This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is indeed unfortunate that I am on vacation now and do not have access to broadband internet. The access I have is very slow and in a public place. If I get better access later on I will request that this be restarted. Otherwise I propose here that this RfA be delayed until January 16. Smallbones 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the major holidays are over I have a bit more time for this, so will try to respond to the comments below and put some info on the evidence page. Nevertheless, I am still limited to a very slow internet connection with a limit of only one hour per day and will be traveling next week. On my return to work on Jan 16 I'll have better access, but also a pretty full schedule until the 22nd. I'll do my best to get this started, but please excuse me if my responses are not as well organized or as well documented as usual. Smallbones 18:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m back. Thanks to everybody for respecting my schedule limitations. So far on the evidence page I have shown that “technical analysis” (TA) is a theory that is not widely accepted by the academic community, and is in fact often seen as little better than a pseudoscience. Therefore including information on TA’s lack of academic acceptance in TA and related articles does not show a bias on my part as Robert Folsom has alleged, but rather Folsom’s repeated exclusion of this material shows his anti-scientific bias.

Over the next few days I will:

1. propose that well-documented claims by academics that TA is of questionable value be specifically allowed in TA and related articles.

I will also show that Folsom has repeatedly removed well-documented facts and commentary from very reputable sources (e.g. The Wall Street Journal and Fortune) that essentially say that Robert Prechter’s ability to forecast stock prices is “laughable.” While this is undoubtedly unpleasant for Folsom and his employer, Robert Prechter, to read, this information is needed to show why Prechter is so famous, and is, I believe, important for Wikipedia readers to know, e.g. they might be able to avoid large trading losses by avoiding laughable advice.

2. I will propose that well-documented facts and commentary from reliable sources that question Prechter’s ability to forecast stock prices be specifically allowed in the Robert Prechter article and related articles (e.g. Elliott Wave Principal).

The questions on “socionomics” are just slightly more difficult. Folsom has clearly presented “socionomics” as if it were a scientific theory [1] and has repeatedly deleted anything that might put the “socionomic’s” scientific validity in question. It is difficult to document that socionomics is not a scientific theory (i.e. prove a negative) since it has essentially been ignored by the scientific community. Similarly it is impossible for Folsom to prove that socionomics has any support in the scientific community, though he has put forward 4 very weak pieces of evidence.

3. To resolve this conundrum, I’ll refer to similar situations and ask the arbitrators to decide the question “What type of documentation is needed to show that a theory has support in the scientific community?”

Your resolution of matters 1-3 so that I have the right to put well-documented statements into TA and related articles and to question the scientific validity of “socionomics” is all that I have wanted in this arbitrations.

Nevertheless, because of Folsom’s obvious conflict of interest and his repeated refusal to let me edit these articles, I will also request that Folsom and other Prechter employees be banned from editing all the articles at issue for as long as possible, simply because I doubt that any half-measures will really resolve the issue.

I also feel compelled to defend myself from some of the many accusations that Folsom has made against me, e.g. that I acted in bad faith during mediation. (This particular accusation seems to be based on the misconception that a “frozen” page is frozen forever.) However, because there are so many accusations made by Folsom, and they have so little basis, I will limit my responses to these and just ask that the arbitrators look carefully to see whether Folsom is really accusing me of something that is against any rules. Smallbones 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be unable to get back to this until Sunday, but hope to finish on Monday. Thanks for your understanding. Smallbones 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Request that User:Rgfolsom be banned from reversions until this matter decided[edit]

1) Folsom is again starting to revert everything I do, this time on Elliott wave principle where he has the same Conflict of Interest as with Robert Prechter. Prechter has popularized the Elliott Wave theory with his newsletter and Folsom works for Prechter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed by Smallbones 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following are all essentially complete reversions. [2] [3] [4] [5] (reverted another user, 1 intermediate edit) Almost everything I add gets reverted.

Now he seems to be making vague threats about disrupting another article. [6] Smallbones 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee will see that this latest tedious episode began on February 1, when Smallbones made his first-ever edit to Elliott wave principle. My direct appeal implored him to refrain from editing an article at issue in this arbitration case. He disregarded my request. Smallbones may have been hesitant at first -- "I have mixed feelings about editing while [an] RfA is going on. To my mind it just shows some politeness to those making the decision(s) not to keep on changing the articles, and possibly confusing the issue or adding new issues, to not edit while the process is going on" -- but his 10 edits in 8 days show that he quickly got over any qualms.

--Rgfolsom 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view means a fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Most issues in this case relate directly to Smallbones' failure to observe this policy. Smallbones repeatedly described technical analysis as "pseudoscience" and "non-scientific" (see evidence). Thus ArbCom's application of NPOV in the recent Pseudoscience decision is especially relevant:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.

Proposed--Rgfolsom 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV obviously means that standard academic views may be included. But as the quote above clearly states pseudoscience does not need to be included.

Smallbones 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

NPOV requires all significant points of view about techical analysis (etc.) and Robert Prechter, including negative ones. Bucketsofg 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

1) Editors should be reasonably courteous to one another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

POV pushing led to two glaring examples of incivility. Here Smallbones makes edits to illustrate a point, and here he intentionally provoked other editors by making several edits that willfully ignore a consensus.

