| Revision as of 04:20, 4 September 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Advocacy ducks/Archive 2) (bot← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:00, 19 May 2024 edit undoHarryboyles (talk | contribs)Administrators153,037 editsm →top: essay's impact is automatically assessed - removing unsupported 'impact' parameterTag: AWB |
| (26 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
| algo = old(30d) |
|
| algo = old(30d) |
|
| archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Advocacy ducks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Advocacy ducks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 2 |
|
| counter = 3 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject Essays|impact=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Essays}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Integrity}} |
|
{{Oldmfd|date=23 May 2015|result=keep|votepage=Misplaced Pages:Advocacy ducks}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
==RfC: Is the following addition relevant in the ''Signs of advocacy'' section?== |
|
|
|
| action1 = MFD |
|
{{archive top|reason=(]) There is a strong consensus against including the proposed wording. - ]] 19:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
| action1date = 23 May 2015 |
|
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: '''{{xt|...and may even appear to be members of a ] 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,{{xt| ],}} renewable energy generation, various new technologies, national and ethnic conflicts, life sciences or any other topics that have a following. '''{{xt|Advocates almost always demonstrate ] which is their primary catalyst for engaging}}''' in long-term tendentious editing that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV; '''{{xt | their goal being}}''' to impose and maintain their POV in an article or related articles that serve to further their cause. '''{{xt|Do not mistake GF attempts of project teams to achieve accuracy, compliance with NPOV, and/or adherence to ] as advocacy.}}''' <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks |
|
|
|
|
|
| action1result = keep |
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
|
| action1oldid = 663667267 |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
*'''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 ]s, 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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''comment by OP''' - Please keep in mind the following: {{xt|WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and ]}} When you click on that wikilink, it states: {{xt|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 ] {{xt|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. ] (]) 14:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' most additions. This RfC appears to be based on this 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 ], 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. ] (]) 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. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 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. ] (]) 06:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''oppose''' same ''opinion'' as NinjaRobotPirate..--] (]) 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 {{u|Kingofaces43}}'s proposed change accomplishes that goal without the bad faith. ] (]) 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! ] (]) 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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 01:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''', largely per the first two sentences of ] above. ] (]) 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 ], 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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 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. ] (]) 15:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I was about to mirror this as well. Seems like you're describing ] 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. ] (]) 15:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Re Atsme's:'' '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' ''Well, yes, but they also deserve the same courtesy as everyone else, which is 'innocent until proven otherwise' i.e innocent until shown to be a significant part of this problem. Advocates may be members of projects, but they may equally be female, Irish, Jewish, gay or left-handed. We would be unlikely to mention membership of any of these groups without some very good reason to do so.] (]) 20:27, 5 August 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. ] <span style="color:#3CB371">¤</span> </small>]] 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' conspiracist claptrap. ] (]) 09:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' new wording is unclear. ] (] · ] · ]) 15:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per NinjaRobotPirate & Ozzie10aaaa ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 03:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' as per Ca2james. ] (]) 14:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Doc James. This also seems to be very much like why the original essay was deleted. ] (]) 20:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Kingofaces43 and AndyTheGrump above. Best, ] (]) 03:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Inserts more conspiracy into a conspiracy-minded article. ''] ~ ]'' 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 <nowiki>{{disambiguate}}</nowiki> 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. ] (]) 00:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''comment''' - IP User ]- 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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 20:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per DocJames and Andy. ] (]) 12:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per reasons given by Atsme at first entry of survey. ] (]) 09:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per AndyTG, DocJames and several others above (IMO this entire essay should be sent to the trashbin, again...). ] ] 13:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' and <s>AFD this monstrosity</s> move to userspace. - ] ] 03:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' , this addition ''(and indeed other aspects of the essay)'', seem very 'pointy'. I can see the value of a beginners guide to 'dispute, advice' boards, but this is not it. Rather it encourages a ], which is likely to get an inexperienced editor in trouble before they can say ]. While I am well aware of battle-ground articles, I am not aware of 'advocacy groups', being the problem, nor this article being a helpful contribution to resolving the problem. Other 'pointy' elements include naming specific 'problem areas' ''(eg Alt Medicine)'', perhaps text could discuss controversial areas by linking to less 'subject specific' advice. I have elsewhere said that the very title is (IMO) unconstructive, since 'duck' in WP-speak is a reference to a 'weapon of last resort', used when the community has already decided that there is a very significant problem, but cannot prove exactly what it is, but which here is being mis-used to prop up initial subjective assessment. The essay invokes the image of flocks of advocates roaming WP abusing PaG, which I don't think is either true, nor a constructive mindset. ] (]) 12:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
<s>*'''Conditional Support'''. In my opinion it should be ok to add the words "Advocates almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is their primary catalyst for engaging...." The material about members of a project who might demonstrate this behavior is true, but it could be perceived as an indirect or subtle criticism of project team members even though later on it is clarified that the good work project team members do should not be confused with advocacy. In my opinion, the vast majority of the Opposes are occurring because of the mention of project members. Someone might wish to start a new RfC with just the words "Advocates almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is their primary catalyst for engaging...." to be included in the main article; i think this will find the support of the community. ] (]) 12:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
|
|
|
After thinking this over further i have changed my mind, and am voting for '''Support'''. Even in the earlier vote, i had mentioned that "The material about members of a project who might demonstrate this behavior is true". ] (]) 19:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::], is there some reason to believe that project members are more likely to engage in 'advocacy'? ''(I'm not a project member, so the question is not rhetorical)''.] (]) 13:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC){{od}} |
|
|
:::If you are a part of any clique on WP, there will be a tendency to engage in 'loud', advocacy like behavior and a general intolerance for differing <s>minority</s> viewpoints. (I am not saying all editors will behave like this.) It is for this reason that i refuse to join the Misplaced Pages project consisting of a group of editors with the declared agenda of improving articles related to my country of origin. I have no desire to be a part of any clique, much less an officially sanctioned one. ] (]) 13:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Please note that I the phrasing you suggest because catalyst isn't the right word there. Also, advocacy isn't just about an editor having a bias (everyone has biases), but occurs when the editor is unable to set their bias aside. ] (]) 16:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{u|Ca2james}} you are surely addressing the wrong person since the edit you have changed is not mine. In fact i have not done any editing on the main article till now. ] (]) 16:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I think you missed my point, which was not that you had edited the essay, but was that the wording you're suggesting had already been in the essay and was modified by me for the reasons I gave. ] (]) 17:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::], Mmmmmmm, I also have my own reasons for not joining things, and projects do often lead to OWN, in my experience, that sometimes is very beneficial ''(some history articles)'', othertimes not so. However, I ''think'' what you are saying is that projects can become clique-y and clique-y may mean blind to one's own bias. If that is what you are saying, I don't disagree, but wonder whether 'singling out' projects is constructive.] (]) 19:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The problem is that its obvious it can happen. I wonder how many of the oppose votes belong to active and organized wikiprojects? ] 20:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Well please per ] do your wondering somewhere else. ] (]) 20:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::There is nothing against AGF in wondering which of the editors casting oppose !votes belong to wikiprojects. Its clearly a question of who is involved in the topic. ] 20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::There is a great deal wrong with using an RfC thread for speculation about the motivations of the participants. ] (]) 21:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I admit it, I am a member of wikiproject Ice Hockey. Are we allowed here? ] (]) 21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::@Andy I am not discussing motivation, I simply wonder who is involved. @Dbrodbeck lol, every editor is allowed. ] 21:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Threaded discussion=== |
|
|
<!-- Please keep comments on point and succinct --> |
|
|
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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 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. ] (]) 16:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{ec}} It doesn't work that way. See ]. If it's in WP space it's open for editing by anyone -- whether the original author likes the result or not. ] (]) 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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is no 'information' being excluded. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] {{xt|...and may even <u>'''appear'''</u> 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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 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 ] forum. ] (]) 05:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The RfC asks whether the text should be included at all ({{xt|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. ] (]) 07:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}Again - keep in mind the following: {{xt|WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and ]}} 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: {{xt|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 ] {{xt|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.}} <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 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. ] (]) 16:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::But this RfC is about '''perceived''' project advocacy and makes the point this '''perception''' might be erroneous<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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. ] (]) 17:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}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 <s>some</s> 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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 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. ] (]) 17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::@] 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".<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->18:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{od}}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. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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 ' '.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::The diff is here.]<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Indeed - a diff that clearly shows that you used the same phrase in the previous post. ] (]) 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 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. ] (]) 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.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Comment''' {{u|Atsme}}, I notice that you 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. ] (]) 15:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''comment''' - what I would like for you to do is please stop sniping at me, and start noticing things that are important, like the fact that an essay is not an article, a policy or a guideline. Anyone can edit an essay but there is nothing in our PAG that give editors a green light to revert GF edits, or change the original intent or opinions expressed in an existing namespace essay. In fact, ] states {{xt|...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.}} I called this RfC with expectations of getting helpful comments and plausible suggestions for improvement. Instead we got disruption, tendentious editing, PAs, snarky comments, mockery of the essay, attempts to change its meaning, and relentless baiting and harassment. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The stated purpose of the RfC to determine whether the community approved of a specific edit. It is entirely clear that they don't. Still, I'm glad to see that you point out that "Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other". On that basis, I shall be restoring the link to my essay in the article, along with the other user-space essay links. ] (]) 06:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It's already there. I added it when I reorganized the list of links. --] (]) 13:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Re Atsme's comment "What's absurd is denial and unwarranted attempts to censor and control what is or isn't included in this essay", Atsme is free to move the essay to his userspace, where he has control over the content. That's what I did when I created ]; that particular essay is ''my'' advice, not the advice of the community, and thus I decided to retain control of the content. Once you put an essay in wikispace, the community is free to change it in any way, subject only to Misplaced Pages policy and to consensus. See ]. --] (]) 14:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Public and Commercial Services Union == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it that we are including an image of <s>ducks</s>geese who are apparently members of the ]? Are we trying to imply that the <s>ducks</s>geese are members of that union or that union members are likely to be advocacy ducks? What's the point of including the logo of this union on the <s>duck</s>geese signs? |
|
|
|
|
|
I recommend removing the image. I could see members of the union getting a little miffed at having their logo used in this fashion. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 00:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is probably worth pointing out that the original description for the image (minus the photoshopped placards) identifies the birds as 'gooses'. And while I'm no great expert, I think it may be correct... ] (]) 00:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Right you are. I struck my inappropriate speciesist language. My apologies. Someone should fix the files on commons too. ] (]) 01:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Just to clarify, I'm not asserting as fact that they ''are'' geese, rather than ducks. They aren't always easy to tell apart. In fact I'm not even entirely sure that (per cladistics at least) there is a difference. Not my subject though. ] (]) 01:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The cladistics are generally done by counting bones in the neck, if I'm to understand correctly. Anyway, a helpful guide is one such as . I'm pretty convinced that they're geese. ] (]) 01:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
These are ]s. ] (]) 01:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Or at least, Pekin Ducks? The original image seems to be used in the gallery for a Russian-Misplaced Pages article on the ], and there seem to be several breeds of Pekin. Not that it really matters. And back to the original topic, regardless of what they are, they aren't members of the PCS, and we shouldn't be using identifiable placards for an image of 'advocacy'. ] (]) 02:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::*LOL* City folk. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 03:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Not sure they're Pekin ducks. Their necks are much longer than most Pekin ducks. The Russian article identifies them as geese, but whatever.... they're definitely not union members. ] (]) 05:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===So remove the image?=== |
|
|
|
|
|
No objection to replacing it with an image of waterfowl that are not carrying signs from a particular union. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 06:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yup. Any legitimate objection would have to explain how associating an organisation with around 270,000 members with violations of Misplaced Pages policy was itself compatible with Misplaced Pages policy. Rather a difficult case to make, I'd suggest. ] (]) 06:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::{{u|Atsme}}, there appears to be consensus to remove the image per the above discussion. Why did you with an edit summary indicating a lack of consensus? Thanks. ] (]) 15:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The claim after I removed the image was that there is no consensus for the removal. I'm surprised by that claim. Don't see ] and unlike aesthetic or syntactic appeals, the reason for removal is so that the essay doesn't (intentionally or unintentionally) defame the union in question by associating them with the behaviors being maligned in the essay. Seems a reasonable approach to me. However, if others object, please indicate why in this space. Thanks. ] (]) 15:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I really don't see the problem with that image. The writing on signs is too small to see and the fact that the ducks are picketing seems kind of cute and on topic with respect to advocacy.--] (]) 15:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I recognized the logo immediately, but then again I've known people in this union in the past. Are you from the UK? ] (]) 16:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think that if there's an objection to the image - which there is - that it should be removed, especially since it does not materially contribute to the understanding of what an advocacy duck is or how to find them. ] (]) 16:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Perhaps the image could be photoshopped to remove the logo.--] (]) 16:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That would address my concerns, absolutely. ] (]) 16:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
Are you saying consensus comprises the following 3 editors: AndyTheGrump, JPS and Ca2James? That isn't how we arrive at consensus. I also know why these same editors oppose the duck image. They have opposed the use of "duck" in this essay from day one. What some editors also also fail to acknowledge is that this essay reflects the opinion of its creator and co-authors although it is open for anyone to edit, the latter of which actually refers to improving the essay by copyediting, expansion like what I tried to do and possibly even some modifications to syntax to improve clarity - that doesn't mean editors have a green light to change the intent or opinions expressed by the essay. ] suggests that there is no right or wrong and if editors oppose the intent or opinions of a standing essay, it best for them to create their own opposing essay and link it to this one like what Andy just did with his Game of Thrones-like synopsis. Any editor who wants to collaborate and improve this essay is certainly welcome, but tendentious editing and removal of images to change the intent and opinions that created this essay is not an improvement. It's an opposing opinion so may I suggest that you collaborate with Andy on his essay and get it into namespace. I'll be happy to help you with that as well. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 16:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do you understand the reason I objected to the image? If you want to recreate the image without the logo of that union displayed and, by implication, associated with the ''bête noire'' of this essay, that would do a lot to address my concerns. ] (]) 16:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:@Atsme I am against the images removal, but BoboMeowCat's suggestion isnt that bad. ] 16:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Just joining in with my meat-puppets...leave the image as it is.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm saying that no one objected to removing the image after discussion, which implies that there was consensus to remove it. You even participated in the discussion and did not object to its removal. You're also misstating the objections, which have nothing to do which not liking "ducks" as a concept, but are twofold: a) there's a union logo in the photo, and b) it isn't clear that they're ducks as they could be geese. It appears that editors are willing to let b) slide but not a). Photoshopping out the logo appears to be a compromise on a). ] (]) 16:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I GIMP'd the image, and uploaded it in case there is consensus to have a altered image. Anyone wants a better version feel free to make one. ] 16:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
'''Quick note:''' I have started a discussion about this issue at BLPN: ] ] (]) 16:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::They probably aren't ducks, they are a real trade union, the 'joke' is 'heavy-handed' and not very witty. I can't believe that anyone thinks it appropriate to keep this image.] (]) 17:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I replaced the edited out version while the BLP discussion is ongoing. ] 17:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It looks great! I like this new image more because I think the new sayings make it clearer why this image in being included in the essay. ] (]) 17:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Atsme made the newest one, mine was more or less a crude place holder to end the issue while discussion happened. I think she did an excellent job!] 18:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Oh I didn't realize that. Looking at them both, yours is good but Atsme's is better. It looks great! ] (]) 20:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
Could somebody please verify that these are ducks not geese ? Following the picture this seemed to be true, but others say Russian geese.] (]) 17:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Anybody speak Russian?''' it seems that the ducks/geese are described on commons as 'Ducks Pshenyanovo', however on Russian WP, the description is Google translate gives 'Geese in Pshenyanovo, Tylihul Estuary'. ] (]) 20:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:A short scroll up and you'll see a post by Capitalismojo with a wikilink to ]. FYI - ducks have flat bills and they quack. Geese have pointy bills but not the same as ], and they honk, but not like a car. They both eat trout. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 00:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I somehow doubt that they are American Pekin ducks ''(which the article says was a breed developed in US)'', in Ukraine ''(though obviously could be Pekin ducks)'' and thought it should be established what the person who took the picture said. I couldn't get the picture to 'honk' or 'quack', am I pressing the wrong button? ] (]) 07:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Them bills ain't flat. ] (]) 16:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Which means we can be certain that they're not ]. Duck bills aren't perfectly flat, but I agree that the beaks on the birds in the picture look far more like duck bills than goose beaks (geese usually have a more "conical" beak than ducks...). ] ] 17:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Try comparing them with the lead image of ]. ]<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The real question is, when are we going to write ]? ] (]) 17:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Careful - the males are venomous!<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Definitely seems like an appropriate allegory for Misplaced Pages and perhaps the Internet in general. ] (]) 17:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Why dont you try writing it, your sense of humour would at least make it interesting to read. I have found essay creation to be fun, perhaps you will to. ] 17:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::And they have spidey senses - electro-reception, for digging up all the little-life they want to consume.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Well, I've had my hand in a few essays, but I tend to like the pithy ones over the long-winded ones. For example ], ] or ]. Humor, I have found, is best when it is unexpected. ] (]) 19:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::], having spent some time exploring WP pictures, I'm not convinced either way, 'our' ducks/geese have a much more upright stance than American Pekin ducks's and are scrawnier and much scruffier, unfortunately one can't see the distintive ] on 'our' picture ''(btw, according to the APD talk, APD is a misnomer, nobody calls them that, WP uses the term to distinguish them from a - largely 'bred-out'- older German Pekin duck, the whole duck world usually calls the modern form PD's and they are widely commercially raised in Europe)''. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::In the absence of a Russian-speaking domestic water fowl expert, might I suggest the caption is altered to an open-ended question ''(they look like etc, they walk like etc, so they must be … … mustn't they?)''. Could I gently point out how silly everyone connected with this essay would look if it turned out these weren't ducks, especially as the Russian article/Google translate actually says 'geese'. ] (]) 21:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::This is becoming a huge time-sink for no end. Poultry walk more upright when they are cautious. Poultry plumage always depends on their prior housing conditions. The original image states that they are both ducks and "gooses" - hardly an ornithologist! Let's move on people!<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::brilliant! done . ] (]) 07:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Just to say, I think they are prob. ducks, but we don't here work on what may well be probably true, certainly not in this context. Asking the question may anyway be more constructive than asserting the answer.] (]) 09:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Should the following change be made to the main article? == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the main article, at the very top, should {{Guidance essay}} be replaced with {{essay}} considering that there are many editors who believe in the validity of this essay. ] (]) 12:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No'''-- ] ] (]) 12:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No''' And lets finish the first RfC before indulging in additional proposals. ] (]) 12:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No, most definitely not'''. Judging by the discussions, both here and on WP:ANI, there are far more editors who do '''not''' believe in the validity of this essay than there are who do believe in it. ] ] 14:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No'''. There are many editors who ''do not'' believe in the validity of this essay. And read next time, ] first. ] (]) 15:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*The replacement disclaimer is saying: ''Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.'' The current disclaimer is saying: '' It may contain opinions that are shared by few or no other editors''. The recent ANI discussion, in which at least <s>three</s> four admins tried and failed to impose boomerang action against {{u|Atsme}}, revealed the strong support for this article and proved that the replacement disclaimer more accurately represents this article than the current disclaimer.For this reason i '''Support''' the change to the disclaimer. ] (]) 15:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I suggest you re-read the ANI-discussion, because it did definitely not show any strong/widespread support for AVDUCK. ] ] 15:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yup. And ANI does not settle content disputes. Not that any of this proposed content had even been discussed there. Or anywhere else. ] (]) 15:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And Soham321, ]. ] (]) 16:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''No'''. The ANI discussion did not indicate widespread support amongst uninvolved editors, not least because the issue wasn't under discussion. ] (]) 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Comment''': "Widespread support" is not required for the change in the disclaimer. The new disclaimer explicitly says that the essay could constitute minority opinion. The ANI discussion had to be closed because it had become a stale mate since there were both many proponents and many opponents of this essay. Andy is right that it was not a content dispute that was discussed at ANI but the whole ANI discussion revolved around this essay. ] (]) 16:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::What part of 'ANI does not settle content disputes' do you have difficulty understanding? ] (]) 16:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am not disputing your claim that ANI does not settle content disputes; i agree with your claim. ] (]) 16:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Then stop bringing up ANI in a discussion about content. ] (]) 16:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Right but you're using that discussion to say that there's strong/widespread support for this essay. Based on the responses to the above RfC, where several previously-uninvolved editors are suggesting deletion or userfying, it's clear that there is ''not'' support for this essay let alone strong or widespread support. ] (]) 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You will have to concede that the ANI discussion revolved around what was perceived as battleground behavior (from both opponents and proponents of this essay). The fact that the allegations and counter-allegations of battleground behavior ended in a stale mate in the ANI discussion (because of which the thread had to be closed) shows that there was significant support for this essay. ] (]) 17:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::We will have to concede no such thing, since your clearly partisan interpretation of what went on in an ANI thread which wasn't about the content of this essay is of no relevance to a discussion on matters which hadn't been discussed here, there or anywhere else. You asked contributors to discuss your proposal - please allow them to do so without repeatedly bringing up the same irrelevances. ] (]) 17:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::''nb edit conflict'': ], let's please drop the ANI, enough drama for one day, an inconclusive outcome is an inconclusive outcome, it isn't proof or disproof of anything.] (]) 17:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{u|AndyTheGrump}} "your clearly <b>partisan</b> interpretation" Was that really necessary? ] 18:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Yes, it was. ] (]) 19:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''', I don't see any need, logic, or advantage to the change.] (]) 18:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No''' ANI revealed nothing about the level of support felt for this essay. ] (]) 03:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No''' per what everyone else has already said. ] (]) 15:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No'''. Almost no support for this essay. --] (]) 17:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== MFD candidate?== |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure that this is even useful to begin with. Started by a disruptive editor, the prose is awkward at best, it meanders and has no flow whatsoever, the goals are not clear and the whole thing seems so utterly muddled as to be useless. If an essay is needed, for christ sake, surely we could nuke this and do better from scratch. I see lots of participation here on the talk page, but am I the only one that thinks it isn't worth the effort? ] - ] 14:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:A number of editors have voiced similar concerns here and at the related ANI recently. I think it might be worthwhile at this point to reconsider deleting it now. ] (]) 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, you aren't. The first versions of the essay were actively harmful; the current version is just crap but "mostly harmless". The problem is it seems to be a rallying-point for some of our most pernicious editors, and the fear is there will be continued efforts to reintroduce the more harmful aspects from the earlier versions. Not sure if yet another deletion attempt is worth the Drama, though. ] (]) 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
This essay has already survived an MfD . A renomination of it when it hasn't been substantially changed would seem disruptive. It would seem better if those involved in battleground here moved on to improving WP. --] (]) 15:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I am trying to AGF here, but... Why would the OP suddenly wade into this article and request its deletion without, I believe, having ever made a single edit at this article before (including with any of his alter guises ] and ]). Whats more, as indicated by BMC above, the article has been through MfD already and there was a "clear cut consensus" for keep. This could have been easily researched before this thread was started. This thread is a complete and utter waste of editors' time.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Consensus can change. And there is nothing anywhere in any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that states that someone has to edit an essay before they express an opinion on it. ] (]) 17:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Bingo. A lot of people became aware of this essay throughout where many previously uninvolved folks indicated they thought it should be deleted. It does appear there is reason to believe there could be a change in consensus. If one wants to go through the drama of another MfD is another question. ] (]) 20:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think way to many of those that have been against Atsme and her essay's have held the stick to long. ] 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The diff that Kingofaces43 refers to ended as a boomerang thrown at Atsme. Unfortunately, when boomerangs are thrown, these are often personal and other perhaps more important issues can fall by the wayside. The closure was a non-admin closure by Jytdog who made no mention whatsoever about consensus for deletion of the article (hardly surprising as that was not the topic of the thread). Therefore, a new MfD would have to be started and all those editors who commented on the deletion in the previous thread should be pinged.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::In the event of another MfD being started, it would certainly seem reasonable to contact (with a neutral message) all those that had previously commented in the previous MfD and RfC, certainly. ] (]) 21:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Kind of funny to mention my "alter guises" in a text book case of ad hominem, when it has nothing to do with this essay. (Pharmboy was my first account, Farmer is my non-admin account when Im on an insecure line. If you really cared about good faith, you would have read and figured that out. Check their contrib history for more fun or just to "waste time".) I hadn't seen the ANI until after I saw the essay, which I heard about OFF Misplaced Pages, at WPO of all places. Frankly, the ANI is irrelevant here, as in my opinion, this is simply a poorly thought out and executed essay, thus MFD is a valid topic to bring up on the talk page. Of course, I could I've just sent it there, I certainly don't need anyone's permission to do so, but being an active page, it is courteous to bring up the issue here first. So far, no one has offered a compelling reason to NOT take it to MFD, so I'm likely to in a couple of days if someone doesn't beat me to the punch or provide a valid rationale. I'm all ears, of course, I just don't see the validity of the essay on its face. ] - ] 14:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Would it be reasonable to hold the MFD-discussion until after Atsmes current block, so she can participate if she wishes? ] (]) 16:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Editors that get blocked lose their privileges when they get blocked, so I don't see a need to base timing of discussion around one editor. Additionally, no one editor ] this essay since it moved out of userspace, and it's ultimately up to the community at this point. If it were a discussion of deleting the essay from Atsme's userspace back when it was a draft, it would be a different story, but this essay has been in the community domain for some time now. ] (]) 17:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Here is a good reason to not do a MFD. The main argument for deletion would be an argument to avoid in deletion discussions ]. ] 17:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Generally speaking, it is considered logical (and good manners) to wait until people have expressed their opinions before dismissing them. ] (]) 18:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I didnt dismiss them, but so far the only argument (opinions) for an MFD presented is an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions ]. If you have another please post it. ] 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::First we hold the MfD, then we analyse the responses. How difficult is that to understand? ] (]) 19:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::An MfD has already occurred. The result was keep. Here are the responses for analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy_ducks --] (]) 01:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Well this is a discussion about having an MFD. No sense having one on failed arguments. That would be just a waste of time. Dont worry, be happy! ] 19:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Time to stop talking about deletion == |
|
|
|
|
|
This page was nominated for deletion with a result of KEEP on 23 May 2015. See ]. To nominate it for deletion again at this time would be disruptive behavior. |
|
|
|
|
|
The original author of this page, Atsme, declined several offers to move the page into <s>his</s> her userspace where <s>he</s> she could control the content, and thus anyone can edit this page in any way they choose, subject to the usual rules of consensus. They could even reverse the meaning, replacing the current page with a new page starting with "This essay is '''not''' about advocacy ducks, because advocacy ducks do not exist". |
|
|
|
|
|
I would argue against such a change, advising instead creating a rebuttal essay, and I think the consensus would be with me, but the fact remains that anyone who thinks that this page is fatally flawed is free to replace it with what they think is a non-flawed version and then to follow ] if anyone objects and reverts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Presumably, Atsme would also take exception to reversing the meaning, but could not do anything about it until <s>his</s> her block expires. See ]. That's what happens when you behave in such a way that you get blocked. --] (]) 02:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Two points: |
|
|
::(1) Atsme is female. |
|
|
::(2) There is nothing in Misplaced Pages policy which states that a good-faith nomination for deletion is 'disruptive behaviour' - though editing an essay in order to 'reverse its meaning' might well be seen as such. ] (]) 02:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::There have been many editors who have been warned (and blocked if they persist) for re-nominating a page for deletion shortly after a previous nomination closed with a clear consensus. Unless the nominator can demonstrate a reason why they think the consensus may have changed, the nomination most certainly is disruptive. You don't get to ask a question again and again until you get the answer you like. You can, of course try it and see. The worst that will happen is a ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Following ] with a single edit that doesn't violate any other policies is not disruptive. It may even survive the resulting consensus discussion. --] (]) 05:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Who are you suggesting is "ask a question again and again"? The suggestion that a new MfD might be appropriate came from Dennis Brown, who neither started the previous MfD, or even participated in it. As for editing an essay to give it the opposite meaning not being disruptive, clearly your definition of disruption differs from mine. It looks to me like a recipe for edit-warring, and would seem if the previous version indeed has 'consensus' to be a means of subverting it. An honest discussion on the merits of an essay which has clearly proved controversial is likely to be a darned sight less 'disruptive' than the endless back-and-forth likely to result from your proposal. ] (]) 05:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I am not sure what part of "Following ]" or "with a single edit" wasn't clear, but Misplaced Pages editors are allowed and even encouraged to make those sort of ] edits, and if they ] when someone undoes the bold edit, no edit war is possible. On the other hand, nominating a page for deletion right after it passed a previous deletion with a clear consensus to keep -- even once -- is (slightly) disruptive. If the page is nominated multiple times in a short period of time, even if a different editor nominates it each time, that would be a clear example of a group of editors asking a question again and again and ] the repeated answer. Again, this is not theoretical. Editors have been blocked for doing that. --] (]) 06:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Given that the last 'bold' edit resulted in the ANI thread you linked, along with all the other drama, I would have to suggest that your proposed method of resolving the disputes over this essay seems based on a questionable premise. ] (]) 07:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}Everyone seems to be getting extraordinarily excited over this essay, which I didn't expect. As I said, I wasn't aware of the previous MFD or ANI over it and I have not gone over and read them either; my opinions are truly virgin; untainted first impressions. I was astounded by the low quality and questionable utility. My goal of mentioning it was to either get the essay "fixed" somehow so that it is at least meets some minimal threshold of coherency or to take it to MFD. WP:DE isn't a concern for reasons that should be obvious now. Again, and with all respect to those that wrote it, it is god awful to read to the point of being painful, as if it was written by a committee rather than a group of collaborative editors. I'm not even sure where the term Advocacy Duck came from and it sounds like someone trying to forcefully create a hybrid neologism and failing even after stringing together all the duck analogies they could find. The confusing message, poor prose and unhelpfulness of this makes it actually harmful rather than educational. There are 103 commas in this short essay, showing how chopped up it is for example. Sorry if this sounds harsh but there just isn't any other way to express the concern without being blunt. I'm not questioning anyone's faith in creating this but faith isn't the measuring stick here. ] - ] 13:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:As pointed out above, a MFD started based on the quality of the writing of the essay would be based on an argument to avoid in deletion discussions ]. Its likely that if that is the only argument a MDF will be a waste of time and just more drama in a essay that has way to much as it is. The only other argument I have seen is that it might be a possible target for future PAG violations. That is also an argument to avoid in deletion discussions ]. ] 14:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's one opinion. Note however: (1) the focus of ] is articles, not essays; (2) ] is (like this piece) an essay, and is in no way authoritative. Do take into account Dennis's view that the essay is very poorly written. As such it discredits the view it attemps to promote. ] (]) 14:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::A deletion discussion is a deletion discussion. I have faith an uninvolved closer will apply the same logic to an essay as a article. The premise is that on WP we edit and fix things with problems, not delete them. That is applicable in this situatuation. If the drama and deletion promotion would stop, perhaps it will get better. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{u|Dennis Brown}} - I've watched this whole thing unfold, and this is my own perspective on what has happened, and why there is such strong emotion about it. I work on articles about health broadly, including medicine and food (including ag biotech) and I work on COI matters generally. There is a set of editors here who see me a longterm shill for Monsanto and have hounded me for a few years now - that is actually what got me interested in COI issues and how they are managed here in WP. At an ANI I brought in March about inappropriate claims of COI made in a content dispute (]) that went wildly off the rails, a ] by Slim Virgin, picking up on boomerang-y COI concerns raised about me in the main ANI thread by my hounders, and in that subsection, the idea of applying ] to COI issues was raised as a way to lower the bar to addressing long-term COI issues (this is also in the context of the whole Wifione matter). This led to a long discussion at ] (see there) about changing the COI guideline to include the DUCK notion, which did not gain traction. In parallel, the idea of writing an essay about applying ] to COI issues gained traction in discussions at SlimVIrgin's talk page (see and ] in March and April, the latter mostly by editors unified mostly by their dislike of me, but also by an affinity for alt-med and concomitant unhappiness with the application of ] and dislike of the work of ] on alt med topics, but also by some editors who have had long-term concerns about COI per se. |
|
|
:Atsme, with whom I had clashed at a separate article on a FRINGE altmed topic (]), had hooked up with the group of my hounders via that ANI (see and ), and came to SlimVirgin's talk page, where to write a "COI Duck" essay, and did so. In my view, that essay carried a lot of Atsme's frustration with the things that happened at the Griffin article and actually dealt little with COI as it actually arises in Misplaced Pages and I don't think that Slim Virgin and some others who had discussed a DUCK COI essay, expected it to turn out that way. That essay was deleted via an MfD that got a ''very'' strong and broad response from the community - see , which basically came down to a judgement that the essay advised editors to treat policy-based consensus as a conspiracy, and was harmful. |
|
|
:This essay - the one for which this is the Talk page - was Atsme's 2nd try at the same topic, and took some of the criticism from the first one on board. (see the archives of this Talk page if you like) An MfD was created for this essay, which ended with "keep". This essay is better than the last one, content-wise, and my sense is that there was a certain amount of exhaustion in the wake of the 1st MfD - the response from the community was much weaker than the 1st one. There has also been a lot of drama at ANI and other boards where various supporters of this essay have been involved, including the most recent one that led to Atsme's block. If there was exhaustion before, there is probably even more now; I don't know that another MfD makes sense but you are of course free to nominate it. That is the background here, again very much from my perspective. ] (]) 14:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:fwiw, I have been opposed to the application of ] to COI or advocacy issues since it was first proposed, and I don't care for this essay. As was said by several responders to the 1st MfD, ] is used in the specialized context of SOCKing, and SOCKs tend to be somewhat obsessed editors who actually do the same things that they did under their other user names; SPI is one of the most controlled environments here in WP and the use of DUCK is careful there. The idea of unleashing DUCK for use in the broader community is really unwise to me, especially applying it to COI (or advocacy, of which COI is just a subset), which people use as a basis for inappropriate personal attacks far too often. I think WP would be better off without this essay, but again, I would surprised if an MfD would succeed and I don't think it is a great idea to further roil already troubled waters. I also don't think this essay will ever gain much traction, so I think it is, and will remain, pretty harmless. ] (]) 14:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*:That makes sense now. Again, I came in cold with no previous opinions on the article and simply read it, came here and commented after seeing a lot of discussion but without reading it. That may sound a bit crazy to some, but what you got was an unbiased and unfiltered opinion. As to what I do about the opinion, I've yet to decide, but my opinion regarding the potential harm and quality holds firm: it is a dreadful essay. Of course, the reason I came here to the talk page instead of going straight to MFD was ''because'' I didn't have the full background. As for the politics behind it, I have no interest in joining in nor judging anyone for it. I'm just looking at the essay at face value, blind to whoever said what to who in the past. ] - ] 16:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I agree with you on all points, Dennis. This essay is neither concise, clear, nor especially useful. If it were an article, I'd consider it a content fork of ] or ]. I had also been considering nominating the essay for deletion, but had not done so based on how recent the last nomination was. ] (]) 00:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}] -- Could I make that comment into an essay at ]? ] (]) 03:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I would prefer if you didn't. ] (]) 16:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
