| Revision as of 11:29, 7 October 2009 editLankiveil (talk | contribs)27,123 edits →Material posted by rmcnew on evidence page far in excess of 1000 words, copied here for reference: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:11, 2 November 2009 edit undoRmcnew (talk | contribs)3,099 edits →Rmcnew's exhibit D | ||
| (80 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{RFARcasenav|case name=Socionics|clerk1=MBisanz|clerk2=Lankiveil|draft arb=Carcharoth|draft arb2=}} | {{RFARcasenav|case name=Socionics|clerk1=MBisanz|clerk2=Lankiveil|draft arb=Carcharoth|draft arb2=}} | ||
| == Note from Rmcnew == | |||
| Just added in all of my evidence. I could add more specific evidence when requested. --] (]) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | Just added in all of my evidence. I could add more specific evidence when requested. --] (]) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Material posted by rmcnew on evidence page far in excess of 1000 words |
== Material posted by rmcnew on evidence page far in excess of 1000 words == | ||
| This material was by the case clerk, copied here, and then by the drafting arbitrator (me) and archived ]. The reason I did this was because it was overwhelming this talk page. ] (]) 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Assertions that Rmcnew has been seeking credible sources === | |||
| I have been seeking credible sources for socionics theory. I admit that the majority of comparisons between socionics and hermeticism could correctly be labeled origional research, on part because there are no credible admissions that can be sourced for inclusion into the article. Therefore, I have ceased to include in the article any non-socionic related sources to that effect. Nevertheless, methods that have extreem similarity to hermetic and new age philosophy, includeing references to chakras and hinduism do exists in socionics theory and can be sourced credibly. Therefore, sources have been sourced quoteing this within the article. | |||
| I disagree fundamentally with those who claim that socionics has no esoteric connections, and that I believe that socionics from a general foundation is in fact related to outdated protoscientific techniques (once considered scientific, now can be considered pseudoscientific) that were derived from 100s of years old hermetic science. | |||
| Examples of this include: | |||
| #similarity of the socionic information elements to tattwas. | |||
| #That the information elements have (according to dmitri lytov) been considered to be associated to the central nervous system officially by ausura augusta. | |||
| #That chakras have been considered part of the central nervous system by hermeticism, hinduism, and new age philosophies. | |||
| #That tattwas have been considered part of the central nervous system by hermeticism, hinduism, and new age philosophies. | |||
| #That tattwas are linked to chakras by hermeticism, hinduism, and new age philosophies. | |||
| #That the information elements have been linked to chakras by socionic theorists | |||
| #That socionists have adapted chakras and bioenergy to socionics theory, and are using socionics in a way that could be considered mystical or as an alternative medicine. | |||
| However, this is my personal stance. I have ceased to indicate this in the article other than what can be credibly sourced from legitimate and official socionics publications. | |||
| === Assertion that Tcaud makes unnecessary personal attacks === | |||
| Tcaudilllig has no other arguments than to slander my persons, as of late this has involved quoteing distorted versions of past events. This included libelous statements that I am a "cult leader" who proclaims himself to be "God" and wants to "start his own religion". I have a good faith belief that Tcaud legitimate believes these libelous and false accusations are true and therefore this provides his sole reasoning for making unnecessary reverts, usually followed by further ad hominem attacks and slander. He has thus made numerous unnecessary reversions to the article with reasons that are purely ] in nature to this effect. He avoids finding and quoteing credible sources when challenged (or in general). | |||
| He has also attempted to underhandedly undermine the credibility of PHD related sources by making ad hominem attacks people with PHDs. A good example of this is here. The following is from : | |||
| === Tcaudillig's remarks and intent to hide credibility of appropiate source information through slander and ad hominem === | |||
| Do you think he can be persuaded to retroactively remove the esoterism articles from the institute journal's record? ] (]) 15:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think it's important. Those are speculative articles that are not cited by other works (see my sources on the Socionics:Talk page). Nobody cares about them, and they are not foundational for socionics. --] (]) 19:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You know, you could reinstate me on Wikisocion. I won't touch the main article pages; I just need to rearrange my own article namespace. If you like, just reinstate my ability to edit my own pages. Also the link to the progressive socionics forums needs updating. The new address is www.progressivesocionics.co.cc. ] (]) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about this: seeing that that woman with a PhD. is trying to start her own insanity movement at socionic's expense, wouldn't it make sense for the Institute to put out an opinion on the "esoteric foundations" question? I'll write more about this in an message to your site. ] (]) 00:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Assertion that Rick Delong has been a fair representative in most circumstances === | |||
| I respect Rick Delong. Unlike Tcaud he has been a fair representative. However, I disagree with him fundamentally over the nature of socionics and I believe that most of his assertion is simply apologetic in nature. I would like to state that thus far encounters with him have been workable. I agree with his recent edits on the article, which I believe promoted neutrality. Below are some questions I asked him concerning his stance and my stance (or what he believes my stance to be). | |||
| ==== Answers by Rick Delong (from a few questions I asked him) ==== | |||
| ===== rmcnew's response to rick delongs final opinion ===== | |||
| A couple of questions here. I see that Rick delong has made a number of (what sounds like inaccurate) assumptions concerning what he believes my specific position to be that I think should be addressed. And for that I have a couple of questions. '''- These questions are for Rick Delong only.''' | |||
| '''Rick Dulong makes the statement''' "I believe I have sufficiently discredited McNew's hypotheses" - | |||
| :::''What exactly is "my hypothesis"?'' | |||
| ::::I said "hypotheses," not "hypothesis." 1) The socionic symbols were taken from the Tattwas, 2) hermeticism served as a foundation for socionics theory. | |||
| '''Rick Dulong also states''' "I recommend deleting all mention of esoteric and mystic sources for socionics from the Misplaced Pages article, as these have no solid foundation" | |||
| :::''What exactly are you considering to have "no solid foundation?" and why do quote "all" of the mystic and esoteric sources deserve deletion?'' | |||
| ::::I said, "all mention of esoteric and mystic sources for socionics". That means, that the socionics article should not suggest that esoteric and mystic ideas were a source for socionics theory. This is because no such sources have been demonstrated to exist. | |||
| '''Rick Delong also states that:''' In refutation of "Rick Dulong attempts to disassociate the tattwas from the socionics functions by claiming that the shapes are universal symbols, which is true," this is deceptive wording that suggests that the association is proven or known, and that I am trying to hide the association. In fact, I am simply maintaining the null hypothesis -- that there is no practical connection. The burden of proof is on the hypothesis, not the null hypothesis. | |||
| :::''How exactly is there "no practical connection"?'' and how does that effect what you seem to believe my " hypothesis" is?'' | |||
| ::::The socionics symbols were almost certainly not modeled after the tattwas. To suggest so would be original research, and the evidence put forth is simply nonexistent: "look at the socionic symbols. Three of them look like Tattwas." | |||
| '''Rick Delong also says:''' McNew has provided numerous sources, but his sources do not say the same thing that he is saying. | |||
| :::''What exactly is it that you are presumeing that I am saying and how is that conflicting with the sources?'' | |||
| ::::See the two hypotheses I wrote above. None of the socionics articles you have mentioned support either of your hypotheses. | |||
| '''Rick Delong makes one final statement:''' "They do not support the hypothesis that mystic or esoteric ideas have contributed practically to the development of socionics theory." | |||
| :::'' How have these not contributed practically to the development of socionics theory?'' | |||
| ::::Because they are not part of the generally accepted body of socionics theory. There is no evidence of esoteric sources for the development of classical socionics, i.e. what is outlined in detail at the Russian wikipedia article and serves as the common foundation for all, or nearly all, socionists. | |||
| '''A few last questions for Rick Delong:''' | |||
| :::''' If esoteric ideas have no practical application to socionics theory, than how come the below statement is on the socionics.ru website? '' | |||
| ::::I didn't say that. I said that esoteric ideas did not contribute to the development of classical socionics. | |||
| :::'' Why would a socionics '''scientific research''' institute want to post anything about '''chakras''' and '''hinduism''' on its '''official socionics website'''? | |||
| ::::First of all, what sort of research institute is this? It is a small group of people who think about and apply socionics in various ways. They have no building or assets and are not part of the nation's academic structure. | |||
| :::''Takeing the emphasis that this institute is for '''scientific research''', would not allowing a comparison of socionics to chakras and hinduism conflict with the western understanding of science? | |||
| ::::What is "scientific" about making comparisons? Anyone can do that. The institute's purpose is actually not to perform empirical scientific research, but rather to provide an "official sounding" organizational backing for a certain group of socionists. | |||
| :::''Would that therefore mean that as an official socionics scientific research institute, by allowing these comparisons they are bringing socionics away from the methods of western science and closer protoscientific and alternative medicine fields? | |||
| ::::This suggestion of yours, finally, is absolutely correct. | |||
| :::'' Why would this institute keep calling itself a "scientific research" institute?'' | |||
| ::::To make itself sound more important than it really is. This is a widely used technique. For example, the authors of originally positioned themselves as the "socionics institute" even though no one in the Russian socionics community had even heard of them. However, Prokofieva enjoys a much higher reputation in the socionics community, as can be seen through citations of her work in other papers on socionics within the community. | |||
| :::'' Would they consider any potential '''scientific advancements''' in the study and comparison of these '''religious beliefs'''? '' | |||
| ::::The word "Nauchnyy" in Russian is not exactly "scientific," but closer to "research" (as an adjective). All the members of the institute are doing is making intellectual investigations into socionics and other fields and writing about connections they have noticed. That is no different in essence than anything anyone else does. | |||
| :::'' Why is it that the author is emphasizing '''health''' in this instance as it compares to '''physical sickness'''?'' | |||
| ::::"health" is a broader concept than "physical sickness." | |||
| The below statement is on the official website for the "Socionics '''Scientific Research''' Instutite". And I am going to bold the word '''scientific''' in that. It should be noted that Rick Delong's statement conflicts with the position of the below article, which '''compares socionics to hinduism'''. The author seems to believe that studying these hindu religious beliefs and connected esotericism, as they compare to the "young science of socionics" can lead to practical understandings in the prevention of disease and the creation of good health. | |||
| ::::As I've said, just because some people call their organization a "scientific research institute" (or "research institute," as would be a more professional translation, as noted above) doesn't mean that their research is actually scientific. | |||
| ::::Furthermore, as the issue at hand is 'whether esoteric sources contributed significantly to the development of socionics theory,' comparisons of socionics to hinduism by prominent socionics authors do not constitute a significant theoretical contribution to classical, widely accepted socionics. | |||
| Now, why would that be? | |||
| Source: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.socionics.ru%2Fchakry.htm | |||
| <blockquote>Effect of Energy flows on health and the evolution of human consciousness | |||
| Research and technocratic revolution of the twentieth century has opened up new ways of obtaining information, provided an opportunity to exchange news with the world. , , , – .First you get a phone, then radio, television, and today - the Internet. The man opened the door to a new unknown world.And so it falls upon already strong information flow of the latest news, discoveries and achievements. But also the new gossip, political intrigue, the notorious "soap opera" in a television series, detectives, etc. Taking all the information without parsing the whole, people no longer control its flow. Consciousness can not cope with any volume or speed of its revenues, and the psyche can not stand. In such a situation man becomes a puppet: information flows occupy his mind and actively affect the mental state. This was one of the reasons for rapid growth over the last century the number of mental illnesses. | |||
| == You guys need to re-read the arbitration pages == | |||
| In seeking a solution to this problem there are many different scientific concepts, schools of philosophy, psychological training. Study of the impact of information on the human psyche deals and Socionics, and neurolinguistic programming, and Dianetics, etc. .. etc. | |||
| Just a bit of advice to the involved parties. Your 'evidence' reads like a lecture and is very soft on evidence. None of you have provided the number one most important thing required for arbitrations and thats DIFFS. Long paragraphs about the other persons bias will get you nowhere if you don't have diffs proving disruption in specific circumstances. Seriously, read the arbitration pages that talk about what you should say and how to say it. Its even in the template. | |||
| But the problem is not new. More than two thousand years ago the ancient philosophers of India decide this issue by studying the structure of meditative man, his thin shells. Thus were discovered and investigated energy information centers, or chakras. From the teachings of the chakras, the impact of them on a conscious, psycho-emotional life and human health and the connection of this theory with socionics introduces this article. </blockquote> | |||
| {Write your assertion here} | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring. | |||
| According to TN Prokofiev, the subject of Socionics is a "study of the processes of information exchange rights with the world and their impact on the psyche." It is therefore important Socionics, having studied the energy-centers, to draw parallels between these ancient teachings and the young science socionics. Moreover, the study of this topic to determine the correspondence between the features and functions socionic awakened centers. In the future, this matter will give a new clue to the study of psychological, socionic and health problems of man, will open a new approach to study the causes of diseases. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| For example: Saying 'his entire thesis screams original research' would qualify as an assertion, but it needs to be backed up with difs of specific edits which show this and possibly some words to put the diff into context. Saying 'Observe, he repeatedly attempts to' and then providing the Arbs with nothing to observe won't get you far. Diffs, Diffs, Diffs. ] (]) 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The quoted text clearly shows that author Olga Krylova has a serious interest in nonacademic fields such as chakras and tries to relate them to socionics. It does not at all demonstrate that esoteric and mystic ideas/systems lay at the foundations of socionics theory. It might be possible to demonstrate that a significant number of socionists write about nonacademic fields such as ____ (fill in the blank), however, this does not mean that socionics came from these esoterics and mysticism, as these are nowhere mentioned as primary sources for the development of socionics theory. Everywhere, the following sources are identified: Jung and Kempinsky. To suggest that esoterism was a prominent source of socionics would constitute original research, since there are no known Russian language sources that corroborate this claim. To make this clearer, if a sub-group of evolutionary scientists believe in ], that does not mean that religious ideas lay at the foundation of the theory of evolution. This, as it appears to me, is exactly the kind of point McNew is trying to push. --] (]) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. The case clerk has since explained this to the parties, and I will repeat below what has been said. ] (]) 21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Advice to the parties presenting evidence == | |||
| === Rick Delong's withdrawal from socionics mediation=== | |||
| As the case clerk has said: <blockquote>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.</blockquote> I'm the drafting arbitrator in this case, which means I will be drafting the proposed decision. If any of the parties have questions as to what sort of evidence they should be presenting, please leave questions here and I will do my best to explain. One thing that does help is to provide timelines and other chronological context. Over the next week, I will be looking through the evidence presented in the case, will make some notes myself on other matters I see when looking through this, and will have a series of questions for the parties. If there are any questions about that, please ask. ] (]) 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I am hereby resigning from the rest of the socionics mediation debate due to lack of time and interest. I believe my continued involvement would take many hours of my time because of fundamental disagreements between me and other participants. Furthermore, they are highly motivated to promote a certain viewpoint of socionics that is nonrepresentative of the field as a whole, whereas I am weakly motivated to present it accurately. The effort required of me to counter McNew's excessive focus on the esoteric hobbies of Russian socionists is simply not worth it to me. I have stated my opinions and stand by all my existing statements, but I do not wish to continue with the debate. McNew, I suppose, will get his way, and introduce clarity in the socionics article (I'm being sarcastic) with a fair discussion of the esoteric basis of socionics, such as the Wikisocion article he has written about the . --] (]) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Participation of editors from the MedCab case == | |||
| I have let ] and ] know about this case and invited them to participate if they wish. Just a headsup in case anyone is confused at them posting material. ] <sup>(])</sup> 13:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC). | |||
| ====DeLong's opinion (pasted from elsewhere where it was out of place)==== | |||
| == Proposition given to tcaulldig and other editors == | |||
| Regarding McNew's proposed solution, I '''strongly disagree''' with it. To fairly represent socionics in the article and specifically include mention of connections made by socionists to religion, mysticism, and esoterism, one would also need to include mention of all other subject matters discussed by socionics authors in writing. For instance, socionics and cybernetics, socionics and schizophrenia, socionics and alcoholism, socionics and world domination, socionics and the American Ethos, socionics and the Orange Revolution, socionics and the zodiac, socionics and music, socionics and differential functional states, socionics and cultural evolution, socionics and product development, socionics and marketing, socionics and organizational behavior, socionics and management, socionics and world philosophy, socionics and architecture, socionics and animal personality, etc. -- just to name a few. Isolating "socionics and mysticism" without mentioning these other 'applications' of the field would constitute an unbalanced representation of the field. --] (]) 16:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| In the event that tcaulldig agrees along with the other editors to a general concensus to follow wikipedia policy along with the other editors I will cease from persueing charges for any overreactions or misbehavior that may have come from him or other editors in relationship to the development of socionics and protoscience, pseudoscience, and esotericism. --] (]) 17:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Disagreement with Rick Delong ==== | |||
| :More evidence that Rmcnew is uncomprehending even of the situation. He cannot see that Arbcom is not investigating -his charges-, only the reason for the breakdown in discussion over the article. | |||
| I disagree with Rick Delongs assertion above for the fact that socionics socionics in its core has similarities to hermeticism and has been adapted into something similar to a new age healing technique, therefore meaning that all of these things would be at the center of both hermeticism and also socionics, as socionics being a hermetic decendant, as the new age movement is also a hermetic decendant. Nevertheless, not all socionists agree that socionics is a hermetic decendent nor are there any credible admissions to that fact, despite the similarities and new ageism found in socionics theory. | |||
| --] (]) 14:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The man demonstrates so much incompetence that he should not be allowed to edit articles in the socionics project directly, only to recommend such edits to users who have that competence. | |||
| === Assertion that MichalEXE has been a fair representative in most circumstances === | |||
| :My point is that the man lacks all common sense. He's "outside the flow" of the mainstream psychological environment shared by the rest of us. By rights he's mentally disabled. Is it possible to get a judgment against his competence to edit? ] (]) 11:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| MichalEXE has been a fair representative and has done his best to look at all sides evenly. I appreciate his efforts in this regards. | |||
| You do realize that calling me "incompetent" and "mentally disabled" is an ad hominem attack, which is exactly one of the main reasons that I initiated the arbcom against you. Personal attacks are not reasons unto themselves, though you seem to want to from that. And it is exactly what is going to get you banned from editing wikipedia. --] (]) 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Further evidences presented by Rmcnew == | |||
| === Statement that socionics has an intense similarity to hermeticism, new age philosophies, and alternative healing === | |||
| :You seem unable to distinguish between a personal attack and an assessment of character. I recommend you take a course in ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Response to -Rick DeLong- withdrawal from socionics mediation ==== | |||
| :: You seem to unable to distinguish that your ad hominem accusations that I am quote a "cult leader" who "wants to start his own religion" and is "mentally disabled and "incompetent" legally constitutes libel on your and that anybody who understands "critical thinking" can deduct that the logical course is that you should be banned from wikipedia for being a nuisance who causes potential legal issues with other editors, as per wikipedias ruling that would be sufficient to ban us both from wikipedia, which seems to be where this is heading. --] (]) 21:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It should be duely noted that I do indeed personally object to and reject the hypothesis that socionics has no esoteric ties, and I believe that proponents who take the stance that there is no esoteric or protoscientific foundation are simply functioning as apologists for the theory. I do indeed personally believe, as there is evidence to the case, that socionics is related to hermetic doctrine in technique and purpose. I do admit that within the socionics organization it would be difficult to impossible to find any sort of admission to this fact from a reliable socionics sources, however. So, the view itself may not be notable enough for wikipedia for that very reason. | |||
| ::: Yeah well you better shut your trap about "libel" because I still have the database files from the Metasocion.com forum, and witnesses who will attest to the authenticity of those records. Yes, the legacy of Metasocion.com is alive and well some place you can't reach, and I still have the ability to show people what kinda person you really are. The research is done, McNew: there is no escape. | |||
| ::As far as wikipedia is concerned I am resigned to represent a neutral view on the matter. I would be content with there being neutral admission to the esoteric tendencies in socionics theory, but on a person note I disagree highly with those who fight against the evidences that socionics has a relation to hermeticism. If socionics is not itself an offshoot to hermeticism, it cetainly has alot of noticable similarities to hermeticism in its methodology. However, I do resign that any efforts to relay this could only be considered origional research on wikipedia and therefore may not be notable enough to mention in the article, excepting discussion on the talk page. | |||
| ::: And I know that you've got no legal recourse against me McNew, and besides these editors on here are laughing their asses off at you. You've made so many completely illogical statements over these pages, I'm sure Arbcom is more puzzled than ever as to what your "point" actually is. | |||
| ::However, I should note that the tendencies that could be stated from reliable sources (according to wikipedia's standards) which do indeed correspond to hermeticism and current new age theories would be notable enough, in my opinion, to mention. Though, maybe with little to no mention that these things correspond heavily to new age or hermeticism unless that was also mentioned in the source article. | |||
| ::: At the end of the day McNew, everyone is aware that it was your edits which brought about the deletion debate and later, the medcab. You'd might as well just leave now, because I don't think it's going to turn out good for you. You can't even point at an instance in the entire history of Misplaced Pages where the defenders against the crank got turned out from Misplaced Pages. It's always the crank, always the guy with the crazy ideas who gets sanctioned and blocked. I might get a censure for the "arrogant pig" remark -- there is precedence enough --, but I've done nothing as bad as you have and certainly will not share what if precedence is any guide will be your untimely exit. The really pathetic thing though, is that you have all the information about this process at your fingertips... and you've ignored it. The classic definition of a troll, which Misplaced Pages has dealt with before and shall again. | |||
| ::While comparisons to socionics and hermeticism by myself exists, I don't think that other editors should confuse my own personal comparisons to legitimate practices in socionics theory that correspond to hermeticism and therefore state that these practices are non-notable, because these practices do exist and are notable. Hermetic links are non-notable. Actual practices which are exactly like hermeticism, new age theories, and alternative medicine are likewise notable, regardless of similarities. --] (]) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: But I'm done talking, and will await Arbcom's decision. I may introduce a few more diffs, particularly regarding the deletion debate, but otherwise I'm done with you, McNew. ] (]) 01:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Continued similarity between socionics and new age alternative healing techniques (with source) === | |||
| :::: You claim to have a copy of the metasocion.com database. How did you come across that? I sure don't remember giving you access to any of that information. Now you are blackmailing me with a threat about it. I don't believe that you have a copy of the database, and if you did I think it would be highly questionable how you came across that. And in the case that you did I wouldn't bother showing that to anyone unless you want to explain how you came across this database. In other words, for your own good you better not have a copy of that database. I am pretty sure the arbcom admins are not going to accept that you managed to steal an internet database from someone as a proof of wrongdoing short of looking very suspeciously at you for somehow manageing to steal a database as a means to blackmail and slander someone. And that thought in itself sounds very rediculous considering I don't know what you could prove from it other than that a website existed that was intended to promote a nitch in socionics that legitimatelly exists. Story short, you are just makeing yourself look more bannable the more you open your mouth to try to get me banned. Probably should shut your own trap about that. --] (]) 15:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Just to show that there are similarities I submit the following, while not necessarily a reliable enough source to quote in the article, it does indeed show that socionics exists and has been adapted into an alternative medicine with the usage of chakras and bio-energy, which comes from the new age and hermetic movements. | |||
| ::::: Two words: REASONABLE DOUBT. ] (]) 17:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Socionics#socionists_have_turned_socionics_into_a_therapy_akin_to_the_alternative_medicine_technique_of_vibrational_medicine | |||
