Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/COGDEN

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I did actually tell you what the problem is. Its the last 3 lines  here. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: and reiterated at WT:NOT#Summary of PSTS issues -- Fullstop (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: too simple? :) "When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras." -- Fullstop (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: -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)

text: 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)
thread_title: disagree strongly with Fullstop

message: 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)
Which AFAIK was done without removing the  in  PSTS section of the the WP:NOR page.
*Revision history of Wikipedia:Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources] the "new guideline"
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wikipedia:PSTS

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Allegations regarding sourcing of LDS article edits 

message: 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, . 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,  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Professor Marginalia comments 

message: [Moved back to the RFC page.] alanyst /talk/ 00:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional comment by Alanyst

message: #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)
thread_title: wbfergus response to comment by Professor Marginalia (moved here from project page)

message: 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"    ) 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Dreadstar, since you cannot back up the statement, will you please strike it. Dhaluza (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responding to comment by wbfergus

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the laugh!      :^)      wbfergus  Talk 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Response to comments by Vassyana 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Looking at a provided reference