Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: MBisanz (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Carcharoth (Talk)

Case Opened on 12:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Case Closed on 06:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• Rmcnew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment[edit]

Initial statement: Tcaullldig has been making unnecessary reverts to user contributions with insufficent reasons, many of the reasons being solely personal attacks. He is generally uncooperative with the other editors. He fails consistently to provide verifiable sources to wikipedias standards with his own contributions, while at the same time removing information from the article that meets the standard. He intends to force his opinion into the article by saying that certain ascpects are 'fringe theory', when they are supported widely by verifiable sources. By verifiable sources this includes sources from ".edu" domain names, peer reviewed and PHD certified web sources. He should stop editing the contributions of other editors and he should stop making reverts for insufficent reasons. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited addition to initial statement: He should stop making ad hominem attacks on character in order to justify making reverts for insufficent reasons. Wikipedia is about finding credible sources to post. It has nothing to do with removing source material that meets wikipedia standards because you have dillusional ideas of other editors that equate to personal attacks. Source evidence of personal attacks to justify reverts is found in tcaudillligs statement below. His claim that I am a "cult leader" who proclaims himself "God" and wants to "start a religion" is completely and utterly rediculous. Other claims are just false, libelous, or based on half-truth versions of real events.

Response to NYB[edit]

I see the potential that the dispute can be resolved in the event that tcaud agrees that official socionic institute sources confirm that various forms of esotericism (including pseudoscientific and protoscientific methods) are present in socionics theory, whatever their origion, and therefore ceases and decists from removeing material from out of the article that adresses this fact and conveys these topics neutrally.

I should also note that I have challenged Tcaud numerous times to produce viable sources to his counter claims, where he fails. In stead of posting proper sources, he has resorted to numerous white lie schemes where he has projected his own opinion onto other people who do not share his opinion, makeing seem as though his opinion is shared by people who do not share his opinion. For example, Tcaud mentioned Rick Delong. Rick Delong is actually in agreement that the founder ausura augusta herself had scientifically and speculativelly experiemented with chakras and hindu philosophy, and that socionics is pseudoscience and protoscience, but tcaud makes it seem as though he is in agreement with his counter-opinion that socionics is something scientific and no esotericism is involved, which is false. When I produce official socionic sources that are either from an official socionics school and/or PHD verified that show this to be a widespread thing in socionics theory, instead of allowing the material (or at the very least go out and find credible counter sources) he just makes up a bunch of credible sounding (excuse my language) bullshit that relays his opinion deceptivelly, in order to counter the sources that meet wikipedias standard for sources. Despite my hedgeing that he produce sources that are up to wikipedias standards that support his arguments, he has continually failed to produce any sources for any of his bullshit claims, yet he keeps spouting them. And he keeps useing his bullshit based on white lies, usually coupled with personal attacks, as reasons unto themselves to keep this information out of the article.

Wtatever tcaud is doing and for whatever reason, he should cease and decists immediatelly from removing anything out of the socionics article that is properly sourced. And also to stop bullshitting and actually find sources that actually support his claims, which he continually fails to do. That is all that I am requesting about tcaud. And that is it. To quote PHD verified sources worthy of inclusion on wikipedia that support his opinions and at the same time stop making reverts on material this is properly sourced and opposite his own view. He keeps doing it. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tcaudilllg[edit]

Tcaud just somehow managed again to make a large string of ad hominem attacks on my character in order to avoid doing anything credible himself. Saying that I have claimed myself to be "God" and that I am a "cult leader", and want to "start a religion" is just completely rediculous and libelous. his self-involved bullcrap (especially the bullcrap he just invented) as a reason to avoid responsibility for his own actions has absolutly nothing to do with wikipedia nor does it have anything to do with the fact that tcaud completely fails to post any credible sources concerning socionics, while he removes material that is from a credible sources. Ad hominem attacks belong off of wikipedia. Go somewhere else with that bullcrap. This is exactly the sort of bullshit he keeps doing that should stop. And they definatelly do not justify reverts.

Summary: Tcaud just made another ad hominem attack in order to avoid taking responsibility for his own actions. Instead of doing something constructive, like finding credible sources, he just makes personal attacks, and those are his weird dilussional reasons for making his reverts. Can an administrator please warn tcaud about doing this?

Objection: I object to various comments here made by tcaud and therefore they should be removed by the clerk or the arbitrator.

Response to Tcaudilllg @Manning comment[edit]

Tcaullldig stated:

@Manning: I think you need to reread what McNew says and confront him directly. McNew is a supremely bad faith character. He will not be negotiated with: he does not compromise. I've done all the compromising. Past this point: no way. He wants to make socionics what it isn't. I'll tell you some things about Rmcnew:

I advise you to ignore tcaudillligs ad hominem and libelous remarks that I am a "cult leader" who believes himself to be "God" and "wants to start a religion". I also object to being called a "loner crank", whatever that is. These claims are completely and utterly false, and these are reasons tcaud has been using to make reverts. I should note that I fully understand and comply with wikipedias standards to write material based on credible and PHD verified sources, and have done my best to do this. It should be therefore noted that tcaud has continually failed to find any sources for his claims other than making false, wild, crazy and libelous acusations. I believe tcaudilllig should only be allowed to edit wikipedia in the event that he becomes an asset to the cause of wikipedia. Making ad hominem remarks to other editors as an exceuse to avoid the responsibility of creating quality articles, based on PHD and credible based sources should be a red flag that tcaud has little to offer wikipedia. In that event, I recommend that tcaud be warned to cease these ad hominen remarks towards other editors or to be blocked from making reversions. I object to many of his claims, which are just either false, exagerrated, or rediculous and libel.

Further response in lue of more easy to follow data on my position[edit]

My only interest on wikipedia is to improve the quality of the socionics article by finding better source links that truly define socionics in general and in all aspects. Whether or not this is purpose of editing is shared by other editors is debatable. Most of my wonderings into comparisons between hermeticism and socionics were simply inquiries into understanding the methods of socionics and how it is similar and dissimilar to other things. I believe that doing so helped to discover valuable source links that can be used in the socionics article, which was my intention. The article itself was lacking sources and in the way it challenged me to find those sources. Before tcaud began his ad hominen attacks and unnecessary reverts I was translating information and bringing links out of the russian wikipedia socionics article. That is all. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call for removal of ad hominem attacks by tcaud throughout his entire statement[edit]

Tcaudillligs whole statement in this arbitration section is basically just one big slew of ad hominem attacks. Can someone please remove it? I don't appreciate being called a cult leader. And how come his ad hominem attacks are viewable while not logged in while mine are not seen unless logged in? That happened after I made the request for tcauds ad hominem attacks to be removed.

I'm not getting into this. If you want to talk about my conduct, ask an admin.

Alright, fine. Basically, rmcnew is a loner crank, as proposed in WP:Expert Retention, and he's trying to use Wikipedia to paint the field of socionics typology and relation theory, which is by-in-large populated by non-cranks, as an esoteric science which, in his view, derives directly from medieval alchemy. Now he has secured a (technically) reliable source to back up his claim, but this source, according to people whom are associated with the students of the founder of socionics -- people who knew her and now lead the field -- is actually quite bogus and if anything, is by a crank who managed to beat the odds and become a PhD. Now we've got at least one of these associates, User:Rick DeLong, who is disputing the relevance of the source. There is good reason to believe that DeLong knows what he is talking about: he has organized numerous meetings of socionics enthusiasts in the West, and has reported on numerous Russian language materials. These reports, moreover, have been corroborated by at least one other practitioner of socionics. (as rmcnew knows only too well, because he presided for two years over the forum where most of that discussion took place). Both DeLong and the other individual, User:Dmitri Lytov, are users of Wikipedia. (if I recall correctly, Lytov created the original article).

Wikipedia being the well known resource that it is, there is a decent chance that rmcnew can actually succeed in giving people the wrong impression about socionics by use of its articles, particularly because few people know about socionics in the western hemisphere. We urge that the committee rule the source in question unreliable, and if necessary, topic block rmcnew from editing socionics-related articles. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Manning: I think you need to reread what McNew says and confront him directly. McNew is a supremely bad faith character. He will not be negotiated with: he does not compromise. I've done all the compromising. Past this point: no way. He wants to make socionics what it isn't. I'll tell you some things about Rmcnew:

• He bought the16types.info domain, and its forum, in 2006. Mostly he stayed out of the way until Fall 2008, when he announced to all that he was a god. He explained to us that he was determined to become powerful and that running the16types.info was practice for gaining more power.
• Last January he announced he was selling the forum on Ebay. He eventually sold it for $100, under a contract deal with another user of the16types.info. He had announced that he intended to teach the world "the truth" about socionics, and that he would host a "copy forum" next to the main one with an emphasis on esoteric content. But once they got the domain, the "royals", as the long-time users call themselves, turned on him.
• Despite all that happened, you won't find a mention of Rmcnew on the forum today, because he threatened a C&D order against it if all traces of his name weren't removed from the database. (you see after all this, he'd become the butt of a lot of jokes). Go ask about it on the forum, though: they'll corroborate everything I've told you.
• After that, Rmcnew started a new forum dedicated completely to metasocionics. (his hypothesis of a relationship between socionics and alchemy). I joined him because I thought he was actually going to do some quality original research and try to verify his hypotheses. Boy was I wrong. By the beginning of last month, he closed the site without comment (or warning to its membership, most of whom were more interested in what I had to say anyway).
• 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. They expressed fear and trepidation at the possibility that socionics would gain a footing in Western society, apparently afraid it was a harbinger of catastrophic social upheaval. Moreover, DeLong and I had gotten into an argument over the organization of his "Wikisocion" project, and among other issues I felt that Wikisocion and the16types.info were taking an excessively behaviorist stance on socionics which is actually quite contrary to the beliefs of Augustinaviciute or her students. So I proposed to Rmcnew that we leave Wikisocion and improve the Wikipedia article. Little did I know that he had other designs in mind.... What followed is chronicled on Wikipedia itself: several editors got the wrong idea about socionics, thanks to his edits, and the entire article almost got deleted. Worse, all the type articles and the "trap" article I created to direct his energies away from the main article got merged into the main one, because neither I nor several other users were able to persuade the deletionists that socionics had no relation to esoterism. (thanks to Rmcnew) Which brings us to our PRESENT debacle, which has escalated by leaps and bounds over the past couple weeks.
• You'll never get through to Rmcnew. He's a crank, pure and simple: he actually believes that astrology is real -- he always goes around telling people "as above, so below". You can't defeat someone like him in an argument because he is incapable of seeing that he's wrong. Once, on his former website, he extolled the virtues of subjectivity at the expense of objectivity, saying that when we argued with him we should only see things from his point of view and accept his logic as truth. He's a cult leader looking for a canvassing opportunity, and he thinks he's found it on Wikipedia. No really: this guy is a religion major who is trying to make a religion out of socionics. And to make a religion in this day in age, you've got to create a system of faith, amidst all this empirical evidence... meaning the only way to create a GENUINE system of religious faith is to conceive of a means to make everything objective seem subjective. Now what have we learned from organized religion? To nurture faith in people, it is required that they believe in things that are as unrealistic as possible. That is the sieve by which one understands Rmcnew: he is on a journey to discover and create the most faith-based religion conceivable. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)[edit]

• There are problems here but I am not sure that we are at the stage where arbitration is necessary. Rmcnew, what is the status of the mediation and do you see any other means that this dispute could be resolved short of an arbitration case? Tcaudilllg, please provide a more substantive response to the request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. This situation is deteriorating rapidly and requires review, as witnessed not only by the parties' comments about each other above, but the posts on my talkpage. The parties are asked to bear in mind the following: (1) ad hominem abuse of one another is not helpful and should be removed, and (2) the arbitrators do not have the level of familiarity with the concepts involved in the articles that you do, so you need to explain your positions at a somewhat more basic level so that we have a chance of understanding them more clearly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to look at the conduct of all involved parties. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept  Roger Davies ^talk 14:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept - complicated situation that needs review. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept; given the deterioration of the situation. — Coren ^(talk) 11:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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.

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

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.

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

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.

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Agenda-based editing[edit]

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

Passed 6 to 1, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy[edit]

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.