| :::::: One word: BULLSHIT. --] (]) 18:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This is correct: "''scientifically the socionics school in Kiev, Ukraine headed by Alexander Bukalov wouldn't be any more credible than the one headed by Tatyana Prokofieva in Moscow Russia.''" Note: "scientifically credible." But as I understand it, the issue is not who is producing more scientifically useful research (um, neither?), but which statements can be considered representative of the field of socionics as a whole. To cite Olga Krylova's hypothesis on the relation of socionic functions to chakras, or even to suggest that "socionists believe that the functions correspond to chakras" would be incorrect, as these views are not representative of the socionics community. --] (]) 16:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| As far as my own edits I initially only added information in a seperate category before some of the other editors got parannoid of a slight mention of a matter of esotericism in socionics, and as a result were overreacting and heavily tampering with material that I had written, calling it non-notable and trying to remove all mention of it. That being said, it was other editors who were vandalizing the information I had specifically written, trolling around making unbackable statements that were supposedly contrary to the sources. Here I was at least looking for viable sources, where the other editors were just making loads of complaint and other overreactions. The problem here is that a recognizable degree of esotericism is presence in socionics, and I am atleast happy that the majority of editors eventually agreed to acknowledge its existance in some form, because initially some editors were just trying to remove all mention of it despite that there were sources to this effect showing this to be the case, and you seem to be one of the last minority of editors who are trying to dick around and remove everything about it regardless of sources. Really all I wanted was that the editors atleast agree to acknowledge the bit of esotericism that is currently present. As far as the hermeticism goes I was basically forced to make those comparisons as a result of the stubborn people who want to believe that socionics has nothing to do with these things. I say that those editors are either wrong, biased, or believe misinformation and overlook the information that does show this to be the case. That is, of course, my opinion on the matter. I just simply wanted to find some agreement for the acknowledgement of what is there. In short, the hermeticism bit was there for discussion so I could show the other editors comparisons and also as a means to discover the true nature behind the formation of socionics. Taking that I don't agree totally with people like Rick Delong, who are either not entirely telling the truth about or are simply being apologetic in light of evidence that testifies to socionics pseudoscientific and protoscientific nature in light of hermeticism and obvious degrees of esotericism present in socionics. That is where I stand on the issue. Feel free to disagree. I respect peoples right to disagree for whatever. Don't expect me to necessarily change my mind on the matter, however. --] (]) 15:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I disagree with what Rick Delong says above and beliefs in chakras and bio-energy are representative of the socionics community, just not necessarily among the whole of the community. Here is a website that is sponsoring a socionics workshop where the chakras and bio-energy are being discussed in relation to socionics theory, and are emphasized as something that creates good health. http://ru.laser.ru/authors/kudr/index.html --] (]) 16:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You're only purpose on here is advocacy of your view that Socionics is not credible. You've already betrayed that belief by calling its methods outdated. But as I said I'm done talking to you. It's time for other people to talk about rmcnew. | |||
| Below is a translation of http://ru.laser.ru/authors/kudr/index.html | |||
| :Sir, do not misunderstand: you are not being judged for having an opinion. You are being judged for attempting to force your opinion on others. ] (]) 17:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Introduction course | |||
| :: Whatever. I have already come to agreement with other editors and you are the only one who seems to be giving any trouble about this now. And it is not about forceing my opinion som much as that I disagree with the opinion that these things are not present, and are a much more signifigant factor than a few other editors are comfortable admitting. As it stands I am comfortable to a degree with the way the socionics article is now, though I still think other editors are overreacting and making statements opposite to the esotericism idea that are not backed in the least. But what matters is that editors come to terms on representation of these ideas in a way that is appropiate for wikipedia, and that is a good place to leave the article. --] (]) 18:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The original training course Socionics, which we propose is aimed, above all, the fact that each of the students better understand themselves, saw their abilities and talents, was able to sort out their own problems. Mastery of this knowledge will help a person not to be blind in his life relatively themselves and others, knowingly make important life choices. Very specific recommendations on how to adjust the relations within the family and at work, with close and distant. | |||
| The core rate - skills testing (type definition) people. The proposed method of testing is based on the art of listening to his interlocutor, and hence on the art of talk is tested on subjects of interest to him. This is akin to the art of journalistic interview. Then, the semantics of speech, we do meaningful for us to conclusions. Learning to understand the semantics of the individual (after all, the meaning given to words, everyone has his own) - is a task comparable to the task of learning a language. First, we teach the alphabet (in Socionics is a mental functions). Then study the individual model of the psyche of each of 16 types. Once this is done, we can determine psychotype rights. You will receive a full range of skills in this procedure. Practice course provides specially selected videos, printed teaching materials, games and exercises testing employed members of the group on request. '''The practice takes more than 3 / 4 of the course. The final part of the course (for those who have already mastered the language of Socionics) is devoted to the relationship and ways of their correction. The course provides new, but already widely proven methodology for determining the types of copyright and intertype relationships with knowledge on bio-energy (the chakras and bio).''' An experienced specialist will offer self-correction techniques biofield and meditation to improve your self-esteem, that really helps blend in any team and to establish family relationships. | |||
| Classes are held in intensive mode - 5 hours 1 times a week on Sundays. Cozy room, tea, chamber environment (groups 5-8 persons), individual approach. Studying in a group you feel that Socionics - is not only interesting and practically useful knowledge, but also a profound personal experience, clarify your unique world view. And on this basis can a real personal growth. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ::: '''The following is my personal opinion in response to tcaulldig on socionics and while it may be considered sopaboxing in this one certain instance may not be reflected in the article other than what can be sourced by sources that meets wikipedias standards.''' | |||
| This shows that socionics has been adapted as an alternative medicine and is being used as something similar to ]. This is also similar to some ] methods, such as ]. | |||
| ::::As for the rest, that is not true at all. I do believe socionics is credible in a way that is contrary to western science. However, at the same time to believe that socionics is credible is to say that there is a magical mystical thing called "information metabolism" that exists between groups of things according to some Model-A that Ausura Augusta pseudoscientificly deduced from some Jungian based elements with their own given signs that look like they were copied out of a hermetic scrapbook. This sort of reasoning sciencewise is outdated. And I don't think you have noticed that this whole time I have been completely silent on Carl Jung, when I have had every opportunity to bring up the fact that he dabbled in astrology, believed in ghosts, used chakras, channeled spirit guides (such as philemon and solome), believed in reincarnation and considered himself a reincarnation, went with the science of the time and replaced beliefs in various gods with "concepts of energy between things" (note his dabbling with theories archetypes- same thing) and openly talked about alchemy and how it influenced his theory. He even wrote a book called ] where he detailed this. Jung had even channeled a spirit who dictated to him a gnostic holy book, which he rewrote. And I am quite sure that there are a number of socionists who are doing the same exact thing after the manner of Carl Jung. Your refusal to admit that this is going on in the socionics world is rediculous. It is obviously happening. Socionics does have many things that are quite obviously esoteric, pseudoscientific, or protoscientific right smack at the core of the theory. Carl Jung himself said that his theories are not new and resemble ]. Would this be any different with socionics? Why are you being so stubborn about admitting this and are you now going to claim that there are no esoteric things at the heart of socionics now that you know these things about Carl Jung, since according to Ausura Augusta socionics is simply an expansion of Jung?--] (]) 17:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Reliable and unreliable sources that make claims to esoteric nature === | |||
| == Is This Still Really Necessary? == | |||
| :::''''' Dmitri Lytov -''''' "So, Augusta created a framework of socionics. But it needed a reform. The necessity of a reform became obvious in the last years of perestroika (1989 – 1991). Although official psychology was still under strong influence of the official ideology, more and more Western psychological books came to Russia, were translated and published. In the beginning, there were only few authors – Eric Berne, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Carl Jaspers. But from now on socionics had to compete with other trends in psychology, because Soviet (and later post-Soviet) psychology became pluralistic. '''Two researchers from Kiev, Victor Gulenko and Alexander Bukalov, reformed socionics: they defined its subject and methodology, and created its terminology, which is used until now. Due to their activity, Kiev (Ukraine) became an “informal capital” of the socionics.'''" http://www.psihologia.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1503&sid=f39af7defe85e5b10864a55b2aac7381 --Rmcnew (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Tcaudilllg is protecting Socionics, not the article, which is a noble cause, but no exceptions should be made regarding socionics and esotericism. All we need to do is remind Rmcnew to keep his comments shorter, and we'll review each proposed source individually. Each reliable source should receive appropriate weight in the article (as per ], of course), and in the later conflict, the biggest problem (well, this was the problem ''I'' underlined) was deciding whether one source ( ) met Misplaced Pages's standards. Currently, the Socionics page isn't being edited much, and any policy or guideline violations have more or less stopped. Finally, the mention of esotericism is in the criticism section and is worded as to not force the association with esotericism upon the readers. ] (]) 15:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''''Dmitri Lytov -''''' “Informational approach” (Alexander Bukalov, Olga Karpenko, Vladimir Ermak and others, and on the other hand - the alleged “Antisocionics” of Shiyan). Its adherents refer to socionics types as “types of information metabolism.” Moreover, they consider this concept not only applicable to the human psyche, but – in a more global sense – to “information” in general. It is significant that these ideas are extremely similar to some eccentric views, but also to synergetics (the theory of self-organizing systems), having recently sprouted from the depths of cybernetics. Unfortunately, very little is known scientifically about the relation of socionics with synergetics and, in a broader sense, with cybernetics. '''There is also the matter that the Kiev international institute of socionics is highly sympathetic to a number of esoteric approaches, rejected by the scientific world.''' http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/articles/24685-information-metabolism-dmitri-lytov.html --Rmcnew (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm protecting Misplaced Pages from my own criticism. ] (]) 11:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''''Rick Delong -''''' '''After Aleksandr Bukalov established the International Institute of Socionics in Kiev, Ukraine, some rivalry or differences of opinion arose between Augusta and the group in Kiev, or perhaps with Bukalov himself.''' Augusta came to the conferences for several years, then stopped coming as her health worsened. Perhaps she felt marginalized by the socionics community. In fact, two volumes of her works were published without her approval by someone else, and she apparently did not receive any royalties from book sales. Now a pensioner, Augusta lived a very poor life like almost all elderly people in the former Soviet Union after its collapse. '''Emissaries from Kiev and Moscow schools of socionics would collect donations and bring them to her in person to help her subsist. In her final years Augusta became involved in mysticism, which drew criticism from many socionists.''' - http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Aushra_Augusta | |||
| :But I must concur, there is little apparent reason to continue. My proposal to give Arbcom teeth on this matter hasn't been heeded, therefore I can only imagine that Misplaced Pages does not consider this a big issue. So let's just drop it. The only reason I can think of to block rmcnew is because he makes me very uncomfortable. The mere fact that he claims such things as he does -- that he asserts them in spite of evidence to the contrary -- makes me nervous. But I also know that Arbcom is a serious group that has been staffed with only the most respected people on Misplaced Pages. I have no doubt of their intellectual competence.... But I'm unconvinced that I used ad hominem against rmcnew at all. I likened him to a pig in an accurate analogy, but that's it. I do not like that he trolled the proposal I presented. I think the issue may come down to this: can rmcnew understand the meaning of Misplaced Pages's guidelines at all? Or does he even care? I think the only reason I've stuck with this is that I do feel a certain sense of responsibility to help people understand what they are dealing with in rmcnew. I think I'm going to open an rfc on him, to understand how other people view him. ] (]) 16:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''''I.P. Mameneva -''''' Analytical Psychology Kameneva I.P. Psychical Energy: Symbols and Metamorphoses - C.G.Jung's ideas on psychical energy are considered in the context of his psychoanalytical experience set forth in his work Libido, Its Metamorphoses and Symbols. Symbols of psychical energy indicate the direction of its movement from the mother to other objects and images, which in general reminds dynamics of Kundalini energy in Tantra Yoga. '''In A.Augustinavichiute's model the scheme of informational metabolism of each type determines specifics of its energetic potential and in separate cases also aptitude towards certain esoteric practices.''' Key words: symbols, consciousness, unconscious, archetypes, psychical energy (libido), system of Chakras, psychical functions, informational metabolism, energetic metabolism, mental loop, vital loop, socionics. http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0612.html | |||
