User:Maturational
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Involved parties
v.
[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 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. [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 19:55, 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:
-
- 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:
- 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] Evidence presented by Rgfolsom
[edit] Pattern of Bias
Technical analysis article (TA)
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=47273732
- Language in lead section describing TA as "horoscope" and "tea leaves", with no citations.
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=47405028&oldid=47320680
- Language in lead section quote describing TA as "hocus pocus," "astrology," and "ufos."
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=47428961
- "…now please let's not pretend that TA is a well respected, accepted theory…"
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=61401433
- "Technical analysis" added to Pseudoscience article.
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=61403467
- "John Allen Paulos considers technical analysis to be pseudoscience." The word "pseudoscience" came from a review of Paulos' book, not from a quotation of the book itself.
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=61537005
- Another editor: "…will you please stop implementing your agenda on discrediting both Dow Theory and Technical Analysis… We had a consensus here about not using the term pseudoscience with regards to TA."
-
- Smallbones: "The academic studies of TA are about 95% against. This stuff is not a minor footnote to this article, but needs to be upfront."
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=80845157
- Added Financial astrology link.
Dow Theory article
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dow_Theory&diff=50058543&oldid=49991517
- "There is very little evidence that the Dow theory can be used to earn excess profits in the stock market." Added to lead section.
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dow_Theory&diff=57862949&oldid=57857320
- "Dow theory is a non-scientific 'theory' on stock price movements…"
Socionomics article
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionomics&diff=prev&oldid=65544526
- "Socionomics is a non-scientific theory invented by Robert R. Prechter, Jr in his self-published book Socionomics…"
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionomics&diff=prev&oldid=70965260
- Added Pseudoscience link to article.
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socionomics&diff=prev&oldid=83808130
- "Prechter is about the only guy who believes this stuff and IS the only guy who has published about it…"
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionomics&diff=prev&oldid=87987682
- "Socionomics is a theory, which has little or no support in the academic community…"
Market trends article
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market_trends&diff=71414061&oldid=71020441
- "This belief is generally consistent with the non-scientific practice of technical analysis and broadly inconsistent with the efficient markets hypothesis [fundamental analysis]." Added to lead section.
Day trading article
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Day_trading&diff=prev&oldid=61405098
- "Day trading also is very expensive, incurring multiple commissions and paying the bid-ask spread multiple times, as compared to a "buy and hold" strategy [fundamental analysis]"
[edit] Incivility
- Fails to use the talk page to alert other contributors regarding edits that will likely be controversial.
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=47444574
- "Technical analysis is not based on any standard theory in economics or finance."
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=61215649
- "Technical analysis…is the non-scientific use …"
-
- "Nevertheless, the efficient markets hypothesis, a well respected scientific theory, states that market prices are essentially unpridictable (sic)…" Added to lead section.
- Often reverts to those edits over the objections of other contributors.
- Often removes relevant information that doesn't meet his self-defined standards of verifiability.
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=62863231
- Removed well-sourced link that said TA significantly outperformed buy & hold.
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=63199904
- Removed well-sourced TA references.
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=63199097
- "… if you don't know anything about statistics, please do not make statistical claims in the article." [Please especially note the reply to this comment.]
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socionomics&diff=prev&oldid=84457082
- "…do not cite anything this lightweight as proof of scientific status."
[edit] Harassment/Personal attacks
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Prechter&diff=prev&oldid=88650776
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rgfolsom&diff=prev&oldid=88801424
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel&diff=prev&oldid=89208879
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socionomics&diff=prev&oldid=89285919
Please note that I did not remove or object to these postings about my identity. Smallbones did not ask me if I was Robert Folsom, nor ask if he could post information about me in Wikipedia. He did not ask me to consider taking the initiative to disclose my full identity on my own.
He also suggested that by posting my identity, I was silenced:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel&diff=prev&oldid=89208879
- "User:Rgfolsom seems to have disappeared since it was revealed that Robert Folsom is a long-time employee of the Socionomics Institute..."
The irony is that my "silence" was self-imposed, and kept in good faith with the mediation; in fact I was still active in other Wikipedia articles. I ended my "silence" in the Prechter bio only after it was successfully used against me as an argument to have the Prechter bio page protection removed.
[edit] Abuse of the mediation process
Timeline:
- 31 Oct. 2006: Request for Mediation filed.
- 06 Nov. 2006: Accepted; Rgfolsom requests public mediation but concedes to Smallbones' request for private. Rgfolsom submits first statement to mediator.
- 15 Nov. 2006: First-ever edit by Smallbones to Robert Prechter bio.
- 17 Nov. 2006: Mediator requested/is granted page protection to Robert Prechter bio, directs Smallbones/Rgfolsom to cease & desist edit warring.
- 17-26 Nov. 2006: Rgfolsom complies with Mediator's instruction.
- 17-26 Nov. 2006: Smallbones repeatedly lobbies administrators to remove page protection from Prechter bio.
- 27 Nov. 2006: Prechter bio page protection removed, Smallbones resumes edits to that page. Rgfolsom states on Talk:Robert Prechter that the mediator had requested the bio page protection. Smallbones answers.
- 27 Nov. 2006: Rgfolsom asks for a mediation status update.
- 27 Nov. 2006: Mediator replies to Rgfolsom via email.
- 29 Nov. 2006: Rgfolsom repeats on Talk:Robert Prechter that the mediator had requested bio page protection. Smallbones answers.
- 29 Nov. 2006: Rgfolsom and mediator exchange emails.
- 16:28, 1 Dec. 2006 (UTC): Mediator emails Rgfolsom.
- 16:29, 1 Dec. 2006 (UTC): Mediator posts that the Request for mediation/Socionomics is closed.
- 18:37, 1 Dec. 2006 (UTC): Mediator tells Rgfolsom via email that he has received a reply from Smallbones.
[edit] Overtly negative edits to the biography of a living person
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Prechter&diff=prev&oldid=88036851
- "That's what the article said whether you like it or not. there's a slew of articles of a similar nature… I'll see if I can put them in, and everybody can see whether it's you or I who have the slant."
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Prechter&diff=prev&oldid=88051767
- "Robert R. Prechter, Jr … is particularly well known for his prediction in early 1987… and other remarkably bad forecasts…"
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Prechter&diff=prev&oldid=88448824
- "Prechter is just terrible at predicting the stock market… If a user sees one of the world's worst stock pickers advertising on Wikipedia…"
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Prechter&diff=90519288&oldid=90487765
- "Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (b. 1949) is a controversial American stock market analyst…"
The three links above show the inclusion of demonstrably false statements about Prechter by Smallbones, my removal of the offending text, and Smallbones' revert to the falsehoods with an accusation of "vandalism" (summary). --Rgfolsom 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Uncivil in Arb page request for clarification: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=95280769
Uncivil to mediator on Arb page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=93366584
