Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:46, 31 July 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Advocacy ducks page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Misplaced Pages essays Low‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Misplaced Pages essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Misplaced Pages essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysTemplate:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysWikiProject Misplaced Pages essays Low This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This page was nominated for deletion on 23 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

RfC: Is the following addition relevant in the Signs of advocacy section?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: WikiProjects and collaborations When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the section Signs of advocacy contain the following additions to help editors, particularly newbies, recognize that project teams, while they may appear to be an advocacy, is not necessarily the case and to self-analyze while attempting to correctly identify the actual cause of the disruption? Additions in green text: ...and may even appear to be members of a project comprising groups of contributors who often collaborate as a team to improve Misplaced Pages. The latter makes it all the more important to correctly recognize the cause of the disruption and make sure it isn't you. You might see AVDucks in topics that deal with politics, religion, CAM, renewable energy generation, various new technologies, national and ethnic conflicts, life sciences or any other topics that have a following. Advocates almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is their primary catalyst for engaging in long-term tendentious editing that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV; their goal being to impose and maintain their POV in an article or related articles that serve to further their cause. Do not mistake GF attempts of project teams to achieve accuracy, compliance with NPOV, and/or adherence to WP:PAG as advocacy. Atsme 13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support by OP. When several editors who are members of the same project suddenly show up at an article and start making changes to make the article compliant with WP:PAGs, the opposing editor(s), particularly newbies, tend to believe they are being tag-teamed or confronted by an advocacy. This addition will help them sort through their suspicions and look to self-analysis first and actual causes for the disruption rather than pointing fingers and assuming. Atsme 13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment by OP - Please keep in mind the following: WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. When you click on that wikilink, it states: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project.. 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Another important note - per WP:Wikipedia_essays#Improving_existing_essays However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view, rather than re-writing an existing essay to say the opposite of what it has always said. Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other. 00:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. A weasel-worded attack on Misplaced Pages projects, as is self-evident from Atsme's comment above. The proposed wording reads "may even appear to be members of a project", but Atsme states that the intended target is unequivocally project members who 'suddenly show up at an article'. If there is evidence that Misplaced Pages projects are engaging in advocacy (a claim for which this essay provides precisely zero evidence), rather than merely 'showing up' at articles within their remit (which is what Wikiprojects are for), it needs to be dealt with properly, not just mentioned in passing in questionably-worded advice to newbies. As with so much else within this essay, this 'advice' invites new contributors to look for 'bias' when meeting opposition to their editing, and implies that opposition from multiple experienced contributors is evidence of 'advocacy'. Sure, it then goes on to provide mealy-mouthed calls for self-examination, but the damage has already been done - the essay promotes a suspicious and conspiracy-seeking mindset that is totally at odds with collegial editing. The proper advice to newbies when in disagreement with the sort of experienced contributors who customarily make up Wikiprojects is to discuss issues with them, and then to engage in relevant methods of dispute resolution if and when such discussions fail to achieve progress. Telling new contributors who run into problems that Wikiproject members may be members of advocacy-cabals is a sure-fire way to create drama, but a piss-poor way to create and maintain an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose most additions. This RfC appears to be based on this set of edits where veiled attacks of Wikiproject members were a concern. The idea that being a member of a Wikiproject could be associated with advocacy or some sort of cabal should amount to WP:BEANS, so bringing up the idea in this essay in the first place doesn't really seem appropriate. If anything is going to be kept, the concise, "Do not mistake GF attempts of project teams to achieve accuracy, compliance with NPOV, and/or adherence to WP:PAG as advocacy." may have place somewhere such as the Don't mistake a coot for a duck section. It should not be brought up in the signs of advocacy section though to avoid insinuation that one should even consider the idea. As an additional note, it doesn't appear there has been any talk page conversation trying to justify the new addition, so an RfC seems like a premature course of action here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support with changes, and Comment In general, I support the idea of mentioning the existence of Wiki Projects, along with the fact that some of the features accompanying this reality can be indistinguishable from what may appear like a cabal to the uninitiated. I agree with some points made above. We should remove the mealy-mouthed language and consider a very directly-worded subsection (King makes note that Don't mistake a coot for a duck might be a fitting place) covering these details. For a new editor, or one new to an area such as health-related topics, to run into an organized group of editors who for the most part think, speak and vote as one, it can seem like a cabal has descended. The WProject Medicine has the POV of alopathic medicine and sees ancient or natural healing methods as "fringe". This viewpoint isn't necessarily shared by all Wikipedians or all parts of the world. Because I have only run into members of this Project it will have to serve as my only example of how the work of a WProject may appear cabal-like or biased to those independent editors on a page with a different POV and who are unaware of these Projects. I do think we could use help with the wording, and since this essay has been so unrelentingly contentious, would recommend purposely seeking input on the presentation as well as on this RfC from WikiProjects besides Medicine. petrarchan47คุก 22:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though this is just an essay, I don't think it's in the best interests of the project to foment paranoid and conspiratorial thinking. WikiProjects that act in bad faith can be brought to ANI or whatever. Otherwise, it's best not to make vague accusations about them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• oppose same opinion as NinjaRobotPirate..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed additions do not actually help readers to distinguish between wikiprojects and advocates but instead create a link between the two. The way these sentences are framed in pairing wikiprojects with advocacy behaviour - even while saying that they're not advocates - links them in the reader's mind and creates a guilt by association subtext that says that members of wikiprojects are advocates. This encourages conspiracy thinking and the assumption of bad faith which is against Misplaced Pages principles. If the goal is to ensure that readers do not mistake members of wikiprojects as advocates, then Kingofaces43's proposed change accomplishes that goal without the bad faith. Ca2james (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• The fact that Atsme is still pushing this nonsense is concerning as the essay is an attack on the core NPOV and RS fundamentals of Misplaced Pages—if several editors oppose the addition of pseudoscientific waffle to an article, they must be guilty of advocacy! Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• The fact that you find it concerning is what I find disconcerting. Comment on the content, not the editor. I haven't heard one substantive response yet. Perhaps that will improve. Atsme 01:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely per the first two sentences of User:Ca2james above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Editors already believe it and not because of this essay. Some editors who happen to be members of certain project teams are disruptive and they do tag-team and exhibit WP:OWN, so the problem does exist. The passage is meant to point out the difference and focus on the behavior, not the project team that is trying to improve the encyclopedia and maintain a standard. It only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole basket, so it's better to differentiate between teamwork to improve the article vs disruptive behavior. Atsme 02:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

So much for commenting on the content, not the editors. And I note that yet again you are making allegations about Wikiproject members that you refuse to follow up with evidence - behaviour that is liable to result in sanctions against you if continued much longer. Either back up your claims with evidence, and report it at the appropriate noticeboard where it can be dealt with, or stop making such unsubstantiated claims - before you are obliged to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The essay's content focuses on disruptive behavior. Wiki-project teams do not hold a trump card over other editors so I don't see why they should receive immunity from being mentioned in this essay. They are volunteers just like everyone else. Again, there is nothing substantive in the oppose comments - they are similar to the arguments given when Ca2james initiated the 3rd MfD so they come as no surprise. Furthermore, this is an essay which is an opinion and as long as there is nothing in the proposed addition that violates policy, there is no reason it should not be allowed. Atsme 13:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing 'substantive' in your endless tendentious bad-faith allegations against Wikiproject members - if there were, you would have reported the matter by now, providing evidence. And as long as this essay is in Misplaced Pages space, rather than being marked as your personal essay (which it clearly isn't, since you are by no means the sole contributor), the community will decide what content is appropriate, and whether it conforms to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I was about to mirror this as well. Seems like you're describing WP:OWN behavior pretty well. Essays are not a space for personal soapboxes. If someone wants to discuss something though, remember that Atsme even started a threaded discussion section, so there shouldn't be a need for anyone to reply in the survey section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a cynical implication of bad-faith editing by editors who happen to associate with WikiProjects. I am not conviced that this is a common problem. As others have mentioned, there are ways to address the matter when/if it does occur. Axl ¤ 09:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support Seasoned project members sometimes leave very harsh edit summaries which although supporting the consensus of a project, may be discouraging (especially to newbies) or perhaps uncivil. This proposed change will bring to the attention of (new) editors that although an offensive/discouraging edit summary may have been posted, this actually might reflect a project's aims. It then becomes a matter of dealing with the behaviour of the editor/s, rather than the project.DrChrissy 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose conspiracist claptrap. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose new wording is unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per NinjaRobotPirate & Ozzie10aaaa 173.228.118.114 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• oppose this is a big slide backward to the "consensus against me must be conspiracy" ideas that led to the deletion of the "COI ducks" essay. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Ca2james. Edward321 (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Doc James. This also seems to be very much like why the original essay was deleted. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kingofaces43 and AndyTheGrump above. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inserts more conspiracy into a conspiracy-minded article. Manul ~ talk 08:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, having not seen this essay before today, I won't make a call on whether the proposed language improves the essay or not. However, I would suggest that some {{disambiguate}} entries at the top of the essay would be helpful, in meeting what seems to be the thrust of the suggested change, aka cluing in beginning editors on the subtle concepts involved here. AVDUCK *is* distinct from WP:OWN, for instance (although often an advocate or group-of-advocates will try to 'own' an article, that alone is not the only cause of WP:OWN behaviors), and in turn both are distinct from GA/FA/DYK-related stewardship behaviors. Along the same lines, wiki-projects are often advocacy-prevention-mechanisms, and also *very* often article-stewardship-mechanisms, but the concept of the wiki-project is distinct from stewardship (they are orthogonal -- stewardship can occur with or without a wikiproject being involved ... and just because an article has a wikiproject banner on the talkpage does not guarantee that stewardship of the article actually is happening 24/7/365). Anyways, it might help focus the essay, to be specifically about the difference between a coot and a duck, if some brief not-to-be-confused-with sentence fragments were at the top, and an intro-paragraph gave pointers to the various interrelated-yet-distinct concepts that the meat of the essay depends upon. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment - IP User talk- you made some excellent points. Please help further by incorporating your suggestions as you envision them to be placed in the essay. You can start a new section below on the TP. Atsme 20:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

It appears few realize this essay is an opinion piece. The simple solution would be if you disagree, write an opposing essay. The comments from the last attempt at MfD, like the Sting comment, and having this essay on the watch lists of the opposition is overboard. The opposes have no substantive reason - other than opinion - to oppose the addition of the proposed statement. It does not violate PAG, it is helpful to those who are faced with team advocacy, and it advises the editor to self-analyze before drawing a conclusion. I also noticed that many of the same editors who are opposing this essay now attempted to keep it off mainspace with 2 successful attempts and one failed attempt which is the current essay. One has to wonder why the lady doth protest so much. Atsme 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you move this essay to your user space, where you can control the content. Otherwise you have no choice but to accept community input and editing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Community consensus doesn't trump PAGs. I suggest those who oppose this essay create one that suits them better. This essay is an opinion piece, not a PAG. If you have a different opinion, write an essay expressing it. Atsme 16:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as this essay is in Misplaced Pages space, it is open to anyone to edit - and when there is a dispute over content, it is up to the community to decide what is appropriate. If you wanted to write a personal essay, you shouldn't have moved it into community space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't work that way. See Misplaced Pages:Essays#Creation_and_modification_of_essays. If it's in WP space it's open for editing by anyone -- whether the original author likes the result or not. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is open for anyone to edit. But what you don't seem to understand is that essays don't work like articles, or PAGs. They are opinions and if it's a case of opposing opinions as it is now, you cannot exclude one opinion just because you disagree with it. It has to be non-compliant with PAGs and in this case, the opinion is not non-compliant. The closer should be familiar enough with Essay guidelines to understand it's an opinion essay. If editors were able to do what this particular team of opposing editors would like to do - keep certain information out of an essay because they don't agree with it, we wouldn't have any essays but the ones you write. Atsme 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no 'information' being excluded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy is correct. The idea that a "team of editors" is trying to "keep certain information out " of the essay is absurd. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What's absurd is denial and unwarranted attempts to censor and control what is or isn't included in this essay. We don't see anywhere near the activity at any of the other essays. The statement is important information with regards to behavior, the latter of which is the crux of this essay. Per WP:Wikipedia_essays ...and may even appear to be members of a project comprising groups of contributors who often collaborate as a team to improve Misplaced Pages. The latter makes it all the more important to correctly recognize the cause of the disruption and make sure it isn't you. It isn't at all an attack on project teams, rather it is distinguishing between GF project teams and those editors who are clearly advocates. Our PAGs recognize that the problem exists. Project team guidelines even recognize the problem exists. Denial of it is not helpful. Atsme 01:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no information about behaviour in the disputed text. You have never provided the slightest evidence that any project has been engaging in advocacy. Either do so, or accept that this essay isn't going to be used as a platform for your tedious conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme please step back and consider a bit. You asked for comments when you posted the Request for Comments. I hear it that you don't like the responses, but they are not "unwarranted attempts to censor and control"... they are responses that you invited. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I asked for this RfC because ATG kept reverting my edits and I wanted substantive input to see where I could make improvements. Doc James said the text wasn't clear which is a start. There is far too much unwarranted haranguing of me and ridiculous second-guessing about my motives. It doesn't belong here - focus on content, not editors. To say there is no information about behaviour in the proposed text appears to be misapprehension of not just the proposed text but the entire essay which happens to be about behavior. Atsme 03:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Supposed behaviour for which you still have failed to provide the slightest bit of evidence. If you want to write a fantasy about slaying hordes of imaginary fire-breathing advocacy-dragons, find somewhere else to do it. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not a sword and sorcery forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The RfC asks whether the text should be included at all (Should the section Signs of advocacy contain the following additions). It hardly seems appropriate to ask editors one question and then to dismiss their responses to that question on the grounds that they didn't answer some other question that wasn't asked. Ca2james (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Again - keep in mind the following: WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. I'm sorry if that ruffles any feathers but I didn't write that sentence. I'm just trying to cover all the bases with regards to this essay. When you click on that wikilink, (and please read the following carefully) it further states: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. I didn't write that, either. I don't see any haranguing over those sentences on the project advice page. The fact that it's happening to me here should raise all kinds of red flags.

I will also repeat another important note some appear to be overlooking - per WP:Wikipedia_essays#Improving_existing_essays However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view, rather than re-writing an existing essay to say the opposite of what it has always said. Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other. Atsme 14:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Quoting guidelines that say that Wikiprojects have engaged in ownership behaviours is not evidence that Wikiprojects have engaged in advocacy behaviours. Ca2james (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

But this RfC is about perceived project advocacy and makes the point this perception might be erroneousDrChrissy 16:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there is precisely zero evidence presented in the essay that 'project advocacy' exists anywhere but in the authors imagination, the sensible thing to do (per the clear consensus above) would be not to discuss it in the first place. Anyone new to Misplaced Pages who reads warnings about 'project advocacy' is going to assume that if the warning is there, it is because the danger is real. We have enough problems already with new (and not so new) contributors who see any disagreement as evidence that they are being conspired against - an essay which warns tells them to beware of a whole new class of conspirators for which we have no evidence at all is a recipe for trouble. It amounts to an instruction that if you meet opposition, assume bad faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Read ] because that is where the information comes from that this RfC is about. You are not demonstrating GF with your attempts to make it appear as though I'm on a some crusader mission to attack project teams when I'm about to create a project that is much needed and long past due, or that I authored and/or created the project team issues regarding WP:OWN, and advocacy, etc. If after you read that section you still want to criticize, condemn and/or make more snarky comments - take it to the authors of the WikiProject Council/Guide. Atsme 17:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have read that several times - and at no time has it suggested that Wikiprojects engage in advocacy. Why do you insist that I read it yet again? It isn't discussing advocacy, it is discussing ownership - more specifically, the tendency of some projects to act as if their preferred approach over issues of style were policy. That is a problem, certainly, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed topic of this essay - advocacy, or the misuse of Misplaced Pages to promote particular external causes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:AndyTheGrump I do not read it that way. I read it that an editor may mistake multiple concerns being expressed against them, all from the same project, as being "Project advocacy". The essay says "think again - this may not be the case". I think it actually says the opposite of "assume bad faith", rather it says "question your own perception".DrChrissy 17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme is insisting that 'project advocacy' is real, and using that argument as the basis for including the disputed material. If it 'said the opposite', why would she be arguing that way? It simply makes no sense. It seems that your dispute is with Atsme, not with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy - your comments have become....well, strange. I don't have a clue what you're referring to regarding 'project advocacy'. Did you just make that up? You might want to go back and read some of your own comments. They are so far out in left field that it is bordering on being obsessive. Step back - try working on something you enjoy writing about. This essay has only been viewed 134 times in the last 30 days - and I imagine at least 100 times by you and QG alone. Stop acting like it's on the front page of Misplaced Pages as a FA, for Pete's sake. It's just an essay. Atsme 21:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Did I just make that up? No, it was a direct quotation from what DrChrissy had just written. Try reading before writing next time. As for 'stepping back', if you didn't insist on hectoring contributors who post here, there would be nothing worth commenting on. The question asked in the RfC is clear enough, and I am sure that the closer will be able to decide for him/herself what the consensus is, and what should be done regarding the disputed content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I borrowed the phrase from you! Scan up about 5-6 posts. You used the term and put it in ' '.DrChrissy 21:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The diff is here.]DrChrissy 22:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - a diff that clearly shows that you used the same phrase in the previous post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I think you are being rather disingenuous here - I may have coined a term that you felt you wanted to use (pat on the back for me!), but the term I coined was "perceived project advocacy". That is entirely different from "project advocacy". Please be more careful before misrepresenting my posts.DrChrissy 22:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention in engaging further in this ridiculous exhibition of infantile nit-picking. So yes, if you want to believe that I misrepresented you, fine. Feel free to believe it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It is hardly nit-picking drawing attention to the fact I was discussing a perception of behaviour, rather than stating the actual occurrence of a behaviour. However, thank you for your input.DrChrissy 22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Atsme, I notice that you inserted the text under discussion in this RfC when you reverted changes by another editor. Don't do that. If the RfC closes in favour of including the text, then it can be inserted but to push it through before the conclusion of the RfC is inappropriate. Ca2james (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy Dragons: A personal response to this essay.

Advocacy Dragons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"the Google-mined cherry-picked half-quote - a thing so fearsome that nothing but summary deletion followed by a cold shower and a rub down with emery cloth can erase the stink"

Beautiful, thanks! My vote is to do a copy/paste from there to here (suitably attributed). Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Beautifully written and well-said. Ca2james (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It reflects your opinion which is what essays are all about. Some will appreciate the entertainment factor since it reads more like a synopsis for a "Game of Thrones" episode than a helpful guideline to newbies. Your ending comment actually made sense - If there is advocacy on Wikpededia, it is carried out by people, and needs to be identified properly and dealt with accordingly. The latter summarizes what WP:AVDUCK is all about; i.e, properly identifying and dealing properly with overzealous advocacy editors who engage in WP:OWN, bullying, hounding, harassing, trolling and the like to push their POV (promote their advocacy) and they are not mythological characters. Atsme 14:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As I am sure you are well aware, guides to 'properly identifying' things (be they fish or fowl) don't generally include mythical beasts just on the offchance that they might be real after all. I'm fairly sure my Guide to British Birds (which I save sadly misplaced) doesn't include fire-breathing dragons... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this has no place in this essay and appears to be a pure attack page. I recommend you have it deleted.AlbinoFerret 20:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

An attack page? Attacking whom? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it seriously being suggested as an insertion into this essay? I thought it was just a whimsical opinion-piece of fantastical story-telling indicating the editor had too much time on their hands.DrChrissy 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of a link to the essay. A good number of editors here consider AVDucks in the same manner as you just described the dragon essay or due to other major flaws, so it seems important to reflect that criticism. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

See the 'Alternative view' thread below - I'm wondering whether an RfC on whether it should be included in the 'Related essays, policies, and guidelines' section might be a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Text of aborted MFD nomination

I wrote the following before realizing that this essay had already been nominated for deletion. I suppose I assumed that it couldn't have survived an MFD. While I'm not proposing a second nomination at this time, I would like to share what I wrote, if only for future reference.

This essay is a revamp of an essay called "Conflict of Interest ducks" which was deleted following this discussion. Though "conflict of interest" has been replaced with "advocacy" throughout, the article appears to retain many of the same problems that were cause for its original deletion. The previous deletion discussion should be revisited with this substitution in mind. (The transformation reminds me of the historical "cdesign proponentsists" debacle.)

The article advances what I would broadly call a "conspiratorial theme", directing users to identify "advocacy ducks" and offering recipes on how to deal with them. While the article acknowledges the important role of policies and guidelines, the effect of the article seems to shift the focus away from policies and guidelines and toward identifying these "advocacy ducks". One section is called, "So you've found an advocacy duck; now what?"

It is nearly a truism (at least in my experience) that an editor who runs around calling other editors biased is more likely to lack self-reflection and awareness of his or her own biases. The quest to root out "advocacy ducks" appears similarly fraught. It is a mindset that is counterproductive and should be avoided, not enshrined in an essay. It seems more likely than not that an editor who is labeling others "advocacy ducks" would be a disruptive editor.

While the essay should be assessed on its own merits, it is difficult to separate it from Atsme's ongoing conflicts Wikiproject Medicine, especially considering the recent RfC. The essay may, in part, be serving as a proxy for these conflicts. Manul ~ talk 09:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Your assessment appears to be a rehash of the failed deletion attempt on this specific essay.AlbinoFerret 18:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it was a fair summary of the minority view at the MfD. It should probably be noted though that one of the arguments put forward by those supporting the essay was that it differed substantially from the 'COI ducks' version - if material is to be added which restores controversial suggestions about Wikiprojects etc (as discussed in the RfC above), one might well ask whether this argument would remain valid. Given the way the RfC is going though, I don't think that is going to be an issue, since it seem that the overwhelming consensus is that the essay should not be edited in such a manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hogwash. It's the same failed reasoning, second verse - it was unwarranted and it lacks substance. Drop the stick. Your relentless badgering is not helpful. I am and have been following the proper procedures for dealing with the disruption, starting with your repeated reverts. You really need to understand that essays are opinions and that RfC's are not checkered flags signaling that it's ok to attack the OP or others for that matter simply because they have opposing views. We have guidelines to follow, so please follow them. If you disagree regarding ways to deal with advocacy teams, tendentious editing, harassment, etc., then provide input. You have created your own opinion piece - if you want it to remain as a link to a userfy essay, then you need to designate it as such. Adhere to PAGs and everyone will be a lot happier. Enjoy your day. Atsme 22:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

'Disruption'? There has been no disruption of anything. Though your endless accusations of violations for which you never provide the slightest evidence might well be seen as disruptive. As for my essay, it is clearly identified as personal opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternative view

I added the alternative view. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And I've just removed it again. As I made clear, it is my personal opinion, and I had no intention of adding it to the essay. It is linked in the 'related essays' section, where anyone can find it if they are interested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I added the link instead. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And it appears that people are now edit-warring over the link. Would an RfC on whether the link should be included be appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence of an edit war, but that more than one editor has removed it shows there is no consensus for its addition. Following WP:NOCONSENSUS it should remain gone until consensus is shown. As you want it included, the onus is on you to prove there is consensus. AlbinoFerret 23:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is normally determined after discussions, rather than beforehand. Still, I am glad to see that you agree that consensus should determine what is or isn't appropriate content for the 'ducks' essay page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus, or the lack of it, can also be shown by removal of the BRD edit WP:EDITCONSENSUS. The removal , by two editors, shows no consensus. AlbinoFerret 23:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And if a third person was to add it again, what would that show? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That there is still no consensus to add it. Another editor may remove it after that. The onus is on you to prove that you have consensus to add it. But you should delete the whole thing in your userspace, doing so may look better. AlbinoFerret 23:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have a strange concept of what 'consensus' means. And no, I'm not going to delete my essay. No consensus... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if this essay which is obviously relevant to this page cannot be linked, I think we should remove all links to userspace. So I did that. jps (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Low-impact WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays articles
• NA-Class Misplaced Pages essays
• WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays pages
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment