Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to both parties
I've been reading through the evidence and some of the background to this, and I have some questions here for both parties to answer.


 * (1) Could you both briefly give your opinion on what happened at Articles for deletion/Socionics?
 * (2) The same question for what happened at Articles for deletion/Socionics (esoterism).
 * (3) The evidence and background to this dispute indicate that you have both discussed Socionics in off-wiki sites and forums. Could you give some brief background to this, and indicate whether there is a prior dispute between you two that existed before you began editing the topic on Wikipedia.
 * (4) Could you both describe how you handle use of non-English sources, and Russian sources in particular.
 * (5) Could you both describe what efforts you have made to get help from others with editing this article.

rmcnew's answers
Some things that should be pointed out. These may or may not correspond to what tcaulldig has already written.


 * (1) The initial reaction to have the whole of socionics deleted by the administration at all was started initially from the administration considering the socionics_(esotericism) a content fork, and it was initially slated to be deleted with the decision that anything notable and credible according to wikipedias standards in the article was to be moved back to the main article. It was not until after the administrators, (administrators as plural, meaning not just mangoe- other administrators as well, although he was the main instigator pushing for the deletion) noted that both the socionics esotericism and the main socionics webpage had a large degree of original research, some which may have been put there by myself and also other editors, while lacking overall sources in general. This was the main reason that really gave incentive to have the administrators to delete the articles, la ck of overall sources in general. The overall reason Mangoe wanted to delete socionics was because he was not convinced of the notability in light of the overall lack of sources for socionics listed in the article, and towards the end the content fork and original research became side issues to socionics being unbnotable overall for lack of appropriate sources. The esotericism issue had very little to do with the deletion of the socionics content on wikipedia at that point. However, if the editors who had chased that information into a content fork had instead decided to work together at that time to find better links instead of fight about content, then absolutely none of that would have happened. So, overall it all came down to nearly all editors being careless with placing quality links, being biased in light of verifiable sources and generally fighting over content and not really coming to terms at that time on how to represent socionics in light of the fact that there are legitimate new age and alternative healing techniques that have slipped into socionics, along with other protoscience and pseudoscience. The evidence page I had submitted is full of illustrations that this is the case. Though in all the reason that the article got flagged for deleteion is simple, it is because there were editors in the socionics article who were refusing to put valid socionics information into the article, and were not doing anything otherwise to find sources when the whole article lacked sources. Shortly after tcaulldig had created socionics_(esotericism), some administrators found out about it and considered it a content fork, and then after realizing that the socionics article did not meet wikipedias standards in general pressed forward to delete all mention of socionics in general. The administrators who were pressing to delete all socionics articles also noted that nearly all articles concerning socionics included a high degree of oirgional reasearch (which I believe existed in the article because of lack of cooperation from all editors, who were generally being careless and not bothering to source the information properly, and wern't watching each other). Since I knew that there were in fact credible sources that attested to the credibility of socionics for wikipedia that clearly frame socionics in a light that could be regarded as pseudoscientific, protoscientific, or esoteric, and that other editors were doing every thing they could to keep anything about that out of the article converning that, I was pretty certain that all articles concerning socionics were going to be deleted. To be honest I want there to be a socionics article on wikipedia and I am glad that the administrators decided not to delete every mention of it, and I believe that the current cooperation of the editors in regards to restructureing the socionics article to remove origional research, to make mention of certain things about socionics theory that they may not personally agree with when there are credible sources that meet wikipedias standards is a major improvement. I believe it is a positive thing and I hope it continues.


 * (2) I would solely disagree with anyone who claims that esoteric methods are unnotable for socionics theory. The reason being that there is a larger percentage of socionists in the russian speaking world who are involved with esoteric applications in socionics theory than many of the editors want to admit, either because it is not their own application or they simply don't want people to know that these applications exists in the eastern world. While tcaulldig clearly notes that esoteric applications can be found in socionics journal, it is extremely clear that he is of the camp of editors who want to sideskirt any mentions of esotericism in socionics for reasons that are purely personal, even to go so far as to take dishonest measure clearly against wikipedia policy to prevent this information from getting out; part of that being his want to ban anyone out who even mentions esotericism simply because he disagrees with it on a personal level. I should also note that the majority of editors are in agreement that mentions of esotericism are appropiate, so long as they are backed by sources fitting wikipedias standards. Evidence that this is the case is on the evidence page.


 * (3) Tcaulldig and myself have not directly had disputes in the past, though he was banned from the forum I owned for a number of months for personally attacking other users and also a moderator. In a way I personally sympathized and felt that a number of users there were picking on tcaud for having an extreme view of socionics, that was not representative of most users there. At that time I allowed the moderators to make the decisions on who to ban, so I let them ban tcaudillig for a while. Even so, I had gotten along with him otherwise. Unfortunately, once I sold the forum I was also ostracized out of the community for bringing it out in the open that socionics has ties to all sort of esoteric and occult things, using many of the same legitimate sources and links that do indeed meet wikipedias standards. It could be very well said that tcaulldig does not want any mention of esotericism for his own personal reasons, in fact, he has already mentioned that it would effect his personal and professional life, but tcaudilligs personal and professional life isn't an appropriate reason to sopt mentioning things in light of what socionics is, versus what he wants it to be. Socionics is non-scientific, pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and esoteric. If he wants to cling to a theory that already has these associations and that is going to effect his personal life, it would be a complete waste of time to attempt to hide the associations. So, sad to say that he would be barking up the wrong tree if he wants to have associations with socionics for his reasons. As far as mentioning my behavior, Tcaulldig is not one to talk about other peoples behaviors in light of his unnecessary behavior and viable degree of ad hominems towards not just myself, but even other editors who edit socionics and also elsewhere. But right now I would just appreciate that he would stop his personal attacking on wikipedia. That is all I am interested in at this moment. In general, both tcaulldig and I have been active in the socionics community, and I was in fact the owner of the largest speaking socionics community before I sold it for a number of reasons. One of them being that I believed that socionics was being heavily misrepresented by people who visited my internet forum, and that I began to lack the time and incentive to maintain the bulletin board to certain standards according to its growth. I soon decided to sell the forum, though I later regretted that taking that certain mischevious individuals who maintained positions as administrators after that had eventually took it upon themselves to break certain agreements and to use the bulletin board software as a means to derive personal information in a way that would be considered fraudulent, this included logging into my old account, and while pretending to be me discredit my persons in order to discredit anything that I might say about socionics, as I had a previous fallout with members in the forum community who were shocked to discover proof that socionics has even gone so far as to be used as something of an alternative medicine and was being mixed with new age beliefs in the russian speaking world. Since the evidence is clear this has indeed been going on, and that since I have been proveing that this has indeed been going on, there have been proponents of socionics who from their own personal standpoint feel that I have done a disservice for socionics and have done their best to frame me as being a troll or uncredible, when the reality is that I simply want people to show integrity and be honest about the actual status of socionics, and not try to hide the fact that these things are going on simply because they are not these peoples own personal application. After I sold the forum I went on to create the metasocion website in order to cater to those who may have nonscientific or esoteric uses of socionics, such as the usage of chakras and the like. And the website was indeed intended to be a socionics website (despite tcaulldigs claim). It is true that tcaulldig and I were involved with creating a socionics video game based on a "dungeons and rabbits" rpg mod for phpbb2 boards, though the idea fizzled out as I lacked time to work much on the board other than php error correcting and I don't think we totally agreed on what we would do with the mod when we were done. Tcaulldig also had a falling out with Rick Delong at that time, where he was banned from the wikisocion website and from what I remember, moved his material from there to the metasocion website I had created, as he had rubbed a number of members there the wrong way and provoked rick delong and other editors on that wiki to move his material from wikisocion. That is pretty much it. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (4) Online web translations of sources that meet wikipedias standards. It is generally agreed currently by most all editors that wikisocion and Rick Dulongs translations of russian books are not authoritative enough to cite on wikipedia. Rick Delong(socionics.us) is no more authoritative than Dmitri Lytov(socioniko.net) or Sergei Ganin(socionics.com), who in regards to wikipedias standards for quotable sources in total are not any more authoritative than a random russian person with no formal education suddenly popping out of the blue and making claims about the theory socionics. It should also be noted that Rick Delong, Dmitri Lytov and Sergei Ganin have conflicting views on socionics, and there have been a number of cases where all three have made contradictory statements about socionics. In summary, Rick Delong is simply an editor on wikipedia who is no more authoritative than myself or tcaulldig in light of wikipedias standards, and any editors incentives for putting him on a pedestal should be looked at very skeptically and investigated. As far as foreign links not related to any editors are concerned the usage of non-english sources on wikipedia, especially in the russian language is unfortunatelly quite necessary, as there are little or no credible sources for socionics in any other language. I have personally done my best to find credible sources, despite this fact. On the other hand, this leads to another problem as nearly anyone can make just about any bogus claim about socionics and say that it came from a book in another language that was published by a socionics founder that has never been published or translated into english. An example is Rick Delong's translation of some of the founder ausura augustas materials. Absolutely no one has any idea that what he has stated in his english translations is even accurate, as no one has seen any other translation and so few of us can read russian, and even if someone can read russian getting a russian copy of any of ausura augustas books that rick delong has translated (and placed on his website) is nearly impossible if not costly. For this reason it is easiests to do webtranslations of whatever socionics information can be found on the internet, which has besides translating and includeing information from the russian wikipedia article has been the only other real recourse for finding good sources reliable for socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (5) User:GTBacchus came into the picture as a means to stop any potential edit warring after it was decided that the article should not be deleted by wikipedia administrators. He threatened to protect the article from editing until the editors came to a consensus. The concensus that the editors eventually came to is that esotericism could be spoken about in the article, so long as it was backed by sources matching wikipedias standards. Tcaudillig has since refused to sign the consensus and has instead threatened to use wikipedia administration to force his way unto the socionics article, typically by banning anyone who speaks about esotericism. He even threatened to go to arbcom to force his way on the article, if other editors did not meet his demands for what he personally wanted done with the article. Other editors have called this uncooperation on his part. But to stop speaking solely about tcaulldig for a moment, in general I was frustrated for a long time with getting the support of other editors who would not budge a finger to do anything with the socionics article to give it more credibility, and for the most part would just simply gripe about my own contributions. I did notice that after decision for the administration to not delete the article, other editors began to be more open about adding different concepts into the socionics article and seem to have accepted that it is a matter of integrity and honesty to give some credence to the existance of certain protoscientific, pseudoscientific, and esoteric applications in socionics theory, which to me seemed to indicate a shift in attitude in that nameing these things was one of the key ingredients to bringing credibility for socionics on wikipedia. It seems that as of now the editors are cooperating with each other generally more than they were a few months ago. I am happy about that. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg's answers
(1) Well what happened is Rmcnew started publishing original research when nobody knew what socionics was really about. So we had a user, Mangoe, who took one look at it and thought, "this is fringe science at its worst". He approached me about it and asked for a citation in an (English) magazine, asserting it (socionics) wasn't notable. Of course I wasn't able to give him one because there aren't any. So Mangoe put all the socionics articles up for deletion, asserting they had failed the Google test. I pointed out that the Cyrillic yields different results, producing a list of about 500 articles. From there I guess maybe Mango got embarrased that he hadn't thought of that, and dug in as devil's advocate to save face? I don't really know, but anyway there was this huge mix-up involving apparent region bias, at which point McNew saw a chance to frame the debate. DeLong was on a sabbatical at the time and Lytov hadn't been seen in months, so there was nobody to either attest to the notability of socionics or to decisively rebut McNew. This was the beginning of our argument, when I saw what for me, sealed my opinion of his character, that he was willing to undermine the effort to promote the awareness of socionics if it would serve his own ends.

(2) I barely paid attention to that debate. I didn't really care if it got deleted or not, because I basically made that article to divert McNew's attention out of the main socionics article. Unfortunately ignorance of socionics prevailed and that article was merged into the main one, giving McNew a platform he never should have had. Esoteric applications of socionics are not altogether notable: although they are indeed published in the International Institute journal, they are kept in their own section which is separate from the professional articles. You might want to ask DeLong about this for confirmation, but from what I can gather the socionists themselves are a somewhat tight-knit group and it's very likely that although they do mean for their work to be professionally considered, they also treat the journal as something of a causal discourse between friends. Prokoveika did not get her degrees in socionics for advocating esoterism; she got them for publishing serious work.

(3) I was on decent, if cautious, terms with him before the article problems began. In fact I would have to say it has been his conduct with respect to the Wikipedia articles that soured my relationship with him. I am quite concerned that if I do not distance myself from him, I could be associated with esoterism later, to the detriment of my career when I complete my psychology studies.

(4) Online translation. DeLong's notes are considered authoritative, not least because the online translations back him up and Lytov never denied them. The translators have gotten better and when they are insufficient a cadre of dedicated Russian speakers have been stepping in to clarify them. This work has especially picked up over the past several months, as can be seen on Wikisocion. Sometimes it takes study to get the gist of what is being said, but that's true even of articles in English by some people. I guess someone could argue over what's being said in something, but there are ways to resolve such, aren't there?

(5) I actually advertised this article on Wikiproject psychology. I also sought the assistance of an admin, User:GTBacchus, to help get attention for the thing, deal with McNew, etc. Eventually he lost interest. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Rmcnew
These questions are for Rmcnew to answer only. Please be brief.


 * (1) Your account was registered on 23 January 2007, but your first edit was on 17 April 2009. Did you edit Wikipedia before April 2009, possibly with other accounts or as an anonymous contributor?
 * (2) You have made the majority of the contributions to the Socionics article and its talk page (675 and 770 edits, the last time I looked). Could you please give details of non-Socionics topics you have contributed to, or would consider contributing to.
 * (3) Please explain what you say here and here.

Rmcnew - responses to questions:
Answer to 1 - My account was indeed registered as of january 23 2007. It is my one and only account on wikipedia. I may have logged in a couple of times during that time. I do not remember consistently logging in and editing wikipedia before I began editing the socionics article, though I do recall making a few edits here and there in articles that are not related to socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer to 2 - I have contributed to a few other articles, though not as consistently. I have made some edits to articles that consist of topics rangeing from religious, new age, christian, alternative healing, warfare, etc.

Answer to 3 - In response to  and.

I made that statement on the deletion board in relation to socionics, because I believe that socionics is based on outdated protoscience and esoteric methods, which the founders are calling "scientific", when it is really pseudoscientific. Further, I believe that socionics has been wholely misrepresented to the english speaking and western world to seem as though it is devoid of the very culture it came from, and that there is now a "western twist" where legitimate things involved with legitimate socionics are being repressed and replaced with western values that don't exists in actual socionics, as it came from the founders. And to give an example, socionists in russia have made claims that experiments between chakras and socionics is a scientific feat, and other pseudoscientific claims. This is completely against the western way of science, and there are editors on wikipedia who I don't think realize that when socionists in russia say "science" that doesn't necessarily mean "western science". So, as a result of this there are editors who are trying to keep pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and esoteric mentions of socionics out of the article, even though these thing legitimatelly exists in socionics, because they personally disagree with the usages of socionics that exists in the russian cultural sphere of the world. This was another reason why I was making so many comparisons between socionics and hermeticism. I was attempting to show these editors that they have formed an idea of socionics that doesn't actually exists and that socionics has many things at its very core that are rightly pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and esoteric. Not because I wanted to put origional research into the article, but because I wanted other editors to cease from removing inappropiatelly removeing valid sources (fitting wikipedias standards) that shows the very protoscientific, pseudoscientific, and esoteric nature of socionics, simply because they don't personally realize that these are infact a legitimate part of socionics theory in the russian speaking culture to some degree or another.

As far as claiming that the article should be deleted, I said this because I don't believe the article would be saying much about socionics crediblewise unless the other editors came to terms that many of the legitimate sources you are going to find about socionics attest to its protoscientific, pseudoscientific, and esoteric nature. In fact, the article was lacking credible sources period and could have been deleted simply for that reason. It would indeed had been a wiser choice for the other editors to give way that there are topics concerning socionics that can be credibly sourced, that don't personally appeal to them and therfore save the article from deletion. To state what I just said simply, I was simply making a statement that the editors should either be more open to possibilities of finding credible links they do not personally agree with that attest to the nature of socionics as protoscience, pseudoscience, or esotericism or face that the article should be deleted, because the article was lacking credible sources and could have been deleted simply for that reason alone. And unfortunatelly, this was one of the main reasons the article was stated for deletion in the first place. Many of the editors refusal to place information into the article that would have fit wikipedias standards for inclusion simply because they did not agree with the way socionics would have been presented according to those sources --Rmcnew (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As for what I said to tcaudillig, I generally was getting along with him at that time and it did not bother me at first that he was opposed to the mentioning of certain things in the socionics article. And I made the statement I did, because from what I already had mentioned there were other editors who were wanting to not include legitimate information about socionics simply because they did not personally agree with the information, from saying that esoteric applications were unnotable when the sources in question met wikipedias standards to out and out refusal to admit that esoteric application were present at all, when infact there are very pronounced esoteric applications in socionics theory they would not admit too, even as there were sources right in front of them showing these applications. I at least wanted to get a compromise with the other editors over it, and to do that I was forced to make some comparisons betwen socionics and other things in the western world the other editors may have had more familiarity with. Commentwise I also may have voiced this in way that implied that I was frustrated with other editors,as I was at that time. That was what my comment was about. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Tcaudilllg
These questions are for Tcaudilllg to answer only. Please be brief.


 * (1) Can you explain what this conversation is about?
 * (2) Similarly, what are you saying here?
 * (3) You edit articles other than Socionics. Do you think your conduct when editing those articles is different from when you discuss and edit the Socionics articles? If so, why is that?

