Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am closing this discussion, as somebody has to ultimately - it's been open for 7 days (longer than a typical AfD and similar to an RfA) and this is AN, a high-volume noticeboard with usually a quick turnover. There is a clear consensus in favour of a siteban. Editors supporting as well as the RfC have identified major conduct issues extending over a long period of time. Alternative proposals did not attract significant enthusiasm. If the editor objects, he can still edit his own talk page and there is always the option of taking it to ArbCom. Orderinchaos 06:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus has been editing disruptively at various articles since 2006 (original research, refusal to accept consensus, tendentious editing). Basically he has unorthodox ideas about the history of science and insists upon interpreting primary sources. Similar problems recur wherever he edits. He refuses to engage in dispute resolution; he just ignores it or raises nonexistent procedural objections.

• First conduct RfC
• Content RfC
• Second conduct RfC

Ample diffs of disruptive editing are available at the second conduct RfC, which is unanimously supported by all involved and uninvolved editors other than Logicus himself. A review of the dispute resolution attempts and User talk:Logicus demonstrates that the problem is much worse than usual for a short block log: when warned for NPA, edit warring, etc. he just switches tactics. His posts are classic Wikipedia:Chunk o' text defense, so since he rebuffs all attempts at engagement am proposing a siteban. Durova³⁸⁶ 22:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus’s initial response to Durova’s siteban proposal: By way of an executive summary of this troublesome and troublemaking business for those with no prior knowledge of it, the very simple problem at the root of this dispute with Logicus can be put very briefly in the following simple nutshell. In what is now 3 RfCs, user Steve McCluskey and some others have alleged Logicus has inserted OR claims into articles, and even into a wide range of articles. But they have never identified nor even less proven any claim(s) Logicus has inserted into any article to be OR, and thus never provided any 'Evidence of the disputed behaviour'. And Logicus disputes their allegation as wholly false. But he has always shown willing to be persuaded otherwise and repeatedly invited his critics to identify where and why they think he has committed any OR claims in articles in order to enable evaluating the validity of their otherwise empty abstract claim and so to possibly resolve the dispute. But they have all failed to do so and refused to engage in any valid dispute resolution of their disputed claim. All other breach of policy allegations raised against Logicus seem consequential upon the primary OR allegation being valid and proven to be so, along with unfounded interpretations of Verifiability, Consensus and OR policy statements.

Contrary to the false impression and misrepresentations conveyed by Durova and McCluskey, the demonstrable fact is that Logicus has been a highly productive and improving editor, the great majority of whose many edits or consequential revisions of claims have been consensually sustained without challenge or controversy. Only a small minority of his edits have been contested without resolution by editors unable to accept Logicus's eliminations and corrections of claims in articles that he has validly demonstrated to be OR. McCluskey who is the troublemaker here is such an editor.

For those interested in a detailed demolition of the many false claims made in Durova's proposal here, Logicus is preparing a critique to be submitted shortly. But will contributors please show forbearance for the fact that Logicus is currently overwhelmed in trying to respond fully to the many injustly hostile claims made against him in this season of goodwill. Thank you ! --Logicus (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

