User talk:SteveMcCluskey/sandbox2

Possible Editors

 * User:David J Wilson
 * User:Finell
 * User:Deor
 * User:Dave souza
 * User:Tomixdf -- Talk: Bayesian probability
 * User:Guettarda -- Talk:Charles Darwin

RFC/U Logicus 2 (Draft)
I am drafting a Requests for comment/User conduct concerning the conduct of since the abortive RfC of February 2007. Since you have been involved in the recent content RfC at Talk:Celestial spheres, I would appreciate it if you would look over the draft and see whether it seems appropriate, what revisions you would propose, or what you could add.

At the moment, parts of the RfC are little more than outline points and the desired outcome is totally undefined, but with cooperation perhaps something can be put together that could make it through the process.

I had hoped that this RfC would not need to be posted, given the recent closure of a content RfC on Logicus's edits. However, Logicus's recent comments suggest that I may have been to optimistic.

Feel free to either edit the draft or submit comments on its talk page.

Comments From Finell's talk page

 * I think that an RFC/U is a waste of time because Logicus does not care what anyone else says. If his conduct becomes truly disruptive, such as edit warring over article content, AN/I is the appropriate forum. Otherwise, there is no reason to argue with his talk page posts point-by-point; to do so is to play his game and provide him with amusement. Our time is better spent editing articles. —Finell 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You may be right that an RfC/U would be a waste of time, but as I look at the record, Logicus's behavior has long since passed the point of being disruptive, with a two-year record of disruptive arguments on talk pages concerning original research and point of view pushing in the associated articles.
 * I know the draft is terribly unwieldy, but would you please look at this section and consider
 * whether this record meets your threshold of disruption and
 * what is the best way to bring it to the attention of appropriate admins?
 * To paraphrase WP:DE, Logicus has just about exhausted the patience of this editor.
 * BTW, I've contacted a number of other editors who have been involved with Logicus, requesting their input.
 * Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about his behavior, and understand your loss of patience. However, it is easy enough to respond briefly or not at all to his talk page TLDRs, and that is all he appears to be doing now. He seems to have given up on inserting his OR into articles, at least for the time being. Admins won't act at AN/I unless there is ongoing disruption. While the length and nature of Logicus's talk page posts fit the definitions of disruptive and tendentious editing, at AN/I they may not earn him more than another warning. Removing talk page content and RfD tags would have warranted admin intervention when it was happening, but that is a bit stale now. Administrative action is solely for the purpose of preventing continuing disruption, not punishing past misconduct. If he again becomes sufficiently disruptive to warrant AN/I, past misconduct would be relevant as supporting evidence. An RFC/U, however it turns out, would accomplish nothing. So, I suggest doing nothing about Logicus now. —Finell 00:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Durova's talk page
I'm writing about how to deal with the talk page edits on Talk:Celestial spheres. Since your closing of the RfC, Logicus has resumed his abrasive editing style on the talk page (which includes arguing OR there, but not in the article).

A slightly involved editor whose opinions I respect told me that an RfC/U would be useless and
 * "Admins won't act at AN/I unless there is ongoing disruption, and I don't think his talk page posts are sufficiently disruptive to take to AN/I.... Administrative action is solely for the purpose of preventing continuing disruption, not punishing past misconduct."

The system seems to be well designed to deal with acute problems but is there a way to deal with long term (over two years) chronic, small scale, disruptive editing? (For an example of what I have in mind I've gathered a dossier in a draft RfC). If the advice I received was correct I fear that insofar as "exhausting the patience" is by definition a chronic, not an acute problem, WP:DE has become a dead letter.

I know you have past experience with these issues (including on the abandoned Community sanctions noticeboard) and your advice on the best way to proceed would be most welcome. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conduct RfC is a good idea. There are two reasons for it: one always hopes it has the desired effect, but if that doesn't happen it can show uninvolved editors which editors are reasonable and which aren't.  That does make things easier to deal with afterward.  Durova  371 04:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)