Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:07, 16 May 2015

Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks

This is the third version of an essay that was previously deleted after an MfD discussion. It was speedily deleted and restored with a recommendation to take it MfD, and so here we are. While the title and much of the text has changed, the underlying principles are the same as the original essay, particularly the assumption of bad faith and the presence of ill-defined advocacy (formerly COI) ducks that are to be hunted and reported. Ca2james (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After reading the previous MfD discussion and the current essay, I believe that all the criticisms have been addressed. From things I have read on and off wiki, I think there is a major issue of advocacy to be addressed. I find this essay presents a decent and balanced tool for individual editors. The section "A coot is not a duck" is both humorous and addresses the issue that some behaviours may look like advocacy but not be. The constant emphasis throughout is to follow policy and remain civil and content-focused. Editors are also encouraged to examine their own behaviour. All in all, this essay seems balanced, useful and necessary to me. It could of course do with improvements, but that will come. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 02:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this MfD is unwarranted. According to ~~WP:Essays~~, WP:WPESSAY disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently than when 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 conducted a preliminary survey a week or so before I made the move to main space and the results were 8 APPROVE and only 3 OPPOSE. [1]. Atsme^☎️📧 02:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The base of your argument ignores WP:CONLIMITED. Conlimited seems to be the basis for WP:NOESSAY. You can not override or attempt to override policy with an essay even if you have a limited local consensus. That seems to be the basis for this deletion review. That's not harassment.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My intent is not to harass anyone. Serialjoepsycho has the right of it: I filed this to be sure that the essay does not violate policy even though it received local consensus to write and publish it. I have a feeling that this essay might still have some anti-policy bad-faith assumptions but I also recognise that I'm close to it and might be wrong.

I think this MfD is a good thing, especially since both previous versions of the essay were deleted. If the version of the essay survives, then I'll know I was wrong about it, Atsme will be vindicated, and we'll know that all the work into it made it into an acceptable essay. If it doesn't survive, then we know that its premise is truly fatally flawed. Either way, we'll have an answer and that will give us some closure. Ca2james (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will offer that yes this MfD is a good thing. If someone thinks something is wrong with (insert what ever here) they should seek a consensus. That's what this is. I'm not really seeing how Atsme will be vindicated. Perhaps her position that her position that this essay is acceptable to be posted in the mainspace will be vindicated but only that. This MfD does nothing to endorse this essay for the entire English wikipedia community.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "vindicated" only to mean "right that this version of the essay is OK to put up in mainspace". Ca2james (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That text appears in Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays, not Wikipedia:Essays, in case anyone else was confused by the comment. ekips39 (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find this essay to be poorly written and ultimately useless. I don't see this as a criteria for deletion. I've seen plenty of essays that are poorly written that I find useless. Using WP:NOESSAY as a yard stick I do not see any reason to delete this. I think it presents the notion that editors will run across bad faith editors, but I'm not seeing a clear case of ABF. This falls more to an acknowledgement that AFG is not a suicide pact.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the editor who nominated the original version of this essay for deletion. That version struck me as undermining multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines by encouraging assumptions of bad faith and labeling enforcement of our sourcing guidelines as evidence of COI. It frankly struck me as a transperant effort by one group of editors to gain the upper hand over another group with which they had been having content disputes. Atsme has been a remarkably good sport about all the criticism, and has conducted a rewrite incorporating comments from her harshest critics. At this point I don't think the essay is especially needed (no one has explained why it would be useful to determine whether someone is an "advocacy duck", and dispute resolution procedures are well laid out elsewhere), but it does no real harm. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 10:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - thx F98, just wanted to mention, it's needed; in a recent dispute, Jytdog instructed me to read #9.

Atsme^☎️📧 12:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no. i cited it because you were not listening to anyone else, and i added this to my comment, thinking you ~might~ listen to yourself. i will probably never cite this other than to you or others who advocated for it, as the use of DUCK is wrong-headed, as i have explained before ~~explained before.~~ Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

That link doesn't work now, so here is what I wrote about DUCK: "as i have written before, i think bringing DUCK into COI matters is really a bad idea. DUCK is used at SPI, the most controlled context in WP, where we have checkusers empowered to explore editors RW identities. and behavior tests are used alongside that to determine if someone is a sock or not. DUCK just summarizes the careful behavioral explorations done there. That behavioral examination is done carefully, and sloppy work will get you nothing, and maybe even dinged yourself. And a finding of DUCK leads to action. It is really, really inappropriate to bring DUCK into the wider community as proposed here. COI charges are already flung way too readily in content disputes, when editors personalize them. This would just enable that already too-common tendency. And on top of that, my sense is that those pushing for the application of DUCK to COI would expect the community to take action based on their DUCK claim. I see almost no chance of that happening, as the context is so different." I wrote that when this essay was "COI duck" or whatever, but the same thing goes, with applying DUCK to advocacy. it is a technical term in WP, and the claim that "quacks like duck" exists outside WP is not relevant. This is not a !vote. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good argument for a delete. Furthermore, the duck test WP:DUCK is not exclusive to COI. It applies to internal matters within the project, and also applies to copyvio, and the following example (which relates to the advocacy duck essay): A variation of the duck test in conversations can be found in community discussions where consensus is required, most obviously Articles for deletion. If consensus appears to be approaching one direction, aside from a handful of accounts that are using the same bad arguments (often "I like it" or "It's just not notable"), it might be reasonable to conclude that, even if direct sockpuppetry is not occurring, that the accounts may have still ganged up together. The ganging-up behavior described in the essay is an example for the duck test. --Atsme^☎️📧 06:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an essay, and validly expresses the consensus opinions of the editors who have worked on it (including those editors who made suggestions that were rejected). It is firmly placed in the essay space, unlikely to be either deleted or promoted to any more authoritative status. bd2412 T 14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on these things, but the essay looks ok to me -- it recommends following policy rather than saying people may be ducks because they cite policy, and it advises to not mistake coots for ducks and to examine one's own behaviour, which eliminates the feeling that we're illegitimately conspiring against people. Also, the pictures and captions are amusing. Jytdog makes a good point about the word "duck", but the saying didn't originate with Wikipedia at all so I think it would be wrong for us to enforce a very narrow definition of it when using it here. ekips39 (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and now I see my last point was already made here by Atsme. Oops. ekips39 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Happysquirrel, Atsme, Serialjoepsycho, and bd2412 T.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you read this comment you will understand the purpose of the page. The creator of the useless essay wrote "What??!!! No way. Our admins would never allow such a thing. Sounds too much like...(drum roll please)...ADVOCACY DUCKS ^{quack, quack, quack}. Seriously, that can't be happening, can it?". The essay is being described as "the Quackers essay"[2] QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only ones who should take issue with the quacking are advocacy ducks. --Atsme^☎️📧 20:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru, the diff you provided is out of context. This is a link to the page at the time of the edit. It shows Atsme was commenting on a section about a group of advocates called "guerrilla skeptics" that were organized off wiki. In this case, the essay is applicable as it could help identify them. AlbinoFerret 20:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atsme wrote above "The only ones who should take issue with the quacking are advocacy ducks." This is more proof the useless page is being used to attack others. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polly want a quacker? Parroting me is not a substantive argument for deleting. --Atsme^☎️📧 22:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Atsme's taunting there is a good point to be made. The evidence you have chosen isn't really in the article. It's of someone's talk page comments. Can this essay be abused? Yes. But in my time on wikipedia I've seen a number of policies and guidelines abused and misused, in addition to essays. That in itself doesn't seem to be a reason to delete this. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't "taunting"; it was a humorous lead-in to my parroting sentence. The essay also has some light-hearted comments throughout - it's a style of writing, not taunting - so please try to understand the difference. The insulting criticisms aimed at the editors who collaborated on this essay is taunting...such as "the creator of this useless essay", and "being described as 'the Quackers essay'" and "pseudo-clever pile of special pleading again?" Those are not substantive arguments. They are meant to insult and taunt. Editors who oppose this essay based on such arguments are being disruptive. --Atsme^☎️📧 00:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, God in Heaven, this pseudo-clever pile of special pleading again? Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic won't keep this from sinking. --Calton | Talk 21:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HappySquirrel 100%. Also agree that this MfD is unwarranted. petrarchan47 คุ ก 03:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A number of editors who were strongly opposed to the original have collaborated and through their effort the essay is vastly improved. It is now much more focused and has plenty of good advice for new editors and references to WP:PAG and relevant Wiki essays. Well done! --David Tornheim (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite my dissatisfaction with the earlier versions of the article, especially the anti-science POV use which such version appeared to be intended to support, the current version is satisfactory. I'd like to assume the earlier discussions have contributed not just to the clarification of the essay, but the greater understanding of npov policy by its original authors . DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because any essay that implies that some sort of simplistic 'duck test' is remotely applicable in the context of determining what is or isn't inappropriate 'advocacy' on Wikipedia is misleading. Not just wrong, but misleading. If the essay was merely wrong it wouldn't matter, but bad advice is worse than no advice at all. And we already have a perfectly good essay on advocacy - which gets the point across well enough without ducks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I was unaware that AGF was bad advice, or that STOP-BREATHE-THINK was bad advice, or that opening a discussion on the TP and seeking a 3rd opinion was bad advice, or that evaluating one's own edits or considering an RfC or do not edit war or seek help was bad advice. What paragraph do you consider bad advice? --Atsme^☎️📧 17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basing ones judgement on simplistic and confused analogies about ducks is bad advice. The essay is cobbled-together around this contrived analogy in such a way as to add nothing useful to what is already said in the existing advocacy essay, and to give the distinct impression that advocacy-spotting by checklist is appropriate. It isn't. Not remotely. This would of course be more evident if the duck nonsense was removed entirely. Which is probably why it hasn't been. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inpput, Andy. Did you happen to read Jytdog's comments above? He believes the duck analogy belongs to COI so I guess if it was up to you, there would not be any reference to the duck analogy in guidelines or essays. Of course, I disagree because without the duck analogy we're left with essays like WP:Don't be a dick, or we could always link to articles like The_No_Asshole_Rule but I much prefer Advocacy ducks over the former and later. --Atsme^☎️📧 22:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DUCK belongs to SPI, not COI. And there is no reason to call anyone names at all; much better to name behavior like "advocacy" or "civil POV pushing" Part of the problem with the essay is its focus on personalization rather than behavior. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, it doesn't belong to SPI. It is neither copyrighted nor trademarked. It is nothing more than a ubiquitous analogy used internally as applicable. It's time to drop the stick. --Atsme^☎️📧 23:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analogies are only ever useful if they use something people already know to explain something they don't. And in all my years of observing ducks (Mallard drakes in particular), I've never seen one engage in advocacy. Gang rape (or at least something that looks close to it) certainly. Necrophilia (or at least showing an inordinate interest a clearly-dead female - floating inverted!) at least once. Advocacy? Never. The 'analogy' here isn't with ducks at all - it is with the so-called 'duck test' sometimes cited in SPIs. And as such clearly inapplicable. We can spot sockpuppets not because they resemble other sockpuppets in general, but because an individual sockpuppet exhibits behaviour so similar to the individual sockmaster that the conclusion that they are one and the same person seems inescapable - that is the only circumstance in which the 'duck test' is legitimately applied. And since this essay is about identified individuals supposedly engaging in advocacy rather than sockpuppetry, a test which merely confirms that the individual concerned is the individual concerned is useless. Or rather, it would be, if that was the intent. It isn't though, is it? Instead, the essay suggests applying a subjective 'duck test' to supposedly determine whether 'advocacy' is going on. A test that comes down to saying that if you think someone is engaging in advocacy, they are... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Essay appears to have been significantly restructured and is now relatively well-written. All further complaints should be placed on the talk page, not here. -A1candidate 17:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Properly written and has some of the better points than other similar essays. VandVictory (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The essay has been completely rewritten and the subject has changed from the COI Ducks essay. It should be helpful to new editors because it directs them to look at their own behaviour as well as possible problematic behaviour of others. AlbinoFerret 18:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent essay as many have addressed. For new users could be very helpful.--Pekay2 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 :::::DUCK belongs to SPI, not COI. And there is no reason to call anyone names at all; much better to name behavior like "advocacy" or "civil POV pushing"  Part of the problem with the essay is its focus on personalization rather than behavior.  [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 23:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 :::::::No sir, it doesn't ''belong'' to SPI. It is neither copyrighted nor trademarked. It is nothing more than a ubiquitous analogy used internally as applicable. It's time to drop the stick. --<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">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font><sup>[[User talk:Atsme |☎️]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]</sup> 23:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
+::::::::Analogies are only ever useful if they use something people already know to explain something they don't. And in all my years of observing ducks (Mallard drakes in particular), I've never seen one engage in advocacy. Gang rape (or at least something that looks close to it) certainly. Necrophilia (or at least showing an inordinate interest a clearly-dead female - floating inverted!) at least once. Advocacy? Never. The 'analogy' here isn't with ducks at all - it is with the so-called 'duck test' sometimes cited in SPIs. And as such clearly inapplicable. We can spot sockpuppets not because they resemble other sockpuppets in general, but because an ''individual'' sockpuppet exhibits behaviour so similar to the ''individual'' sockmaster that the conclusion that they are one and the same ''person'' seems inescapable - that is the ''only'' circumstance in which the 'duck test' is legitimately applied. And since this essay is about identified individuals supposedly engaging in advocacy rather than sockpuppetry, a test which merely confirms that the individual concerned is the individual concerned is useless. Or rather, it would be, if that was the intent. It isn't though, is it? Instead, the essay suggests applying a subjective 'duck test' to supposedly determine whether 'advocacy' is going on. A test that comes down to saying that if you think someone is engaging in advocacy, they are... [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 01:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - Essay appears to have been significantly restructured and is now relatively well-written. All further complaints should be placed on the talk page, not here. -[[User:A1candidate |<b><font color="#380B61">A1candidate </font></b>]] 17:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)