| : It does not matter whether or not you are convined that you have used ad hominem, the fact stand out to others that that you have continually committed ad hominem and have generally insulted the other editors while they are cooperating with each other. You keep attempting to bring this arbcom back on me when it is actually your behavior that created the arbcom. Not my behaviour, your behavior is the one who started it. You have even gone so far as to commit ad hominem throughout this whole arbcom and you can not seem to formulate a single argument without resorting to ad hominem. I am also not the only one who you have personally attacked and insulted on wikipedia and it is a general trend with your presence, and you have been in trouble on wikipedia with this before. Misplaced Pages administration should rightly ban you from wikipedia completely for being a legal liability with your behavior. That is the key issue at hand right now. | |||
| :::'''''Rick Delong -''''' '''Aushra Augusta, the founder of socionics''', was an ILE, and this has been decisive for the field's development. Augusta discovered a logical system and formulated its key principles, but left much work undone. '''After her main period of work on socionics, she drifted into esoterism,''' and I know nothing about her post-socionics development - only that it is outside the realm of contemporary socionics. For most ILEs, the search is never over. - http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/03/typing-religions-teachings-and_3955.html | |||
| ''' | |||
| :::'''''Rick Delong -''''' '''Augusta was the kind of person who broadcasted her insights far and wide''', and I think she would have run around saying, "look, these ancient texts are saying the same thing I've been saying!" '''She was not shy at all about discussing possible connections between socionics and chakras''', though her ideas were purely speculative. - http://socionist.blogspot.com/2009/03/development-of-english-language.html --] (]) 18:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the issue all comes down to this ... are you able to work with the other editors and agree to a consensus to follow wikipedias policy without dodging out of the way, attacking an editors persons with ad hominem, libelous remarks, and committing slander? You completely refuse to cooperate in a concensus agreement that 4 of the other editors have signed to follow wikipedia policy on the issue. And when it is brought up that you can sign this concensus agreement you completely avoid signing the agreement and start some ad hominem bullshit in response.The obvious answer taking this fact and the above statement is that you obviously do not want to work with the other editors and you can not seem to distinguish that your language and general dealing with other editors in the socionics article and apparently on wikipedia itself is completely unappropriated. If the ARBCOM administrators do decide to drop this case, I think they should watch your behavior closely to make sure that you are not hanging around all the time in some article and insulting other editors, as opposed to working with those editors. --] (]) 21:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''''Dmitri Lytov -''''' In 1980—1995 socionics existed as a "club of adherents" outside the official psychology. Groups of socionists appeared in different cities of the Soviet Union, but this was not enough to make socionics recognized by official psychologists. On the one hand, such isolation from psychologists positively influenced socionics: it developed without Marxist-Leninist stereotypes that overloaded Soviet psychological works of that time. On the other hand, such isolation created an illusion among many socionists that socionics were not a part of psychology, it rather were “a new science” with its own methods, subject etc. '''This was a dangerous trend: there was a real danger that socionics would turn into something esoteric, mystical.''' http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro2.html | |||
| :::'''''Olga Tangemann -''''' '''The associative model of a human psyche is based on the model of the informational metabolism and psychoanalytic concepts, in which components of personality, socionic functions and colors of the chakras are considered as a dialectic interaction and expression of psychic energy.''' A human psyche seeks the harmony and balance between the mind and soul, between the physical and psychic components of personality. Traditional socionics study informational metabolism of a person and does not pay enough attention to the dynamic processes within the psyche and without those the informational metabolism could not be fully understood and explained. The Butterfly model (the associative model) of a human psyche is aimed partly to fill the gap in our understanding of a human psyche from the perspective of psychodynamics as well as to proclaim the indissoluble unity of the information and energy processes within the psyche from the perspective of psychology, socionics, philosophy and esoterics. http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_09_1.html | |||
| === Agreement with MichaelEXE === | |||
| :::'''''Dmitri Lytov -'''''(За соционику без ошибок, translation: For the Socionics without errors), Lytov says: "I think sooner or later, '''we are forced to answer the question of how socionic types correlated with central nervous system'''." - which implies that the Socionics is generally considered to be associated with the central nervous system, but that at this stage (or at least at the time of the article in 2001), Socionics remains a theory about information processing, which does not go into how. I think this is significant because it shows that although '''the exact correlation between the types and aspects of the central nervous system have not yet been established, the Socionics elements have always been considered to be processes carried out by the central nervous system.''' - http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=lytov_mistakes.html | |||
| I am in agreement with MichaelEXE that arbitration is not necessary for the reasons he stated. People like Tcaullldig, Rick Delong, and other editors in to relationship to socionics are simply acting out to save face for socionics and to avoid having it being associated with an embarassing esoteric past and an obviously current esoteric applications in socionics theory. This is why they are denying that socionics has had an esoteric beginning. I still believe that the evidence stands out that socionics has roots in protosciences, pseudoscience, and esotericism that stems from eastern religions and hermeticism. I also disagree with anyone who ever claims that socionics is the least bit scientific, ever. Socionics can be rightly called anything except scientific, despite that people may try to claim that it is. It is more accurate to call socionics a mystic psychology. That is the best you can get as it definatelly can't be scientifically quanitified according to modern and western scientific standards. --] (]) 15:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''''Alexander Bukalov -'''''Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe - It is shown that the '''universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.)''' Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top | |||
| === On the other hand === | |||
| :::'''''Rick Delong -''''' Most '''socionists would agree that socionics is not a hard science''' like physics or chemistry, since it has no purely quantitative formulation. '''Its methodology is more on par with the social or soft sciences like sociology and psychology'''. At the same time it makes rather specific predictions unlike, for example, Freudian psychology. '''It therefore occupies an intermediate zone known as ]'''. http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Socionics_as_science | |||
| On the other hand, the issue at hand had to do with user conduct and specific editors overreacting to the inclusion of information that shows socionics to be exactly what it is, an esoteric, pseudoscientific theory based upon old protosciences and outdated scientific techniques that rightly belongs in another century. And that is the flat out truth about socionics. That is of course my person opinion from what I see of the evidences, however. --] (]) 15:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Reliable sources from socionic schools that claims similarities and comparisons between chakras and hinduism === | |||
| == Increased case activity == | |||
| (Edited Translated) According to , the subject of Socionics is a 'study of the processes of information exchange rights with the world and their impact on the psyche'. It is therefore important Socionics, having studied the energy-centers (chakras), to draw parallels between these ancient teachings (protoscientific and esoteric philosophies) and the young science socionics. Moreover, the study of this topic to determine the correspondence between the features and awakened centers (chakras). In the future, this matter will give a new clue to the study of psychological, socionic and health problems of man, will open a new approach to study the causes of diseases http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.socionics.ru/chakry.htm&ei=8YmySrNcksQ2v9aVzQs&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D0%25A7%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BA%25D1%2580%25D0%25B0%2B%25D1%2581%25D0%25BE%25D1%2586%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B0%2Bsocionics.ru%26hl%3Den | |||
| I was close to posting proposals on the workshop for this case, but I see that more evidence has been posted and that the two parties are now arguing with each other above. First, please stop with the arguing. If you demonstrate an inability to work with each other, then I am quite prepared to topic ban both of you from this article and related topics. Please limit yourselves to posting evidence and discussing things calmly. I will post notification of this on your talk pages, and let the case clerks know about this as well, so they can keep an eye on things. Could both parties also say here how much more evidence they intend to present? Rmcnew looks like he is close to exceeding the limits again, and I'll ask the clerks to look at that. In any event, can both of you please finish your evidence submissions by the end of the day today (23:39 UTC, 27 October). You've had more than enough time. ] (]) 05:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === 17th century hermeticism, with a revival in the 1950s onward === | |||
| The '''conception of society as a system that could be modelled and controlled through information processing and feedback loops''' fascinated not only the cybernetics researchers but also architects, planners and designers of the time. The '''simple and hermetic systems''' of first-order cybernetics, working mainly with engineering and mathematical models, gave way to second-order cybernetics which dealt with 'open systems', or the interdependence of systems, be they social, natural or technical, including factors such as complexity and risk. '''Cybernetics also expanded into the late 1960s cultural moment of discontent, paranoia and movements for change''', offering an epistemology that spread from the '''control-oriented planning of the government''' and the military into sectors as various as business, art and counter-cultural politics and technology. | |||
| Source: http://www.janvaneyck.nl/0_2_3_events_info/arc_08_systems_exposed.html | |||
| '''Hermetic books, ancient metaphysical works dealing essentially with the idea of the complete community of all beings and objects.''' Authorship of the books was attributed to the Egyptian god of wisdom, Thoth, whose name was sometimes translated into Greek as Hermes Trismegistus and was therefore equated with the Greek god Hermes. The books treat of a variety of subjects, including magic, astrology, and alchemy, and were particularly influential in the 3d cent. with the Neoplatonists and in '''France and England in the 17th century'''. | |||
| Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0823498.html | |||
| Hermeticism is a historiographical phrase describing the work that attempts to reconstruct the mode of thought held by 17th century scientists. It primarily traces out the connections of Renaissance (16th century) modes of thought with those of the Scientific Revolution (17th century). '''This type of analysis began with English historians of science in the 1960s.''' This category of history of science work has largely subsumed earlier academic philosophers' work on the problem of transition from Aristotelianism to '''17th century science'''. | |||
| Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/Hermetic_science | |||
| :I am satisfied with the evidence I have presented. ] (]) 11:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Socionics.ru statement that the intertype relationships are compared to Dmitri Mendeleev Periodic table of the elements - connection to the theory of Synergetics and Hermeticism (counter-argument to Rick Delong's refutations) == | |||
| In response to "Refutations of Rick Delong" (included at the bottom) | |||
| A detailed description of the periodic table is found | |||
| It says this on '''socionics.ru''' ----- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Aushra Augustinavichuite’s student V. Lyashkyavichus has worked out a table of intertype relationships, that is, relationships between personality types. '''This table is often and rightfully compared to Mendeleev’s table in chemistry. As Mendeleev’s table has made of description chemistry a science with exact rules and criteria, introduction of the intertype relationships table has brought objective criteria into the science of interpersonal relationships.'''</blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://en.socionics.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=249&Itemid=109 | |||
| It says this on '''www.ipst.umd.edu''' ---- | |||
| Section 21.1 The search for regularity in the list of elements | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| O. Theodore Benfey, '''"Precursors and cocursors of the Mendeleev table: The Pythagorean spirit in element classification,"''' Bulletin for the History of Chemistry, nos. 13-14, pages 60-66 (Winter/Spring 1992-1993) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://www.ipst.umd.edu/Faculty/brush/physicsbibliography.htm | |||
| It says this on '''www.unm.edu''' ---- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| While step 2 requires some degree of chemical knowledge or experience, it does compress | |||
| the amount of knowledge needed to treat a large variety of analogous compounds. | |||
| There are 50 representative elements, which can combine in 2,500 possible ways to form | |||
| binary molecules. '''However, there are only eight families of representative elements.''' Thus | |||
| knowledge of the properties of only 8 representative binary molecules allows one to predict | |||
| the properties of the remaining (42-8)x(42-8) = 1,156 possible pairs. The advantage | |||
| increases with the number of atoms in the molecules ((42 - 8)n vs 8n, for n = 2, 3, etc. | |||
| atoms). | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://www.unm.edu/~dmclaugh/PrinciplesPDF/8_Periodicity.pdf | |||
