A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
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: 20:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC).
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:
Yet after years of editing, he has refused to accept, or to follow, Wikipedia's standards. As one editor summarized the situation:
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:
{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's troublesome edits, which had been criticized for its lack of sourcing and lack of balance, were moved to a new independent article.
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 entered a controversial definition of pseudoscience on 15:51, 4 September 2009, that was:
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.
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:
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:
(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:
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(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.
User:Deor raised a Request for Comment at Talk:Celestial spheres asking
The closing was performed by an uninvolved editor after a request at AN/I, who concluded:
The request for closing led to comments at AN/I
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
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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:
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.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
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: 20:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC).
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:
Yet after years of editing, he has refused to accept, or to follow, Wikipedia's standards. As one editor summarized the situation:
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:
{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's troublesome edits, which had been criticized for its lack of sourcing and lack of balance, were moved to a new independent article.
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 entered a controversial definition of pseudoscience on 15:51, 4 September 2009, that was:
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.
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:
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:
(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:
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(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.
User:Deor raised a Request for Comment at Talk:Celestial spheres asking
The closing was performed by an uninvolved editor after a request at AN/I, who concluded:
The request for closing led to comments at AN/I
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
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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:
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.