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)
As an administrator who is involved in attempting to deal with this situation:
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)
Logicus, yesterday I amended my certification with a link to User_talk:Logicus#Original_research. This satisfies any procedural issue as follows:
The first sentence of the statement of dispute focuses on the following:
The linked section of your user talk page contains the following:
There you have three certifiers attempting to resolve the original research issue and offering a reasonable alternative shortly before the RfC was filed. Only two certifiers are needed. It cannot have escaped your notice that this was an issue and people were attempting to resolve it, because you responded within that conversation and it is near the bottom of your user talk page.
At the content RfC I closed you insisted that attempt at dispute resolution was invalid by invoking nonexistent procedural requirements. Here again you claim the attempt at dispute resolution is invalid, although it obviously is valid. And two years ago at the previous conduct RfC you refused to participate. Instead you have used this time to propose changes to Wikipedia's verifiability policy which no one supports...and which, unsurprisingly, would open the door to exactly the kind of editing that forms the focus of this conduct RfC.
You want to delete this RfC; I'm willing to meet you halfway. We can conclude this early if you have no intention of accepting its validity. What I would also do is raise a siteban proposal at the administrators' noticeboard. That proposal would stand or fall on its merits, and if you are in fact not disruptive you have nothing to worry about. One way or another, it would wrap up the RfC...and one thing all of us can agree upon is that conduct RfCs are unpleasant for everybody. Durova 386 16:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Logicus to Durova:
I very much appreciate your effective acknowledgment that the RfC is invalid by virtue of breaching the 48 hour attempted resolution evidence rule and also your entirely unique effort, unlike others, to actually try and validate this irredeemably invalid RfC by at least providing some evidence of efforts by those certifying the dispute to resolve it in your revised certification. However invalid the RfC, it at least shows some effort to respect the currently accepted rules of Wikipedia, unlike the surely disgraceful misconduct of others.
However unfortunately the invalidity of this RfC is irredeemable and remains so, at least for the following reasons.
In the first instance, according to Wiki policy clearly stated at the head of this RfC and also on the RfC policy article, any such evidence had to be provided within 48 hours of 20:56 on 14 December. But it was not ! The only attempt at providing any such possible evidence, which you have attempted, was (un)/fortunately 3 days too late. And so that is the end of the matter. This RfC is invalid ! (e.g. This parrot is dead, dear !) It is no good retrospectively citing alleged evidence of efforts to resolve the dispute after the 48 hour deadline for the submission of such has passed.
Of course after this RfC has been deleted as invalid in accordance with Wikipedia policy, McCluskey may then again resurrect it. But its resurrection must comply with the requirement of providing evidence of attempted resolution by its two complainants/certifiers within 48 hours, a requirement that neither of the two complainants McCluskey and Finell have satisified, nor even attempted in this RfC.
Secondly, all the three alleged pieces of evidence of trying to resolve this dispute that you cite are not such at all, but are rather simply unhelpful comments on a quite different dispute, namely whether some particular material in the 'Celestial spheres' article was OR or not, which was also a dispute with a different user, namely user Deor, thereby being in breach of the RfC requirement that
"This [requirement that at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed] must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users."
That was a dispute with Logicus by the single user Deor about whether some specific material was OR in any respect or not, and so not this quite different dispute with user McCluskey (and user Finell) about the different issue of whether or not Logicus has inserted OR based claims in a wide range of articles. So the RfC is also grossly invalid on this second count.
Thirdly, none of the comments cited are even efforts to resolve the previous content dispute RfC and reach some compromise, let alone this misconduct RfC. Rather they all dogmatically beg the very question in dispute - of whether or not the material is OR - in favour of complainant Deor's disputed view that it is, and then without the slightest effort to resolve this dispute by persuading me why and where he might possibly be right or trying to reach some possible compromise, instead they just further presume the unfounded and false view that I am generally using Wikipedia to publish original research, which I am most certainly not, and imperiously and patronisingly tell me what they think my alternatives are for publishing this material if Deor is right that it is OR.
So nobody, for example, heeded the most pertinent advice of Graymornings of 4 May 2009 in the 'Dynamics of the celestial spheres' article that "The content [of the material] needs help from an expert who might be able to determine which is attributable and which is WP:SYNTH.", and so who might be able to show me if any of it is WP:SYNTH. (The ironic situation here is that there may be no greater expert on this material in the world than myself, but yet I cannot determine if any claim made in it is WP:SYNTH simply because I have forgotten most of the references in the extensive literature on the topic I have consulted over the last 40 years, although Wilson reminded me of one that I believe completely scuppers his particular WP:SYNTH objections once it is incorporated in the material as I have proposed.)
So these prejudiced question begging comments are not efforts at negotiation and compromise in the dispute, but rather nakedly hostile 'lynch mob' efforts to declare Logicus wrong without producing any evidence of any wrongdoing. And a fortiori even less are they attempts to resolve this different RfC dispute about whether or not Logicus has inserted OR claims in a wide range of articles, not merely just one. So on this third count this RfC is also grossly invalid.
Fourthly, as I interpret the requirements of who must provide evidence of attempts to resolve the dispute, it must be the two complainants who raised the RfC. One of these was McCluskey. But you notably fail to provide any evidence of him ever having done so. The fact that neither he nor Finell did within 48 hours and even to date also renders this RfC invalid. -- Logicus ( talk) 12:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
Have initiated a discussion at AN. Durova 386 22:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The proposed siteban has been approved at AN. It seems time to close and archive this RfC/U, referencing that action. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 19:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
As an administrator who is involved in attempting to deal with this situation:
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)
Logicus, yesterday I amended my certification with a link to User_talk:Logicus#Original_research. This satisfies any procedural issue as follows:
The first sentence of the statement of dispute focuses on the following:
The linked section of your user talk page contains the following:
There you have three certifiers attempting to resolve the original research issue and offering a reasonable alternative shortly before the RfC was filed. Only two certifiers are needed. It cannot have escaped your notice that this was an issue and people were attempting to resolve it, because you responded within that conversation and it is near the bottom of your user talk page.
At the content RfC I closed you insisted that attempt at dispute resolution was invalid by invoking nonexistent procedural requirements. Here again you claim the attempt at dispute resolution is invalid, although it obviously is valid. And two years ago at the previous conduct RfC you refused to participate. Instead you have used this time to propose changes to Wikipedia's verifiability policy which no one supports...and which, unsurprisingly, would open the door to exactly the kind of editing that forms the focus of this conduct RfC.
You want to delete this RfC; I'm willing to meet you halfway. We can conclude this early if you have no intention of accepting its validity. What I would also do is raise a siteban proposal at the administrators' noticeboard. That proposal would stand or fall on its merits, and if you are in fact not disruptive you have nothing to worry about. One way or another, it would wrap up the RfC...and one thing all of us can agree upon is that conduct RfCs are unpleasant for everybody. Durova 386 16:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Logicus to Durova:
I very much appreciate your effective acknowledgment that the RfC is invalid by virtue of breaching the 48 hour attempted resolution evidence rule and also your entirely unique effort, unlike others, to actually try and validate this irredeemably invalid RfC by at least providing some evidence of efforts by those certifying the dispute to resolve it in your revised certification. However invalid the RfC, it at least shows some effort to respect the currently accepted rules of Wikipedia, unlike the surely disgraceful misconduct of others.
However unfortunately the invalidity of this RfC is irredeemable and remains so, at least for the following reasons.
In the first instance, according to Wiki policy clearly stated at the head of this RfC and also on the RfC policy article, any such evidence had to be provided within 48 hours of 20:56 on 14 December. But it was not ! The only attempt at providing any such possible evidence, which you have attempted, was (un)/fortunately 3 days too late. And so that is the end of the matter. This RfC is invalid ! (e.g. This parrot is dead, dear !) It is no good retrospectively citing alleged evidence of efforts to resolve the dispute after the 48 hour deadline for the submission of such has passed.
Of course after this RfC has been deleted as invalid in accordance with Wikipedia policy, McCluskey may then again resurrect it. But its resurrection must comply with the requirement of providing evidence of attempted resolution by its two complainants/certifiers within 48 hours, a requirement that neither of the two complainants McCluskey and Finell have satisified, nor even attempted in this RfC.
Secondly, all the three alleged pieces of evidence of trying to resolve this dispute that you cite are not such at all, but are rather simply unhelpful comments on a quite different dispute, namely whether some particular material in the 'Celestial spheres' article was OR or not, which was also a dispute with a different user, namely user Deor, thereby being in breach of the RfC requirement that
"This [requirement that at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed] must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users."
That was a dispute with Logicus by the single user Deor about whether some specific material was OR in any respect or not, and so not this quite different dispute with user McCluskey (and user Finell) about the different issue of whether or not Logicus has inserted OR based claims in a wide range of articles. So the RfC is also grossly invalid on this second count.
Thirdly, none of the comments cited are even efforts to resolve the previous content dispute RfC and reach some compromise, let alone this misconduct RfC. Rather they all dogmatically beg the very question in dispute - of whether or not the material is OR - in favour of complainant Deor's disputed view that it is, and then without the slightest effort to resolve this dispute by persuading me why and where he might possibly be right or trying to reach some possible compromise, instead they just further presume the unfounded and false view that I am generally using Wikipedia to publish original research, which I am most certainly not, and imperiously and patronisingly tell me what they think my alternatives are for publishing this material if Deor is right that it is OR.
So nobody, for example, heeded the most pertinent advice of Graymornings of 4 May 2009 in the 'Dynamics of the celestial spheres' article that "The content [of the material] needs help from an expert who might be able to determine which is attributable and which is WP:SYNTH.", and so who might be able to show me if any of it is WP:SYNTH. (The ironic situation here is that there may be no greater expert on this material in the world than myself, but yet I cannot determine if any claim made in it is WP:SYNTH simply because I have forgotten most of the references in the extensive literature on the topic I have consulted over the last 40 years, although Wilson reminded me of one that I believe completely scuppers his particular WP:SYNTH objections once it is incorporated in the material as I have proposed.)
So these prejudiced question begging comments are not efforts at negotiation and compromise in the dispute, but rather nakedly hostile 'lynch mob' efforts to declare Logicus wrong without producing any evidence of any wrongdoing. And a fortiori even less are they attempts to resolve this different RfC dispute about whether or not Logicus has inserted OR claims in a wide range of articles, not merely just one. So on this third count this RfC is also grossly invalid.
Fourthly, as I interpret the requirements of who must provide evidence of attempts to resolve the dispute, it must be the two complainants who raised the RfC. One of these was McCluskey. But you notably fail to provide any evidence of him ever having done so. The fact that neither he nor Finell did within 48 hours and even to date also renders this RfC invalid. -- Logicus ( talk) 12:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
Have initiated a discussion at AN. Durova 386 22:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The proposed siteban has been approved at AN. It seems time to close and archive this RfC/U, referencing that action. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 19:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)