| It says this on '''deoxy.org''' ---- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| In the 1860s, English chemist John Newland showed that '''all the chemical elements fall into eight families. Since Pythagorean mysticism was unfashionable at that time, Newland was literally laughed at and rejected''' by the Royal Chemical Society. In the 1870s, with much more detail than Newland, the Russian chemist Mendeleyev proved once and for all that the elements do, indeed, fall into eight families. '''His Periodic Table of the Elements, an octave of hauntingly Pythagorean harmony, hangs in every high-school chemistry class today.''' (The Royal Society later apologized to Newland and gave him a Gold Medal.) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://deoxy.org/eoctave.htm | |||
| It says this on '''honolulu.hawaii.edu''' | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| 4.3.1.7. are these just Pythagorean coincidences, or do they mean something? | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/sci122/Programs/p29/p29.html | |||
| Click ] for the wikipedia page. --] (]) 14:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Socionics - Buckminster Fuller, Hermann Haken, Periodic Table and Synergetics === | |||
| It says this on '''deoxy.org''' ---- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| R. Buckminster Fuller, in his Synergetic-Energetic Geometry, which he claims is the "co-ordinate system of the Universe," reduces all phenomena to geometric-energetic constructs based on the tetrahedron (4-sided), the octet truss (8-sided) and the coupler (8-faceted with 24 phases). '''Fuller argues specifically that the 8-face, 24-phase coupler underlies the 8-fold division of the chemical elements on the Mendeleyev Periodic Table'''. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://deoxy.org/eoctave.htm --] (]) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| It says this on '''zanngill.com''' ---- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| I call this third option synergetic evolution, recalling''' Buckminster Fuller’s emphasis on synergy''' (wholes greater than the sum of their parts). Physicist '''Hermann Haken explored synergetics as the dynamic of self-organizing complex systems'''. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://zanngill.com/2dd.html | |||
| === Periodic Table of the Elements as it relates to the Synergetic Theory of Hermann Haken === | |||
| It says this on '''complexsystems.org''' ---- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| HERMAN HAKEN | |||
| The work of the physicist Herman Haken and various colleagues over the past 20 | |||
| years in the science of "synergetics" should also be mentioned (1973, 1977, 1983, 1988). | |||
| Synergetics is defined as the science of co-operation, and Haken pioneered the scientific | |||
| analysis of hierarchically organized co-operative phenomena in physics, with | |||
| applications also in biology and the social sciences. He was one of the early workers | |||
| also in chaos theory and self-organization and was one of the first to recognize cooperative | |||
| self-ordering in various kinds of dynamical systems. A contribution of | |||
| particular importance was a recognition that complex dynamical systems are Janusfaced. | |||
| In some circumstances, the introduction of small changes can enhance the | |||
| stability of the system or cause no significant disturbance. Yet, in other circumstances, a | |||
| small change can completely destabilize the system -- a phenomenon subsequently | |||
| developed by other workers and given the name of "self-organized criticality" (Bak and | |||
| Chen, 1991). Haken also pioneered in the study of hierarchical control in dynamical | |||
| systems. In particular, he identified two very different kinds. One involves distributed, | |||
| mutual control among system parts in order to maintain a stable collective state | |||
| (homeostasis). The other involves the introduction of superordinate "order parameters." | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| *Just a followup that I'll be fullprotecting the evidence page as of 18:00UTC 28 Oct 2009 to formally close the parties' evidence presentation period, so any evidence will need to be submitted by then or it will not be considered in resolving the case. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Source: http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/synselforg.pdf | |||
| : I am finished with the evidence submitted --] (]) 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| It says this on '''complexsystems.org''' ---- | |||
| ::Thank you both for completing your evidence submissions. I am afraid the drafting of the final decision has been delayed again by some real-world considerations (a busy week at work), but if you could both either move to the ] and discuss things there, or answer the questions I will place ], then that would be most helpful. ] (]) 08:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Synergy is clearly not a peripheral phenomenon associated only with drug | |||
| interactions or corporate mergers. Though it often travels in disguise, synergy can be | |||
| found in the subject-matter of most, if not all of the academic disciplines. In physics, it is | |||
| associated with the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles, as well as with | |||
| superconductivity, synchronous light emissions (lasers) and such esoteric molecular | |||
| phenomena as scale effects -- the "broken symmetries" highlighted in physicist Perry | |||
| Anderson's classic article "More is Different" (1972). Indeed, the '''periodic table of | |||
| elements''' is a monument to the many forms of synergy that are responsible both for the | |||
| naturally occurring stable elements and for the more unstable or even transitory | |||
| creations of modern physics; various combinations of atomic building-blocks produce | |||
| substances with very different emergent properties. Even the chaotic phenomena | |||
| which have been the subject of intensive research by physicists and mathematicians in | |||
| recent years exhibit many forms of synergy. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/synselforg.pdf | |||
| === Alexander Bukalov and Synergetics connection === | |||
| It says this on '''socionics.ibc.com.ua''' ---- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| '''A.V.Bukalov Quantum Changes of Informational Medium''' The notion is suggested of the quantum change and structuring as per functions of informational metabolism of the informational medium within the collective or society in general. "Primitive" group is considered; it is shown, that '''8 functional roles of this group correspond to 8 functions of the model of informational metabolism (A model).''' E.g.: the "chief of the gang" belongs to the first, i.e. programming function. Attention is given to the roles distribution in administrative group and A model function. Key words: socionics, quantum changes of the informational medium, primitive group, administrative group, psychology, '''synergetics''', model of informational metabolism. --] (]) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ej/soc_98_1.html | |||
| It says this on '''the16types.info''' ---- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| “Informational approach” ('''Alexander Bukalov''', Olga Karpenko, Vladimir Ermak and others, and on the other hand - the alleged “Antisocionics” of Shiyan). Its adherents refer to socionics types as “types of information metabolism.” Moreover, they consider this concept not only applicable to the human psyche, but – in a more global sense – to “information” in general. '''It is significant that these ideas are extremely similar to some eccentric views, but also to synergetics (the theory of self-organizing systems), having recently sprouted from the depths of cybernetics.''' Unfortunately, very little is known scientifically about the relation of socionics with synergetics and, in a broader sense, with cybernetics. There is also the matter that the Kiev international institute of socionics is highly sympathetic to a number of esoteric approaches, rejected by the scientific world. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/articles/24685-information-metabolism-dmitri-lytov.html | |||
| It says this on '''socionics.ibc.com.ua''' ---- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| '''Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe''' - It is shown that the universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.) Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top --] (]) 15:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Hermeticism connection to Periodic Table of the Elements === | |||
| It says this on '''www.wpi.edu''' ---- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| With the fall of Rome, much of the early work of alchemists was lost for Europe allowing the Arab form of alchemy to take root in European science. With the arrival of the Moors in Spain, came their alchemical knowledge as well as Islam. Arab alchemists are credited with the first practice of modern scientific method, as they were the first to bring structure to the study of nature’s chemical makeup. In the eight century C.E., the scientist Jabir Ibn Hayyan took the classic elements and expanded the system into a table of 7 elements and chemical processes, becoming the father of the medieval periodic table. Islamic alchemists and medical scientists created many tools that still exist today including the first distillation apparatus. The 12th century also brought the first Arab medical schools and some of the first pharmaceutical scientists emerged based around alchemy and a motivation to create and test medicinal elixirs. Through conflict with the Holy Roman Empire, alchemy soon spread across Europe and became one of the pseudo-sciences in medieval times (Holmyard). | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-043009-155538/unrestricted/McAliceMQP.pdf | |||
| It says this on '''www.wpi.edu''' ---- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| The evolution of empirical scientific thought began to replace abstract speculation. The motivating factors of prolonging and improving life are what still drive doctors, pharmacists and scientists today. Medieval alchemy became known as “hermetic science” because of its connection to the surviving work of the Egyptians, The Emerald Tablet. Many works emerged on how to prolong human life, find immortality, and create compounds to improve one’s health. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-043009-155538/unrestricted/McAliceMQP.pdf | |||
| === Socionics connection to hindu tattwas and chakras === | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| It says on '''socionics.org''' --- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Dmitri Lytov -(За соционику без ошибок, translation: For the Socionics without errors), Lytov says: "I think sooner or later, we are forced to answer the question of how socionic types correlated with central nervous system." - which implies that the Socionics is generally considered to be associated with the central nervous system, but that at this stage (or at least at the time of the article in 2001), Socionics remains a theory about information processing, which does not go into how. I think this is significant because it shows that although the exact correlation between the types and aspects of the central nervous system have not yet been established, '''the Socionics elements have always been considered to be processes carried out by the central nervous system.''' | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=lytov_mistakes.html | |||
| It says on '''donaldtyson.com''' --- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| The tattwas or tattvas are primal energies that underlie the five elements of Hindu philosophy -- akasha or akasa (spirit), tejas (fire), apas (water), vayu (air) and prithivi (earth). The term tattwas means realities or states of being. How they found their way into the magic system of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn would be interesting to know, since most of the techniques of this Order were Western in origin, but they formed an essential part of Golden Dawn training in meditation, visualization, clairvoyance, consecration of instruments, making telesmatic images, and other aspects of the Golden Dawn system. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://www.donaldtyson.com/tattwas.html | |||
| It says on '''thelemicgoldendawn.net''' --- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| The five Tattwas are Eastern symbols for the five primary elemental qualities in Nature. In the West, they naturally correspond with the five so-called Aristotelian Elements of Magickal Philosophy. They also correspond with the Elemental Sephiroth on the Qabalistic Tree of Life. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://thelemicgoldendawn.net/zelator/tattwasinstruction.htm | |||
| It says on '''golden-dawn.blogspot.com''' --- | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| The tattwas flow in regular rotation throughout the nervous system of the human body. exactly as in the Universe. “As above, so Below.” (Emerald tablet of Hermes) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: http://golden-dawn.blogspot.com/2009/02/golden-dawn-tattwas-their-little-known.html | |||
| It says on '''socionics.ru''' --- | |||
| According to T.N. Prokofieva, the subject of Socionics is a "study of the processes of information exchange rights with the world and their impact on the psyche." It is therefore important Socionics, having studied the energy-centers, to draw parallels between these ancient teachings and the young science socionics. Moreover, the study of this topic to determine the correspondence between the features and functions socionic awakened centers. In the future, this matter will give a new clue to the study of psychological, socionic and health problems of man, will open a new approach to study the causes of diseases. | |||
| 1. 1. The lowest chakra - root (basal), or Muladhara ( "mule" - root "adhara - support).This chakra is considered as a link between the physical and subconscious worlds. It is located in the coccyx. Manages the processes of purification of the body and corresponds to the sacral nerve plexus. Its endocrine gland is the prostate is associated with male sex organs, rectum and colon. Of the organs of perception and action conform to her nose (sense of smell) and legs. When unbalance the Muladhara Chakra there hemorrhoids, constipation, sciatica, prostatitis, an inflammation of the ovaries ... Indeed, the Muladhara chakra corresponds to the primary element (Tattva) earth, the planet Saturn ... The most relevant Muladhara chakra socionic functions - business logic (P). | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Source: (origional) http://www.socionics.ru/chakry.htm | |||
| === Sources that show the links between socionics and various esoteric theories and yet are not considered reliable enough to include as sources on the socionics wikipedia page article === | |||
| :::''''' Dmitri Lytov -''''' "So, Augusta created a framework of socionics. But it needed a reform. The necessity of a reform became obvious in the last years of perestroika (1989 – 1991). Although official psychology was still under strong influence of the official ideology, more and more Western psychological books came to Russia, were translated and published. In the beginning, there were only few authors – Eric Berne, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Carl Jaspers. But from now on socionics had to compete with other trends in psychology, because Soviet (and later post-Soviet) psychology became pluralistic. '''Two researchers from Kiev, Victor Gulenko and Alexander Bukalov, reformed socionics: they defined its subject and methodology, and created its terminology, which is used until now. Due to their activity, Kiev (Ukraine) became an “informal capital” of the socionics.'''" http://www.psihologia.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1503&sid=f39af7defe85e5b10864a55b2aac7381 --Rmcnew (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''''Dmitri Lytov -''''' “Informational approach” (Alexander Bukalov, Olga Karpenko, Vladimir Ermak and others, and on the other hand - the alleged “Antisocionics” of Shiyan). Its adherents refer to socionics types as “types of information metabolism.” Moreover, they consider this concept not only applicable to the human psyche, but – in a more global sense – to “information” in general. It is significant that these ideas are extremely similar to some eccentric views, but also to synergetics (the theory of self-organizing systems), having recently sprouted from the depths of cybernetics. Unfortunately, very little is known scientifically about the relation of socionics with synergetics and, in a broader sense, with cybernetics. '''There is also the matter that the Kiev international institute of socionics is highly sympathetic to a number of esoteric approaches, rejected by the scientific world.''' http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/articles/24685-information-metabolism-dmitri-lytov.html --Rmcnew (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''''Rick Delong -''''' '''After Aleksandr Bukalov established the International Institute of Socionics in Kiev, Ukraine, some rivalry or differences of opinion arose between Augusta and the group in Kiev, or perhaps with Bukalov himself.''' Augusta came to the conferences for several years, then stopped coming as her health worsened. Perhaps she felt marginalized by the socionics community. In fact, two volumes of her works were published without her approval by someone else, and she apparently did not receive any royalties from book sales. Now a pensioner, Augusta lived a very poor life like almost all elderly people in the former Soviet Union after its collapse. '''Emissaries from Kiev and Moscow schools of socionics would collect donations and bring them to her in person to help her subsist. In her final years Augusta became involved in mysticism, which drew criticism from many socionists.''' - http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Aushra_Augusta | |||
| :::'''''I.P. Mameneva -''''' Analytical Psychology Kameneva I.P. Psychical Energy: Symbols and Metamorphoses - C.G.Jung's ideas on psychical energy are considered in the context of his psychoanalytical experience set forth in his work Libido, Its Metamorphoses and Symbols. Symbols of psychical energy indicate the direction of its movement from the mother to other objects and images, which in general reminds dynamics of Kundalini energy in Tantra Yoga. '''In A.Augustinavichiute's model the scheme of informational metabolism of each type determines specifics of its energetic potential and in separate cases also aptitude towards certain esoteric practices.''' Key words: symbols, consciousness, unconscious, archetypes, psychical energy (libido), system of Chakras, psychical functions, informational metabolism, energetic metabolism, mental loop, vital loop, socionics. http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0612.html | |||
| :::'''''Rick Delong -''''' '''Aushra Augusta, the founder of socionics''', was an ILE, and this has been decisive for the field's development. Augusta discovered a logical system and formulated its key principles, but left much work undone. '''After her main period of work on socionics, she drifted into esoterism,''' and I know nothing about her post-socionics development - only that it is outside the realm of contemporary socionics. For most ILEs, the search is never over. - http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/03/typing-religions-teachings-and_3955.html | |||
| :::'''''Rick Delong -''''' '''Augusta was the kind of person who broadcasted her insights far and wide''', and I think she would have run around saying, "look, these ancient texts are saying the same thing I've been saying!" '''She was not shy at all about discussing possible connections between socionics and chakras''', though her ideas were purely speculative. - http://socionist.blogspot.com/2009/03/development-of-english-language.html --] (]) 18:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''''Dmitri Lytov -''''' In 1980—1995 socionics existed as a "club of adherents" outside the official psychology. Groups of socionists appeared in different cities of the Soviet Union, but this was not enough to make socionics recognized by official psychologists. On the one hand, such isolation from psychologists positively influenced socionics: it developed without Marxist-Leninist stereotypes that overloaded Soviet psychological works of that time. On the other hand, such isolation created an illusion among many socionists that socionics were not a part of psychology, it rather were “a new science” with its own methods, subject etc. '''This was a dangerous trend: there was a real danger that socionics would turn into something esoteric, mystical.''' http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro2.html | |||
| :::'''''Olga Tangemann -''''' '''The associative model of a human psyche is based on the model of the informational metabolism and psychoanalytic concepts, in which components of personality, socionic functions and colors of the chakras are considered as a dialectic interaction and expression of psychic energy.''' A human psyche seeks the harmony and balance between the mind and soul, between the physical and psychic components of personality. Traditional socionics study informational metabolism of a person and does not pay enough attention to the dynamic processes within the psyche and without those the informational metabolism could not be fully understood and explained. The Butterfly model (the associative model) of a human psyche is aimed partly to fill the gap in our understanding of a human psyche from the perspective of psychodynamics as well as to proclaim the indissoluble unity of the information and energy processes within the psyche from the perspective of psychology, socionics, philosophy and esoterics. http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_09_1.html | |||
| :::'''''Dmitri Lytov -'''''(За соционику без ошибок, translation: For the Socionics without errors), Lytov says: "I think sooner or later, '''we are forced to answer the question of how socionic types correlated with central nervous system'''." - which implies that the Socionics is generally considered to be associated with the central nervous system, but that at this stage (or at least at the time of the article in 2001), Socionics remains a theory about information processing, which does not go into how. I think this is significant because it shows that although '''the exact correlation between the types and aspects of the central nervous system have not yet been established, the Socionics elements have always been considered to be processes carried out by the central nervous system.''' - http://socionics.org/theory/Default.aspx?load=lytov_mistakes.html | |||
| :::'''''Alexander Bukalov -'''''Physics of Consciousness Boukalov A.V. Conscience and the Universe - It is shown that the '''universal vacuum if viewed as a conglomerate of relativist fields may be described as a giant computing system that controls movement of micro-particles and macro-bodies (planets, stars, etc.)''' Alike physical processes run in semiconductor crystals of modern computers used for construction of artificial intelligence systems. As an analogue of macro-computer, the Universe in total inevitably possesses attributes of consciousness and intelligence, and its particular subsystems interact with human consciousness and find their interpretation within the framework of religious systems and beliefs. Key words: consciousness, physical vacuum, computer, computations, religion. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC) http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0412.html#top | |||
| :::'''''Rick Delong -''''' Most '''socionists would agree that socionics is not a hard science''' like physics or chemistry, since it has no purely quantitative formulation. '''Its methodology is more on par with the social or soft sciences like sociology and psychology'''. At the same time it makes rather specific predictions unlike, for example, Freudian psychology. '''It therefore occupies an intermediate zone known as ]'''. http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Socionics_as_science --] (]) 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Debate against the claim from some editors who want to discredit the Moscow Socionics School by claiming the techniques there are fringe compared to other schools == | |||
| ::: Unless something comes up where I should add more information I have answered your questions on the workshop board. --] (]) 00:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| There are some editors who are attempting to isolate the credibility of a whole socionics school that is located in Moscow, Russia, for reasons that are insufficent to wikipedias standards. In comparison it should be noted that scientifically the socionics school in Kiev, Ukraine headed by Alexander Bukalov wouldn't be any more credible than the one headed by Tatyana Prokofieva in Moscow Russia. In fact, if you were to look at a webtranslated version of ( ) from the Kiev school and compare this to the chakra article () from the Moscow school you would see that it is absolutely rediculous to make a claim that any of the socionics schools are any more scientifically credible than the next. Because 2 or 3 editors sware up and down this material is a minority fringe isn't sufficent enough for it to be claimed as such, especially when there are several PHDs in socionics and other fields who are knowingly allowing (and even encouraging) these sort of strange research comparisons between socionics and esoteric and religious philosophies to go on, while there are no known reliable sources where any such PHD in the socionics realm has condemned these strange techniques. In any case, I am sure that this would be enough to help you make your decision. --] (]) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. Please see my update link in the section below. ] (]) 06:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Karpenko OB | |||
| International Institute of Socionics, | |||
| N 2, 1995 . Journal Socionics, mentology and personality psychology ", N 2, 1995. | |||
| == Attn: arbs/clerks - inappropriate canvassing == | |||
| What are we talking about | |||
| Citing a case talk page as evidence when filing a Wikiquette entry is ridiculous on so many levels; any issues on those pages need to be dealt with by clerks/arbs. However, it is wrong on so many levels, and constitutes grossly inappropriate forum-shopping especially when (1) an involved party files the WQA; (2) the WQA is against another involved party, and; (3) the other involved party wasn't even notified. Accordingly, I'm flagging this issue here as this was the case page that was cited in a recent WQA; I've . Obviously, further action is needed for the party who engaged in this misconduct, be it findings, remedies, interim measures, or a combination, but I leave that to arbitrators/clerks to decide. ] (]) 16:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The focus of Socionics, of course, man. But in different cultural traditions of the people taken viewed from different points of view. | |||
| I am adding this to the evidence page. Thanks --] (]) 00:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Tradition, focuses less on "information" as to the nature of man power, allocates certain points and levels. . Their number varies in different sources. | |||
| : For example: | |||
| This was added to evidence page under Exhibit G --] (]) 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| These centers, called Chakras in India are not in our physical body, but in another dimension, although the concentration in them is at times so intense that we get a sharp localized physical sensation. In fact, some of them quite close to the various nerve plexuses of the body, though not all. If we talk about the different plans in terms of human bodies or shells: physical body, etheric, astral, mental, causal - then we can trace a certain regularity: the presence in each shell of the "special points" that determine, ultimately, the course of development of the body So, if we turn to the physiology, developing being (especially in the early stages) has a hidden (neuter) singular points, whose activity leads to the formation of organs and tissues of the body. Known experiment in which the developing butterfly wing in removed one single scale - in the center of the future of a concentric pattern, and the pattern is not just broken, it does not arise. Immunologists favor of the hypothesis of the existence of the human body the only cells responsible for the processes of hematopoiesis and immunity. BV Bolotov said of the cell leaders. Bodies glands and nerve plexus are the centers of maintaining and regulating the functions of our body, like the "special points of the phase plane" of our physical well-being. A similar role is performed chakras in the etheric body, defining its "configuration" and operating features. | |||
| :Adding to what I said above. Tcaudilllg had inserted himself into a separate dispute which was open at Wikiquette alerts, and compared the filing party there to Rmcnew - referring to them as trolls . This was especially problematic in light of the subject's response . Other than being generally unhelpful in other comments Tcaudilllg made there , his recent justification for calling the filing party a troll is somewhat troubling . <small>On a partially separate matter for the future, I note the first diff (as well as what I wrote at the top of the thread) constitute straight forward abuse of dispute resolution system.</small> ] (]) 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Physiology and anatomy study centers of our physical body.Tom, that sensitives can see (feel) the chakras and other education etheric body, we are not surprised. Several unexpected were the results of experiments conducted by AV Bukalova and colleagues , confirmed the presence of certain power structures, it is relevant functions of information metabolism. Moreover, their localization in the projection on the physical body corresponds to their position in the mental and vital rings model A: the vital functions in the stomach area (which, in turn, is related to the vital plane), mental - in the neck and head. | |||
| == Questions for the parties == | |||
| I can imagine a multi-layered, translucent image, where each layer corresponds to a level where the nerve plexus chakra, FIM, and some education like a show in different phase planes undeveloped, hidden features inherent to the core inside of us - I, soul, monad, who had put on themselves, all these shells, these increasingly tight clothing, to translate and exist in different spaces, use them as tools. | |||
| Questions have been posed ]. Could the parties please answer the questions by Sunday evening. Thanks. ] (]) 09:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Interestingly, yantras (symbols), corresponding to the chakras are in their mark some numerological signs - the number of petals surrounding a central field. With this number can be correlated to a certain classification of the same number of characters (some typology), such as chakra Muladhara with 4 petals, located in the zone of physical, corresponds, in particular, a typology of 4 temperaments coming from Hippocrates (sanguine, choleric , phlegmatic and melancholic), or classification by type of physique. Anahata Chakra with 12 petals astrological defines a typology of the base 12 (zodiac, eastern range of animals), but there are less used the typology of the base 6 and 10. Chakra vishudha represents for us the greatest interest, as responsible for the possibility of constructing a 16-tipnyh classifications, one of them and works socionics . There is a classification and a more dense level of the base 2 - the separation of the sexes, inherent in most species. | |||
| :Thanks to both parties for their answers to the questions on the workshop page. Please see for an update. If either of you have questions about the schedule for this case, or comments on the answers each have given to the questions, please post there. Please don't make extensive changes to the answers you have given. ] (]) 06:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| == Rmcnew's exhibit D == | |||
| :Actually, that's not true. In fact, Olga Tangemann is banned from the Humanitarian Socionics forums, that I know of, for talking about esoterism there. The socionist who calls himself Iceman made a point on another forum of stressing that the Humanitarian School does not concur with her claims. Another thing: recall that the magazine Olga submitted her article to saw fit not to publish more than half of it, because it went into a long foray about how she was inspired by esoterism to write it. ] (]) 05:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| One brief comment here (which I noticed while reviewing the evidence again), which is that rmcnew's exhibit D ] looks strange to me. Rmcnew, why did you sign yourself there three times? ] (]) 18:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: ''' <s>I see you complete and utterly avoided listing a last name for the Olga you mentioned.</s> ''' The Olga you are thinking about doesn't have anything to do with the above paragraph and she did not write it, who you are also claiming was banned '''from out of an internet forum that could be run by anyone'''. The person who wrote the above is Olga Karpenko. The article itself comes from an official publication from the "International Institute of Socionics" and is listed as "Journal Socionics, mentology and personality psychology ", N 2, 1995." That has absolutely nothing to do with some '''Olga being banned from an internet forum that could be run by just anyone.''' If something is published from a peer reviewed publication and authorized for publication by a PHD, namely Bukalov himself, than that article can be included as a source. Also, I should not that this article came about '''the same time that Ausura Augusta was alive and awarded a medal in recognation of a new discovery''', meanwhile, '''esoteric things were being published in the official socionics kiev institute journal'''. And whether or not it is the same Olga is mute. This article was published in 1995, officially approved for publication, and was published. No more should be said about it concerning whatever else disconnected could be said about it. --] (]) 14:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are we talking about the same page? I see "Olga Krylova" and 1999 at the bottom of the page. The latest source ''she'' used was from 1999, so it's pretty safe to assume it was written some time after (unless she wrote part of it, and then the rest a couple years later). There's a math PhD named Olga Krylova, but she graduated in Hamilton, Ontario (at McMaster), but she isn't likely the Olga we want. ] (]) 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, that does look strange the way the editors were commenting where only a signature was required. I only signed once. The other times I was commenting on the comments of the other editors, since they were also signing with comments. I found the comments by Rick Delong and Niffweed objectionable, but what ultimately matters is that the editors come to terms with each other according to these sources that exist in relation to content; not the comments that anyone had made in relation to other editors. It is generally agreed now with the other editors to model the english wikipedia article after the russian language wikipedia article and to seek sources out that are worthy of wikipedias standards--] (]) 16:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think it is the same Olga. There seem to be alot of Olga's floating around and they are easily confused with one another. --] (]) 03:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:11, 2 November 2009
|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: MBisanz (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Carcharoth (Talk) |
Note from Rmcnew
Just added in all of my evidence. I could add more specific evidence when requested. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Material posted by rmcnew on evidence page far in excess of 1000 words
This material was removed from the evidence page by the case clerk, copied here, and then further removed by the drafting arbitrator (me) and archived here. The reason I did this was because it was overwhelming this talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You guys need to re-read the arbitration pages
Just a bit of advice to the involved parties. Your 'evidence' reads like a lecture and is very soft on evidence. None of you have provided the number one most important thing required for arbitrations and thats DIFFS. Long paragraphs about the other persons bias will get you nowhere if you don't have diffs proving disruption in specific circumstances. Seriously, read the arbitration pages that talk about what you should say and how to say it. Its even in the template.
{Write your assertion here} Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
For example: Saying 'his entire thesis screams original research' would qualify as an assertion, but it needs to be backed up with difs of specific edits which show this and possibly some words to put the diff into context. Saying 'Observe, he repeatedly attempts to' and then providing the Arbs with nothing to observe won't get you far. Diffs, Diffs, Diffs. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. The case clerk has since explained this to the parties, and I will repeat below what has been said. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Advice to the parties presenting evidence
As the case clerk has said:
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.
I'm the drafting arbitrator in this case, which means I will be drafting the proposed decision. If any of the parties have questions as to what sort of evidence they should be presenting, please leave questions here and I will do my best to explain. One thing that does help is to provide timelines and other chronological context. Over the next week, I will be looking through the evidence presented in the case, will make some notes myself on other matters I see when looking through this, and will have a series of questions for the parties. If there are any questions about that, please ask. Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Participation of editors from the MedCab case
I have let User:Rick DeLong and User:MichaelExe know about this case and invited them to participate if they wish. Just a headsup in case anyone is confused at them posting material. Lankiveil 13:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC).
Proposition given to tcaulldig and other editors
In the event that tcaulldig agrees along with the other editors to a general concensus to follow wikipedia policy along with the other editors I will cease from persueing charges for any overreactions or misbehavior that may have come from him or other editors in relationship to the development of socionics and protoscience, pseudoscience, and esotericism. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- More evidence that Rmcnew is uncomprehending even of the situation. He cannot see that Arbcom is not investigating -his charges-, only the reason for the breakdown in discussion over the article.
- The man demonstrates so much incompetence that he should not be allowed to edit articles in the socionics project directly, only to recommend such edits to users who have that competence.
- My point is that the man lacks all common sense. He's "outside the flow" of the mainstream psychological environment shared by the rest of us. By rights he's mentally disabled. Is it possible to get a judgment against his competence to edit? Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that calling me "incompetent" and "mentally disabled" is an ad hominem attack, which is exactly one of the main reasons that I initiated the arbcom against you. Personal attacks are not reasons unto themselves, though you seem to want to from that. And it is exactly what is going to get you banned from editing wikipedia. --Rmcnew (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- You seem unable to distinguish between a personal attack and an assessment of character. I recommend you take a course in critical thinking. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to unable to distinguish that your ad hominem accusations that I am quote a "cult leader" who "wants to start his own religion" and is "mentally disabled and "incompetent" legally constitutes libel on your and that anybody who understands "critical thinking" can deduct that the logical course is that you should be banned from wikipedia for being a nuisance who causes potential legal issues with other editors, as per wikipedias ruling that would be sufficient to ban us both from wikipedia, which seems to be where this is heading. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah well you better shut your trap about "libel" because I still have the database files from the Metasocion.com forum, and witnesses who will attest to the authenticity of those records. Yes, the legacy of Metasocion.com is alive and well some place you can't reach, and I still have the ability to show people what kinda person you really are. The research is done, McNew: there is no escape.
- And I know that you've got no legal recourse against me McNew, and besides these editors on here are laughing their asses off at you. You've made so many completely illogical statements over these pages, I'm sure Arbcom is more puzzled than ever as to what your "point" actually is.
- At the end of the day McNew, everyone is aware that it was your edits which brought about the deletion debate and later, the medcab. You'd might as well just leave now, because I don't think it's going to turn out good for you. You can't even point at an instance in the entire history of Misplaced Pages where the defenders against the crank got turned out from Misplaced Pages. It's always the crank, always the guy with the crazy ideas who gets sanctioned and blocked. I might get a censure for the "arrogant pig" remark -- there is precedence enough --, but I've done nothing as bad as you have and certainly will not share what if precedence is any guide will be your untimely exit. The really pathetic thing though, is that you have all the information about this process at your fingertips... and you've ignored it. The classic definition of a troll, which Misplaced Pages has dealt with before and shall again.
- But I'm done talking, and will await Arbcom's decision. I may introduce a few more diffs, particularly regarding the deletion debate, but otherwise I'm done with you, McNew. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- You claim to have a copy of the metasocion.com database. How did you come across that? I sure don't remember giving you access to any of that information. Now you are blackmailing me with a threat about it. I don't believe that you have a copy of the database, and if you did I think it would be highly questionable how you came across that. And in the case that you did I wouldn't bother showing that to anyone unless you want to explain how you came across this database. In other words, for your own good you better not have a copy of that database. I am pretty sure the arbcom admins are not going to accept that you managed to steal an internet database from someone as a proof of wrongdoing short of looking very suspeciously at you for somehow manageing to steal a database as a means to blackmail and slander someone. And that thought in itself sounds very rediculous considering I don't know what you could prove from it other than that a website existed that was intended to promote a nitch in socionics that legitimatelly exists. Story short, you are just makeing yourself look more bannable the more you open your mouth to try to get me banned. Probably should shut your own trap about that. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Two words: REASONABLE DOUBT. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- One word: BULLSHIT. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as my own edits I initially only added information in a seperate category before some of the other editors got parannoid of a slight mention of a matter of esotericism in socionics, and as a result were overreacting and heavily tampering with material that I had written, calling it non-notable and trying to remove all mention of it. That being said, it was other editors who were vandalizing the information I had specifically written, trolling around making unbackable statements that were supposedly contrary to the sources. Here I was at least looking for viable sources, where the other editors were just making loads of complaint and other overreactions. The problem here is that a recognizable degree of esotericism is presence in socionics, and I am atleast happy that the majority of editors eventually agreed to acknowledge its existance in some form, because initially some editors were just trying to remove all mention of it despite that there were sources to this effect showing this to be the case, and you seem to be one of the last minority of editors who are trying to dick around and remove everything about it regardless of sources. Really all I wanted was that the editors atleast agree to acknowledge the bit of esotericism that is currently present. As far as the hermeticism goes I was basically forced to make those comparisons as a result of the stubborn people who want to believe that socionics has nothing to do with these things. I say that those editors are either wrong, biased, or believe misinformation and overlook the information that does show this to be the case. That is, of course, my opinion on the matter. I just simply wanted to find some agreement for the acknowledgement of what is there. In short, the hermeticism bit was there for discussion so I could show the other editors comparisons and also as a means to discover the true nature behind the formation of socionics. Taking that I don't agree totally with people like Rick Delong, who are either not entirely telling the truth about or are simply being apologetic in light of evidence that testifies to socionics pseudoscientific and protoscientific nature in light of hermeticism and obvious degrees of esotericism present in socionics. That is where I stand on the issue. Feel free to disagree. I respect peoples right to disagree for whatever. Don't expect me to necessarily change my mind on the matter, however. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're only purpose on here is advocacy of your view that Socionics is not credible. You've already betrayed that belief by calling its methods outdated. But as I said I'm done talking to you. It's time for other people to talk about rmcnew.
