Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atsme (talk | contribs) at 15:08, 20 April 2015 (→Suggestions by {{u|Jytdog}}: it was changed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Let the games begin...

Ok, while editors are picking at the original essay and 1st rewrite, I have written a 3rd. If we could spend less time bickering and more time editing we would be much further ahead. Atsme☯ 04:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A very peaceful plan, leave the bickering on older pages and continue working on others. Even if it takes a few more pages it seems like a good idea. :) AlbinoFerret 05:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Resume COI and Advocacy discussion

• Advocacy or POV-editing for several reasons. First, I see COI editing - defined on WP as editing for financial gain - as separate but related to advocacy or POV editing. An editor can have a COI and turn out an NPOV article, and an editor can have no COI and turn out a POV-pushing article. Second, it's impossible to determine who has a COI because we are not allowed to OUT anyone. The only way to find COI editors who aren't writing NPOV articles is via their behaviour, and that behaviour is pretty well indistinguishable from and is as unwelcome as anyone who edits in a non-NPOV way. Finally, I think that a focus on COI means focusing on the editor themselves because it's the editor, not the edits, that has the COI. In contrast, focusing on advocacy or POV-editing means that the focus is on the edits and behaviour, not the editor themselves. I think looking at POV-editing is assuming better faith of other editors than looking for a COI.

I see that instead of rewriting the essay as was strongly suggested at the MfD close, Atsme is ignoring this discussion and is editing the latest version of it. Atsme, it seems that you do not actually want to collaborate with other editors on this and that's bad because your essay is fatally flawed. At its core, it encourages readers to assume bad faith of other editors (and of course there's the misuse of the duck term, which contributes to the assumption of bad faith). It needs to be rewritten from scratch through collaboration with editors who aren't anti-Project Medicine or anti-MEDRS. It needs to be written with an underlying goal of actually dealing with the problem instead of the current apparent goal if providing editors who disagree with MEDRS or RS guidelines a way of discounting their opponents. No one editor can do that on their own, and they most definitely can't do it if they start by assuming bad faith. Ca2james (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree with much of what you say. I don't think Atsme has refused to collaborate, but I agree more collaboration will need to take place to get a revised essay published. I dislike the continued assertions that it must be completely rewritten. That leads to the unreasonable suggestion that there is nothing salvageable of the essay and/or that there is nothing worthwhile about it. Collaboration is not about rejecting the entirety of the essay but working on what is good and addressing what needs to be corrected. Doing the same with BoboMeowCat's revised essay is no more helpful. Black/White assertions are not helpful in this regard. Specific criticisms, evidence for them, and proposals to correct them are collaborative. Blanket rejections are not helpful. David Tornheim (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

David Tornheim, we're all here talking and developing a consensus while Atsme has rewritten her essay yet again without engaging here. She's also questioned the motives behind anyone else writing a similar essay. Between those two facts, I think it's fair to say that she has so far refused to collaborate.

Atsme's third essay is better than the first two but it still has issues with negative tone and the "duck" theme. It isn't that there's nothing worth saving; it's that not enough assumptions of bad faith are being discarded. It is still much too easy to imagine an anti-MEDRS editor reading that essay and using it against editors who are attempting to apply MEDRS. Yes, there are cautions against assuming bad faith in there but that's not enough. Ca2james (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Ca2james: Can you give specific examples where the essay assumes bad faith? Can you identify sentences or phrases that you believe do this? I hear this asserted over and over to characterize the entire essay, but I just don't see it. The essay cannot be fixed with such broad brush criticism and black/white thinking. We need details of specific examples of sentences and phrases that you believe are against policy, guideline and/or ArbCom decisions. David Tornheim (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Progress - We seem to have a consensus on one thing: The essay should not be about COI to the extent of advocating outing or research with that in mind to prove a COI. Is there any objection to my claim we have a consensus on that? If you have a better way of stating this, please offer it below. David Tornheim (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I like it. Redddbaron (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

suggested improvement

Here is a suggestion to help avoid adding to the large and growing number of tags on WP (Speaking as a member of Wikiproject citation cleanup). "WP:ADVOCACY may support many different points of view. The best way to address any advocacy issue is to make good use of the sourcing guidelines WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. When you find passages in an article where there are no WP:RS supporting a particular passage, use the Misplaced Pages:Citation needed template and begin a discussion on the TP." Would you consider adding the following "where there are no WP:RS supporting a particular passage, first try and find one, if you cant find one use the Misplaced Pages:Citation needed template and begin a discussion on the TP." AlbinoFerret 16:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Also this essay may be of help to new users WP:POV RAILROAD AlbinoFerret 16:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed AF. Go ahead and add it and thank you for your contribution. Keep 'em coming!! Atsme☯ 17:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

What are the opinions of adding something like "Make sure to read and understand all policies and guidelines that are mentioned or linked to. Misapplication of policies and guidelines to further a specific point of view is a possible duck tactic." ?AlbinoFerret 13:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

In the ten steps section the line "Did you argue for the sake of argument or was your argument substantive? A review of relevant PAGs will help you establish your position." might do well with a link to WP:POINT in the argue for argument sake wording. AlbinoFerret 16:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

comments

• DNA is still the same as 2 prior versions:
  • still abuses DUCK concept and has some assumptions of bad faith
  • still casts consensus as conspiracy, like:
    • "If you have taken all the steps suggested in this essay and still believe a group of advocacy ducks are picketing against you..."
    • "Advocacies tend to involve tag teams" (this seems directed at WikiProject Medicine which is not an "advocacy"
    • bullets 4 through 8, and 15 and 16 under identifiers are all conspiracy theorizing/paranoid and the REMEMBER, DO NOT GIVE THEM AMMO between bullets 7 & 8 is really... paranoidish. Editors ~should~ always be civil etc. ( we all, including me, fall down sometimes. but "don't give them ammo" comes from a place where you are already certain you are dealing with Someone Evil.

pretty much everything under "keep your behavior in check" - this is really dug into a conviction that you have The Truth and the editors opposing you are Big Evil, and you describe consensus as conspiracy. The 2nd bullet is really, really bad. "Advocacy ducks may try to convert you to their POV" is, in the actual world of a Talk page, discussion to try to reach consensus. So, just yikes. (this really explains your behavior on the talk page of griffin by the way - totally uncompromising) Stuff like this in the essay, is why so many of the "delete" !votes said that the essay promotes a BATTLEGROUND mentality.

• identifiers

first bullet is great

2nd bullet - actually in my experience many new editors are here b/c they are passionate about something and new editors' edits are often very POV. you never know how editors will progress as they figure this place out. some figure it out and realize that cannot do what they wanted and they leave; some figure it out and stay but stay committed to their advocacy; some figure it out and become good members of the community. but most come here due to some passion, in my experience. something about that would be useful. but yes, dont BITE is good

3rd bullet, meh. mostly seems cover for 4-8, 13, 15, and 16. 13 is really driven by your experience at Griffin and you should take that out.

bullets 9 & 10 (pro and anti) need clarification. both do UNDUE, both can do COATRACK

bullet 11 should be combined with 9

bullet 12 is what an unrestrained (and usually newbie) advocate looks like. POV content and disruptive/WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. on the other end of the continuum is the Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing editor who is not as aggressive but is still disruptive. this could be elaborated a little and made bullet #1

bullet 14 is fine. you may want to give some reason why someone might suspect actual COI. suspect. additionally you might also say something like "if you suspect another has a COI because they are making promotional edits about a company, product, or person, or if another editor says they have a connection with the subject of the article (like 'i am a public relations rep for X" or "I am x"), please see guidance for handling other editor's conflict of interest"

• Writing

lead is not a WP:LEAD

2 paragraph of lead repeats a lot of stuff in 1st

don't understand the "coot" thing. text in green box in lead about coots is just confusing like this: "At first glance, coots look like ducks but upon closer observation you will see that coots don't have webbed feet and they don't quack. They are actually birds not ducks" don't understand what is going on there.

in "Road to resolution" section, "you may bag a coot or two along the way" seems really messed up. i thought coots were OK. why would you be happy about "bagging" one or two? the jokey attitude in some of the writing, like here and elsewhere, is in general is infelicitous. are you serious about this or not?

• kudos

"He who quacks loudest may be you." nicely done

"road to resolution" section is great

• things to clarify

" It may or may not result from paid or unpaid editing, both of which can be equally problematic if the editing conflicts with WP:PAG." you can be more specific - the really key content policy that advocates violate is NPOV.

there is some feedback. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

More comments

I have been asked to provide specific comments on this essay; please find these comments below. Please note that I am commenting on this version.

Although this essay has differences from the previous versions, at its core it is the same because it encourages its readers to assume bad faith of other editors. As long as it has this underlying bad-faith point-of-view, no matter how many times the essay says to assume good faith, it will not be acceptable as a mainspace essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015

Major issues

These are issues that, if they are not resolved, will prevent this essay from going to mainspace.

• The use of "duck". As I've said previously, WP:DUCK has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages and using it in this other context is confusing and misleading. There is another problem with the term, however, which is that labeling someone an "advocacy duck" is commenting on the editor, not commenting on the editor's edits/behaviour and this sets up a foundation to assume bad faith.

• The list of problematic behaviours are not unique to advocacy editing so saying that if editors do those things they're an "advocacy duck" is a false conclusion and assuming bad faith. The essay sets those statements apart and nowhere in that box does it indicate that these behaviours may not indicate an "advocacy duck".

• It's not clear that advocates on Misplaced Pages actually engage in those problematic behaviours. I don't have much experience in identifying these problematic behaviours and neither do you, AFAIK, so how do you know that that's what these editors do?

• There is an additional problem with the list of these behaviours, and that is that they are the same as the pharma shill gambit. While you have removed some items, this gambit is the heart of the essay because those are the behaviours identified. Comparing the essay from the linked site:

I realize that this essay uses different words than the ones at the linked site, but the sentiments are the same. And even though the name for this gambit is "pharma shill gambit", it can be applied to any area so is sometimes called a "shill gambit". The fact that the essay is using these shill gambit behaviours makes the essay look like it's not actually against advocacy editing, but that it's against anyone upholding MEDRS or other RS. An essay encouraging editors to use this gambit, which this one does, will not be allowed into mainspace.

• Did you follow the above suggestions and are still of the mind that your reverted edits were unwarranted? It could be that you came to a fork in the road. If you suspect you've encountered a COI duck, all of whom are ducks of a different color, it is best to follow the road to WP:COIN. On the other hand, if you encountered POV warriors or advocacy ducks, take the road to resolve. An editor must have more than being "of a mind" that reverts were unwarranted. With this the essay is suggesting that evidence is not required and that the road to bad faith right there. Also, "COI duck" is not defined; how would anyone know if they'd encountered someone with a COI?
• They also tend to be involved more often in recurring content disputes over the same articles and related topics resulting from issues with one of more of the following: WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE/PS. It can work both ways — pro cause or anti cause. - The editors who are trying to uphold those policies are also involved in many disputes because they're working against POV-pushers. Painting all editors who are engaged in disputes as having an advocacy problem assumes bad faith.
• Veteran advocacy ducks are expert at gaming the system. They may even try to convert their opposition to see their POV and assume a WP:IAR posture. - again, this is assuming bad faith for the reasons previously discussed.
• Advocacy ducks may try to calmly lead you in a passive aggressive manner beyond article content straight into behavioral issues which could involve WP:BULLYING. - and again, assuming bad faith. Also, this and the previous two statements are the shill gambit which I've already discussed.
• The Road to resolution section advocates taking steps that are not listed as part of WP:DR. For example:

WP:RfC is the first step to achieving WP:Consensus if you encounter one or more editors who appear to be entrenched in a particular POV. - actually, it isn't. First comes WP:DISCUSSION.

Also read, learn, and follow the steps to take at WP:DRN. - DRN isn't the first stage, and editors need to know Dispute resolution, not its Noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015

You need to read WP:Disruptive editing, Misplaced Pages:Tag_team#Tag team characteristics, WP:SP, and WP:Meat Puppetry which are main space guidelines and essays. I drew from them to write parts of my essay which you now claim to be representative of the pharma shill gambit as evidenced in your comparison above. It also appears you are confused between an essay and a guideline. You might want to read up on those differences as well. I invited editors here for GF collaboration but I do not appreciate your sarcasm and innuendos, not to mention yours and Jytdog's attempts to make my essay into something it is not. If you have no intention of collaborating here in GF, and your only concern is silencing what you consider to be pharma shills, whatever the heck that is, then you need to write your own essay and I'll be happy to help you with the copy-editing. Atsme☯ 12:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

my comments are in good faith. your first essay was deleted by the community - i didn't do that. i have tried to tell you how the current essay has some of the same stuff that the community already rejected. by retaining that stuff, you showed that you didn't listen to the community through the MfD, and by blowing me off and calling my comments bad faith, you are doing it again. and -- this is the problem with the essay. the heart of it - the DNA - is finding an excuse for the rejection of the consensus position that you already rejected. you need to learn to be aware of consensus - to try to find it (not to "win") and to yield to it when it goes against what you wanted, if you do put a stake in the ground. Every Wikipedian needs to know how to lose with a semblance of grace. that is how the essay Misplaced Pages:How to lose starts out; you should read it and its friend, Misplaced Pages:Get over it, and try to learn from them Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”. Lincoln said these words and they have proven true over and over again. In the case here, it appears that Atsme has made significant changes that addressed concerns. That some editors do not believe that "all" of the concerns have been addressed is plain to read. But the goal isnt to please all of the people all of the time. Its to write an essay, and essays dont have to be agreed with by the entire community. AlbinoFerret 13:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

this is true. i am not about getting what i want. this is about what atsme didn't change, that still expresses what the community found unacceptable. the !delete comments were consistent and clear and were reflected in the close -- too much ABF, too much promotion of battleground; rejection of consensus. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, Jytdog. It appears you forgot what admin BDD actually stated in his close. You need to read it again. Atsme☯ 14:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

yes, it said start anew,. which you did not do - much of this is direct from the original (and those are the main parts i pointed out to you) Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, my comments are in good faith. I have read the pages you linked to and by themselves there's no issue. What this essay does is to conflate them in a way that not only corresponds to the shill gambit, but doesn't reflect actual advocacy behaviours. If this was a WP article, that section would be WP:SYNTH, a form of WP:OR. Instead of saying that I'm wrong and implying that I'm part of big pharma, show me that I'm wrong by linking to examples of advocates who have behaved this way.

As for writing another essay, that's what we were doing while you were working on this third version, and which you labelled "bickering". Moreover, you have made disparaging remarks about Jytdog working on another essay. This seems to be a situation where other editors can't win. Ca2james (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Minor issues

These issues probably wouldn't stop the essay from going to mainspace... but that doesn't mean that they aren't problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015

Ten-step self-analysis

• There actually exists a strong possibility that your edit was problematic and triggered the revert - is incorrect because it minimizes the fact that while advocacy behaviours are problematic, they are not more common than non-advocacy behaviours. The statement should read It is more likely that your edit was problematic in some way
• Did you cite your passage to a reliable source that is verifiable but not false? Articles that relate to medical, health or science require close attention to WP:MEDRS guidelines. Read them, learn them, follow them. There's nothing here about editors rightfully upholding MEDRS or RS guidelines, and "read them, learn them, follow them" doesn't help.
• Is the article a biography or the biography of a living person (BLP)? BLPs require strict adherence to policy, US law and compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. There's more to Misplaced Pages than the US. What about Canada, or the EU? They have laws, too.
• Did you initiate a discussion on the article's talk page and request input from the community? If the dispute continues, it may be time to initiate an RfC. The second sentence recommending a remedy doesn't belong here. Better to state that the editor needs to discuss the edits on the Talk page.
• Did you argue for the sake of argument or was your argument substantive? A review of relevant PAGs will help you establish your position. Also see WP:POINT. Unclear. What does "substantive" mean? And while it's good to seek help from policies and guidelines, how does an editor know which ones are relevant? And what does WP:POINT have to do with this?
• Did you make any attempt to seek help? There are several ways to acquire help on WP. For example, you can include the {{help me}} template on your user talk page, or ask a question at the help desk or Teahouse. The Village Pump is another forum for general discussions, advice and for seeking technical help. Better to include this in dealing with advocacy - ie the editor should follow normal WP:DR processes, including RfC, Third opinion, dispute resolution for content issues and Talking to the editor and ANI for conduct issues.
• Did you seek a third party for input? Oftentimes an uninvolved editor can provide valuable input. Same as above. Also, WP:3O actually has a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015

Typical identifying signs

• This list is composed of behaviours that might be signs of advocacy but the four bullet points before "remember to AGF" are the pharma shill gambit again. By assuming all editors who behave that way are engaging in advocacy, the essay is encouraging readers to assume bad faith. Also, do editors engaging in advocacy actually engage in those behaviours?
• It is more to the advantage of a lone advocacy duck to maintain civility, and defer tactical deployment until joined in force by a flock of other advocacy ducks who support or advocate the same cause or POV. The quacking can become rather loud at that point. Again, refer to self-analysis and be sure your edit wasn't the cause. - The use of "quacking" is derogatory and encourages more bad faith assumptions. Name-calling is a personal attack on Misplaced Pages.
• quack, quack - see above
• Advocacy ducks typically create POV issues by tendentious editing. - do they? how do you know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015

Keep your own behaviour in check

• Veteran advocacy ducks are skilled at WP:Gaming the system, and if you behave inappropriately, you may find yourself waving goodbye from the back of a little red caboose after being railroaded into an unexpected block or topic ban. - once again, this is the shill gambit.
• Be mindful of WP:NOR, WP:MEDRS, and WP:RS. Read them, learn them, and follow them. - discussed above.
• If you have questions, seek a third opinion from an experienced editor or if you are a relatively new editor, consider a WP:Mentor. - "third opinion" has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages, as I've already stated. Better to say "another opinion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015

Road to resolution

• It is possible that if we set enough advocacy vigilantes loose across the project they are likely to find a few real advocacy ducks, but just as likely to bag a coot or two along the way. - this sentence is encouraging people to be advocacy vigilantes and that's not a good thing. Misplaced Pages doesn't need more vigilantes. And what is a coot?
• Other noticeboards - would be better split between content and conduct boards. Also include abbreviations as that's how people refer to them.

Ca2james (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Responses to comments

Suggestions by AlbinoFerret

AF: Here is a suggestion to help avoid adding to the large and growing number of tags on... ✅

AF: Also this essay may be of help to new users WP:POV RAILROAD ✅

AF: ...adding something like "Make sure to read and understand all policies and guidelines that are mentioned or linked to.✅

see essay, 4th para...which makes it all the more important to familiarize yourself with relevant policies.

see essay section...Ten step self-analysis (#7)

AF: Misapplication of policies and guidelines to further a specific point of view is a possible duck tactic." ? ✅

see 2nd bullet essay section Typical identifying signs of advocacy duck behavior (ID signs)...added your suggestion

see essay section ID signs ...The advocacy could be for or against but either way an advocacy duck will purposely or inadvertently disrupt the balance, create UNDUE and/or be noncompliant with WP:NPOV.

see 2nd bullet after Remember, Do Not Give Them Ammo...Pro-cause advocacy ducks tend to weigh down articles with puffery while excluding and/or reverting negative material.

see 6th bullet after Remember, Do Not Give Them Ammo...content disputes over the same articles and related topics resulting from issues with one of more of the following: WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE/PS. It can work both ways — pro cause or anti cause.

AF: In the ten steps section the line "Did you argue for the sake of argument.... ✅

see Ten step self-analysis (#7) Atsme☯ 18:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme, Its nice to see the suggestions applied. They were just suggestions, and I am happy you were able to incorporate them. AlbinoFerret 00:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions by Jytdog

Jdog said: DNA is still the same as 2 prior versions - I went a step further in an effort to address some of your concerns. You said still abuses DUCK concept and has some assumptions of bad faith and also still casts consensus as conspiracy. My responses follow and include the changes that were made regarding the suggestions:

1. WP:The duck test: ...suggests that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. The essay is doing just that. Also, please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing.
2. see changes in 1st para......help editors identify certain disruptive behaviors that are violative of WP:PAG. Such behavior is often associated with an article under the perceived control of an overzealous or overly bold editor or group of editors who may be driven by a paid or unpaid WP:Advocacy. It also further defines the problem areas.
3. All throughout the essay it says to assume good faith, such as:

• 1st para...which is why it is always best to assume good faith (AGF), and not make unwarranted accusations based on flimsy evidence.
• 2nd para...It is of the utmost importance to maintain civility and remember, things aren't always what they seem.
• 4th para...do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy.
• 4th para...there are certain steps you should take in an effort to identify the problem area(s). Stop, breathe, think...and above all, avoid WP:Edit warring or you might become a sitting duck.
• Ten step self-analysis...There actually exists a strong possibility that your edit was problematic and triggered the revert.
• Typical identifying signs of advocacy duck behavior...which includes...

• Misapplication of WP:PAG to further a specific POV is a possible advocacy duck tactic. Make sure you are not the one perceived as employing such a tactic.
• GF editors are open to discussion and will welcome input if you assume good faith, avoid edit warring and participate in civil discourse on the article's talk page.
• I removed the Do Not Give Them Ammo references per your suggestion.
• Again, refer to self-analysis and be sure your edit wasn't the cause.
• And #7 bullet states If you suspect an undisclosed WP:COI may be involved, stand down and take the issue to WP:COIN for further investigation.
• Keep your own behavior in check...it is all the more important for you to remain focused on article content and follow WP:PAG.

Regarding consensus...

1. Road to resolution...it clearly states It is not wise for an individual editor to ascertain with certainty that a content dispute stems from paid or unpaid advocacy ducks. It is always better to seek a third opinion or try to achieve consensus by means of an RfC.

2. First in list states WP:RfC is the first step to achieving WP:Consensus if you encounter one or more editors who appear to be entrenched in a particular POV.
3. Also included is: Other noticeboards to seek consensus

It makes no sense to have an essay that doesn't directly address the problems editors have to deal with on a regular basis. The essay addresses those issues head-on. If it didn't, it would be just like the other essays and PAGs which obviously are not helping resolve the issues, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Atsme☯ 20:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Almost everything you wrote misses the mark, of what i wrote. some general responses:

• I've written a few times why DUCK is inappropriate in this context. You've not responded. You don't have to, of course. But what you write above about DUCK doesn't address my objections.
• You can have all the positive statements you want about AGF etc (and I am aware of them, there was no need to repeat them) but as long as the ABF stuff is still there, it is still there. Maybe read the essay on WP:ADVOCACY to see how to discuss objectionable behavior without building in ABF.
• I asked earlier what gap among essays this is attempting to fill, and I still don't understand.
• it is funny you recommended i read the civil pov pushing essay. i did read it this morning, and it is exactly your behavior at griffin. it is crazy.
• i probably won't bother commenting more. you are obdurate. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's unfortunate but its your choice. I won't stoop to your level of name calling or bother responding to your spurious claims so I'll end this discussion by bidding you good night with kind regards. Atsme☯ 22:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

your first essay was overwhelmingly rejected for promoting disruptive behavior. this essay has the same DNA. already you didn't hear what the community said when you wrote this. ... in my comments i tried - i really did - to show you how the objectionable stuff is still here. you didn't hear it when i said it either. obdurate = stubbornly refusing to change one's opinion or course of action. it's apt. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong - read the close again. I made the changes that the opposers actually pointed out in GF and continued to do so after the essay was deleted. Your views are what has been rejected because this essay isn't about your POV. The essay you attempted to write based on your POV is what was rejected at COIN. Mine has been changed dramatically to address those issues. As I stated above, read the MfD close again because it appears you have forgotten what was said

yes, it said start anew,. which you did not do - much of this is direct from the original (and those are the main parts i pointed out to you). i didn't try to write an essay; i attempted to amend the WP:COI guideline -- and you should learn from that rejection how sensitive the community is to just describing signs of possible COI which is much less dramatic than applying DUCK. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect - I did start anew. I changed the name, I changed the focus, I changed some of the photos and added more, I changed emphasis in the sections, I changed section titles, - ALL NEW - I just didn't change it to your POV. Atsme☯ 15:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)