Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Logicus 2

The following text was copied from User talk:SteveMcCluskey/sandbox2
Dear Steve McCluskey, Lady and Gentlemen and all:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Discussion after moving section
As an administrator who is involved in attempting to deal with this situation: Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Administrators and other senior users in the community are involved.
 * 2) Logicus does not have to acknowledge the validity of the RFC, but the RFC was certified, can proceed, and is valid with or without his participation.
 * 3) If the outcome of the RFC is that Logicus' behavior is disruptive, and the disruptive behavior continues, I and other administrators can respond to protect Wikipedia.  Standard responses for disruptive behavior include formal warnings and if they are not heeded, blocks from editing, to protect the encyclopedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * The many editors who have tried to resolve this dispute are listed in the section Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute.
 * It may not be wise to try to delete this RfC. It will gain you nothing as the RfC will promptly be restored and it will merely dig you deeper into a hole by violating more of Wikipedia's practices.  It's your call.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Logicus to McCluskey: No so evidence provided. On my screen the crucial section you link-cite here is entirely devoid of any such evidence, with no diffs or links whatever provided. And the section following it, "Editors' comments on the disputed behavior", they are not even comments about the disputed behaviour, namely committing OR in a wide range of articles or not, but rather an extremely biased and rambling collection of comments by some editors about Logicus edits they disliked, perhaps most typically because they exposed or removed their own OR. But these comments include not a single example of the evidence of any editor ever trying to resolve this particular dispute, namely a dispute between you and I about whether or not I have committed OR in a wide range of articles or not, which I have not. And indeed how could they possibly do so, because it has only been raised now in this invalid RfC and without your ever discussing it with me first, as is required by RfC policy ? So likewise nor has anybody else ever tried to resolve this particular dispute by some form of negotiation and possible compromise. If I may be allowed to express an opinion, you seem to be far too severely confused to be conducting valid and focused RfCs. Maybe the cold weather …?


 * Thus this RfC is clearly grossly invalid and should be deleted on the 48 hour rule. Does this require some uninvolved admin to do so ? --Logicus (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Logicus - Deleting the RFC would be prima facie evidence of your disruption and disregard for process on Wikipedia. If you do so you will be blocked and the page restored.  Please engage in constructive discussion and do not attempt to evade or obstruct Wikipedia process.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my above comments to McCluskey. --Logicus (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted. My warning stands.  You do not have to participate, and can if you want refuse to abide by it (subject as Durova notes to further enforcement actions such as a user ban proposal), but if you actively disrupt it by removing the RFC that would be unacceptable and abusive behavior.
 * RFCs are a part of the process of discussion and negotiation and compromise. The discussions on your talk page and article talk pages were predecessors; this is another part of that process.  You don't have to like it - but stating that it's not valid is not helpful.  You have every opportunity to participate and comment and negotiate here and on the RFC page itself.
 * Please, however, avoid further comments such as "you seem to be far too severely confused to be conducting valid and focused RfCs". That approaches our limit on our policy against personal attacks against other editors.  Please do not make further comments of that nature about other editors here.  We expect participants to discuss things like adults and with respect for each other's humanity and dignity.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As in the previous RFC, Logicus is once again trying to cast this RfC as "a dispute between you and I about whether or not I have committed OR...," that is, as a personal dispute between himself and the editor who drafted the RfC.  This recasting of Wikipedia Dispute Resolution procedures into a mano-a-mano confrontation between two editors reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the kind of collaborative processes that are central to Wikipedia. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proper certification
Logicus, yesterday I amended my certification with a link to User_talk:Logicus. This satisfies any procedural issue as follows:

The first sentence of the statement of dispute focuses on the following:
 * 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.

The linked section of your user talk page contains the following:
 * The problem here is that Wikipedia is not a place to publish your analyses of primary and secondary sources, or the novel conclusions that you draw from them... But why would you want to publish your work anonymously in Wikipedia? Why not publish in a journal? That would give you the individual credit you deserve for your creative work, free you from content disputes with other editors here, and allow you to write whatever you please without having to obtain the consensus of other editors. —Finell 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not appear that you have taken Finell's note above to heart. To repeat what he said and emphasize it somewhat, Wikipedia is not the plase [sic] to publish original research... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding what has been said above, it actually isn't all that hard to obtain proper vetting and publication when one's conclusions are meritorious. It earns the respect of fellow editors to take that approach, which makes updates uncontroversial. There have been at least three occasions this year where editors have done exactly that... Durova371 17:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * Your comment that "there may be no greater expert on this material in the world than myself" points the way to an easy solution to the problem of OR, already suggested by Saddhiyama and Durova. An expert should have little difficulty getting his work published in a Philosophy of science or History of science journal.  Once your analysis meets the scrutiny of other scholars, you should have no difficulty placing it in articles in Wikipedia.
 * On a related matter, these suggestions are examples of some of the many efforts to resolve this dispute. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Logicus to Skinwalker: Thanks for this query. I have the same main problem about McCluskey's POV as you here. But on your first two claims, please note that no dispute about soapboxing has been raised in this flagrantly invalid RfC, so there is no 'obvious problem' about soapboxing here. The only three policy breaches Logicus is accused of in this dispute is NOR, NPOV and DE, none of which he has been shown to be guilty of to date. And the problem with OR is that McCluskey claims I have committed it in a wide range of articles but without identifying any example of such anywhere, whereas I claim I never have to my knowledge, which may be why McCluskey cannot give any example of any OR claim I have made anywhere. Can you find any examples of any OR claims I have made anywhere?


 * Also please note that many of the "troublesome edits" listed in this invalid RfC may well be examples of Logicus challenging specific claims made by other editors as OR with failed verifications or no source provided at all, in which case they are not examples of OR committed by Logicus on the Durova-Wilson subjectivist misinterpretation of Verifiability policy according to which a claim is OR just if anybody says it is OR and nobody can persuade them it is not. Durova-Wilson and their supporters of this concocted policy rule raised against Logicus appear not to have thought through its consequences for the defence of Logicus, namely that on Durova's expressed view that the same rules apply to everybody, then whatever claims in articles Logicus says is OR is indeed OR if he cannot be persuaded otherwise, whereby many of supposed instances of Logicus committing OR listed by McCluskey in this RfC would be nugatory at least on that basis.


 * On Darwin and Dawkins, it is not true that I dislike them. Rather the main Darwin issue there is the OR POV opening claim of the Charles Darwin article that 'Darwin presented compelling evidence for his hypothesis of common ancestry', but which he never did and nor does anybody claim he did that I know of. But most importantly nor do any of the sources provided say he did either, which thereby all fail. And just check out the Wikipedia article on Common ancestry, in which none of the evidence for common ancestry cited in its evidence section mentions any compelling evidence presented for it by Darwin. Why not ? Simply because he never did present any !


 * This is an important issue of scientific method. For if Darwin did so, then why was the hypothesis not accepted ? Is scientific method not based on accepting hypotheses for which there is compelling empirical evidence, such as Wikipedia maintains and your mentor Simon Singh maintains in the case of the Big Bang theory and others, for example ? Or are scientists sometimes irrational ?


 * On Dawkins, the issue is simply that he has never made nor published any scientific discovery that has been made by his speculative theorising. Certainly friends who are world experts in the field of molecular biology assure me he has not made any known scientific contribution to any field in biology. The article should surely not exclude such views that would provide balance ?


 * Now on the question of what the POV is that I am allegedly trying to introduce according to McCluskey, the point is that I am not trying to introduce any POV at all. Rather it seems that what McCluskey and some others sometimes mistake for such is my eliminations and/or corrections and qualifications of the OR and POV of others, including their own. Quite a lot of the edits listed have been concerned with eradicating or qualifying the classical positivist POV on the history of science and the origin of modern science popular with some American academics that dominates some articles without qualification or balance and which contain many failed verifications, thereby being infested with American positivist OR.


 * I shall deal with McCluskey's mistaken response below asap, but please note that yet again as per usual he never identifies any single example of any OR claim made in the Logicus material he discusses. I should say there could possibly be such, for that material was written largely from memory of the very many sources I have read on the topic over the last 40 years, but have forgotten where they all are, and it was originally written for another forum briefing scholars not requiring such. As it happens it was then never completed with all the references that were intended for its Wikipedia version. But since the material was accepted and nobody challenged any claim it makes to be OR, it then seemed there was no need to find and include them. And even in the recent blanket challenge that the whole material is OR made by Deor, no claim it makes has yet been identified as OR.


 * You should also bear in mind there is also a dispute between myself and McCluskey & Wilson about whether English translations of primary sources are only secondary sources which may crucially affect judgments about whether any claims it makes are OR. I firmly maintain English interpretations of foreign language texts are not primary sources, but secondary, and also reject McCluskey's attempted demonstration that Wiki NOR policy entails such interpretations are primary sources as invalid.


 * And there is also a dispute about what constitutes consensus in Wikipedia policy, which may also crucially affect judgments. More generally there is the issue of whether Wikipedia policy is so confused, mutually incoherent and ultimately vacuous whereby Wikipedia is a regime of the lawless Yankee Wild West ruled by self-appointed gangs who make up the rules as they go along to suit themselves and protect their POV and OR from criticism and correction ?


 * Finally, please note that the specific event that triggered McCluskey raising this RfC against Logicus's efforts to resolve the dispute otherwise was Logicus merely asking those who claimed the material disputed in the previous content RfC was OR to kindly identify any claim(s) it made that they regard as OR so that he could possibly improve it to remedy any breach of NOR policy and achieve its inclusion as both McCluskey and Durova have said is an option. But this was most perversely misrepresented as challenging policy. This surely speaks volumes about the kind of people attacking Logicus here ! They clearly want to exclude even valid material expressing different points of view to theirs.


 * Thank you for your interest ! --Logicus (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try to give a brief summary of one aspect of the problem; a comprehensive answer would be extremely difficult since Logicus has developed strong points of view on a number of different questions. Limiting myself to the issue at Celestial spheres, his POV reflects an idiosyncratic emphasis on one aspect of the problem.  Central to this POV are his interpretations of the roles of the concepts of  inertia and impetus in pre-Newtonian terrestrial and celestial dynamics, which besides adding to these discussions of the celestial spheres, he has also added to the article on Theory of impetus.  His Original Research on these topics, which you have noted, relies on the interpretation of primary sources, often using the anachronistic tools of modern mathematics to draw inferences which he does not support by citing secondary sources and which, in many instances, go beyond the interpretations of those sources accepted by most historians.
 * Hope this helps clarify this aspect of the problem for you. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's still calling this a "flagrantly invalid RfC". If we can't even achieve agreement on that much, the rest seems a waste.  A prime example of WP:CHUNK behavior.  Any objection to taking this to AN?  Durova  386 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading steve's helpful summary and Logicus's response, I think that the only use of this RFC will be to document an attempt at dispute resolution. By all means, take it to AN.  This may also be actionable under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions.  Skinwalker (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed siteban
Have initiated a discussion at AN. Durova 386 22:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Siteban approved
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)
 * ✅ Since the matter is more than closed as a result of the siteban, I have opted for a simple closure rather than the more traditional summary section, which seems unneeded in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)