- Sir, do not misunderstand: you are not being judged for having an opinion. You are being judged for attempting to force your opinion on others. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever. I have already come to agreement with other editors and you are the only one who seems to be giving any trouble about this now. And it is not about forceing my opinion som much as that I disagree with the opinion that these things are not present, and are a much more signifigant factor than a few other editors are comfortable admitting. As it stands I am comfortable to a degree with the way the socionics article is now, though I still think other editors are overreacting and making statements opposite to the esotericism idea that are not backed in the least. But what matters is that editors come to terms on representation of these ideas in a way that is appropiate for wikipedia, and that is a good place to leave the article. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- The following is my personal opinion in response to tcaulldig on socionics and while it may be considered sopaboxing in this one certain instance may not be reflected in the article other than what can be sourced by sources that meets wikipedias standards.
- As for the rest, that is not true at all. I do believe socionics is credible in a way that is contrary to western science. However, at the same time to believe that socionics is credible is to say that there is a magical mystical thing called "information metabolism" that exists between groups of things according to some Model-A that Ausura Augusta pseudoscientificly deduced from some Jungian based elements with their own given signs that look like they were copied out of a hermetic scrapbook. This sort of reasoning sciencewise is outdated. And I don't think you have noticed that this whole time I have been completely silent on Carl Jung, when I have had every opportunity to bring up the fact that he dabbled in astrology, believed in ghosts, used chakras, channeled spirit guides (such as philemon and solome), believed in reincarnation and considered himself a reincarnation, went with the science of the time and replaced beliefs in various gods with "concepts of energy between things" (note his dabbling with theories archetypes- same thing) and openly talked about alchemy and how it influenced his theory. He even wrote a book called Psychology and Alchemy where he detailed this. Jung had even channeled a spirit who dictated to him a gnostic holy book, which he rewrote. And I am quite sure that there are a number of socionists who are doing the same exact thing after the manner of Carl Jung. Your refusal to admit that this is going on in the socionics world is rediculous. It is obviously happening. Socionics does have many things that are quite obviously esoteric, pseudoscientific, or protoscientific right smack at the core of the theory. Carl Jung himself said that his theories are not new and resemble Catharism. Would this be any different with socionics? Why are you being so stubborn about admitting this and are you now going to claim that there are no esoteric things at the heart of socionics now that you know these things about Carl Jung, since according to Ausura Augusta socionics is simply an expansion of Jung?--Rmcnew (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Is This Still Really Necessary?
Tcaudilllg is protecting Socionics, not the article, which is a noble cause, but no exceptions should be made regarding socionics and esotericism. All we need to do is remind Rmcnew to keep his comments shorter, and we'll review each proposed source individually. Each reliable source should receive appropriate weight in the article (as per WP:Undue, of course), and in the later conflict, the biggest problem (well, this was the problem I underlined) was deciding whether one source (this or translated) met Misplaced Pages's standards. Currently, the Socionics page isn't being edited much, and any policy or guideline violations have more or less stopped. Finally, the mention of esotericism is in the criticism section and is worded as to not force the association with esotericism upon the readers. MichaelExe (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm protecting Misplaced Pages from my own criticism. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- But I must concur, there is little apparent reason to continue. My proposal to give Arbcom teeth on this matter hasn't been heeded, therefore I can only imagine that Misplaced Pages does not consider this a big issue. So let's just drop it. The only reason I can think of to block rmcnew is because he makes me very uncomfortable. The mere fact that he claims such things as he does -- that he asserts them in spite of evidence to the contrary -- makes me nervous. But I also know that Arbcom is a serious group that has been staffed with only the most respected people on Misplaced Pages. I have no doubt of their intellectual competence.... But I'm unconvinced that I used ad hominem against rmcnew at all. I likened him to a pig in an accurate analogy, but that's it. I do not like that he trolled the proposal I presented. I think the issue may come down to this: can rmcnew understand the meaning of Misplaced Pages's guidelines at all? Or does he even care? I think the only reason I've stuck with this is that I do feel a certain sense of responsibility to help people understand what they are dealing with in rmcnew. I think I'm going to open an rfc on him, to understand how other people view him. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- It does not matter whether or not you are convined that you have used ad hominem, the fact stand out to others that that you have continually committed ad hominem and have generally insulted the other editors while they are cooperating with each other. You keep attempting to bring this arbcom back on me when it is actually your behavior that created the arbcom. Not my behaviour, your behavior is the one who started it. You have even gone so far as to commit ad hominem throughout this whole arbcom and you can not seem to formulate a single argument without resorting to ad hominem. I am also not the only one who you have personally attacked and insulted on wikipedia and it is a general trend with your presence, and you have been in trouble on wikipedia with this before. Misplaced Pages administration should rightly ban you from wikipedia completely for being a legal liability with your behavior. That is the key issue at hand right now.
- I think the issue all comes down to this ... are you able to work with the other editors and agree to a consensus to follow wikipedias policy without dodging out of the way, attacking an editors persons with ad hominem, libelous remarks, and committing slander? You completely refuse to cooperate in a concensus agreement that 4 of the other editors have signed to follow wikipedia policy on the issue. And when it is brought up that you can sign this concensus agreement you completely avoid signing the agreement and start some ad hominem bullshit in response.The obvious answer taking this fact and the above statement is that you obviously do not want to work with the other editors and you can not seem to distinguish that your language and general dealing with other editors in the socionics article and apparently on wikipedia itself is completely unappropriated. If the ARBCOM administrators do decide to drop this case, I think they should watch your behavior closely to make sure that you are not hanging around all the time in some article and insulting other editors, as opposed to working with those editors. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreement with MichaelEXE
I am in agreement with MichaelEXE that arbitration is not necessary for the reasons he stated. People like Tcaullldig, Rick Delong, and other editors in to relationship to socionics are simply acting out to save face for socionics and to avoid having it being associated with an embarassing esoteric past and an obviously current esoteric applications in socionics theory. This is why they are denying that socionics has had an esoteric beginning. I still believe that the evidence stands out that socionics has roots in protosciences, pseudoscience, and esotericism that stems from eastern religions and hermeticism. I also disagree with anyone who ever claims that socionics is the least bit scientific, ever. Socionics can be rightly called anything except scientific, despite that people may try to claim that it is. It is more accurate to call socionics a mystic psychology. That is the best you can get as it definatelly can't be scientifically quanitified according to modern and western scientific standards. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand
On the other hand, the issue at hand had to do with user conduct and specific editors overreacting to the inclusion of information that shows socionics to be exactly what it is, an esoteric, pseudoscientific theory based upon old protosciences and outdated scientific techniques that rightly belongs in another century. And that is the flat out truth about socionics. That is of course my person opinion from what I see of the evidences, however. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Increased case activity
I was close to posting proposals on the workshop for this case, but I see that more evidence has been posted and that the two parties are now arguing with each other above. First, please stop with the arguing. If you demonstrate an inability to work with each other, then I am quite prepared to topic ban both of you from this article and related topics. Please limit yourselves to posting evidence and discussing things calmly. I will post notification of this on your talk pages, and let the case clerks know about this as well, so they can keep an eye on things. Could both parties also say here how much more evidence they intend to present? Rmcnew looks like he is close to exceeding the limits again, and I'll ask the clerks to look at that. In any event, can both of you please finish your evidence submissions by the end of the day today (23:39 UTC, 27 October). You've had more than enough time. Carcharoth (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am satisfied with the evidence I have presented. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just a followup that I'll be fullprotecting the evidence page as of 18:00UTC 28 Oct 2009 to formally close the parties' evidence presentation period, so any evidence will need to be submitted by then or it will not be considered in resolving the case. MBisanz 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am finished with the evidence submitted --Rmcnew (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you both for completing your evidence submissions. I am afraid the drafting of the final decision has been delayed again by some real-world considerations (a busy week at work), but if you could both either move to the Workshop page and discuss things there, or answer the questions I will place here, then that would be most helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unless something comes up where I should add more information I have answered your questions on the workshop board. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Please see my update link in the section below. Carcharoth (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Attn: arbs/clerks - inappropriate canvassing
Citing a case talk page as evidence when filing a Wikiquette entry is ridiculous on so many levels; any issues on those pages need to be dealt with by clerks/arbs. However, it is wrong on so many levels, and constitutes grossly inappropriate forum-shopping especially when (1) an involved party files the WQA; (2) the WQA is against another involved party, and; (3) the other involved party wasn't even notified. Accordingly, I'm flagging this issue here as this was the case page that was cited in a recent WQA; I've removed it now. Obviously, further action is needed for the party who engaged in this misconduct, be it findings, remedies, interim measures, or a combination, but I leave that to arbitrators/clerks to decide. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I am adding this to the evidence page. Thanks --Rmcnew (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This was added to evidence page under Exhibit G --Rmcnew (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Adding to what I said above. Tcaudilllg had inserted himself into a separate dispute which was open at Wikiquette alerts, and compared the filing party there to Rmcnew - referring to them as trolls . This was especially problematic in light of the subject's response . Other than being generally unhelpful in other comments Tcaudilllg made there , his recent justification for calling the filing party a troll is somewhat troubling . On a partially separate matter for the future, I note the first diff (as well as what I wrote at the top of the thread) constitute straight forward abuse of dispute resolution system. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Questions for the parties
Questions have been posed here. Could the parties please answer the questions by Sunday evening. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks to both parties for their answers to the questions on the workshop page. Please see here for an update. If either of you have questions about the schedule for this case, or comments on the answers each have given to the questions, please post there. Please don't make extensive changes to the answers you have given. Carcharoth (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Rmcnew's exhibit D
One brief comment here (which I noticed while reviewing the evidence again), which is that rmcnew's exhibit D here looks strange to me. Rmcnew, why did you sign yourself there three times? Carcharoth (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that does look strange the way the editors were commenting where only a signature was required. I only signed once. The other times I was commenting on the comments of the other editors, since they were also signing with comments. I found the comments by Rick Delong and Niffweed objectionable, but what ultimately matters is that the editors come to terms with each other according to these sources that exist in relation to content; not the comments that anyone had made in relation to other editors. It is generally agreed now with the other editors to model the english wikipedia article after the russian language wikipedia article and to seek sources out that are worthy of wikipedias standards--Rmcnew (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)