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

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, [ edit this template] and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Case moved to voting
I've moved this case to the voting stage, as the only thing that is needed now is further feedback from Rmcnew (feedback has been provided by Tcaudilllg). As I drafted the case, I will enter my votes on all the sections I think are ready to move forward. The sections involving Rmcnew should wait a bit longer, but not for too long. I will notify the other arbitrators and alert the case clerks as well. Any comments, please add a new section below. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am still commenting, should be finished in an hour or two. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am done with commenting. Proceed. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for noting here that you are done commenting. Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on investigation of user Niffweed's behavior
I propose that the bahavior of niffweed as an editor also be considered along with tcaulldig and myself, and that he be judged. He has, in my opinion, provided a negative atmosphere for the wikipedia article and should have his behavior judged accordingly either with tcaulldig and I or seperatelly (with comment). He is in fact guilty of many of the same behaviors that are being accused of both tcaulldig and myself, such as accusations of bad faith, inappropiate inquiries to administration and misuse of conduct reporting, personal attacking, bringing in external disputes, being uncooperative, and generally creating a negative atmosphere in the article itself. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will make sure the other arbitrators are aware of this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording used in proposed decision
Forgot to say, that several of the proposals have used wording provided by Ncmvocalist on the workshop. Giving credit and thanks here, as I forgot to mention it when posting the proposed decision. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Second request to add niffweed into arbcom judgement(copy pasted) - accusations of bad faith
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)

Legal threats
Just a note in case the committee is not aware, that Tcaudilllg made legal threats here, here and was indefinitely blocked following this one. --81.147.52.224 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We were aware. Thanks for the note. For the record, my view is that this should be handled separately. If the legal threat is retracted, unblocking would normally follow, but that depends on what the result of this case is. If a remedy involving a block is passed here, then a block log annotation will probably be made so that any admins reviewing any unblock message from Tcaudilllg in the future will know what to do. Carcharoth (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)