Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Evidence/Archive 2

Tcaullldig's basis for his reverts and unkempt uplifting of Rick Delong should be ignored

It is quite obvious that tcaullldig wants a carteblanc to break standard wikipedia policy, unjustly and against an editor (myself) who is only interested in following wikipedias policy for credible sources, and has only sought to follow wikipedia's policy. His implied request for a caretblanc to make reverts against sources that are otherwise credible by wikipedias standards simply because one certain editor posted those credible sources by wikipedia standards versus another should be ignored, as the pedestole he has placed under Rick Delong, another editor, should also be ignored for the same reason. Atleast until a PHD can be referenced for Rick Delong. The same is true for Dmitri Lytov, myself, and tcaullldig. As absolutely none of the editors have credentials as a PHD. So, finding and using credible sources according to wikipedias standards, and using only those sources is an appropiate thing to do. Taking that ... removing information for sake of personal attack is a completely inappropiate thing to do. Which leads to the following. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When you can't beat them, join them

I have been seeking credible sources for socionics theory. I admit that the majority of comparisons between socionics and hermeticism could correctly be labeled origional research, on part because there are no credible admissions that can be sourced for inclusion into the article. Therefore, I have ceased to include in the article any non-socionic related sources to that effect. Nevertheless, methods that have extreem similarity to hermetic and new age philosophy, includeing references to chakras and hinduism do exists in socionics theory and can be sourced credibly. Therefore, sources have been sourced quoteing this within the article.

I disagree fundamentally with those who claim that socionics has no esoteric connections, and that I believe that socionics from a general foundation is in fact related to outdated protoscientific techniques (once considered scientific, now can be considered pseudoscientific) that were derived from 100s of years old hermetic science.

Examples of this include:

1. similarity of the socionic information elements to tattwas.
2. That the information elements have (according to dmitri lytov) been considered to be associated to the central nervous system officially by ausura augusta.
3. That chakras have been considered part of the central nervous system by hermeticism, hinduism, and new age philosophies.
4. That tattwas have been considered part of the central nervous system by hermeticism, hinduism, and new age philosophies.
5. That tattwas are linked to chakras by hermeticism, hinduism, and new age philosophies.
6. That the information elements have been linked to chakras by socionic theorists
7. That socionists have adapted chakras and bioenergy to socionics theory, and are using socionics in a way that could be considered mystical or as an alternative medicine.
8. The obsession and comparison between synergetics theory, cybernetics theory, both of which are based on revived hermetic science. Alexander Bukalov has been known to author articles in his journal, with theoretical and speculative information that sound flammingly hermetic. He usually reports these articles to be based on synergetics and cybernetics theory.
9. The Periodic Table is quoted by socionists to be similar to the formation of socionics theory. The reason for this being not because the periodic table is associated with science, but rather that socionics development is compared, by history, to have had similar developments, and also that Medelev is Russian. The Periodic Table by Mendelev also came directly out of the same batch of protoscientific theories developed by hermeticists, and many of the early theories who speculated similar were often rediculed for following after mystic science.
10. Socionists have adapted new age and hindu philosophy into socionics with chakras and bioenergy, turning it into something of an alternative medicine. It should be noted here that many current New Age beliefs are also based on hermeticism, including usages of chakras and tattwas.

However, this is my personal stance. I have ceased to indicate this in the article other than what can be credibly sourced from legitimate and official socionics publications.

Would someone please show me the real tcaullldig?

I've got numerous references to tcaud's character on file that wikipedia administrators can access any time that they want with a click of a conveniently located button right here on wikipedia (not anywhere else- here on wikipedia). But this is totally irrelevant for me to even go into detail about things that happen outside of wikipedia in this whole discussion and is actually somewhat a slanderous thing for a person to keep emphasizing a negitivelly distorted and exagerrated version of someones personal traits on wikipedia (that happened somewhere else) in order to justify unnecessary reverts for ad hominem reasons. Altogether I'm rather surprised by this: I figured that tcaudillig would know better than to sit here idly, talking about things that took place on some other editable blog, which I seem to recall hasn't exactly been the source of any mainstream information. Now, I am watching tcaullldig quote something about transformers, parabalizing robots in order to justify to himself that ad hominems and slander are appropiate. I therefore proceed to watch tcaullldig pat himself on the back like he did a good job, while onlookers wonder why in the world this has to do with finding credible sources on wikipedia (according to standard) and therefore ponder all of tcaudillligs past ad hominem attacks against other editors besides rmcnew. And yet, here before us is not the new Tcaullldig, but the old. That same Tcaullldig who thinks that bringing in loads of libelous and slanderous information (that supposedly happened outside of wikipedia) while making ad hominem remarks is going to help his case. Included here is some talk about dramatic bullcrap that supposedly happened between Rick Delong and some other guy that is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion of tcaudillligs behavior. This makes you wonder why people have not noticed already that tcaud tends to run back and forth between people, sympathizing with whatever person he can use against someone else to further his own agendas. One week he is sympathizing with Rick Delong, the next week he is sideing with someone against Rick Delong. Which leads to the next issue in point ...

A Matter of Incomplete Policy

What we have here is a biased western takeover of an otherwise unknown eastern practiced field by various editors (the field is called socionics and the issues are between several editors) that is used in both pseudoscience and protoscientific context-- which is not (despite tcaulldigs claim)entirely a dimension of analytical psychology, and it would be as equally biased to call it a division of analytical psychology as it would be to call it something esoteric. Esoteric, mystical, and religious methods have been included within socionics theory and in the most extreme cases socionics has been used similar to new age alternative healing techniques. This is entirely evident by the sources that are posted (and were moved to the talk page), when one takes time to read them.

And it is a good point, because esoterism has been discussed officially in the socionics field. It is this fact that tcaulldig has not really appreciated socionics for socionics sake. Or has he? 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. And right after you figure out a persons sociotype, you compare their type to (new age sounding) bioenergy fields that are based on studies of the chakras. Therefore there is value in understanding how the functions of information metabolism are used in the context of estoerism, and in relation to chakras and bioenergy. 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, despite being based upon an anchient protoscience that many esoteric philosophies have based their own methods on, and it IS also 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", which is a catchy title with no source information included, meaning that until tcaullldig actually posts proof of this article existance it is impossible to verify that an actual article with this name actually exists. So studies of esoteric thought do indeed have a place in personality psychology journals, with the derivation of methods that have been adapted from esotericism into socionics.

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, whereas socionics could be rightly called anything except science. Socionics has nothing to do with western views of 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, and therefore have created protoscientific methods resembling alternative medicine that does indeed exist in socionics theory. I believe this solution that people should acknowledge this fact be far reaching enough that it should become policy, or at least a guideline that socionics has been adapted into something resembling an alternative medicine.

Proposed remedy

It seems to me that tcaud cannot competently distinguish between outside factors between the wikipedia article and credible sources. Therefore I propose that his proposal against one specific person, that person being myself, to be ignored on the basis that I have sought to base my edits on credible sources for the socionics article. He has no right to make unjustified reverts, no matter who that person is and what he thinks of them, so long as those sources are credible according to wikipedias standards. Tcaulldig should stop making personal attacks against editors as reasons for his unjustified reverts. There is little difference between myself and Rick Delong as editors in regards to credible sources and reverts should not be based on credibility attacks or praises of editors, but by the sources that are used and whether or not those sources meet wikipedia requirements. For example, calling someone a "cult leader" or "arrogant pig" is not a reason to make reverts, and neither is calling someone a "professional" or "experienced editor" a reason to believe everything that person in lue of finding credible sources meeting wikipedias standards, glorifying one editor above all other editors. In fact, he has indeed wrote those things such as "arrogant pig, how dare you say anything against jungian analysis" as reasons during some of his reverts. He also seems to, as I have already stated, lack the ability to distinguish between what goes on outside of wikipedia and what goes on the inside of wikipedia nor can he debate issues respectfully or even quote sources for that matter without attacking the personal credibility of an editor. In fact, personal attacking while making reverts seems to be his weapons of choice over more palatable methods, such as actually looking for credible sources. The solution is for him to stop making personal attacks and to start finding viable sources that can be included in the socionics article. And also to begin to transfer items from out of the russian wikipedia article. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)