Case Opened on 04:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

• Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment[edit]

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:

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 Wikipedia standards.

I welcome scrutiny of my history as an editor, particularly my contributions to Elliott wave principle and John Calvin's biography. [1] [2] 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.[3] [4] [5] [6]

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)[reply]

Reply to Smallbones[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

User:Rgfolsom is Robert Folsom, a longtime senior writer employed by Robert Prechter and his “Socionomics Institute.” [7] 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. [8] [9]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. [10]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)[edit]

• Accept Fred Bauder 14:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. - SimonP 14:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Charles Matthews 20:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

Biographies of living people[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, discourages, but does not prohibit editing of articles if the user has a conflict of interest. In such cases Wikipedia's basic policies, especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, should be adhered to.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles at issue[edit]

1) The articles at issue are Elliott wave principle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Socionomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Robert Prechter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). According to Rgfolsom, when he began editing these articles "[They] were overrun with bias and had few if any active editors. No contributors were improving the articles in keeping with Wikipedia standards." Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contested Rgfolsom's edits.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rgfolsom[edit]

2) Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has identified himself as Robert Folsom, a financial writer and editor for Elliott Wave International, a provider of technical analysis. He has covered politics, popular culture, economics and the financial markets for 16 years, and today writes EWI's "Market Watch" column. Elliott Wave International is owned by Robert Prechter, who has written extensively regarding the Elliott wave principle and socionomics. Most edits of Rgfolsom have been to the disputed articles, although he has done some editing of John Calvin.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Smallbones[edit]

3) Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits a wide variety of articles with some concentration on the economic issues, the market, and market personalities. Some of his edits could be characterized as being point of view, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_Prechter/Workshop#Smallbones.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

4.1) The version of Robert Prechter advocated by Rgfolsom [11] contrasts with the version favored by Smallbones [12], which places more emphasis on negative aspects of his work and criticism of Prechter by others. Revert by Rgfolsom to his version. This has involved edit warring with Smallbones characterizing Rgfolsom reverts as "vandalism" [13]. Edit warring has continued to the present [14] [15] [16] with Smallbone insisting on the inclusion of negative material such as a substantial amount of critical quotes by pundits about Prechter's work.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)~

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Smallbones topic banned[edit]

1) Smallbones is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to Robert Prechter. The ban includes talk pages.

Passed 5 to 0 at 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should Smallbones violate the ban imposed by this decision, he may be briefly blocked. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_Prechter#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 4 to 0 at 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.