Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:36, 18 December 2006 view source67.117.130.181 (talk) →Statement by []← Previous edit Revision as of 03:37, 18 December 2006 view source 67.117.130.181 (talk) →Statement by []Next edit →
Line 137: Line 137:
====Statement by ]==== ====Statement by ]====
I would also like arbcom to take note then although I'm listed above, I was not formally notified of this action taking place. See my talk history . I only became involved when I reverted, a revert of a Starwood link. I've never heard of Starwood, but my review of the link did not indicate any issue. It simply appeared to be a citation (ref) type link on a fact. I also feel like this open action is unwarranted as the mediation appeared to be going just fine. As I see it there is only one open issue, which is actually an issue cross-pedia not just on this festival. That issue being, when is an appearance at an event significant enough to be mentioned in the articles of the performers and how much leeway do we give to the main festival article to list ALL performers, even if they are non-notable in themselves. I also agree that these issues should be taken up on the local talk pages and resolved by locally-involved editors. This is not a situation for ArbCom. ] 00:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC) I would also like arbcom to take note then although I'm listed above, I was not formally notified of this action taking place. See my talk history . I only became involved when I reverted, a revert of a Starwood link. I've never heard of Starwood, but my review of the link did not indicate any issue. It simply appeared to be a citation (ref) type link on a fact. I also feel like this open action is unwarranted as the mediation appeared to be going just fine. As I see it there is only one open issue, which is actually an issue cross-pedia not just on this festival. That issue being, when is an appearance at an event significant enough to be mentioned in the articles of the performers and how much leeway do we give to the main festival article to list ALL performers, even if they are non-notable in themselves. I also agree that these issues should be taken up on the local talk pages and resolved by locally-involved editors. This is not a situation for ArbCom. ] 00:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
:If dozens of separate articles are involved it's no longer "local", and the user conduct issues (the massive COI behind the link insertions) are very significant. ] 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC) :If dozens of separate articles are involved it's no longer "local", and the user conduct issues (the massive COI behind the link insertions) are very significant. The links in any specific article might be locally acceptable but doing it across so many articles looks like an attempt to game the system. ] 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


==== Clerk notes ==== ==== Clerk notes ====

Revision as of 03:37, 18 December 2006

Shortcut
  • ]

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

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

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


Purge the server cache



Current requests

Starwood/ACE et al. links

Initiated by Pigman at 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

(This is my first RFAR so I'm a little uncertain whether I should list everyone involved. I'm only including some of those from one side of the matter. If you would like a more complete list, please ask me and I'll draw one up. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Rosencomet has inserted numerous links to Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and WinterStar Symposium since August 2006. Rosencomet is thoroughly involved and connected to these groups. Other editor's attempts to dispute or remove these links have been blocked. Additionally, proponents in favor of the links have harassed editors opposing most or all of these links.

Requests for comment

Over time there have been several related RfCs and mediations:

  • Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse is related. User:999 and User:Hanuman Das say this demonstrates Mattisse has used sockpuppets to give the impression for greater support for Mattisse's actions; an outside view argues this RFC was filed in retaliation.

Statement by User:Paul_Pigman

The internal links to Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and Winterstar Symposium from performers/presenters' pages seems grossly overdone. They appear to fall under the WP:SPAM guidelines. These links have been persistently and systematically added by User:Rosencomet. When going through Rosencomet's user contributions, I find only five pages out of his approx. 850 total edits since August 2006 not connected to these links. (Those five might be connected as well. I do not know.) Of course, not every edit included inserting these links; he did do other edits on these articles. But his edit universe remains very focused on the ACE/Starwood, et al. performers. Since Rosencomet used the phrase "as executive director of ACE", he has a conflict of interest. The vast majority of these internal link insertions appear gratuitous and intended to increase visibility of ACE and its events. Several other editors have commented on this here, here, and here. Many of these inserted references seem to have little relationship to their appropriateness or significance to the subject. A representative but by no means exhaustive selection of specific examples are here, here, and here.

Additionally, editors who have attempted to change these links or argued for their removal have been subject to harassing and disruptive actions against them. Recent examples here and here. Hanuman Das has probably been the most persistent of these. Please see his block log for recent violations. Others have been Ekajati and 999.

Statement by Hanuman Das

I formally withdrew from the mediation here when the new mediator took over. I agreed not to edit the links in question, and I have kept that agreement. Please remove me from the arbitration. You may also note that this is the current mediation page, and I have posted no comments whatsoever on the page, since I withdrew before mediation started. The first mediation page is a complete red herring as the mediator never appeared or did any mediation. The only mediation which has occurred is on the page I have just given. I request that my name be removed from this request as I decline to participate. —Hanuman Das

Statement by Mattisse

If User:Hanuman Das has withdrawn I have very little issue here. He was the primary person who harassed me along with User:999 (who is on wikibreak) and User:Ekajati (who has not been named). I have no particular issue with Rosencomet separate from what people will cover here independent of my comments. My primary issue was the harassment. As far as Rosencomet is concerned, I feel he was enabled and condoned by those around him on Misplaced Pages. But he did not harass me or cause me personal grief. Therefore, I wish to withdraw from this arbitration as it has no relevance to me at this point. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by WeniWidiWiki

