Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Logicus 2

Your mooted misconduct RfC contra Logicus

The following text was copied from User talk:SteveMcCluskey/sandbox2

Dear Steve McCluskey, Lady and Gentlemen and all:

I see you are mooting a plan to raise another (mis)conduct RfC against Logicus, on which you have already done a most impressively extensive and detailed amount of research. I much regret you have felt obliged to so. But if you possibly have time, I would be most grateful if you would also produce a compendium of my overwhelmingly many productive and improving edits in order to provide a more balanced and less negatively biassed account of my conduct overall, including my many successful removals of your own many commissions of OR with failed verifications in addition to those of many other editors. You might even consider being good enough to compute what proportion of all Logicus's edits have been productive and accepted edits or caused accepted revisions.

But my main message here is to say please hold your horses for the while on raising it, for it may well be entirely unnecessary for your purposes to do so and save much further time on all our parts if you did not do so, but rather just discussed you complaints with me first, in line with dispute resolution policy on RfCs. For it may well be that I would now technically agree with your misconduct complaints of OR and DE.

This is because there may have been a major development in my understanding of Wikipedia policy in the form of a possible revelation induced by Dunrova’s policy advice comment of 2 December on the Talk:Celestial spheres page. So in the first instance please now see my response to her of yesterday, “Dunrova the Revelator ?” if you have not already done so.. And also please see my clarificatory query to Wilson on the same page.

So in the light of this revelation it may well be that what you see as misconduct on my part has arisen from a profoundly different interpretation of policy from yours on my part, and one that it now seems may well be incorrect if Durova is right. But first of all may I assure you that all my editing has been done in very good faith that it is neither OR nor DE, informed by (i) a systematic and detailed logically joined-up scrutiny of Wikipedia policy and (ii) also the study of many Wikipedia articles to determine the apparent interpretation of its policy in practice. And I have most certainly not, as some few editors such as yourself, Deor, Durova, Finell and Georgewilliamherbert have alleged or implied, ever purposely used or sought to use Wikipedia for publishing OR.

HOWEVER, if as it now transpires OR can be whatever some editor declares to be OR without providing any valid proof that it is, such as identifying the claim made that is alleged to be OR and also identifying what OR policy rule it breaches and demonstrating the breach, THEN it may be that I have committed OR and extensively so. Indeed as in the plea of Bloom in the trial in ‘The Producers’, I may even plead " incredibly guilty". But whilst yet denying I have ever or significantly committed it on the criterion of the provision of a valid demonstration of NOR policy having been breached.

And if DE is such as repeatedly restoring edits that just in some editor's subjective opinion do not improve the article, then I may also be guilty of having committed it. What typically happens with disputed edits is that some editor claims the edit is in breach of NOR policy or some other policy, and sometimes reverting it, and imperiously instructs Logicus to read that policy, but which Logicus has usually already read in considerable detail. Then when Logicus denies their charge and challenges that editor to demonstrate the breach, they typically fail to do so. This is precisely the point at which Durova's policy advice on where the burden of proof of OR lies in Wikipedia policy is so crucially revelatory. They then either drop the issue and accept the edit or its restoration, possibly suggesting they are unable to demonstrate a breach, whether or not policy requires them to do so, or sometimes then just accuse Logicus of DE, but again without demonstrating the edit is not an improvement. But if the editor persists in making 2 or more reversions alleging DE, note that Logicus typically gives up rather than risk accusations of 'edit warring'.

And further to this conflicting interpretation of NOR and Verifiability policy on where the burden of proof of OR lies, this last RfC has also revealed crucially conflicting interpretations of whether translations are primary or secondary sources in Wikipedia OR policy, and also conflict over what is consensus. These three pillars of conflicting policy interpretations between Logicus and some other Wikipedians - burden of proof of OR, what is a primary/secondary source and what is consensus - seem to largely if not wholly explain why you and a few others see conduct that Logicus interprets as perfectly legitimate as misconduct, and what Logicus sees as outrageous and infuriating misconduct by some others as perfectly legitimate. I would ask you to please engage in a period of reflection on this possibility in this season of goodwill. (And please also bear in mind my previous explanation of why Logicus sometimes gets accused of OR in the first place is perhaps due to the less extensive reading of such editors and/or their possibly defective logico-literacy skills, making invalid inferences from what material they do read. I hazard this, together with the conflicting policy interpretations identified here, explains most of what trouble I have experienced in respect of OR and DE allegations.

