Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Evidence

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 (speak to me) 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 Wikipedia where the defenders against the crank got turned out from Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia 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  talk 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)