Rosencomet the Executive Director of the for-profit organization ACE LLC created a wikipedia profile with the same name of a website he maintains called Rosencomet.com. This website is a commercial enterprise which promotes the for profit Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium and sells merchandise, tickets, etc. He created an autobiographical entry for Jeff Rosenbaum. His contribs show he has created dozens of articles to promote his organization in one way or another, has made hundreds of links which go back to his domain name and only single-mindedly edits entries which have something to do with this commercial endeavour. Several attempts at resolution and mediation have occured, and this mediation is still underway about the appropriateness of the links. However, a big problem with the current mediation that is not being addressed is that of Rosencomet's conflict of interest. He refuses to address the issue, and has not contributed to the mediation since being asked about his apparent conflict of interest. Since mediation is not compulsory, and he has apparently opted out, Arbitration is the last means of resolving this. - WeniWidiWiki 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ekajati

In my opinion, the ongoing mediation was going well and this RFaR was opened simply because Paul Pigman wasn't getting the result from mediation that he wanted. This is not the first time that he has attempted to bypass mediation or encourage others to join the mediation in an attempt to bias it in his favor. Vis. , , , , , , .

It's also not clear to me, is this about the Starwood Festival links? Or is it retaliation against Hanuman Das for bringing up a privacy concern? . I'm happy to participate if it is the former. I've got no interest in a witchhunt against any user's past actions, either Hanuman Das's or Mattisse's.

Also, please note that I was not informed of this arbitration request by Paul Pigman, though everybody on his side of the dispute seems to have been notified. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I also would like to note that despite Mattisse's protests that she is not involved in the situation any more, that she almost immediately entered an opinion on the mediation page. That tells me that she is still involved and should be a party to this arbitration. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jkelly

I'd say that ArbCom can safely take a pass on this one. The actual behaviour seems to be adding Notable person was a guest speaker at in in the article ]. It's probably true that User:Rosencomet could use a stern reminder that it is inappropriate to replace such mentions when local editors to the articles in question remove them for lack of import, and an encouragement to recognise that editing that annoys people is probably bad and should be taken to talk to gather consensus. Frankly, local editors seem to be handling the situation appropriately, so it is not obvious to me that admin intervention is needed here, let alone an ArbCom case. Jkelly 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:999

I recv'd an urgent email from Hanuman Das about this RFaF. After reviewing it, I feel it is important for me to respond, although I will not have free time to participate until I return from vacation (my wife would kill me :-). I completely agree with Jkelly that local editors of the articles should decide the issue. However, it has not been local editors who have mostly been removing the additions. It has been Wikistalkers. First, Mattisse stalked Rosencomet, first removing the internal links, then adding citation requests. She was not a regular local editor of the articles in question: her first edits to each article was to interfere with Rosencomet. When local editors restored the links, she began using sockpuppets. When local editors continued to restore the links, she recruited other non-local editors, who then also began to stalk Rosencomet. These included BostonMA, Calton, User:Kathryn NicDhna. When other local editors such as Septegram supported the links as well, these users made multiple accusations of "spamming", urged on by Mattisse, in a rather uncivil manner. My recommendation is that these users abandon this effort except in cases where they truly were local editors of the article in question. I also urge acceptance of this RFaF, not as a referendum about the links, but about the stalking behaviour of these users who appear to be unwilling to let the actual local editors make these judgment calls. However, please note that while I would like to be involved, I will not be able to devote any significant time to this until January. -999 (Talk) 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to statement by User:999

Misplaced Pages articles are not WP:OWN'ed by "local editors" or by anyone else. We all have the duty to clean up spam where we find it, and if someone inserts hundreds of links to his or her own site into Misplaced Pages, that is spam (WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI). Also, Special:Linksearch and user contrib histories are essential tools for spam cleanup and using them to locate and remove spam links is not "stalking". If other "stalking" has taken place it hasn't been described here. The credulity of some of the mediation participants notwithstanding, spammers love to insert as many links as they can into Misplaced Pages, not just to attract visitors through the links but also to increase their search engine rank from the links' mere presence in Misplaced Pages, so they will find any rationalization they can for inserting and defending the links. Any analysis of this situation should done by viewing it through that lens. Finally, as of right now, linksearch shows 59 extlinks to *.rosencomet.com mostly in article space, so "local editors" IMO are not cleaning them up and so the task does fall to other editors. I certainly would have removed all of them if I'd come across them randomly. (I'll leave them alone for now).

I would not have thought this case had enough subtlety to lead anyone to call for an arbitration process. I'd have expected a straightforward user-initiated spam cleanup to remove the spam links, plus suitable administrative blocks against the spammers if the spamming continues, plus extlink blacklisting of the spammer's domains if necessary. If arbcom does take the case it should be to impose more drastic remedies than the above. (From uninvolved user 67.117.130.181 09:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)).

Reply to "uninvolved" user by Ekajati

Wow! Clearly you did not read any of the mediation pages. If you had, you would have found out that:

  1. Rosencomet.com is the official website of the Starwood Festival, which has been determined to be notable enough to have an article.
  2. That it was concluded in mediation that the external links are valid citations, not "spam".
  3. That what is being discussed here is the inclusion of mention or internal linking to Starwood Festival.

Therefore, your "reply" violates WP:CIVIL and completely misrepresents the situation in a derogatory light.

On the basis of the above, I request that the clerks remove or strike the comment by "uninvolved user". Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The pages are not WP:OWN'ED by the mediation participants either. I did look at the main mediation page before posting that but I missed the distinction about the nature of the spam at that time of night. OK--spammers are gaming the system by wrapping the spam up as "citations", as has been predicted and observed at other times. There was just a discussion of this on (IIRC) some AfD (I'll see if I can find a link). Anyway it's accepted practice in disputed articles to require that those wanting to insert facts into an article document not only that the facts are verifiable by reliable sources, but also that the facts' relevance to the article's subject's notability is verifiable. The Starwood Festival's (lack of) relevance to the subjects of the articles where those links originate is in fact discussed in the mediation. That plus the COI issues mean these links are still spam (both internal and external). I've struck out my comment that the case is so simple though. I don't think there's been an arb case of this nature before, so arbcom may want to weigh in. I may add some thoughts about the relevant principles to the RFAR talk page later. 67.117.130.181 18:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Wjhonson

I would also like arbcom to take note then although I'm listed above, I was not formally notified of this action taking place. See my talk history here. I only became involved when I reverted, a revert of a Starwood link. I've never heard of Starwood, but my review of the link did not indicate any issue. It simply appeared to be a citation (ref) type link on a fact. I also feel like this open action is unwarranted as the mediation appeared to be going just fine. As I see it there is only one open issue, which is actually an issue cross-pedia not just on this festival. That issue being, when is an appearance at an event significant enough to be mentioned in the articles of the performers and how much leeway do we give to the main festival article to list ALL performers, even if they are non-notable in themselves. I also agree that these issues should be taken up on the local talk pages and resolved by locally-involved editors. This is not a situation for ArbCom. Wjhonson 00:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If dozens of separate articles are involved it's no longer "local", and the user conduct issues (the massive COI behind the link insertions) are very significant. The links in any specific article might be locally acceptable but doing it across so many articles looks like an attempt to game the system. 67.117.130.181 03:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Hanuman Das' user and talk pages have been deleted at his request per m:Right to vanish. If the parties to this case believe these pages contain evidence necessary to this stage of the case (whether to accept or reject the request), please contact one of the clerks. Thatcher131 12:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
How does one contact a clerk? His talk pages are essential to me if I have to become involved and maybe central to the case in general separate from me. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Nobs01 stands alone (Appeal)

Involved party

same as Nobs02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior arbitration

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

NA

Statement by Nobs01

Nobs01 seeks a limited review of remedy 11) Nobs01 banned for personal attacks and modification of the specific language, "The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators after its expiration". Appellant contends this constitutes an unfair burden based upon the fact certain evidence was disallowed unfairly branding Appellant as a troublemaker. Appellant seeks a "time served" result or whatever substitutional remedy the Committee may also deem appropriate.

Appellant seeks no punitive action against other users.

Several statements have been made which unfairly cast Appellant in a negative light. This is largely through a confluence of unfortune circumstances and mistakes. Appellant's training, interest and editing activity is reflected mostly in historical subjects and biographies of dead people. Appellant's first contact with Complainant arouse in a biography of a 92 year old gentlemen prior to WP:BLP, and Misplaced Pages is now much improved with the creation of such policy. This case however, fell through the cracks.

Appellant wishes to lie 2 Motions before the Committee regarding personal attacks which disrupted the previous hearing. One such attack was from a suspected sockpuppet whom the Committee later took punitive action against based upon the same evidence he presented against Nobs01 in the initial hearing. It is the unanswered nature of those attacks which now makes Appellant a target for abuse.

Appellant accepted the final ruling of the Committee and has not circumvented it. This limited review is quit simple, should not involve an inordinate amount of time, and provides the Committee with the opportunity to rectify an oversight. Appellant wishes the Committee to recognize a onetime error on his part, and the burden now imposed unfairly makes him a target. Nobs02 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

unfounded allegations

Complainant initially alleged a conspiracy of five editors led by Nobs01 and others acting in concert

Fred Bauder discovered

  • "So far I have found no evidence of that"
  • "The fact that with the exception of , discrete remedies are proposed for each user serves"
  • "Nobs and his co-defendants were not such a block"
  • "For a start, there is no finding that there was any conspiracy."
  • "When claims were investigated, we found no conspiracy"

An Amicus Statement was made referring to "our friends in the LaRouche movement"

Complainant also alleged that "Nobs01 work as team regarding LaRouche".

These unfounded allegations, now in the official record, constitute an unfair burden Appellant must bear, after having served his 12 month ban.

omitted evidence

The omitted evidence surrounds two RfM's, the second being accepted.

Policy ruling: good faith = harassment

Evidence will be presented that a policy ruling by the presiding Arbitrator could be interpreted to mean good faith = harassment.

Also, there is a minor issue regarding abuse of RfC's, but that may not be necessary in this hearing.

