Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COGDEN

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• COGDEN (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

COGDEN has been editing policy pages in a disruptive fashion over a period of several months.

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.

Description

COGDEN has been editing policy pages to push an agenda of being able to add material from primary sources as he sees fit, with no limitations on such use. 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. He claims, for example, that there is no consensus for wording about primary sources that has been in the policy, in more or less the same form, for nearly three years. His many posts to the talk page of NOR -- 450 posts about this one subject since July this year -- have at times made the page practically unusable. He is constantly reverting the policy, either to add new content or a dispute tag, frequently violating 3RR, and causing the page to be protected.

His latest threat is to take the disputing editors to ArbCom for violating WP:POLICY, specifically for violating his own changes to that policy [1], changes which have also been disputed.

Evidence of disputed behavior

COGDEN's disruptive reversions on WP:NOR to keep his non-consensus, disputed changes in place:

1. [2]
2. [3]

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

Adding inappropriate tag, reverting to keep it in place:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

COGDEN then created a new tag specifically for this dispute to try an end run around the issue of dispute tags not belonging on Policy pages, then reverted other editors to keep his new tag in place

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16]
6. [17]
7. [18]
8. [19]
9. [20]
10. [21]

More reverting, Primary source content:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]

WP:POLICY reverts:

1. [25] Cogden’s change and edit warring to keep his change in place:
2. [26] FeloniousMonk reverts:
3. [27] Cogden Re-adds:
4. [28] Jossi reverts
5. [29] Cogden re-adds:

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. Wikipedia:Consensus
2. Wikipedia:Disruption

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links) There have been innumerable attempts over the past few months to try and convince Cogden to stop edit warring and his disruptive behavior. Here are a few::

1. Coppertwig
2. Coppertwig
3. Vassyana
4. Dreadstar
5. SlimVirgin
6. Dhaluza
7. Slrubenstein
8. Slrubenstein
9. Jossi

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Dreadstar † 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC) I tried informally. At times I felt that COGden is fundamentally opposed to the principle of the policy itself. At times it seems like he feels thwarted in his attempts to write encyclopedia articles that "correct" mistakes in verifiable sources. I trid to work out our disagreemnt through dialogue on the twalk page and felt it wss goint nowhere and gave up. It was a very frustrating expeience, given the importance of policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Filll (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
2. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Guettarda (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
4. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
5. I think we have a problem when an editor edits policy articles tendentiously to support a POV on a limited set of articles. Crum375 (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Frankly, until I saw this RfC and a note by Cogden on my talk page I didn't even know we were still dealing with this issue. I don't know why it is taking so long for Cogden to understand that the general consensus doesn't support his proposed changes. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
7. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
8. I second JoshuaZ's comment. <<-armon->> (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
9. wbfergus (with a couple caveats, see my comments below) wbfergus ^Talk 12:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
10. I dorftrottel I talk I 12:25, December 13, 2007 — but see my comment below wrt revert-warring which applies to both "sides" which in turn define themselves primarily through participation in the revert-warring
11. Chaz ^Beckett 17:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
12. per JoshuaZ. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
13. per JoshuaZ, and in my experience some of Cogden's edits seemed to completely disrupt the existing policy,[30] or introduce contradictions in an exaggerated display of his tendentious interpretation of the existing policy in a violation of WP:POINT.[31] dave souza, talk 23:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
14. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Per JoshuaZ and others. COGDEN filing an RFAR hours after this RFC strikes me as a cynical attempt to ignore the community's input and appeal to authority where perhaps he can prevail based on his status rather than the strength of his arguments, which have generated only minimal support at the policy page.
15. Avb 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
17. No question about this one. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Response

Background

This discussion concerns a content controversy over a particular section of WP:NOR, which Dreadstar, User:Slrubenstein, Orangemarlin, and a few other editors have taken sides opposite mine on the talk page. During this months-long dispute, numerous admins and users have participated on both sides. I have become somewhat of a figurehead on the side of those arguing that the present "PSTS" section of NOR does not have consensus. Several editors, including some of the above endorsers such as Dreadstar and Slrubenstein, have been involved, and have been active participants in several edit wars, and have consistently acted as owners of the NOR article. Clearly, they and others have strong feelings on this subject.

Introduction

Taking me out of the equation will not solve the dispute. I am but one of many editors opposing the present PSTS language, and have been far more civil than most, including the endorsers. If I have to go away, fine, but this is a real dispute which needs to reach consensus. If there I have any fault in this matter, it is that I have been too strongly encouraging consensus, and have been too supportive of proposals that move in that direction. My main concern has been with violations of the following:

“ A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. ”

If this is true, then my actions in attempting to press toward change and the improvement of Wikipedia are fully justified. Do we believe this, or is this principle stated on WP:CONS false, and consensus can never change no matter how many people disagree? WP:CONS is the very policy I have been accused of violating (in addition to Wikipedia:Disruption, which is an essay, not a policy). Actually, WP:CONS is what I have been fighting to uphold, and in doing so I have not violated any policies. I have remained civil, never violated WP:3RR (despite Dreadstar's allegation), and always assuming good faith. It is hard, however, to assume good faith in the face of such ad hominem attacks as this RFC.

Response to Dreadstar's allegations

The real question here is whether my comments, proposals, and edits have been improper. Certainly, I have been actively involved in a hot controversy involving many parties on each side. Certainly I have made many proposed edits to the WP:NOR in an attempt to move toward consensus. All of these edits have been honest, good-faith edits that I believe would improve the article, and most of which have been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page. Most of these edits, however, have been reverted in a knee-jerk manner by editors such as the above endorsers who have acted as owners. I have been careful, in almost all instances to avoid entry into an edit war. Once my proposed edit has been reverted, I have sometimes tried another entirely different tack (usually reverted without comment by some of the above editors in violation of WP:OWN, WP:EP, WP:CONS, and WP:POLICY. I do not repeatedly insert the same proposed change, and have attempted for months to be responsive to comments and concerns by other editors. I have also been very supportive of proposals by editors on the opposite side of the controversy (such as Vassyana) which seek to move the article toward consensus.

Specifically, I respond to each of the instances for which Dreadstar has accused me of improper conduct:

Early edits to WP:NOR

On August 9, 2007, after discussion on the talk page here and here revealed that there was no consensus for the language in question, I made a bold edit ([32]). There is nothing wrong with bold edits. However, User:Vassyana reverted this edit and made a comment on the talk page, to which I responded, indicating that I would be "re-reverting to protect the status quo as of late 2006. If we come to a consensus as to specific instances in which secondary sources or primary sources (or even tertiary sources) are preferable, then we can move forward." I then reverted ([33]), and User:Vassyana reverted again. At this point, Vassyana had clearly started an Edit war, and I made no further edits.

The next day, after further discussions on the talk page and comments by editors who agreed with me and expressed helpful opinions, I made a small, compromise edit ([34]) which I thought would be acceptable and reflected consensus and everyone's conserns on both sides. To this point, the discussion was very civil and generally in favor of changing the policy page. However, User:Dreadstar entered the discussion and reverted, stating that we should "work this out on the talk page", but not offering no substantive discussion of his own. The version being jealously-guarded by Vassyana and Dreadstar had first been introduced in 2006, and there were good comments on the talk page suggesting that this version did not reflect consensus, I reverted to the 2006 version with the comment that we should maintain the 2006 status quo while working out whether there is consensus ([35]). This suggestion was rejected by Vassyana, who reverted without further comment. As we had clearly entered an edit war once again, I made no further edit.

A few days later, after further discussion on the talk page by multiple editors and constructive arguments for changing the policy page, I attempted to make another minimal change to the article ([36]). This was quickly reverted, however, by User:SlimVirgin, who came out of nowhere into the discussion without adding any constructive comments or discussion. I re-reverted once ([37]) suggesting that SlimVirgin read the talk page and the clear evidence that had already arisen by that time that the 2006 version did not reflect true Wikipedia consensus. SlimVirgin reverted yet again, and since this was clearly an edit war, I stopped editing. However, another editor, Dhaluza, who had made very good arguments on the talk page, entered the fray and reverted SlimVirgin's second reversion. Sambc attempted to solve the edit war by entering compromise language]. However, Dreadstar entered the edit war and reverted] without comment. Dreadstar's edit was the final straw leading to the page being protected.

Tagging the section

This tagging dispute, for which I have a relatively small role, appears absolutely laughable on its surface, but deeper-down is very sad, because it displays very disturbing violations of WP:OWN and WP:CONS by several editors, including some of the endorsers. In general, I stayed out of the edit wars, but I continued to make very cogent arguments on the talk page, and periodically sought to re-introduce the tag, which I honestly believe is critical for any highly-controversial section which cannot be fixed right away through consensus. I have never violated WP:3RR, and any time I have made a reversion, it was for an honest, good faith reason, and in conjunction with an argument, usually a new argument or suggestion, that I thought would move things toward consensus.

On August 14, 2007, after it became clear that some editors opposed changing the article, and that an approximately equal number of editors favored the proposed changes, I introduced the {{tl:Consensus}} tag to indicate that there was an active discussion about the language in question ([38]). The tag was immediately reverted by BirgitteSB [39] Tony Sidaway with the comment that if something doesn't reflect consensus, it shouldn't be in the policy, which was a very good point. Agreeing, I focused instead on changing the language, rather than adding a tag.

On September 7, 2007, however, Jacob Haller reinserted a tag, actually a better tag specifically designed for policy pages, but it contained stronger language. This edit was immediately reverted] by Jossi, who had by now entered the fray, without substantive comment. I made an edit ([40]) suggesting to Jossi and others the original tag I had proposed the previous month, as an acceptable compromise. However, ChazBeckett reverted me, and moved back to Jacob Haller's original proposal, which I did not oppose and I made no further edits. ChazBeckett's edit arguably moved the discuscussion into edit war status, so Slrubenstein protected the article.

After a period of protection and discussion on the talk page, the protection was lifted, and on September 24, 2007, I attempted to insert the tag ([41] ) that Jacob Haller had tried earlier in the month. I felt that during the protection period, an environment might have been created receptive to a tag. However, the tag was quickly reverted] by User:Odd nature and then re-reverted by Sambc, re-re-reverted by User:Odd nature. Then, the next day, the tag was re-re-re-reverted by User:Dhaluza, re-re-re-re-reverted by Kenosis, re-re-re-re-re-reverted by Sambc, re-re-re-re-re-re-reverted by Jossi, and yes, I'll admit, I added my own reversion too ([42]), followed by a further reversion by Jossi, a reversion by Jacob Haller, a reversion by User:Kenosis, another reversion by Jacob Haller, a further reversion] by User:Dave souza, another one] by Jacob Haller, another pass by Dave souza, and then, finally, to everybody's relief, the page was protected. Many of us are guilty on that one. I admit that I made one reversion in that edit war, which I probably should have refrained from; but I had far less involvement than most. And my edits were early in the day; when it became ridiculous, I stayed out of the fray.

Fast forward a month, after the protection period. On October 26, 2007 after an intense period of further discussion about the tag, I created a compromise tag {{policycontroversy}} to meet the concerns of several editors that the tag favored by Jacob Haller was too harsh ([43]). This tag was not immediately reverted. The next day, however, the tag was reverted by Jossi with the comment, "I don't think we need this anymore, do we?". The next day, on October 28, 2007, I answered Jossi in the affirmative by restoring the tag ([44]). Clearly, we did still need the tag, since there were ongoing hot discussions concerning the tagged section. However, Jossi reverted within 2 minutes without comment on the tag. Clearly, Jossi had started an edit war, and therefore I made no further edits regarding the tag that day.

On October 29, 2007, after further discussion on the talk page, apparent agreement that the tag was not such a bad thing, and trusting that Jossi had a cooling-off period, I attempted again to introduce the tag ([45]). I thought it was important that editors know there is an ongoing dispute about the section, and I wanted to have their comments. The tag was not immedately removed, however, and it remained on the page unharmed for nearly a month without reversion, which I viewed as a victory for the "bold-revert-discuss" cycle. Eventually, however, User:FeloniousMonk entered the fray and reverted the tag. I believed that FeloniousMonk was a relative newcomer who was not aware of the relative detente regarding the tag or the intense discussions on the talk page, so I replaced the tag on November 25, 2007 ([46]). This was immediately reverted without comment by Orangemarlin, who I believe was also a newcomer to the discussion at that point. I provided additional comments to Orangemarlin while replacing the tag ([47]), based on my belief that Orangemarlin had not been following the discussion regarding the tag. However, SlimVirgin quickly reverted, and knowing that with SlimVirgin's involvement, this friendly discussion had not devolved into an edit war, I made no further edits regarding the tag. Instead, I attempted to edit the article itself, so that no tag would be needed.

On November 26, 2007, after content edits I attempted to make to the article were reverted without comment or discussion, I again tried to introduce the tag ([48]), hoping that there was a sufficient cooling-off period and that we could return to the tag-detent that had existed since October. When Jossi quickly reverted and seemed to be aching for an edit war, I backed away once again from the tag issue and did not revert Jossi, who has reverted my edits far more times than the rare instances I have reverted his.

I took no further action to restore the tag until December 2, 2007, after a campaign by several editors to undue much of the consensus we had been reaching on the talk page during the last months. There had been a clear shift in the contents of the policy page recently, and I thought there were new, independent reasons to tag the section as controversial. Therefore, I attempted to re-introduce the tag ([49]) and was not immediately reverted, which I took as a sign that perhaps we had returned to an era of cooler minds circa late October to late November, when the tag was in place. I had high hopes at this point that a new approach to the article's content would succeed. However, on December 3, 2007, this new proposal was reverted, and the tag was once again without comment by SlimVirgin. This removal was reverted by Phil Sandifer, who called SlimVirgin's removal "disingenuous". Then, Kenosis reverted, and I, probably inadvisedly, [[50] reverted too], although I cited a new policy reason based on WP:CONS that the tag should remain, which had not been cited in prior discussions. FeloniousMonk then reverted.

The next day, December 4, 2007, after additional discussion and opposition on the talk page by others to the removal of the tag, I attempted to replace the tag, hoping that recent new policy arguments would be persuasive this time ([51]) Jossi quickly reverted, but was in turn re-reverted by Phil Sandifer, who was in turn re-re-reverted by Dreadstar, who was re-re-re-reverted by Vassyana, who was re-re-re-re-reverted once again by Dreadstar. However, Dreadstar made an important point regarding the appropriatenes of the {{tl:Policycontroversy}} tag, so in agreement, I proposed a return to the {{tl:Disputedtag}} tag ([52]), which I thought would calm Dreadstar and get him to end this crazy edit war. However, Dreadstar did not agree this was a compromise, and reverted, making this his third reversion of the day. Dreadstar was then reverted by Dhaluza, who was reverted by Crum375, and finally, the article was protected.

Content edits

On September 7, 2007, I made a bold edit to the section's content ([53]) based on discussions in the talk page and a number of concerns about simplifying the section. This was a good faith edit and an attempt to answer concerns on the talk page and work toward consensus. It was reverted by Dreadstar without comment or discussion, because Dreadstar did not agree with, but he did not explain why he didn't agree with it. Trying to divine Dreastar's reasoning, I offered a re-written version to address the concerns ([54]) that represented what I thought was a compromise. Dreadstar reverted this compromise too, also without comment. It has been difficult to engage Dreadstar in any meaningful discussion about comment, and clearly by this time, Dreadstar had initiated an edit war; nevertheless, I engaged in Dreadstar's war, and offered the prior version one more time ([55]), which was probably a mistake. Mikkalai then entered the fray and reverted. I made no further edits.

WP:POLICY

This is a baffling one. On September 11, 2007, I proposed a revised section, all in very good faith, on the talk page here and asked for comments. This edit really had nothing to do with NOR. It was just a clarification of the present part of the page, and a description of how consensus is achieved in policy pages. After several weeks of responding to comments, making edits to the proposal, and discussing a number of issues on the talk page, it looked like there was consensus, so I made the edit on October 1, 2007. ([56]). After a few edits to the policy article, FeloniousMonk, who did not participate in the talk page discussion, reverted without substantive comment. I then took the discussion back to the talk page to elicit FeloniousMonk's comments here. On October 23, 2007, after further discussion and edits to the proposal during the next few days, I re-introduced a significantly-revised draft I thought was responsive to everyone's comments ([57]). This was then reverted by Jossi, who had not participated in the earlier discussion. Jossi offered no substantive comments for this reversion, but I continued to discuss the matter on the talk page, making further changes to the proposal in response to comments. After Jossi's reversion, I had asked him what his concerns were, and if he was okay with the recent proposed changes, and he did not reply. On October 29, 2007, I noted on the talk page that Jossi had remained silent, and there did not seem to be any further comments or suggestions, so I inserted the most recent draft ([58]). That draft remained in the policy, and has been cited by others, and became an important part of the policy article until yesterday, when in conjunction with this dispute, the section was reverted by SlimVirgin and Dreadstar without substantive comment.

Conclusion

In sum, this is about my difference of opinion with the above editors on a highly controversial content issue for which they have strong feelings, and not about my own improper actions. I believe the endorsers are frustrated that a significant issue will not go away, have reached the end of their rhetorical rope, and are attempting to solve this by WikiLawyering instead of honest discussion and consensus on the talk page.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. COGDEN 21:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
2. wbfergus (with a couple caveats, see my comments below) wbfergus ^Talk 12:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Coppertwig (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: developments at WP:POLICY

Just prior to this RFC, SlimVirgin reverted a "Sources of Policy" section from the WP:POLICY article, claiming to be reverting to a version dating back to about September 2007, which existed for several months prior. However, the version from September stated:

“ A policy being adopted after having first been proposed on a wiki page, without first being applied in practice. (See Wikipedia:How to create policy). However, such proposals had a ~90% likelihood of failure, and this method is now mostly of historical interest. ”

However, SlimVirgin did not include the underlined sentence in the reversion. When I tried to insert the sentence from the Sept. 2007 version, SlimVirgin reverted with the comment "please seek clear consensus for the changes". Apparently, when I introduce changes, I have to seek consensus first. However, when SlimVirgin introduces changes, I have to seek consensus before reverting her.

I include this just to give some flavor behind the dispute here, and the parties involved. It is difficult to really understand the scope of the dispute, the number of editors involved, and the fact that almost every single person involved has made made errors in judgment (myself included), but the greatest errors in judgment are not mine. I think that instead of focusing on me, we really need to take a look at the behavior of everybody involved. That's why I think that an examination by the ArbCom is a better solution than a series of RFCs directed at all the participants individually, which I'm happy to assist with, if that's the preferred method of resolution here. COGDEN 20:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: New tag was a compromise

I've been accused of some impropriety by creating the Policycontroversy tag. This is a non-issue. I originally, and still do, favor use of Disputedtag, however when Kenosis objected to that tag having overly harsh language, I proposed this one as a compromise. I was fully open about having created it myself. And people agreed it was better than Disputedtag, because nobody reverted it for almost a month, which is notable considering the crazy edit war that occurred previously based on the Disputedtag. Nobody should be criticized for attempting a successful compromise.

Dreadstar has to have known the context behind the creation of this tag, and I call on him to withdraw his negative comments relating to this, one of the few successful compromises in the whole NOR dispute. COGDEN 23:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: Reflections

This has been a very complex and long controversy, and many of use, myself included, have probably taken it too seriously, and have at times made edits or reversions outside our normal character. Though I do not believe I have violated any rules of Wikipedia, I admit my part in the polarizing and disruptive atmosphere at NOR, and have learned a lot from the experience. I have learned that it is impossible to adequately defend onesself from an RFC where you are just one small part of a huge controversy; the context and behavior on all sides is impossible to replicate on an RFC page. I've also learned that some bold edits stick, but that once an article's ownership takes on a certain militancy, it doesn't matter how good faith your edits are, how civil you are, how scrupulously you try to avoid serious edit wars, or how badly the other side violates policy. You will be judged on your own behavior, out of context, and that is how you should approach editing.

I've learned that I need to be much more careful about every single edit or reversion I make, because it can come back to haunt me many months later, and may be cited out of context. This has made me much more careful and circumspect about editing. It should also, I hope, cause a bit if circumspection among Dreadstar, SlimVirgin, Jossi, and others for whom an RFC like this could just as easily be presented. I have debated presenting opposing RFCs against the worst offenders on the other side of the issue, because on the one hand, I want to defend myself, but on the other hand, these are highly personal attacks I believe should not be used except in the most egregious circumstances involving clear violations of policy—certainly not as a means to silence the opposition in a policy dispute. SlimVirgin has already been caught in one hypocricy trap, as we all have become hyperaware of each and every edit we all make. If there is one thing good that has come from this RFC, perhaps it is this: everyone is on notice that every single edit they make is important, and they should treat it as if their reputation depended on it. COGDEN 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A fair proposal

I'd like to make a proposal, which I think is very fair, and would go a long way toward reaching some sort of equilibrium in the WP:NOR and other policy-related articles. The proposal is this: I agree to voluntarily refrain from editing WP:NOR, WP:POLICY, and WP:CONS for 3 months if Dreadstar, SlimVirgin, Jossi, Slrubenstein, Dave souza, Avb, and Kenosis agree to do likewise. This will be a voluntary moratorium that recognizes the part that each of us has played in the pending dispute, and that we share the responsibility for handling it badly by either being too bold, argumentative, or obstinate on the one side, or by excessive ownership and edit warring on the other side. This will allow other, less-invested editors to participate and perhaps form a solution to the problem which we cannot resolve on our own. Since this agreement solves nothing unless we all participate, we all have to agree before it takes effect. Who is willing to take one for the good of Wikipedia?

Users who endorse this proposal:

1. COGDEN 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

comment

Just adding this here since there really isn't a better place. A talk page could easily be missed, and it isn't neccessary to do this on each person's talk page either. While in principal, the concept is commendable, in implementation it will never fly. This can easily be construed as an attempt to get those generally opposed to changes 'out of the picture' for a while, at the sole expense of only COgden on the other end incurring the same 'penalty'. I'm not sure of any way such a proposal could be made that was fair and equitable to both 'sides', but '1' vs '7' surely won't work. I also don't feel it is really neccessary for eith 'side' to agree to anything similar. It would be best if both 'sides' agreed that occasionally they may 'stray' a bit, and if so, agree that any verbal reprimands from any other 'parties' not be taken personally, but taken with a garin of salt to step back for a while, take a deep breath, and honestly (not emotionally) take a serious look at the other 'sides' position. This would go a long way towards alleviating most of the emotional and other 'aggravating' circumstances. Additionally, a few of the most 'abrasive' people that have really played 'instigator' roles (much more so than several of the people listed above), aren't even listed. I think Dreadstar knows who I'm talking about (and it is not him). I just don't feel it is pertinent to name any additional names here (yet, anyway). wbfergus ^Talk 15:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Comment by Fullstop

This RfC is an immense waste of time to all involved, and I don't see what Dreadstar hopes to achieve by it other than to wikilawyer Cogden from working elsewhere.

• That the PSTS section is disputed is hardly disputable. Whether placement of a {{disputed}} tag is good idea or not is another issue altogether, but not evidently what Dreadstar has in mind (otherwise this RfC would be about the suitability of the tag).
• "[Cogden] has been editing policy pages in a disruptive fashion over a period of several months" is patently bad faith. Cogden justified his edits (whether suitably so or not is here moot) when he noted that things had stalled and bold editing was (as Cogden saw it) the only way to break the gordian knot. Whether Dreadstar likes it or not, BRD is one way to deal with deadlocks.
• "The trigger for [Cogden's edits] seems [to be his relationship to LDS-related edits]" is speculative vitriol and not worthy of an experienced 'pedian, leave alone an admin. What difference does it make what wikispace Cogden edits? "[Cogden's] attempts to change the NOR policy to make his reliance on early Church sources more appropriate has become problematic" is way out of line ad-hominem attack and itself blatant OR; not once has Cogden made any such connection himself. In fact, in the one instance (that I am aware of) where OR in an LDS-related article was noted on the Talk:NOR, Cogden himself fixed it post-haste.
• "He claims, for example, that there is no consensus for wording about primary sources that has been in the policy, in more or less the same form, for nearly three years."
  This "claim" is hardly original or specific to Cogden, nor is there anything about it that is false. Anyone who has even bothered to even look at Talk:NOR (or its long archives) is in serious denial to suppose that there is consensus.
• "His latest threat is to take the disputing editors to ArbCom"
  So what? Is Dreadstar here attempting to disenfranchise Cogden's rights to take anything to ArbCom? Or is calling it a "threat" an expression of fear that Cogden might actually do so?

If Cogden actually did go to Arb, one of the issues exposed would be Dreadstar's own role in the affair. Which not only was edit-warring itself, it occurred without having participated in the discussion that led to the edits (NB: not Cogden's!) that Dreadstar reverted.
-- Fullstop (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
2. dhaluza
3. wbfergus (with a couple caveats, see my comments below) wbfergus ^Talk 12:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Achromatic (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
6. --Coppertwig (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Cla68

My comment isn't on COGDEN's actions necessarily, but just an observation that COGDEN may be correct about WP:OWN issues being involved in this dispute. I noticed some issues with WP:OWN over the policy in question before [59] and it appears that there still may be some issues with OWN and which may involve some of the editors involved with bringing or endorsing this RfC on COGDEN. Thus, this RfC may not address all of the issues involved with this dispute and may not, thus, be able to help much in resolving the overall conflict related to the WP:NOR policy. Cla68 (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cla68 (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
2. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
4. wbfergus (with a couple caveats, see my comments below) wbfergus ^Talk 12:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Vassyana (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Dhaluza (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Achromatic (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
8. --Coppertwig (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mostly outside view by Alanyst

My prior involvement in this matter is very minor, consisting of a note to one of the involved parties to try to cool things down a bit. I saw a good part of the discussion back then but it was extensive and thus hard to follow, and I haven't kept pace with the recent turn of events.

I find Dreadstar's accusations to be largely unsubstantiated, and full of conclusory language colored by a pervasive assumption of bad faith:

• "COGDEN has been editing policy pages to push an agenda of being able to add material from primary sources as he sees fit, with no limitations on such use."
  • This sounds like the most bad-faith interpretation one could possibly take of Cogden's concerns with the primary/secondary/tertiary sources (PSTS) clause, not a realistic depiction of Cogden's actual stance. Dreadstar provides no evidence for such an agenda; the diffs above show what Cogden did but not why or in what context, so this "agenda" is pure bad-faith speculation.
• "attempts to change the NOR policy to make his reliance on early Church sources more appropriate" (assuming an ulterior motive)
• "He is constantly reverting the policy [...] frequently violating 3RR [...] causing the page to be protected" (in truth, edit warring by numerous editors caused page protection, and Cogden's opponents reverted and violated 3RR at least equally)
• "COGDEN's disruptive reversions on WP:NOR to keep his non-consensus, disputed changes in place" (begging the question of the PSTS prose having consensus)
• "Adding inappropriate tag, reverting to keep it in place" (the tag's inappropriateness was not self-evident to many editors)
• "COGDEN then created a new tag [...] to try an end run around the issue" (seeking a compromise solution is an "end run")

Dreadstar also fails to mention that Cogden has explained his position and actions numerous times, including above, yet Dreadstar does not demonstrate why Cogden's explanations are invalid. And Dreadstar doesn't mention that Cogden is not alone in his concerns with PSTS; when I was following the discussion there were several other editors who joined in expressing similar concerns.

I believe Cogden is no more guilty of disruptive editing than Dreadstar or the other involved editors are. To quote from the guideline:

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

The questions of whether an addition to a policy page reflects consensus, and what constitutes a reliable source, are subtle questions that reasonable people disagree about. They are not disruption under this definition.

The accusation of disruption seems to be a euphemism, very much in vogue right now, for "continuing to make arguments/edits I don't agree with and find annoying". You won't give in after I've emptied my quiver of arguments at you? Then you're being disruptive. You keep insisting there isn't consensus for my position? Disruptive. You keep trying to reach a new consensus when I've told you the matter is closed? That irritates me, so it must be disrupting the encyclopedia.

The PSTS issue, and how it should be treated under WP policy, is a complicated question. It is reasonable to expect a great deal of discussion and debate concerning the nuances of the matter. Cogden's persistent efforts to satisfy his concerns about PSTS and NOR are no doubt frustrating to those who like the status quo and don't want to have to defend it—but like it or not, consensus can change, and those who seek a new consensus should not be limited to a narrow period of time in which to make their case, after which the issue must be considered permanently closed. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
2. wbfergus (with a couple caveats, see my comments below) wbfergus ^Talk 12:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
3. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Yes, the "empty quiver" metaphor is a good way to express what I have also seen. Dhaluza (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Achromatic (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Coppertwig (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by dhaluza

I also think this RfC is ill-advised and largely without merit. Although COGDEN has certainly been one of the most active, and some might say activist, editors at WP:NOR, I don't think his editing behavior is so disruptive as to require sanction. Further, my comment cited above was only intended as a reminder to be patient and civil because I sensed that the discussion was getting heated, and I thought a bucket of cold water was needed; it should not be interpreted as "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" as used above. In fact it could be applied to parties on all sides of the dispute.

I believe COGDEN does try to make reasoned arguments to support his positions, and the stated desired outcome of this RfC is to silence him. Sometimes his comments are terse or provocative, but he is also provoked by other editors who are either dismissive, or openly hostile to his positions. Dhaluza (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. wbfergus (with a couple caveats, see my comments below) wbfergus ^Talk 12:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
3. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
4. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Achromatic (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Dorftrottel

Consensus is found through editing, but revert-warring is lame and counter-productive and every revert after (arguably) the very first one is just stupid. I dorftrottel I talk I 12:11, December 13, 2007

I would even go so far as to argue that every revert after the third on each "side" should be treated as a 3RR vio, regardless of how many reverts those editors had done earlier. I dorftrottel I talk I 22:51, December 13, 2007

Comment by wbfergus

First, let me say that this is a highly emotional and convoluted subject, with both sides (COgden himself and 'anti-COgden') being at extreme opposite ends. At times, I myself have wished COgden would just drop something so we could move on to other points, and at times I have agreed with what he was trying to accomplish and discouraged by knee-jerk reverts of him and others without comments or participation in discussions.

Next, let me clarify that I have been involved in the discussions at WT:NOR for somewhere around 4-6 months, so I'm not sure if I can 'officially' be classified an 'outside party'.

Finally (at least as far as an initial comment/statement), let me further clarify that since this is so convoluted that I plan on updating this statement as I remember or otherwise run across various points. But, if there is a time limit, I wanted to get on record that this is a convoluted and emotional issue, and everything may not be fully addressed (at least by me) in a timely fashion (I do have other things to do).

With regard soley to WP:NOR and WT:NOR (since I have no involvement in WP:POL other than quoting a passage from it and seeing a quote on it yesterday that seemed to pertain to active NOR discussions):

1. COgden has been a polarizing figure at one extreme for changes (call him 'far-right').
2. Around 7 or so Admins and a couple non-Admins have been at the extreme other end, no changes whatsover under any conditions (call them 'far-left').
3. Most participants fall in the middle, casting their 'vote' (stating their opinion) towards either side depending on the issue at hand.
4. I can clearly see both 'sides' of this argument and also clearly see that neither side is willing to back down or is willing to compromise, and that this issue will not simply go away without COgden, but will instead simply continue.

Regarding the tag on the policy page issue, I have the following comments. It has been stated that this 'destabilizes' policy. The tag wasn't (at least in the final variations of it) at the top of the page, but down in the section were controversy exists. I didn't find it disruptive or destabilizing, but more as a 'flag' that it was being discussed for one reason or another, and if someone wanted to know why, they could go to the talk page to find out why it was so flagged. To me, this mainly was a mechanism for others to actively participate, since previous postings on the Village Pump and other related policies hadn't generated much extra participation. Since the tag first appeared though, there did seem to me to be more people joining in the discussions, so it seemed like the approach worked, though maybe the other 'side' didn't want more participation.

This in itself is one of the issues that seemed to vaguely reflect WP:OWN. At times, the 'anti-COgden' side seemed more interested in keeping the group of participants small.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the NOR policy looked like this [60]. By Oct. 31, 2006, NOR looked like this [61]. This is after 23 different edits by SlimVirgin, 12 edits by other editors, 5 of which were reverts. Further, this seems to be in clear violation of WP:POL that even on Sept. 29, 2006 (before the NOR edits and still exists today), where it explictly states "As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages, but are sometimes forked out if large in scope. One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first." As the before and after versions clearly show, this wasn't just minor editing, but a major rewrite. I have been unable to find anywhere (though I would love to proven wrong) any announcements on Village Pump or any related policy pages discussions about these changes. The only 'discussion' I have been able to find is on the (now) archived talk page in Archive 15 at [62], where one editor questioned the mass edits, and another editor replied back. That is it, no other discussions anywhere.

NOTE: this didn't work for me, so you'll have to look at the Archive, under the section "SlimVirgins recent edits". wbfergus ^Talk 14:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me either. Try this link: Archive 15, Policy changes by SlimVirgin --Coppertwig (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since these mass edits, there have been around 700 edits, primarily about these changes, either modifications, changes or reverts. Looking over the edit history and the talk page, it 'seems' like these mas changes to a 'core policy' were done in a vacuum, with maybe 20 or so different editors aware of them. One of the common arguments any change to the policy has been (for the last 4-6 months), that these changes have been long-standing policy and made with wide-spread community consensus. I (and many others) have failed to see how so few editors can make 'widespread community consensus'. Another argument used to show there is (was?) consensus for these changes is that silence equates to acceptance, even though just yesterday, SlimVirgin on the WT:POL page in an argument with COgden explicitly stated "This is not what consensus is when it comes to policy. Silence doesn't mean people agree". This is in context to COgden assuming consensus when no objections to a change were brought forth.

So again, this really raises the specter of WP:OWN, when it seems that there is a protectionist 'group' to keep the status quo, and twists arguments from one policy discussion page around to suit their needs on another policy discussion page.

For right now, I won't even get into the issue of incivility from a few of those supporting any action against COgden, or the actions where a few people have been discussing NOR more or less behind the scenes on User talk pages and trying to solicit support. I don't know if that's allowable or not, but seems to be another pertinent aspect of this whole convoluted mess.

Either way, it seems like most of the involved parties should at the very least take a step or two back, take a deep breath, and seriously consider the other 'sides' viewpoint. Maybe as another alternative, the involved parties should recuse themselves from any further edits and/or reverts, and let the other 'middle-of-the-road' parties try to hammer out something. With around 700 edits to the policy in 14 months, with around 2-3 months of edit protection thrown in there, this hardly seems a 'stable' policy. What harm can come from those in the middle trying to work out something that may be workable, clear, and concise? Policy should be something with a clear 'black and white', not something with 'various shades of gray', open to differing interpretations depending upon who is reading it and what their mood is.

That's all for now, I need to reply on the ArbCom case and do other things.

wbfergus ^Talk 14:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Vassyana (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Blueboar (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
3. I endorse the version of this statement existing at the time I'm signing. Coppertwig (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Shirahadasha

I do not believe that it is or should be a sanctionable offence to state ones honest view on a policy talk page. We should expect that people will sometimes disagree and will not always be persuaded by what others have to say. Because of this, we should expect that consensus will sometimes be hard to reach. Deadlocks are a natural and normal event, something that we ought to expect. It seems to me we have two choices in such cases. One option is to simply live with deadlocks, believing that our system is basically useful and putting up with the annoyance of an occassional deadlock is worth the other benefits the consensus system provides (See Ostrich algorithm). Another option is to institute some sort of new method to resolve deadlocks when consensus cannot be reached after some amount of time and effort with existing methods. However, it seems to me that any attempt to punish editors simply for having and expressing views that happen to disagree with each other would be the worst possible outcome and one I could not support. I'd much rather live with deadlocks than have such an outcome, which would be demoralizing and discouraging to many well-meaning participants. I'd also much rather live with a method in which the majority locks policy pages and ignores minority views that are below a threshold of support, without sanctioning or punishing those who continue to maintain and advocate for them.

I have reviewed the additional material provided about User:COGDEN's LDS edits here. I certainly don't agree with all of these edits, or arguments. But nonetheless, this is an issue of disagreement about policy and how to interpret it, not "disruption" as ordinarily understood. I believe both Cogden's arguments in response to objections to his edits to LDS articles and his decision to take his case to the WP:NOR talk pages and attempt to influence the NOR policy are more appropriately interpreted as efforts to work within Wikipedia's structure and exercise his rights and influence within it rather than an attempt to go outside or disrupt it. I do not believe he should be sanctioned for disagreeing with the current wording or for pointing out that a fairly broad spectrum of editors with opinions on the subject have disagreed with it for one reason or other. I understand there is no claim that COGDEN has not been abiding by policy in his current edits on LDS articles. If there is such a claim, it should be alleged and evidenced within this RFC.

I would not oppose a decision to protect WP:NOR and not to permit change the sections involved, even by admins, absent further discussion. However, I would do this on a prospective basis only given the numerous edits made by many editors in the recent past. People on both sides of this issue have been involved in WP:BOLD edits. I believe we would all be better off if we instituted a more orderly process for changing key policy pages, while adopting a "no harm, no foul" approach to everyone involved in the current dispute. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. wbfergus ^Talk 16:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (mostly, though protection is an issue I'm against currently. This (NOR) is currently an edit war amongst Admins due to protection. 'Regular' users can't participate)
2. Cool Hand Luke 09:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent comment: I find the material brought forward by Professor marginalia and Vassyana below, which details back-and-forth activities both between article space and WP:NOR and between WP:NOR and the other policies, more persuasive than the original information brought to this RFC, which had focused on edits to WP:NOR only. I also note Vassyana's comment that COGDEN had moderated his behavior recently and hence what I've observed is only his recent, more moderate behavior. I agree that making large changes to policy pages first and commenting later (or not commenting at all) is not in Wikipedia's interest. Nonetheless, I would prefer arriving at a more orderly approach to editing policy pages without the necessity of sanctions, and an effort to resolve the substantive policy disagreement through discussion. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by llywrch (not sure whether I'm a party or an outsider to this)

The text of any policy page does not define or set forth that policy; the text simply sets forth a description of what some Wikipedians think it is. Hopefully this description reflects the consensus of the community of the project. In reality, this consensus is unknowable because not all Wikipedians will contribute (they may be busy improving content), have no need to know what that policy is, or they may not have a consistent or clearly defined to contribute. Further, since Wikipedians are a diverse bunch, even experienced, serious and thoughtful editors will disagree -- sometimes passionately -- over the exact description of a given policy. It would be best in those situations the editors of that policy would agree to disagree and simply omit to describe that part of the policy, but Wikipedians are driven to write as comprehensively or completely as possible. The fact that the English Wikipedia has over 2.1 million articles, many growing in size at this very moment, is proof of that.

For these reasons, 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. Otherwise Wikipedians will increasingly ignore not only the text but even the intent of the policy, and risk the destruction of Wikipedia's goal of creating a valuable reference available to all. While the description of policy needs to be constantly updated, this relatively trivial task should not result in serious disagreements.

Therefore edit wars over policy pages, while perhaps not harmful, are clearly a waste of time. -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
2. wbfergus ^Talk 16:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (especially about IAR. Current protectionism and ownership atiitudes on NOR tend to drive many users towards IAR).
3. Good statement, but I add that policies need to be stable and edit wars on them are not good. Many people look to policy pages for help. Major changes should be settled on the talk page before editing the policy page. Hope this RfC will lead to that. It looks like this has lasted for months, far too long. Hope both sides will bury the hatchet and reach agreement. I do agree that Cogden's creating a new tag for this and some other actions by him are disturbing.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Professor Marginalia

I have contributed to the discussion at WP:NOR, but have not edited the policy mainspace. The issue is complicated because with nearly every significant alteration to the policy made by COGDEN (and he has made roughly 75 policy mainspace edits since Aug 2007), there has been a corresponding edit to remove it. In my opinion using policy mainspace to "test balloon" substantive, non-consensus changes is disruptive practice in-and-of itself, leading to exactly this sort of standoff: charges of WP:OWN launched from the one side and WP:TEND from the other. Basically COGDEN claims bold strategy with parts of the mainspace are justified because community consensus does not exist for the original wording of what he's changing either-that's his view. Even though I am not persuaded that he's right, I believe he thinks he is using the appropriate methods to either correct bad policy or to force the issue to form a new consensus.

I'm especially concerned, however, that whether he means to do so or not, COGDEN's assertions about what "community practice" or what other "policies" say often turn out (as they're unpeeled) to be self-affirming circularities. Starting here it's unmistakable that COGDEN's use of primary sources was contested as "original research" in an article dispute, and that language in the PSTS was used against him in the dispute. Shortly after is when he boldly changed the PSTS, and in the dispute which followed there, he frequently claimed that wording must be changed because it did not reflect what's practiced at WP, that the use of primary sources over secondary sources in controversial subjects (which the article dispute against him was about) was the normal community practice. In the months that have followed, there are numerous other examples of these self-affirming circles:

1. COGDEN tags the policy [63]; when the tag is objected to, no problem-he makes himself a new one: [64], tug-o-wars to keep it up, [65], [66], while also claiming because it is so-tagged, it's okay to experiment with rewrites of policy mainspace: [67]
2. COGDEN is remonstrated for using WP:BOLD in policy mainspace, and pointed to WP:CONS and WP:RD instead [68]. Within the next 2 days, COGDEN performs a convenient rewording of WP:CONS [69], and returns to the discussion 4 days later using the self-same argument which he himself recently reworded into WP:CONS[70].
3. COGDEN reworks WP:POLICY, prefaced on the talk page with "we can always revert and bring it back here for more comments" [71]; it's reverted [72], COGDEN tries again [73], reverted again [74], and COGDEN puts it in a third time, [75] while on talk page acknowledges it is the lack of input to his proposal which he uses as the basis for what he's calling "consensus" for the change in his mainspace edit summary: [76]. Following this, he points to WP:CONS to claim "silence" indeed does imply consent,[77] even though the sentence which immediately follows the "silence" statement in the policy says, "In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." COGDEN then closes one self-affirming circle with, "nobody reverted for quite some time, and in fact the section has been cited and copied to WP:CONS"[78], , - which is only true in so far as an editor performed a redlink repair, necessitated through COGDEN's changes to the section breaking the original WL. And closes the chain-linked circle between all three policies, (now suitably reworded due to his recent alterations to them), using the newly worded WP:POLICY to lend weight to his argument for alterations to WP:NOR [79]

Regardless of the appropriateness of the content to his policy edits, the very fact alone that he finds it necessary to change words in the policies which he then subsequently uses to prevail in disputes he was already involved in other places has made it almost impossible to get a good handle on what's up and what's down in the dispute. His bold edits have been most unhelpful at WP:NOR, and while he's running around like the Gingerbread Man making expedient changes to other policies which can help him at WP:NOR, disputes now surround him in those too. And if the volume and complexity evident in this RFC isn't enough to make anyone mad, add to it a petition to arbcom, volumes and volumes of dispute at NOR, more on other assorted policy pages, - and oh, yes - more where the dispute seems to first originate, round about here, 7/27/07, when in a dispute over COGDEN's reliance upon primary sources in an article talkspace, an exasperated editor complains:"How to ruin a good article... Make sure, that while we are at it, we overuse primary source data contrary to wikipedia policy so that we can turn this article into a brand new 500 page book of original research" [80]

I welcome COGDEN's input on policy talk pages, but he needs to refrain from any further editing to policy mainspace. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Dreadstar † 23:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Not only is this the most lucid summary of this case so far, it makes it easy for non-involved parties to unravel the spaghetti in this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
4. The basic facts are articulately and faithfully summarized here. Although, for the moment, I withhold comment on the recommended outcome in the last one-sentence paragraph, . ... Kenosis (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Cogden tried to change WP:NOR to help him in content disputes; tried to change WP:POLICY to help him change NOR; then tried to change WP:CONSENSUS to help him change POLICY. Not to mention the specially created tags he left behind when reverted. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Guettarda (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Wow, I had no idea it was this bad. I had only seen the elements on NOR. This is appalling. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Endorse. Crum375 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Endorse. This accurately describes Cogden's attitude and behaviour on NOR, and clarifies the background to his actions. His disruptive editing to policy pages has to stop, his long, tendentious and confusing posts on policy talk pages really need to be reigned in. However, I'd be reluctant to see him prevented from making concise and clear comments or proposals on these talk pages. .. dave souza, talk 08:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Well-said. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Clear summation of the situation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Good summary, accurately describes the scope of the problem behavior. Chaz ^Beckett 13:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Defining summary. — Rudget _{Contributions} 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Brilliant summary by Marginalia. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
15. endorse Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
16. FeloniousMonk (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Professor Marginalia sums it up nicely.
17. Any attempt to undermine the distinction between primary and secondary sources, or the way this distinction is employed on Wikipedia, is harmful. COGDEN's behavior fails to show an appreciation of this truth, suggesting he either does not understand the distinction, does not understand how to employ the distinction in practice, or has an agenda which is harmful to Wikipedia. Whichever of these is the case, it amounts to the fact that COGDEN should not be editing WP:NOR until he does understand the distinction and its use, and supports it. BCST2001 (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Mostly. Same reservation as Kenosis. Vassyana (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Endorse, with caveat per Kenosis. Avb 00:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Filll (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Horrifying. No wonder the people on the talk page will not explain to me what the issue is. They want to cover this nonsense up in a blur of confusion, hidden in plain sight as it were. With behavior like this, Cogden should no longer be editing policy pages, and maybe some other classes of pages as well. Acting like this will quickly destroy Wikipedia. We do not need this kind of bad faith behavior here.
21. Very nice summary, as opposed to the long-winded legal document from COGDEN. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Endorse altogether. We need a way or getting broader representation in changing policy, but this way isn't. And policy changes to accommodate a particular view on a group of articles are usually not a good idea. DGG (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment by Alanyst

This is in response to Professor Marginalia's comment above. I'm putting this in a separate section from my original comments to avoid implying that those who endorsed my earlier comments endorse these too.

What the good professor describes as "self-affirming circularities" can also be described as "fundamental problem-solving". If a person tries to fix a problem and discovers an underlying problem that needs to be solved in order for the more superficial one to be solved, they will move on to address the deeper problem. When solutions to the deeper problems are found, the person takes advantage of those solutions to fix the problems that depended on them. In the end, they arrive where they started from, back at the original problem but now with the ability to solve it.

The process of changing WP policy is necessarily circular in this way. To those of us who cannot change WP policy by fiat, bringing about change has to happen by a circular process of discussion on article talk pages (to reveal the policy concerns), then on policy talk pages (to propose changes and establish consensus for them), then edits to policy pages themselves (to reflect the current state of consensus), which then impact the discussion on the mainspace talk pages (to resolve the original disputes), and so on. If WP policy is not to be fixed and unchanging except by executive decree, then it's hard to see how such a circular process can possibly be avoided.

Viewed in this light, no assumption of bad faith on Cogden's part is necessary. To wit:

• Cogden became aware of a relatively new clause in WP:NOR that, to him, improperly discouraged use of primary sources
• The clause became a greater concern when it was cited to him during a dispute at Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre
• Cogden raised the issue at WP:NOR and discovered a few underlying problems:
  • Significant disagreement about how to define primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
  • Disagreement about whether the PSTS clause was considered established policy or not—a question of consensus
• The consensus question revealed difficulties with how WP policy is allowed to change, and how to treat sections of policy that are under dispute on the policy talk page.
• Cogden initiated discussion and made changes at WP:POLICY, WP:CONS, and WP:NOR to try to clarify or add wording to solve the problems he perceived with them, which could then be used to help resolve the more superficial disputes.

Of course, this did not exactly happen in a strictly linear fashion, but the same can be said of Marginalia's examples of Cogden's self-affirming circularities; the diffs for those examples, viewed in isolation above, look much worse than they do in context. Multiple discussions and editing episodes happened contemporaneously, and it's very important to note that this was not solely Cogden himself making this happen. It's obvious from looking at Wikipedia talk:No original research that there are many voices in the discussion, many concerns about PSTS, NOR, CONSENSUS, and POLICY, and nobody can reasonably claim to have all the right answers. There are ongoing efforts to find compromise, and that is good, despite the overwhelming volume of prose necessarily generated by such efforts.

In any case, it's quite possible to view Cogden's edits to multiple policy pages as an innocent endeavor to solve a chain of policy wording problems, and not as an underhanded way to enforce his will ultimately in an article content dispute. When there is a reasonable good-faith explanation for a person's actions, I prefer that over a reasonable bad-faith explanation. I suppose those who are protective of the policy status quo are naturally more inclined to take a dim view of those who challenge that status quo, and they can be forgiven for reacting strongly against such challenges, in case those bringing them are indeed acting in self-interest and not with good intentions. The problem is, there's a real danger of confirmation bias that I think has impacted this matter, where the status quo editors have allowed their natural suspicion at the outset of this dispute to color their view of Cogden's subsequent actions. Persistent efforts to reach a compromise are taken as tendentious efforts to override consensus. Boldness is taken to be disruption. Dissatisfaction with wording is taken to be rejection of fundamental Wikipedia principles, or even fundamental principles of objective scholarship.

So, I do not accept the allegations of disruption, bad faith, and tendentiousness against Cogden. I'm sure he's made mistakes; indeed, he has admitted to having made several. But if he has been tendentious, he has been mirrored by his opponents' stubbornness in reverting. If he has been disruptive in making policy edits, his opponents have been disruptive in asserting ownership over those policy pages. I personally hold neither to be true; both Cogden (and those who share his views) and his opponents have been acting in good faith, trying to act in Wikipedia's best interests. Any faults on either side I consider to be forgivable lapses in judgment: mistaking boldness for disruptiveness, reverting instead of stepping away, mistakenly interpreting opposition to a single clause of a policy as evidence of bad faith, pressing forward with controversial changes in order to remedy controversial changes, trying to solve too many fundamental problems at once. To single out Cogden for his mistakes in this matter strikes me as fundamentally unfair. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Fullstop (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC); As I said elsewhere, "when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." i.e. all things being equal, the ontologically simplest explanation is usually the correct one. This should ideally also be applied to WP:NOR itself.
2. Mostly. Good faith does not mean an editor is not being disruptive. The plentiful cliches about good and best intentions speak well for me. Vassyana (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Agree. I think your comment about confirmation bias is spot on. Dhaluza (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Mostly agree for many of the same reasons other users have endorsed ProfessorMarginalia's comments above. wbfergus ^Talk 13:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Agree. Perceptive comment because it states (accurately in my view), that COGDEN is acutely aware and passionate about these policies because he's also a front-line editor in highly charged, yet document-rich topics (Mormon history). Cool Hand Luke 09:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Achromatic (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
7. COGDEN 00:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC). I also want to clarify that I never had any intention of circularity. My arguments at NOR could just as easily have been made using unedited versions of POLICY and CONS, and I made no reliance on the specific edited parts of POLICY until it had remained unreverted for a month and a half (which I took as established consensus), but I could have used the old version of POLICY, too, as I did in earlier discussions. I never used the edited sentence of CONS as an argument.
8. Coppertwig (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
9. That's the approach I'll be discussing at Wikipedia:Lectures soon. Be warned! --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Coppertwig

I support the WP:3RR policy and encourage everyone involved here to follow it in letter and in spirit. I further encourage everyone involved to seriously consider joining the Harmonious Editing Club, or at least to apply its principles when editing policy pages.

However, I do not agree with the "desired outcome" listed above. Restricting COGDEN from contributing to policy development would muffle a vocal proponent of POV's that many editors agree with, for example that peer-reviewed scientific articles should not be deprecated by WP:NOR. It might also put a chill on participation by other editors with similar POV's for fear of repercussions against themselves.

COGDEN's opinions, like all editors, are valuable and it would be against the interests of Wikipedia to lose COGDEN's input to policy development.

If COGDEN has edited too often or in an inappropriate way, the remedy is for COGDEN to begin editing only in appropriate ways -- not to stop editing at all and certainly not to stop participating in policy talk page discussions. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I think we should follow the 1RR, but you comments on the chilling effect are correct. Dhaluza (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Further Comment by wbfergus

Re-reading Dreadstar's final reason for bringing up this RfC, "His latest threat is to take the disputing editors to ArbCom for violating WP:POLICY, specifically for violating his own changes to that policy [81], changes which have also been disputed", a bit of clarification is order. First, the date on this 'threat' is clearly before any mention of the filing of this RfC, unlike most statements about why COgden filed the ArbCom request suggest or otherwise allude to (being PC here). Also, COgden's last edit to the NOR policy was Dec 4, a full week before he made he made his statement about it possibly being a matter for ArbCom ("This might be a good point where we take this to the Arbcom. I think we have some actionable behavior, including clear violations now of WP:OWN, WP:POLICY, WP:CONS. I'm generally on the opposite side of Vassyana in these discussions, but I very much respect Vassyana's commendable efforts in working toward consensus, and it is a shame that pro-PSTS editors here are eating their own kind."). This (his statement) was made in relation to knee-jerk revisions of the policy made by Vassyana after a period of discussion on the talk page over 8 days, with the issues brought up by those opposed to it worked out in comprimise language. None of this had anything to do with COgden until after the revert, he made his statement about ArbCom.

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.

It seems a pretty big omission for something so many of those opposed to COgden consider so accurate and faithful to the full events.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Considering the content of this comment, please be aware that I am obviously biased. Vassyana (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Achromatic (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Coppertwig (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Further comment by dhaluza

After reviewing the supporting evidence posted in talk page comments, I would like to amend my comments to say that I think this RfC shows that defenders of the status-quo at WP:NOR have jumped the shark. I also find that Alanyst's metaphor below that this group has "emptied [their] quiver of arguments" is spot on, and that this RfC shows this has now become what is effectively a witch hunt. Questioning policy is not necessarily disruptive behavior, and continuing to question when the questions go unanswered is not grounds for sanction. Where does this road lead? Is this just the start of a divide and conquer strategy where editors who question policy in good faith can be villainized and sanctioned one at a time until they are no longer a nuisance? I can accept that people may defend the status quo for many different reasons, including loss aversion as has been suggested on the talk page by Fullstop. But I cannot accept that the way to address policy questions is to silence the questioner, rather than to provide satisfactory answers. Dhaluza (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As no one has endorsed this view, and some have objected to it as unnecessarily divisive, I am striking it in full. I still believe the jumped the shark metaphor is appropriate, as this RfC is over-dramatic, and the supporting evidence of sanctionable disruptive behavior underwhelming. Instead, let me characterize this whole attempt to silence one editor who differs with the self-appointed guardians of WP:NOR as a glass-house party, and caution the revelers to examine their own behavior as well. My suggested penance for all involved in the brouhaha is to do some more work in article space, rather than main space, and create (or expand) three new articles to the standards of WP:DYK before returning to editing (including reverting) WP:NOR. Dhaluza (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. wbfergus ^Talk 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC) I especially like the proposed pennance, that actually sounds both "doable" and productive.
2. Endorse the crossed out section. Do not endorse the non-crossed-out-section. (I'm not about to avoid conflict for avoidance's sake. :-) ) Sorry I didn't see this RFC earlier. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Vassyana

I agree that COGDEN's behaviour has been disruptive. His "bold" edits are particularly unhelpful. Making large unilateral changes to policy on points where people have expressed articulate opposition is unquestionably disruptive and counter to consensus building. However, I do not believe COGDEN has been acting in bad faith. On the contrary, I believe he is advocating what he believes in all honesty is best for the wiki. While this may be based on his editing experience, and even may indicate an agenda of sorts, one can hardly ascribe some nefarious ulterior motive to it barring further evidence without painting most policy-active editors with a similarly broad brush. That said, one can act in good faith and still act disruptively.

COGDEN's disruptive behavior has become more moderated over time. That is not to say that he has entirely refrained from disruptive edits or tendacious arguments, but rather that his behaviour has improved over time. He also sometimes persists in arguments that have been disputed rationally and/or shown to lack consensus. In his defense, many times he is given very little appropriate feedback. In some discussions away from the policy talk, people have elaborated very intelligent arguments against COGDEN's edits and/or views. However, such well-thought arguments should be provided to COGDEN on the policy talk page. I cannot blame him for sticking to his guns when all people will tell him is "no" without a good reason to oppose his idea(s). I should additionally add that while I have been exceedingly brusque and rude to COGDEN in moments of exasperation on numerous occasions, he has always been reasonable and civil in his responses to me. To me, the most incivil comments COGDEN makes (outside of heated moments when many of us say some intemperate things) are in regards to "kneejerk" reverters and "arrogant" policy "defenders". While I can't really blame him for calling a spade what it is, I do believe he often paints with an exceptionally large brush and/or overstates the situation.

As far as WP:POLICY and similar bold changes, I feel very strongly there is a double standard at play here (and I've felt the sting of it). For certain editors, such as COGDEN, it appears as though certain other editors expect them to climb mountains, build bridges and make it to the moon in order to make any significant change. In contrast, other editors are left to revert and rewrite policy almost however they see fit without barely as much as a "boo". In particular on WP:POLICY, COGDEN (as far as I can tell) bothered to propose his edits and solicit feedback. I will agree there was insufficient exposure to the community (village pump and RfC listings are important for informing the community of a discussion). However, it was highly inappropriate of people to revert COGDEN without engaging in the discussion and having the decency to explain any objections. I can understand fully how the overall experience could spur COGDEN to become more entrenched and stubborn. COGDEN had and has no obligation to treat edits and reverts as legitimate when they are not exposed to even a fraction of the standard being demanded of him, especially when made by editors who have not participated in discussion. (Yes, that means he had every right to ignore some of my early edit warring and opposition to him. I'm no more immune to the requirement to actually discuss matters and work towards consensus than anyone else.)

(Additional comment) I also wanted to add that in the past some odd weeks that COGDEN has been supportive of compromise efforts and responsive to an incremental approach of addressing his concerns. This is a good example of him mitigating his behaviour. He moved from a more extremist/all-or-nothing approach to a position where as long as his concerns are addressed (even if to say "this is really major, we need to take that on as another step"), he is very cooperative and even helpful.

To summarize: I believe COGDEN has been disruptive and had a negative effect on the policy discussion. I believe this has been aggravated, and perpetuated to some significant degree, by other editors who (apparently) refuse to participate in the discussion/consensus-seeking process except to essentially say "no" without a reasonable explanation on occasion. I also believe that he has been the subject of unequal treatment, which has further aggravated the situation. The mitigating factors do not excuse his behaviour, but they certainly make it more understandable. I believe COGDEN has acted in good faith advocating what he thinks is best for Wikipedia. He is usually civil and dedicated to the discussion, though he does tend to paint spades with a large brush and exaggerate.

Desired result: I honestly believe this RfC, if followed up with an effort to engage COGDEN in discussion on individual policy matters as appropriate in project talk, will be sufficient for COGDEN to moderate his actions appropriately. It may be appropriate for COGDEN to be placed under a zero-tolerance limit for project space disruption. I might also support some reasonable limitation on project talk edits, but I am unable to think of such a restriction that is fair and reasonable. However, I would strongly oppose any such sanction(s) unless it equally applied to those who have aggravated the situation. The problem includes far more editors than COGDEN, and while this RfC is specifically focused on him, the extension of unequal treatment into sanctions and limitations would be beyond the pale. Vassyana (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. wbfergus ^Talk 23:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Extremely well-balanced and more 'equal' than any other users comments so far, including my own.
2. Strongly endorse. By far the most thoughtful and fair comment here. I will raise a minor point in response on the talk page. alanyst ^/talk/ 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Strongly endorse as per wbfergus and Alanyst -- Fullstop (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Appears to explain the full situation well. I just wish that you had also named the other editors that you feel have caused problems, because this could have then served as an RfC on their conduct as well. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Disruption, but in good faith. This all sounds about right. Cool Hand Luke 23:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Good user who momentarily lost his balance, and is now back on his feet, ready to make things right. —Viriditas | Talk 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Well balanced assessment. Knee-jerk reversion is also disruptive, and evidence of the double-standard. Dhaluza (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Agree. Vassyana has worked hard & long on this page, & has proved to be the voice of reason & consensus here. -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Agree, including the criticism. I have a great deal of respect for Vassyana's comments and consensus-building, because Vassyana and I have been largely on opposite sides of the substantive issues here, yet both of us have been working against others who appear to have no interest in building consensus. At times, born out of frustration with the lack of interest in consensus-building, my efforts have been counterproductive, as I am now acutely aware, and I take full responsibility for that. COGDEN 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Further comments by Vassyana

Let's examine the WP:POLICY situation, as while it is listed as evidence against COGDEN, it is strongly reflective of COGDEN acting in his better capacity (actively proposing, discussing and revising suggestions) and of the negative behavior used in opposing him.

COGDEN appropriately proposed his changes on the WP:POLICY talk page and altered his draft accordingly to the feedback he received. (See Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines/Archive 11#Clarification of "How are policies started" and Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines/Archive_11#Revised clarification to "How are policies started?".)

COGDEN then implemented his proposal per the discussion.[82]

After this, in the above named section one person expresses concern about a previously used tag and one person expresses some concern about bloat. FeloniousMonk opposes the change and (appropriately) points to a lack of broader community exposure. He then reverts COGDEN's edit with the misleading summary that he was reverting a "unilateral" change (which was simply not true, since COGDEN proposed and discussed his draft).[83]

After a few weeks with a lack of further feedback or substantiated opposition, COGDEN reinstitutes the changes.[84] This was reverted by Jossi as lacking consensus.[85]

COGDEN asked for an explanation of the revert.[86] He waited three days and then said he was going to restore the changes in light of a lack of substantiated opposition.[87] He then waited three further days before instituting the restoration.[88]

SlimVirgin later removes COGDEN's changes without discussion.[89]

SlimVirgin not only reverts to a supposedly early version, but also makes significant changes to the policy.[90] After a couple reverts back and forth, COGDEN simply fully restores the previous version to be told incoherently (to be polite) to seek consensus on the talk page first.[91]

At worst, COGDEN's error here was in failing to seek broader community input into his changes, preferably through the standard means of the policy village pump and/or policy RfC. If he did so, I would appreciate being pointed towards that so I may appropriately edit this statement. I would strongly encourage COGDEN to use those means of community exposure to prevent (or at least render meaningless) such complaints as raised by FeloniousMonk, and simply as a point of good policy editing practice. However, this episode is a good example of the lack of feedback from reverters/opposers that COGDEN is receiving and that plague policy discussions as a whole.

It also illustrates the double standard allowed some editors and the inconsistency of certain admonitions to discuss changes and/or reach consensus before undertaking major changes. There's no reason that the problem could not be explained to COGDEN in a rational fashion. If it was simply a lack of enough community exposure, someone could have been bold and posted a notice on the village pump to alert the community to the suggested changes. If there were deeper and/or more significant issues to the draft, basic wiki process demands that substantive feedback be provided to fuel the discussion.

This does not cover all of the reverts and back-and-forth, but rather just reflects an overview and salient points of the situation.

In summary: Major policy changes should be advertised to the community and discussed. COGDEN failed to solicit broader community input for some significant changes to policy, but he did discuss the changes and revise them according to feedback. Other editors reverted without substantive discussion. Other editors made major changes to the policy without even the courtesy of a discussion. While COGDEN may have failed to advertise appropriately, there is an obvious double-standard at play that places even less burden on certain editors than COGDEN took upon himself in this instance.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Yes. If the reason for rejecting a good-faith policy change is a lack of community exposure, the proper action for the opponent is to solicit input from the community, not just to revert out of hand. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Endorse Some users have to follow policy, others are 'allowed' to bypass Wiki Policies (that they helped create). wbfergus ^Talk 16:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Endorse. I see nothing in this that rises to the level of requiring or justifying mention in an RFC. One of the truths about Wikipedia is that editors edit. Here is what it says at the top of WP:POLICY: "Please do not edit this page without first ensuring that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." COGDEN did that.--Minasbeede (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Endorse. I appreciate the further clarification on this issue and encourage Felonious Monk, Jossi, and SlimVirgin to correct their behavior with relation to this policy dispute. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Yes. This is an excellent summary of the sort of dismissiveness I find is disruptive as well. Dhaluza (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Endorse. I didn't go to Village Pump or RFC because I didn't think these were major changes, just clarifications. I may have been wrong, but I didn't think a larger caucus was necessary for something that really did not change anything substantive. COGDEN 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Endorse per Cla68. Coppertwig (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Endorse only the facts mentioned here. I am unsure about the solution in the summary (taking things to a broader community), as this involves use of meatball:ExpandScope, something I'm becoming increasingly allergic to. (for good reason, read the link :-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Kim Bruning

I saw and supported Cogden's edits to Wikipedia:Policy, and these seem to be fairly solid edits, applying WP:BRD correctly, in the part of the wiki that that particular best practice is best suited for.

Wiki-editing fails to operate well in an atmosphere of assumption of bad faith, in an atmosphere of delay delay delay (opposed to WP:BOLD), when there are Ownership issues, when people attempt to meatball:ExpandScope, or in situations where people don't understand that the first imperative of a wiki is simply to just edit the page already.

I am worried that the attitude of the people bringing this RFC will start to pervade the wiki. I have been maintaining policy for many years now, and it has already gotten much harder to maintain policy pages since around the time of this RFC, which cannot be a coincidence.

From one of the first discussion on starting wikipedia, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:

“ My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales

Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham

”

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Madness? This! Is! Wiki! Use it or lose it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Not entirely agreeing with the point, but certainly agreeing with the substance and concern. Vassyana (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.