The Arbitration Committee's guidance regarding civility is on point:

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is considered editing in bad faith. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.
Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.

Proposed--Rgfolsom 20:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the principle. But from the evidence I've put on the evidence page, [[7]] I think it's clear that Folsom has been extremely uncivil. Smallbones 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Removal of relevant information[edit]

1) It is inappropriate to remove blocks of fairly presented and well-referenced information from articles simply because the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Further POV pushing is clear in Smallbones' removal of information that is on-point in technical analysis articles, which in effect eliminates evidence of the legitimacy he claims the articles lack. [8] [9] In another example, he removed mention of the Socionomics Foundation's participation in an American Political Science Association study funded by the National Science Foundation. [10]

In the Robert Blair decision, the Arbitration Committee said:

It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.

Proposed--Rgfolsom 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have no objection to the principle. But from the evidence [[11]] I've put on the evidence page, I think it's clear that Folsom has been doing exactly what he accuses me of doing. Smallbones 20:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Harassment[edit]

1) Harassment of any editor is not tolerated on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Smallbones posted personal information about me in four separate places in Wikipedia. He also falsely suggested that doing so silenced me (evidence page). Arbitration rulings are clear regarding this behavior.

Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.
Concentrating negative attention on one or a few other users is a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment...

Proposed--Rgfolsom 20:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll plead guilty to posting the following [12] 4 times to alert editors to why Folsom was so intractable in his editing, and because I hoped Folsom would apologize to all. I'll apologize, but I don't think the magnitude of my fault is in anyway close to the magnitude of Folsom's blatent flouting of WP:COI. Of course 2 wrongs don't make a right. Harrassment?? I don't think so. Smallbones 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Abuse of Processes (mediation)[edit]

1) The Requests for arbitration page should not be used for personal attacks and and disparaging remarks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

On the Requests for arbitration page, Smallbones made this abusive comment regarding the mediator in the socionomics mediation. Also on that page, Smallbones called my good faith into question.

The Arbitration Committee's decision in Libertas led to this guidance:

Requests for comment and requests for arbitration… should not be used... as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.

Also, the Arbitration Committee should not be expected to disregard what is on the record about the socionomics mediation. I was (and am) willing for the mediator to release my emails from the mediation, while Smallbones was but then was not willing to do likewise. If all parties agree to the mediator releasing the correspondence, it could shed light on this issue of good faith.

Proposed--Rgfolsom 20:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have no objection to the principle. But I don't see the relevance to this dispute. I'll just ask the Committee to check the links Folsom gives and see if they think my behavior was improper.

Smallbones 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the part above where Folsom says that I have withdrawn permission for the mediator to release my e-mails to him. Just to be clear, if the arbitrators want to see my e-mails sent to the mediator, he has my permission to release all of them.

They were on Nov. 6, 10, 15 (twice), 17, 19, 21, Dec. 1, Dec. 6 (three times).

Folsom seems to have written him only 2 or 3 times, which (by my educated guess) is probably why the mediator gave up on the mediation. Folsom certainly needs to clarify what he thinks I did wrong during the mediation - what is the abuse? what rule does he think I broke?

The top link in this section does not refer, as Folsom claims, to the mediator in the socionomics case. It refers to User:CanaryinaCoalmine who attempted to mediate the Prechter article via the Mediation Cabal and caused a great distraction on the opening of this RfA

Smallbones 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones asks for details regarding my allegation that he abused the Mediation process. For the benefit of Committee members who may be interested, I'm happy to comply. I've posted the diffs with the Abuse of the mediation process evidence.

Rgfolsom 18:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Biographies of living people[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Smallbones' disregard of BLP policy on Robert Prechter was flagrant to the point of recklessness. His edits overwhelmed the article and sided with critics; I cautioned him twice regarding Wikipedia policy. [13] [14] The second time I provided evidence that he was putting falsehoods into the article and removed the offending text, yet he accused me of "vandalism" andreverted to the false claims.

Please also note: the diffs above show that Smallbones' zealous POV was so extreme toward Prechter that he knowingly included negative comments based on references he had not read and did not possess.

The Arbitration Committee's Rachel Marsden decision is very relevant to this episode, especially via this admonishment of administrators:

[Administrators] are expected to conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied.

Regardless of the outcome of this arbitration, I respectfully urge the Committee to include Wikipedia:Biographies of living people guidance from the Rachel Marsden decision on the Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions page.

Proposed--Rgfolsom 20:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From BLP - Using Subject as a Source[15]

In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. ...

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.

It is relevant to the person's notability;

It is not contentious;

It is not unduly self-serving;

There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.

The info added by Prechter's employee (representative) clearly fails the 3rd and 4th tests and at least one (probably all 3) of the parts of the 1st test. Smallbones 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom (below) asks for evidence that his edits fail these tests [16] clearly shows the material is contentious. The whole Robert Prechter article is clearly self-serving. Perhaps the least self-serving edit is this list of 14 books added by Folsom[17] is clearly self-serving. Smallbones 19:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From BLP- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - Biased or malicious content

....The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. (my emphasis on 'should')

I don't think that there is any question that the information that I have added to the Prechter article is relevant to his notability (stock market prognostication ability) and is based on reliable sources. The only question might be whether the information overwhelms the article. Well I tried it with a little bit of info [18], and with a lot of info [19], and in all cases my contributions were deleted. Smallbones 21:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the test(s) that I have allegedly failed, I can't answer assertions that offer no evidence.

