society, it would be persecuted in the interest of the community.
We should hold our administrators to the same standard. I think it should go without saying that an administrator who commits fraud and diruption of Wikipedia for months should be blocked immediately and be stripped of his admin status, and a community effort should be initiated to mitigate the harm he did. Moreover, if we find this is indeed a case of fraud (I'm not a lawyer), then those of us who live in the same country as the defendant have a moral obligation to considere if this person should be tried for fraud by the laws of his country.
Furthermore, I think we should conduct a serious intraspection why our community failed to act appropriately:
- This could go on for three months without being noticed. (Maybe his actions weren't beyond the threshold of normal vandalism initially, but we don't know. Someone should take a look at his and his sockpuppet's history to find out.)
- No administrator reacted when this case was brought up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (At least not until I raised it here, more than 24 hours later.) Instead, people were fiercely discussing cases such as a user who had a medieval quote on his user page.
- Even after I listed it here, there was nobody who know how to react, other than one person who asked me on my talk page. That feels to me as if I went to the police to report that I witnessed a crime, and the officers would just stare at me and ask: So what should we do about it?
It seems to me that we are not prepared to deal with the criminal energy of some of our users. If that was the WP:POINT of Deltabeignet's "experiment" then we should do our best to learn from it.
Minor note: Despite my statement that I am only a witness, someone listed me as an involved party. I strongly object to this; I don't know any legal system that would, as a rule, equate a witness with a suspect. This would only further discourage people who already take a big burden on themselves - people who have no personal gain from reporting crimes, but subject themselves to possible retaliation and expend much of their time for no other reason than that they feel it is their moral duty. There can be no doubt that I am reporting this for the sake of the community; as I explained, I have no stake in this matter. I therefore removed this entry.
It is already long past my bedtime; I already invested far more time than I had though I needed to. I have no desire to invest more time in this; I will observe the case sporadically; but if the honorable ArbComm feels I can be of service I will do my best to help. Please alert me on my talk page as I am taking this page off my watchlist for now. I apologize if this is not the correct way to bring this up, and if I said something I wouldn't have said if I had been more awake. — Sebastian 09:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC) — 10:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Deltabeignet
I resign as an admin, but not as an editor.
- The ArbCom is for the solving of disputes. This matter is clear-cut and does not require any of the Committee's time. I have fooled the community. I have abused my powers for tenuous reasons. I have already voluntarily admitted guilt and I apologise again. I thank Sebastian for his help in the matter, and politely request that he not make legal threats.
- This was not a campaign of disruption; it was a loosely associated string of edits. (Begun, incidentally, when I forgot to log in one day.) Most of my actions were breaches of either WP:POINT or WP:DICK. None of the anonymous edits were themselves in bad faith. Rather, my chief mistake was the use of my admin powers (namely, rollback) for personal reasons.
- After some thought, and considering my abuse of rollback, I have resolved to ask for voluntary de-adminship.
- Naturally, I would prefer that I not be blocked. I have no further intent to disrupt, and, once my desysop comes through, no power to disrupt.
- I have been scaling down my Wikipedia usage for a while now, and, due to some new commitments, will not be monitoring these events closely. (I'm not officially leaving, especially not when I'd be remembered for a stupid experiment rather than for making Layla a featured article.) Still, send any questions to my talk page, and I'll try to answer them in a timely matter. Deltabeignet 22:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment by Idont Havaname
<I am not very aware of the dispute between Deltabeignet and SebastianHelm; if I have the time, I will look into it further and perhaps make additional comments about it. However, I do know that User:Leyasu, a community-banned user who has gone through two arbcom cases, is in on this as well and continues to edit war with me [1], Deltabeignet [2], and SebastianHelm. He now calls himself the "rogue bandit" who can keep getting back on Wikipedia despite what the community says about him [3], consistently cries admin abuse, and refers editors who don't agree with him to policies, while all the while breaking WP:BAN. If any case in which Leyasu is involved, directly or indirectly, is accepted, I would like the arbcom to formalize his ban and make it permanent. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- SebastianHelm just clarified a few things on my talk page. I do intend to look into the Deltabeignet case further. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk notes
- (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
[edit] Request for arbitration: Rgfolsom
- Initiated by --Rgfolsom 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Involved parties
- Rgfolsom (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
- Smallbones (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in have been tried
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Socionomics Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Robert Prechter
[edit] Statement by Rgfolsom
After a dispute with User:Smallbones regarding Socionomics, I requested a mediation that has failed. The dispute followed me to Robert Prechter (the biography of a living person), and affects several other articles. I request arbitration.
This is not a content dispute. In the evidence pages I will detail how Smallbones violated several core Wikipedia policies:
- A pattern of bias in articles related to technical analysis, manifested by edits that do not adhere to a NPOV. These edits were labeled as such and considered disruptive by contributors to those articles. The bias also appears in Smallbones' different tone in the edits to articles on fundamental analysis. (Definitions below.)
- Incivility toward contributors to articles related to technical analysis, plus harassment and personal attacks against me for the stated purpose of stopping my contributions.
- Abuse of the mediation process in order to continue the personal attacks and biased edits.
- Overtly negative edits to the biography of a living person: smears, demonstrable falsehoods, and a calculated overemphasis on quotes of critics.
To understand the bias I allege, I respectfully ask that arbitrators grasp the difference between "technical" and "fundamental" analysis. One description is here. Put more succinctly, fundamental analysis says that "externals" (e.g. news events) drive financial markets, while technical analysis says that "internals" (e.g. sentiment) drive those markets.
This distinction can seem arcane. Yet the debate is a real one and is argued vigorously at all levels of finance, from millionaire traders to Nobel laureates. That said, the evidence page will speak for itself.
As for myself, my contributions have mostly been to Elliott wave principle, Socionomics, and Robert Prechter. These articles were overrun with bias and had few if any active editors. No contributors were improving the articles in keeping with Wikipedia standards.
I welcome scrutiny of my history as an editor, particularly my contributions to Elliott wave principle and John Calvin's biography. [4] [5] I have shown that I can write a neutral text about thorny issues (Calvin), and write neutral articles where there is a potential COI (Elliott wave principle). I have expanded and included specifics for the "criticism" sections of articles with a potential COI.[6] [7] [8] [9]
I am a writer with a long-running financial column. My Internet readership runs well into the tens of thousands. I am an employee of Elliott Wave International; by using the handle "Rgfolsom" to contribute to Wikipedia regarding Elliott wave, it is self-evident that I did not intend to disguise my identity.
I deeply regret that my contributions were part of an edit war, and that my tone was sometimes less than civil. I trust that the arbitrators will recognize that the conflict is with this one other editor; Talk:Socionomics shows my painstaking attempts to satisfy his demands, and that I cited chapter & verse of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have let the mediator know that he is free to release all of my emails from the socionomics mediation.
Thank you. --Rgfolsom 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to Smallbones
Smallbones' statement includes several claims that are contrary to the facts.
- He states that I "essentially" deny the applicability of WP:V, and that at some earlier point my citations were "all from Robert Prechter." These are the facts:
-
- The first citation I included in Robert Prechter's biography was the New York Times.
- Three of the first six citations I included were to credible third-party publications.
- Ten of the 13 total citations I have included are to credible third-party publications (NYT, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, USA Today, et al.).
- I did this because of the need for verifiability from neutral sources. And for the record, I have never said and do not believe that I am "the only person capable of editing the Prechter article."
- As the arbitrators are well aware, no editor can "threaten" another editor into the voluntary process of mediation. Indeed, that process is supposed to be a rational step toward resolving a dispute. To wit, the remarks about mediation we exchanged on the day before I made the request:
- Furthermore, is bizarrely ironic for him to claim that I "didn't discuss anything" during the socionomics mediation. Smallbones asked that the process be private, and I agreed (instead of insisting on the public exchange that I had requested first). Now I'm obliged to state what is beyond obvious: He cannot know what I discussed because my emails to the mediator were privileged.
- The mediation cabal request was filed on December 7; I did not "ignore" it, but spoke directly to the proposal:
- I was preparing my arbitration request to submit on the very next day (December 8), which I did. The socionomics mediator can confirm that my decision to request arbitration came as early as December 5.
As for Smallbones' other claims regarding my conduct, those I'll address in full with the facts I've prepared for the evidence pages. --Rgfolsom 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by CanaryInACoalmine
- I attempted unofficial mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Robert Prechter but this has apparently failed. I tried to comment about the process and conduct of both User:Rgfolsom and User:Smallbones at Talk:Robert Prechter where the substance of my attempts at mediation can be seen. I have no interest in sponsoring one case or the other, but I found the conduct of both parties to be disruptive.
- Smallbones was insistent on making his posts which sharply diverged from Rgfolsom's views. Rgfolsom aggressively and repeatedly removed anything that didn't meet his approval, as if he "owned" the article and ignoring many WP guidelines despite insisting vehemently that he compliant. Smallbones continued either to revert or to create new versions, none of which met with Rgfolsom's approval and triggered more nuclear responses.
- Rgfolsom however has a material WP:COI since he is an employee of Robert Prechter. He has serially failed to address this issue (which in my opinion makes him ineligible to contribute to this article) preferring to continue to war very aggressively and to attack Smallbones personally; often these attacks were venomous and nasty. Of the few editors contributing to this article, most were aligned around Smallbones' view; none that I know of took Rgfolsom's side. However the apparent nastiness of the anger and energy that Rgfolsom invested in asserting control over the argument saw other editors fade away; Smallbones continued to make his case and this led to escalation of the edit war.
- Lastly, it seem that Rgfolsom presumes that his understanding of WP rules has "absolute status" and that any divergent view must be ignore, attacked or silenced. However, he complains about the same behavior in others. This "asymmetry" is difficult to deal with as he rejects any attempt to discuss his tactics as being "discussing the editor and not the subject". My early attempts to do so were met with hostility, but only after I cited rules & guidlines from WP did this hostility reduce. I did not achieve successful resolution of discussing either eligibility under COI rules or behavior.
- Regardless of the COI, I feel that both parties have violated many WP rules and guidelines and if forced to express a view I would say that Rgfolsom is the more culpable. I do not suggest that Smallbones is unimpeachable.
- Please note, I do not endorse either view, but the direction of the conflict is clear. This my considered opinion. CanaryInACoalmine 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have updated my user page to explain that my sole interest is to mediate. I have no preference for which way arbitration goes, I just seek resolution. CanaryInACoalmine 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to statement by Dionyseus
- Dionyseus, Punanimal is known to me but we are not the same person. I will also confirm that I used to edit the Socionomics article, when I was very unsophisticated in my understanding of Wikipedia. I have reflected much on this over the last few months, and have realised that WP is a valuable asset to humanity and that, probably, I suffer from the objectivity/subjectivity problem. I'm not sure I'd make a good editor for this issue, but mediation is something I feel capable of. This is why I have adopted a stance of "mediation only". Perhaps I should have pre-declared this, in the interests of full disclosure? If you feel that I am should therefore also be a subject of the arbitration places, then please feel free to pronounce your verdict. CanaryInACoalmine 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 19:40, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Further thoughts
- I would also like to note that I found my attempt at mediation very difficult, and will be happy no longer to be involved. It's been a learning experience, in many respects. I think my ambitions to be a general mediator will be short-lived and I intend to cease contributing to Wikipedia completely. I'll use my energies elsewhere. CanaryInACoalmine 10:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by Smallbones
User:Rgfolsom is Robert Folsom a longtime senior writer employed by Robert Prechter and his “Socionomics Institute.” [10] Thus Folsom has a financial stake in the articles “Robert Prechter,” “Socionomics,” and “Elliott Wave Principle.” Socionomics and Elliott Wave Principle are marketing tools used to sell Prechter’s “Elliott Wave Theorist” investment newsletter, but they masquerade as scientific theories.
Folsom has been politely asked to refrain from editing articles where he has a conflict of interest. [11] [12]His explanations of his edits are almost always accusatory or contain personal attacks. He has reverted the last 9 edits in a row that I’ve made to Robert Prechter and 8 out of the last 9 edits I’ve made in Socionomics.
In one recent comment he essentially denies the applicability of the rules WP:V and WP:NPOV and basically states that he is the only person capable of editing the Prechter article. [13]
Socionomics is a non-scientific theory based on the Elliott Wave Principle. It has little or no support in the academic community, there are no peer-reviewed articles that use the term socionomics, and essentially everything published about it is self-published by Prechter. I’ve asked Folsom for examples of scientific acceptance and he has produced 4 (a footnote in a peer-reviewed journal, a vague quote from a popular science magazine, a conference paper from a Prechter employee, and 2 questions accepted for a political science survey).
While getting this information on scientific acceptance, made clear he was not going to accept the word “non-scientific” in the article and threatened me with mediation. He did not mediate in the sense that he didn’t discuss anything. If the committee for some reason wants to look at Folsom’s e-mails, they should also look at all 10 of my e-mails with the mediator.
In the Prechter article, he refuses to let a quote from the front page of the Wall Street Journal in. The quote is paralleled by a quote from Fortune, which he cuts out as well. When I put in 9 citations (Business Week, Esquire, more Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, etc.) he says there are too many citations. He has improved his own citations recently. Previously they were all from Robert Prechter, now there are a few minor business publications among them. Anything that can be viewed as criticism of Prechter, Folsom cuts or cuts down to a minimum and puts at the end of the article in a small section called criticism.
Folsom has turned down the chance to mediate this through the mediation cabal, by simply ignoring the request.
I do get angry when Folsom denies me the opportunity to edit his “boss’s pages” and I apologize for my anger. Smallbones 17:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- addition Given the behavior of the 'mediator' which only draws attention to himself and away from the main points, I'll ask that this RfA be strictly limited to issues involving user:Rgfolsom and myself. Smallbones 14:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by uninvolved party, User:Dionyseus
I noticed that an anon edited User:CanaryInACoalmine's statement. [14] I was about to revert it, but then I looked at the anon's contribution history and it revealed that the anon has an interest in the Socionomics article just like User:CanaryInACoalmine does. Further investigation revealed that the anon had edited User:Punanimal's userpage. [15] User:Punanimal allowed for the edit to remain, [16] this suggests that the anon and User:Punanimal is the same person. Why is this relevant? It is relevant because a look into User:Punanimal's contribution history reveals that the user has an interest in the Socionomics and Robert Prechter articles, just like User:CanaryInACoalmine does. What made me more certain that these three users are the same person is that just minutes after the anon edited User:CanaryInACoalmine's statement, User:CanaryInACoalmine apparently logged in and modified the statement, using the same edit summary that the anon used, and modifying the signature replacing the anon ip with his own. [17] Dionyseus 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk notes
- Threaded discussion in Dionyseus's statement section by CanaryInACoalmine has been moved to a subsection of CanaryInACoalmine's original statement, entitled "Reply to statement by Dionyseus". Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0)
- Accept Fred Bauder 14:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Accept. - SimonP 14:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requests for clarification
Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.
[edit] Motions in prior cases
- (Only Arbitrators may make such motions)
[edit] Archives
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)
