| Revision as of 06:25, 31 October 2009 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,560 edits tweak header leve← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:27, 31 October 2009 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,560 edits →Questions and answers: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| :: 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. --] (]) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | :: 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. --] (]) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Questions and answers == | |||
| 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. ] (]) 06:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:27, 31 October 2009
|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: MBisanz (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Carcharoth (Talk) |
Advice to the parties
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Proposed remedy (by Tcaudilllg, from Evidence page)
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)
Questions and answers
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)