As for the views of critics: I do not want to exclude negative material entirely, and the record will show the Committee that I have not done so. Accurate criticisms that are written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone should be in Prechter's biography. But comments intended to ridicule are not appropriate, which is why I objected to "laughably terrible" and "punchline of in-crowd jokes" -- particularly their placement in the lead section of the article.

Yet even then I did not remove the "laughably terrible" comment; I moved it to the "Criticism" section of the biography, along with a summary of the "punchline" article -- and they remain there now.

--Rgfolsom 05:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment. The Marsden decision is not helpful here--there the problem was that well-referenced negative material was overly elaborated and not balanced with positive and neutral. Here it seems that Mr. Folsom wants to exclude negative material completely. Bucketsofg 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of Interest[edit]

1) WP:COI requires that editors avoid editing articles about themselves or their own organizations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Language from previous Committee rulings regarding COI has read this way:

"Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, requires that the interests of the encyclopedia come before the business interests of contributors."

"Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, strongly discourages editing regarding an organization by those associated with the organization…"

--Rgfolsom 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fundamental principle involved here. Pseudoscience, incivility, taking ownership of articles, etc. would simply not have come up, except for Folsom's COI.

Smallbones 20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an extraordinary comment. Smallbones used "pseudoscience" and "non-scientific" to describe technical analysis/socionomics for many months before I began to edit on Wikipedia. He also suggests that his incivility is due entirely to my potential conflict of interest. I leave it to the Committee to sort out this remark…

--Rgfolsom 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the potential conflict in my case, I ask the Committee to consider what the record shows.

Elliott wave principle, Socionomics, and Robert Prechter had no active community of contributors to work with (such as what I found for John Calvin, for example). I opened the talk pages for Socionomics and Robert Prechter, and made substantial contributions to the "criticism" sections. I routinely explained my edits on those talk pages, and tried to use them to resolve differences constructively.

I did not have the benefit of collaborating with a group of editors who wished to produce a first-rate encyclopedia article. Instead, I was faced with one individual who openly declared his extreme disapproval of technical analysis, likewise his absolute contempt for Robert Prechter as an analyst. These sentiments have remained on vivid display in the Workshop and Evidence pages.
When my differences with this editor appeared beyond resolution, I actively sought participation from a mediator, guidance from administrators, and now an intervention and ruling from the Arbitration Committee. In other words, I made every good faith effort to be accountable to the Wikipedia community. It is self-evident that I wanted editorial oversight regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I respectfully ask the Committee to weigh the principle it recently endorsed in Jean-Thierry Boisseau: "A significant portion of the experts in most fields are engaged in some business venture related to the field. It is desirable that such experts participate in Wikipedia, but important that both they and others appropriately deal with conflict of interest issues." I claim less to be an "expert" than to offer wide expertise regarding the article topics in this Arbitration; hence I ask that the principle apply.

The Elliott wave principle and Socionomics articles do not directly discuss my company or its products. I am not a consultant hired to write favorably about a new client. I do not wish to put my employer's interests over the interests of this encyclopedia; indeed, I believe both interests are served by candid and fair articles. I believe in Wikipedia's mission, and spoke up strongly for it long before I began contributing.

I am fully aware of the potential conflict I have in editing Robert Prechter. Even so, I wanted my work on that article to be as diligent as it was on Elliott wave principle. Some edits to Prechter's bio aren't available to regular editors, but Committee members who check for themselves will see that Smallbones did not edit Prechter until after the start of our earlier dispute in Socionomics. I have read the COI guidelines many times, and followed the very active debate on the COI talk page. I appeal to IAR policy in making my edits, and particularly to BLP policy regarding the edits to Prechter's bio.

The difference between a potential vs. an actual conflict of interest shows up in what an editor does. I ask to be assessed by my edits.

--Rgfolsom 05:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Bucketsofg 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience[edit]

1) Theories which have a following, such as technical analysis, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, or are considered to be untestable, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If there is some opinion that a subject is pseudoscience, that category may be included in the page, however, in cases where such a designation is hotly contested, such as psychoanalysis, it is often better to not include it. Fred Bauder 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When there are books like this being published, I doubt the appropriateness of the label. Fred Bauder 21:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is the text from the Pseudoscience decision, with "technical analysis" inserted where "astrology" had been and the words "or are considered to be untestable" added. [20]. "Considered to be untestable" and "pseudoscience" are of course almost the same thing, but I think the results are much more clear-cut by focusing on "untestable."

please see evidence page [21]

Proposed by Smallbones 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bucketsofg (below) suggests that "academic community" would be better than "scientific community" - I'm not totally against this, but will only point out that financial economists consider themselves to be social scientists, and think that social scientists should be considered to be scientists.

Folsom argues below (badly) that TA is not pseudoscience. Again he is arguing content. I'll put the relevant counter-arguement (content) on the evidence page. [22] All the same his argument implies that the views of the scientific community may NOT be included, which I think is against every rule in the Wikipedia book. Then he argues that since non-scientists use TA, that it must not be pseudoscience. This does not follow.

Smallbones 19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Minor point) with respect to the book Fred Bauder cites above. It seems to be a complete departure from earlier books on TA. To see this compare the quote on the cover from Victor Niederhoffer with the quotes from Niederhoffer on the evidence page [23]. Also see what this book says about the Elliott wave principle [24] Smallbones 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you go a little too far. It is TA that you maintain is pseudoscience, not just the Elliot Wave. The problem for me is determining if editing restrictions are necessary for you as a result of habitual POV editing. Fred Bauder 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - I'll even say that "a little too far" might be generous on your part if you are referring to how I react to Rgfolsom. For TA as a whole the question is more difficult. People do push a lot of POV stuff in the Technical analysis article, and they are not shy about their pushing. I just wanted the academic view to get some sort of recognition and reasonable placement. I found this impossible and quit editing the article (2 small edits since August 5). There are many types of technical analysts - some of them like Prechter are clearly pushing "untestable" stuff. Others have begun presenting their theories in a more reasonable format, but ... it's still untested in an academic sense. Again, my apologies if I have disrupted the workings of Wikipedia. Smallbones 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided copious amounts of evidence (below and on the evidence page) showing that technical analysis has been studied and mentioned favorably by academics, including Federal Reserve Board economists. Conferences and lecture series in technical analysis have been offered at Ivy League universities. The professional designation for technical analysts (CMT) is now recognized by Wall Street's two primary self-governing bodies, and by the U.S. government's regulatory body for the securities industry. With this (and more) in mind, I respectfully yet sincerely ask, Why is "pseudoscience" even an issue any longer in this case?

--Rgfolsom 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is folly to expect this Committee to equate technical analysis with astrology.

University professors have authored books about TA, and those books have been published by large and reputable publishing houses.[25][26][27][28]

Researchers and academics around the world regularly publish favorable articles about TA in scholarly journals (type "technical analysis" in the keyword field of this link).

Technical analysis is commonly featured in market-specific magazines and information resources that go to industry professionals, including services offered by large exchanges such as the CBOT.[29][30][31]

Federal Reserve economists have published numerous favorable studies about TA.[32][33][34]

The Boston branch of the Federal Reserve for years has published its monthly "Stock Market Report," which "incorporates technical and fundamental analysis commonly used by investment professionals to interpret the direction and valuation of equity markets." Each report begins with a discussion of "Technical Trends." It also includes the types of charts that technical analysts typically use, plus abundant notes and definitions regarding the technical indicators mentioned in each issue.

Then there's this comment in an online text (chapter 11, pp. 114-115) from the then-executive vice president of the New York Federal Reserve: "Nearly all traders acknowledge their use of technical analysis and charts. According to surveys, a majority say they employ technical analysis to a greater extent than 'fundamental' analysis, and that they regard it as more useful than fundamental analysis—a contrast to twenty years ago when most said they relied many more heavily on fundamental analysis."

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recognizes the "Chartered Market Technician" (CMT) designation. The CMT program "is a certification process in which candidates are required to demonstrate proficiency in a broad range of technical analysis subjects." The Market Technicians Association developed and oversees the CMT examination. [35] [36] --Rgfolsom 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I ask the Committee to consider the flawed assumption behind Smallbones' emphasis on "scientific" and "academic" opinions -- namely, that those opinions carry the weight of final authority. I would rather take the other side of that argument any day.

An entire library of books by academics on theories about baseball is less valuable than one book by Nolan Ryan on pitching or by Ted Williams on hitting. Which is to say, the value of successful experience over academic opinion applies in any human activity, certainly in financial markets.

A large body of academic opinion is favorable toward technical analysis, as I have shown. But frankly, a thousand textbooks of those opinions -- and a thousand more from TA's academic critics -- could not offer the wisdom and practical knowledge of one book about investing from John W. Henry or Paul Tudor Jones.

Astrology indeed.

--Rgfolsom 05:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment -- would "academic community" be better than "scientific community"? Bucketsofg 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability - Science[edit]

1) In general a theory that claims to be a scientific theory is not notable unless it has had at least 3 papers published on the topic in respected peer-reviewed journals, and at least one of the papers is critical of the theory. This is an extremely low standard and other stricter standards may also have to be met.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is an operational rule based on WP:SCIENCE. I propose this only because I think a strictly operational standard is needed and the simplest way of dealing with Socionomics is now just to delete it.

proposed by Smallbones 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom (below) states that he has "not claimed that (socionomics) has 'scientific standing'" This is just incredible! The following talkpage back-and-forth [37] is all about "scientific standing." I count 9 mentions of the words science, scientist, scientific, non-science, etc. "Academic" is probably almost as common. And it all followed the removal by Folsom of the word "non-scientific" [38] as the first cause of this entire dispute and the first time User:Rgfolsom edited the page. The word "non-scientific" had been in the article since July when I added it, until Folsom changed it in late October.

Folsom (below) argues that I just want to delete the article. Actually I would like to see this article kept - provided that it includes in the first sentence that "socionomics is a non-scientific theory," but I don't see how else to resolve the conundrum that a non-scientific theory can't be shown to be non-scientific if all scientists just ignore it

Smallbones 19:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal completely disregards the notability criteria in the proposed guideline of WP:SCI. It begs credulity not to see this as an attempt to retrofit a principle on behalf of a plainly stated goal -- namely, "just to delete" the socionomics article.