All the above questions from Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to (1) We had something of a falling out because we were working on a online game to teach kids about socionics. Originally McNew implied it would be free, and so I and some other people I recruited were working on it for free because we believed it was worthwhile. But about the time I made that comment, he started saying he intended to make it a pay-to-play game, at least with respect to certain aspects. My plan was for people to be exposed to socionics by playing the game; I had no reason to make a game for people who didn't care about/want to learn socionics. So that was a parting of ways. Had nothing to do with the socionics Wikipedia article or its content, however. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to (2) We were aiming to improve the Wikipedia article on socionics. Previously to the spring, there had been something of a consensus in the Socionics community that Wikisocion.org was the place for people in the West to read up on socionics. However that project developed a behaviorist slant and so, began to misrepresent the field. Socionists disagree with behaviorists in a number of areas.... I wanted a more objective source of material for newcomers to learn socionics, and so I thought to do that by improving/enlarging the Wikipedia article. McNew said that was his intent, too, and so I made that comment about the "work" of the article. People have expressed in the past dissatisfaction with socionics because no one has found neurocognitive proof for it -- there's something of a movement in academics to throw everyone who's not a cognitive psychologist to the fringe, or at least that's what I gather from the textbooks I've read --, and that's what I was referring to by the "alternative views" label. After all, who was it who even put that on there, and what was their source? Where is this criticism of socionics among psychologists, except from one socionist (Dmitri Lytov)? Everything was going fine until McNew started getting out of control with his original research.... When that began to happen, I realized he was self-promoting his website, which has no official connection to socionics. So I rebuked him. I was also cautioning him because I knew someone would most likely try to block him for it. Or so I imagined... I underestimated the lack of interest in socionics here, which I was really quite stunned by because I've made efforts to include links to it in relevant articles. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to (3) The other articles just aren't as important. So no, I don't take them as seriously as I do socionics. See, socionics is like an ideology unto itself. People who know about socionics just see the world differently. Markedly differently. See socionics isn't just a typology. It's both the typology and the categorical logic which is evident in the context of the typology. And then you have the (apparently universal) relations theory, which essentially means for every person who learns of it both the typology and the logic become incontrovertible, because denying them would mean denying their own subjective perceptions about other people. So it's just a different way of thinking, which nonetheless provides a sense of certainty in areas that other schools of thought do not permit. Everyone should know socionics, probably. That's why we're making articles about it on Wikipedia. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Socionists are independent of their field
1) socionics-related articles should observe only that some socionists have done studies on estorism.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Despite having reviewed the statements and evidence in this case, I don't know what this means. Please bear in mind, in presenting evidence and workshop proposals, that the arbitrators may have little or no previous familiarity with the issues in the case. The issues need to be presented to us more in laypeople's language and with appropriate references to the evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This proposal is about content. Primarily ArbCom handles disputes where remedies are needed to address user conduct issues. Generally, ArbCom does not make ruling about content matters. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read my advice here and here. It would also be advisable for the parties to look at the principles and findings and remedies in previous arbitration cases, to see how best to present your case. This principle, for example, is very specific on content, and as such is not a suitable arbitration case principle. The principles should only broadly relate to content, and most should relate to how conduct affects content. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * regardless of whether this principle is appropriate in the context of this arbitration process, it seems to me to be entirely appropriate to the debate and generally a principle that, if followed, would reduce the amount of conflict and argumentation. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Professionals are independent of their fields
2) When academics do work on esoterism in the context of a non-esoteric discipline, it should be cited only that people in the field has done such work; the field as a whole should not be labeled "esoteric" or considered as such by Wikipedia. This principle should be codified as either a guideline or a policy.


 * Response to Carcharoth: What do you mean by wikilinking terms? Ah I think I get what you mean. I'm not making it very easy, am I? But about the guideline, what you're saying is that it would have to be put into effect in the context of say, a socionics wikiproject, with the consensus of the editors? Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Newyorkbard: Socionics is a personality type/relations system which was derived from Carl Gustav Jung's theory of psychological types. It involves a very strange -- but apparently true -- concept called "duality", meaning that some people are natural complements to each other because they complement each others' thinking: one fills in the blanks for the other. This in itself sounds somewhat esoteric at the outset, but it's actually just a phenomenon of people not being alike. To understand what exactly it was that made people not alike in that way, one socionist endevored to conduct researches into esoterism, which he believed might be connected to it (from a cognitive perspective), and essentially used the professional socionics community as bait for the experiments. He lured in people who had esoteric bents and gave them certificates so they'd stick around. From all that he has apparently done one of the -- I admit -- greatest scientific feats in history: successfully modeled Jung's theory of the collective unconscious and shown it to be consistent with socionics... and even gone a step further and shown how Jung's functions work together to create the experience of consciousness. But according to him he had to do "extrasensory researches" to figure this out, and so there is something of a battle between these incoming esoteric "socionists" and the practicing psychologists. (although sometimes, as is often the case in psychology, you can't tell between the two).


 * Now we have McNew, an esoterist, trying to use Wikipedia to score some points for his home team in this long running feud. Which brings us to our present situation....


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Please explain the reasoning behind this proposal, using everyday language accessible to arbitrators without scholarly background in the disciplines being discussed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This proposed principle actually has potential, in that the title does point up what may be at the heart of this dispute. What might be useful is if some of the terms were wikilinked, such as esotericism. However, even if there was potential for a guideline on "cross-discipline" subjects, that is still not the purview of the arbitration committee. Such a guideline would be developed by editors working on such articles. Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This proposal is outside of the range of ArbCom findings since it is about content not user conduct. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * this principle appears to follow directly from WP:NPOV -- that is; if there exists scholarly work that does not consider an academic field to be esoteric, then those works should be noted in addition to any work that does posit a connection to esotericism. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Socionics is not esoteric
1) Socionics is not esoterism nor is it related to esoterism at all. Socionics is only similar to esoterism in as far as both alchemy and the socionics theory on information metabolism are works of pure categorical logic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * It's not at all clear that evaluating the role of socionics within the fields of philosophy or psychology falls within the purview or expertise of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Or to put it more simply, you are asking us to rule on content. This sort of decision is made by editors at article talk pages, discussing what reliable sources say about a particular topic. It is not the role of the arbitration committee (or any other committee) to make this kind of ruling. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content of articles but instead makes remedies that assist the Community in writing articles from a NPOV. This could be a topic ban and other editing restrictions for editors that edit war or otherwise disrupt other editors from reaching consensus. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edits which suggest socionics is estorism constitute vandalism
2) Claims that socionics is esoterism (or has links to esoterism) constitute vandalism of socionics articles.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Vandalism is defined as edits intended to reduce the quality of our encylopedia. As bitter (and at times incomprehensible) as the dispute underlying this case may be, I find no evidence that any of the parties are acting in bad faith or intentionally damaging the disputed articles. We may find that one or more editors' contributions have violated policies such as no original research, neutral point of view, and so on, but it is unlikely we will find that they constitute vandalism. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Brad. Carcharoth (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Newyorkbrad that this proposal does not fit with Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * i strongly disagree that User:Rmcnew's edits were uniformly in good faith. rather, on numerous occasions he reverted large swaths of the socionics page back to his version, including displacing edits that otherwise had nothing to do with the changes relating to esotericism (example: ) even though it was clear that there was no consensus on the talk page.  while i agree that rmcnew's intent was not to actively harm wikipedia; that is not quite what editing in good faith means, and i can only see rmcnew's conduct as being largely in bad faith.
 * furthermore, i actually think that for the purposes of this particular debate this would be a perfect principle to implement. as a former patroller and contributor to the Socionics article, this entire debate (going on for a year now) has been mostly characterized by an inability to communicate with rmcnew and me exploring various avenues to try to resolve it.  eventually i was not able to get anyone on wikipedia to help me to a sufficient degree to do anything; thus, bending the rules slightly of what wikipedia policy dictates should be the resolution to this conflict might be an appropriate way to actually get something done on this article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Niffweed's conduct should be investigated in that he has made a number of incessant accusations of "bad faith" that are not only inappropiate, it is enough to bring him under the investigative eye of the arbcom committee for judgement on his own behavior. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * why is an accusation of bad faith editing sufficient for an arbcom hearing? *bafflement* Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

Template
1) prohibit User:rmcnew from adding information concerning esoterism to the socionics articles. Topic ban User:rmcnew from socionics-related articles. Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) If User:rmcnew violates the prohibition, block him from editing socionics-related articles. None needed.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

The vague nature of socionics

 * header reduced in length. Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Original header: The vague nature of socionics and lack of appropriate sources has given some editors of the socionics article a reason to fight about article content, when it is not necessary to fight about the content. This has lead to verbal misbehavior from certain editors.

Socionics can be proven to be based upon outdated science (protoscience), contains a large degree of pseudoscience, and is closer to a mystic philosophy or esotericism than science. There are legitimate verifiable sources that testify to this that meet wikipedias standards. However, the issue is not whether esotericism is present in socionics theory, it is whether socionics at its very basis constitutes as esotericism, which is a concept that has divided the editors in relationship to the article. This very fact has caused a few editors to overreact, such as tchaulldig, leading to personal attacks, using deceptive underhanded bs to use editors against one another (and to a greater agree telling white lies in order to convince administrators to block editors out of editing the article), and ad hominem remarks being reasons unto themselves to remove material from the socionics article. This is an issue of user conduct that should be addressed and has been a charge against several other editors, tchaulldig being one of them.--Rmcnew (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * most of rmcnew's accusations about others' conduct seem baseless. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose that the arbcom committee investigate niffweed's behavior for the sake of commiting acts that would lead to similar or same accusations that are being proposed against myself and tcaulldig. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Socionics, hermeticism and original research

 * header reduced in length. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Original header: Socionics can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be quite similar in concept to hermeticism (or even hermeticism itself), though doing so may be considered origional research

Despite the claims of editors arguing against such, Socionics can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be related to hermeticism, but it is difficult to convey this fact without committing original research. In fact, it is difficult to relay most anything about socionics without inserting original research into the article, as there is a lack of verifiable sources for socionics in general. The sources listed on the talk page of the evidence article detail much of the discussion of socionics as it relates to hermeticism. It should be generally agreed that hermeticism and socionics does have startling similarities and there is proof evidence that socionics is hermeticism or has heavy influence from it. Though, editors have fought over the concept on account of origional research disputes. Hermeticism and socionic correspondences can only be sources indirectly according to wikipedias standards. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * " Socionics can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be related to hermeticism, but it is difficult to convey this fact without committing original research." -- then it is not appropriate to include any information about socionics' relationship to hermeticism on wikipedia; it is as simple as that. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) Evidence given by me and listed on the socionics talk page gives evidence to a dispute over content and should be reviewed by the arbitration committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Tcaullldig should agree to the following concensus, and all other editors should follow wikipedias standards for verifiable links.

Statement of consensus
By posting to this list, you concur with the proposed consensus that socionics sources, in relation to esoteric sources or not, may be freely placed in the article so long as they meet wikipedias standards for verifiable sources. You also agree to never to inappropiatelly remove portions of the socionics article that are supported by noteworthy sources, and for insufficent reasons.

Agree to consensus:

1. Rmcnew -- --Rmcnew (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree to consensus:

1. XXXXXX

As per WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFIABILITY, origional reasearch and portions of the article may be removed when there are no viable sources backing the material. Any content of any sort concerning socionics may be admitted into the article taken that there are reliable and verifiable sources to that effect, regardless of viewpoint of the editors, and according to official wikipedia policy. Editors should not remove content that is supported by sources worthy of wikipedias standards. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC) [edited because the consensus agree as first written here by tcaudilllig is against wikipedia policy]


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) Ban tcaullldig in the event that he continues to commit ad hominem as reasons unto themselves when sources meet general guidelines on wikipedia for conclusion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Extended. 07:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Diversity of editing
4) Accounts that fail to diversify outside their 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 one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on this being based around what they ".. fail to .." to do. It sounds very harsh.  i.e. I think it would be softer Accounts that focus on a single initial area of interest are ... John Vandenberg (chat) 23:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Prefer "topics" rather than "one topic", otherwise, noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * wrt "conflict or potentially conflict", if we include "potentially conflict", then "conflict" is superfluous. I think we should incorporate perceived COI as Ncmvocalist suggests, and also undisclosed COI, which often comes back to bite people on the bum. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm still reviewing this case, and will need to consider whether there is a need to qualify this principle further as to appearances of COI and perceived COI. But in the absence of further comment from me, noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This principle doesn't attempt to define "Edit-warring". John Vandenberg (chat) 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * OK, but prefer to include after that "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."

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me, excepting that unseemly conduct happens an awful lot despite being prohibited. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Importing disputes
9) It is inappropriate to import disputes from outside Wikipedia into Wikipedia, including but not limited to articles, policy editing, and unrelated community discussions. This is disruptive behavior, which degrades the editing environment and destabilizes community discussions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me excepting that "unrelated" doesn't hint at what it is related to. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree with concept but we could improve wording. I've copyedited slightly - could do with more of that. Have proposed alternative below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad blood
10) A history of bad blood, poor interactions and/or heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Inflammatory accusations and sarcastic messages perpetuate disputes and poison the well.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Heaven forbid a user with a sarcastic sense of humor should edit Wikipedia. Sarcasm is just the ridicule of proposals which are certain to fail. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Needs to be reworded; sounds more like a Fof rather than a principle. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I don't believe this is needed or useful in its current form; prefer combining the conventional principle about interactions - see alternative below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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. There is no requirement that a translation of the source be required in other circumstances, although courtesy translations may aid discussions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've copy-edited this; feel free to undo. I'm also not 100% behind the last sentence.  I will mull on it. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't like the last sentence as it is too soft; if a translation is requested, it should generally be honoured, otherwise articles may become unmanageable from the confusion that results from it. Omitting the sentence instead of trying to spell this part out may be a better solution, in which case, this is also noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we call this principle "The road to hell". John Vandenberg (chat) 00:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * And who defines "disruptive"? Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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 to the present. 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Background. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Rick DeLong should be mentioned as a primary disputant. There is consensus in the socionics community that Rmcnew cannot be allowed to have his way with these articles. Though, I think if things are just left as they are, everything will be fine. I personally would argue that the esoterism bit is undue weight however, particularly because there are no apparent secondary sources which echo Rmcnew's criticisms. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to the above comment by tcaulldig. I believe that this paragraph is a testament to the fact that outside issues beyond wikipedia should never be allowed. What is on wikipedia, stays on wikipedia. What is outside of wikipedia, stays outside of wikipedia. Bringing in other editors from outside of wikipedia is completely uncalled for and is unnecessarily and negitivly intensifying dispute. Further, Rick Delong has no academic credentials or authored peer reviewed articles meeting wikipedias standards to speak for his view on socionics. Bringing him in for reasons other than to state his non-wikifiable opinion is pointless, and that is assuming he would be a neutral party. I seriously doubt that tcaulldig's reasoning for wanting him in on the dispute is for neutral reasons. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * There's background, and then there's too much background as suggested by the below proposals. Need to make these proposals more concise somehow. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Socionics article (1)
2) The Socionics article was started on 3 August 2002. The article averages around 100 to 200 views a day, with a larger peak in June 2009 due to the deletion discussion. As of 1 November 2009, the article has been edited 1702 times. The top five contributors by edit count are Rmcnew (684), User8080 (142), Niffweed17 (79), Tcaudilllg (77) and Rick DeLong (72). There were earlier periods of editing for this article, but the current dispute dates from around 1 April 2009, with 1002 of the 1702 edits made between then and 1 November 2009. Tcaudilllg began editing the article on 1 April 2009 (following two edits in August 2008, and contributions to the talk page from May 2007) and contributed 75 of his 77 edits to the article during this period in 2009. Rmcnew began editing the article on 17 April 2009, and contributed 684 of the 987 edits during this period. 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Background. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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. On 24 June 2009, after a fringe theories noticeboard thread had been started, User:Mangoe nominated the 'Socionics (esoterism)' article and the information metabolism article for deletion (1, 2). On 27 June 2009, Mangoe further nominated the socionics/socionics (typology) article for deletion (1), along with several pages on socionics personality types (created back in September 2007). Numerous concerns were raised at these 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 the personality type pages were redirected to the main article (where most of the content already existed).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Background. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * i still think that the deletion discussion for 'socionics (typology)' was misread, and that there was a consensus to keep the article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Socionics article (3)
4) The socionics article talk page was also started in August 2002 and has been edited 1351 times since then. The discussions are currently archived on three archive pages (1, 2, 3), and there is also a page for discussing article sources (started in July 2009 as part of an informal mediation attempt). Tcaudilllg began contributing to the article talk page on 30 May 2007, and Rmcnew began contributing to the article talk page on 19 April 2009. Much of the traffic to the article talk page has taken place since Rmcnew arrived, with 1262 edits since that point. The first discussion concerned 'socionics and esoterism' and is here. Since then, there have been 78 separate discussion sections over a seven-month period (with either Rmcnew or Tcaudilllg or both taking part in all of them), and hundreds of kilobytes of discussion text posted (in large part by Rmcnew and Tcaudilllg).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Background. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Rmcnew has posted ten times more text than myself. The only reason I've posted more text than either DeLong or MichaelExe is because I alone was there from the start of McNew's activity.


 * Wikipedia must hold itself to account for the political damage inflicted on socionics by not interfering with Rmcnew's association of it with esoterism. Had the community taken more interest in the article, we would never have come to this point. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a good faith belief that the majority of editors to the english wikipedia article have an incorrect view of socionics, where they are inserting their own cultural norms over legitimate eastern-Ex-USSR(Russian) ones and are therefore misrepresenting socionics, as legitimate socionics is based upon cultural norms that are foreign to them. This cultural norm I am speaking about has to do with either the initial origionation or adoption of esoteric and mystic qualities in socionics theory, that resemble new age beliefs and theories. Therefore, I object to tcaulldig's above comment on the basis that socionics already has an association with esotericism. Therefore, it is simply a matter of certain editors coming to terms that there should be an admission to the widespread existance of this within socionics and to effectually relay that fact neutrally on wikipedia. That is all. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Rmcnew
5) registered on 23 January 2007, but did not begin editing with the account until April 2009. He has 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. His first edits with the account were to the Socionics article. Practically all of his 2,763 edits since then have been to the socionics article, its talk page, or related articles or discussions. Rmcnew's primary focus is socionics, and he has shown little desire to diversify outside that topic area.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Background. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Expanded. 02:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think that this description is slightly inaccurate. Many of those edits were made in response to correspondances with other editors, who were objecting to any mention of esotericism in socionics theory at all. This included the unnecessary and insistant removal of source links by certain editors, which were unnecessary, simply because those editors were not happy with any esoteric associations being mentioned in the article. Since I would rather cooperate with those editors and discuss these issues with them appropiatelly, that involved doing editing according to suggestion from other editors. That is why there were so many edits from myself in the article. If it were not for that reason, the number of edits from me would have been no different than the number of contributions I would have had for any other article. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * "Since then, nearly all of his 2763 edits have been made on the Socionics-related pages or discussions"? Or on the Socionics topic? Prefer one of these as the last sentence. Noted other than that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg
6) registered on 30 October 2006, but did not begin editing at a sustained rate until May 2007. His initial edits were on the topic of Socionics.  A majority of his 994 edits since then have been to the socionics article, its talk page, or related articles and discussions. 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". Tcaudilllg's primary focus is socionics, and he has shown little desire to diversify outside that topic area.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Background. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Expanded. 02:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * "Since then, a majority of his 994 edits have been made on the Socionics-related pages or discussions"? Or on the Socionics topic? Prefer one of these as the last sentence. Noted other than that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Diffs to be added. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Diffs added. 02:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is exactly the reason that this whole dispute was brought to the arbcom. These bad sort of things have been commonplace among the editors. And not just involving tcaulldig and I. A couple of other editors have been guilty of it as well. Niffweed and Tcaulldig use to regularly insult and personally attack each other here on wikipedia, accusing the other of editing in bad faith ... for example. Niffweed even filed a conduct report against Tcaulldig, claiming he was doing bad faith edits after exchanging a couple of personal attacks and insults. This bad behavior should stop immediatelly. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted, though arguably, most matters that have escalated to ArbCom involve that sort of environment. Don't really need diffs for this Fof. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Prior dispute resolution
8) Prior attempts to resolve this dispute 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).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The dispute began in April, when Rmcnew arrived. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Not convinced that all of this can be characterised as "prior dispute resolution". Prefer to only record formal dispute resolution (as recognised at WP:DR), and perhaps noting the others as "related discussions to the matter". Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew's conduct
9) Set of five proposed findings on Rmcnew's conduct. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew has a conflict of interest
9A) Rmcnew has stated that he is a practicing socionist. This places him in a conflict of interest in a content dispute over the nature of socionics.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Am considering dropping this and the related finding for Tcaudilllg and the principle relating to COI. Unless another arbitrator can pin down the disjoint here, it is not quite identifying what the problem is here. Essentially, factions within socionics have been trying to shape Wikipedia's article on the topic. Is that COI or something else? Ultimately, the editorial community need to take this article in hand, as that is something ArbCom cannot do. But the editors that look at this article need to be aware of the self-disclosed background of some of the editors, and be aware that other editors may fail to disclose such background information. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * He has no official qualifications. He has met people but represents no one. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Tcaulldig is both correct and incorrect. I am in fact recognized on several russian language socionics websites as being a practicing socionists, but as there are no western based accredations for socionics, I have no title other than that I am indeed known in the eastern part of the world to some degree and I have had my own material published and spread around by russian speaking socionists. However, I believe that this was foolish to do this on account of socionics having associations with esotericism and pseudoscience. The fact that socionics has associations with esotericism and is rightly a pseudoscience, and the fact that english speaking proponents of socionics "have failed to note that they are dabbling in things rightly associated with the occult", and that I was involved with these same people as a leading figure of sorts this has lead to embarassment from people who also view that socionics is pseudoscience and associated with the occult. Truth is that I should have never had associated with socionics in the first place in this regards.

Further, I believe that niffweed's commentary is negativelly biased and his viewpoints should be rightly excluded, except in the event that the arbitration committee would agree to view his inappropiate behavior and make judgements on that account, such as they are judgeing tcaulldig and myself. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * what russian language sources acknowledge you, other than dmitri lytov who correctly listed you on his site as the owner of a socionics website (which does not qualify you as a "practicing socionist")? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * rmcnew was the owner of the16types.info web site from 2007-2008. he later sold the site and created a slew of websites such as metasocion.com which have been far less successful.  quite frankly he is perhaps the largest and most agreed-upon laughingstock of the english speaking socionics community.  i essentially agree with tcaudilllg that he has no actual claim to be a practicing socionist. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew has edited tendentiously
9B) Over a period of six months, Rmcnew has persistently and tendentiously advocated his views regarding esoterism and socionics.


 * ...a website existed that was intended to promote a nitch in socionics that legitimatelly exists
 * I took out anything that sounded self-promoting and moved the article to the tattwas article. The only thing that remains of that information in this socionics article is a link to the tattwas article. I hope that people will leave the link alone here, because it is valid socionics information. It erks me that people attempt to hide the truth about socionics simply because it may annoy them that socionics is basically the zodiac, and can be proven blatantly to be such.
 * You also are so completely billigerent to this part of socionics culture, that you want to hide it. And I am not going to let you do that, no apologies needed.
 * Just stop giving them power over you by spreading lies about the origion of socionics. The truth is the antidote, and that is what I am gifting people with.
 * Socionics is hermeticism. The proof is in the pudding. Might as well admit it.
 * If no one else is going to take a stand a tell the truth about the origin of socionics, and the fact that I bothered to be the one person who takes a stand against "the socionic sheep who believe what they are told and never think for themselves" and that makes me the bad guy who "tells people how it is with socionics", I will be the bad guy who "tells it like it is."
 * Rmcnew taking the same content dispute to Talk:Tattwas
 * Series of posts at ANI explaining his views:,.
 * See also the Socionics talk page and its archives.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * It could be claimed by this that I have indeed agressivelly canvassed an aspect of socionics that deserves inclusion into the article. It was just that it took a while for a solution to come about on how to properly relay the information on wikipedia. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Rmcnew has engaged in personal attacks and incivility
9C) Rmcnew has engaged in some personal attacks, incivility, and inappropriate commentary on other editors rather than article content.


 * And by the way {...}, you are definatelly INTj, meaning Earth and Fire. You are an expert in 'holding your position' and baiting people around.
 * I would consider any input from them to be of a low critical discouraging quality worth the price of a pile of cow manure. I think they are a bunch of ignorant bullies who rely on small samples of one thing to discredit everything related to that thing, and spread mistruths. They would probably just distort the truth of what I am saying
 * he lacks the intellectual capacity and tolerance to allow the representation of legitimate viewpoints within socionics theory in referring to this viewpoint as fringe
 * That's bullshit. And for that reason, your claim of non-notability is bullshit. Knock it off.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I object:


 * 1) 1 was just a neutral observation.
 * 2) 2 by "ignorant bullies" and "cow manure" I was referring to specific, yet somewhat popular debunkers (that should be unnamed) who have often had the ability to appear on nationwide television and debunk conartists and charlatins, but also tend to pick on people who do not deserve to be picked upon. That comment was never ever intended to be aimed at any editors of the socionics article and for that reason does not apply.
 * 3) 3 I don't remember anything about, so can not really comment. I agree that that comment sounds a bit abrasive now that I have reread the full context. I apologize for that.
 * 4) 4 I did indeed make that statement after an editors was attempting to say that a source was non-notable, simply because it shows that socionics has had esoteric associations, but it was mainly out of annoyance from that one specific editor taking things out of context for personal reasons. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't think the last diff does enough to justify this finding - we need something more than exasperated commentary, or what others might call frustration during a content dispute. I also think this can be more concretely worded; see my alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew has imported external disputes
9D) Rmcnew has raised external disputes during content discussions on Wikipedia.
 * {...} is one of those people who have bought into the western lie that socionics is "something like Jung and MBTI" and has done nothing but intensely persecute those who tell the truth that socionics has an intense esoteric background. When I literally owned the the16types.info forum for 4 straight years, he made a regular habit of following users around during that time who spoke anything contrary to "his opinion on the matter" and harass them.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Incorrect. The example shown is actually an internal dispute that is reflected on wikipedia. The article beforehand was chiefly claiming that socionics is an MBTI and Jung offshoot, while avoiding mention of esoteric and pseudoscientific application that are present in socionics theory. Certain editors have in fact inappropiatelly avoided any mention of this on wikipedia, and also outside of wikipedia with the same sort of behaviors that are located on and off of wikipedia, for example. While it can be shown that there has been disputes on wikipedia in the past in other places, it is representative of an attitude from certain editors, such as niffweed, that do not belong on wikipedia. For this reason I recommend that the committee view the actions of other editors, such as niffweed, for finding of facts on this account. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * to clarify, i took the view that the idea that socionics is esoteric and pseudoscientific is incorrect and unsupported by the relevant source material. clearly rmcnew disagrees, but how this qualifies as misconduct or some external dispute of any kind is beyond me. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew has edit-warred
9E) 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 with Tcaudilllg and others over a period of months:, , , , , , ,.
 * Esoteric Article rereverted back once again after being erased by an individual with a non-neutral viewpoint.
 * I am going to stop responding to anything written in the discussion section regarding the esoteric socionics article {...} I will continue checking the wikipedia to make sure that the information is still there and I will make reversions if I ever find anything has suddenly disappeared. Apparently I have become a mouthpiece for a representative view in socionics that some are ignorantly attempting to repress. I will be watching.
 * Comment: drawn out broad based edit warring (Niffweed17)
 * Comment: A slow edit war is still an edit war. (GTBacchus)
 * Comment: The "slow edit wars" claim is inaccurate, it is just that editors disagreed on how to best represent socionics in light of sources and it took time to come to terms with one another on how to represent socionics in the article. On the other hand, assuming that indeed the "slow edit wars" claim is accurate, than that would mean that the actions of other editors other tcaulldig and I should be looked at, for example the actions of niffweed, because it was not just tcaulldig and myself who were involved with any supposed "edit war." Niffweed has also been guilty of false accusations of "bad faith" and innapropiate reports to administration in the past, and for the most part his presence has also added to a negative atmosphere. Niffweed has also brought disputes from outside of wikipedia onto wikipedia. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC) --Rmcnew (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Tcaudilllg's conduct
10) Set of six proposed findings on Tcaudilllg's conduct. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg has a conflict of interest
10A) Tcaudilllg has stated an intent to be a professional socionist. This places him in a conflict of interest in a content dispute over the nature of socionics.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Well you succeeded in shutting me up. Man I just can't let this go. But I realize I can't kill Wikipedia outright (and it will be doable with a class action suit) until there is a viable competitor. So you've got some time, anyway.


 * But my god, taken to its logical conclusion, this clause discourages even experts from contributing to Wikipedia. What person who affiliates themselves with a cause does not have conflict of interest when they edit this encyclopedia about it? This is not rational. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't think this is sufficient to outright declare an user has a COI. Wording needs to be improved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * much as tcaudilllg claimed that rmcnew has no official qualifications as a practicing socionist, similarly tcaudilllg has no such qualifications. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I never claimed I did. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg has promoted his views on socionics
10B) Tcaudilllg has used Wikipedia and its talk pages to aggressively promote his views on socionics, and has stated his intention to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool.
 * If not for your stubborn reluctance {Myers-Briggs Type Indicator} would almost not be notable because socionics would have already replaced it
 * Open your mind and you'll be witness to a wealth of information beyond your wildest dreams
 * The place to meet and speak with competant personality theorists who have a passion for understanding people at the social level
 * People need to know about socionics
 * I just want to get people interested in socionics
 * we need to tell the admins in no uncertain terms "HANDS OFF", because we don't really have a choice right now but to use Wikipedia. Google #1 means something, unfortunately, and without Wikipedia it will be diffocult to make people aware of socionics. One thing I have learned from all of this, is that public resistance to socionics will be stiff FROM SOME QUARTERS. {...} there probably will be people yelling at the top of their lungs over the cultural transformation socionics will bring.
 * there isn't a single competent system of categorical logic which can match socionics. {...} The Supreme Categorical System has already been identified... let's illuminate it!
 * Socionics is a much, much better model than the MBTI {...} Socionics is really the great undiscovered science of the modern East. Why it has not been embraced and expanded upon by Western researchers is beyond me; but again, culture clash
 * No one in their right mind disagrees with socionics unless they haven't studied the material
 * Will you stand against progress? Do you think there is an authority that decides which justified progressive movements die and which thrive?
 * Listen, people need to know about this stuff. The people at the16types.info are not wackos. They have discovered this system, and applied it meaningfully in their own lives. There is clear utility in teaching people about socionics. {...} Wikipedia is the ideal means of introducing people to socionics
 * That would be make our job more difficult.... I want you to remember that rule though: never, ever self-promote yourself on Wikipedia. They've got strict policy on that and may ban you for it
 * Stop and think for a moment how many revolutionary advances have come out of Eastern Europe. Tetris was the last that we know of. {...} It's been said before but to understand socionics you must study its foundations and see it in action.
 * Wikipedia is a de facto exposure vehicle for information that can help people in their personal lives. As a factor of its philosophy and relationship theory, socionics is a premier self-help tool as thousands have already discovered
 * We're trying to grow a subculture here by making people aware of the Great Hole in Western Knowledge which has been unknown since the fall of the Iron Curtain, and here our articles to that end are being deleted
 * You really ought to give up the MBTI and go to socionics
 * I had hoped to actually get the attention of people who would be interested in socionics if they knew about it, but that's clearly not going to happen.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * 50,000 page views for a obscure but important topic? What else would you call it? Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Tcaudilllg has threatened to disrupt Wikipedia's editorial processes
10C) At the deletion discussion for the socionics article, Tcaudilllg made numerous threats to disrupt Wikipedia's editorial processes, and threatened co-ordinated action if his wishes were not met.


 * Delete this page and you'll see Wikipedia go -SCHIZM-. I dare to salt it. I dare you. You attack progress then progress will attack back.
 * The conclusion was KEEP, and if you argue with it, I'll get the communitarians on your asses. They apparently haven't noticed that you're doing this yet, but when they do you'll see the ideology that really runs Wikipedia.
 * I really just want to know how much this demonic paradigm can take, where we cowtow to these unabashed egotists and generally have an entire culture of people who think they have to look to a bunch of delusional, belligerent nutcases for a sense of self-identity. I was hoping maybe the culture would crack... but no, not yet. It's gonna need a deeper shock to stage the intellectual revolution we require.
 * This is the biggest REGION BIAS sham I've ever seen. I got a warning for you guys: I'm gonna arrange the embarrassment of Wikipedia publicly over this later IF you go through with the merge.
 * And it won't be deleted again, because I'll come prepared. I'm good at getting people together. ...I actually enjoy this. You've provided me good entertainment. But I would be remiss to keep the fun all to myself. Time to give some of my friends cathartic release. :)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Damn, these are some great quotes. Did I actually say these? Wow. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They are quite verbally offensive and therefore wholely inappropiate. They should not be condoned. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The first diff isn't actually "at the deletion discussion". See my alternative below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg has engaged in personal attacks and incivility
10D) Tcaudilllg has engaged in some personal attacks, incivility, and inappropriate commentary on other editors rather than article content.
 * Nice job on the socionics article. Care to justify yourself here, ignorant one?
 * You dare call Jungian analysis outdated? Arrogant pig. (edit summary)
 * Oh really? Why not read the MBTI article on here, BEFORE shooting your mouth off?
 * ... is insane. I've known this for a long time. I worked with him because I wanted to understand his point of view, how he works. I'd like to continue doing that but he has shown himself willing to jeopardize even mutually held aspirations of our progress. He betrays even his friends. {...} You are so deluded as to be completely out of touch with reality. Some people, like CNN's Roland Martin, think you're hilarious. Quite frankly you scare me because I know history and I know how peaceful times become living hells. It's people like you who, out of lust for absolute power, scheme and deceive to try to make people follow your philosophy. I was testing you {...} I was testing you the whole time. You failed.
 * Tcaudilllg carrying out unsolicited and likely offensive socionic analysis of another editor (more of the same here)
 * You cannot fully know yourself because you have not come to grips with your own capacity for evil. Nor can you before reaching the age of transcension to biological adulthood. (23) Instead you try so much to avoid evil in yourself, that you are blind to your complicity in efforts to destroy some good things.
 * ...you are a Jekyll and Hyde. {...} I affectionately think of him as Dick Cheney's estranged little brother.
 * ...is a loner crank
 * You'll never get through to {...}. He's a crank, pure and simple {...} He's a cult leader looking for a canvassing opportunity, and he thinks he's found it on Wikipedia.
 * I've tried to cultivate a friendship with him, but he's unstable. Paranoid, bad. Very paranoid. I see an intuitive correspondence between him and Cheney behaviorwise, I really do.
 * ...also needs some of those miracle drugs of yours. Although I'm quite aware that you have nothing that could work for him. You have no real idea that he even has a disorder, do you?
 * My point is that the man lacks all common sense. He's "outside the flow" of the mainstream psychological environment shared by the rest of us. By rights he's mentally disabled. Is it possible to get a judgment against his competence to edit?


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is a grossly simplistic reading of what I wrote. I identify a person as a compulsive troll using my intellectual gifts, and here I am getting sanctioned for it. Increduous. You know if you really wanted to handle this situation fairly, Carcharoth, you would have let someone with a bit better understanding of human nature handle the case. On the other hand, perhaps Wikipedia's campaign against people who do try to understand human nature has made this impossible. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of those comments are aimed at me and I have indeed found them verbally abusive and offensive. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Tcaudilllg has imported external disputes
10E) Tcaudilllg has repeatedly raised external disputes during discussions on Wikipedia.
 * the16types.info forum is dead. {...} I myself have been banned for attempting to effect a change in the administration. Yet, I was one of the most prolific and informed posters on the site, certainly the one with the most leadership potential as regards the (legitimate) advancement of socionics as a field.
 * Metasocion.com down? It says it's forbidden... what's going on?
 * I've been thinking about it and I really don't think we work well together. I'd prefer to start my own forum and do the RPG by myself. If you will give me time to move everything over, that would be appreciated. I'm not betraying you. I just don't want to do this anymore.
 * As for the forum comments, I've batted with those guys for years. There are actually at least six people on the forum in ardent support of my theories, which an investigation of my participation on the same would make clear to you.
 * {...} and I used to be friends: he's told me in private that he intended to create a community of esoterists (read: anti-scientific pseudo-scientists) around socionics. That metasocion.com site in the links section was his attempt to do that, but it failed. Now he has come here to try to use the socionics article for that purpose. I have his notes and I can show them to you.
 * If you can't see after {...} told you point blank (if tongue-in-cheek) that {...} is a pariah, then we've nothing more to say to each other.
 * The mainstream socionists don't even care about this article; they're a plane above, and removed from it at least. The English Wikipedia doesn't really matter to them... but now where is the esoterism content in the Russian article? Nowhere, because {...} watches that article like a hawk. If you want to find out what the mainstream socionists really think about esoterism, go ahead and add that line to the Russian Wikipedia. I'll bet it gets reverted within an hour.
 * I still have the database files from the Metasocion.com forum, and witnesses who will attest to the authenticity of those records. Yes, the legacy of Metasocion.com is alive and well some place you can't reach, and I still have the ability to show people what kinda person you really are. The research is done {...} there is no escape.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Now this one just defies belief. You are making yourself look grossly incompetent. Seriously. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Tcaudilllg has edit-warred
10F) 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 with Rmcnew and others over a period of months:, , , ,.
 * I am tired of reverting him. It's clear he's obsessed and is NEVER going to stop.
 * RudieBoy: I've blanked him out once already. It's your turn now.
 * I believe Rmcnew should not be allowed to edit the article and hence I will revert any edits he makes from here on
 * I'll revert you. Simple as that. And then someone else will revert you too. And eventually, hopefully, you'll give up and go back to playing on your webpage. But you're not going to profit anything here. Not at bit.
 * Comment: drawn out broad based edit warring (Niffweed17)
 * Comment: A slow edit war is still an edit war. (GTBacchus)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * My findings of fact (which echoes a previous user's): 1) Wikipedia can't judge worth crap; 2) if your interests are adversely affected by the portrayal of your beliefs in an article then do not bother to debate it. Instead, depending on the severity of the criticism present, consider FILING SUIT against Wikipedia itself IF a letter direct to Jimbo Wales does not solve the problem. It is plain that defending content against trolls is discouraged on Wikipedia. No argument will change that, only a record of action. You've got two years to get this article in order, because I aim to get my degree in socionics within that time. If the article is not to my liking by that time, I and my associates, whose support for me you have willfully ignored in the case of your investigations will use legal force to make it so.


 * In the meantime I am going to let Wales know about this important crossroads which his organization now faces. We'll see what he says in his capacity as final arbiter. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * please note that the diffs that i posted to AN/I did not involve any edits by tcaudilllg but were rather edits by rmcnew. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew and Tcaudilllg conduct
11) Combined findings.

Prior disputes
11 A) Rmcnew and Tcaudilllg have engaged in prior disputes outside of Wikipedia.
 * I still have the database files from the Metasocion.com forum, and witnesses who will attest to the authenticity of those records
 * So how did Rmcnew get here, exactly? By following me: there was something of a backlash against the more progressive trends in socionics by a number of people in the West socionics community. {...} I proposed to Rmcnew that we leave Wikisocion and improve the Wikipedia article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Expanded and modified. 13:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have known tcaulldig for a few years now. We never had any fights with each other before this time. However, he did have a few run-ins with moderators on a forum I owned. He got banned a couple of times for threatening to physically assault people.
 * I never threatened anyone. That is completely and unequivocally false. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Battleground mentality
11 B) Rmcnew and Tcaudilllg have made statements indicating that they see this content dispute as a battle to be fought
 * Taking the Fight to MBTI (Tcaudilllg)
 * One thing I have learned from all of this, is that public resistance to socionics will be stiff FROM SOME QUARTERS. {...} ...there probably will be people yelling at the top of their lungs over the cultural transformation socionics will bring. (Tcaudilllg)
 * I endorse tcaudillg presentation of my thesis and motive for what I am fighting for. (Rmcnew)
 * I am completely indifferent to the fact you think you have to "stand up to me." I view my self as the anti-christ that keeps socionics real and the "sheep from settling". (Rmcnew)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Expanded and added details. 12:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * That would only be correct in the event that it was indicated that we heavily disagree on issues of content, and things just are not working out. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Way to simplify a complex situation. Did you vote for G.W.? Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Don't think this needs to be combined; prefer keeping them to individuals as most are similar Fof's applicable to both; just different in extent. See my alternative below where I've combined this with another Fof. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Conduct during the case
12) 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. This was followed by a period of quiet while drafting of the decision took place.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. More diffs to be added. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Diffs now added. 01:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I thought it was a court. I didn't realize it was a special prosecutorial agency. In any case, I shouldn't have tried to persuade him at all because to do so was impossible. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Socionics already has associations with esotericism, mysticism, and the occult before and without my help to clarify that is does. No issue of persuasion is going to change the fact of the matter. But that being said, in the event that you want to continue to associate with socionics, I would appreciate that people stop trying to misrepresent socionics as something that is devoid of these things. No matter of apology is going to change the obvious. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Socionics forums and websites
13) 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 past or present members or managers of such forums. (Initial comment by Rick DeLong (background); current user talk page of Rick DeLong (background); wikisocion; the16types; socionix and the16types; the16types; the16types; the16types and socionix; noting spread of forum politics; advertising a new forum; 3.5 months later, advertising yet another new forum;16types and metasocion; external dispute;external dispute).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Diffs to be added. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Extended. 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC). Diffs added. 13:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This statement is correct --Rmcnew (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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 articles are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Aimed more at editors of these articles other than the parties. Party-specific remedies to come once findings are complete. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed--Rmcnew (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * OK. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew topic banned
2) is topic banned from the Socionics page and related topics, and discussions indefinitely.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Unnecessary. Let him go edit the esoterism articles. No harm in that, so long as he doesn't malign Socionics. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not edited the socionics article in over a month and have made constructive and positive edits in other parts of wikipedia during that time. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * this would be an appropriate resolution, in my opinion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg topic banned
4) is topic banned from the Socionics page and related topics, and discussions indefinitely.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I stand by my word that tcaulldig should still be allowed to edit the article in the event that he abides by wikipedias policy, and discontinues from his past behavior. Other than that, I am going to leave this up to the arbitration committee to decide. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * OK that's going too far. ...Actually, I don't care; it's not like it makes it more difficult for me to read the encyclopedia, which helps me find source material for my college papers. But I guess people who wear their hearts on their sleeves just aren't welcome on Wikipedia. Wikipedia thus becomes the first reputable institution to discriminate on basis of non-harmful personality traits. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is to be decided, it would have to do with tcaulldigs overall behavior on wikipedia and not in relation to the socionics article or myself. A whole year may be a bit extreme otherwise. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * this would not be an appropriate resolution; in my opinion -- while tcaud is clearly at fault here and is generally difficult to communicate with, he has, as far as i can tell, shown some willingness to cooperate with me personally on actually fixing the things that are wrong with the sources on the socionics article. rmcnew has shown no willingness to communicate or negotiate in a rational way whatsoever. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of articles urged
6) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing Socionics and Socionics-related articles, should carefully review them 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Will likely combine the best aspects of this and the following wording. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Interesting. Very interested in seeing how it all comes out. Actually, I'll take that back: it won't mean anything notable. There'll be one or two people who "accept responsibility for the work" and get a nice pat on the back for doing so. Whatever they come up with will probably have the weight of several dozen admins behind it. Given the outcome of the Socionics AfD, I am not encouraged. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a suggestion worthy of note, but it might also actually do more harm than good. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted, though prefer "review the matter in light of the case" as "examine" doesn't quite cover it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolution of content dispute
7) Editors not previously involved in Socionics and any other articles involved in the original content dispute are invited to give attention to any remaining issues with the articles, including the reliability of sources used. Participation from uninvolved editors fluent in the Russian language would be especially helpful.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Will likely combine the best aspects of this and the preceding wording. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed --Rmcnew (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed that there is no need to split this remedy from the previous. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that restriction, or any user subject to discretionary sanctions in this case violate a restriction imposed by an uninvolved administrator, 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 discretionary sanctions and blocks are to be logged at the case page log of blocks and bans.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Intended for any potential topic bans. Carcharoth (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Battleground
9) Wikipedia is not a battleground; it is not a place for holding grudges, making personal battles, or importing personal conflicts from outside of Wikipedia. Users who remain bothered by such a conflict should attempt to resolve it, using Wikipedia's dispute resolution process where appropriate. Wikipedia is a volunteer community where every user should interact with others in a spirit of cooperation, and adhere to standards of expected behavior and decorum, at all times.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I did not fight. I defended the integrity of the article along with other people. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely agreed. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If an admin had stepped in and put McNew in his place, nothing would've ever been said. They didn't -- the socionics article was ignored -- and I was left to cobble a defense of it as best I could. Obviously rallying distaste over McNew's intentions was a part of that, the same requiring the direction of attention to his character flaws. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I object to tcaulldigs comment and I believe that it is evidence that tcaulldig has intended to misuse the administration as a "bully stick", and in ways that are inappropiate. It is also indication (maybe even a confession) of making "ad hominem" attacks on editors. For that reason I propose that niffweed be also be investigated for similar misuse of wikipedia and administration and also ad hominem attacking. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
) 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 to the present. 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Unfair localization of the disagreement to me. Disagreement with Rmcnew on the matter of socionics is widespread in the socionics community. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"widespread disagreement" says absolutely nothing in relationship to the dispute between tcaulldig and myself, unless tcaulldig plans to inappropiatelly bring prior and external disputes onto wikipedia, which seems to be the case. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn
) The Socionics article has averaged around 100 to 200 views a day, with a larger peak in June 2009 due to the deletion discussion. Except for 70 edits made earlier, 1000 edits to the article have been made during the dispute (from around April 2009 to November 2009); the top five contributors (by edit count) to the article were: Rmcnew (684), User8080 (142), Niffweed17 (79), Tcaudilllg (77) and Rick DeLong (72). Tcaudilllg began editing the article on 1 April 2009 (following some contributions to the talk page from May 2007). Rmcnew began editing the article on 17 April 2009 (following some contributions to the talk page from April 2009), and contributed the majority of his edits thereafter. Before 1 April 2009, the article looked like this, and the changes 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).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The frequency of Socionics article views is evidence for my position that Wikipedia is being used to malign the western socionics movement, as per Rmcnew's intention. The socionics Wikipedia article is viewed very infrequently by members of the socionics community because its information is basic; hence, most people who are viewing this article are learning about socionics for the very first time. If ~150 views a day, probably 140 x 365 = ~50,000 new exposures to socionics per year. It is imperative that the article be as representative of the field as possible. By giving undue weight to the esoterism matter, Wikipedia is abiding by and contributing to the defamation of socionics and its practicioners. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that certain editors have misued the terms "unnotable" and "un-due weight" as a reason to remove all mention of esotericism, mysticism, and socionics as a pseudoscience in the article, for questionable reasons that seem to indicate that these editors have personal biases against the information and are therefore not following wikipedia policy on the matter. Couple that with editors who say "unnotable" and "un-due weight" for the right reasons, this then gives these certain abusive editors a vague ability to escape notice and therefore perpetuate deception in the article. These editors are more interested in their own views than legitimately representing proper socionics, which includes a degree of mystical and esoteric practices, including pseudoscientific methods. Tcaulldig seems to be indicating that the previous article prior to the dispute was used for external reasons and advertiseing, which is inappropiate for wikipedia. The article deserves a mention of methods that are esoteric, mystical, or pseudoscientific for neutrality purposes. Therefore, the current version of the socionics article with mention of the practices is more netrual and more appropiate for wikipedia, than the predispute version, which sounds much more like an advertisement or training material, which is inappropiate for wikipedia. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative; though I'm not sure if it's really that necessary either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC) tweaked slightly. 05:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Withdrawing this - see below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Socionics articles (1)
) The Socionics article has averaged around 100 to 200 views a day, with a larger peak in June 2009 due to the deletion discussion. Except for 70 earlier edits, 1000 edits to the article have been made during the dispute (from around April to November, 2009); the top five contributors (by edit count) to the article were: Rmcnew (684), User8080 (142), Niffweed17 (79), Tcaudilllg (77) and Rick DeLong (72). Before April 2009, the article looked like this, and the changes 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).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Socionics articles (2)
) 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. In the last week of June 2009, after a fringe theories noticeboard thread had been started, User:Mangoe nominated these articles for deletion (1, 2 3), along with other related pages. Numerous concerns were raised at these discussions, including allegations of content forks, coat-rack articles, lack of notability, original research, synthesis, the use of non-English language sources, and that the majority of editing was 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', while the disambiguation page was deleted, and the personality type pages were redirected to the main article (where most of the content already existed).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg
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".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew and conflict of interest
9A) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It would be unfair to assume that I have conflicted interest in the event that various russian speaking socionist websites have themselves declared that I am a practicing socionists. I have no control over what these websites report.I have, however, claimed that I practiced socionics and have listed links to those russian speaking websites, which say that I am a practicing socionists.That is all that I have done. I disagree that this indicates that I have a conflict of interest. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative. Perhaps may want to add at the end of the last sentence "with regards to the content dispute over the nature of socionics". Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew and disruptive editing
9B) Rmcnew has edited disruptively, engaging in persistent advocacy, soapboxing, and tendentious debates regarding his views on esoterism and socionics. Rmcnew has also engaged in slow, long-term edit-warring, and made statements of intent to continue edit warring. Others have commented on this conduct.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The behavior of other editors in this regards should also be examined. It takes more than one person to edit war. Accusing me of edit warring is no different than accusing other editors as edit warring. If you are going to accuse me as such, you are going to have to examine the bahvior of these other editors involved as well. I believe that the editors who were removing material I had written were doing so inappropiatelly and for reasons that are/were inappropiate. I only sought to make compromises with other editors, but that is hard to do when certain editors want to hear nothing of legitimate socionics information, and are making up all sort of excuses not to include the information, and are not really helping otherwise. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative; use all diffs used in both of Carcharoth's originals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew and battleground mentality
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. 


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew and incivility
9C) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The accusations of "bad faith" and "personal attacks" were done much more often by tcaulldig and niffweed among themselves and also against other editors. I don't remember accusing anyone of "bad faith" in relation to the article and the only diffs I have seen so far where I supposedly personally attacked anyone are all taken out of context. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg and disruptive editing
9B) Tcaudilllg has edited disruptively, engaging in persistent advocacy, soapboxing, and tendentious debates regarding his views on socionics, and has declared his intention to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. Tcaudilllg has also engaged in slow, long-term edit-warring, and made statements of intent to continue edit warring. Others have commented on this conduct.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative; use all diffs used in both of Carcharoth's originals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg and battleground mentality
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. 


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg and incivility
Tcaudilllg has engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including threats to disrupt Wikipedia's editorial processes, threats of coordinated action if his wishes were not met, personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, as well as other inappropriate commentary that focuses on contributors rather than article content.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Niffweed has been the main instigator of flasely accusing other editors of "bad faith edits", tcaulldig may have done this a time or two as well, but niffweed has by far been the worst at falsely accusing other editors of bad faith editing. As for the other, there is complete evidence that tcaulldig has engaged in these acts. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed alternative; use all diffs from both of Carcaroth's originals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

Rmcnew topic banned
2) is topic banned from all Socionics-related topics, pages, and discussions, broadly construed, for an indefinite period of time.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I am content with the current state of the article and I have not even been editing the socionics article for some time now. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Alternative wording with more clarity because wording in original proposal is likely to cause confusion with regards to enforcement - not adding my preference yet until I've finished reviewing diffs tomorrow. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg topic banned
4) is topic banned from all Socionics-related topics, pages, and discussions, broadly construed, for an indefinite period of time.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Ncmvocalist, I can see how Carcharoth could've been elected, but I cannot imagine how you could've possibly beat anybody. Did someone appoint you to this post? (j/k) Democracy clearly miscarried, alas. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Alternative wording with more clarity because wording in original proposal is likely to cause confusion with regards to enforcement. That said, site ban needed, so I'd oppose this too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * i do not think banning tcaud from the topic is appropriate. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Niffweed17
1) By nature of what socionics is as a discipline, a little lenience on secondary sources might be applied to some of the proposed sources. Specifically, any work published by the International Institute of Socionics constitutes the majority of the widely accepted work on socionics, it should be permissible to select any such articles despite various flaws such as lack of peer review and lack of significant secondary source material.  This principle is not really in dispute here, but was addressed in the deletion discussion on the socionics article and might have implications for some of rmcnew's proposed sources (though every single one that I have personally looked at was rather unsubstantive towards his claims). Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * All I care about is that neutral representation and proper weight is given to the various issues involved with socionics. I detest using the intention of some socionics wikipedia article as an "advertisement" or "training material for potential converts", especially when that involves the exclusion of appropiate material that would otherwise give socionics more credibility for the sake of making it "training material" or using it as an "advertisement". --Rmcnew (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, despite creating a negative enviroment, niffweed should be investigated for misconduct along with tcaulldig and myself, as he has inappropiatelly accused other parties of "bad faith" editing, inappropiatelly filed misconduct reports, brought external disputes onto wikipedia, and engaged in personal attacking. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * engaging in suggesting that other users might be editing in bad faith and filing misconduct reports contravene no policy and hardly constitute misconduct. the other accusations are incorrect. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The accusations are absolutely correct. You have in fact, niffweed, repeatedly misused the conduct report system on wikipedia inappropriately in place of constructively working with other editors, and this includes false accusations of bad faith editing. In any event I have recommended the arbcom committee to preview your actions in order to decide on a judgment. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * the accusations that are incorrect are those related to personal attacks and bringing external disputes on to wikipedia. though i see why potentially people might suggest my involvement in some personal attacks i obviously disagree and feel that all my comments have been substantive.  i have no explanation as to why you might conceive of my involvement in engaging in external debates on wikipedia, as i have not.  it is true that i have accused you of bad faith editing, which i believe to be true and which in no way contravenes any wikipedia policy. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that in the event that the arbcom administrators ever actually previewed your own actions, even in this article and in some of your comments and proofs, they would discover that you have engaged in disruptive behavior and have done a part in negatively escalating the current content for the last couple of months months with your uncooperative nature, for example your uncooperative nature being to avoid cooperating with the other editors and instead making "bad faith" accusations with several misuses of various conduct reporting methods (which were uncalled for) in wikipedia. In fact, it is quite possible that the wikipedia administrators are going to include you in this arbcom for the problems you have caused. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Tcaudilllg, ArbCom is not topic experts so we do not make finding about content. So, our remedies would be along the line of your first suggestion...a topic ban. We'll look at all the involved parties and decide if the article is not stable because of disruptive editing by one or more editors. If so, we might give editing restrictions such as 1RR, a topic ban, or maybe a site ban in extreme cases. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I recommend two things: 1) prohibit rmcnew from adding anything about esoterism to the socionics articles or editing mentions of esoterism in them, 2) adopt DeLong's approach to documenting esoteric forays by scientific professionals as either guideline or policy. Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing the recommendation to prohibit rmcnew. It seems to me that a guideline would do the job just as well. After all it's not about prohibiting people who share rmcnew's viewpoint, but anyone from insinuating that socionics is esoterism. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I continue to believe in the necessity of a guideline, I nonetheless must return to my original position that Rmcnew should be topic banned from socionics, preferably indefinitely. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what your problem is with agreeing to a consensus with the other editors to follow wikipedia policy for verifiable sources according to wikipedias standards. It is a reasonable request and considering that your response is to have me banned from asking a reasonable request really shows your character. Put that with all of your other ad hominem attacks, such as calling me a "cult leader" and reverting information out of the article for the reasons that you thought it appropiate to call me "an arrogant pig" shows that your attitude isn't exactly enlightening. It is also extremely clear in your correspondances to other people (even arbcom admins) on their talk pages that you are wanting to oppress information out of the article you personally do not agree with despite the fact that wikipedia would otherwise allow that information when it meets a certain standard. Your refusal to cooperate with a proposal (and instead calling for my banning in response) in light of the fact that arbcom can take action on you for your inappropiate behavior, shows that arbcom should actually consider topic banning you, not just for continually insulting other editors, but also for instigating edit warring with your ad hominems. Calling someone an "arrogant pig" is not a reason to make a reversion when the content fits with wikipedias standards, which is the misbehaviour I am accusing you of and you keep trying to dodge away from it (and the admission and responsibility of faceing the consequences of it). --Rmcnew (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In conclusion, tcaud's very refusal to cooperate with a concensus with the other editors should show arbcom that he has no interest in cooperating with the other editors to create a quality wikipedia article. His actions are very telling in this regards. However, in the event that tcaud would concede to follow wikipedia policy and discontinues his past behavior I think he should be given a second chance. --Rmcnew (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

--Rmcnew (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a need for a topic ban. I was thinking Arbcom acted as a sort of "supreme court" ... eh well I guess I'm wasting my time. "Arbcom" doesn't seem aptly named... unless it means arbitration of admin disputes.
 * But Wikipedia is really lacking for a sense of expertise when it comes to complex or obscure topics. It seems to me that this is in Arbcom's jurisdiction actually, because what's at stake is preventing future vandalism by creating grounds for discipline in later cases. An organization is needed for this role if article quality is to continue improving.
 * ...If a proposal is presented for a guideline by which to regulate the relationship of esoteric subjects to non-esoteric subjects, and discussions over that proposal "broke down", would Arbcom be the last resort in that case? Who rules over guidelines? Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My impression of Arbcom at this point is that it's a mixture of a prosecutorial board and a formal mediation committee for admins. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * A topic ban is not required and actually would be disrupting neutrality, because esotericism applications are present in socionics theory to some degree and can be reliably sourced. Rather, the editors should be watched as to be sure not to be removing content for inappropriate reasons when the sources involves meet wikipedias standards for verifiable links, such as for the cause of committing ad hominem. My suggestion is to preview the whole history of the socionics article for users who have done reverts for reasons that are ad hominem or abusive in nature, and then give warnings or bans to those users. A topic ban is an insufficent solution IMO taking the nature of socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)