From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 6 arbitrators are active and none are recused, so 4 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 3 Proposed final decision 3.1 Proposed principles 3.1.1 Biographies of living people 3.1.2 Conflict of interest 3.1.3 Template 3.2 Proposed findings of fact 3.2.1 Articles at issue 3.2.2 Rgfolsom 3.2.3 Smallbones 3.2.4 Edit warring 3.2.5 Edit warring 3.2.6 Template 3.3 Proposed remedies 3.3.1 Smallbones banned 3.3.2 Template 3.4 Proposed enforcement 3.4.1 Enforcement by block 3.4.2 Template 3.5 Discussion by Arbitrators 3.5.1 General 3.6 Motion to close 3.6.1 Implementation notes 3.6.2 Vote

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Biographies of living people

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight 14:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
5. James F. (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Conflict of interest

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight 14:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
5. James F. (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Articles at issue

1) The articles at issue are Elliott wave principle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Socionomics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and Robert Prechter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 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 · logs · block user · block log) has contested Rgfolsom's edits.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
5. James F. (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Rgfolsom

2) Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · logs · 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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
5. James F. (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Smallbones

3) Smallbones (talk · contribs · logs · 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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
5. James F. (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Edit warring

4) The version of Robert Prechter advocated by Rgfolsom is reasonably balanced [1] while the version favored by Smallbones [2] emphasizes negative aspects of his work and criticism. Revert by Rgfolsom to his version. This has involved edit warring with Smallbones characterizing Rgfolsom reverts as "vandalism" [3]. Edit warring has continued to the present [4] [5] [6] with Smallbone insisting on inclusion of negative drama.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. James F. (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Content ruling.

Abstain:

1. I agree with most of the above, but I am not prepared to state which of the versions is the reasonable one as I know nothing about the subject. - SimonP 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
2. See amended version. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

4.1) The version of Robert Prechter advocated by Rgfolsom [7] contrasts with the version favored by Smallbones [8], 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" [9]. Edit warring has continued to the present [10] [11] [12] with Smallbone insisting on the inclusion of negative material such as a substantial amount of critical quotes by pundits about Prechter's work.

Support:

1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 01:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
3. SimonP 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
5. James F. (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Sort-of a content ruling, but one I can live with.

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

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.

[edit] Smallbones banned

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight 14:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
5. James F. (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
2. SimonP 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
4. FloNight 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

While it is a close question, I have come to the conclusion that despite the obvious conflict of interest, Rgfolsom has generally followed Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, while Smallbones has systematically violated them by insisting on inclusion of negative drama which results in skewing of the article, a departure from the conservative tone which is appropriate. Fred Bauder 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

• Straightforward close; everything passes with 4 or more votes (this is true whether we consider there are 6 or 7 eligible arbitrators). Newyorkbrad, updated 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

JamesF makes 5 on most votes. FloNight 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated with "or more". Closing. Newyorkbrad 01:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. Motion to close Fred Bauder 03:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Close. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Close. James F. (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)