So what is to be done in this situation ? I'm not sure myself and am still thinking through the ramifications of these conflicting policy interpretations and how to modify my editing practice in the light of Durova's advice if correct. But I do ask you to consider not raising this misconduct RfC in the Xmas season at least until reconsidering the matter in the New Year. And I suggest it might help us make progress if you were to indicate what sort of outcome you are thinking of seeking from this possible RfC. Thank you ! --Logicus (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Like you, I hope that this draft RfC never needs to be implemented. I was pleased to read that you are now beginning to come to understand Wikipedia policy on Original Research and that you recognize that, under that new understanding, "it may be that I have committed OR and extensively so." This is a very positive step. The crucial issue is whether you can fully internalize that policy (which can be difficult for one trained in the environment of academic research) and whether that, and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, will guide your future edits and discussions.

On the matter of Disruptive Editing, you appear to identify that concept with mere Edit Warring. In fact, the concept is so much broader and general that you may find it to be disturbingly illogical. This summary spells out the many different individual activities, many of which in themselves are violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that also contribute to the overarching concept of disruptive editing.

As I look out at the first snow of the season, I hope your Christmas is Happy and your New Year a productive one.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So as a matter of interest, what was it that made you change your mind and implement the RfC ? Did I make too many valuable contributions to the Celestial spheres article ? Or do I just question your opinions too much ? --Logicus (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I, like you, wish that this did not need to be raised. However, your renewed legalistic challenges to the consensus obtained in the previous content RfC made it clear that the question of User Conduct needed to be addressed by the community. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to McCluskey: But I have not made any “renewed legalistic challenges to the consensus obtained in the previous content RfC”. What on Earth are you talking about ? Surely not my new requests of yesterday to Deor, Finell, Whoosit and reminder request to yourself to kindly identify what claim(s) in the previous RfC material they allege to be OR, so that I may remedy it/them by revising the material if possible ? Such a request does not challenge any RfC consensus, even if there had been one about OR. It merely asks for those people’s help in improving the material by their identifying what claims they think require verifying sources or are not verified by the sources already provided. Otherwise I am left in the continuing Kafkaesque situation of not knowing where and why the material allegedly commits the sin it is accused of. Nobody except Wilson has ever identified any OR claims made in the material, and in my view Wilson's have already been dealt with by my proposed revisions of the allegedly offending four sentences.

And what community do you possibly refer to here by “the community” that ‘needs to address’ my user conduct? So far as I can see virtually none of the Wikipedia community respond to your RfCs. But your attempted Christmas crucifixion of Logicus by your vanishingly little gangs of Wikipedia may no doubt provide further excellent grist for the mill of critics of the rankly undemocratic and injust procedural corruption of Wikipedia beneath its myth of democratic openness. And it may also help identify some of those editors and admins who create the impression of being the kind of very vicious ‘ugly American’ bully boys and girls who practice and promote it whose support it seems you wish to attract (-:

Now before you succeed in getting Logicus banned from Wikipedia altogether, please do explain for once, what is your vehement objection to the ‘Celestial spheres’ article or some other article including an account of the medieval and Arabic origins of Newtonian classical dynamics in relation to the physics of the spheres, of the ilk originally pioneered by Duhem ? What do you have against the reportage of medieval or Arabic modern scientific achievements in articles, if anything, or just against the Duhemian continuist analysis ? And why do you and your supporters refuse to help improve such material by identifying exactly where you think it needs improving ? Why so desperate to see it not improved for inclusion ?

Inter alia, surely it is ill advised to even further entrench your already established but no doubt undeserved Wikipedia reputation as the old buffoon Emeritus Colonel McClustard stoutly defending the English language Wikipedia Alamo from its American cultural imperialism being overrun by Islamic cultural imperialism ? Especially at Christmas time (-: In the fullness of time may you come to appreciate my yuletide christian efforts to save you from yourself, God willing (-: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicus (talk • contribs) 13:38, 15 December 2009

Discussion after moving section

As an administrator who is involved in attempting to deal with this situation:

1. Administrators and other senior users in the community are involved.
2. Logicus does not have to acknowledge the validity of the RFC, but the RFC was certified, can proceed, and is valid with or without his participation.
3. If the outcome of the RFC is that Logicus' behavior is disruptive, and the disruptive behavior continues, I and other administrators can respond to protect Wikipedia. Standard responses for disruptive behavior include formal warnings and if they are not heeded, blocks from editing, to protect the encyclopedia.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus:I am deleting this RfC because it is in breach of the RfC rules requirement that

"Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on the user's talk page, or the talk page(s) involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it."

And that requirement as stated at the head of the RfC itself

“In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with Logicus (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC). If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted.”

But no such evidence was presented anywhere within 48 hours showing that any two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute, neither on my talk page nor elsewhere. Neither the two complainants McCluskey and Finell, nor any other certifying users, have provided any such evidence.

I therefore understand the RfC must be deleted, and so I shall delete it in good faith.

Hence the above comment by Georgewilliamherbert that “the RFC was certified, can proceed, and is valid with or without his participation.” is apparently grossly mistaken. I trust he will not then accuse me of Disruptive editing for deleting such a blatantly invalid RfC.

The main dispute stated in the RfC is that "Since at least 2006, Logicus has been engaged in an ongoing program of pushing his own point of view, based largely on original research, in a wide range of articles, chiefly concerned with the sciences and the history and philosophy of science."

But this is not true, and nor is any evidence presented in the RfC that Logicus has committed OR anywhere. Neither in its ‘Description’ section nor in its ‘Evidence of disputed behaviour’ section is any example given of Logicus having committed OR. The most that are identified are “controversial” edits, but of course such as edits removing other editors’ OR are likely to be controversial. Even on Durova’s alleged policy rule that whatever any challenger says is OR is OR.

The main dispute here is about whether Logicus has committed OR in a wide range of articles. McCluskey claims he has, but Logicus claims he never has and points out that McCluskey has never demonstrated even just one example of any OR claim(s) made by Logicus in any article to date, after the manner in which Logicus has repeatedly identified the many OR claims of McCluskey and many others in the model manner of always quoting the claim made and demonstrating the failure of the verifying source quoted for any sufficiently literate reader of English--Logicus (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The many editors who have tried to resolve this dispute are listed in the section Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute.

It may not be wise to try to delete this RfC. It will gain you nothing as the RfC will promptly be restored and it will merely dig you deeper into a hole by violating more of Wikipedia's practices. It's your call. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to McCluskey: No so evidence provided. On my screen the crucial section you link-cite here is entirely devoid of any such evidence, with no diffs or links whatever provided. And the section following it, "Editors' comments on the disputed behavior", they are not even comments about the disputed behaviour, namely committing OR in a wide range of articles or not, but rather an extremely biased and rambling collection of comments by some editors about Logicus edits they disliked, perhaps most typically because they exposed or removed their own OR. But these comments include not a single example of the evidence of any editor ever trying to resolve this particular dispute, namely a dispute between you and I about whether or not I have committed OR in a wide range of articles or not, which I have not. And indeed how could they possibly do so, because it has only been raised now in this invalid RfC and without your ever discussing it with me first, as is required by RfC policy ? So likewise nor has anybody else ever tried to resolve this particular dispute by some form of negotiation and possible compromise. If I may be allowed to express an opinion, you seem to be far too severely confused to be conducting valid and focused RfCs. Maybe the cold weather …?

Thus this RfC is clearly grossly invalid and should be deleted on the 48 hour rule. Does this require some uninvolved admin to do so ? --Logicus (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus - Deleting the RFC would be prima facie evidence of your disruption and disregard for process on Wikipedia. If you do so you will be blocked and the page restored. Please engage in constructive discussion and do not attempt to evade or obstruct Wikipedia process. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see my above comments to McCluskey. --Logicus (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

POV Summary

The problems with OR and soapboxing are obvious, but can someone briefly summarize the POV Logicus is trying to introduce? I tried reading his additions to celestial spheres and gave up. I can also see that he doesn't like Darwin or Dawkins very much. Skinwalker (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to give a brief summary of one aspect of the problem; a comprehensive answer would be extremely difficult since Logicus has developed strong points of view on a number of different questions. Limiting myself to the issue at Celestial spheres, his POV reflects an idiosyncratic emphasis on one aspect of the problem. Central to this POV are his interpretations of the roles of the concepts of inertia and impetus in pre-Newtonian terrestrial and celestial dynamics, which besides adding to these discussions of the celestial spheres, he has also added to the article on Theory of impetus. His Original Research on these topics, which you have noted, relies on the interpretation of primary sources, often using the anachronistic tools of modern mathematics to draw inferences which he does not support by citing secondary sources and which, in many instances, go beyond the interpretations of those sources accepted by most historians.

Hope this helps clarify this aspect of the problem for you. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)