At no time have my edits or arguments described socionomics as a "scientific" theory; I have not claimed that it has "scientific standing." The phrase I have argued for is, "Socionomics is a theory…" In my exchanges with Smallbones on talk:socionomics, I offered four instances from Wikipedia articles/Manual of Style to support my use of the word "theory," and to explain why "non-scientific theory" was biased.

In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts.

A theory, in the context of science, is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis — commonly, a large number of hypotheses may be logically bound together by a single theory.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method).

A common misperception is the belief that a theory just means a "guess." In the natural sciences and other academic fields, a theory is not a guess at all -- not even an educated and informed guess. It is system of explanation according to available knowledge. Ideally it will have been tested carefully to attempt to determine whether or not it matches visible events.

--Rgfolsom 18:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Negative material in biographies of public figures[edit]

1) According to WP:BLP#Public_figures, articles about public figures should reflect what reliable sources say about them. "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it".

Comment by Arbitrators:

I wonder however if Smallbones has not gone overboard emphasizing negative aspects and criticism. Fred Bauder 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I respectfully note that Marsden included an appeal to the same quotation from WP:BLP. The Committee denied its applicability in that case, by unanimously voting instead that biographies "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

I also ask the Committee to bear in mind that an otherwise reliable source can contain comments which deliberately ridicule and demean a living person. Invective that appears in the Wall Street Journal or in an obscure blog is still invective. Regardless of the source, such remarks are inconsistent with a biography that is (once again) written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

--Rgfolsom 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rgfolsom is on pretty weak ground here. The WSJ articles cited were all from the news section, not from the editorial page. The main WSJ article that he considers to be invective was on the front page, with "punchline of in-crowd jokes" reported as fact, not as opinion. WSJ reporters get their facts straight as often or more often than any other publication, as far as I can tell - certainly for business stories. What other source does he consider to be more reliable?

Smallbones 19:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's on pretty good ground. He shouldn't have to be intervening in the article. It should be Ok without him monitoring it. Fred Bauder 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't follow who you mean by "he" and "him" -- can you please clarify?

--Rgfolsom 18:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a good enough article that you shouldn't have to intervene. Fred Bauder 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you.--Rgfolsom 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. In this case, much of the edit war on Robert Prechter was about inclusion or exclusion of published commentary about Prechter's successes and failures as a financial prognosticator. The policy argues in favour of inclusion. Bucketsofg 20:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No original research by synthesis[edit]

1) WP:NOR requires arguments be based on reputable third party sources; putting those sources together in a new way that creates a new synthesis, or selectively including or excluding representative material in a way that creates a new synthesis, can constitute a violation of WP:NOR as well as violate WP:NPOV

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Committee members need only read the article to see that it does not include "only laudatory evaluations of Prechter's career." In fact, the entire article has one sentence referring to his forecasts as accurate: "Because these forecasts proved mostly correct -- especially for the stock indexes -- Prechter's following grew." This sentence is in the section named "Prominence," which is a synonym of "notable." The "Criticism" section includes exactly that, criticisms.

--Rgfolsom 21:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Bucketsofg 20:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Including only laudatory evaluations of Prechter's career, and excluding negative ones, creates a one-sided picture that both fails WP:NPOV, but also amounts to original research. Or, to put it another way, in 1978 Prechter correctly predicted the bull-market of the 1980s that took the DOW to 3000; through 1989 and 1995, however, he was calling for it to fall to 1000 or 400. If we include one but not the other, we violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, requires that the interests of the encyclopedia come before the business interests of contributors. Editing by those who disrupt the editing process by aggressively and persistently advocating information favorable to their business interests may be appropriately limited. Application of such remedies should be proportional to the degree and type of disruption which has resulted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From a previous case. Fred Bauder 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

My comments about my situation in the Conflicts of interest entry above stand here.

--Rgfolsom 15:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Articles at issue[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It is relevant however in that Elliott wave principle is a type of TA, Robert Prechter is a technical analyst who is the best known salesman for the "Elliott wave principle" and Socionomics is a simple extension of Elliott wave "methods" to all of the social sciences, invented by Prechter. The only thing I'll ask here is that evidence on TA be taken both ways: if Folsom wants to champion TA to show that I have bias, then his "evidence" can be taken to show that he has bias in his editing that is related to his obvious conflict of interest in all these articles.

I also think that it is wrong to state that I have contested Folsom's edits (for the most part). Rather he has contested and repeatedly reverted my edits on these topics. I've fairly consistently added material (leaving in the large part of whatever material Folsom has added) whereas Folsom has consistently removed all the material that I have added. Smallbones 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles I consider relevant are in the diffs on the evidence page. So are the facts about who "consistently removed" what, and why. It all speaks for itself. --Rgfolsom 22:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that somebody will probably have his editing restricted for the "articles at issue" after this proceeding for at least some period of time, so I'd like it to just be clear that every article listed in Folsom's evidence page contributions should be considered "at issue" according to his comment immediately above. Smallbones 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Let's just be sure that we don't take "financial writer" to mean "journalist" as in writing for any credible publication such as the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Fortune, Forbes, the Financial Times, etc. Rather, I suspect that writer here means "Public relations writer for TA publications." Perhaps Folsom can let us know where he has written before we jump to any conclusions. Smallbones 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the proposed findings of fact section, this seems to be the place to put the following:

Folsom has an obvious conflict of interest and doesn’t understand the COI rules [39].

He has been uncivil [40] and has taken “ownership” of 2 articles that directly concern his boss, Robert Prechter, and has repeatedly deleted well documented information on his boss [41][42]. He has presented a pseudoscience as if it were a scientific theory. [43]

Smallbones 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Arbitration Committee wants me to reveal even more details about myself based upon what Smallbones "suspects," I trust that they'll take it upon themselves to ask. --Rgfolsom 22:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would suggest deleting "popular" from the phrase "EWI's popular Market Watch column" in Fred's proposed finding. Bucketsofg 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 edits he has made are point of view, presumably reflecting his personal viewpoint "little better than casting horoscopes or reading tea leaves", although this edit is sourced in a book chapter which does indeed say, "Indeed, technical analysis is much derided as hocus pocus. Critics argue that its claims to offer insights into investor psychology are absurd, and that it has less rational basis than astrology or the study of UFOs." The book's Amazon listing and reviews. Here, he expresses his opinion of technical analysis. Technical analysis added to Pseudoscience article. This is a quite remarkable edit, being based on a book written by an admitted stock market neophyte whose only claim to fame in the financial arena was making a disastrous investment [44], see Talk:Technical_analysis#June_2006_Changes. More: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "tea leaves" is not that controversial. It seems to refer to the emphasis on pattern recognition, see "The detractors of TA often refer to "reading the runes" or "reading the tea-leaves". This attitude is a not unreasonable reaction to the over-reliance of some technical analysts on pattern recognition" Fred Bauder 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I respectfully note that the "hocus pocus" quotation from that book does not reflect the author's opinion. A complete reading of the text shows that the author in fact used those words as a devil's advocate, to assert what critics would say. One wonders what that author would think of seeing words he casually attributed to others appear as source material in a Wikipedia article on Technical analysis. --Rgfolsom 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I was quite astounded that anybody would consider the statement "Technical analysis is viewed ... by its critics as little better than casting horoscopes or reading tea leaves," as anything controversial. It is a simple fact that I've documented at least 3 times [54] [55] [56] .

It should be noted that "technical analysts" refer to themselves as "Gurus" [57], Market Wizards, and (on Wall Street Week) as "elves" and "gnomes."

The "point of view" that I'm referring to here is the basic academic view of TA - that, as practiced, it borders on pseudoscience, and has little if any empirical support. I'll give a couple of examples of this on the evidence page.Smallbones 19:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for further discussion see evidence page [58] Smallbones 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those links say nothing about how technical analysts refer to themselves. Instead, anyone who reads the text will plainly see that others describe technicians with labels like "Guru." In truth, those labels are commonly attached to any successful analyst or financier, including technicians like Prechter and non-technicians like Warren Buffett, John Templeton, Peter Lynch, George Soros, etc.

As for the "academic view" of technical analysis, "pseudoscience," etc. -- I assure this Committee that I did not make a request for arbitration in order to argue technical vs. fundamental analysis. If Committee members want to learn about the Nobel Laureates and billionaire traders who embrace technical analysis and/or reject the efficient market hypothesis, they won't have far to look. --Rgfolsom 22:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will say to the committee in no uncertain terms that many technical analysts do consider phrases such as "reading tea leaves" to be pejorative and even insulting. Obviously context matters; when "tea leaves" appears alongside "horoscopes," "astrology," "ufos" and "pseudoscience," then the non-neutral sentiment behind these words is abundantly clear to most readers.

--Rgfolsom 15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

TA, Elliott Wave, and Socionomics[edit]

1) Technical Analysis, and the "Elliott wave principle" are recognized by a significant portion of the academic community as pseudoscience. Socionomics may be pseudoscience but is not notable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That may be, but that is not a decision for the Arbitration Committee. Fred Bauder 20:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

see evidence page [[59]]

proposed by Smallbones 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The socionomics part of this MAY be a mute point now as the result of the decision to delete at [60]. Except for my vote to delete and a straight explanation, I avoided the debate on the RfD. But if the ArbCom wishes to see how frustrating it can be dealing with User:Rgfolsom they should examine the RfD. Smallbones 13:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "finding" has not been established by the facts in evidence. Even if it was, the Pseudoscience decision (noted in NPOV principle above) "requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."

--Rgfolsom 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Smallbones[edit]

1) Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), while aggressive [61], fall within acceptable limits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Provisional Fred Bauder 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring[edit]

1) The version of Robert Prechter advocated by Rgfolsom put a positive spin on his work [62] while the version favored by Smallbones [63] emphasizes negative aspects of his work and criticism. Revert by Rgfolsom to positive version. This has involved edit warring with Smallbones characterizing Rgfolsom reverts as "vandalism" [64]. Rgfolsum's comments on the situation are thoughtful and perceptive. Edit warring has continued to the present [65] [66] [67] with Smallbone insisting on inclusion of negative drama.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Working Fred Bauder 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

For the record, the "perceptive" comment cited above offered a solution for how we could avoid edit warring over Prechter's track record. It was met the following day by these edits from Smallbones.

