Wiki How:Requests for comment/Logicus 2

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

*This RFC essentially moved over to WP:AN. As can be seen here: [1] the result of that conversation was an indefinite siteban of Logicus. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~. 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. The current date and time is: 13:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• Logicus (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Since at least 2006, Logicus (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) 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. These edits have frequently drawn criticism both on the articles' talk pages and in his own talk page, to which Logicus has responded with lengthy defenses that have been characterized by different editors, quoted below, as "overly long", "long winded", "incoherent", "unreadable", "inaccurate", and "pointless". To quote WP:DE, these edits "harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors."

His Original Research at Celestial spheres was recently the subject of an RfC, which closed with a consensus that it was original research. In subsequent discussions in a variety of venues, Logicus challenged the specific finding and the broader consensus within Wikipedia of the nature of original research.

He has frequently used article talk pages to debate the subject matter of the article, rather than the development of the article. In the course of these discussions, he has frequently challenged the validity of published secondary sources.

To provide a charitable interpretation, Logicus seems to be bringing the norms of a historical or philosophical research seminar, norms which conflict in various ways with Wikipedia policy, into Wikipedia. In a research seminar the student is expected to:

• Prefer primary sources to secondary sources, directly prohibited by WP:PRIMARY.
• Challenge the interpretation of secondary sources by providing one's own interpretation of the evidence, directly prohibited by WP:NOR.
• Strongly advocate ones own findings, directly prohibited by WP:NPOV.
• Challenge the alternative interpretations presented by other members of the seminar, which can conflict with WP:CIVIL.

Yet after years of editing, he has refused to accept, or to follow, Wikipedia's standards. As one editor summarized the situation:

"Looking at your recent contributions, most of your activity here has been waging, and losing, arguments; your impact on article content has been negligible, and much of the article content you have created has been deleted by the consensus of other editors. That is a waste of your talent."

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

This description provides sample edits from some of the articles where Logicus has engaged in controversial edits. Similar controversial edits could be provided for the articles Bayesian probability, Johannes Kepler, Parallax, History of evolutionary thought, Charles Darwin, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, and Richard Dawkins, as indicated by the editors' comments in the section on trying and failing to resolve the dispute. Providing full details from all these articles would consume a great deal of time and make this lengthy RfC too long to read; other editors familiar with those aspects of the dispute are welcome to provide additional details if they wish.

These two articles dealing with the celestial spheres formed a major element in Logicus's controversial edits. Logicus performed other controversial edits on these two articles which are not discussed here; this discussion focuses on his edits dealing with impetus theory and its role in the motions of the celestial spheres, which ultimately led to a subject matter RfC on the questions of Original Research and Balance.

• Logicus proposed on Talk page a new "section on inertia and the celestial spheres", 14:52, 14 June 2008.
• Deor replied that Logicus's proposed addition is "irrelevant in this article. You may want to add some of it (with better sourcing) to the appropriate sections of Inertia", 15:47, 14 June 2008.
• SteveMcCluskey described the addition as an attempt "to use the discussion of the celestial spheres as a coatrack on which he wishes to hang a discussion of his idiosyncratic pov on the history of inertia", 18:17, 18 June 2008
• Logicus inserted a discussion of "'Parisian impetus dynamics and the spheres," 16:21, 27 June 2008.
• Deor deleted the addition, as "unsourced and without consensus on talk page", 16:37, 27 June 2008.
• 158.143.135.0 (Logicus?) " Restores impetus dynamics section invalidly deleted by Deor, now more sourced", 17:56, 28 June 2008.
• Deor comments on Talk Page: "... the speculative conclusions ... drawn in the final paragraph violate WP:OR. I suggest that you read that policy—in particular, the section WP:SYN—before attempting to readd the material." 10:56, 29 June 2008.
• Deor reverts this and other edits by Logicus, "see Talk" 10:57, 29 June 2008.
• Logicus "Restores section on impetus dynamics and the spheres, of central relevance to their causes of motion", 17:53, 3 July 2008.
• Deor reverts this and other edits by Logicus, 18:33, 3 July 2008.
• Logicus "Restores information about the impetus dynamics of the celestial spheres, see Talk", 15:11, 30 July 2008.
• Logicus restores extended version of the "section on inertia in the celestial spheres, as proposed in Talk", 14:12, 16 September 2008 - 18:09, 17 September 2008.
• Logicus "Adds info on Aquinas and lawe of inertia", 18:21, 6 October 2008.
• Leadwind "moved advanced, detailed material to its own page", reducing article from 53,321 to 25433 bytes, 04:08, 4 May 2009.

