Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Assertions and Evidences Posted by Rmcnew

 * 10,551 words of material moved to talk page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

Evidence presented by Tcaudilllg
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

I can't dig a hole for McNew deeper than the one he's dug for himself
His entire thesis screams original research. Observe, he repeatedly attempts to persuade as though he's defending a dissertation, apparently oblivious to the true focus of this inquest.

Would someone please show me the real rmcnew?
I've got numerous references to rmcnew's character on file. If required I can repost them from the "request for arbitration" page. Altogether I'm rather surprised by this: I'd thought that in the face of rmcnew's acquiescence to Rick DeLong on Talk:Socionics a few days ago, that maybe he'd had an epiphany and had, perhaps, observed the virtue of the mainstream position. And yet, here before us is not the New McNew, but the old. It reminds me of an old Transformers comic where Megatron brings Starscream back from the dead. At first he seems like a completely new, bold Starscream who fights with self-assuredness and determination; until he gets wounded and ends up reverting right back to the original sycophantic schemer. I believe the title of that issue was "Skin Deep". Like Starscream, it appears that McNew's own "transformation" of the past few days was itself merely "skin deep".... Or maybe it was the mere fact that the Old McNew is being given a case to air his views at all. I had thought that when DeLong blocked McNew from removing the page that had evidence for his esoteric beliefs, that maybe he'd felt pressured to abandon his more adversarial self and instead had transitioned to a more conciliatory approach, as though the intense scrutiny of this, his place of last resort, had caused the adversarial side to recede, or at least cower. Yet the real issue is not rmcnew, but the mere matter that he has been taken seriously here in the first place, which brings us to the real issue...

A matter of incomplete policy
What we have here is an attempted takeover of a practiced soft science -- essentially, a dimension of analytical psychology -- by advocates of esoteric pseudoscience. Actually, McNew has brought up a good point, because we do indeed have in this case a situation where esoterism-focused papers have been published in a journal of the soft sciences. It is this fact which has enabled McNew to stake his claim. Or has it? It goes without saying that esoteric belief is relevant to socionics; after all, a postulate of socionics is that all people have a sociotype, including esoterists. Therefore there is value in understanding how the functions of information metabolism are used in the context of estoerism. It could be noted that socionists do, in fact, use ethnographic techniques to affirm or disaffirm their hypotheses, and one of these ethnographics is certainly belief in esoteric practice. Socionics is not esoterism, however it IS the study, in some contexts, of people who study esoterism. Aleksandr Boukalov, the person who presides over the journal in question, has indeed cited studies of esoteric people in at least one of his articles, "On the Function of Consciousness in Socionics". So studies of esoteric thought do indeed have a place in personality psychology journals.

These facts borne in mind, we are left to ask how the responsible secondary source treats studies of esoterism in the context of a non-esoteric science. On that matter, DeLong has proposed that the source merely observe that persons whom are notable in the field have contributed studies related to esoterism. I believe this solution far reaching enough that it should become policy, or at least a guideline.

Proposed remedy
Clerk Note:, As this page is for evidence, and not proposed outcomes, I have moved this content to the workshop talkpage. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

Exhibit A: Disruption of an rfc
A week ago I told the committee about my intention to propose a guideline by which to give Arbcom leeway over content in so far as people (like Rmcnew) use hostile sources to try to mislead people as to the nature of the article's topic. Rmcnew edited the rfc with roughly the same thing he put on the workshop about a "proposed consensus", but did not mention the proposal itself. Was that appropriate?

You can see the diff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATcaudilllg%2FEsoterism_in_Academics&action=historysubmit&diff=320879528&oldid=320806269 Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Exhibit B: Legal threats against users
In the following passage, rmcnew makes repeated legal threats against my person and against Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Evidence&oldid=322183760#Proposition_given_to_tcaulldig_and_other_editors


 * Observe even on this page, he continues his threatening.

Exhibit C: Soapboxing
User:rmcnew emphasizes his intention to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for his belief that socionics has been developed by improper means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Evidence&oldid=322183760#Proposition_given_to_tcaulldig_and_other_editors

These intentions were repeatedly acted on by means of the socionics article. (see diff)

Evidence presented by rmcnew
Clerk Note: I have copied a large amount of material, which didn't appear to be "evidence", per se, but which may be useful in getting a background to the dispute, to here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

diff #1: abusive language and inappropiate ad hominem reasons stated for reversions
Example of ad hominem reversion and abusive language for reasons that are unsatisfactory.

Reversions made with/for ad hominem responses/reasons by tcaud. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionics&diff=prev&oldid=312652214

The consensus agreement that I am insisting tcaud agree too is in effect a reasonable compromise for any such issues that have arisen in the past concerning this. I would agree that the source in question has since not been considered a reasonable source, so tcaudillig actually could have removed that. The sources in question was Rick Delong stateing that socionics is protoscience. So, my beef is not with tcaud removing the information in this instance, it was his insulting tone of voice and stateing an inappropiate reason for removal of the information listed. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

diff #2: removal of comment from an area where there was a (right out there in the open) place with a tag labeling a request for comment from other editors
Tcaud had removed a comment I placed in an area with a clear tag that stated "request for comment for other editors", where I felt I could place a comment concerning the issue at hand. For some reason tcaud removed the comment, which I do not think was entirely appropiate taking that there was a tag that stated "request for comment for other editors", which clearly invited me to state my own opinion on the matter in my mind. He just recently created a "diff" about it.

You can see the diff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATcaudilllg%2FEsoterism_in_Academics&action=historysubmit&diff=320879528&oldid=320806269 --Rmcnew (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Exhibit B: More remarks that could be considered slander, libel, and blackmail
In the following passage, tcaulldig makes continued ad hominem remarks, libel, and even claims he has access to an internet database I doubt he really has access to. I tell him that his behavior is not only inappropiate, it is an illegal notion. He then makes an "exhibit B" claiming that I am making legal threats, when he is basically all around begging for legal threats. Despite tcaulldigs claims no threats were made by me against anybody exceping that tcaulldigs behavior both towards myself and other editors is a concern for both myself, wikipedia and other editors as a cooperative unit against tcaulldigs behavior. I believe that wikipedia administration already has sufficent reasoning to ban us both despite what has gone on in this arbitration page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Evidence&oldid=322183760#Proposition_given_to_tcaulldig_and_other_editors

Exhibit C: Accusation of Soapboxing and Tcaulldig's vandalism of written article segments
User: tcaulldig insists that I have been using the article to soapbox. This is not true and much of what was previously written had been previously previewed by a wikipedia administrator, who saw nothing inately wrong with the information, though it was later decided that many of the links used were not relaible enough and the information was removed. It took a while until other editors began to help with the restructuring of the data and appropiate agreements were made, as well as agreement upon links. This included the removal of origional research throughout the whole article, that was placed there by editors other than myself. Some of the origional research removed was placed there by user: tcaulldig. I was initially frustrated over a period of time where either other editors were simply not helping, distorting article segements out of context (vandalizing the article segments to say entirely the opposite of what was origionally written)(note: tcaulldig had done this on occasion), and/or complaining about what was being written. These issues have since been resolved in the article itself.

Tcaulldig Lists here as the soapbox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Evidence&oldid=322183760#Proposition_given_to_tcaulldig_and_other_editors

Exhibit D: Consensus Form
Origional: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionics#Statement_of_consensus

NOTE: It would be helpful for the arbcom committee to follow the link above and read the whole section all the way down.

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 inappropriately 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)
 * 2) I obviously agree with the policies; there shouldn't be a need or consensus, tbh. If any exceptions are to be made, they should be by an Admin (Manning). MichaelExe (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Rick DeLong. Of course. However, within any sphere of knowledge sources may be found that make claims that are not accepted in the community as a whole. The danger with this consensus is that McNew [may unintentionally] misrepresent the field of socionics by prominently quoting articles that are not regarded as highly important to socionics theory to create an impression that is not representative of the views of most socionists. Therefore, I recommend modelling the English article on socionics after the Russian one. --Rick DeLong (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree with modelling the article after the russian one, which is what I was doing before tcaud went crazy with the reverts and ad hominen attacks on my character again. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Rmcnew has clearly not been abiding by these standards, but I have never done anything differently when I was taking part in this argument. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Romolampkin. I agree with the consensus. Romolampkin (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) I object with being singled out and also agree that no one had done anything differently, because no one was actually abideing by those standards untill I took it upon myself to find reliable sources, which took a while considering the vast number of unreliable sources that could be found versus the small number of reliable ones. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:18, 5 October 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)

NOTE: It would be helpful for the arbcom committee to follow the link and read the whole section all the way down.

Exhibit: E - Difs and examples of Tcaulldig's history of making personal attacks on others
I may add more to this as I find the information. He also has a few noticeboard complaints where users have complained about his personal attacking.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tcaudilllg#Apparent_threats
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tcaudilllg#Getting_Personal
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionics&diff=299820684&oldid=299629707
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tcaudilllg#A_Caution

Exhibit: F - Tcaulldigs personal attacks on my persons
Tcaulldigs has made a number of personal attacks on my persons throughout this arbcom, from saying that I am a "cult leader" to being "mental disabled" to "incompetent", of which absolutely none of these accusations are valid and are in all legal aspects libelous and slanderous. I recommend that the arbcom committee previews tcaulldigs history of making personal attacks on wikipedia and render out a punishment or verdict on the basis of his inappropiateness in this aspect. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Exhibit G: - Inappropiate canvasing and intent to find support for libelous slander of other editors
Tcaulldig has been inappropiatelly canvasing for support, which not only shows his intent to commit libel and slander, but is wholely inappropiate. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=322353613&oldid=322352975

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{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.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.