| Revision as of 05:26, 25 November 2015 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,804 edits OneClickArchiver updating counter.← 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 |
| (22 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| 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 |
|
== MFD candidate?== |
|
|
|
| action1 = MFD |
|
|
|
|
|
| action1date = 23 May 2015 |
|
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) |
|
|
|
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks |
|
: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) |
|
|
|
| action1result = keep |
|
: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) |
|
|
|
| action1oldid = 663667267 |
|
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) |
|