--Rgfolsom 18:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"vandalism" wasn't the right word - but this reversion was the 9th or 10th straight of my edits by Rgfolsom - I was not being allowed to edit this article at all - everything was reverted by Rgfolsom. 1987 definitely belongs in the article, Prechter was a national figure. Most people only get 15 minutes of fame, he got about 9 months. It was just incredibly frustrating not being allowed to put anything into the article. Smallbones 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking about this, but it does seem that despite the conflict of interest Rgfolsom tends to write a much more balanced article than you do. You seem to focus on negative drama. I'm not sure that concentrating on negative criticism [68] [69] [70] gives an accurate picture of this living man. Fred Bauder 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the continued edit warring: A "cease-fire" prevailed over the articles in question from December 8 (the date I requested arbitration) until February 1, when Smallbones opted to edit Elliott wave principle. He ignored my appeal not to do so, and instead followed suit in Prechter's bio beginning February 12.

--Rgfolsom 21:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My latest version (which has been reverted 3 times) is my favored version [71]. I'm sorry to say that I don't understand Rgfolsom's comments on the situation to be perceptive at all. To me the comments say that documented facts that are central to a person's notability can be considered irrelevant to the article - thus they go completely against WP:V and WP:RS, and they comments say that only somebody who knows Prechter can decide which facts are relevant - this goes completely against WP:COI and WP:NPOV. I ask all the ArbCom members to read those comments carefully.

I'm also at a loss how to respond to the issue of not giving "an accurate picture of the living man." There is no question that everything that I've put into the article is accurate and documented, so it seems to come down to a question of balance. Is the article written solely by Rgfolsom, a Prechter employee, more balanced or is the article where I've included everything that is in Rgfolsom's version plus some real criticism at the end (about 1/3 of the article's length) more balanced? I'd guess the ArbCom members can't really tell unless they have seen a full range of articles on Prechter. In an effort to keep balance in the article, I've left out many documented facts that could have been put in. Rgfolsom has used the argument that I've put in too many references - that this shows imbalance. I don't know how to get around this potential Catch 22 (no references show a "bias," too many references show a "bias") except by showing the ArbCom a full range of articles about Prechter taken from major business publications. I've put these on the evidence page [72]. I'm sorry for the length (about 5 pages in Word), but I think that anybody reading those references can see that I've gone to great lengths to not be too hard on Prechter in the article, and that Rgfolsom's version is completely unbalanced.

Smallbones 19:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones has offered quotes from two dozen or so articles about Robert Prechter, and expects this Committee to believe that it amounts to the "evidence on balance." At most this is a tiny fraction -- repeat, tiny fraction -- of the available source material regarding Prechter.

Major daily newspapers:

Since 1987, Prechter has been mentioned by name 71 times in USA Today.
Since 1981, Prechter has been mentioned by name 25 times in the New York Times.
Since 1996, Prechter has been mentioned by name 34 times in Barron's/The Wall Street Journal.

This list obviously doesn't include articles published before the respective years listed, or the hundreds of articles published in dozens of other newspapers over the past 30 years.

His list also leaves out the trade press -- the hundreds of articles and interviews regarding Prechter in magazines and publications that target investors, traders, and financial professionals.

Smallbones' fractional slice of evidence speaks almost exclusively to Prechter's forecasts of the U.S. stock indexes. Yet Prechter has made many hundreds of other forecasts regarding other financial markets -- bonds (corporate, "junk," Treasury), commodities (energy, grains, livestock), currencies (euro, dollar index, yen, pound, various cross rates), metals (gold, silver, platinum, copper), plus the stocks of individual companies (too many to list), and stock indexes abroad (Europe, Asia, etc., etc.). Prechter's commentary and forecasts also go beyond financial markets, to include the economy (real estate, manufacturing, technology), politics (elections, legislative trends, presidential popularity), and popular culture (movies, music, fashion).

Then there are Prechter's 14 books, several of which have been reviewed and referenced, and excerpted in too many places to count. He has also published an article in a scholarly journal and presented papers at academic conferences. Prechter was an invited speaker recently at the London School of Economics and MIT.

Prechter has frequently provided commentary and given interviews that were broadcast on television and radio. Transcripts are available in most cases.

Perhaps the greatest number of references to Prechter are on the Internet. A Google search for "Robert Prechter" brings more than 60,000 results -- and those exclude results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. What's more, some 28,000 of the Google search results are non-English language.

So -- this gets slightly closer to the "evidence on balance," but only by way of summary. I stand by my edit's to Prechter's Wikipedia biography, and all that I have said about it.

--Rgfolsom 21:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Banning Folsom and his company[edit]

1) Folsom and all employees of Robert Prechter should be banned from editing Robert Prechter Socionomics and all the articles at issue for 6 months, and on revert parole for 12 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, clear violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. However, as to other employees, who else besides Folsom is thought to be editing? My thought is an indefinite ban, but permit comments on talk pages. Fred Bauder 17:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

How else to stop Folsom and his boss from continuing to assert their ownership of these articles?

proposed by Smallbones 21:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for an ordinary user to be sure about sockpuppets/meatpuppets but there are some indications of this, such as the evidence from Sandstein on the evidence page [[73]] about User:MarkA12. I've thought that user:Punanimal did many things to undermine reasonable presentation of my arguments, e.g. [74] and that user:Gashlicker was his sockpuppet. Punanimal was the user who seems to have posed as a Mediation Cabal mediator user:CanaryInACoalmine, who caused such a disruption [75] at the start of this arbitration. All in all, there's reason to suspect some underhanded games.

