Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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

User:Logicus has been engaging in repeated disruptive editing involving original research on articles related to the History of Science

[edit] Desired outcome

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.

  • In an ideal world, I would like to be able to convince Logicus to stop his original research, and begin to take on a cooperative, rather than adversarial, position on talk pages.
  • Given the long-term nature of this problem, and his unresponsiveness to past comments, I must ask for a long-term or permanent topic ban from articles and talk pages in the Category:History of science and its subcategories.

[edit] Description

{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.}

For more than six months, user Logicus has been engaging in a long-term policy of advancing idiosyncratic points of view in talk pages and articles concerning the history of science, most recently in the articles on the Scientific Revolution and Kepler. The net result of his work has been to create an extremely hostile working environment, which has tried the patience of other editors, and hindered productive editing in articles dealing with the history of Renaissance and Early Modern science.

To speak generally, his actions violate the guideline on disruptive editing in two ways:

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(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.)

My first encounter with Logicus came after the article Scientific Revolution [1] had been designated by Ragesoss (the organizer of the History of Science Project) as the History of Science Collaboration the Month for August. In the course of a week in the end of August, I noted that the article needed substantial improvement and drafted a proposed outline for a new article,[2] noting that I was beginning revisions on a user page[3]. On 2 September I posted[4] my revisions to date[5] as a starting point for further work, and found I had wandered into a hornets nest by raising several of Logicus's sensitive points.

Logicus soon added a claim[6] to the introductory section that the distinguished historians of science Herbert Butterfield, Alexandre Koyré, and Thomas Kuhn were wrong in maintaining there was a scientific revolution. Logicus denies there was such a thing as a scientific revolution, this deriving -- in part -- from his idiosyncratic interpretation of the development of the concepts of inertia and impetus. Since this relies, in part, on the interpretation of a passage in Aristotle, and Newton's quotation of it, I raised the problem[7] of the interpretation of primary sources and the application of the No Original Research policy.

I had also placed in the introduction an often cited passage from Herbert Butterfield on the significance of the scientific revolution. Logicus took issue, dismissing this quotation as "Butterfield's Blunder".[8] In the same lengthy essay, Logicus returned to Newton's quotation from Aristotle, noting that "apparently the only academic historian of science to have discussed the status of Newton's claim in a publication, namely Bernard Cohen, apparently dismissed it on the logically invalid ground..." Once again, the historians who disagree with Logicus's unusual historical interpretation are wrong. As the dispute continued Logicus dismissed other noted philosophers and historians,[9] maintaining that "like Feyerabend and others, Westfall was of the mistaken opinion that, unlike Newton, Galileo held a theory of circular inertia...."

I then raised the further problem of Disruptive Editing (I chose to raise that point because the new Disruptive Editing policy was then being talked of as a fast way to deal with problem editors). At this point, Ancheta Wis[10] and Ragesoss intervened, Ragesoss proposing a step by step editing procedure,[11] leaving the more controversial sections until the details had been worked out. Some progress was made on the ancient background to the Scientific Revolution, but Logicus soon argued that it was irrelevant[12] to the chronology of the Scientific Revolution, so Ragesoss opened a new discussion on the chronology of the SR. After a week or so, Logicus again sought to reopen the difficult introductory section.[13]

Ultimately, work on the Scientific Revolution article ground to a halt, and we turned to less controversial venues to tend our gardens. One of these was a new version of the article on Johannes Kepler, totally rewritten by Ragesoss on 16 December.[14] Almost immediately, it was attacked by Logicus, in a fashion that was all too familiar "Ragesoss adopts standard mistaken inductivist and revolutionist philosophies of the standard mistaken positivist theory of a scientific revolution."[15] Discussing Owen Gingerich's account of the observations of a transit of Venus in 1639, Logicus disagreed with the interpretation of one of the masters of Early Modern quantitative astronomy, asking whether "this is yet another example of the inability of historians of science to achieve logically joined up thinking and proof-read their works for logical consistency." [16]

I should mention only in passing that Logicus employs uncivil ad hominem attacks toward editors, as well as toward the scholars whose judgement he rejects. To select a few: "The books you [ragesoss] happen to have on your bookshelf (only 1 shelf ?) and your state of knowledge about this topic both seem rather minimal.... the rewrite of this article is being driven by two guys unfamiliar with the extensive literature of the subject they are writing about. Do you have a controlling editorial position of authority in the Wikipedia organisation? So do you think maybe they could see their way to buying you some books and bookshelves or maybe get you access to a good library ?"[17] "Steve McCluskey's comments suggest a very severe literacy problem."[18]; "McCluskey's historically uninformed and illogical views on the history of science"[19]

The Disruptive editing guideline was drafted expressly to prevent this kind of harassment of productive editors. If any instance merits being handled as disruptive editing, this is it.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. Guideline, WP:DE, Disruptive Editing
  2. Policy, WP:NOR, No Original Research
  3. Policy, WP:CIVIL, Civility
  4. Policy, WP:NPA, No Personal Attacks

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Original discussion of NOR (11-21 Sept, 6 Oct) [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Discussion of Disruptive Editing (25 Sept - 1 Oct) [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

Logicus Requests withdrawal of NOR and DE allegations; accuses SteveMcCluskey of breach of Good Faith (29-30 Sept) [36] [37]

NOR raised again (9 Oct) [38]

Logicus criticises ‘disruptive editing’ of McCluskey and Ragesoss (11 Oct) [39]

NOR twice more (6 Jan, 9 Jan) [40] [41]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. --SteveMcCluskey 13:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --ragesoss 14:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State of the RfC after one month

  • Logicus was asked to comment on this RfC at 14:07, 1 February 2007. [42]
  • A general announcement of this RfC was posted at Talk:Johannes Kepler at 02:01, 6 February 2007. [43]
  • A general announcement of this RfC was posted at Talk:Scientific Revolution at 02:03, 6 February 2007. [44]
  • A request for someone to look at this RfC was filed on the Administrators noticeboard / Incidents at 21:02, 16 February 2007. [45]
  • The AN/I notice was archived after 24 hours with no response, at 21:20, 17 February 2007. [46]

In the month since this RfC was opened Logicus (talk • contribs • count) has not done any editing in Wikipedia and no further comments have been made on this RfC. This suspension of disruptive editing has opened the way for further progress on the affected articles. --SteveMcCluskey 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

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:

[edit] Outside view

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:

[edit] Discussion

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.