Logicus's troublesome edits, which had been criticized for its lack of sourcing and lack of balance, were moved to a new independent article.

• Leadwind created new article, 04:04, 4 May 2009.
• Graymornings tagged page with Synthesis template, 04:28, 4 May 2009.
• Graymornings opened Talk Page, "The extensive notes included with the sources and the tone of the article lead me to believe that this contains significant amounts of OR", 04:31, 4 May 2009.
• Leadwind responded in Talk, "Don't be afraid to cut stuff that's fishy. There's too much bad stuff on WP", 22:41, 4 May 2009.
• Logicus deleted "unwarranted headline caveat on OR flag," 17:50, 23 July 2009.
• SteveMcCluskey commented in Talk on anachronisms in the article, noting that "attributing [the modern concept of Force" to Aristotle and his followers is profoundly misleading", 22:02, 20 August 2009.
• SteveMcCluskey explained major rewrite on Talk, noting problems of excessive weight, and use of primary sources, 16:30, 11 September 2009
• SteveMcCluskey completed "Major rewrite -- see talk", 16:32, 11 September 2009.

The material previously moved from Celestial spheres to Dynamics of the celestial spheres, and subsequently deleted in the course of a major revision of that article, was restored to Celestial spheres, a move that has been described as a POV fork.

• Logicus proposes in Talk "The restoration of Logicus’s contribution on the dynamics of the celestial spheres in the middle ages, invalidly removed by Leadwind", 03:59, 1 November 2009.
• Deor advises in Talk "against reintroducing the material to this article in defiance of consensus", 04:17, 1 November 2009.
• Logicus "Restores Logicus's contribution to the middle ages section invalidly removed by Leadwind in May, see today's Talk", 04:18, 1 November 2009.
• Deor reverts "no consensus for this addition; seek consensus on the talk page if you want", 04:24, 1 November 2009.
• Logicus restores "Logicus to Deor: Consensus on Talk page not required! Stop your disruption!", 04:38, 1 November 2009.
• SteveMcCluskey reverts "per consensus", 15:00, 1 November 2009.
• Deor initiates RfC on Original research, 15:59, 1 November 2009

Logicus entered a controversial definition of pseudoscience on 15:51, 4 September 2009, that was:

• deleted by 2over0, 20:15, 4 September 2009,
• restored by Logicus, 6:16, 11 September 2009,
• deleted by Verbal on 17:50, 11 September 2009, calling for consensus and reliable sources
• restored by Logicus on 14:26, 13 September 2009 as invalidly deleted, citing WP:BOLD
• deleted again by Verbal on 14:28, 13 September 2009, citing WP:BRD and WP:RS

The substantive issues raised in the discussions on the talk page[2] [3] concerning these edits addressed the fringe nature of Logicus's definition and the issues of undue weight, reliable sources, and original research.

As edits go, this one was settled relatively amicably using WP:BRD, although it reveals Logicus's problems with Undue Weight, Original Research and Reliable Sources.

User Logicus addressed this page with the stated intent of undermining what he saw as the hagiography of historians of science about the accuracy of Tycho's observations. After lengthy discussions on the talk page about the subject matter of the article and extensive controversial editing in the article itself, the original research was removed and the article was brought into conformity with NPOV.

In August 2009 Logicus entered into a series of controversial edits, whose central theme was to challenge the accuracy of Tycho Brahe's astronomical observations.

• Logicus deleted a section, 16:48, 25 August 2009.
• This edit reverted by 77.215.191.91 with edit summary "the source you removed which was accurately quoted (consider reading WP:NOR)", 17:56, 25 August 2009.
• Logicus tagged restored passage requesting quote stating "Current quote does not verify it is about observations rather than estimated positions, see today's Talk", 17:26, 26 August 2009.
• Tag deleted by SteveMcCluskey with edit summary "Why need a quote? This is a quote," 18:43, 26 August 2009.
• Logicus added an extensive original critique of the secondary literature to the article, including this summary, 15:57, 23 October 2009:

"Nevertheless historians of science typically assert his celestial positions were much more accurate than those of any predecessor or contemporary. But they do so either as a mere assertion without any evidence, or at best by invalidly cherry-picking just one favourable example of a more accurate position in comparison with some predecessor(s)"

• Logicus engaged in lengthy original research on the Talk page, providing a critical analysis of the secondary sources, dismissing those analyses with which he disagreed, 19:17, 27 October 2009:

"what Gingerich has done here is to most invalidly conclude.... Gingerich's evaluation of a 30fold superior accuracy of the Rudolphines must surely be discounted as unreliable, and an extreme example of hagiographical pseudo-history of science displacing reliable scientific history of science ?"

"Linton's 2004 claim that the Rudolphines were 30 times more accurate than all other tables would seem to be a mere parroting of Gingerich's 1989 invalid claim rather than an independent finding,, and thus equally to be discounted as a reliable summary of the comparative accuracy of the Rudolphines."

• Section tagged by 173.75.158.49 as NPOV violation, 21:33, 3 November 2009.
• Several sentences deleted by 71.182.236.206 for NPOV, 13:37, 6 November 2009.
• Sentence deleted by 71.182.236.206 for OR, 18:43, 6 November 2009.
• Wording removed by 71.182.236.206 as POV, 18:45, 6 November 2009.
• Extensive edit by Finell, including deletion of WP:NOR, 19:16, 6 November 2009.
• 71.182.248.124 deleted Weasel Words, 14:29, 9 November 2009.

Cite tagging: 9 Nov, 10 Nov,

• Logicus provided an extensive analysis of data from Tycho's star catalog on Talk Page, noting that by his analysis "the Rawlins source ... failed verification," describing Rawlin's conclusions as "shamelss hagiography", 19:02, 10 November 2009.
• 74.98.45.40 replied to Logicus on Talk Page, noting that "I disagree with your assessment of "shameless hagiography", unless by hagiography you mean verifiable presentation of the statements made by reliable sources." 21:35, 10 November 2009

An earlier RfC had been certified on 1 February 2007 by User:SteveMcCluskey and User:Ragesoss alleging repeated Disruptive Editing, Original Research, Incivility, and Personal Attacks on the part of Logicus in articles related to the History of Science.

The RfC ended without closure, the last substantive edit noting that:

In the month since this RfC was opened Logicus has not done any editing in Wikipedia and no further comments have been made on this RfC. This suspension of disruptive editing has opened the way for further progress on the affected articles.

Logicus's suspension of active editing[4] lasted from the end of January until the beginning of June (with the exception of one short bibliographic posting in March). In June 2007 Logicus resumed active editing, beginning with articles on philosophy and the philosophy of science.

A year later (10 July 2008) in the context of a new emerging controversy over Original Research at the article Celestial spheres, Logicus addressed the old RfC on his talk page. In the course of this lengthy discussion he noted:

As Logicus sees it, obstinate refusal to stand corrected in the face of Logicus's restorations of unjustified reverts of his corrections then leads to such editors getting themselves worked up into a paddy and making untenable wild accusations of Original Research and Disruptive Editing against what is in fact potentially corrective Productive Editing for improving Wikipedia.

However, in the last instance Logicus recognises the rules of Wikipedia seem to be radically confused and confusing from a logical point of view, whereby in addition to the fact that like all of us Logicus is far from infallible, it may be that he could be reasonably construed as having committed original research somewhere amongst his many contributions. But so far as he is aware, nobody has ever demonstrated he has to date.

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

In addition to the many examples provided in the Description above, we provide here a few illustrative examples from other articles of some of the disputed behavior:

• Bayesian probability "May I respectfully suggest you should perhaps consider reviewing whether you are sufficiently functionally literate in English to be attempting editing Wikipedia articles, let alone arrogantly asserting Humpty Dumpty style what articles on the philosophy of probability are about ?" Logicus 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Logicus's Talk Page "HOWEVER, the divine Durova's revelatory policy advice of 2 December casts a new light on this very issue..." Logicus 15:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Talk:Galileo Galilei Thoren's "passage is at least notably unreliable, if not typical of the incompetence of academic historians of science." Logicus 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • But see [5], where the offensive closing phrase is deleted. Logicus 12:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply: "Thoren's article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, and since Logicus's grounds for claiming he is mistaken are fallacious, I have removed the claim from the article." David Wilson 14:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Talk:Celestial Spheres "but Dreyer’s argument is invalid at least inasmuch as Ptolemy has real bands/spheres..." Logicus 19:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply: "'Dreyer's argument is invalid' = Original Research, and hence is irrelevant on Wikipedia." SteveMcCluskey 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• See also the examples in the discussion of "hagiography" in the section on Tycho Brahe edits, above.

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

2. Wikipedia:No original research, especially
   • WP:PRIMARY
   • WP:SYNTHESIS
3. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
4. Wikipedia:Civility
5. Wikipedia:Reliable sources
6. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, especially relevant is the rule that "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject."
7. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, especially relevant are these points, which seem to outline Logicus's past edits.

(provide diffs and links)

Numerous editors have drawn Logicus's attention to the nature of his edits, both on article talk pages and on his own talk page. A sample of those comments, and of Logicus's replies, is provided below.

1. Bayesian probability Original Research: "you still haven't provided a single citation to anyone who claims that the point you make is a 'fatal objection to the thesis'.", Bill Jefferys 19:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
   1. Reply: "[I]n the light of the invalidity of all the objections of Johnston, Gwern and yourself, I am persuaded to reformulate my proposed addition to try and make it clearer for the underinformed and logically confused, and much more briefly." Logicus 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
2. Bayesian probability "You are spamming the discussion page, please keep it short and to-the-point. About your contribution: (a) it contained overly long sentences that are unreadable (very bad style), (b) It does contain many unreferenced statements (starting at the first sentence!) and (c) it contains lots of POV/OR." 130.225.125.174 10:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
3. Bayesian probability "Logicus has, for a while now, been trying to add densely written paragraphs which turn out to make little sense when you take the time to understand them thoroughly." BenE 15:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
   1. Comment: "Yes, I've also noticed something seems to be wrong.... The current state of the article is unacceptable for such an important topic. Note that disruptive users can be reported to the administrators." Tomixdf 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
4. Johannes Kepler "Logicus deleted three references because, as he understood them, they did not agree with his original research on the history of astronomy. He then deleted the statement that had been supported by those references because it was unreferenced." SteveMcCluskey, 17:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
5. Parallax "We can't assert that the 'OED definition... is untenable'; Wikipedia can only include work that appears in reliable sources elsewhere. Please find a citation for your new proposed definition and include the citation in the article. If no citation is added, the new definition appears to be original research, and is therefore not suitable for Wikipedia." ASHill 17:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
6. Celestial spheres "it's irrelevant in this article. You may want to add some of it (with better sourcing) to the appropriate sections of Inertia." Deor 15:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
   1. Reply: "You are both wildly wrong about relevance. The physics of the celestial spheres is absolutely central." Logicus14:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Celestial spheres "use the discussion of the celestial spheres as a coatrack on which he wishes to hang a discussion of his idiosyncratic pov on the history of inertia." SteveMcCluskey 14:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Galileo Galilei "It is not up to me to justify the exclusion of the claims from the article by arguing against them, it is up to you to justify their inclusion by providing citations to appropriate sources." David Wilson 12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Global warming "Your unwillingness to exert these minimal efforts leads me to believe that you are here to create a disruption, and not to improve the article." Mishlai 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Global warming "Logicus was ... warned about his disruptive behavior on this talk page numerous times prior to the block." Raul654, 03:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
11. Gravitation "I reject your preliminary conclusion, as it is entirely based on original research. The conclusion of the Eddington et al paper is one made by three of the most eminent astronomers of the era.... An RfC may help to bring in more expert input." silly rabbit, 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
12. WikiProject Physics "I'm not interested in getting into an argument, but that seems to be Logicus's chief aim." siℓℓy rabbit 00:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Comment: "User:Logicus seems to have a contentious editing history." Wwheaton, 05:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
13. Tests of general relativity "[R]epeatedly demanding 'compliance with Wikipedia Verifiability policy, despite the opinions of other experienced editors that these demands have been plainly satisfied, does not appear to be headed in a constructive direction." silly rabbit, 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. History of evolutionary thought "Logicus, accusations that respected historians are incompetent and mindless is, at best, original research, and you'd do better to find reliable sources supporting the argument you're making." dave souza, 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Charles Darwin -- "At this point, I think the only thing left to do is to refer you to our guideline on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and this essay on Wikipedia:Tendentious editing." Guettarda 23:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
16. Dynamics of the celestial spheres "[T]his contains significant amounts of OR.... [T]he content needs help from an expert who might be able to determine which is attributable and which is WP:SYNTH." Graymornings 04:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
17. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Archived Logicus's discussion in talk as "Too long, too incoherent and inaccurate." dave souza 22:12, 12 May 2009
18. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Edit summary: "Undid revision ... by Logicus ... improper deletion of archived debate flag." Macdonald-ross 14:48, 14 May 2009
19. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck "[I]t is pointless to rail against text which is supported by reliable references." Macdonald-ross 13:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Charles Darwin "Once again Logicus is failing to read what's written in sources, and demanding that all others follow his or her idiosyncratic interpretation of primary sources, failing WP:NOR. This extended argumentation and repeated unnecessary tagging is disruptive rather than helpful." dave souza 16:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
21. Pseudoscience This is a WP:FRINGE definition of pseudoscience which is given WP:UNDUE prominence by the above contribution, and by the lack of independent WP:RS I would say any inclusion is undue. It also contains unsourced editorialising, making it WP:OR as well." Verbal 18:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
22. Richard Dawkins -- Soapboxing, Bluetd 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
23. Tycho Brahe -- "Try and get your novel ideas about Tycho Brahe published in a peer reviewed magazine before trying to change the Wikipedia article. This is not the place for OR." Saddhiyama 20:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Reply: "Logicus has no peers (-: And anyway only in the weird and whacky feudal ivory tower of academia does anybody regard peer review as anything other than a recipe for reactionary corruption by the usual suspects, a paradigm of 'the police investigating the police'(-:" Logicus 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Tycho Brahe "Even if the long-winded argument with which he has tried to support this claim were thoroughly convincing, and its logic impeccable, it would still constitute a synthesis of published material that advances a new position.... As such, according to Wikipedia's policy on no original research, its conclusion is prohibited from being added to the article.... This [other passage] is an egregiously unscholarly misuse of Dreyer's footnote as a source.... It is unconscionably bad form to cherry-pick a snippet of information from a source in support of an argument while omitting any mention of the fact that the source itself flatly contradicts the import of that argument." David Wilson 00:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
25. Tycho Brahe "Unless sources are brought forth immediately, I suggest that this entire paragraph be excised as WP:OR and non-WP:NPOV." 173.75.158.194 14:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
26. Celestial Spheres -- Original Research (Synthesis), 71.182.189.125 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) -- Original Research, POV, Finell 16:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Celestial spheres Disruptive editing (removal of RfC tag), 71.182.189.125 19:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Adding unsourced material to Bayesian Probability. EdJohnston 19:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
2. NPA at Talk:Bayesian Probability. Coppertwig 18:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. NPA at User:Coppertwig's talk page. Coppertwig 23:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Original Synthesis at Celestial Spheres. Deor 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Lack of Civility at User:Deor's talk page. ragesoss 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. NPA. ragesoss 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Please don't edit war against consensus at Charles Darwin. dave souza 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. "tendentious and disruptive approach to discussing and editing the Charles Darwin article." dave souza 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Warning "Removal of [RfC] templates may be considered vandalism." Finell 20:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. 3RR Warning (RfC template at Talk:Celestial spheres). David Wilson 00:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Another Warning Deleting or editing legitimate talk page comments at Talk:Celestial spheres. Deor 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deor raised a Request for Comment at Talk:Celestial spheres asking

Does the material added to the article in this edit constitute original research based on primary and selected secondary soures; and, more broadly, does it give undue weight to a particular approach to the topic of the article, overwhelming the encyclopedic treatment of the celestial spheres in antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance? Deor (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closing was performed by an uninvolved editor after a request at AN/I, who concluded:

Closer's note. Content RfCs do not need to be validated. Consensus is that primary sources are insufficient verification for the disputed material, due to the interpretive nature of the material. Removal from active article space is necessary per Wikipedia's no original research policy, pending acquisition of secondary sources to support it. Suggest userfication of that portion. If no secondary sources exist it is possible to generate that by publishing in a reliable vetted venue, then citing that source at Wikipedia. When that is done properly the update becomes uncontroversial. Durova³⁷¹ 17:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The request for closing led to comments at AN/I

• that "one of the editors involved has no intention of taking any notice of the outcome" and
• that expressed "serious doubts whether an editor who inserts a huge unintelligible OR mess into an article, then writes novel-length talk page threads defending it, consistently referring to himself in the third person, is an asset to the project."

After the closing Logicus continued to dispute the validity of the outcome, and the logical consistency and legitimacy of the Wikipedia concept of Original Research

• on the talk page of the article where the RfC was placed,
• on his own user talk page,
• on the user talk page of the closing editor,
• and on the talk page of the user sandbox where this RfC/U was in preparation.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Finell (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not a participant to the dispute, but attempted to resolve it with the celestial spheres content RfC closure and followup discussion. Durova³⁸⁰ 00:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Evidence of certifiers attempting and failing to resolve the dispute (Finell, Georgewilliamherbert, and myself).[6] Other attempts are documented in the section above; providing this procedurally to avoid any confusion over this RfC's validity. Durova³⁸³ 23:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Also not a participant in the dispute, but an uninvolved admin who has been trying to deal with the issues. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Certifying with respect to the matters discussed under #Celestial spheres / Dynamics of the celestial spheres edits above. Deor (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Certifying with respect to aspects of the dispute related to History of evolutionary thought and Charles Darwin. . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Certifying with respect to the RfC in Talk:Celestial spheres and the discussion here and here concerning a proposed edit of Logicus's to the Tycho Brahe article. Although Logicus did not continue to argue for the inclusion of this edit (apart from one irrelevant talk page response) in the Tycho Brahe article, he did subsequently add it to the Longomontanus article without any discussion on that article's talk page. He also did continue to argue with several other editors over other edits to the Tycho Brahe article which partly concerned the same issue —David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Logicus posts to the talk page of this RfC that my input helped him understand the original research policy. Then he discusses the disruptive editing guideline. As one of the primary original authors of the disruptive editing guideline, this is the place to offer input on that too.

When we drafted the proposal in 2006 there was little discussion of edit warring: Wikipedia already had an effective policy on edit warring. What we focused on much more was an essay called Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Wikipedia has a few participants who generate a consistent type of difficulty: discussions get stymied where they are present. As one problem after another occurs, a pattern emerges that all of the stumbling blocks share a common tendency. Usually that tendency has to do with getting articles to read a certain way.

The behaviors of disruptive editors include misinterpreting policy, circular argumentation, and trivial procedural objections to normal actions. It is not unusual for disruptive editors to accuse the people they are in conflict with of bad faith or collusion, when no evidence of bad faith or collusion exists. A typical disruptive editor insists that an article remain in their preferred version until he or she sees persuasive reasons for another version; afterward no reasons are ever persuasive enough.

Most disruptive editors act this way deliberately. A few truly are truly confused. Ultimately it does not matter whether an individual is unwilling or unable to adapt to Wikipedia's collaborative editing model. Every editor at this website encounters situations where consensus doesn't go their way. Most of us accept that when it happens. The disruptive editing guideline is about individuals who refuse to accept consensus and skirt the margins of blockable behavior: it provides for reasonable opportunities at feedback, additional opinions, and attempted dispute resolution. Eventually, if they still refuse to budge, the community sanctions those individuals.

To Logicus: several alternatives have been offered. You could userfy the disputed text from the celestial spheres article. If no reliable third party sources exist you could seek offsite publication in a reliable source. If you do not understand the objections you could still defer to them as consensus decisions for editorial purposes. It would be a good idea to choose one of these three paths until reliable third party sourcing becomes available.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Durova³⁸¹ 05:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Specifically the last paragraph - In Wikipedia; consensus, and not "Truth", is the bedrock of article writing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC) endorsing this but adding that having tried to have a discussion with this editor before, and seeing his 'discussions' elsewhere, I have come to the conclusion that it is unlikely that his behaviour will change and that it is not to the benefit of the project. His style, whether intentionally or not, wears down other editors and he is persistent with his long winded arguments (as another editor rightly described them) for his OR accompanied by insults to other editors. I would suggest mentorship although I don't know if it would be possible to find one. Without a mentor or the demonstration of both insight into the problems he causes to other editors and clear statements of how he is going to change his behaviour I do not think he is a benefit to the project. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. I am not convinced that Logicus is deliberately being disruptive, but this is a textbook example of tendentious editing. He needs to take this feedback to heart or risk a topic or site ban. Skinwalker (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. My impression is that Logicus is bright and well read, but erroneously views Wikipedia as a place for him to express himself as he sees fit. He probably believes in good faith that his opinions, which he seeks to inject into articles and discussions about articles, are correct, or at least are interesting alternatives to orthodox, published views. Meanwhile, he exhibits no interest in collaboration with (as opposed to arguing at) other editors or building consensus. Since Logicus's objectives are not compatible with Wikipedia's objectives, his participation here is largely disruptive and his manner is tendentious. Absent a very substantial change in his behavior, Logicus will not find satisfaction from editing Wikipedia, and Wikipedia will not benefit from his participation.—Finell 22:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Judging from what I've read so far at AN, it seems Logicus is committed to pushing his own views her in Wikipedia by trying to pull WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at the sheer expense of WP:NPOV. I've seen his long responses and I couldn't stomach them all. Given that his disputes have persisted for three years now despite many attempts to convince him to change his ways, I think the editors have long since lost good faith in dealing with him. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.