Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/COGDEN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] disagree strongly with Fullstop

I have to disagree strongly with Fullstop. Cogden, and some of his allies, have made it almost impossible to contribute to any of those policy talk pages. I and several others were effectively driven away by his tactics. His tactics are certainly in the realm of disruption.--Filll (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't take credit for the volume of discussion on the talk page. This does make it difficult to follow the discussion, but this is an inherent problem with all high-volume talk pages. I don't know what "tactics" you are referring to. If you mean my arguments and reasoning, I don't see how that's a problem. I have almost always been very civil, and have listened carefully to your opinions and those of others. I just happen to disagree. If you mean my bold edits, I also don't see how that's a problem. If you mean my outspoken championing of WP:CONS and WP:POLICY, then that's not really a problem, either. COGDEN 09:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness, people both 'sides' have commented numerous times about how the amount of active, ongoing discussions make it difficult to follow the discussions. This doesn't appear to be intentional plot to obfuscate the issue, but more of honest and very heated debates going on constantly over many months. This in itself should show that there is contention about 'something', and neither side has yet to show a clear, overwhleming consensus for the (mainly) disputed section of PSTS, either to keep it or delete it, or move it somewhere else. Almost all discussions (what, around 4 MB?) and edits and reverts have centered solely around PSTS. wbfergus Talk 14:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is hard to follow the discussion at times, much less keep up with it. I agree that it is not caused by people deliberately trying to obfuscate. Ironically, I think, this is caused by participant failing to engage in meaningful discussion. By refusing to accept that there even could be a problem with "long standing" policy, and making only dismissive comments, this only aggravates the problem. It is as if we are stuck on step one (denial) of the five steps. Then when we get to step two (anger) nobody should be surprised, but apparently we are. Dhaluza (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>The interesting part of this is, no one can tell me what the problem is. That is quite telling. There is something rotten in Denmark, me thinks...--Filll (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I did actually tell you what the problem is. Its the last 3 lines here. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
and reiterated at WT:NOT#Summary of PSTS issues -- Fullstop (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry. That is not particularly convincing or compelling. It just appears to be a basic obfuscation tactic. Thanks anyway. It just reaffirms my previous impressions. --Filll (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
too simple? :) "When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras." -- Fullstop (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking horses. The Horses of the Apocalypse. --Filll (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

wow. thats useful. first "basic obfuscation tactic" (just that?), and now this. With insubstantial comments like those, you're obviously in the "right" company. Well, one can only lead the horse to water, the assumption that there is a conspiracy to drown it is its own. Oh, well. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
-Filll, first you dismiss others views by saying they cannot describe their objections, then once they are described you dismiss them as obfuscation, with more obfuscation. When people cannot engage in meaningful discussion, and instead can only make dismissive comments, then there must be something rotten in Denmark. Dhaluza (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, one pithy obscure reference deserves another. And no further need to explain. I think that User:Professor marginalia's explanation helped tremendously and clarified matters immensely.--Filll (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

ah, yes. So, you conclude the "problem" for all your ills must lie with Cogden himself. Yes, no doubt PM's explanation "helped tremendously" with the foregone conclusion of witches "and [their] allies." -- Fullstop (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for proving my point for me.--Filll (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:PSTS

From the history of a well known redirect called Wikipedia:PSTS

  • 19:03, 26 November 2007 COGDEN (Talk | contribs | block) (84 bytes) (Redirect to new guideline article.) (undo)[1]

Which AFAIK was done without removing the {{policy shortcut|[[WP:PSTS]]}} in PSTS section of the the WP:NOR page.

For my comments on this and the comments by User:COGDEN see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive333#POV fork --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By checking the history of the WP:NOR policy page the alteration to the redirect was made while the page contained the The template {{main|Wikipedia:Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources}}[2] the trouble was that when User:COGDEN change was reverted, the WP:PSTS was left pointing at the wrong page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This problem was caused by the person who reverted my edit, not by me. This is one of the problems with knee-jerk reversions in violation of WP:EP, which is that people don't look at the edit closely, and sometimes you don't completely revert everything. COGDEN 09:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timing

Since this has cropped up several times, let me repeat what I stated on the request for arbitraton page. This RfC on Cogden had nothing to do with his general statement about possibly going to ArbCom, the RfC was in process long before he posted that statement. I had no clue he was putting together an Arbitration case until after the RfC had been filed. Honestly, even though I believe Cogden was sincere in putting together his ArbCom case, I believe that his sudden rush to post his RfArb was an attempt to trump the RfC and game the dispute resolution process…similar to his apparent attempts to game policy by his non-consensus changes to WP:CON and, WP:POLICY to support his changes to WP:NOR, so he could then freely use Primary sources as he sees fit. Dreadstar † 04:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept that. I should have assumed good faith, but I just found it highly suspicious. COGDEN 09:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Cogden, that is a most gracious response, one that is much appreciated. Dreadstar † 19:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I nearly got drawn into the ongoing dispute by COGDEN's severely distorting post to the Village Pump (policy): "What would happen if tomorrow, you were banned from directly citing peer-reviewed journal?", which linked to his similarly distorting "Recap of PSTS issues for those just joining" on the NOR talk page. I wasted a lot of time merely to get to the point where I decided that COGDEN must be severely confused about these issues and it makes no sense to participate in the discussion because COGDEN is in fundamental opposition to what looked like a reasonable consensus to me, and not open to rational arguments. I am surprised to learn how long this kind of irresponsible and disruptive behaviour seems to have been going on. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:34/12:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I also got the impression that there was similarly questionable behaviour at the other extreme of the discussion, but I don't remember the details, I am not going to wade through dozens of archive pages, and so I won't comment on that. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading Dreadstar's attempt to justify his bad faith allegations against COGDEN I feel that I should qualify further what I wrote above. It looks to me as if the links which Dreadstar provided explain COGDEN's behaviour as a reaction to an extremist reading of the policy, rather than proving bad faith. But rather than taking Dreadstar's allegations as a proof of his bad faith I would expect that he has at some time been exposed to the opposite kind of extremism. It would be nice if everybody could try to remember that the world is not an expressionist woodcut. There are many shades of grey and even colours. If you only see black and white you probably have a problem with your eyes. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations regarding sourcing of LDS article edits

The RFC description section currently contains the following statements:

The trigger for this seems to have been his editing of pages related to the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church), an area he works in a lot. While his work on these articles is appreciated, his attempts to change the NOR policy to make his reliance on early Church sources more appropriate has become problematic.

However, evidence in support of these claims appears not to have been provided. The diffs provided are based on edits to WP:NOR and its talk page. Would it be possible to provide specific diffs identifying edits to LDS articles that are perceived as inappropriate to support the above claims? These claims strike me as particularly strong, and particularly relevant to the allegation that User:COGDEN's edits and discussions were not based on good faith, yet there doesn't seem to be any supporting evidence provided. I do not believe it is appropriate to make such allegations without providing specific supporting evidence. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No bad faith

In light of the comments about “bad faith” assumptions in the RfC description in the statement by Alanyst, and Shirahadasha's request above, here is the evidence showing how that opinion came into being, and that it is not bad faith at all. Back in July 2007, Cogden did indeed use Primary sources on Mormon articles, then when NOR was quoted he said NOR should be changed.

  1. Cogden wanting to focus on Primary sources in Mormon-related article and he expresses his vews on the use of Primary sources (even if “Secondary sources find the primary to overblown”), and beats on use of Primary sources instead of secondary to back his views on content. And states “The article should focus on primary sources, with secondary sources used mainly to provide different perspectives and interpretations of the massacre.”
  2. Cogden states, “no secondary source of the massacre needed”
  3. Bluetie quotes WP:NOR to Cogden, specifically WP:PSTS (this is key)
  4. Complaint that Cogden has unbalanced the article

Cogden then switches to WP:NOR:

  1. Cogden stating that there is consensus for Primary sources to be preferable to a secondary source
  2. Cogden's statement refuted and refuted again by another editor.
  3. Cogden claims there is no consensus that shows NOR wording on secondary sources is accurate, continues to push for primacy of use of Primary sources over secondary. (This one actually shows that COGDEN’s attempts to change the NOR policy are “attempts to change the NOR policy to make his reliance on early Church sources more appropriate", and that he has been editing policy pages to push an agenda of being able to add material from primary sources as he sees fit.)
  4. This is also refuted.
  5. Cogden uses the Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article to back his assertions.
  6. Cogden uses the First Vision articles to back his assertions.
  7. Cogden is told that his examples contain OR
  8. Cogden warned against using content from too many primary sources
  9. saying policy should reflect consensus, and that he sees “and I see no consensus to favor secondary sources as a general rule,”

This clearly shows the statements made in the RfC's dispute description are not bad faith, but instead accurately describe the pattern of Cogden’s editing and agenda. There were a very large number of diffs on the issues presented in this RfC, and the ones presented RfC were deemed to be key diffs to show the pattern. Dreadstar † 19:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One other thing worth noting is that besides changing WP:POLICY to support his edits to NOR, Cogden even changed WP:CON to back his arguments. I just happened to notice this significant change to WP:CON yesterday. Dreadstar † 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Dreadstar, I have no idea what your point here is, or what kind of impropriety you are trying to imply. I do know that your cited diffs are taken out of context, and your characterizations are inaccurate. This discussion at Mountain Meadows massacre was not about whether or not there should be either primary or secondary sources. It was about where to put the primary and secondary sources in the article. The primary sources constituted the facts, while the secondary sources constituted the analysis. My argument was that the facts should go before the analysis of those facts. Honestly, I don't even remember Blue Tie's reference to NOR, and I never did respond to it. I was aware of the PSTS's bizarre 2006 turn for some time before Blue Tie's contents, and had been considering what to do about it, but I was busy on other projects.
This is a significant concern in controversial religious history articles. Absolutely true. And yes, it is one of the places where the PSTS distinction makes absolutely no sense. But I also sometimes edit law, philosophy, and science articles, and there are concerns there, as well. Are you trying to bring my religion into this debate and paint me as a crazed cultist? What's your point? Anybody who I edit with knows that's absolutely not true. COGDEN 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the POLICY change, that has nothing to do with NOR, and isn't really a change, just an elaboration. Same with CONS, which is really just a clarification in view of the remainder of the article. I thought these clarifications were important, given that nobody seems to have any clue how policy articles operate. I don't see how you can argue that good faith clarifications to policy articles are somehow improper. So what? I make edits to policy articles that I think are appropriate and reflect consensus. So do you. COGDEN 01:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Without regard to the specific merits of the case Dreadstar is trying to build against COGDEN, I think it is important to point out that in the hypothetical case where a policy description was edited beyond broad consensus, and was then misapplied, we would see the same result. Eventually the crusaders literally interpreting a misguided policy would run up against a user who would challenge the policy. So the simple fact that a user comes to a policy discussion and begins actively trying to change the language of a policy after running afoul of editors trying to enforce that policy should not be considered to be bad behavior per se. In the case of a misguided user, it should be fairly easy to refute their arguments and demonstrate consensus for the policy as written. In the case of a misguided policy description, we would expect the situation to be similar to what we see now, where we have a faction defending the status quo, and another faction questioning it. Dhaluza (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to llywrch comments

User:llywrch claims that it is a waste of time to discuss edit wars on policy pages, or to engage in edit wars on policy pages, since we are supposed to Ignore All Rules. This is a very nice sentiment, but I fear it is not particularly realistic.

We need some codification of some principles to work from. Otherwise, all h*ll would break loose, on multiple fronts. This is true on all articles, but particularly on controversial articles. Being able to point to some sort of policy is invaluable in dealing with controversies, like the Palestinians and the Israelis, like George W. Bush, like the Holocaust, creation-evolution controversy, black people, etc.

For example, the Miquelon and St. Pierre article discusses the origin of the name "Miquelon". Several scholarly texts discuss the name "Miquelon" as being of Basque origin, which was mentioned in the article. There are also many other pieces of evidence that the early visitors to the island were Basques. This is standard knowledge that appears in many reference books and is taught in many schools. I was taught this in school growing up and required to memorize it.

However, there are people in Spain who are sensitive about Basque nationalism and Basque separatist movements. So an editor from Spain was highly incensed that our Wikipedia article should suggest that the name "Miquelon" was of Basque origin, but had no references to suggest that Miquelon is not a name of Basque origin, but instead is Spanish. This turned into a minor dust-up, and I am certain the Spanish editor went away positive that Wikipedia is biasd that they would take the word of textbooks and scholarly publications over his own personal say-so.

As another example, I have encountered several Polish editors at Frere Jacques who claim that it is "well known" that Frere Jacques is supposed to be a pilgrim on the Way of St. James who has not woken up his fellow travellers in time. They had no references for these claims. I looked and looked but could find none. The references they suggested were in foreign languages, and when translated, did not support their claims.

On the other hand, I had dozens of other references in scholarly journals and other sources for the identity of Frere Jacques which did not agree with their theory. However, the Polish editors were positive that it should be obvious to me and everyone else that their own personal theory, unsupported by a single reference, should be the correct one and should be the main or maybe even the only theory discussed in the Frere Jacques article. And when I did not give in, they went away furious and fuming about the "bias" in Wikipedia and the terrible unfairness.

The Miquelon and St. Pierre article, and the Frere Jacques article are not particularly controversial. However, without clear policies that we can point to, even in these benign uncontroversial articles, all kinds of nonsense will find its way into Wikipedia. That is one of the biggest complaints about Wikipedia now; the information in Wikipedia is unreliable at best, and quite often egregiously pure nonsense. If we just ignore these efforts to reform our standard policies on sources and information, I fear that things will get far far far worse and very quickly.

There is a literal army of cranks and fruitcakes that want to use Wikipedia to promote every flakey theory you can imagine. Do not take denigrate our efforts to try to at least slow these purveyors of false information down. We are doing our best. Do not attack us for it.--Filll (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

While you are quite right about the cranks and fruitcakes, and that these are indeed a plague, NOR policy is not the appropriate policy to deal with them. For the issue you mention, the weapons at your disposal are WP:RS, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and by extension WP:FRINGE. It is only then, through WP:FRINGE, which is a guideline and not a policy, that NOR#PSTS comes into play.
Your references in scholarly journals etc have of course much more weight than the unverifiable/unreliable statements of your opponents, but, like I said, "weight", i.e. WP:UNDUE, is what comes to bear.
Now, if you were calling on NOR to back you up, you would actually lose since NOR#PSTS explicitly allows primary sources, the only requirement being that be used literally. This is of course something that is true for any kind of source, and doesn't give primary sources more or less weight as any other kind of source. (The question you may now ask yourself is: When a distinction of primary/secondary can't be used to give NOR policy more oomph, whats the point of the distinction?)
What Cogden is objecting to is the unnecessarily convoluted language/distinction of the NOR#PSTS section; the language even actually prevents him from citing some sources that common sense would normally encourage. For example, it prohibits anyone from citing primary sources that are difficult to understand by a non-expert because these would violate the requirement that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—" must be able to verify them.
Having to deal with misguided twerps all the time, I sympathize with you completely. But irrespective of whether NOR can be turned into a reasonably useful policy or not, that policy cannot help you (or anyone else) defend the wiki against purveyors of false information. This takes tough admins, or weak opponents. All you can do is wish for weak opponents, because admins who are willing to fight are very rare. Particularly in a content dispute.
-- Fullstop (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Well put. I have to say that I share Filll's concerns about cranks and crackpots, and this is one of my motivations for being such an activist here. Working on controversial religious pages, I have to constantly deal with (1) "official" church-sanctioned interpretations of historical events that have evolved independently of actual historical sources, (2) rabid evangelicals whose version of history has been given them by God, (3) people who have read some exposé and think they are an expert on religious history, and (4) people who think secular historians are of the devil. I have to deal with these people in the vast majority of the articles I've edited since 2003. have seen countless religious arguments and edit wars, and in almost every case, the edit wars stop when we go to the primary source, rather than some spin-doctered version of the primary source. Hindering use of primary sources accelerates the work of crackpots and cranks, because crackpots and cranks cite other crackpots and cranks, rather than well-grounded, non-controversial historical facts. The best way to invite crackpots and cranks into your article is to prevent mainstream people from citing the primary sources, and instead require them to substitute the words of the primary source's spin doctors.
And it's not a question of either/or, here. We need secondary sources for commentary as well as the primary sources. But the primary source always acts as an anchor that prevents crackpots from citing secondary sources that run too far afield of the facts. For example, you cite the Bible, then you cite Jehovah's Witness Jones' interpretation, then you cite Scientologist Smith's interpretation. You don't cite Jones' interpretation as the authoritative source--he's just a secondary source, and just one controversial opinion among many. You can't cite his controversial secondary interpretation unless you first cite what he is interpreting, otherwise, the "crackpots" win, and Wikipedia loses. COGDEN 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

All I am doing is saying policy is important. I did not say which policy, did I? This attitude that "all policy is nonsense lets not worry about it" is great, except one needs all the weapons possible to deal with kooks. Now Cogden might want a certain interpretation or description of policy to be able to cite certain Mormon documents and first person accounts about golden glasses and tablets and the angel Moroni etc into Wikipedia (I do not know the particulars; I am guessing of course). However, this same description of policy that Cogden wants for his personal purposes might allow Kent Hovind's personal assertions from his prison cell to be able to trump 20 peer-reviewed studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in our Wikipedia articles. So we have a bit of a problem here...--Filll (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't understand what you're getting at. Llywrch's statement reads:
[Because in practice editors are going to argue over what exactly policy entails], and because of the escape clause embedded in the concept ignore all rules, the precise wording on a policy page is not important. If the description differs too much from actual practice, then it is the policy that is wrong and should be changed.
I don't see this as a suggestion that "Ignore all rules" ought to become practice. What it does say is that an approximation of what is meant is sufficient. If a rule is stupid in a particular context, then common sense dictates IAR. If IAR is invoked too often, then this might be an indication that policy might need to be rethought.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with what Llywrch has noted, nor does it weaken the weapons "to deal with the kooks." Llywrch's remarks are just a - quite neutral I think - comment on policy language.
  • I also do not see how you could conclude that Cogden has any ulterior motives for wishing to have the language changed, or even that they might be for his "personal purposes." Further, since very many people think that the PSTS distinction is (riddled with) unnecessary wind-baggery, according to your logic they must all have ulterior motives, which of course asks, are these motives all the same? -- Fullstop (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I might note that given the very negative history of Mormonism and its view in the US (after all, government forces were sent out to annihilate them more than once, and a governor signed an "extermination order" to have them all slaughtered, etc), the very changes of policy that Cogden is pushing for might very well let in all kinds of material that is the opposite of what Cogden intends. I am very leery about doing radical surgery on these policies that have stood us in good stead in the production of hundreds of thousands of articles (maybe over a million articles) for some short term gain on one or two articles. The hostility I encountered on those talk pages when I just tried to understand the issues were absolutely beyond belief. I found it almost impossible to get anyone to describe the issues to me, and the small cabal of editors frantic to throw all the policies in the trash can, and do it in secret with no examination or feedback lashed out at anyone questioning them in a frenzy. This really gave me a bad feeling. Anything like this should be very slow and deliberate and transparent, with the consequences very carefully examined. Anything like this done in secret, like Hillary Clinton's health care policy or Cheney's energy policy, probably is headed for disaster. --Filll (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • No one, least of all Cogden, is "pushing" for a change of policy. A change of language is not a change of policy. No one, least of all Cogden, is "frantic to throw all the policies in the trash can."
  • The instruction creep mess we have today goes back to a move that was anything but "very slow and deliberate and transparent." What is slow and deliberate (but for not transparent reasons) is the stonewalling you can see on the talk page.
  • I can well imagine the hostility you must have encountered. Write it off to WP:OWNing and/or loss aversion. :)
  • To answer your question of what the "issues" are:
a) the relevance of a distinction between "primary" and "secondary" sources with respect to "original research";
b) the applicability of the terms "primary" and "secondary", to include the arbitrariness of such definitions, and the problems that such definitions cause;
c) the pitiful prose in that section.
-- Fullstop (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I clearly don't see anything here (the NOR policy or talk page) being done in secrecy. On the contray, I (and others) have made announcements at the Village Pump, other related policies (WP:NPOV and [WP:BLP]]), etc. trying to get people to actively participate in the discussions. This is in sharp contrast to how this very controversial section was added (or re-written) in the first place, in Oct. 2006 (see my comments on the 'project page' here and on the Arbitration case for specifics). In that case, only around 20 people max seemed to have any knowledge of it, most of them are the same ones enforcing the current proptectionism (through page protection) and ownership issues (all changes must be approved or made by them). As it is, around 40-50 or more people are invloved in this now. That is a far cry from 'in secret'. wbfergus Talk 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
heh. I don't think Filll meant "secrecy" as in secretive, but rather "opaque." Which, in addition to what the discussion must look like to a casual observer, might also nicely describe the opaque reasons (?) for the OWNing/protectionism/stonewalling. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Exactly. It is not as much "secret" as obscure, and when I asked to understand, I was effectly told to "butt out", we "experts" are rewriting this policy and you are not welcome to know what we are doing. Not very encouraging, frankly.--Filll (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly do not remember that, and I was active in the discussions at least one time when you were there and even replied back a time or two to your comments. I do know that I myself never would have said that I was expert, far from it. Maybe what happened was just bad timing. As I remember it, you appeared in the discussions around the same time as Jim62sch and Orangemarlin, who were extremely 'uncivil' (to say the least) in their remarks, and maybe comments to you were wrapped up in comments to them. From what I can see in Archive24, it appears that may have been what happened, though I could be wrong. If so, then I myself would extend my apolgies if that is how I came across. wbfergus Talk 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers of edits

In response to statements made by some editors who do not believe that Cogden has been pushing to change NOR policy, here are the statistics showing the number of edits per editor on the NOR article its talk page.

The numbers clearly show that Cogden has been pushing NOR changes very hard. Even though he's only been editing the article for four months, he is number two on the all-time edit list behind SlimVirgin, who has been editing the page since early 2005, and has over half her number of edits. He is also number three all-time on the talk page, with 82 percent of the edits of the top editor there.

The chart only includes major edits, the minor edits have been left out to more accurately gage the number of edits per editor.

[edit] WP:NOR article page

User # Non-minor edits First edit ATBE*
SlimVirgin 129 3/8/2005 21:08 4.9 d
COGDEN 70 8/9/2007 19:23 38:00 h
Slrubenstein 48 12/8/2004 21:20 13.5 d
Jossi 43 2/10/2006 0:24 12.3 d
Kenosis 35 9/24/2007 12:48 53:06 h
Vassyana 25 7/18/2007 13:09 4.4 d
Dhaluza 24 1/31/2007 3:03 12.8 d
Wjhonson 22 7/13/2006 19:51 9.6 d
Jon Awbrey 21 6/16/2006 18:30 54:01 h
Harald88 18 10/24/2005 22:30 19.9 d
Dreadstar 15 7/18/2007 20:28 9.7 d
Philip Baird Shearer 15 4/12/2007 9:03 17.3 d
  • ATBE - Average Time Between Edits

[edit] WT:NOR Talk page

User # Non-minor edits First edit ATBE*
SlimVirgin 472 3/9/2005 2:46 46:12 h
Slrubenstein 445 12/3/2004 18:05 55:40 h
COGDEN 387 7/26/2007 19:06 7:22 h
Vassyana 384 7/11/2007 23:21 8:45 h
Kenosis 322 7/19/2006 21:55 22:50 h
Jossi 292 2/9/2006 0:15 46:55 h
Wbfergus 279 8/22/2007 15:57 9:24 h
Dhaluza 264 1/31/2007 3:06 26:11 h
Blueboar 258 2/23/2007 15:32 26:44 h
Minasbeede 220 5/24/2007 4:29 18:12 h
IanMSpencer 179 6/4/2007 0:00 19:11 h
Wjhonson 177 7/13/2006 19:52 42:15 h
Sambc 164 8/14/2007 23:07 7:05 h
Jon Awbrey 162 3/17/2006 17:42 18:27 h
Jacob Haller 151 8/2/2007 21:19 12:43 h
Gerry Ashton 148 6/3/2006 20:19 3.5 d
WAS 4.250 143 2/8/2006 18:04 4.5 d
Dreadstar 130 7/14/2007 19:50 20:29 h
Crum375 126 10/11/2006 18:52 68:54 h

Dreadstar † 01:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest and since rollbacks are "minor" and since you have the tools to do so, could you please put up the number of minor edits as well + number of edits in which "rv" or "revert" occur in the edit summary? Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this data, Dreadstar. Data is data, not assessment, and 38:00 hrs and 7:22 hrs ATBE says all what needs to be said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I'm number 7 on the talk page! And I only made one edit to policy (that I remember anyway) during a very brief break when the page was unprotected and available for editing by everyone. And, that one edit was to include a very well-written history of the policy created by Slrubenstein, so there wasn't much controversy over it. Since data can be interpreted in so many different ways besides just face-value though, it would be interesting to know of the numbers in the two tables above, how many were directly related to the PSTS terms and definitions vs. all of the rest of the policy.
Anyway, as jossi said above, data is data, not assessment. The numbers above can also be looked at as helping to highlight ownership issues, where long-time editors of the page have a feeling of ownership over it, and no changes will be made without their approval. As it is, the tables only show raw numbers without any interpretations of what those numbers actually mean. wbfergus Talk 12:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If those numbers reaaly say it all, then I see that Vassyana has nearly equivalent numbers, so what does that mean? The only conclusion we can draw from this primary source data is that COGDEN is actively discussing his edits. Perhaps he is too talk-active, but I have a bigger problem with people who are not willing to engage in substantive discussion, and formulate cogent arguments to support their positions, instead making only dismissive or flippant comments. Dhaluza (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Vassyana has been making a noble effort to please all sides, so the comparison is not apt. What these charts and the other evidence shows is that consitent editing pressure of the sort being practiced by COGDEN is inappropriate, and crosses the line ino tendentious editing. There has been plenty of substantive discussion by those disputing the proposed changes. Dreadstar † 18:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. The comparison is indeed most apt.
    • Vassyana is personally convinced that his definition of primary/secondary sources is "correct" and that a distinction between primary and secondary sources is relevant to the concept of "original research."
      In this he is no different from Cogden, who is not convinced that Vassyana's definition of primary/secondary sources is "correct" or that a distinction between primary and secondary sources is relevant to the concept of "original research."
    • While I don't question that Vassyana "has been making a noble effort," I disagree with the clause that this is to "please all sides." Vassyana has a marked tendency to resort to dismissive/ad hominem/flippant comments when things are not going his way. And since he's personally convinced that his definition of primary/secondary sources is "correct", and since any opposition is going to get the "Vassyana treatment," there really isn't much pleasing of "all sides" that can happen.
  2. Professor Marginalia's comment isn't "evidence" for "inappropriate" "editing pressure." It is instead (purportedly) to establish that Cogden's edits to policy are someone related to his edits of article space.
    I note "purportedly," because - as far as I know - Cogden's edits at NOR were to the PSTS section. But NOR is more than just PSTS. Even if the section were to vanish entirely, it would not help Cogden one bit in pushing any (real or putative) bias that he might have, nor would it in any way permit or condone his or anyone else's original research.
  3. The (insubstantial!) "there has been plenty of substantive discussion by those disputing the proposed changes" as a response to Dhaluza's statement that there is a lack of "substantive discussion" is a typical example of the inability to "formulate cogent arguments to support their positions." So much for "substantial discussion."
-- Fullstop (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
ps: please also respond to my comment of 02:50, 15 December 2007 (#2 in this section). Thanks. Could you also provide the source for your script, so that the methodology can be checked? Thanks.
I am only posting to respond to the allegations made against me.
As a general comment, my high number of edits in large part represents a lot of effort in proposing and discussing proposals. However, those talk edits are generally even more simply reflective of my continuous participation in the very active and often heated discussion at WT:NOR over the past months. I would say the latter of COGDEN as well (though the projectspace edits are another matter).
This is a complete misrepresentation. I originally started off being very supportive of the existing form of PSTS. Since then, my opinion has changed through the course of discussion and some serious thought. That I have indeed reached out to all sides and tried to reach some compromises is well-illustrated by the fact that editors as diverse and opposed as Jossi and COGDEN have been supportive of my efforts and proposals (and I've had some fairly pointed disagreements with COGDEN). I've even been supportive of a complete terminology change to overcome law of primacy issues (to the point of making a proposal). That's hardly being so single-mindedly self-assured as presented.
I make no secret of the fact that I am sometimes blunt and/or brusque, nor do I hide the fact that my frustration shows through on occasion. In many cases, my frustrations and harsh comments have been both openly and private sympathized with and/or supported, so any particular brusque episode needs to be examined in context. Vassyana (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I additionally wanted to comment that I feel Dhaluza is quite correct. Vassyana (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar said "The numbers clearly show that Cogden has been pushing NOR changes very hard"

Could that be because SlimVirgin made some changes to a policy page that COGDEN didn't agree with and COGDEN has been trying to change those edits and discuss them? Why is your focus on COGDEN and not SlimVirgin?

I think some actual diffs would be more enlightening than some unsourced statistics like "average time between edits." --Pixelface (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to only get these numbers since 7/26, when COgden first started editing/discussing? Then the numbers may show something more reflective, like who has been actively engaging in discussions, or stating their reasons for changes or reversions vs. those who are just making changes/reversions without any discussion (or very little). Those statistics may be more reflective of what is actually going on, though further investion into the 'gist' of those would still be needed. wbfergus Talk 14:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate wbfergus' observation above (and think he has identified at least one flaw in the methodology used to compute MTBE) but isn't the basic premise rather silly? The purpose of the talk page is discussion. Is it really congruent with the nature of Wikipedia and the desired nature of Wikipedia to use the fact that Cogden has engaged in discussion as evidence against him? A far more telling statistic might be the number of times that proponents of source typing have declined to respond to the concerns of editors who see problems with source typing - or to respond with the totally unresponsive reply "source typing needs to remain," worded in various ways. That would seem to be contrary to the nature of Wikipedia. First the source typing advocates say that no change shall be made to the source typing wording in NOR at all (often enforcing that by improper locks), then they decline to participate in the discussions, in particular by not responding to valid concerns (or by making dismissive responses to valid concerns.) Now we've gone a step further: participating (or attempting to participate) in the discussion is evidence of so-called disruptive behavior. If looking for things to call "absurd" isn't that a good place to begin? Are we to meekly accept the strange (I'd like to use the word "absurd" but it's already busy elsewhere in this discussion) concept that it is disruptive to disagree with the advocates of source typing on the discussion page?
It may as well also be pointed out that silencing Cogden and all other current critics of source typing is not a solution to the problem of source typing as part of the NOR policy. Source typing, as it exists, is greatly flawed. As long as there are people with a modicum of intelligence and understanding participating in Wikipedia that will be pointed out, repeatedly. As can already be seen to have happened by studying the history of NOR discussion. There have been many editors who have found source typing to have been flawed, who have made good faith efforts on the talk page to get the policy changed or removed or efforts to get constructive response to their concerns and who ultimately have left the discussion, apparently unsatisfied and probably rather discouraged because of the nature of that experience. --Minasbeede (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Professor Marginalia comments

First, I am not addressing points 2 & 3. I have had no interest or participation in those, so I can't say what's going there. However, for point #1, let me add a couple minor points. I think the tag did first appear when Prof. Marginalia stated, on Aug. 14th. Sometime after that, when the presence of the tag itself was disputed, I myself suggested on the talk page that perhaps a less controversial tag would be better, and to direct users to the talk page to see what the controversy was about. I believe this tag is the one that COgden created after my suggestion, {{consensus}}. Rather than tagging the entire article (policy in this case) as disputed, which was done previously, this simply narrowed it down to a specific section and rather than making claims, directed the users to see the talk page for details. It was by far extremely difficult at best to try and follow the myraid of discussions on the talk to get a feel for why the tag was there, but it does seem to have drawn more people into the discussion, which is what consensus building is all about. Also, in this same 'general' timeframe, one of the people who agrees with the Professor's comment (ChazBeckett) replaced the tag with a more 'standard' tag, {{disputedtag}} on Sept. 7th. So, COgden may have created a tag strictly for the NOR dispute, but his addressed the same points made with the 'disputed' tag in a more nuetral tone. Also, COgden wasn't the only one adding or changing tags already on the policy, as has been alluded to, and participated in, by one of the parties supporting sanctions against COgden

It 'seems strange' that a person who endorses the (unintentially) incorrect statement of events is also one of the people who actively participated in the same events. This is obviously just a misunderstanding since there have been so many events going on, but as the one who suggested the creation of a new tag specifically for this, I also feel compelled to take some of the blame and to help clarify some of the events. I myself may have even missed other pertinent events in relation to the Prof.'s point #1. The whole thing is complicated and convoluted, with more than enough blame ready to go around to most parties involved, on either side of the COgden issue. wbfergus Talk 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My Sep 7th edit was the only time I've ever edited the policy page, at least in the past six months or so. My Sep 7th edit was nothing more than a housekeeping edit (replacing a custom tag with a more standard version). In fact, I used the edit summary "this seems like a better tag; however, I'm not agreeing that a tag is needed" to make this explicit. I fail to see how this single edit in any way at odds with my agreement with Professor Marginalia's summary. Chaz Beckett 17:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional comment by Alanyst

[Moved back to the RFC page.] alanyst /talk/ 00:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst: please re-consider putting this in the RfC itself. Its a comment in its own right. (that I had incidentally already endorsed, but something icky happened). -- Fullstop (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion! If it needs to be moved again, I'll let someone else do it. :-) alanyst /talk/ 00:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wbfergus response to comment by Professor Marginalia (moved here from project page)

  1. Neither endorse nor oppose, but would direct those who endorse it as accurate to please see my comments on the talk page. I only address a couple of clarifications to Point #1. wbfergus Talk 17:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    As this comment was directed at me, I'd like to point out that I've also clarified on the talk page. Chaz Beckett 17:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to comment by wbfergus

Regarding the issue of CODGEN's arbcom, wbfergus writes of me: "ProfessorMarginalia participated in this 'discussion' of Vassyana's edit being reverted, commenting directly after COgden's statement, and ending with 'It should be an interesting lineup for any arbcom'.But, the Professor failed to mention this in his comments above which most of those opposed to COgden have endorsed as "Well-said", "Good summary, accurately describes the scope of the problem behavior", "Brilliant summary by Marginalia", ad nauseum."

I can only assume responsibility for what I write. I have not accused COGDEN of misconduct for the timing of his filing of any arbcom. I have described how COGDEN's particular approach to the PSTS question has resulted in an almost incomprehensible cacophony that has now spread the conflict throughout WP, including the arbcom. I think my remark ("Should be an interesting lineup for any arbcom" [3] ) was a prescient one considering the fact that COGDEN in his filing listed what has to be an unprecedented 65 involved editors! One declining arbitrator wrote "there's no way in the world am I ever going to accept a case with 65 editors listed", another wrote, "I cannot see an arbcom case defined this loosely as being useful". This RFC shouldn't be viewed as a witch hunt, it should serve as a diagnosis or exemplar of policy-making through "chaos strategery". Professor marginalia (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicely stated, PM. The real issue around the ArbCom request by COGDEN is not that he was putting a case together, nor even the timing of the posting of the RfC vis-à-vis the RfArb (although COGDEN's rush to finish and submit the RfArb so quickly after this RfC was filed is interesting indeed), the real issue is that he made non-consensus changes to policy, then stated he may be taking editors to ArbCom for violating the very portions of those policicies that he himself added to those policies - which as Prof. Marginalia says, is a "chain-linked" circle created by COGDEN. I'm sure COGDEN did this in good faith, but it is still disingeneous to make a change in policy then turn right around and use a change you just made to attack others, especially with no disclosure that the accuser had made the very changes that he was then using to base his charges on. That entire process just isn't right. Dreadstar † 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Dreadstar, this is a serious accusation, but I don't see the backup for it. Could you please post the diffs for the chain linked circle you are referring to. Dhaluza (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Dreadstar, since you cannot back up the statement, will you please strike it. Dhaluza (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further comment by Jossi

For those that are still defending CODGEN behavior, they would benefit from reading the arguments and the copious support of Dreadstar and Prof Marginalia's comments. This is not a witch hunt, or an attempt to chill policy debates, rather, it is an issue related to an editor that is way too focused on policy, for motives that have been questioned. Talking about "defenders of the status quo" vs. CODGEN is an absurd framing of this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe those comments about "defenders of the 'status quo'" refer to people who revert and oppose without any real explanation. I don't think it's reasonably disputable that those people are equitably (or more) poisonous to the atmosphere or that the actions of those people have only served to antagonize COGDEN and others. I agree it is a poor framing for the dispute, as it's not a simple dichotomy. But, since antagonizing actions and similar contexts are often considered mitigating factors, it is a facet which should be acknowledged. Vassyana (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There were detailed explanations, answers and reasoning posted to the talk page early on in this dispute, I know I posted my reasoning and views. But after a while of answering what seemed to basically be the same comments from the same editor over-and-over-and-over again, it became very frustrating. The same dispute over PSTS has spanned months and months, and covers countless posts of talk page edits, and I saw a certain repetitiveness that included obfuscating answers being posted by some of those opposing the so-called "defenders of the 'status quo'", posts that just appeared to be disruption after a while. I believe virtually all the reversions were made with at least edit summaries expressing why the reversions were being made...with the understandable exceptions of reverts of reverts back to the new versions that were just plain wrong to have been reverted back to, attempting to add something against consensus over and over again. And a large number of editors apparently agree with these assessments. Posting a 'bold edit' on a policy is page is fine the first time, but after it has been disputed and reverted, continuing to post what is essentially the same, disputed, non-consensus content over and over again becomes tendentious editing. Dreadstar † 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not disagree. However, the lack of feedback extends to far more than simply COGDEN's tendacious/repeated positions. My own comments should better explain my mixed endorsements and feelings on the matter. Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


I think that there has been far too frequent occurrence of statements like:

Talking about "defenders of the status quo" vs. CODGEN is an absurd framing of this dispute, above. As it stands it's an unsubstantiated opinion.

Suppose I want to see if I can believe what is claimed in that statement. All I have for evidence is, on the one hand (apparently), statements that so frame the debate and on the other a statement that says that's an absurd framing of the debate. What I do not see is anything at all offered as evidence to support the contention that it is an "absurd framing of the debate" nor anything at all that indicates the actual nature of the absurdity. Lets' start small: what is the absurdity? Is it the framing, is it the indication that the two sides consist solely of the "defenders of the status quo" and COGDEN, is it the indication that there are "defenders of the status quo" or what, if none of these? --Minasbeede (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There have been detailed reasons for opposing PSTS and multiple instances of substantive questions about the current PSTS policy being left unanswered. If the proponents of PSTS are too tired (or whatever) to explain their reasoning then cannot the opponents assume the same stance and make edits without explanation (they are, arguanly, just as tired)? When both sides do that it's called an "edit war." When one side (the proponents) do it why is it then justifiable? When I left the discussion (on the talk page, and left "mostly") it was with the hope/desire/expectation that the proponents would come up with wording which at least they agreed upon and that the discussion could proceed from there. I saw many efforts toward establishing meaningful discussion (I recall Blueboar's effort most vividly) and it seemed as though there as some progress. Now, however, it appears that the proponents are circling the wagons around the language as it existed in August, 2007. As I've stated too often that's OK by me: I can watch Wikipedia self-destruct without ego involvement. I, however, am of scant (or less than scant) importance. The need/desire wold be to have stable policy language upon which there could be consensus for the benefit of those not as cavalier about Wikipedia and its future. Until the process is allowed to happen there will not be consensus. Once again, I can watch without ego involvement. For those who feel a tighter bond to Wikipedia that's surely not an option.
While I could continue complaining it's quite obvious that such an approach is ineffective. Instead, let me turn in another direction. Cogden revealed that the source of PSTS lies in the field of historiography. Many of the objections raised are because PSTS uses the language and nature of historiography and attempts to generalize that to all fields touched on in Wikipedia. It's surely no surprise that different fields have different conditions. (One might note, for instance, that almost all the mathematics in Wikipedia could be ripped out because almost all of it is utterly opaque to most editors: if only that material not obscure to most editors can appear then the math must go. Most editors likewise would be entirely unable to determine if a mathematical source, if cited, was primary or secondary. PSTS proponents might rightly state that mathematics is by default mostly exempt from the PSTS provisions, and from that conclude that since mathematics isn't touched by PSTS there's no need to alter PSTS: it causes no harm to mathematics articles. Sure, OK, but that's the crux of at least part of the problem: PSTS as written is a universal policy. There's no list of fields (such as mathematics) that are de facto exempt from PSTS, with the result that PSTS becomes utterly vague, at least to those who approach it without preconceptions. It appears that those who advocate PSTS have very strong notions of where PSTS applies and where it doesn't. It also appears that Dreadstar (sorry to name him specifically, although I'm responding to what he wrote) believes that sometime in the past all the needed details have appeared, all the concerns have been addressed. As the discussion is quite voluminous this may be true, but as the discussion is quite voluminous it is also rather difficult for the editor who got involved subsequent to that material appearing to find it. the more recent editor might also have great difficulty finding it simply because what Dreadstar thinks he recalls as being an answer to a particular question or concern might simply not be evident to the more recent editor as responsive to the question or concern.
It would seem to me that there still would be merit in the advocates creating a complete and cogent presentation of their position. This could be placed on its own page, with numbered sections. Then, when one of the recurring questions arises, they could simply link to the appropriate material and be done with it. --Minasbeede (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Rather that paralysis by analysis, I invite you and others to edit the sandbox at Wikipedia:Source typing. See also Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Proposal_to_move_forward ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It is precisely this sort of dismissive comment that only exacerbates the situation, and is not conducive to a consensus based process. Dismissiveness is the antithesis of consensus building. I don't see anyone actually defending CODGEN per se, but several editors are questioning the wisdom and substance of this RfC, particularly in light of the mitigating circumstances. Both Dreadstar and PM's comments appear to have moved beyond the assumption of good faith, and instead assume that continued disagreement with their positions constitutes disruption of Wikipedia. And the number of editors willing to jump on this bandwagon is disturbing.
I think what you appear to assume to be defending the indefensible, is actually defending the assumption of good faith. Several users including myself have simply said that while we may or may not agree with CODGEN on the merits of his arguments, or his methods, we defend his right to make them as he sees fit, so long as he does so in good faith. As I have also said, I don't find that actively joining a policy discussion after running afoul of the enforcers of this policy is necessarily bad faith. It is entirely possible that there is a valid reason for the challenge to policy, and CODGEN has certainly not been shy in sharing his detailed arguments in support of his position, so allegations that he is secretly pursuing a hidden agenda are unfounded. Frankly, I would prefer that he make fewer less detailed arguments, but I have a much bigger problem with people who make no argument other than assertion as proof. Dhaluza (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What you say (1st paragraph) may be true or justifiable but I took the comment to be aimed at least in part at me and to be to some degree a "hint" that my energy might better be spent working on the problem. With that interpretation I didn't find it dismissive at all - but I can see at least some justice in your reaction. I pretty much agree with and appreciate your 2nd paragraph. If it was indeed aimed at me it's fair enough.
I've made this point elsewhere today, I'll make it here. Wikipedia is in a constant state of change - that's the nature of a wiki, that's the strength. Cogden has made edits, made changes. The changes to the policy pages might better have been left undone until there was a consensus on the talk page associated with the policy page (according to Cogden he did exactly that on one page, which assertion I accept as true) but it is not "disruption" to edit in a wiki. It's participation, it's how a wiki is used, it's the source of the power of a wiki. On the other hand, given that the nature of a wiki is to be in a state of change and to be open to editing the actions of those who are adamant advocates of PSTS to prevent change can be viewed as disruptive: they've stopped progress in its tracks. --Minasbeede (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the double standard that Vassyana described in his comment on the main page. Editing for change is viewed as disruptive, but editing against change (and reverting is editing) can also be viewed as disruptive, particularly when it is done in a dismissive way. Dhaluza (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. From the indenting, it shows my comment was only directed at the original post by Jossi--I accept Vassyana and your objection to my "defenders of the status quo" grouping, but still think it is an accurate characterization of the observed phenomenon. Dhaluza (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to comments by Vassyana

Vassyana's comments are the most evenly balanced comments yet. He articulately addresses the salient points of both 'sides', and clearly states his previous 'conflicts' with COgden.

I think these comments are probably the only ones provided so far in a clear, analytical manner, devoid of most of the emotive comments most others have made, including myself.

If editors from both 'sides' (pro- and anti-COgden), don't endorse his comments, surely there must be ulterior motives against COgden. wbfergus Talk 23:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse Vassyana's comments, but have a minor point to raise regarding the suggestion of a "zero-tolerance limit on project space disruption". I don't like the notion of zero-tolerance for something as ill-defined as "project space disruption"; it would be hard to edit under such a sanction not knowing how close one is coming to being blocked without warning. So, if there is to be a sanction on Cogden (not that I support one at this point), it would have to either provide for at least one warning shot across the bow, or else an indisputable and precise definition of project-space disruption. alanyst /talk/ 00:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The PSTS discussion is taking place at WP:NOR. This, on the other hand, is an RfC on user conduct. Framing the dispute as "anti-Codgen", "pro-PSTS" vs "anti-PSTS", etc. is what ruffles my feathers; it is not. Those that want to work on fixing what needs to be fixed at WP:NOR, can do so unimpeded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Actions akin to those detailed at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Discussed and undiscussed edits are the type of events that have lead people refer to "unequal treatment" and "policy defender" groups. Vassyana (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to refrain from stating this, as there really is not a very PC or tactful way of saying it that I can see, but I guess I finally will in light of the above two statements. To highlight Vassyana's comment, it does seem 'strange' jossi that what you have recently proposed is almost exactly what 'several' different editors have suggested numerous times on the NOR talk page over the last 4 months. But, those editors weren't part of the 'clique' of what is perceived as 'policy owners', so those proposals were summarily rejected by the 'clique' as a "non-starter", "A blatant attempt to weaken policy", etc. Numerous diffs could be provided, but since you also commented at least with an 'oppse' vote during several of those suggestions, I sure you must remember them. But, since someone within the 'clique' has finally suggested it, the 'clique' seems to finally think this is a great idea. Why, I don't know. Timing? The ability to go back to Jimbo and say "See what we did? We work tirelessly for the benefit of Wikipedia".? The ability to 'feel good' that no changes are made without the tacit approval of the 'clique'? This apparent double-standard is "what ruffles my feathers". In the long run though, I really don't care, as long as both 'sides' actively participate in 'your proposal', and can finally come to some sort of agreement to improve this mess. wbfergus Talk 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that while Jossi has listed towards the "strong PSTS" side, he has been very supportive of compromise attempts, including my numerous proposals. Just an thought to discourage painting with an overly broad brush. Vassyana (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for reminding me of that. Like many of these 'discussions', as one starts typing, emotions can easily take their own control of the fingers and important points can be missed and overly broad statements made. Jossi is definately one of the few of those who I would consider to be in the 'clique' that has made repeated attempts at honest discussion and active participation towards reaching any kind of agreement on various 'issues'. Thanks again for pointing that out. wbfergus Talk 15:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You are beating a dead horse, wbfergus. Progress is being made already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My main point was several of us suggested this numerous times and it was soundly rejected. However when you 'propose' it, the 'clique' endorses it as a great and novel idea. Also, please read the last sentence, since you obviously didn't make it that far before deciding a reply was warranted. wbfergus Talk 16:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Come on guys, I know a lot of bad feelings are being stirred up revisiting a lot of things, but let's try to move forward. You both have been very helpful and supportive in trying to reach a consensus, which being the lightning rod for compromise proposals I sincerely appreciate. Now, kiss and make up you two! *holds the video camera for "innocent" purposes* :) Vassyana (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh!      :^)      wbfergus Talk 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
As the self-styled representative of the audience to this policy battle let me thank both of you for what you are doing here. It is very much appreciated. (Can I get a courtesy copy of the film when it's finished?) --Hans Adler (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll make sure to reserve an autographed copy of the deluxe edition of "Wikipedians Gone Wild" for you. :) Vassyana (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
wbfergus, let's move forward, shall we? Come and give a hand on the new page at Wikipedia:Source typing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just now really read the RFC

The RFC states:

"Desired outcome

"COGDEN refrains from further direct or indirect attempts to alter policy and guidelines as they related to the selection and use of sources, specifically the PSTS clause of WP:NOR and WP:POLICY."

The proposed prohibition on indirect attempts is abhorrent. The accepted means of participating in the changing of policy is to engage in discussion on the corresponding talk page. COGDEN clearly has issues with the PSTS clause of WP:NOR and is not alone in that. Is he to be just the first of many who are to be prohibited from voicing concerns about policy, if the sanctions against him succeed? In the current situation I can see merit in COGDEN (and everybody else) admonished to not make edits to the policy pages that are at the center if a dispute. It would be a major change in policy for all editors to be forbidden to edit policy pages at all times. (The advice to discuss any desired change on the talk page first and to get consensus before editing is good advice: I'm not challenging that.) Policy does not "belong" to the admins nor to any self-selected subset of the admins. The net effect of the "desired outcome" would be the silencing of a critic of policy. The "desired outcome" is stipulated by supporters of the policy that is the center of the dispute. The desired outcome should be rejected pro forma, without regard to COGDEN or to anything he has done. It is not consistent with the nature of Wikipedia, should never have appeared in an RFC.

COGDEN's offense, if he has committed one, is to have made changes in policy pages (specifically, WP:NOR) at a time when a major dispute was in progress, with the changes being related to that dispute. That offense is adequately dealt with by reversion and by admonition/discussion with COGDEN.

According to COGDEN the change made to WP:POLICY was properly discussed on the relevant talk page before he made the change. If that is true then it is improper piling-on of charges to indicate he did anything at all incorrect in that edit. If his claims are true then shouldn't all portions of the original RFC that refer to that edit be lined out? No wrong of any sort occurred if COGDEN followed accepted procedure in making that edit. --Minasbeede (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. I also agree that the 'indirect' part seems odd. That could be interpred later (though not not explicitly stated) that if passed, COgden would be prohibited from even participating in talk page discussions. In general terms and cases, I can see (and have seen) occasions where users are blocked from certain articles, etc., but I can't recall any occasion where the ban also applied to the talk pages. If there are cases like that and some links can be provided, then I guess precedent has been established, but on the intial face of it, it seems pretty extreme and unusual. wbfergus Talk 15:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify that statement:
"COGDEN refrains from further direct or indirect attempts to alter policy and guidelines as they related to the selection and use of sources, specifically the PSTS clause of WP:NOR and WP:POLICY."
"Indirect" means not to change other policies in an attempt to support his changes to NOR, and not that he cannot participate in talk page discussions. He can definitely participate in the talk page discussions, although, the talk page edits should not overwhelm the discussion - as with any editor. Dreadstar † 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not falling all over yourself to assume good faith, eh? As a glass-house dweller myself I can say little - other than that it has been charged that COGDEN did what you say he should be prevented from doing but it has not been shown that he did it. Nor do I see a policy reason to forbid such an edit. I can certainly understand that such an edit could be done reprehensibly but I don't think it is a good idea to make that a priori assumption. Done improperly any policy edit is unlikely to persist more than a few minutes so there's hardly an "indirect" issue, as far as I can tell: the license granted by such a stealth "indirect" edit of a policy would seem to be so transitory as to hardly exist. If the tactic happened to succeed then before very much time passed I would think that both the enabled edit and the enabling edit would be reverted. Having to sometimes undo edits is pretty much a fact of life with a wiki, isn't it? Nor do I see any reason that COGDEN should be restrained from participating in the discussion surrounding NOR and PSTS within NOR. With a hotly debated topic he and all others should tread very carefully when it comes to editing the policy page itself. Seems to be an adequate restriction on COGDEN to me.
Just for the record, if anyone cares, the issue I have with NOR is with SYN, not PSTS. I think PSTS is an abomination but I don't see it as interfering at all with anything I might do and didn't enter the discussion with an agenda that involved PSTS. I hope someday SYN disappears (there's the agenda): that will be a benefit to Wikipedia. I won't work toward that, either. I removed the edit (of mine) most affected by SYN; I'm not discontented enough to do anything about SYN. --Minasbeede (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Now you got me curious. What is the issue with WP:SYN? If you do not want to get this debate out of focus, you can respond in my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looking at a provided reference

In the section "No Bad Faith" the discussion of WP:NOR has a reference "4. This is also refuted."

When I look at the reference I see that COGDEN said: ":At the very minimum, I think saying in this policy that secondary sources are preferred is an over-generalization, and does not reflect consensus. There's no such consensus, at least, in my area of the Wikipedia (controversial religious history)."

COGDEN was apparently referencing a blanket preference of all secondary sources over all primary sources. Whether or not the word "all" is accurate he wasn't talking about some specific aspect of primary source usage.

The refutation says: "Direct quotes maybe non-controversial, but they are also not encyclopedic content. It is very hard to use direct quotes in an encyclopedic way without straying into original research. This is why the preference is that articles rely on secondary sources. I cannot say anything definitive without a real example in context of an article. However I do not see how you have shown any evidence the current policy as written is either an overgeneralization or without consensus."

Maybe that's correct, or correct enough. But it's only about "direct quotes," not about primary sources in general. The refutation seems to rely on altering what COGDEN said to be about "direct quotes" and then refuting that.

In general, it seems to serve no useful purpose to take some specific partial aspect of something and then use that to ban the entire something - or to put that entire something under a cloud. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is exactly true that "it is very hard to use direct quotes in an encyclopedic way without straying into original research" it would seem that the caution should be directed at the use of direct quotes, not against primary sources. There's another point about the quoted sentence, but that belongs in the NOR talk page and I'm not going there so I'll not raise it.

There could be a discussion someplace, sometime of what exactly is and isn't "encyclopedic content" and about whether direct quotes are always, sometimes, or never "encyclopedic content." I don't advocate such a discussion (not the latter part, anyway), I don't think it's a good way to spend time, but if the advocates of favoring secondary over primary are going to make such claims that discussion may eventually become necessary. Generically I'd think that it is safe to say that sometimes direct quotes (which I guess by definition are from "primary sources") are appropriate as encyclopedic content, sometimes not. I feel that in the last sentence I've said nothing, which means the last sentence would be entirely inappropriate for use in a policy. I don't see any utility in a policy of saying sometimes X is OK, sometimes it isn't.

Nor should COGDEN be hung for not proving that "saying in this policy that secondary sources are preferred is an over-generalization." The policy says (has said/has often said) that secondary sources are preferred but that sometimes primary sources may be used. The language that allows use of primary sources (although with no specification at all of when that's acceptable) moderates the over-general interpretation that secondary sources are "preferred." If what I just wrote sounds like and will be castigated as blathering mumbo-jumbo I can't much complain, but I'd say that the reason it is blathering mumbo-jumbo arises from the poorly-conceived and poorly worded policy. Which, it turns out, is the cause of the entire controversy.

I don't really see that the cited "refutation" actually speaks to what COGDEN had said. --Minasbeede (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)