User talk:Rmcnew

Hi Rmcnew,

Could you please add a statement to the Arbitration request you have just filed? Please follow this guide for if you need any help Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Your statement. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

== Request for arbitration ==

+

+ You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

+ * Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Tcaudilllg;

+ * Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

+

+ Thanks, --Rmcnew (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

:I have removed 10,551 words worth of material that you have posted to the Evidence page from this case, and put it on the talk page. The instructions clearly state that a 1000 word maximum should be adhered to, and while exceeding this by a small amount might be acceptable under some circumstances, the amount of material you posted was just too much. I invite you to re-add anything you think is relevant and essential to your case onto the evidence page, but please try to keep it as succinct, on-topic, and germane to the case as possible. Regards, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

::I have looked at your contributions to the evidence page, and while I cannot force you to change your evidence, I would suggest taking another look at what you have written. The arbs do not need a lengthy discussion on the nature of the content dispute, what they're after is evidence of actual conduct issues, preferably supported by concrete examples and diffs. Content issues should only be discussed where they're essential to understanding the background of an actionable issue. Given that your evidence at this time does not contain this, it makes it more difficult for the arbs to do a thorough examination of the issues, which can lead to delays and prevent the speedy resolution of this case.

::If you've any questions or need any assistance, please drop a note to myself or one of the other clerks and we'll be happy to assist however we can. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC).

I'm the drafting arbitrator in this case. Please see my note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FSocionics%2FEvidence&action=historysubmit&diff=322290404&oldid=322210978 here]. Could you please respond there, and let me know that you understand what I've said there, and could you please state when your evidence submission will be finished, and could you please ensure it has been edited to fit the length restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Support DeLong's approach to documenting esoterism in the article, and I'll drop the assertion that you should be prohibited from adding esoteric content to it. It seems to me in that case that you'd be prohibiting yourself from painting the entire field as esoteric, making an external prohibition superfluous.

If we can persuade Wikipedia to adopt a change in policy such that esoteric forays by some scientists are not interpreted as reflective of the entire field, I think that could result in a number of other such disputes becoming non-starters. That would make Wikipedia a nicer place, probably. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

::: While Rick Delong and I agree fundamentally on specific instances that esotericism is present in socionics theory, I don't totally agree with his personal stance and I don't think your claims are significant enough to have much force in light of verifiable sources that meet wikipedias standards, that testify to a degree of esotericism in socionics theory. On the other hand I am content with the way wikipedia socionics article is at this moment and hope it stays this way. However I would agree that Socionics has not been entirely saturated with open applications of esotericism. I think a different approach is required to relay this information on wikipedia. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

:::: Agree to the concensus on reliable sources and I'll drop the case against you on arbcom --Rmcnew (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::Just a brief note here. I'm aware of the above discussion, and will be entering it into evidence. But can you both please stop the horse-trading and plea bargaining here? You both need to work to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and learn to work with other editors, not trade arbitration sanctions in return for agreeing to a consensus. That is unacceptable and not how Wikipedia works. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A further note in addition to the one above about the Socionics arbitration case. I've posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FSocionics%2FEvidence&action=historysubmit&diff=322290404&oldid=322210978 here], and on the talk pages of the two parties (one of which is you). Rmcnew, can you please in future post to the case talk pages, or to my talk page if urgent, rather than to multiple arbitrators? And if you do post to user talk pages, please try and post at the bottom, not the top. I should have proposals up on the workshop soon, but need to review the new evidence. I am now going to leave a note for Tcaudilllg about what is appropriate to post and say in evidence, but please can you (as I said above) make sure that your evidence section is within the limits set in the guidelines. Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

:Hi Rmcnew, I've made a few minor refactors of the evidence that you've presented, as well as moving some material that, while possibly helpful, off to an archive. I have a question about your "Exhibit D" - from which (talk?) page does this particular list come from? It may be more helpful to link directly to a revision that has this list in it, rather than doing a straight copy and paste, as that removes any possible doubt about tampering, and it'll also get your presentation in well under the 1000 word limit. Regards, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

Questions have been posed here. Could the parties please answer the questions by Sunday evening. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Workshop&diff=327102585&oldid=323061048 here] for the latest on the Socionics case. Please comment on what has been proposed so far, in the sections provided. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

:I have completed my proposed decision. Previous sections have been updated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FSocionics%2FWorkshop&action=historysubmit&diff=328373471&oldid=327947485 here]. Findings on your conduct are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Workshop&diff=328374077&oldid=328373471 here]. Findings on Tcaudilllg's conduct are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Workshop&diff=328374794&oldid=328374077 here]. Further proposed remedies are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Workshop&diff=328375324&oldid=328374794 here]. I am notifying both parties (including you), and the arbitrators. I intend to move this case to full voting tomorrow (Sunday). If you would like more time to respond to the findings, or to comment on the workshop sections, please go to the workshop talk page and comment in the section I will be creating there. Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• Editors of articles related to the topic of socionics are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.
• {{user|Rmcnew}} and {{user|Tcaudilllg}} are indefinitely topic banned from all Socionics-related topics, pages, and discussions, broadly construed.
• {{user|Rmcnew}} is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.
• {{user|Tcaudilllg}} is banned from Wikipedia for a period of twelve months.
• 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.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Now all that is done, gone and overwith ... time to clean up this area.

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alana Bridgewater until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kinu ^t/_c 04:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The file :File:Socion.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Victor Gulenko has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fail to meet notability guideline for biographies. The article cannot be attributed to reliable sources. Also see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Renat 00:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Alexander Bukalov has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fail to meet notability guideline for biographies. The article cannot be attributed to reliable sources. All sources are connected with the subject. The only properly sourced thing here is the second lead sentence. Also see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics. Especially the articles review part.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Renat 01:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

30px

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Socionics(CIT) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 20#Socionics(CIT) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

{{The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|You are a anti-vandalist}}{{Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|You are great at stopping vandalism}}{{The Anti-Vandalism Ninja Barnstar|You are a anti-vandalist ninja. Keep up the good work!}}

From @BettyBots, spreading encouragement BettyBots (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)