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Decorum[edit]

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.

Passed 6 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Importing external disputes[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor interactions[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources in other languages[edit]

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

Support:

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Locus of the dispute[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Socionics article (1)[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Socionics article (2)[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew[edit]

4) Rmcnew (talk · contribs) 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.

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg[edit]

5) Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) 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".

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing environment[edit]

6) The editing environment surrounding the disputed matters is hostile. Assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, "battleground" expressions, and other incivility are commonplace. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8])

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Prior discussions[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew's conduct[edit]

8) Set of findings on Rmcnew's conduct.

Rmcnew and conflict of interest[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew and battleground mentality[edit]

8B) Rmcnew has made statements indicating that he sees this content dispute as a battle to be fought, and has, at times, raised external disputes during discussions on Wikipedia. ([9]; [10]; [11]; full quotes: [12]; [13])

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew and incivility[edit]

8C) Rmcnew has engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, and other inappropriate commentary that focuses on contributors rather than article content ([14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; full quotes: [18]).

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew has edited disruptively[edit]

8D) Rmcnew has edited disruptively, engaging in persistent advocacy, soapboxing, and tendentious debates regarding his views on esoterism and socionics. ([19]; [20]; [21]; [22]; [23]; [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]; see also the Socionics article talk page and its archives; full quotes: [28]).

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew has edit-warred[edit]

8E) Rmcnew has engaged in slow, long-term edit-warring, and made statements of intent to continue edit warring. Others have commented on this conduct. (Edit warring: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]; statements and comments: [37]; [38]; [39]; [40]; full quotes: [41]).

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg's conduct[edit]

9) Set of findings on Tcaudilllg's conduct.

Tcaudilllg and battleground mentality[edit]

9A) Tcaudilllg has repeatedly raised external disputes during discussions on Wikipedia, and has also made statements indicating that he sees this content dispute as a battle to be fought. ([42]; [43]; [44]; [45]; [46]; [47]; [48]; [49]; full quotes: [50], [51]).

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg and incivility[edit]

9B) Tcaudilllg has engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, and other inappropriate commentary that focuses on contributors rather than article content ([52]; [53]; [54]; [55]; [56]; [57]; [58]; [59]; [60]; [61]; [62]; [63]; [64]; full quotes: [65]).

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg has edited disruptively[edit]

9C) Tcaudilllg has edited disruptively, engaging in persistent advocacy, soapboxing, and tendentious debates, and has stated his intention to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool ([66]; [67]; [68]; [69]; [70]; [71]; [72]; [73]; [74]; [75]; [76]; [77]; [78]; [79]; [80]; [81]; [82]; full quotes: [83]).

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg has threatened to disrupt Wikipedia's editorial processes[edit]

9D) At the deletion discussion for the socionics article, and in the preceding discussion, Tcaudilllg made numerous threats to disrupt Wikipedia's editorial processes, and threatened co-ordinated action if his wishes were not met ([84]; [85]; [86]; [87]; [88]; full quotes: [89]).

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg has edit-warred[edit]

9E) Tcaudilllg has engaged in slow, long-term edit-warring, and made statements of intent to continue edit warring. Others have commented on this conduct. (Edit warring: [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]; statements and comments: [95]; [96]; [97]; [98]; [99]; full quotes: [100]).

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Conduct during the case[edit]

10) There were problems with appropriate presentation of evidence, and other indications of misunderstandings of what arbitration is for ([101], [102], [103]). 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 ([104], [105]). 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 during the case, including examples of mutual incivility ([106], [107]). Tcaudilllg filed an inappropriate wikiquette alert instead of talking to a clerk or arbitrator, and Tcaudilllg inappropriately inserted himself into an unrelated dispute, and made unnecessary comparisons with Rmcnew. This was followed by a period of quiet while drafting of the decision took place.

Passed 5 to 1, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Socionics forums and websites[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew topic banned[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Rmcnew banned[edit]

3.1) Rmcnew (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.

Passed 6 to 1, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg topic banned[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg banned[edit]

5) Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 6 to 1, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of articles[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement by block[edit]

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

Passed 6 to 0, 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)