Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-07 Robert Prechter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Robert Prechter, Socionomics State: Closed Requested By: CanaryInACoalmine Other Parties: User:Rgfolsom, User:Smallbones Mediated By: Alan.ca Comments: Respondents did not want to proceed informally, have moved forward with ARBCOM.

Contents 1 Mediation Case: Robert Prechter 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: Robert Prechter

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: CanaryInACoalmine 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Robert Prechter

and discussion on Talk:Robert Prechter

Socionomics

and discussion on Talk:Socionomics

Who's involved?

(alphabetically) User:Rgfolsom and User:Smallbones. Other editors are not contributing significantly at present beyond attempting to calm things down.

What's going on?

User:Rgfolsom is aggressively domineering in the debate on these articles and is warring with all other editors, but mostly User:Smallbones. More seriously still, Rgfolsom has a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest but refuses to address this, apparently under the belief that his interpretation of WP rules allows him to continue reverting Smallbones' contributions, frequenly and very aggressively. Rgfolsom works for Robert Prechter and therefore has a financial interest in this issue. I and others have politely asked Rgfolsom to "tone it down" but his contributions continue, and do feel to this editor somewhat like an angry man brawling in a bar (in my opinion). No point of view except his own seems to count for anything, and (in my opinion!) the angry responses feel like someone promoting an agenda, or with a highly-skewed world view. In my opinion, Rgfolsom's eligibility to contribute is highly suspect and this is of primary importance, before anything else, such as the substance of the debate between him and Smallbones, which in itself also needs mediation. However, Rgfolsom dismisses the question of his eligiblity by asking "Why do you tell me to stop posting when Wikipedia doesn't agree? And why do you disagree with Wikipedia about discussing the editor instead of the article?", when he fails to recognise that his COI is a material factor and thus worthy of debate. In my opinion, his question "Who's really trying to silence editors around here?" should be self-directed.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to see Rgfolsom's COI addressed, either by him or others. Once that is address, if he is allowed to continue, I would like to see his strong-arm approach to reversion and "nasty" style of debating, which is highly personal even though he complains about precisely this in others, to calm down. It seems that he has double-standards: he is allowed to violate many rules of WP, apply his own interpretations and make personal attacks, but even the slightest (and often imagined) whisper of these by other editors results in a full-scale nuclear response. In my opinion, he needs to acknowledge that his own behaviour is inciting other editors. Warnings of RfM have not produced a change.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No, please work openly. I have nothing to hide. I do not have an axe to grind.

The reason I have gone down this route is that it is more discreet (FOR THOSE CONCERNED) that a full RfM.

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this - if not please delete or put it elsewhere. I'm sorry to say that I don't think that mediation, informal or otherwise, will work here. Robert Folsom User:Rgfolsom and I had formal mediation re:socionomics, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Socionomics

He requested the mediation - actually it was more like he threatened me with it - and then did nothing in the actual mediation. There was no back and forth on any issues. The mediator agrees that there was no movement toward agreement and has closed the mediation.

It's clear the Folsom works as a writer for Prechter and thus has a conflict of interest. It's clear that he has deleted my last 8 edits on Robert Prechter. Smallbones 16:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see how this progresses. It's a different process. And there is also the ultimate resort of Wikipedia:Arbitration. CanaryInACoalmine 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll certainly wait and see what happens. Doesn't he have to agree to mediation? I'll agree to mediation, if he does and agrees to calmly discuss the facts. I do not like being accused of putting in "falsehoods" into the article, especially when the facts I put in are documented. I was going to respond briefly on the talk page to his list of supposed falsehoods, but there is really nothing solid to respond to. The major item of disagreement at this time seems to be, "Did Prechter call the crash of 1987?" Prechter himself says "Nobody called the crash, including me". Folsom now on the talk page spin-doctors some other newsreports, which to me say "I'm not calling a crash now." I'll challenge Folsom - come up with your best evidence that Prechter called the crash in public. I'll apologize if he comes up with clear evidence of a call made to the public. Smallbones 11:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Smallbones. I'm doing my best to mediate unofficially. I'll admit that I find the debate has got so detailed and so heated, that I feel incapable of offering guidance when there are so many edits, reversions, points, issues and questions. To get involved in any point would be like offering myself as a rope in a tug-of-war. What we need is more eyeballs, more views and, perhaps ultimately, arbitration. Meanwhile you might refer to my newly-updated User page User:CanaryInACoalmine. CanaryInACoalmine 14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Folsom has notified me that he has put in a request for arbitration, so it looks like he does not want to mediate. Thanks for taking the time here, however. Sincerely, Smallbones 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)