The main argument for banning all employees of Prechter is more straightforward. I'm not a lawyer, but believe the usual principle is that an employee who is doing the work that he is employed to do (e.g. promoting Prechter) is responsible, but the employer bears the main responsibility. I think this answers Rgfolsom's legal argument below.

Without this being recognized, I'm afraid that Prechter will just tell another of his employees to take up where Rgfolsom left off. Smallbones 10:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another extraordinary remark. A conflict with one other editor is enough for Smallbones to ask this Committee to impute mens rea to every individual in an entire company. Assume good faith be damned.

--Rgfolsom 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will address Sandstein's "evidence" more fully in due time. The short version is that his accusation is absolutely false and therefore defamatory, a word I am not using lightly. On top of that, I now read speculations about my ethics from an individual who posted my identify in a public forum without my consent. I dare not add to an irony that speaks for itself.

Prechter was not the person who brought the articles in question to my attention, and he has never told me to write a single word. I have done no one's bidding on Wikipedia, and, unlike Smallbones, I have solicited no one's help. My comment regarding mens rea and good faith remain unanswered.

--Rgfolsom 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit immediately above is a good example of Rgfolsom's incivility and lack of respect for the values of Wikipedians. Please see WP:NLT. How can the ArbCom function if a straight report of facts, together with a request to verify the facts, is met with a not-so-veiled threat of legal action? Smallbones 11:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones' interpretive venture notwithstanding, I have not made or implied any legal threat.

--Rgfolsom 17:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Delete Socionomics as not notable[edit]

1) Socionomics should be deleted as not notable, or editors should always be allowed to include information that it is a non-scientific theory (in the absence of documented evivdence otherwise).

Comment by Arbitrators:

We don't decide such matters. Fred Bauder 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have shown that Socionomics is not notable under WP:SCI. I'd actually like to keep it, with the first sentence containing the phrase "is a non-scientific theory" or something similar, but now doubt that that could be kept stable.

proposed by Smallbones 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Dear all,

I’m very sorry that this has taken so much time, and that all of the above seems quite disorganized. I’ll only say that I had no choice on the timing – since Folsom brought the request for Arb – and I had a 3 week Christmas vacation scheduled long ago. Now that I’m back to work, I’m pretty well snowed under.

Since Folsom brought the request for Arb, I would think that it is incumbent on him to make a clear case and ask you to do something. I don’t think that he has done either so far.

He has essentially argued content in accusing me of bias – I have shown that what he considers bias is the standard academic view.

He has argued that I’ve been uncivil. I’ve shown what I believe are much worse cases on his part. Perhaps I have been uncivil at times, but I think you can see the provocative nature of everything that Folsom does.

Folsom himself admits that he has a conflict of interest and I’ve shown that he (at best) completely misunderstands WP:COI.

He has consistently argued that a pseudoscience, socionomics, is a scientific theory, though he now says that he doesn't claim it is science. [77]. And now his newest edits say that it is a scientific theory [78] He has certainly presented socionomics as if it were a scientific theory and reverted my every edit to say that it is unscientific.

Perhaps I haven't said much about his boss's trading advice. It's in all the difs I've shown that Folsom reverts in the Robert Prechter article. The evidence that I've presented are quotes directly from the Wall Street Journal and Fortune that say Prechter's advice has been laughable, and similar info from similar top quality sources.

The WSJ reports this as fact "Unfortunately, the Dow never got within 800 points of the target before the market crashed in October. To compound things, Mr. Prechter then turned into a superbear, causing his followers to miss rally after rally in subsequent years. The result: Mr. Prechter went from stock-market hero to punchline of in-crowd jokes." Fortune and others report it as the opinion of their commentators. I do think that it is necessary for this type of information to be included about people who offer trading advice (or any service) - otherwise Wikipedia will have to limit itself only to providing positive reviews of service providers.

If there is anything else I need to do to move this forward to a conclusion, I hope somebody will let me know. Otherwise I will just look at this with a set of fresh eyes tomorrow (and hopefully only make minor changes) and standby for questions.

Thanks for taking the time to resolve this.

Sincerely,

Smallbones 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I elect not to propose a specific remedy regarding this Arbitration. The Committee has ample precedent to call on, should the Members find that my allegations are correct.

I do respectfully ask that Committee members take sober notice of how regrettably personal Smallbones has made this Arbitration. In a forum which calls for a civil presentation of facts and evidence, I found it extraordinary that he relentlessly called attention to me -- he would not even use my Wikipedia user name, but referred only to "Folsom." On the evidence page he likened my behavior to that of a religious cultist; this insult is consistent with the "voodoo" and "astrology" edits of his that I put into evidence.

That said, I welcome the Committee's examination of the facts, and will try to respond quickly to any questions the members have.

Thank you for your time and attention.

--Rgfolsom 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have temporarily restored the deleted article socioeconomics so that links to edits there can be viewed. It will be deleted at the conclusion of the case. Fred Bauder 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: