Leaving a brief note here to remind the parties of what I have said here. The same point about content versus conduct applies to this workshop page. Please limit your proposals to those that focus on conduct and ways to remedy inappropriate conduct. Principles can cover content matters, but only in the broadest sense. Please don't turn this workshop page into a rehashing of the content dispute, with long threaded arguments. The aim here is to look for ways to resolve the dispute. When I have an idea of the shape of the case, I will post my proposed decision here for comments from other arbitrators and parties before moving to the voting stage. But that won't be for at least another week yet. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I recommend that a decision be delayed, if possible, until a proposal to give Arbcom some actual latitude in resolving this matter has passed muster. The proposal is here: User talk:Tcaudilllg/Esoterism in Academics. Rmcnew will obey the rules, but so long as there is no rule saying he shouldn't equate socionics with esoterism in the article, I'm not persuaded he or somebody else won't try it again. Dunno, but why take the risk? Seems like a perfectly sensible guideline to me. Tcaudilllg ( talk) 08:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Since Tcaulldig obviously doesn't get that this arbcom has nothing to do with article content, and that it has to do with his personal behavior I recommend that a decision be delayed until tcaulldig openly agrees or disagrees with the consesus statement signed by other editors that all sources that meet wikipedia standards could be used in the socionics article that meet wikipedias standards. In the event that tcaulldig continues with the ad hominem and attacks on the character of other editors that has nothing to do with editing the article and finding sources, I would advise the committe to consider action against tcaulldig for commiting distrubtive libel intended to damage the character of other editors, which is something he has continued to do all throughout this arbcom and obviously has no idea that he should stop and get away while he has the opportunity. -- Rmcnew ( talk) 21:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems to me that rmcnew cannot competently distinguish between socionics and esoterism. Therefore I propose that he be prohibited from adding esoteric content of any sort to the socionics article, leaving such judgments only to qualified editors whom are known to understand the views of socionists with respect to the issue. (of which I count only two, DeLong and Dmitri Lytov). Apart from his vandalism with respect to the esoterism issue, rmcnew has indeed been of value to the project and should be allowed to continue working on socionics articles.

I don't know who copied this over or why, but this is what I am in fact objecting too. It is no better than me making a claim that the other editors can not distinguish that socionics has in fact been derived from pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and esoteric information, and these things has indeed been called scientific when they should not have ever have been called scientific. Just because these things have been called "scientific", even as it may be a founder saying socionics is scientific does not mean that "science" in the sense of its usage is "western science." That is where I stand I believe that the paragraph above is a misrepresentation of my own viewpoint. And saying that I have commited "vandalism" is not any more accurate than me claiming other editors have "vandalized" my contributions for disagreeing with me. Despite the fact that it is rediculous to play favorites with editors, Dmitri Lytov and Rick Delong also have conflicting views of socionics between each other. Why would overvaulting those two be any different than having any other editors on here? The claim that these two editors are better than others in all aspects just does not make sense. -- Rmcnew ( talk) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks to the parties for their prompt answers to the questions. I will now confer with my colleagues and then work on producing a proposed decision for voting. I may skip the workshop phase, depending on what I intend to post as a proposed decision. Both parties will be able to comment on the proposed decision if it moves straight to voting, and I will ask my colleagues to delay voting to allow time for comments. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Please see here for a partial draft proposed decision. Parties, arbitrators and other interested parties are invited to comment. I will update and expand the placeholder sections this weekend. After a few days, I will incorporate feedback and place proposal for voting on the proposed decision page. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• You are far too kind to the parties. Both identities are trivially inferred from Google and it is clear that this is a fight which has arrived here from elsewhere, including bans from other online venues. I don't think we will get a comprehensible and properly neutral article until both users have taken their advocacy elsewhere. Guy ( Help!) 20:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • You might want to wait until I've finished the proposals. I have a lot more diffs waiting to go up - I just need to sort through them and get them in the right places. Some more findings will be going up tonight. I've already noted the extensive importing of an offwiki dispute in the principles, and findings on that are on their way (including the bans that you note). Carcharoth ( talk) 00:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I am reasonably well educated, literate, have a scientific background and am used to reading scientific papers. The Socionics article is largely incomprehensible, reminding me of the examples in WP:BALLS. I do hope we're not being Bogdanov'd again? Guy ( Help!) 19:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I've ended up becoming familiar with the content dispute at the same time as I was looking at the behaviour. I hope to summarise some of the more constructive suggestions I came across (such as this one), with the aim of aiding future editing on this article, but for now I need to get the findings on the conduct of the two parties finished, so that particular collection of diffs will have to wait until later. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The proposed decision has now been fully drafted. I will be moving it to voting on Sunday (I will be including the diffs, but not quoting the diffs in full, but referring back here to the workshop instead), unless the parties want more time to respond. I have notified them, and the arbitrators, and responses and general comments should be placed here in this section. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

As a general comment on the Fofs: they're comprehensive and not lacking in background. However, the selection of diffs (particularly for some of the individual Fofs) appears more like regurgitating every little issue that caught your eye during your review; being more brutal during selection on what to include and what need not be included would really improve readability - I don't think anyone wants to give reasons for deterring users from reading these decisions in full, at least in the format that it appears on the main case page. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 14:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been quoting from the diffs in lieu of presenting them as evidence. When I move the proposed decision to voting, I will be referring back here, or to a section I create on the evidence page. The decision itself will likely have just diffs, and will not have the quotes. Thanks for the comments so far, by the way. I intend to incorporate several of your suggested changes, and I will look at your other proposals when you've finished adding them. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

No problem. For my individual Fof proposals, I'll leave out the diffs that I don't think are applicable or are a bit too on the other side of the borderline. Should finish that sometime tomorrow hopefully. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

A grievous mistake. Tcaudilllg ( talk) 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Submitted for your observance, the proposed condemnation by the Arbitration Committee of an editor's responsible defense of Wikipedia's integrity. Will you one day be called upon to sacrifice your ability to edit Wikipedia, to defend its integrity? The answer to that question may well be decided tomorrow.

What you can do: go to User:Carcharoth's page and protest the intent by the Arbitration Committee to block me from Wikipedia for defending the Socionics article. If they can't ban me for protecting Wikipedia, then won't be able to ban you, either. ;) Tcaudilllg ( talk) 18:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

They are not proposing you be banned on account of defending the socionics article, it is because you have threatended editors physically and have made personal attacks on editors throughout all of wikipedia when you don't get your way on something. It is your own fault. -- Rmcnew ( talk) 21:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

This afternoon and evening, I'm going to be moving sections of the draft over to the proposed decision page for voting, incorporating some of the feedback obtained here. I'd like to thank those who have commented so far, and any others who comment. I will put a construction tag on the proposed decision page and only remove that when it is ready for voting. At that point, I'll leave a note here asking people to move over to the proposed decision talk page. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed decision has now been moved to voting. Please add comments here, rather than on this talk page. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply