Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter/Proposed decision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Arbitrators
- Arbitrators active on this case
- Charles Matthews
- Fred Bauder
- Jdforrester
- SimonP
- Blnguyen
- FloNight
Morven and Raul654 are inactive as of March 1, 2007.
- New arbitrators inactive on this case
Arbitrators appointed after the case was accepted are assumed by default to be recused from cases already open at the time they took office. If an arbitrator becomes active on this case (by declaration or activity), his/her name will be moved to the active list and the majority adjusted accordingly.
- Flcelloguy
- Kirill Lokshin
- Paul August
- UninvitedCompany
- Jpgordon
- Mackensen
There are 5 arbitrators participating in the case and a majority is 3. Newyorkbrad 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Added myself as active Arb and voted in case. There are 6 arbitrators participating in the case and a majority is 4. FloNight 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Close Question"
Dear all,
I don't know exactly how this is supposed to work, but it looks to me like the 4th arbitrator to vote gets to decide the whole question of outcomes.
Fred B says on the proposed decision page that this is a close question, so I'll ask the "4th arbitrator" to look closely at the evidence. Though it seems that I've ben accused of almost everything possible (and at great length) the only thing that people want to punish me for is including unbalanced material in the biography of a living person. Obviously balance is a delicate question. Please take a look at what the best business press says about Prechter [1]. Do you really think that some of this material should not be included? Please also note that the Wall Street Journal article that says that his record of predictions has become the butt of inside jokes, is not the statement of a pundit. It is a statement of fact in a news story by the most reliable source of business news.
The proposed decision to me looks very unbalanced. The only punishment goes against me, even though Folsom has reverted everything that I've ever included on Socionomics, and Prechter and he has an obvious conflict of interest.
I'll propose that - if 4 arbitrators cannot decide whether or not it is proper for me to include documented facts from the best sources in the business press - then any punishments meted out should apply equally to both Folsom and myself.
Sincerely,
Smallbones 07:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Smallbones I reviewed the case and voted as the 4th Arbitrator. I remember looking at the case back before I was an Arb and acting as ArbCom Clerk, so the case is not completely new to me. I agree with the thinking of the other Arbs in the case. Take care, FloNight 14:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
