< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Socionics

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 06:24, 31 October 2009 (→Rmcnew - responses to questions:: tidy layout further). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:24, 31 October 2009 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→Rmcnew - responses to questions:: tidy layout further)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: MBisanz (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Carcharoth (Talk)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Questions to both parties

I've been reading through the evidence and some of the background to this, and I have some questions here for both parties to answer.

(1) Could you both briefly give your opinion on what happened at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Socionics?
(2) The same question for what happened at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Socionics (esoterism).
(3) The evidence and background to this dispute indicate that you have both discussed Socionics in off-wiki sites and forums. Could you give some brief background to this, and indicate whether there is a prior dispute between you two that existed before you began editing the topic on Misplaced Pages.
(4) Could you both describe how you handle use of non-English sources, and Russian sources in particular.
(5) Could you both describe what efforts you have made to get help from others with editing this article.

rmcnew's answers

Some things that should be pointed out. These may or may not correspond to what tcaulldig has already written.

(1) The initial reaction to have the whole of socionics deleted by the administration at all was started initially from the administration considering the socionics_(esotericism) a content fork, and it was initially slated to be deleted with the decision that anything notable and credible according to wikipedias standards in the article was to be moved back to the main article. It was not until after the administrators, (administrators as plural, meaning not just mangoe- other administrators as well, although he was the main instigator pushing for the deletion) noted that both the socionics esotericism and the main socionics webpage had a large degree of original research, some which may have been put there by myself and also other editors, while lacking overall sources in general. This was the main reason that really gave incentive to have the administrators to delete the articles, la ck of overall sources in general. The overall reason Mangoe wanted to delete socionics was because he was not convinced of the notability in light of the overall lack of sources for socionics listed in the article, and towards the end the content fork and original research became side issues to socionics being unbnotable overall for lack of appropriate sources. The esotericism issue had very little to do with the deletion of the socionics content on wikipedia at that point. However, if the editors who had chased that information into a content fork had instead decided to work together at that time to find better links instead of fight about content, then absolutely none of that would have happened. So, overall it all came down to nearly all editors being careless with placing quality links, being biased in light of verifiable sources and generally fighting over content and not really coming to terms at that time on how to represent socionics in light of the fact that there are legitimate new age and alternative healing techniques that have slipped into socionics, along with other protoscience and pseudoscience. The evidence page I had submitted is full of illustrations that this is the case. Though in all the reason that the article got flagged for deleteion is simple, it is because there were editors in the socionics article who were refusing to put valid socionics information into the article, and were not doing anything otherwise to find sources when the whole article lacked sources. Shortly after tcaulldig had created socionics_(esotericism), some administrators found out about it and considered it a content fork, and then after realizing that the socionics article did not meet wikipedias standards in general pressed forward to delete all mention of socionics in general. The administrators who were pressing to delete all socionics articles also noted that nearly all articles concerning socionics included a high degree of oirgional reasearch (which I believe existed in the article because of lack of cooperation from all editors, who were generally being careless and not bothering to source the information properly, and wern't watching each other). Since I knew that there were in fact credible sources that attested to the credibility of socionics for wikipedia that clearly frame socionics in a light that could be regarded as pseudoscientific, protoscientific, or esoteric, and that other editors were doing every thing they could to keep anything about that out of the article converning that, I was pretty certain that all articles concerning socionics were going to be deleted. To be honest I want there to be a socionics article on wikipedia and I am glad that the administrators decided not to delete every mention of it, and I believe that the current cooperation of the editors in regards to restructureing the socionics article to remove origional research, to make mention of certain things about socionics theory that they may not personally agree with when there are credible sources that meet wikipedias standards is a major improvement. I believe it is a positive thing and I hope it continues.

(2) I would solely disagree with anyone who claims that esoteric methods are unnotable for socionics theory. The reason being that there is a larger percentage of socionists in the russian speaking world who are involved with esoteric applications in socionics theory than many of the editors want to admit, either because it is not their own application or they simply don't want people to know that these applications exists in the eastern world. While tcaulldig clearly notes that esoteric applications can be found in socionics journal, it is extremely clear that he is of the camp of editors who want to sideskirt any mentions of esotericism in socionics for reasons that are purely personal, even to go so far as to take dishonest measure clearly against wikipedia policy to prevent this information from getting out; part of that being his want to ban anyone out who even mentions esotericism simply because he disagrees with it on a personal level. I should also note that the majority of editors are in agreement that mentions of esotericism are appropiate, so long as they are backed by sources fitting wikipedias standards. Evidence that this is the case is on the evidence page.

(3) Tcaulldig and myself have not directly had disputes in the past, though he was banned from the forum I owned for a number of months for personally attacking other users and also a moderator. In a way I personally sympathized and felt that a number of users there were picking on tcaud for having an extreme view of socionics, that was not representative of most users there. At that time I allowed the moderators to make the decisions on who to ban, so I let them ban tcaudillig for a while. Even so, I had gotten along with him otherwise. Unfortunately, once I sold the forum I was also ostracized out of the community for bringing it out in the open that socionics has ties to all sort of esoteric and occult things, using many of the same legitimate sources and links that do indeed meet wikipedias standards. It could be very well said that tcaulldig does not want any mention of esotericism for his own personal reasons, in fact, he has already mentioned that it would effect his personal and professional life, but tcaudilligs personal and professional life isn't an appropriate reason to sopt mentioning things in light of what socionics is, versus what he wants it to be. Socionics is non-scientific, pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and esoteric. If he wants to cling to a theory that already has these associations and that is going to effect his personal life, it would be a complete waste of time to attempt to hide the associations. So, sad to say that he would be barking up the wrong tree if he wants to have associations with socionics for his reasons. As far as mentioning my behavior, Tcaulldig is not one to talk about other peoples behaviors in light of his unnecessary behavior and viable degree of ad hominems towards not just myself, but even other editors who edit socionics and also elsewhere. But right now I would just appreciate that he would stop his personal attacking on wikipedia. That is all I am interested in at this moment. In general, both tcaulldig and I have been active in the socionics community, and I was in fact the owner of the largest speaking socionics community before I sold it for a number of reasons. One of them being that I believed that socionics was being heavily misrepresented by people who visited my internet forum, and that I began to lack the time and incentive to maintain the bulletin board to certain standards according to its growth. I soon decided to sell the forum, though I later regretted that taking that certain mischevious individuals who maintained positions as administrators after that had eventually took it upon themselves to break certain agreements and to use the bulletin board software as a means to derive personal information in a way that would be considered fraudulent, this included logging into my old account, and while pretending to be me discredit my persons in order to discredit anything that I might say about socionics, as I had a previous fallout with members in the forum community who were shocked to discover proof that socionics has even gone so far as to be used as something of an alternative medicine and was being mixed with new age beliefs in the russian speaking world. Since the evidence is clear this has indeed been going on, and that since I have been proveing that this has indeed been going on, there have been proponents of socionics who from their own personal standpoint feel that I have done a disservice for socionics and have done their best to frame me as being a troll or uncredible, when the reality is that I simply want people to show integrity and be honest about the actual status of socionics, and not try to hide the fact that these things are going on simply because they are not these peoples own personal application. After I sold the forum I went on to create the metasocion website in order to cater to those who may have nonscientific or esoteric uses of socionics, such as the usage of chakras and the like. And the website was indeed intended to be a socionics website (despite tcaulldigs claim). It is true that tcaulldig and I were involved with creating a socionics video game based on a "dungeons and rabbits" rpg mod for phpbb2 boards, though the idea fizzled out as I lacked time to work much on the board other than php error correcting and I don't think we totally agreed on what we would do with the mod when we were done. Tcaulldig also had a falling out with Rick Delong at that time, where he was banned from the wikisocion website and from what I remember, moved his material from there to the metasocion website I had created, as he had rubbed a number of members there the wrong way and provoked rick delong and other editors on that wiki to move his material from wikisocion. That is pretty much it. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(4) Online web translations of sources that meet wikipedias standards. It is generally agreed currently by most all editors that wikisocion and Rick Dulongs translations of russian books are not authoritative enough to cite on wikipedia. Rick Delong(socionics.us) is no more authoritative than Dmitri Lytov(socioniko.net) or Sergei Ganin(socionics.com), who in regards to wikipedias standards for quotable sources in total are not any more authoritative than a random russian person with no formal education suddenly popping out of the blue and making claims about the theory socionics. It should also be noted that Rick Delong, Dmitri Lytov and Sergei Ganin have conflicting views on socionics, and there have been a number of cases where all three have made contradictory statements about socionics. In summary, Rick Delong is simply an editor on wikipedia who is no more authoritative than myself or tcaulldig in light of wikipedias standards, and any editors incentives for putting him on a pedestal should be looked at very skeptically and investigated. As far as foreign links not related to any editors are concerned the usage of non-english sources on wikipedia, especially in the russian language is unfortunatelly quite necessary, as there are little or no credible sources for socionics in any other language. I have personally done my best to find credible sources, despite this fact. On the other hand, this leads to another problem as nearly anyone can make just about any bogus claim about socionics and say that it came from a book in another language that was published by a socionics founder that has never been published or translated into english. An example is Rick Delong's translation of some of the founder ausura augustas materials. Absolutely no one has any idea that what he has stated in his english translations is even accurate, as no one has seen any other translation and so few of us can read russian, and even if someone can read russian getting a russian copy of any of ausura augustas books that rick delong has translated (and placed on his website) is nearly impossible if not costly. For this reason it is easiests to do webtranslations of whatever socionics information can be found on the internet, which has besides translating and includeing information from the russian wikipedia article has been the only other real recourse for finding good sources reliable for socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(5) User:GTBacchus came into the picture as a means to stop any potential edit warring after it was decided that the article should not be deleted by wikipedia administrators. He threatened to protect the article from editing until the editors came to a consensus. The concensus that the editors eventually came to is that esotericism could be spoken about in the article, so long as it was backed by sources matching wikipedias standards. Tcaudillig has since refused to sign the consensus and has instead threatened to use wikipedia administration to force his way unto the socionics article, typically by banning anyone who speaks about esotericism. He even threatened to go to arbcom to force his way on the article, if other editors did not meet his demands for what he personally wanted done with the article. Other editors have called this uncooperation on his part. But to stop speaking solely about tcaulldig for a moment, in general I was frustrated for a long time with getting the support of other editors who would not budge a finger to do anything with the socionics article to give it more credibility, and for the most part would just simply gripe about my own contributions. I did notice that after decision for the administration to not delete the article, other editors began to be more open about adding different concepts into the socionics article and seem to have accepted that it is a matter of integrity and honesty to give some credence to the existance of certain protoscientific, pseudoscientific, and esoteric applications in socionics theory, which to me seemed to indicate a shift in attitude in that nameing these things was one of the key ingredients to bringing credibility for socionics on wikipedia. It seems that as of now the editors are cooperating with each other generally more than they were a few months ago. I am happy about that. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudilllg's answers

(1) Well what happened is Rmcnew started publishing original research when nobody knew what socionics was really about. So we had a user, Mangoe, who took one look at it and thought, "this is fringe science at its worst". He approached me about it and asked for a citation in an (English) magazine, asserting it (socionics) wasn't notable. Of course I wasn't able to give him one because there aren't any. So Mangoe put all the socionics articles up for deletion, asserting they had failed the Google test. I pointed out that the Cyrillic yields different results, producing a list of about 500 articles. From there I guess maybe Mango got embarrased that he hadn't thought of that, and dug in as devil's advocate to save face? I don't really know, but anyway there was this huge mix-up involving apparent region bias, at which point McNew saw a chance to frame the debate. DeLong was on a sabbatical at the time and Lytov hadn't been seen in months, so there was nobody to either attest to the notability of socionics or to decisively rebut McNew. This was the beginning of our argument, when I saw what for me, sealed my opinion of his character, that he was willing to undermine the effort to promote the awareness of socionics if it would serve his own ends.

(2) I barely paid attention to that debate. I didn't really care if it got deleted or not, because I basically made that article to divert McNew's attention out of the main socionics article. Unfortunately ignorance of socionics prevailed and that article was merged into the main one, giving McNew a platform he never should have had. Esoteric applications of socionics are not altogether notable: although they are indeed published in the International Institute journal, they are kept in their own section which is separate from the professional articles. You might want to ask DeLong about this for confirmation, but from what I can gather the socionists themselves are a somewhat tight-knit group and it's very likely that although they do mean for their work to be professionally considered, they also treat the journal as something of a causal discourse between friends. Prokoveika did not get her degrees in socionics for advocating esoterism; she got them for publishing serious work.

(3) I was on decent, if cautious, terms with him before the article problems began. In fact I would have to say it has been his conduct with respect to the Misplaced Pages articles that soured my relationship with him. I am quite concerned that if I do not distance myself from him, I could be associated with esoterism later, to the detriment of my career when I complete my psychology studies.

(4) Online translation. DeLong's notes are considered authoritative, not least because the online translations back him up and Lytov never denied them. The translators have gotten better and when they are insufficient a cadre of dedicated Russian speakers have been stepping in to clarify them. This work has especially picked up over the past several months, as can be seen on Wikisocion. Sometimes it takes study to get the gist of what is being said, but that's true even of articles in English by some people. I guess someone could argue over what's being said in something, but there are ways to resolve such, aren't there?

(5) I actually advertised this article on Wikiproject psychology. I also sought the assistance of an admin, User:GTBacchus, to help get attention for the thing, deal with McNew, etc. Eventually he lost interest. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Rmcnew

These questions are for Rmcnew to answer only. Please be brief.

(1) Your account was registered on 23 January 2007, but your first edit was on 17 April 2009. Did you edit Misplaced Pages before April 2009, possibly with other accounts or as an anonymous contributor?
(2) You have made the majority of the contributions to the Socionics article and its talk page (675 and 770 edits, the last time I looked). Could you please give details of non-Socionics topics you have contributed to, or would consider contributing to.
(3) Please explain what you say here and here.

Rmcnew - responses to questions:

Answer to 1 - My account was indeed registered as of january 23 2007. It is my one and only account on wikipedia. I may have logged in a couple of times during that time. I do not remember consistently logging in and editing wikipedia before I began editing the socionics article, though I do recall making a few edits here and there in articles that are not related to socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer to 2 - I have contributed to a few other articles, though not as consistently. I have made some edits to articles that consist of topics rangeing from religious, new age, christian, alternative healing, warfare, etc.

Answer to 3 - In response to and .

I made that statement on the deletion board in relation to socionics, because I believe that socionics is based on outdated protoscience and esoteric methods, which the founders are calling "scientific", when it is really pseudoscientific. Further, I believe that socionics has been wholely misrepresented to the english speaking and western world to seem as though it is devoid of the very culture it came from, and that there is now a "western twist" where legitimate things involved with legitimate socionics are being repressed and replaced with western values that don't exists in actual socionics, as it came from the founders. And to give an example, socionists in russia have made claims that experiments between chakras and socionics is a scientific feat, and other pseudoscientific claims. This is completely against the western way of science, and there are editors on wikipedia who I don't think realize that when socionists in russia say "science" that doesn't necessarily mean "western science". So, as a result of this there are editors who are trying to keep pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and esoteric mentions of socionics out of the article, even though these thing legitimatelly exists in socionics, because they personally disagree with the usages of socionics that exists in the russian cultural sphere of the world. This was another reason why I was making so many comparisons between socionics and hermeticism. I was attempting to show these editors that they have formed an idea of socionics that doesn't actually exists and that socionics has many things at its very core that are rightly pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and esoteric. Not because I wanted to put origional research into the article, but because I wanted other editors to cease from removing inappropiatelly removeing valid sources (fitting wikipedias standards) that shows the very protoscientific, pseudoscientific, and esoteric nature of socionics, simply because they don't personally realize that these are infact a legitimate part of socionics theory in the russian speaking culture to some degree or another.

As far as claiming that the article should be deleted, I said this because I don't believe the article would be saying much about socionics crediblewise unless the other editors came to terms that many of the legitimate sources you are going to find about socionics attest to its protoscientific, pseudoscientific, and esoteric nature. In fact, the article was lacking credible sources period and could have been deleted simply for that reason. It would indeed had been a wiser choice for the other editors to give way that there are topics concerning socionics that can be credibly sourced, that don't personally appeal to them and therfore save the article from deletion. To state what I just said simply, I was simply making a statement that the editors should either be more open to possibilities of finding credible links they do not personally agree with that attest to the nature of socionics as protoscience, pseudoscience, or esotericism or face that the article should be deleted, because the article was lacking credible sources and could have been deleted simply for that reason alone. And unfortunatelly, this was one of the main reasons the article was stated for deletion in the first place. Many of the editors refusal to place information into the article that would have fit wikipedias standards for inclusion simply because they did not agree with the way socionics would have been presented according to those sources --Rmcnew (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As for what I said to tcaudillig, I generally was getting along with him at that time and it did not bother me at first that he was opposed to the mentioning of certain things in the socionics article. And I made the statement I did, because from what I already had mentioned there were other editors who were wanting to not include legitimate information about socionics simply because they did not personally agree with the information, from saying that esoteric applications were unnotable when the sources in question met wikipedias standards to out and out refusal to admit that esoteric application were present at all, when infact there are very pronounced esoteric applications in socionics theory they would not admit too, even as there were sources right in front of them showing these applications. I at least wanted to get a compromise with the other editors over it, and to do that I was forced to make some comparisons betwen socionics and other things in the western world the other editors may have had more familiarity with. Commentwise I also may have voiced this in way that implied that I was frustrated with other editors,as I was at that time. That was what my comment was about. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Tcaudilllg

These questions are for Tcaudilllg to answer only. Please be brief.

(1) Can you explain what this conversation is about?
(2) Similarly, what are you saying here?
(3) You edit articles other than Socionics. Do you think your conduct when editing those articles is different from when you discuss and edit the Socionics articles? If so, why is that?

All the above questions from Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to (1) We had something of a falling out because we were working on a online game to teach kids about socionics. Originally McNew implied it would be free, and so I and some other people I recruited were working on it for free because we believed it was worthwhile. But about the time I made that comment, he started saying he intended to make it a pay-to-play game, at least with respect to certain aspects. My plan was for people to be exposed to socionics by playing the game; I had no reason to make a game for people who didn't care about/want to learn socionics. So that was a parting of ways. Had nothing to do with the socionics Misplaced Pages article or its content, however. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to (2) We were aiming to improve the Misplaced Pages article on socionics. Previously to the spring, there had been something of a consensus in the Socionics community that Wikisocion.org was the place for people in the West to read up on socionics. However that project developed a behaviorist slant and so, began to misrepresent the field. Socionists disagree with behaviorists in a number of areas.... I wanted a more objective source of material for newcomers to learn socionics, and so I thought to do that by improving/enlarging the Misplaced Pages article. McNew said that was his intent, too, and so I made that comment about the "work" of the article. People have expressed in the past dissatisfaction with socionics because no one has found neurocognitive proof for it -- there's something of a movement in academics to throw everyone who's not a cognitive psychologist to the fringe, or at least that's what I gather from the textbooks I've read --, and that's what I was referring to by the "alternative views" label. After all, who was it who even put that on there, and what was their source? Where is this criticism of socionics among psychologists, except from one socionist (Dmitri Lytov)? Everything was going fine until McNew started getting out of control with his original research.... When that began to happen, I realized he was self-promoting his website, which has no official connection to socionics. So I rebuked him. I was also cautioning him because I knew someone would most likely try to block him for it. Or so I imagined... I underestimated the lack of interest in socionics here, which I was really quite stunned by because I've made efforts to include links to it in relevant articles. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to (3) The other articles just aren't as important. So no, I don't take them as seriously as I do socionics. See, socionics is like an ideology unto itself. People who know about socionics just see the world differently. Markedly differently. See socionics isn't just a typology. It's both the typology and the categorical logic which is evident in the context of the typology. And then you have the (apparently universal) relations theory, which essentially means for every person who learns of it both the typology and the logic become incontrovertible, because denying them would mean denying their own subjective perceptions about other people. So it's just a different way of thinking, which nonetheless provides a sense of certainty in areas that other schools of thought do not permit. Everyone should know socionics, probably. That's why we're making articles about it on Misplaced Pages. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Tcaudilllg

Proposed principles

Socionists are independent of their field

1) socionics-related articles should observe only that some socionists have done studies on estorism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Despite having reviewed the statements and evidence in this case, I don't know what this means. Please bear in mind, in presenting evidence and workshop proposals, that the arbitrators may have little or no previous familiarity with the issues in the case. The issues need to be presented to us more in laypeople's language and with appropriate references to the evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is about content. Primarily ArbCom handles disputes where remedies are needed to address user conduct issues. Generally, ArbCom does not make ruling about content matters. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read my advice here and here. It would also be advisable for the parties to look at the principles and findings and remedies in previous arbitration cases, to see how best to present your case. This principle, for example, is very specific on content, and as such is not a suitable arbitration case principle. The principles should only broadly relate to content, and most should relate to how conduct affects content. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Professionals are independent of their fields

2) When academics do work on esoterism in the context of a non-esoteric discipline, it should be cited only that people in the field has done such work; the field as a whole should not be labeled "esoteric" or considered as such by Misplaced Pages. This principle should be codified as either a guideline or a policy.

Response to Carcharoth: What do you mean by wikilinking terms? Ah I think I get what you mean. I'm not making it very easy, am I? But about the guideline, what you're saying is that it would have to be put into effect in the context of say, a socionics wikiproject, with the consensus of the editors? Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbard: Socionics is a personality type/relations system which was derived from Carl Gustav Jung's theory of psychological types. It involves a very strange -- but apparently true -- concept called "duality", meaning that some people are natural complements to each other because they complement each others' thinking: one fills in the blanks for the other. This in itself sounds somewhat esoteric at the outset, but it's actually just a phenomenon of people not being alike. To understand what exactly it was that made people not alike in that way, one socionist endevored to conduct researches into esoterism, which he believed might be connected to it (from a cognitive perspective), and essentially used the professional socionics community as bait for the experiments. He lured in people who had esoteric bents and gave them certificates so they'd stick around. From all that he has apparently done one of the -- I admit -- greatest scientific feats in history: successfully modeled Jung's theory of the collective unconscious and shown it to be consistent with socionics... and even gone a step further and shown how Jung's functions work together to create the experience of consciousness. But according to him he had to do "extrasensory researches" to figure this out, and so there is something of a battle between these incoming esoteric "socionists" and the practicing psychologists. (although sometimes, as is often the case in psychology, you can't tell between the two).

Now we have McNew, an esoterist, trying to use Misplaced Pages to score some points for his home team in this long running feud. Which brings us to our present situation....

Template

1) ~~If User:rmcnew violates the prohibition, block him from editing socionics-related articles.~~ None needed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User: rmcnew

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) Evidence given by me and listed on the socionics talk page gives evidence to a dispute over content and should be reviewed by the arbitration committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Tcaullldig should agree to the following concensus, and all other editors should follow wikipedias standards for verifiable links.

Statement of consensus

By posting to this list, you concur with the proposed consensus that socionics sources, in relation to esoteric sources or not, may be freely placed in the article so long as they meet wikipedias standards for verifiable sources. You also agree to never to inappropiatelly remove portions of the socionics article that are supported by noteworthy sources, and for insufficent reasons.

Agree to consensus:

1. Rmcnew -- --Rmcnew (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree to consensus:

1. XXXXXX

As per WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFIABILITY, origional reasearch and portions of the article may be removed when there are no viable sources backing the material. Any content of any sort concerning socionics may be admitted into the article taken that there are reliable and verifiable sources to that effect, regardless of viewpoint of the editors, and according to official wikipedia policy. Editors should not remove content that is supported by sources worthy of wikipedias standards. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Tcaudilllg, ArbCom is not topic experts so we do not make finding about content. So, our remedies would be along the line of your first suggestion...a topic ban. We'll look at all the involved parties and decide if the article is not stable because of disruptive editing by one or more editors. If so, we might give editing restrictions such as 1RR, a topic ban, or maybe a site ban in extreme cases. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I recommend two things: 1) prohibit rmcnew from adding anything about esoterism to the socionics articles or editing mentions of esoterism in them, 2) adopt DeLong's approach to documenting esoteric forays by scientific professionals as either guideline or policy. Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the recommendation to prohibit rmcnew. It seems to me that a guideline would do the job just as well. After all it's not about prohibiting people who share rmcnew's viewpoint, but anyone from insinuating that socionics is esoterism. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I continue to believe in the necessity of a guideline, I nonetheless must return to my original position that Rmcnew should be topic banned from socionics, preferably indefinitely. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what your problem is with agreeing to a consensus with the other editors to follow wikipedia policy for verifiable sources according to wikipedias standards. It is a reasonable request and considering that your response is to have me banned from asking a reasonable request really shows your character. Put that with all of your other ad hominem attacks, such as calling me a "cult leader" and reverting information out of the article for the reasons that you thought it appropiate to call me "an arrogant pig" shows that your attitude isn't exactly enlightening. It is also extremely clear in your correspondances to other people (even arbcom admins) on their talk pages that you are wanting to oppress information out of the article you personally do not agree with despite the fact that wikipedia would otherwise allow that information when it meets a certain standard. Your refusal to cooperate with a proposal (and instead calling for my banning in response) in light of the fact that arbcom can take action on you for your inappropiate behavior, shows that arbcom should actually consider topic banning you, not just for continually insulting other editors, but also for instigating edit warring with your ad hominems. Calling someone an "arrogant pig" is not a reason to make a reversion when the content fits with wikipedias standards, which is the misbehaviour I am accusing you of and you keep trying to dodge away from it (and the admission and responsibility of faceing the consequences of it). --Rmcnew (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In conclusion, tcaud's very refusal to cooperate with a concensus with the other editors should show arbcom that he has no interest in cooperating with the other editors to create a quality wikipedia article. His actions are very telling in this regards. However, in the event that tcaud would concede to follow wikipedia policy and discontinues his past behavior I think he should be given a second chance. --Rmcnew (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

--Rmcnew (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for a topic ban. I was thinking Arbcom acted as a sort of "supreme court" ... eh well I guess I'm wasting my time. "Arbcom" doesn't seem aptly named... unless it means arbitration of admin disputes.

But Misplaced Pages is really lacking for a sense of expertise when it comes to complex or obscure topics. It seems to me that this is in Arbcom's jurisdiction actually, because what's at stake is preventing future vandalism by creating grounds for discipline in later cases. An organization is needed for this role if article quality is to continue improving.

...If a proposal is presented for a guideline by which to regulate the relationship of esoteric subjects to non-esoteric subjects, and discussions over that proposal "broke down", would Arbcom be the last resort in that case? Who rules over guidelines? Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My impression of Arbcom at this point is that it's a mixture of a prosecutorial board and a formal mediation committee for admins. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A topic ban is not required and actually would be disrupting neutrality, because esotericism applications are present in socionics theory to some degree and can be reliably sourced. Rather, the editors should be watched as to be sure not to be removing content for inappropriate reasons when the sources involves meet wikipedias standards for verifiable links, such as for the cause of committing ad hominem. My suggestion is to preview the whole history of the socionics article for users who have done reverts for reasons that are ad hominem or abusive in nature, and then give warnings or bans to those users. A topic ban is an insufficent solution IMO taking the nature of socionics. --Rmcnew (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)