Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Misplaced Pages essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Misplaced Pages essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysTemplate:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysWikiProject Misplaced Pages essays
This page was nominated for deletion on 23 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.
removing the template of a guidance
Could you help me understand the nature of your objection? I left an edit summary so "unexplained" is incorrect. The original author even thanked me for changing to the proper template, so I'm puzzled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
If I may please interject with a few of my thoughts on the subject of essay vs guidance essay. Considering what we've been through and the distrust expressed by a few editors regarding the motivation behind this essay, I think we have done our best to demonstrate its "worth" but now we need to see how it's going to perform. In other words, it has to prove its worth. I respectfully request that we all try to focus on the big picture, not the small things that can be upgraded/modified/deleted later once the essay has earned its place. I understand both sides of this debate and appreciate both positions but I also believe in compromise especially when it comes to trivial matters. I have always welcomed collaboration, substantive criticism and suggestions for improvement, and we have done our best to accommodate both perspectives. Now it's time for the essay to prove its worth. Wuerzele, you have been a good collaborator and helped improve this essay with your contributions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris, you expressed your concerns and I have done my best to address them but it is WP's essay now. I think we all want what's good for the project which is why I have addressed the concerns expressed by Jytdog and other editors who questioned or disproved certain aspects of the essay. I now respectfully request that we please let the essay have a chance to perform and see what happens. I realize some editors will never recommend it, but let's wait and see, ok? I think it's going to surprise us....hopefully in a good way. --Atsme23:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem, it was a chance to learn something. I kind of like having the archives in the header with the search function. The problem is there were no archives 2-9. archive 10 is now a redirect, Im debating having it deleted G6 because when archive 10 is needed this will probably be forgotten. We could also just leve it and when 10 is needed remove the redirect. AlbinoFerret
AF - I'll ask T13 if there's a work-around. What appears to be happening, and I didn't even notice it when I archived, is that the One-Click defaults to whatever I had it set to for my user TP archives. I guess it doesn't automatically adjust to the relevant article TP archive and has to be manually set. Thank you for fixing it. I apologize for the inconvenience. Atsme20:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I like to fix things Atsme, so no inconvenience. You probably copied the code from your talk page to this one and forgot to change the archive number. It was easy to fix once I figured it out. AlbinoFerret23:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It's working properly, in Special:Diff/662259393 you had the counter set to 10, which is why it archived there. I just tested and confirmed it is indeed working correctly now. Happy archiving. — {{U|Technical 13}} 17:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Is the following addition relevant in the Signs of advocacy section?
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should the section Signs of advocacy contain the following additions to help editors, particularly newbies, recognize that project teams, while they may appear to be an advocacy, is not necessarily the case and to self-analyze while attempting to correctly identify the actual cause of the disruption? Additions in green text: ...and may even appear to be members of a project comprising groups of contributors who often collaborate as a team to improve Misplaced Pages. The latter makes it all the more important to correctly recognize the cause of the disruption and make sure it isn't you. You might see AVDucks in topics that deal with politics, religion, CAM, renewable energy generation, various new technologies, national and ethnic conflicts, life sciences or any other topics that have a following. Advocates almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is their primary catalyst for engaging in long-term tendentious editing that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV; their goal being to impose and maintain their POV in an article or related articles that serve to further their cause. Do not mistake GF attempts of project teams to achieve accuracy, compliance with NPOV, and/or adherence to WP:PAG as advocacy.Atsme13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Survey
Support by OP. When several editors who are members of the same project suddenly show up at an article and start making changes to make the article compliant with WP:PAGs, the opposing editor(s), particularly newbies, tend to believe they are being tag-teamed or confronted by an advocacy. This addition will help them sort through their suspicions and look to self-analysis first and actual causes for the disruption rather than pointing fingers and assuming. Atsme13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. A weasel-worded attack on Misplaced Pages projects, as is self-evident from Atsme's comment above. The proposed wording reads "may even appear to be members of a project", but Atsme states that the intended target is unequivocally project members who 'suddenly show up at an article'. If there is evidence that Misplaced Pages projects are engaging in advocacy (a claim for which this essay provides precisely zero evidence), rather than merely 'showing up' at articles within their remit (which is what Wikiprojects are for), it needs to be dealt with properly, not just mentioned in passing in questionably-worded advice to newbies. As with so much else within this essay, this 'advice' invites new contributors to look for 'bias' when meeting opposition to their editing, and implies that opposition from multiple experienced contributors is evidence of 'advocacy'. Sure, it then goes on to provide mealy-mouthed calls for self-examination, but the damage has already been done - the essay promotes a suspicious and conspiracy-seeking mindset that is totally at odds with collegial editing. The proper advice to newbies when in disagreement with the sort of experienced contributors who customarily make up Wikiprojects is to discuss issues with them, and then to engage in relevant methods of dispute resolution if and when such discussions fail to achieve progress. Telling new contributors who run into problems that Wikiproject members may be members of advocacy-cabals is a sure-fire way to create drama, but a piss-poor way to create and maintain an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose most additions. This RfC appears to be based on this set of edits where veiled attacks of Wikiproject members were a concern. The idea that being a member of a Wikiproject could be associated with advocacy or some sort of cabal should amount to WP:BEANS, so bringing up the idea in this essay in the first place doesn't really seem appropriate. If anything is going to be kept, the concise, "Do not mistake GF attempts of project teams to achieve accuracy, compliance with NPOV, and/or adherence to WP:PAG as advocacy." may have place somewhere such as the Don't mistake a coot for a duck section. It should not be brought up in the signs of advocacy section though to avoid insinuation that one should even consider the idea. As an additional note, it doesn't appear there has been any talk page conversation trying to justify the new addition, so an RfC seems like a premature course of action here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Support with changes, and Comment In general, I support the idea of mentioning the existence of Wiki Projects, along with the fact that some of the features accompanying this reality can be indistinguishable from what may appear like a cabal to the uninitiated. I agree with some points made above. We should remove the mealy-mouthed language and consider a very directly-worded subsection (King makes note that Don't mistake a coot for a duck might be a fitting place) covering these details. For a new editor, or one new to an area such as health-related topics, to run into an organized group of editors who for the most part think, speak and vote as one, it can seem like a cabal has descended. The WProject Medicine has the POV of alopathic medicine and sees ancient or natural healing methods as "fringe". This viewpoint isn't necessarily shared by all Wikipedians or all parts of the world. Because I have only run into members of this Project it will have to serve as my only example of how the work of a WProject may appear cabal-like or biased to those independent editors on a page with a different POV and who are unaware of these Projects. I do think we could use help with the wording, and since this essay has been so unrelentingly contentious, would recommend purposely seeking input on the presentation as well as on this RfC from WikiProjects besides Medicine. petrarchan47คุก22:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Though this is just an essay, I don't think it's in the best interests of the project to foment paranoid and conspiratorial thinking. WikiProjects that act in bad faith can be brought to ANI or whatever. Otherwise, it's best not to make vague accusations about them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The proposed additions do not actually help readers to distinguish between wikiprojects and advocates but instead create a link between the two. The way these sentences are framed in pairing wikiprojects with advocacy behaviour - even while saying that they're not advocates - links them in the reader's mind and creates a guilt by association subtext that says that members of wikiprojects are advocates. This encourages conspiracy thinking and the assumption of bad faith which is against Misplaced Pages principles. If the goal is to ensure that readers do not mistake members of wikiprojects as advocates, then Kingofaces43's proposed change accomplishes that goal without the bad faith. Ca2james (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that Atsme is still pushing this nonsense is concerning as the essay is an attack on the core NPOV and RS fundamentals of Misplaced Pages—if several editors oppose the addition of pseudoscientific waffle to an article, they must be guilty of advocacy! Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you find it concerning is what I find disconcerting. Comment on the content, not the editor. I haven't heard one substantive response yet. Perhaps that will improve. Atsme01:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Editors already believe it and not because of this essay. Some editors who happen to be members of certain project teams are disruptive and they do tag-team and exhibit WP:OWN, so the problem does exist. The passage is meant to point out the difference and focus on the behavior, not the project team who are 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. Atsme02:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
--Atsme 23:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