--Logicus (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly encourage others to hold off on any final action, but in exchange I expect Logicus to refrain from making any edits to article or article talk pages save pure vandalism or copyvio reversion until this is settled, assuming that doesn't take more than a few days after he posts his critique for the issues to be resolved, excluding holidays. I also expect Logicus's critique to be well-documented and convincing. Anything less may do him more harm than good in the long run. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Question I assume I would be correct in believing this ban is to be under an "indefinite" tariff. Under the circumstances, is indefinite understood to be "until they provide an undertaking to address the various issues" or "until consensus for an unblock arises"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Standard offer. If they choose to appeal it would consider after 3-6 months depending upon activity at other WMF projects. Of course Logicus would need to acknowledge that a problem exists and pledge to remedy it. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support I would have anyway, but hopefully Durova's clarification will allow other reviewers to come to a better informed decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support, although with some reluctance. This editor appears to be bright, well read, and articulate. If Logicus used these faculties to help build this encyclopedia, in accordance with this community's policies and guidelines, he could be a valuable contributor. Instead, Logicus's main activity on Wikipedia is to self-publish his own opinions, re-interpretations of primary sources, and critiques of respected, reliable secondary sources. Logicus demonstrates no interest in collaboration with (as opposed to arguing at) other editors or respect for consensus. Many other editors have attempted, unsuccessfully, to engage Logicus about these problems on his talk page, on talk pages of articles that he edits, and in a current RFC/U. Indeed, Logicus has chosen not to submit a statement at the RFC/U; instead, he wikilawyers on the RFC/U's talk page, arguing about alleged procedural objections that are without substance. Since Logicus's objectives are not compatible with Wikipedia's objectives, his participation here is largely disruptive and his manner is tendentious. Unless this user commits to substantial changes in his behavior, and carries out a commitment by in fact conforming his behavior to community norms, it is time to end this user's disruptive participation.—Finell 23:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Question — should this be moved to WP:ANI? I had the impression that it was more suited for matters such as this than this page is. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  There have been recent problems with siteban proposals that were closed too quickly; one early closure indirectly caused a very contentious proposed arbitration case that is currently under discussion. So for a better heat to light ratio the slower of the two boards is preferable. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support I understand the general reluctance to impose a long-term siteban on any user, but Logicus has been engaged in disruption for a long time, and following the first last Conduct RfC, in which he declined to participate, he suspended and then resumed his disruption. He stopped editing with the posting of the RfC in early February, 2007, resumed active editing in June 2007, and by August was involved in a new dispute over Original Research at Bayesian probability. Adding to this the continuance of many other controversial edits over an extended period, the long-term tenacity of his disruption suggests that a long-term solution is called for. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I have watched his behaviour at Tycho Brahe and the result was not pretty. The damage he incurs on the encyclopedia is twofold, one is the obvious one introducing his own OR into articles, the other, which is probably worse, is that he wears down contributing editors to the point that there is a great risk of some of them leaving the project in disgust. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Logicus does appear to be very well-read, but he also appears to have an enormous blind-spot when it comes to critically evaluating evidence and arguments relating to points of view he feels strongly about. He also seems to have an inordinately exaggerated opinion of his own competence in matters of mathematics, physics and logic. In the discussion where I first encountered him, he committed at least three outright blunders in these areas—all delivered with the air of certainty one might expect from an expert. Subsequent experience has shown that this was not an isolated occurrence. Apart from those observations, Finell's remarks above seem to me to be a succinct and accurate summary of the problems with Logicus's activities on Wikipedia. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support per my comments below. Durova does not readily give up on people. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Logicus can head this off by constructively engaging in the RFC or working in good faith with an admin or mentor to avoid future problems, but shows no interest or inclination to so do. Lacking a good faith effort to understand what they are doing wrong and change it, I see no alternative right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I've seen a bit of Logicus around and have seen very little good. As someone else mentions here, he doesn't communicate, but rather pontificates. As this is a collaborative work, communication is absolutely necessary for any meaningful cooperation and work to be done together. I don't see this behavior changing anytime soon. He's pretty much backed us into a corner after multiple attempts to help him see the light. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I encountered Logicus at Charles Darwin. I'm still not sure what the actual problem was, but it involved a desire to change the article as well as the use of a serious quantity of text which can be seen in the talk archives: 6, 7, 8, 9. Some editors are simply disruptive and it is relatively easy to bid them farewell, but other editors (like Logicus) are more of a problem because we can see that there is talent and potential, yet they can impose an incredible drain on resources due to the need to handle their repetitive arguments. Reluctantly, I agree that Logicus shows no sign of following the collaborative style or the no original research requirements here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, though willing to see something on the lines of the alternative proposals allowing an appeal in 3 to 6 months subject to a new willingness to collaborate, express himself concisely and avoid original research. Johnuniq covers the issues well. As Logicus is currently disuputing any accusation of original research, this case shows Logicus arguing tendentiously and at length that a clear point about Darwin demonstrated by modern sources and by a relevant primary source should be overturned by Logicus's idiosyncratic interpretation of a foreword from 1950, followed when challenged by Logicus producing his own misleading interpretation of the Stanford Encyclopedia's article on evolution, and even arguing that Darwin was convinced of the opposite of what Darwin had written. When the discussion was archived, Logicus copied a large part of the discussion to a new section and resumed tendentious arguments, again being advised by other editors that this was unacceptable original research.[1] Dealing with such long-winded and repetitive distractions diverts attention and effort from the improvement of articles. . . dave souza, talk 16:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I haven't had any interactions with Logicus, but having looked at the contribution history and the diffs. linked in the RFC and above, I don't see any viable alternative to an indefinite ban - in fact I am surprised that the disruption was allowed to continue over two years, without any sign of change. At this point the onus is on Logicus to show that they can edit collaboratively and within wikipedia's core content policies; if Logicus can establish this in a few months, they'll be most welcome to resume editing (perhaps with some conditions), but any timed ban, which allows them to return automatically, will be ill-considered. Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This is too long a time to allow disruption to continue. I understand that the editor is bright and could in theory be a boon to the project, but the lack of cooperation shows that there's little hope of that ever occurring. -- Atama頭 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with no mentorships For me, his comments at Talk:Celestial_spheres#RfC:_Original_research.3F are more nothing than enough to see that a) he is not interested in adapting to wikipedia, b) he doesn't think that he has done anything wrong at all c) he is in possesion of the WP:TRUTH about wikipedia how should work d) any attempt to get him to change this attitude will be rebuffed or gamed e) he'll just go back to the previous behaviour. Any mentorship would be fruitless and it would only burn the mentor. P.D.: Looking at his draft reply from yesterday there is no way in hell that giving him two weeks of time is going to get an acceptable reply, he just kept blaming everyone else. Any delay to give him more time is going to accomplish nothing. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As a clear example, see how Logicus was given a painfully detailed explanation of why translations of primary sources are still primary sources, including several scholar sources, but he still refuses to get the point[2] (search for "translations" to find the relevant paragraph). This user is just trying to impose his own unacceptable interpretations of how wikipedia should be edited. I don't see how his stay could possibly benefit wikipedia, he's only fighting other editors that try to uphold basic wikipedia policies. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Logicus, it's clear from pursuing this thread, the RfC's, and your contributions that you're an incredibly intelligent fellow. So are the other people you're dealing with in these disputes. However, you have been given the opportunity at every turn to productively engage with the community, to use your intelligence to help build this encyclopedia. The hand of cooperation has been extended to you, and you dig your heels in deeper and harder- that you decided your draft response should be called "Demolishing Durova" [3] is prima facie evidence you do not want to cooperate. You are the one that could have avoided this measure even being considered. You could have stopped it, even at this late date. I firmly believe you know what behaviour is desired, and have chosen not to take the advice you have been given to heart, and that you would similarly ignore a mentorship if offered, leaving little option other than a site-ban for now, that you can appeal some months into the new year. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate proposals

