Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Proposed decision

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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For there are 8 active arbitrators,  so  support votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the, you should [&section=new post] to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee
2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. However, if such a dispute becomes acrimonious, and disrupts the editing environment, the Committee may elect to topic-ban or site-ban some or all of the editors involved in such a dispute.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Second sentence could be worded more broadly; we may impose sanctions or take other reasonable measures, other than prescribing content, appropriate to help bring about a resolution. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Newyorkbrad that these are two of many options open to the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Brad that this could be generalised. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Neutral point of view
3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Agenda-based editing
4) Accounts that focus on a single initial area of interest are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on that topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure the section header matches the substance, though. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the statement, header could be more specific. How about just "Agenda-based editing"? Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per my vote on the same proposal in an earlier case. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments
 * In response to Brad, I could change the header to "Editorial focus and agenda-based editing" - the draft wording was changed at John's suggestion, and I forgot to change the header to match. What I've been trying to do is move away from the language "single-purpose account", while still linking to the page that describes that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do.  Roger Davies  talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Carcharoth (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest
5) An editor may have a conflict of interest when their interests in editing Wikipedia, or the interests of those they represent, potentially conflict, or are perceived to conflict, with the interests of the Wikipedia project in producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Advocacy
6) Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view over another.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit-warring
7) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Decorum
8) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Importing external disputes
9) Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is inappropriate to continue, on Wikipedia, a dispute or personal grudge that originated elsewhere and is external to Wikipedia. Importing such external conflicts is disruptive behavior, which degrades the editing environment and destabilizes encyclopedia editing, community discussions, and dispute resolution.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Poor interactions
10) Editors who have a history of bad blood, feuds or poor interactions with each other, can complicate attempts to reach consensus, can perpetuate disputes, and can disrupt the editing environment. Editors who are unable to resolve such differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Sources in other languages
11) Wherever possible, English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages, so that English-speaking readers and editors can readily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available or is inferior. When editors translate a direct quote, the relevant portion of the original text should be placed in a footnote or in the article.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant portion of the verifiability policy also adds that translations available in reliable sources are preferable to translations by Wikipedians. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Good faith and disruption
12) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Locus of the dispute
1) The locus of this dispute is the Socionics article and associated topics (see Template:Socionics). The two primary disputants are and, and the dispute dates from April 2009 onwards. The core of the dispute is an intractable disagreement between the two disputants over the nature of socionics, as elucidated in their answers to the questions posed during the case.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Socionics article (1)
2) In 2009, the Socionics article (started 3 August 2002) has averaged around 100 to 200 views a day, with a larger peak in June 2009 due to the deletion discussion. A large proportion of the editing (1002 of 1702 edits) has been made during the current dispute (April to November 2009). The top five contributors by edit count are: Rmcnew (684), User8080 (142), Niffweed17 (79), Tcaudilllg (77) and Rick DeLong (72). Before 1 April 2009, the article looked like this, and the changes over the seven months up to 1 November 2009 can be seen here. Much of the traffic to the socionics article talk page has taken place since the dispute commenced, with some 78 separate discussion sections made over a 7 month period, and hundreds of kilobytes of discussion text posted (in large part by Rmcnew and Tcaudilllg).


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I'm quite surprised to see this topic receiving so much reader attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Socionics article (2)
3) On 10 June 2009 Rmcnew created the article Socionics (esoterism) (deleted revision link) and also created the disambiguation page Socionics (disambiguation) (deleted revision link) . On 16 June 2009, Rmcnew moved the Socionics article to the title 'Socionics (typology)', and redirected the 'Socionics' title to the disambiguation title. Later that month, after a fringe theories noticeboard thread had been started, User:Mangoe nominated these and related articles for deletion (1, 2, 3). Numerous concerns were raised at the deletion discussions, including allegations of content forks, coat-rack articles, lack of notability, original research, synthesis, the use of non-English language sources, and concerns that the majority of the editing was being done by proponents of the theories. The result of the discussions was no consensus for 'information metabolism' and delete for 'socionics (esoterism)'. On 4 July 2009, as a result of the deletion discussion, the 'socionics (typology)' article was moved back to the title 'socionics', the disambiguation page was deleted, and related pages were redirected to the main article (where most of the content already existed).


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Rmcnew
4) began contributing with his account in April 2009, with his first edits being made to the socionics pages or related discussions. Rmcnew's primary focus is socionics, with practically all of his edits since then being made to the socionics topic; he has shown little desire to diversify outside this topic area. He has also stated in response to questions that this is his one and only account on Wikipedia, though he says he had edited a few other articles before he began editing the Socionics article.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Tcaudilllg
5) began editing at a sustained rate in May 2007, with his first edits being made to the socionics discussions, and his first edits to the article made in April 2009. Tcaudilllg's primary focus is socionics and the majority of his edits have been made to the socionics topic. He has diversified by editing articles on other topics, but stated in response to a question during the case that "other articles just aren't as important. So no, I don't take them as seriously as I do socionics".


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Editing environment
6) The editing environment surrounding the disputed matters is hostile. Assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, "battleground" expressions, and other incivility are commonplace.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Prior discussions
7) Prior discussions and attempts to resolve this dispute, outside of the article talk pages, include: an early mediation cabal request (November 2007); an assessment review request at WikiProject Psychology (December 2008); misplaced request at arbitration enforcement (April 2009); requests for assistance from WikiProject Sociology and WikiProject Psychology (May 2009); a request at the Neutral point of view noticeboard (May 2009); a thread at the Fringe theories noticeboard that led to the article deletion discussions (June 2009); administrators incidents noticeboard (ANI) thread on Tcaudilllg's conduct at the deletion discussions (July 2009); an ANI thread on Rmcnew and two posts here and here by him (30 July to 1 August 2009); an informal mediation by User:GTBacchus, which can be seen here, here, here, and here (mid-July 2009); a thread at the No original research noticeboard (September 2009); and a mediation cabal case just prior to arbitration (September 2009).


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Rmcnew's conduct
8) Set of proposed findings on Rmcnew's conduct.

Rmcnew and conflict of interest
8A) Rmcnew has declared that he is a practicing socionist; the degree of Rmcnew's perceived real world involvement with the topic in question, can appear to place him in a Wikipedia conflict of interest.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether the issue is better viewed as one of COI or as one of temptations to NPOV editing, but any distinction is not critical to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Rmcnew and battleground mentality
8B) Rmcnew has made statements indicating that he sees this content dispute as a battle to be fought, and has, at times, raised external disputes during discussions on Wikipedia. (full quotes: ; )


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Rmcnew and incivility
8C) Rmcnew has engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, and other inappropriate commentary that focuses on contributors rather than article content (full quotes: ).


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Though this is comparatively mild. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Rmcnew has edited disruptively
8D) Rmcnew has edited disruptively, engaging in persistent advocacy, soapboxing, and tendentious debates regarding his views on esoterism and socionics. (see also the Socionics article talk page and its archives; full quotes: ).


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although to an extent this duplicates the prior paragraphs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, while accurate, this is a somewhat strident characterisation. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Brad.  Roger Davies  talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Rmcnew has edit-warred
8E) Rmcnew has engaged in slow, long-term edit-warring, and made statements of intent to continue edit warring. Others have commented on this conduct. (Edit warring:, , , , , , , ; statements and comments: ; ; ; ; full quotes: ).


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Tcaudilllg's conduct
9) Set of proposed findings on Tcaudilllg's conduct.

Tcaudilllg and battleground mentality
9A) Tcaudilllg has repeatedly raised external disputes during discussions on Wikipedia, and has also made statements indicating that he sees this content dispute as a battle to be fought. (full quotes:, ).


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Tcaudilllg and incivility
9B) Tcaudilllg has engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, and other inappropriate commentary that focuses on contributors rather than article content (full quotes: ).


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of personal attacks is a much more significant issue for Tcaudilllg. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Tcaudilllg has edited disruptively
9C) Tcaudilllg has edited disruptively, engaging in persistent advocacy, soapboxing, and tendentious debates, and has stated his intention to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool (full quotes: ).


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although this is not a great example. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Tcaudilllg has threatened to disrupt Wikipedia's editorial processes
9D) At the deletion discussion for the socionics article, and in the preceding discussion, Tcaudilllg made numerous threats to disrupt Wikipedia's editorial processes, and threatened co-ordinated action if his wishes were not met (full quotes: ).


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Though this strikes me as having a low bite to bark ratio. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Tcaudilllg has edit-warred
9E) Tcaudilllg has engaged in slow, long-term edit-warring, and made statements of intent to continue edit warring. Others have commented on this conduct. (Edit warring:, , , , ; statements and comments: ; ; ; ; ; full quotes: ).


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Conduct during the case
10) There were problems with appropriate presentation of evidence, and other indications of misunderstandings of what arbitration is for . In response to this, Tcaudilllg started a content Request for Comment in his userspace, and both parties presented evidence on the case pages. Some attempts at compromise were made during the case, but these included inappropriate offers of deals that included dropping arbitration action in return for support for various content positions. During the case, Rmcnew and Tcaudilllg both promptly answered questions asked of them by the drafting arbitrator. However, the two parties continued arguing about the content dispute, including examples of mutual incivility. Tcaudilllg filed an inappropriate wikiquette alert instead of talking to a clerk or arbitrator, and Tcaudilllg inappropriately inserted himself into an unrelated dispute, and made unnecessary comparisons with Rmcnew. This was followed by a period of quiet while drafting of the decision took place.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True, although their behaviour isn't significantly out of line from what is frequently seen here and does not result in a finding of fact. Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (With trivial CE)   Roger Davies  talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per Risker. If parties are having difficulties with the complexities of the arbitration process that's our problem to address, not theirs. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Per Risker's caveat. The upshot here is that despite knowing that they had reached the final stage of Wikipedia dispute resolution, and that they were at risk of serious sanctions, neither party has modified his behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Socionics forums and websites
11) Online forums and websites concerning socionics have been mentioned in the socionics article and related discussions. Editors of the socionics articles have at times referred to disputes taking place on these external forums and websites, some of which are used as sources for information in the articles. Some discussions have questioned the reliability of such sources. Some of the most active editors on socionics topics on Wikipedia are self-disclosed past or present members or managers of such forums. (Initial user page comment by administrator of wikisocion; current user page of administrator of wikisocion; wikisocion; the16types; socionix and the16types; the16types; the16types; the16types and socionix; noting spread of forum politics; advertising a new forum; 3.5 months later, advertising a new forum (metasocion); 16types and metasocion; external dispute; external dispute).


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.

Editors reminded and encouraged
1) Editors of the socionics topic are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Rmcnew topic banned
2) is indefinitely topic banned from all Socionics-related topics, pages, and discussions, broadly construed.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Note: The proposed topic ban and site ban are separate remedies, not alternatives, and address different aspects of this case. If one passes, the other may still be needed, so voting on these remedies should be separate and not conditional.

Rmcnew banned
3) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would be willing to consider shorter ban based on his recent comments. Wizardman  04:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice, prefer 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Shorter ban should be sufficient. Opposing only to ensure this does not pass because of abstentions. Risker (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Excessive. No indication the relevant behaviour has extended or would extend beyond the confines of this dispute. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Prefer six months.  Roger Davies  talk 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Will not oppose, but prefer a shorter period. Vassyana (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew banned
3.1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.


 * Support:
 * Proposed per Wizardman's comments and my own similar concerns. Vassyana (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Equal support to the one-year ban. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First choice. Wizardman  00:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to consider allowing Rmcnew an opportunity to try to show that he can edit properly on non-socionics-related topics, under appropriate restrictions. However, the difference between a broad topic-ban and a full siteban for Rmcnew is moot unless he expresses an interest in editing on other topics. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference would be in cutting off any avenue for rehabilitation. That's not a door that should be closed without cause, even if it is unlikely that it will be used. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Excessive. No indication the relevant behaviour has extended or would extend beyond the confines of this dispute. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Note: The proposed topic ban and site ban are separate remedies, not alternatives, and address different aspects of this case. If one passes, the other may still be needed, so voting on these remedies should be separate and not conditional.

Tcaudilllg topic banned
4) is indefinitely topic banned from all Socionics-related topics, pages, and discussions, broadly construed.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Note: The proposed topic ban and site ban are separate remedies, not alternatives, and address different aspects of this case. If one passes, the other may still be needed, so voting on these remedies should be separate and not conditional.

Tcaudilllg banned
5) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to consider allowing Tcaudilllg an opportunity to try to show that he can edit properly on non-socionics-related topics, under appropriate restrictions. However, the difference between a broad topic-ban and a full siteban for Tcaudilllg is moot unless he expresses an interest in editing on other topics. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Excessive. No indication the relevant behaviour has extended or would extend beyond the confines of this dispute. A more expansive remedy that might be appropriate would be a civility parole. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Note: The proposed topic ban and site ban are separate remedies, not alternatives, and address different aspects of this case. If one passes, the other may still be needed, so voting on these remedies should be separate and not conditional.

Review of articles
6) Users not previously involved in Socionics and Socionics-related articles are asked to give attention to any remaining issues with the articles, including the reliability of sources used. Users should carefully review the articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case. Participation from uninvolved editors fluent in the Russian language would be especially helpful.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's good to specifically ask the community to review matters. Vassyana (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Though this would be better presented as a statement from the Committee accompanying the case, rather than as a remedy. --bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tending to agree with Bainer.  Roger Davies  talk 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Enforcement by block
1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at the case page log of blocks and bans.


 * Support:
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon reconsideration, supporting as a measure that I have previously supported, providing a half-way point between more restrictive conditions and the general discretion I prefer. Vassyana (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I know most of the Committee disagrees, but I still find myself wary of the arbitrary block limits/fettering admin discretion. Vassyana (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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.''


 * Proposals which pass
 * Principles 1-12
 * Findings 1-8, 8A-D, 9A-E, 10, 11
 * Remedies 1, 2, 3.1, 4, 5, 6
 * Enforcement 1
 * Proposals which do not pass
 * Remedy 3
 * Implementation notes done. Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

''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. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.''


 * Support
 * Move to close. Everything necessary to a decision has passed unanimously. There are a couple of items that could use input from one or two more arbitrators, but this can happen before in the day or two before the close is implemented, and otherwise they are not essential. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Close. Risker (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 04:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please close in 24 hours from this timestamp. Carcharoth (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comment
 * Regarding remedy 5, please see here for thoughts on how to implement it. Regarding remedy 6, this may be better published as a separate statement in the necessary places. Please ask for advice on suitable places to post that statement. Carcharoth (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)