Evidence presented by Clerk in Appeal of VeryVerily

Evidence presented by a Committee Clerk on the request of an Arbitrator in the Appeal of VeryVerily stated,

  • in November last year, Timoteo III began making controversial edits to Alger Hiss, and engaged in revert warring. (, , ) His edits appeared to suspiciously agree with Ruy Lopez's; Ruy had also edited the article before. (, , , )

This suspected sockpuppet gave Evidence in Nobs01 initial hearing and made statements which were extremely damaging of Nobs01 personal integrity (see Motion 1), and may have affected the outcome of process. ArbCom made Principals, Findings of fact and took punitive action against the suspected sockpuppet for abuse in the VeryVerily case. Nobs02 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

future concerns

Appellant's proposal, WikiProject Cold War History has already attracted a few willing collaborators in an area which which has been overly contentious in the past. Nobs02 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Neigel von Teighen

by Neigel von Teighen, AMA advocate taking the case for User:Nobs01 = User:Nobs02 (with permission by User:Fred Bauder and )

I'm here to back up Nobs01's appeal on number 11 of Nobs01 and others case final decision as I believe he was mistakenly considered to be part and also leader of an "ideological block" intended to harrass another user. This appeal, differently as any other made before, tries to prove how wrong were those accusations and also revert the ban that derived from it (the already mentioned No. 11 decision), for Nobs01 had good-faithedly not violated it and certainly agrees on being put under another remedy to show his good faith. I believe this is a very concrete issue (as opposed to earlier appeals that were too broad on their petitions) and that won't need too much time for being decided.

As you surely know, Number 11 (titled Nobs01 banned for personal attacks) states:

11) Nobs01 is banned for one year for personal attacks. The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators after its expiration should personal attacks of the virulence found in this case continue. All extensive personal attacks shall be removed and his user and talk page protected. Passed 6-0

Number 12 puts Nobs01 on Probation for a year.

As the 1 year ban is ending on 23th December 2006 (), we're appealing for a rewording of no. 11 that:

  1. Does not establish the potential ban by 3 arbitrators, because of the circumstances that led to be decided.
  2. But also something that puts Nobs01 under Mentorship for some amount of time as a way he has agree with to guarantee its good faithed acts.

As you see, our request is very specific and concrete: mentorship instead of potential banning by 3 arbs. Also, we don't pretend to reword number 12, which places Nobs01 on Probation neither any other decision taken. Also, we don't seek any punitive action against other users. We know ArbCom has never decided in favor of an appeal, mainly because of the inflated petitions of the appealing parties, but we really believe our request is very reasonable.

But what's the reason behind this? I personally believe the original decision is completely unnecessary nowadays. Nobs01 has proven to have good faith in completing his ban and hasn't ever tried to sockpuppeteer in Misplaced Pages. Also, he has proved to have good faith before (, accepted Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01, and see also diffs below). He recognizes his responsability on the dispute with User:Cberlet; that's why he would be pleased to be placed under Mentorship, to become a better editor being guided by one of our best recognized users. Personally (just not as advocate!), I think is a very remarkable attitude.

But, also, there is another reason to revise the first arbitration's decision. This ban was established because of assuming that Nobs01's actions were part of a party's agenda trying to push its POV and disrupt Misplaced Pages's neutrality. This has been proven to be false (see below) and admitted by User:Fred Bauder later. This occured mainly because of an erronous omition of evidence coming from a mediation attempt, in a very strange decision by the arbitrators. I say "strange", because User:Vfp15 had used mediation in a similar purpose on the very famous (and conflictive) Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute in which I also acted as advocate, so it would very interesting to clarify that point in order to reach the proposed ban-lifting we're requesting.

I beg the Arbitration Committe to accept this, please. --Neigel von Teighen 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary
  1. Our appeal is not simply to lift Nobs' ban. We propose to change it for another softer remedy because of the evidence we present and the idea that he has been put under an 'unfair burden' in the past arbitration with accusations on being an anti-Semitist and Nazi appologist (see above).
  2. We propose to change the ban for mentorship (I propose 1 year).
  3. And seek that someone please restore the mediation pages that were omitted by accident in the past arbitration.

Now I think it is clearer, so you can vote more informedly for accepting or rejecting our request. If any further clarification is needed, please tell me. --Neigel von Teighen 13:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Lostkiwi

Actually.. the rest of the sentence says: "Nobs01 is banned for one year for personal attacks. The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators after its expiration should personal attacks of the virulence found in this case continue." And the next remedy says he is on indefinite parole.

This should be withdrawn or rejected. If Nobs01 came back to edit constructively, this is a non issue. I've removed this strong statement as I haven't looked at those possible improprieties brought up by Nobs and his advocate. I still feel a return to constructive editing would be more useful than going back on this one year old issue Lost Kiwi 02:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Professor Omura/BDORT

Initiated by Richardmalter at 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Crum375 notified:
  • GenghizRat notified:
  • IP's: , ,
  • Philosophus: added himself
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Mediation tried repeatedly but Crum375 is "resistant to mediation" and acts in "extremely bad faith" said CheNuevara the last Mediator. shows mediation efforts recently, and shows more records and archives of previous mediation over many months. Richardmalter 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary statement by Crum375

Yoshiaki Omura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a man who invented an Alternative Medicine procedure he calls the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), in which a patient forms an 'O' with his/her fingers, with the diagnostician trying to pry the patient's fingers apart, while subjectively estimating the patient's finger strength. This procedure is then used by adherents to diagnose and/or treat many/most diseases known to man, from common cold to cancer. If the diagnostician is far from the patient, the procedure can also be carried out remotely via telephone.

The BDORT entry was created on April 11, 2006 by the user now known as User:GenghizRat (hereafter GR). It was initially two separate entries, BDORT and Omura, which were subsequently merged. The merge occured just around the time I arrived at the entry. I notice that User:Philosophus, who was there before I arrived, has described some of the early history of the entry, which matches my recollection.

Over the past 8 months or so, a single-issue editor User:Richardmalter (hereafter RM) who openly praises BDORT's merits, works with BDORT, teaches BDORT, and participates in BDORT seminars, having a clear conflict of interest in BDORT related matters, has been persistently trying to shape the Omura entry into a pro-BDORT version, in a clearly tendentious fashion, over objections of virtually all other neutral logged-in contributors, but with the occasional help of anon-IP's, who are apparent sock or meat puppets. RM has tried multiple reversions (often exceeding WP:3RR) and failed, tried to use sockpuppetry when blocked, tried insulting fellow editors and still failed to get his way. He then asked for mediation, which was a prolonged process, lasting months (partly due to frequent change of mediator - we had 6 total), which despite a valiant effort on the part of all mediators, failed to find an acceptable middle ground. Even after filing for Arbitration, RM continued his tendentious editing pattern, becoming blocked for 3RR violation yet again.

Despite RM's behavior and attitude, including frequent insults of other editors, frequent and repeated allegations of other editors' 'misbehavior' in bold face font and/or caps, and vandalism (deleting other editors' civil and pertinent comments from the article's Talk page), the other editors have consistently invited RM to participate on the Talk page constructively and civilly, but he declined.

Lately, some anon-IP's, who refuse to identify as another user and/or participate in the Talk page, have also edited in a similar fashion to RM. The anon-IP's also sometimes appear to threaten legal action unless their preferred version of the article is accepted or are unblocked. These IP's resolve to the NYC area (RM resides in Australia, although he has travelled to, and edited WP from the U.S. at least once) and have a different writing style from RM, so it's unlikely to be an RM sockpuppet, but could well be meatpuppet associates. The anon-IPs seem to edit more during periods when RM is blocked, and have lately begun to edit even more aggressively - and like RM were just now blocked for 3RR violation, even after this RfArb case was already underway, and are issuing apparent legal threats for being blocked, while insisting they are not 'threats'. According the the blocked IP's, WP is "conspiring to suppress proven, documented, revolutionary new diagnoses and treatments which have been repeatedly demonstrated around the world, and widely evaluated and published, and which could ease the suffering of MILLIONS.".

Examples of recent uncivil talk comments by RM:

Statement by Richardmalter

posted for Richardmalter from his talk page Thatcher131 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Underlying Supra-WP biases are the root of the conflict. Things considered in isolation will not tell the whole story. GenghizRat has used many handles and evaded admitting: "I am Whiffle. You are not . . .". He has a deep, major personal bias, confided in me (I keep faith, no details) he knew Omura personally, had major disagreements with him. He says there's no grudge, but he even tried to mock Omura's residence, "Omura's house (literally – well, apartment, anyway)". This November at a Symposium that Omura Chairmans, he visited Columbia University campus and we know spread comments there aimed at denegrating the Symposium. He will deny this; but gives it away here indirectly "I had, by chance. . .". He created the original entry, with his underlying bias, which shows on line 1, to label the BDORT as 'pseudoscience' ], which he continues throughout. His WP:OR/POV shows in his 'discursive' edits. He repeatedly evades full consensus mediated agreements (FCMA) that he was part of , and states the Mediator's records, Discussion closed and action taken as agreed are "matters of interpretation", etc.

Crum375's undeclared entrenched bias was revealed here: "Be also aware . . potential WP readers . .will rely on BDORT . . with possible dire consequences" ]. He does not admit this motivation, but as CheNuevara (last Mediator) commented on this: "What you say . . . does express your opinion of the matter pretty clearly". He wants to warn the world of his perceived danger of BDORT. All his behaviour that I could not understand for a while is coherent with this. It explains many actions including his repeated arguments to have a "disclaimer" after almost each paragraph despite being told by Mediators/Admins, "not appropriate for Misplaced Pages". He too wont keep to FCMAs, tries to deny , evade them repeatedly. Typically: first he denies agreements, "nothing whatsoever"; when pressed admits they are, "minor technicalities" (fact: usage of a citation, in itself and for what); still evades, "only agreed to by me" (false);later invents reasons why he reverts FCMD which like all his discussion only sounds reasonable in isolation. Even when the last Mediator CheNuevara proposed we begin the most basic, neutral stub and work from there to stop the edit warring, seconded as the "best option" by Cowman109 (coordinator: Mediation Cabal), he was as the Mediator said "resistant" and showed a "continued lack of good faith" to this - and so scuttled the last mediation attempt completely. He has an immovable bias. Also repeatedly misrepresents consensus regarding mediation process, tries to deny (his) agreements "no recollection"; by "interpret agreements to the letter, rather than in spirit, shows a continued lack of good faith". He continually misrepresents consensus suggesting "wide consensus' and "problem for one editor only". Even when Admins/Mediators give proposals for citations (which I agree to), if he interprets them as being in any way 'pro' BDORT he argues ad infinitum to not allow them against the Mediator's efforts . His 'mediation' effort was a sham, for example, requesting no one make unilateral changes, then he making a "unilateral change" (viz his bias). Re the much disputed NZ Tribunal citation, when Che the last mediator (and also the previous mediator) drafted a neutral version of it, I agreed to it without any major problem; the other parties either selectively quote from it or outweigh one quote from it with many to meet their POVs. ALL real mediators have done a great job. The record shows I have gone along with everything they proposed - content and process (occasionally requesting minor adjustments, never blocking). The last mediator CheNuevara I quote as a neutral 3rd party commentator on the situation. This doesn't alter the fact of his extremely useful, patient, neutral, efforts which I respect very much. My bias: I use the BDORT, am convinced it works, I have always said so - my identity is public . That said, I by chance discovered the original entry; an Admin at the time of the first edit wars told me if I truly want a neutral article then WP policies are my friends. I think this true. I want a basic NPOV, no WP:OR,'encyclopedic' informative entry. Even a stub I agreed to. The record shows that I have argued for this. The other parties are blocking this (which they deny). They have teamed up to evade the 3RR rule by out-reverting anyone, including the last Mediator - their strategy to stall and keep this version up at all cost and 'discourse' endlessly while it remains. Thanks.Richardmalter 04:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Che Nuevara

I began mediating the Omura case after User:Aguerriero left Misplaced Pages (?). Richard, Crum, and I discussed some avenues to explore and began discussing the disputed material. The discussion was long and tedious, and yielded little if anything, but was civil. During that time, Rat resurfaced as his provocative account Whiffle, but relented that strategy and joined the discussion as TheStainlessSteelRat. Eventually we came to the conclusion that agreement between the involved parties was unlikely and we considered putting up an RfC.

A couple of offers were made by outside editors to draft a stub, but these never came to fruition.

Then I was away for about a week (week of USA Thanksgiving) and, when I came back, the situation had regressed to a revert war. A very basic stub had been produced -- I'm not sure by whom -- which I attempted to encourage work from, but both sides pushed in opposite directions towards other versions they preferred. Eventually, with no reasonable end in sight, I decided to close the case as unworkable.

Despite Richard's stated intention to continue appropriating my words, I do not believe that Crum is solely to blame for this conflict. I believe that all parties with whom I dealt in the mediation (I had no contact with Philosophus) have, at some time or another, edited tendentiously, edit warred, failed to act in good faith, displayed incivility, and the like. I do not hold Crum to be the reason that the mediation case could come to no reasonable end; I ended the mediation because no avenue available could reach agreement between these editors.

I will detail specific incidents, with diffs, in a formal statement if this case is accepted.

Peace. - Che Nuevara 19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary Statement by Philosophus

This dispute has a rather long and complex history, and so I thought I would write a preliminary statement on its history. The dispute started on Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, which was created by SnarkBoojum (possibly an account of GenghizRat?) a few days after the account was created, as a short stub linking to the NZ tribunal findings and giving a short description of the test, from a somewhat mainstream point of view, classifying it as pseudoscience. A month later, RichardMalter came to Misplaced Pages, and as his first edit (I assume 203.220.167.134 is RM), proceeded to completely change the article to be sympathetic to Omura and BDORT, and to refute the NZ findings by saying that it was biased and Gorringe was not using BDORT properly (though no sources were given for this). The essential disagreement has not changed significantly since then, though the BDORT article was merged into Yoshiaki Omura. It has principally consisted of Richardmalter (aka User:RichardMalter and a few IPs) and allies pushing an article discounting the NZ tribunal findings and praising the technique and Omura, using Omura's website and writings as sources, and GenghizRat (who has used various accounts in the past for complex reasons) and others (myself, Crum175, SlimVirgin for a time, ...) pushing an article based heavily on the NZ findings being one of the only reliable sources. Crum175, if I recall, originally came to mediate, convincing me to remove the Pseudoscience category, but ended up joining one of the sides.

As GenghizRat noted, I nominated the article for deletion very early on. The nomination, and subsequent withdrawal, were due to the NZ tribunal findings. In the version I initially read, the findings were not referenced, and the article thus, in my opinion, could not satisfy WP:V as there were no reliable sources to provide for verifiability. When I later found that reference (we have just now found another tribunal report as well, making for two reliable sources from a medical standpoint), I realized that the subject was in fact notable and not just the vanity article that the contemporary revision seemed to be, leading to my statement that GenghizRat quotes. I now believe that the subject easily satisfies WP:V and thus WP:N, but this is due to the NZ findings alone. Without those, the only medical sources are those written by proponents of the technique in journals run by themselves or other proponents.

This statement is certainly not my actual statement, and I will prepare a statement which will include my opinions on the matter and its relation to policy. I see this request for arbitration as being necessary to give support to the following policy idea that Che brought up - that even if the only reliable sources give a negative viewpoint, unreliable sources should not be used to balance the statements given in the article. --Philosophus 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved user:Cowman109

I believe that this case has issues of WP:AUTO and multiple violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to address. Mediation has failed to produce any positive result due to strong disagreements by the opposing parties, so an arbitration case to determine what the cause of the potentially tendentious editing and edit warring is and how to remedy it would be beneficial, as the disputes between the parties has made it impossible for any progress to be made on the article despite numerous blocks for 3rr violations and full protection of the page. Cowman109 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by GenghizRat

This entry’s history reflects a persistent and determined effort on the part of advocates of Yoshiaki Omura’s practices, of whom the most visibly and consistently determined is Richardmalter, to shape the entry in their favor – or, failing that attempt, at a minimum to remove or recast available, verifiable information which they find other than to their liking.

The entry was first created in stub form 20060411. As noted by Philosophus, IP 203.220.167.134, which resolves to APNIC, Australia, therefore likely RichardMalter, first touches the entry on 20060515 , changing neutral statements such as ‘claims’ or ‘asserts’ to read instead as simple declarations of fact as to Omura’s claims and methods. These changes are reverted by Will Beback .
Philosophus proposes AfD based on non-notability 20060516 . In the course of a brief discussion RichardMalter argues 'The research and methodology of the BDORT satisfies accepted scientific method: observation, hypothesis, induction/deduction, etc,’ and further asserting ‘What is being objected to, on analysis, is that I am presenting information that does not cohere with the bias of the contributors.’ Richardcavell, per his user page a physician, observes: *Keep - let me say firstly that I think this test is a load of bull*&%*. It has no scientific value, and no other value other than to propagate the insanity of some Japanese guy. Nevertheless, it's encyclopedic because it's notable. Keep.' Philosophus withdraws his AfD request 20060523 , stating ‘After looking at early revisions of this article, I have decided to remain neutral on this, as it seems to be more notable than I had thought.'
20060522 separate entries on Omura and Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test are merged by Karada.
20060522 SlimVirgin addresses a number of matters relating to the entry
20060619 the entry is again nominated AfD, by myself . ‘The result of the debate was Keep There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious.' Xoloz
20060706 Icaet edits the entry in Omura’s favor without comment.
20060718 Telomere+ edits the entry in Omura’s favor with the observation ‘(The above six paragraphs were inserted as an edit by a student and supporter of Dr. Omura since January 2000, and Dr. Omura’s voluntary assistant since 2005; the content of this edit is based on direct communication with Dr. Omura (a verifiable source) as well as his personal knowledge and experience of using Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.)’
20060722 Fjagod02 edits the entry massively in favor of Omura .
20060722 IP 162.84.209.147, which resolves to Verizon NYC, edits the entry in Omura’s favor and is reverted by Spondoolicks.
20060722 Fjagod02 again massively edits the entry in Omura’s favor
20060725 Fjagod02 edits out reference to the New Zealand Tribunal and is reverted by Philosophus .
20060726 Telomere+ edits the entry to excise the New Zealand Tribunal’s statement re BDORT
20060906 Telomere+ edits the entry to remove reference to the findings of the New Zealand Tribunal .
20061009 Telomere+ edits the entry to remove reference to the findings of the New Zealand Tribunal and is reverted by Spondoolicks
20061202 IP 24.39.123.238, which resolves to RoadRunner NY commences a series of massive Omura-favorable edits on the entry resulting in banning.
20061203 IP 24.136.99.194, which also resolves to RoadRunner NY commences a similar campaign also resulting in banning.
20061214 IP 162.84.148.182, which resolves to Verizon NYC edits the entry in support of IP 24.39.123.238 in further support of Omura's claims

I believe that consideration of this history and its supporting diffs, combined with consideration of the information presented by others, will strongly suggest the desirability of further consideration of this entry and the issues it raises as well as patterns of conduct of advocates of Omura and his teachings and practices.

I will be more than happy to assist in that process as well as I am able. GenghizRat 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

OK, I cleaned up this request in a pretty large manner, so I apologise if any meaning was lost. I removed some threaded discussion regarding the long list of double-indented parties, which can be seen here. Daniel.Bryant 10:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 Clerk note: Richardmalter, please provide a statement within the next 24 hours or I will remove the request, and you may refile whenever you are ready. If you have problems with this, contact me or one of the other clerks directly. Thanks. Thatcher131 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Richardmalter is currently blocked, which explains his lack of a statement. --Philosophus 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point. He can use his talk page or e-mail me or wait til his block expired. I thought he just might not be ready to go forward. Thatcher131 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Deltabeignet

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


Statement by SebastianHelm

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

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

I only want to initiate this quickly before I might get blocked. Please take a look at Misplaced Pages: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)

Corrected link. 67.117.130.181 13:06, 15 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 Misplaced Pages for months should be blocked immediately and be stripped of his admin status, and a community effort should be initiated to mitigate the harm he did. Moreover, if we find this is indeed a case of fraud (I'm not a lawyer), then those of us who live in the same country as the defendant have a moral obligation to considere if this person should be tried for fraud by the laws of his country.

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

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

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

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

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

Update: There is an ongoing discussion about this case on User_talk:Deltabeignet#WP:RFAR.23Deltabeignet. — Sebastian 05:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Deltabeignet

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.
If the community wills it, I will ask to be desysopped.
Naturally, I would prefer that I not be blocked. I have no further intent to disrupt.
I have been scaling down my Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by uninvolved User: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 , Deltabeignet , and SebastianHelm. He now calls himself the "rogue bandit" who can keep getting back on Misplaced Pages despite what the community says about him , 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)

Comment from Uninvolved User:Newyorkbrad

As reflected at User_talk:Deltabeignet#Two_more_unexplained_reverts_to_vandalism and User_talk:Deltabeignet#WP:RFAR.23Deltabeignet, Deltabeignet conducted an "experiment" by editing anonymously to test a hypothesis that IP edits would be treated differently from a recognized user's or administrator's edits. This scenario parallels the recent Konstable case, although in this case the "experiment" seems to have taken place on-and-off over a couple of months rather than just a day or two, and greater use of admin powers was involved. There appears to have been no malicious intent, although significant user time was spent investigating, and Deltabeignet has agreed to discontinue this behavior. Whether this situation rises to the level of requiring an ArbCom case is a judgment call, as is the question whether the community should revise the paragraph of the sockpuppet policy that presently seems to encourage this type of experiments. Newyorkbrad 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Clerk notes

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

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

Rgfolsom, Smallbones

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User talk:Smallbones

Confirmation that other steps in have been tried

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Socionomics Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Robert Prechter

Statement by Rgfolsom

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

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

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

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

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

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

I welcome scrutiny of my history as an editor, particularly my contributions to Elliott wave principle and John Calvin's biography. 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. I have let the mediator know that he is free to release all of my emails from the socionomics mediation.

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

Reply to Smallbones

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

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

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

Statement by CanaryInACoalmine

I attempted unofficial mediation at Misplaced Pages: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)
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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
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 Misplaced Pages completely. I'll use my energies elsewhere. CanaryInACoalmine 10:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Smallbones

User:Rgfolsom is Robert Folsom a longtime senior writer employed by Robert Prechter and his “Socionomics Institute.” 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. 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.

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)

Statement by uninvolved party, User:Dionyseus

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

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

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 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Requests for clarification

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

Zer0faults, now editing as NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is under probation and may be banned from articles he disrupts. A complaint was filed at WP:AE alleging disruption at September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (with a related discussion here). I looked into the situation, and found an edit war over the insertion of an external link. I counted 18 insertions of the link by 5 editors (11 by NuclearUmpf) and 17 removals by 7 editors over 7 days, with no attempts made to follow any dispute resolution process (third opinion, RFC or mediation). There was extensive discussion on the talk page but it was fruitless, as it revolved around whether the link met the external link policy, rather than what seems to me the more important issue of even if it does, should it be included as a matter of editorial judgement. I offered an opinion on the link, and declined to enforce NuclearUmpf's probation, as he was only one of twelve people involved in an edit war, including at least one admin, none of whom sought help through the dispute resolution process (I left open the possibility of future action if Nuclear continues to fight the issue after DR). (One other uninvolved editor has also offered an opinion on the link .) My judgement has been called into question by two editors, one of whom said (in email) "You have effectively taken the power and credibility from the arbcomm, saying their rulings mean nothing." I request a review by the arbitration committee. Thatcher131 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I twice asked Tom Harrison to discuss the issue on the talk page, and was twice ignored. On the third time I went to ask I found his talk page protected and made an AN/I post requesting someone ask Tom to participate in the discussion. I am also the one who started the discussion on the talk page after witnessing the link being removed without a reason being given. The link was originally provided by user Lovelight from what I had seen. So while I did not pull in a third party or goto RfC, I was the one who attempting to discuss the issue and frame the debate for it to be discussed. Some of my reverts are reverting people who did not even leave edit summaries, like Tom Harrison, who did not give a reason ever in his edit summary for why it should be removed. If I am to be punished for "edit warring", then tis only fair that Tom Harrison, RX Strangelove and all other users participating receive the same punishment for also participating, and perhaps a greater for not even attempting to discuss the issue, where I at least did that. I would also like to note that RX filed his complaint in retaliation for me asking on AN/I for someone to get Tom to participate, the complaint was made the same day, an hour after my AN/I post which did not even mention them, showing its in bad faith. I would also like to point out that I did work with one user who was open to discussion, that being PTR, who myself and them felt that narrowing the link to the specific day of the 9/11 attacks would be a fair middleground, and it was done and Lovelight was asked to agree and they did. --NuclearZer0 20:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to apologize to Thatcher131 for any angry emails they may have gotten in response to this issue, as they have been nothing but fair handed in my opinion and I have always stated I would follow their decisions. I would also like to point out that neither RX nor Tom has attempted, since protection was removed, to seek a form of mediation. If this issue was so big to them that they had to revert constantly without summaries etc, wouldn't they have attempting some mediation by now? --NuclearZer0 20:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You're only responsible for what you write. I just feel that with multiple editors questioning me I would like a reality check. Thatcher131 21:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
First time I've noticed proposal for link in question was around memorial. Notion reoccurred last month. As seen through discussions, my opinion about the link is as of valid, valuable, and well cited resource. Especially if we are talking about final, well focused and narrowed version. I'd say that arguments were made clear and that continuous removal of link without proper response wasn't all right… …from more than one perspective I'm afraid. Lovelight 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Category: