Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-16/Socionics

I completely and utterly object to being singled out. I have given my arguments below. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RMCNEW OBJECTS TO BEING SINGLED OUT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS
I object to singled out for the following reasons, and have also listed what I believe to be appropiate solutions for the matter:

THE REAL REASON THAT THE ARTICLE IS LACKING NEUTRALITY, AND HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM
ISSUE: A SMALL MAJORITY AMONG A GROUP OF ACTIVE EDITORS ARE OBJECTING TO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON WIKIPEDIA OF ESOTERIC METHODS IN SOCIONICS THEORY. AS A RESULT, RMCNEW IS SINGLED OUT ON THE ISSUE IN THIS GROUP. OTHER EDITORS ARE ACCUSEING RMCNEW'S EDITS TO BE UNNEUTRAL. FURTHER, SOME EDITORS HAVE ACCUSED RMCNEW AS UNNECESSARILY UNDERMINING THE SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION OF SOCIONICS BY INSISTING THAT REPRESENTATION OF AN ESOTERIC POINT OF VIEW IN SOCIONICS IS NOTABLE AND NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. OTHER EDITORS RESPOND BY CLAIMING THAT REPRESENTATION OF THE ESOTERIC POINTS OF VIEW IS NON-NOTABLE FRINGE THEORY, AND THEREFORE NON-NOTABLE. RMCNEW DISAGREES WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THESE EDITORS, STATEING THAT ESOTERICISM IS A PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY IN SOCIONICS THEORY. RMCNEW ELABORATES PROOFS AND COMPARISONS BETWEEN HERMETICISM AND SOCIONICS THEORY TO SHOW THIS TO BE THE CASE.

RMCNEW'S VIEWPOINT: ESOTERIC METHODS ARE PRESENT IN SOCIONICS THEORY. RMCNEW BELIEVES THAT OTHER EDITORS ARE IN THE WRONG IN OBJECTING, BECAUSE THEY ARE CONFUSEING TWO DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC METHODS WITH EACH OTHER, AND ARE UNNEUTRALLY AND UNINTENTIONALLY INSERTING WESTERN CULTURAL VALUES OVER EASTERN ONES. OTHER EDITORS ACCUSE RMCNEW AS BEING UNNEUTRAL, BECAUSE ESOTERIC METHODS ARE NOT CONSIDERED SCIENTIFIC IN WESTERN SCIENCE. RMCNEW RESPONDS BY CALLING SOCIONICS A PROTOSCIENCE. RMCNEW BELIEVES THAT DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN OTHER EDITORS AND HIMSELF IS RATHER A CULTURAL CONFLICT PHENOMENON, WHERE OTHER EDITORS MISUNDERSTAND HIS ACTUAL POSITION.

PROBLEM: Many editors do not understand the difference between deductive and inductive methods in relationship to eastern and western view of science, and with socionics, and are therefore objecting to legitimate points of view in socionics theory, which is the real reason that the article is lacking neutrality. Neutral point of view will be an issue so long as the other editors keep ignorantly insisting that the socionics view of science adhere's to western point view of science. Socionics wasn't necessarily built around a western view of science. Neutrality in that aspect would be to represent both the eastern and western view of science, and since the other editors seem to have indicated that they don't readily understand the difference between the two, it is leading to confusions over the word "science", where legitimate scientific methods in socionics theory are being confused with wild and crazy esoteric ideas, because the means of science is "deductive", therefore seemingly esoteric methods are being used within socionics theory, which are rejected as scientific methods by western science. This is why you can not rely on anyone saying that socionics is "scientific", because the ideas of what is "science" between socionics and that person could be two entirely different things. As a result of this confusion over the word "science", there have been editors who have been argueing that includeing references to anything seemingly "esoteric" is unneutral, when the reality is that these editors are confuseing two different scientific methods with each other, and not readily differentiating.

SOLUTION: So, the solution to the article in order to create a neutral point of view is to distinguish that socionics has an initial foundation on "deductive" scientific methods, where in the west the tendency is to overlay the "deductive foundation" with "inductive reasoning". So, the actual means to neutrality is for the other editors to understand the difference between deductive and inductive methods in socionics theory, and to clarify the difference properly in the article with the emphasis that seemingly esoteric methods have always been used in socionics theory, and that these esoteric methods were considered scientific by socionics. You can also consider socionics a protoscience in this regards, in that it does not in its foundation adhere to the western view of science. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

THE REAL REASON THAT THERE ARE "ORIGIONAL RESEARCH", "VERIFIABILITY" AND "RELIABILITY" COMPLAINTS"
ISSUE: AS A RESULT OF RMCNEW EXPLAINING WHY ESOTERIC METHODS ARE PRESENT IN SOCIONICS THEORY, IN ORDER TO CONVEY THE VALUE IN NEUTRALLY REPRESENTING ALL VIEWPOINTS IN SOCIONICS THEORY, OTHER EDITORS HAVE ARGUED "ORIGIONAL RESEARCH." RMCNEW ACKNOWLEDGES THAT MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE DEBATE COULD BE CONSIDERED "ORIGIONAL RESEARCH", BUT BELIEVES THE DISCUSSION, INCLUDEING "ORIGIONAL RESEARCH", IS NECESSARY REGARDLESS. THIS "ORIGIONAL RESEARCH" COMPLAINT HAS INVOLVED COMPAREING SOCIONICS TO HERMETICISM, AND SHOWING PROOFS THAT SOCIONICS IS HERMETICISM OR SIMILAR TO HERMETICISM. THIS WAS DONE BY RMCNEW, USEING BOTH CREDIBLE AND QUESTIONABLE SOURCES, AS AN ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WESTERN AND EASTERN SCIENCE. AFTER INTENSE ARGUMENTATION WITH A STALEMATE ON THE DEBATE, SEVERAL OTHER EDITORS RESPONDED IN FRUSTRATION, CALLING RMCNEW A "CONSPIRACY THEORIST", AND WITH NO CREDIBLE COUNTER INFORMATION RESORTING TO "PASSIVE MANIPULATION" AND "LOGICAL FALLACIES" AS AN ATTEMPT TO PROVE RMCNEW WRONG, AND A SERIES OF "FALSE ACCUSATIONS" INTENDED TO CONVINCE THE WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATION THAT RMCNEW SHOULD BE BLOCKED FROM EDITING WIKIPEDIA. RMCNEW RESPONDED BY POSTING BOTH CREDIBLE AND QUESTIONABLE SOURCES SHOWING EVIDENCE THAT WHAT HE SAID IS THE CASE, WHILE POINTING OUT THE "LACK OF LOGIC" IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THOSE RESPONDING.

RMCNEW'S VIEW: HERMETIC SCIENCE IS "DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE" IN THE "WESTERN WORLD", WHERE "DEDUCTIVE SCIENCE" IS TYPICALLY ONLY VALUED IN THE "EAST". WHILE ARGUABLY "ORIGIONAL RESEARCH", RMCNEW FELT IT NECESSARY TO MAKE THE COMPARISON, IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE ARTICLE, AND ESTABLISH THAT THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SCIENCES THAT ARE BEING CONFUSED AS ONE SCIENCE. RMCNEW UNDERSTANDS THAT SPECULATIVE IDEAS SHOULD ONLY BE LISTED IN THE ARTICLE AS CRITICISM, AND SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED ANYWHERE ELSE LIKEWISE. RMCNEW HAS ALREADY COMPLIED AND UNDERSTANDS THAT PEER REVIEW PHD ARTICLES BELONG, BUT COUNTER NOTES THAT A MAJOR AMOUNT OF QUESTIONABLE "ORIGIONAL RESEARCH" IS RAMPANT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE ARTICLE, NOT JUST IN THE MATERIAL HE HAS WRITTEN. RMCNEW THINKS IT IS HYPOCRITICAL THAT AN INSANE AMOUNT OF EDITORS DIRECT SO MUCH ENERGY TOWARDS HIS EDITS, WHEN AT THE SAME TIME THEY FAIL TO CORRECT THE "ORIGIONAL RESEARCH" FOUND ON THEIR OWN EDITS. WHEN RMCNEW POINTS OUT THE "ORIGIONAL RESEARCH" IN OTHER PARTS OF THE ARTICLE, A MAJORITY OF EDITORS FAIL TO SEE THE POINT IN CORRECTING THAT ORIGIONAL RESEARCH, CLAIMING THAT THE INFORMATION IS LEGIT, DESPITE THAT THE "ORIGIONAL RESEARCH" THESE EDITORS BELIEVE IS "LEGIT", OFTEN HAS NO CREDIBLE BACKING BY PHD AND PEER REVIEWED SOURCES OR IN THE WORST OF CASES ANY SOURCES AT ALL FOR THAT MATTER. RMCNEW BELIEVES THAT THIS FURTHER DEMONSTRATES A GENERAL LACK OF NEUTRALITY, FOR REASONS ALREADY STATED. RMCNEW HAS MADE A DETERMINED EFFORT TO FIND CREDIBLE SOURCES FOR THE AREAS HE EDITS, DESPITE THE CLAIMS OF THE OTHER EDITORS.

PROBLEM: Socionics, in general, lacks credibility in the west, and most credible source articles are in russian. Therefore, credible PHD and PEER reviewed articles that can be used as sources are hard to come by. As a result legitimate aspects of socionics theory are hard to convey with the absence of direct and credible sources, and are therefore conveyed in the wikipedia article with either no sources or questionable sources. This has caused a serious amount of "origional research" to have enveloped the majority of the socionics wikipedia article.

SOLUTION: A majority of the article is arguably origional research and lacks credible sources. All editors should seek to find credible sources for what is written, rewrite accordingly, and stop complaining about the additions of other editors. Further, editors should learn to use better logic. "Logical Fallacies" make terrible counter arguments, and are easily pointed out. Good reasoning skills is the key.

What would you like to change about this?
We need to come to a consensus.

I agree that all editors should come to a consesus, but it should be a consensus that truly promotes neutrality, credibility, and a quality wikipedia article. I disagree with this subtly conveyed "consensus" that singleing out and bullying rmcnew into submitting to the views of other editors equals consensus. I think that the editors should first understand why I am doing what I am doing. I believe that it is the other way around, that a couple of the other editors are unintentionally promoteing their own unneutral viewpoint, and then claiming that I have an unneutral viewpoint. I only want neutrality. I have already argued my stance below. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your point on neutrality, and agree completely, but most of your sources are not credible, and/or do not provide direct support for what you've been arguing. Whether you're right or wrong is beside the point. MichaelExe (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a point, but look at the whole article compared to the small bit I have written. Origional research and lack of credible sources in entire sections is rampant throughout the whole article, and the other editors have obviously spent more time complaining about my edits, than they have in helping to clear up the overall lack of sources and origional research overall. Is that behavior conducive to the creation of a quality wikipedia page? It is quite obvious that I have spent a great deal of time looking for sources, credible or no. Can you say that about the other editors? I think Rudieboy helped to discover sources for a while, but it was mostly as a means to attempt to refute my 'supposed position'(which actually backfired on him). To me, finding credible sources would be the first step in beginning to correct origional research issues. The other editors, they seem to do an aweful lot of complaining, reverting, and generally doing nothing else otherwise. They should be out looking for credible sources instead. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources and Personal Attacks from Both of Them Now
I know it's against the rules but...''I'm going to be citing Viktor Gulenko's blog in this article. Technically his blog is an auxiliary to his published work. It also explains why I worded the information metabolism section as I did.''

''If there are any claims that the blog is an unreliable source, I will ignore them. Tcaudilllg (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)''
 * This is much worse than what Rmcnew has been doing. At least he tries to look for better sources and recognizes the one's that are unreliable when pointed out. You jump in the middle of everything, starting with the same type of unreliable sources as Rmcnew did (much earlier on) and immediately claim you'll ignore anyone's arguments against your edits. I give him credit for working with us. MichaelExe (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd much sooner be banned from the article than him with this against you. MichaelExe (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Tcaulldig making unconstructive reverts ''This is completely childish. Tcaulldig keeps makeing unconstructive reverts with reasons that are purely personal attacks. I have challenged him again and again to post socionic sources and he fails to to post any. He has no credible backup for any of his claim, while I have made a continued effort to find credible sources, and to rewrite the article accordingly. I have come to the conclusion that tcaulldig just wants to (passivelly) troll around and make unconstructive reverts, for reasons that equate to unnecessary personal attacks. His reverts and personal attacks should stop immediatelly. In fact, that is about all he has done for the past couple of months. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)''
 * Isn't calling one's behaviour childish or like that of a troll equally a personal attack? MichaelExe (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

About the revert ''Tcaulldig, you have continually failed to post sources, while making ad hominem personal remarks. You keep talking about blocking me from wikipedia, and when I challenge you to post sources, you don't post them. You keep calling legitimate things concerning socionics theory 'non-notable', when those things are essential parts of socionics theory. And you also keep making unconstructive rereverts, that arn't really justified short of calling names and using dysphemisms. This is completely childish on your part. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)''

About the revert ''And you stop saying that I should be blocked from the article, because it is probably just going to backfire on you and get us both locked out. Considering that you keep making these unconstructive reverts that are for ad hominem reasons. Personal attacks are not reasons to make reverts. Stop immediatelly. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)''
 * I think we just found our solution, tbh. A temporary block from the article and talk page would do some good for the two of them. During that time, they might just realize their implication in the dispute. MichaelExe (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If only one of the two should be blocked, it's Tcaulldig, because he doesn't justify his reverts, and I can at least work with Rmcnew by checking in on the article every couple days. Rmcnew's sources are improving gradually, although still not quite meeting the standards, while Tcaulldig decided to start at the bottom of reliability in sources. He hasn't done it yet, but we should keep his words in mind. MichaelExe (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be fair ... it is likely that tcaulldig would have the same difficulty in finding credible sources that I have. Also, there are very few credible socionic articles that don't go into some esotericism or comparison to esotericism or religions, short of maybe Gulenko or Reinin mathematical theories. Considering that he wants to exclude that information from the wikipedia article (meaning he won't go out of his way to post those sources), he is going to have an even tougher time finding credible sources. That is why he wants to insist on posting sources that are otherwise unreliable. And more than likely he won't go any further than those sources. Besides this, he makes personal attacks when someone posts credible sources that shows that esotericism is present in socionics theory, despite that those are credible sources and legitimate views. He doesn't want representation for that in any way, shape, or form. His only means of refution is personal attack. He has nothing else to go by. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)