[edit] Proposal one

• Proposed alternative: General topic ban from science, pseudoscience, and related articles, sections of articles, and even sentences within articles that touch on science and pseudoscience, along with a 1-revert-restriction project-wide and a mandatory mentor during the first few months after being allowed to edit science articles again. Personal bias alert: I'm against site-bans except for those who are either deliberately working against the project or those for whom all lesser sanctions, e.g. editing restrictions, mandatory mentorship, 0-RR parole, etc. have been tried and failed. This is not the case here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose alternative per this discussion. Durova³⁸⁶ 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Do you believe his intent is to disrupt the project, that it's not his intent to be disruptive but his actions have that effect and he doesn't seem to want to change, that he wants to change but doesn't seem capable of change without help, that he wants to change but he doesn't seem capable of change even with help, or some mix of he above, or something else altogether? Your edit above suggests he may not be aware of/willing to admit there is a problem. This is unfortunate. His attitude, his self-awareness, and his ability to change even if he wants to, with or without help, are important factors when crafting a solution to the problem. The better the attitude and more willing and able he is to change, the less the need for a site ban. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• My thoughts on that are expressed in the outside opinion at RfC, with followup at its talk page. Durova³⁸⁶ 01:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Question Do you see the proposed topic ban as extending to Talk pages, where much of the Disruptive Editing has taken place? SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would need to study the edits on the talk page more carefully. In general, if an editor is doing things like changing other people's comments enough to be disruptive, then yes, ban him from those talk pages. If he's using the talk pages to discuss things other than the articles, then probably. If the editor is just repeatedly making the same point over and over again about how to improve (according to his own definition of the word) the articles, I'm more inclined to give leeway - most of us are mature enough to just ignore article-improvement suggestions that have already been discussed and rejected, or politely say "rejected per last week's discussion" and let it go. I haven't checked his edits enough to determine the nature of the disruption on the talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• OpposeThanks for the reply. The disruption, which you described as "just repeatedly making the same point over and over again" has the effect, as Saddhiyama put it, of "wear[ing] down contributing editors to the point that there is a great risk of some of them leaving the project in disgust." Since this takes place primarily on Talk pages, this proposal won't cut it without a clear inclusion of this crucial aspect of the problem. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose alternative. This editor's disruptive behavior is not topic-specific; it is rather the nature of his approach to Wikipedia. He doesn't "get" what this project is about and, more importantly, clearly does not want to get it. I was unaware until now that he caused similar disruption at Bayesian probability, which is outside the top ban that this alternative proposes (it is in the fields of statistics and mathematics). While Logicus has on a few occasions deleted talk page content—he repeatedly deleted an RfC tag at Talk:Celestial spheres#RfC: Original research? and deleted a tabulation of the results of that RfC, both based on specious misinterpretations of policy—his main talk page disruption is extraordinarily lengthy harangues, with lots of boldface shouting, condescension to everyone else (he imperiously refers to himself in the third person), which interferes with normal discussion among the article's editors. Indeed, although that RfC was unanimous that his proposed (actually, inserted and later deleted by consensus) contribution was original research, he argued on and on against the closer, who reached the only possible result. His behavior at talk pages is similar to that which led to broad topic bans (including all talk pages) and probation of two editors in the recent Speed of light arbitration decision.—Finell 06:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If he truly does not want to get it, then this is sad. I hope that whatever the outcome, if he demonstrates that he wants to "get it" and work constructively with a mentor until he does, he will be allowed back in with no more restrictions than necessary. I would recommend his first few weeks be "no article, no article talk, without mentor approval" and see how it goes from there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 2

• Proposed alternative 2: Ask Logicus what self-imposed-but-community-enforced restrictions, if any, would help him become a better editor. He probably knows himself well enough to answer this question, if he thinks about it and is willing to accept that we, the community, are willing to help him help us build a better encyclopedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He was asked at the current RFC/U, but declined to answer. Have you actually looked at this editor's conduct, or at the 3 RFCs cited above as the basis for this proposed community sanction?—Finell 06:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it but did not study it. I missed that he had declined to answer. Assuming he did not answer the question privately, i.e. he is ignoring it, and assuming he didn't just miss the question as I missed your question earlier (btw thx), this does not bode well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus comments: I also missed where I was asked this at the current RfC. Where is it please ? Could Finell please produce it here ? As a life long supporter of the Co-operative movement also interested in Wikipedia becoming a democratic co-operative, I am perfectly willing to have community help to become a better editor. But the current difficulty I have with the as yet unfounded allegations of my inserting OR claims into many articles is that until somebody shows me where I have done so and howso, how can I possibly even begin to understand what it is I have done wrong and must improve on ? I showed my willingness to revise challenged material in the last RfC in response to Wilson’s unique allegations that some identifiable specific claims in it committed OS. I don’t understand what else I can possibly do. I find this whole business utterly bewildering, and nobody else I know can make any rational sense of it either. If I may charitably say so, I think you all need to seriously reflect upon the utterly appalling impression of Wikipedia it creates.--Logicus (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(interjected 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)) Logicus: You were asked at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2#Desired outcome, which I quote:

That Logicus will:

• Defer to consensus.
• Accept the consensus interpretation of Wikipedia Policy on Original Research
• Supply secondary sources for interpretive material.
• If no secondary sources exist, publish in a reliable vetted source before seeking publication in Wikipedia.
• Cease using Article Talk Pages to debate the subject matter of articles.

And, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2#Response was put there to give you a place to respond. You chose not to respond. If you had agreed to these conditions, which require no more than compliance with the policies that already apply to all Wikipedians, the RFC/U would have ended, and this siteban proposal would never have come about. Instead, you just argue, argue, argue, and argue, which, not surprisingly, is just what you did on several talk pages, which is what led to the RFC/U, which in turn led to this siteban proposal.—Finell 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus does not communicate; he pontificates. I think Durova has clarified that a site ban is now the only avenue of communication that remains - if he wants to overturn the decision he needs to communicate in an appropriate manner (that is, in good faith and to a determined purpose). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest an initial 3 month block with parole on return, appeal allowed via ArbCom. It's acceptable not to take part in an RfC but it's unacceptable to ignore well-founded criticism from people genuinely trying to help, which is what has happened here. The problem behaviour is also of a particularly troublesome kind, involving original research stated in ways which seem calculated to appear as if it is compliant with policy when it clearly isn't. Other steps having been tried, we have only a very few options left, and I fail to see how this would result in anything other than a ban if taken to arbitration at this stage. So let's short-cut the drama, give the user a time-out, but make it short enough that if he is prepared to reform, he can. If on return the problem behaviour resumes then we know what to do. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, the original proposal is for an indefinite block with an option to appeal in 3 to 6 months. He would need to build up a good history on a sister WMF project in order to get a review at 3 months. But the review wouldn't be hard to pass if he requests it. Durova³⁸⁶ 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee does not hand out indefinite bans. Should we? There is also a risk of sending someone on an anti-Wikipedia mission into sister projects (we have enough of that already). Guy (Help!) 21:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Community bans," bans where no admin is willing to un-block, are de facto indefinite. The arbitration committee has also handed down bans with language like "should the editor return, it will be under these conditions" which amounts to an indefinate ban, where the banned party gets to choose when or if he is willing to abide by the conditions of return. In general I see nothing wrong with an "indefinate" ban if there is a clear, reasonable path to lifting the ban. As a matter of routine, anyone who has not edited in a year who is under any indefinate ban should be allowed a {{second chance}} unless that was explicitly proscribed by whoever imposed the ban or it would conflict with post-return restrictions imposed at the time of the ban. Also, as a matter of routine, any indef ban can be appealed to the then-sitting ARBCOM at any time, but I would expect them to reject any appeal if the original ban was fair in process and outcome, and the conditions that led to it have not changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

An "anti-Wikipedia campaign" at a sister project wouldn't hasten anyone's return here. :) As someone who's sysopped on three of those smaller projects, please accept assurances that editors who run into trouble here in the big city often fare better at the small towns where the pace is slower and everyone knows each other. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to close

• It's been about 48 hours since this discussion started, so time has been given for everyone to respond from different timezones. It also is unambiguously going in one direction. I'm thinking of closing this in a little under 24 hours...unless there is some material objection? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  If you mean closing "Proposal 2" that sounds good. If you mean the whole discussion, see "Logicus’s initial response to Durova’s siteban proposal" and my reply above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel that since this problem has gone on for several years, we can afford to give it a little more time to resolve it properly. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Having just read Logicus's latest draft response on his talk page, I would emphasize the word "little" in the above. This draft shows no sign of engagement in dispute resolution (except in the OED's sense 8 of engagement: "The state of being engaged in fight; a battle, conflict, encounter.") --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This should be allowed to run its normal course, and should not be closed prematurely. The subject of this proposed siteban has asked for more time to submit a more complete response, and it is only fair to allow him to do so. Because of the holidays, many editors are less available than normal, and Logicus himself mentioned (on the RfC/U talk page, if I recall correctly) that his was the case with him. Given the seriousness of the sanction being considered here, Logicus should be given whatever time he needs. So far as I am aware, he is not engaging in any current disruption; should he do so, that can be dealt with quickly, even while the siteban proposal is still pending. Further, Durova explained above that she brought this matter here, rather than AN/I, because she did not want a quick close, as has happened in some recent cases at AN/I.—Finell 04:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There's some risk of him gaming the process with delays in order to prevent a sanction from happening at all. He's aware that the clock is ticking, and was advised in advance that a siteban proposal was coming. A failure to complete a draft response within a reasonable time frame is not reason to prevent action on a clear consensus, especially when the draft shows no sign of engagement in positive directions. See the bottom two threads on his user talk page. Durova³⁸⁶ 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean an endless amount of time, but rather a reasonable one in the circumstances. We can say when enough is enough, should it come to that. I also agree that Logicus shows no sign of recognizing or addressing the problems with his behavior, which itself is a big part of the problem. I've been as critical of his behavior as anyone. Still, we should allow him some reasonable additional time so that he cannot say with any justification that he was denied a sufficient opportunity to be heard.—Finell 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Finell ought to familiarise himself with how things work here before foolishly pretending this discussion has not run its normal course. If he or the banned user wants to appeal to ArbCom when this is closed, that's perfectly acceptable (in fact, I welcome it with open arms) and they can make their case for why it should be reconsidered. However, the call to unduely extend this discussion stems from straightforward disruptive conduct. Gaming of process is unacceptable; persistent wikilawyering to further other disputes is even more so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to all:Thanks to those few with a few relatively kind words here. This is just to let you know I have no internet access from this afternoon until next week. Meanwhile you may possibly enjoy the following Xmas carol that is one of the many co-operative products of the author of Logicus, namely NoisyNite1 @ www.celsere.com/Kumbella .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicus (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2009

Given what he has posted on his talk page, I'm not at all sure what additional time would do. His comment above doesn't suggest that he intends to move from his current position which is to deny that he's done anything he shouldn't do and to deny the validity of any RfCs involving him. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My take is that with Logicus's limited computer access over Christmas, Boxing Day, and the holiday weekend, a reasonable time to wrap this up would be the beginning of next week, i.e., before the end of the year. This would provide enough time for him to finish his response, but a clear limit to discourage any gaming of the system. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as Logicus is not editing elsewhere, then flexibility as regards timelimits should be easy. Once they respond (and editing elsewhere would be considered as such) then the matter can be progressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is a good example of the sickness at the heart of wikipedia. Twenty or so people get together and agree (almost in secret) that another editor should be banned—or indefinitely blocked, makes no practical difference. What should happen is that all those so keen on bans are banned themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that you have not previously seen the RfC and the discussion here previously does not mean it is being held "in secret" - and the editor concerned has had plenty of notice (and their disdain to engage also does not mean the ban is being imposed without consultation). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Further this - the RFC was listed on ANI and AN page headers since it was filed ten days ago, and the site ban discussion/proposal has been on AN for three days plus. These are noticeboards for a reason - they're the location of record for such discussions. Both time periods are longer than usually held to be required or standard for RFCs and ban discussions; Logicus has been given plenty of time to respond, as has everyone else.

Regarding the "twenty or so people get together..." - The right of the community, via consensus, to issue sanctions and bans has been established for many years now, Malleus. This is the standard place that they happen (either ANI or AN). Nobody is "keen" on a ban - people have been working with Logicus for months now trying to get him to comply with policy and edit and content standards. This is the end of an unfortunately unsuccessful effort to reform or mitigate the probelems. I urge anyone who thinks this was sudden or escalated too fast to review the talk pages of the articles he edits, his talk page, and his edit history. The problem's been stewing for roughly 3 years and been sufficiently problematic for action for at least months.

We need to be sure that we're not using "exhausted patience" lightly or without significant sustained provocation and good cause. But this case qualifies. Nobody has rashly acted without seeking discussion and community consensus. I literally have never seen anyone who so thoroughly didn't understand what they were doing wrong that they'd think that they could or should delete the certified RFC against them, before this case.

It is unfortunate that this has come down to the community having to defend itself from good-intentioned disruption by someone who wants to contribute positively successfully here. But, here we are. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus: I just do not know how to respond to all this. I cannot see how anybody could be more constructive than I have been. Will somebody please tell me what it is they want me to do ? Would it be to stop challenging, revising or deleting material I regard as OR and failed verifications, or that I cannot persuade anybody else is such ? I would be perfectly willing to do so for some period until misunderstanding is resolved.--Logicus (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposals of how to respond to these concerns were clearly spelled out at the RFC/U's desired outcomes. Read them carefully and you should get some ideas of what changes of your behavior are needed. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus has been given a reasonable amount of time to respond to the concerns raised int he RfC/U, and in the ban proposal. The community's view is clear and has not changed, and it is the wikilawyering by some users like Finell that is unhelpful. If Finell is unfamiliar, inexperienced or incapable of understanding precisely what constitutes a reasonable time for a ban discussion on Wikipedia, then he would be advised to find out before commenting on that point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(interjected) Ncmvocalist: As you see above, I support the proposed site ban. I have not said anything that can be described as wikilawyering. Further, I am not "unfamiliar, inexperienced or incapable of understanding ..." The fact that I called you on one of your blunders, Your reversal of John Vandenberg's "Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist", and for doing so by editing a section at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that "is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators" (when you aren't an administrator), does not make me fair game for your potshots. (Please include among your New Years' resolutions to stop carrying grudges.) Similarly, it is inappropriate for you to announce that you are "thinking of closing this" proposal on the Administrators' noticeboard (as opposed to suggesting that it be closed by an admin) when you aren't one. (Just so we are clear, I am NOT saying that closure would be invalid because you are the one who proposed it; anyone can do that.) However, whenever it is closed, it should be closed by an administrator.—Finell 01:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Finell, your input (albeit, noise) has been repeatedly unhelpful (and for that reason alone, unwelcome). Firstly, you've been the one carrying a grudge ever since I dismissed your bad faith comments and cries over the result concerning Lapsed Pacifist. If you had an issue with this, you should've discussed your concern with John Vandenberg first - you still have not done so to date which demonstrates precisely how disruptive you can be. In other words, beyond the talk page comment you found, John Vandenberg and I have already discussed this - in other words Finell, please stop beating a dead horse like a tendentious editor. Secondly, there is no requirement for an administrator to close the discussion - if you want to very foolishly appeal previous ban discussions I've closed in the same manner, be my guest; it'd be great for you to finally demonstrate what the real blunder is here - you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(interjected 18:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)) My comments to you were not in bad faith, and my response to you here was not "disruptiveness", as your your edit summary describes it. There is nothing to discuss with John Vandenberg: he already reverted your "revision" of his close at Arb Enf. Further, your grudges, to which I was referring, are not limited to me. I have the same concern about your behavior that others have expressed to you: you meddle in disputes that have nothing to do with you and you do so officiously, as though you were an administrator or arbitration clerk. You have not been elected or appointed to those, or any, position of responsibility on Wikipedia. Your conduct is not beyond criticism, and those who do disagree with your conduct are not necessarily wrong. In the 2 recent instances where you and I interacted (not counting the current one or Vandenberg's revert of your edit), your position was rejected and the consensus agreed with my position; I'm sorry if you consider that to be "unhelpful". So please consider your actions more carefully and discontinue your self-righteous remarks.—Finell 18:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Denying the truth will not change the truth, even if you think it appears self-righteous; please stop wasting valuable time and wiki-space with this nonsense. The fact that you persistently refuse to accept that a/ you don't know what you're talking about, and b/ neither John Vandenberg nor myself feels that your commentary is accurate or warranted, suggests that your behavior is nothing short of tendentious and grudge-bearing. That is, this goes way beyond what you think you know: exceptionally little. Prior to making criticisms, you should be familiar with all the relevant facts and circumstances - your failure to do so (like in this case), and you repeatedly refusing to do so, is reflected in your comments which aptly demonstrates your mind-boggling level of foolishness. What you should have done is reviewed your own repeatedly unhelpful commentary and then actually make an effort to learn how to resolve issues without causing a detriment to this project. Another example, you've repeatedly tried to allow problematic tendentious editors to damage Wikipedia with their edits for as long as possible in similar circumstances to this case: that is what is unwelcome and utterly unhelpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You and I obviously disagree about each other's conduct. I won't belabor this further here. Please be civil.—Finell 01:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than indefinitely keeping this discussion open, it would be better to enact the community consensus, and revisit if necessary in the future. Perhaps a few users can keep watch of Logicus' talk page in case he wishes to present something that either warrants a modification or removal of this sanction, or a proper appeal? This will give him all the time he needs to prepare whatever else he wishes to say. I think it's the preferrable method rather than introducing another shoddy precedent that allows for the gaming of the system by unhelpful and needless delays that clog up a community noticeboard. I also note that the support for the site-ban continues to pile-on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Two days ago I gave Logicus advice how to respond to this ban proposal.[4] I was willing to modify the proposal if he followed those suggestions. Finnell soon provided more input[5] and Logicus gave thanks for the advice.[6] Yet his subsequent draft was worse[7] and he follows up today by claiming he doesn't know how to respond and announcing a weeklong break. At Talk:Celestial spheres and other places he strung out discussions by claiming that things should remain his way as long as he didn't understand explanations that had already been given. He may appeal to the Arbitration Committee at anytime by follwing this link and emailing the address provided there. Durova³⁸⁶ 21:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • From looking at the timing of Logicus's past 500+ edits, I'm reasonably certain he's editing from a public facility that shuts down at specific hours. Given the extent that the UK closes down for the holidays, his plea that he will not have computer access over the weekend is probably bona fide. Taking that into consideration, I feel we should cut him a little slack until he's back on line. I can guess how he'll interpret the situation if he comes back Monday and finds a ban was implemented while he was away. We won't lose anything significant and I don't want to give him any excuse to claim some sort of unfairness in the process. My preference is still that we hold off until early next week. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree - your arguments are very persuasive. Let's not give him any excuses. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Are you suggesting any appeal body would be stupid enough to grant an appeal based on such an excuse, absent of any assurances regarding the underlying concerns? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Of course not. Or was that question aimed at SteveMcCluskey? Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
            • My concern is not only with formal appeal bodies, which as Ncmvocalist points out should easily see through such claims, but with other audiences to whom Logicus might characterize Wikipedia procedures as a "nakedly hostile 'lynch mob'". SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP AND READ: I've read a few of this fellow's posts and it's clear to me that he has some cognitive challenges. Prior to giving him the boot, he should be temp-blocked while a very linquistically adept admin dialogs with him on a talk page so as to corroborate that he actually understands what's being asked of him - and how it is that he is running afoul. I'd be willing to wager that this fellow has a learning disability or other personal communication challenge. Chasing him away like this is cruel. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that "learning disability or other personal communication challenge" you claim has allowed him to run amuck these past few years. Logicus has to be brought to heel, plain and simple. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.