This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atsme (talk | contribs) at 05:26, 25 November 2015 (OneClickArchiver archived MFD candidate? to Misplaced Pages talk:Advocacy ducks/Archive 3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:26, 25 November 2015 by Atsme (talk | contribs) (OneClickArchiver archived MFD candidate? to Misplaced Pages talk:Advocacy ducks/Archive 3)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Advocacy ducks page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Misplaced Pages essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 23 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Time to stop talking about deletion
This page was nominated for deletion with a result of KEEP on 23 May 2015. See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks. 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 his her userspace where he 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 WP:BRD if anyone objects and reverts.
Presumably, Atsme would also take exception to reversing the meaning, but could not do anything about it until his her block expires. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Vandal-like disruption, aspersions and PAs at WP:AVDUCK. That's what happens when you behave in such a way that you get blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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 WP:TROUT.
- Following WP:BRD with a single edit that doesn't violate any other policies is not disruptive. It may even survive the resulting consensus discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure what part of "Following BRD" or "with a single edit" wasn't clear, but Misplaced Pages editors are allowed and even encouraged to make those sort of WP:BOLD edits, and if they WP:TALKDONTREVERT 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 ignoring the repeated answer. Again, this is not theoretical. Editors have been blocked for doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 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 WP:RUBBISH. 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 WP:EASYTARGET. AlbinoFerret 14:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's one opinion. Note however: (1) the focus of WP:RUBBISH is articles, not essays; (2) WP:RUBBISH 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. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 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. AlbinoFerret
- That's one opinion. Note however: (1) the focus of WP:RUBBISH is articles, not essays; (2) WP:RUBBISH 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. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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 (here) that went wildly off the rails, a subsection was opened 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 WP:DUCK 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 WT:COI (see top of archive 19 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 WP:DUCK to COI issues gained traction in discussions at SlimVIrgin's talk page (see this archive and this archive 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 WP:PSCI and dislike of the work of WP:MED 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 (G. Edward Griffin), had hooked up with the group of my hounders via that ANI (see here and here), and came to SlimVirgin's talk page, where Atsme offered 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 here, 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. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- fwiw, I have been opposed to the application of WP:DUCK 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, WP:DUCK 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. Jytdog (talk) 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 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 WP:DUCK or WP: ADVOCACY. I had also been considering nominating the essay for deletion, but had not done so based on how recent the last nomination was. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Jytdog -- Could I make that comment into an essay at Misplaced Pages:Why the Misplaced Pages Essay called "Advocacy ducks" was created? jps (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would prefer if you didn't. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)