Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Socionomics

Socionomics[edit]

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Failed. One party refused to continue to participate

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 16:04, October 31 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties[edit]

Rgfolsom
Smallbones

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionomics

Issues to be mediated[edit]

Should Robert Prechter be the focus of the initial paragraph
Do the words "non-scientific," "invented," and "self-published" communicate a NPOV

(or are they simple statements of fact)?

Are the authorities cited by Rgfolsom adequate to describe Socionomics as a "theory" instead of a "non-scientific theory"
When a non-academic invents a new theory and gives it a scientific sounding name such as "Socionomics" is it POV to point out that it is a non-scientific theory?
How much evidence is needed to show that a theory is based on science before 'non-scientific' becomes POV? Is one footnote in one peer reviewed journal enough?

Parties' agreement to mediate[edit]

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree Rgfolsom 16:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Smallbones 19:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

Accept

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[yell at me]} 01:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the case. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 17:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Mediating[edit]

Hello ^demon, after I put the note on your talk page, I re-read the Guide to Accepted Cases and saw that I should have made put those comments here. Again, I look forward to hearing from you about what to do & what you need.

Rgfolsom 15:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Begin[edit]

Thank you Rgfolsom and Smallbones for agreeing to mediation. My first question is whether the two of you would prefer public mediation (via the talkpage), or private mediation (via e-mail). ^demon^{[yell at me]} 17:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep the process public, but I'll yield to what you and Smallbones think will help get us to a productive outcome. Thanks,

Rgfolsom 17:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer private, but am unsure how that would work, i.e. how could we contact you? I'm not reluctant to reveal my e-mail to one person, but I am to the whole world. Smallbones 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Smallbones would prefer that we conduct this mediation privately, and Rgfolsom was willing to conceede that to him, we shall do this privately. As to how we can keep this private, I will begin by asking each of you to e-mail me. You can do this by clicking "E-mail this user" on the left bar, or you can just go to my userpage, it's listed there if you read the "Contact me" section. Once I have both of your e-mail addresses, we can begin this. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

Hello ^demon,

I have emailed you (Nov. 21) regarding the socionomics mediation, though you haven't acknowledged the message. On the chance that my email did not arrive, please tell me the status of our mediation. Thank you. Rgfolsom 14:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.