Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks

RfC: Is the following addition relevant in the Signs of advocacy section?

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 Wikipedia. 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. Atsme^📞📧 13:09, 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. Atsme^📞📧 13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment by OP - Please keep in mind the following: WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. When you click on that wikilink, it states: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project.. 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Another important note - per WP:Wikipedia_essays#Improving_existing_essays However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from 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. 00:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. A weasel-worded attack on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. petrarchan47คุก 22:58, 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 same opinion as NinjaRobotPirate..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:24, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia—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. Atsme^📞📧 01:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely per the first two sentences of User:Ca2james above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 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 that is 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. Atsme^📞📧 02:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

So much for commenting on the content, not the editors. And I note that yet again you are making allegations about Wikiproject members that you refuse to follow up with evidence - behaviour that is liable to result in sanctions against you if continued much longer. Either back up your claims with evidence, and report it at the appropriate noticeboard where it can be dealt with, or stop making such unsubstantiated claims - before you are obliged to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The essay's content focuses on disruptive behavior. Wiki-project teams do not hold a trump card over other editors so I don't see why they should receive immunity from being mentioned in this essay. They are volunteers just like everyone else. Again, there is nothing substantive in the oppose comments - they are similar to the arguments given when Ca2james initiated the 3rd MfD so they come as no surprise. Furthermore, this is an essay which is an opinion and as long as there is nothing in the proposed addition that violates policy, there is no reason it should not be allowed. Atsme^📞📧 13:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing 'substantive' in your endless tendentious bad-faith allegations against Wikiproject members - if there were, you would have reported the matter by now, providing evidence. And as long as this essay is in Wikipedia space, rather than being marked as your personal essay (which it clearly isn't, since you are by no means the sole contributor), the community will decide what content is appropriate, and whether it conforms to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I was about to mirror this as well. Seems like you're describing WP:OWN behavior pretty well. Essays are not a space for personal soapboxes. If someone wants to discuss something though, remember that Atsme even started a threaded discussion section, so there shouldn't be a need for anyone to reply in the survey section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Re Atsme's: 'Wiki-project teams do not hold a trump card over other editors so I don't see why they should receive immunity from being mentioned in this essay' Well, yes, but they also deserve the same courtesy as everyone else, which is 'innocent until proven otherwise' i.e innocent until shown to be a significant part of this problem. Advocates may be members of projects, but they may equally be female, Irish, Jewish, gay or left-handed. We would be unlikely to mention membership of any of these groups without some very good reason to do so.Pincrete (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a cynical implication of bad-faith editing by editors who happen to associate with WikiProjects. I am not conviced that this is a common problem. As others have mentioned, there are ways to address the matter when/if it does occur. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support Seasoned project members sometimes leave very harsh edit summaries which although supporting the consensus of a project, may be discouraging (especially to newbies) or perhaps uncivil. This proposed change will bring to the attention of (new) editors that although an offensive/discouraging edit summary may have been posted, this actually might reflect a project's aims. It then becomes a matter of dealing with the behaviour of the editor/s, rather than the project.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose conspiracist claptrap. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose new wording is unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per NinjaRobotPirate & Ozzie10aaaa 173.228.118.114 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• oppose this is a big slide backward to the "consensus against me must be conspiracy" ideas that led to the deletion of the "COI ducks" essay. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Ca2james. Edward321 (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Doc James. This also seems to be very much like why the original essay was deleted. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kingofaces43 and AndyTheGrump above. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inserts more conspiracy into a conspiracy-minded article. Manul ~ talk 08:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, having not seen this essay before today, I won't make a call on whether the proposed language improves the essay or not. However, I would suggest that some {{disambiguate}} entries at the top of the essay would be helpful, in meeting what seems to be the thrust of the suggested change, aka cluing in beginning editors on the subtle concepts involved here. AVDUCK *is* distinct from WP:OWN, for instance (although often an advocate or group-of-advocates will try to 'own' an article, that alone is not the only cause of WP:OWN behaviors), and in turn both are distinct from GA/FA/DYK-related stewardship behaviors. Along the same lines, wiki-projects are often advocacy-prevention-mechanisms, and also *very* often article-stewardship-mechanisms, but the concept of the wiki-project is distinct from stewardship (they are orthogonal -- stewardship can occur with or without a wikiproject being involved ... and just because an article has a wikiproject banner on the talkpage does not guarantee that stewardship of the article actually is happening 24/7/365). Anyways, it might help focus the essay, to be specifically about the difference between a coot and a duck, if some brief not-to-be-confused-with sentence fragments were at the top, and an intro-paragraph gave pointers to the various interrelated-yet-distinct concepts that the meat of the essay depends upon. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment - IP User talk- you made some excellent points. Please help further by incorporating your suggestions as you envision them to be placed in the essay. You can start a new section below on the TP. Atsme^📞📧 20:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per DocJames and Andy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per reasons given by Atsme at first entry of survey. David Tornheim (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per AndyTG, DocJames and several others above (IMO this entire essay should be sent to the trashbin, again...). Thomas.W ^talk 13:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and AFD this monstrosity move to userspace. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose , this addition (and indeed other aspects of the essay), seem very 'pointy'. I can see the value of a beginners guide to 'dispute, advice' boards, but this is not it. Rather it encourages a 'I smell a rat' mentality, which is likely to get an inexperienced editor in trouble before they can say Jack Robinson. While I am well aware of battle-ground articles, I am not aware of 'advocacy groups', being the problem, nor this article being a helpful contribution to resolving the problem. Other 'pointy' elements include naming specific 'problem areas' (eg Alt Medicine), perhaps text could discuss controversial areas by linking to less 'subject specific' advice. I have elsewhere said that the very title is (IMO) unconstructive, since 'duck' in WP-speak is a reference to a 'weapon of last resort', used when the community has already decided that there is a very significant problem, but cannot prove exactly what it is, but which here is being mis-used to prop up initial subjective assessment. The essay invokes the image of flocks of advocates roaming WP abusing PaG, which I don't think is either true, nor a constructive mindset. Pincrete (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

*Conditional Support. In my opinion it should be ok to add the words "Advocates almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is their primary catalyst for engaging...." The material about members of a project who might demonstrate this behavior is true, but it could be perceived as an indirect or subtle criticism of project team members even though later on it is clarified that the good work project team members do should not be confused with advocacy. In my opinion, the vast majority of the Opposes are occurring because of the mention of project members. Someone might wish to start a new RfC with just the words "Advocates almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is their primary catalyst for engaging...." to be included in the main article; i think this will find the support of the community. Soham321 (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

After thinking this over further i have changed my mind, and am voting for Support. Even in the earlier vote, i had mentioned that "The material about members of a project who might demonstrate this behavior is true". Soham321 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, is there some reason to believe that project members are more likely to engage in 'advocacy'? (I'm not a project member, so the question is not rhetorical).Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are a part of any clique on WP, there will be a tendency to engage in 'loud', advocacy like behavior and a general intolerance for differing minority viewpoints. (I am not saying all editors will behave like this.) It is for this reason that i refuse to join the Wikipedia project consisting of a group of editors with the declared agenda of improving articles related to my country of origin. I have no desire to be a part of any clique, much less an officially sanctioned one. Soham321 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I removed the phrasing you suggest because catalyst isn't the right word there. Also, advocacy isn't just about an editor having a bias (everyone has biases), but occurs when the editor is unable to set their bias aside. Ca2james (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ca2james you are surely addressing the wrong person since the edit you have changed is not mine. In fact i have not done any editing on the main article till now. Soham321 (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed my point, which was not that you had edited the essay, but was that the wording you're suggesting had already been in the essay and was modified by me for the reasons I gave. Ca2james (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, Mmmmmmm, I also have my own reasons for not joining things, and projects do often lead to OWN, in my experience, that sometimes is very beneficial (some history articles), othertimes not so. However, I think what you are saying is that projects can become clique-y and clique-y may mean blind to one's own bias. If that is what you are saying, I don't disagree, but wonder whether 'singling out' projects is constructive.Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that its obvious it can happen. I wonder how many of the oppose votes belong to active and organized wikiprojects? AlbinoFerret 20:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Well please per WP:AGF do your wondering somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing against AGF in wondering which of the editors casting oppose !votes belong to wikiprojects. Its clearly a question of who is involved in the topic. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a great deal wrong with using an RfC thread for speculation about the motivations of the participants. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I admit it, I am a member of wikiproject Ice Hockey. Are we allowed here? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Andy I am not discussing motivation, I simply wonder who is involved. @Dbrodbeck lol, every editor is allowed. AlbinoFerret 21:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

It appears few realize this essay is an opinion piece. The simple solution would be if you disagree, write an opposing essay. The comments from the last attempt at MfD, like the Sting comment, and having this essay on the watch lists of the opposition is overboard. The opposes have no substantive reason - other than opinion - to oppose the addition of the proposed statement. It does not violate PAG, it is helpful to those who are faced with team advocacy, and it advises the editor to self-analyze before drawing a conclusion. I also noticed that many of the same editors who are opposing this essay now attempted to keep it off mainspace with 2 successful attempts and one failed attempt which is the current essay. One has to wonder why the lady doth protest so much. Atsme^📞📧 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you move this essay to your user space, where you can control the content. Otherwise you have no choice but to accept community input and editing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Community consensus doesn't trump PAGs. I suggest those who oppose this essay create one that suits them better. This essay is an opinion piece, not a PAG. If you have a different opinion, write an essay expressing it. Atsme^📞📧 16:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as this essay is in Wikipedia space, it is open to anyone to edit - and when there is a dispute over content, it is up to the community to decide what is appropriate. If you wanted to write a personal essay, you shouldn't have moved it into community space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't work that way. See Wikipedia:Essays#Creation_and_modification_of_essays. If it's in WP space it's open for editing by anyone -- whether the original author likes the result or not. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is open for anyone to edit. But what you don't seem to understand is that essays don't work like articles, or PAGs. They are opinions and if it's a case of opposing opinions as it is now, you cannot exclude one opinion just because you disagree with it. It has to be non-compliant with PAGs and in this case, the opinion is not non-compliant. The closer should be familiar enough with Essay guidelines to understand it's an opinion essay. If editors were able to do what this particular team of opposing editors would like to do - keep certain information out of an essay because they don't agree with it, we wouldn't have any essays but the ones you write. Atsme^📞📧 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no 'information' being excluded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy is correct. The idea that a "team of editors" is trying to "keep certain information out " of the essay is absurd. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What's absurd is denial and unwarranted attempts to censor and control what is or isn't included in this essay. We don't see anywhere near the activity at any of the other essays. The statement is important information with regards to behavior, the latter of which is the crux of this essay. Per WP:Wikipedia_essays ...and may even appear to be members of a project comprising groups of contributors who often collaborate as a team to improve Wikipedia. The latter makes it all the more important to correctly recognize the cause of the disruption and make sure it isn't you. It isn't at all an attack on project teams, rather it is distinguishing between GF project teams and those editors who are clearly advocates. Our PAGs recognize that the problem exists. Project team guidelines even recognize the problem exists. Denial of it is not helpful. Atsme^📞📧 01:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no information about behaviour in the disputed text. You have never provided the slightest evidence that any project has been engaging in advocacy. Either do so, or accept that this essay isn't going to be used as a platform for your tedious conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme please step back and consider a bit. You asked for comments when you posted the Request for Comments. I hear it that you don't like the responses, but they are not "unwarranted attempts to censor and control"... they are responses that you invited. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I asked for this RfC because ATG kept reverting my edits and I wanted substantive input to see where I could make improvements. Doc James said the text wasn't clear which is a start. There is far too much unwarranted haranguing of me and ridiculous second-guessing about my motives. It doesn't belong here - focus on content, not editors. To say there is no information about behaviour in the proposed text appears to be misapprehension of not just the proposed text but the entire essay which happens to be about behavior. Atsme^📞📧 03:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Supposed behaviour for which you still have failed to provide the slightest bit of evidence. If you want to write a fantasy about slaying hordes of imaginary fire-breathing advocacy-dragons, find somewhere else to do it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a sword and sorcery forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The RfC asks whether the text should be included at all (Should the section Signs of advocacy contain the following additions). It hardly seems appropriate to ask editors one question and then to dismiss their responses to that question on the grounds that they didn't answer some other question that wasn't asked. Ca2james (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Again - keep in mind the following: WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. I'm sorry if that ruffles any feathers but I didn't write that sentence. I'm just trying to cover all the bases with regards to this essay. When you click on that wikilink, (and please read the following carefully) it further states: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. I didn't write that, either. I don't see any haranguing over those sentences on the project advice page. The fact that it's happening to me here should raise all kinds of red flags.

I will also repeat another important note some appear to be overlooking - per WP:Wikipedia_essays#Improving_existing_essays However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from 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. Atsme^📞📧 14:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Quoting guidelines that say that Wikiprojects have engaged in ownership behaviours is not evidence that Wikiprojects have engaged in advocacy behaviours. Ca2james (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

But this RfC is about perceived project advocacy and makes the point this perception might be erroneousDrChrissy ^(talk) 16:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there is precisely zero evidence presented in the essay that 'project advocacy' exists anywhere but in the authors imagination, the sensible thing to do (per the clear consensus above) would be not to discuss it in the first place. Anyone new to Wikipedia who reads warnings about 'project advocacy' is going to assume that if the warning is there, it is because the danger is real. We have enough problems already with new (and not so new) contributors who see any disagreement as evidence that they are being conspired against - an essay which warns tells them to beware of a whole new class of conspirators for which we have no evidence at all is a recipe for trouble. It amounts to an instruction that if you meet opposition, assume bad faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Read [[1]] because that is where the information comes from that this RfC is about. You are not demonstrating GF with your attempts to make it appear as though I'm on a some crusader mission to attack project teams when I'm about to create a project that is much needed and long past due, or that I authored and/or created the project team issues regarding WP:OWN, and advocacy, etc. If after you read that section you still want to criticize, condemn and/or make more snarky comments - take it to the authors of the WikiProject Council/Guide. Atsme^📞📧 17:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have read that several times - and at no time has it suggested that Wikiprojects engage in advocacy. Why do you insist that I read it yet again? It isn't discussing advocacy, it is discussing ownership - more specifically, the tendency of some projects to act as if their preferred approach over issues of style were policy. That is a problem, certainly, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed topic of this essay - advocacy, or the misuse of Wikipedia to promote particular external causes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:AndyTheGrump I do not read it that way. I read it that an editor may mistake multiple concerns being expressed against them, all from the same project, as being "Project advocacy". The essay says "think again - this may not be the case". I think it actually says the opposite of "assume bad faith", rather it says "question your own perception".DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme is insisting that 'project advocacy' is real, and using that argument as the basis for including the disputed material. If it 'said the opposite', why would she be arguing that way? It simply makes no sense. It seems that your dispute is with Atsme, not with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy - your comments have become....well, strange. I don't have a clue what you're referring to regarding 'project advocacy'. Did you just make that up? You might want to go back and read some of your own comments. They are so far out in left field that it is bordering on being obsessive. Step back - try working on something you enjoy writing about. This essay has only been viewed 134 times in the last 30 days - and I imagine at least 100 times by you and QG alone. Stop acting like it's on the front page of Wikipedia as a FA, for Pete's sake. It's just an essay. Atsme^📞📧 21:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Did I just make that up? No, it was a direct quotation from what DrChrissy had just written. Try reading before writing next time. As for 'stepping back', if you didn't insist on hectoring contributors who post here, there would be nothing worth commenting on. The question asked in the RfC is clear enough, and I am sure that the closer will be able to decide for him/herself what the consensus is, and what should be done regarding the disputed content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I borrowed the phrase from you! Scan up about 5-6 posts. You used the term and put it in ' '.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The diff is here.[[2]]DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - a diff that clearly shows that you used the same phrase in the previous post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I think you are being rather disingenuous here - I may have coined a term that you felt you wanted to use (pat on the back for me!), but the term I coined was "perceived project advocacy". That is entirely different from "project advocacy". Please be more careful before misrepresenting my posts.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention in engaging further in this ridiculous exhibition of infantile nit-picking. So yes, if you want to believe that I misrepresented you, fine. Feel free to believe it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It is hardly nit-picking drawing attention to the fact I was discussing a perception of behaviour, rather than stating the actual occurrence of a behaviour. However, thank you for your input.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Atsme, I notice that you inserted the text under discussion in this RfC when you reverted changes by another editor. Don't do that. If the RfC closes in favour of including the text, then it can be inserted but to push it through before the conclusion of the RfC is inappropriate. Ca2james (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment - what I would like for you to do is please stop sniping at me, and start noticing things that are important, like the fact that an essay is not an article, a policy or a guideline. Anyone can edit an essay but there is nothing in our PAG that give editors a green light to revert GF edits, or change the original intent or opinions expressed in an existing namespace essay. In fact, WP:Wikipedia Essays states ...disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from 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 called this RfC with expectations of getting helpful comments and plausible suggestions for improvement. Instead we got disruption, tendentious editing, PAs, snarky comments, mockery of the essay, attempts to change its meaning, and relentless baiting and harassment. Atsme^📞📧 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The stated purpose of the RfC to determine whether the community approved of a specific edit. It is entirely clear that they don't. Still, I'm glad to see that you point out that "Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other". On that basis, I shall be restoring the link to my essay in the article, along with the other user-space essay links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's already there. I added it when I reorganized the list of links. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Re Atsme's comment "What's absurd is denial and unwarranted attempts to censor and control what is or isn't included in this essay", Atsme is free to move the essay to his userspace, where he has control over the content. That's what I did when I created WP:1AM; that particular essay is my advice, not the advice of the community, and thus I decided to retain control of the content. Once you put an essay in wikispace, the community is free to change it in any way, subject only to Wikipedia policy and to consensus. See WP:OWNERSHIP. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy Dragons: A personal response to this essay.

Advocacy Dragons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"the Google-mined cherry-picked half-quote - a thing so fearsome that nothing but summary deletion followed by a cold shower and a rub down with emery cloth can erase the stink"

Beautiful, thanks! My vote is to do a copy/paste from there to here (suitably attributed). Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Beautifully written and well-said. Ca2james (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It reflects your opinion which is what essays are all about. Some will appreciate the entertainment factor since it reads more like a synopsis for a "Game of Thrones" episode than a helpful guideline to newbies. Your ending comment actually made sense - If there is advocacy on Wikpededia, it is carried out by people, and needs to be identified properly and dealt with accordingly. The latter summarizes what WP:AVDUCK is all about; i.e, properly identifying and dealing properly with overzealous advocacy editors who engage in WP:OWN, bullying, hounding, harassing, trolling and the like to push their POV (promote their advocacy) and they are not mythological characters. Atsme^📞📧 14:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As I am sure you are well aware, guides to 'properly identifying' things (be they fish or fowl) don't generally include mythical beasts just on the offchance that they might be real after all. I'm fairly sure my Guide to British Birds (which I have sadly misplaced) doesn't include fire-breathing dragons... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this has no place in this essay and appears to be a pure attack page. I recommend you have it deleted.AlbinoFerret 20:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

An attack page? Attacking whom? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it seriously being suggested as an insertion into this essay? I thought it was just a whimsical opinion-piece of fantastical story-telling indicating the editor had too much time on their hands.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of a link to the essay. A good number of editors here consider AVDucks in the same manner as you just described the dragon essay or due to other major flaws, so it seems important to reflect that criticism. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

See the 'Alternative view' thread below - I'm wondering whether an RfC on whether it should be included in the 'Related essays, policies, and guidelines' section might be a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Dragons is WONDERFUL, and deserves to be kept somewhere, I see no reason to not link it to one of the essays.Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Text of aborted MFD nomination

I wrote the following before realizing that this essay had already been nominated for deletion. I suppose I assumed that it couldn't have survived an MFD. While I'm not proposing a second nomination at this time, I would like to share what I wrote, if only for future reference.

---

This essay is a revamp of an essay called "Conflict of Interest ducks" which was deleted following this discussion. Though "conflict of interest" has been replaced with "advocacy" throughout, the article appears to retain many of the same problems that were cause for its original deletion. The previous deletion discussion should be revisited with this substitution in mind. (The transformation reminds me of the historical "cdesign proponentsists" debacle.)

The article advances what I would broadly call a "conspiratorial theme", directing users to identify "advocacy ducks" and offering recipes on how to deal with them. While the article acknowledges the important role of policies and guidelines, the effect of the article seems to shift the focus away from policies and guidelines and toward identifying these "advocacy ducks". One section is called, "So you've found an advocacy duck; now what?"

It is nearly a truism (at least in my experience) that an editor who runs around calling other editors biased is more likely to lack self-reflection and awareness of his or her own biases. The quest to root out "advocacy ducks" appears similarly fraught. It is a mindset that is counterproductive and should be avoided, not enshrined in an essay. It seems more likely than not that an editor who is labeling others "advocacy ducks" would be a disruptive editor.

While the essay should be assessed on its own merits, it is difficult to separate it from Atsme's ongoing conflicts Wikiproject Medicine, especially considering the recent RfC. The essay may, in part, be serving as a proxy for these conflicts. Manul ~ talk 09:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Your assessment appears to be a rehash of the failed deletion attempt on this specific essay.AlbinoFerret 18:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it was a fair summary of the minority view at the MfD. It should probably be noted though that one of the arguments put forward by those supporting the essay was that it differed substantially from the 'COI ducks' version - if material is to be added which restores controversial suggestions about Wikiprojects etc (as discussed in the RfC above), one might well ask whether this argument would remain valid. Given the way the RfC is going though, I don't think that is going to be an issue, since it seem that the overwhelming consensus is that the essay should not be edited in such a manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hogwash. It's the same failed reasoning, second verse - it was unwarranted and it lacks substance. Drop the stick. Your relentless badgering is not helpful. I am and have been following the proper procedures for dealing with the disruption, starting with your repeated reverts. You really need to understand that essays are opinions and that RfC's are not checkered flags signaling that it's ok to attack the OP or others for that matter simply because they have opposing views. We have guidelines to follow, so please follow them. If you disagree regarding ways to deal with advocacy teams, tendentious editing, harassment, etc., then provide input. You have created your own opinion piece - if you want it to remain as a link to a userfy essay, then you need to designate it as such. Adhere to PAGs and everyone will be a lot happier. Enjoy your day. Atsme^📞📧 22:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

'Disruption'? There has been no disruption of anything. Though your endless accusations of violations for which you never provide the slightest evidence might well be seen as disruptive. As for my essay, it is clearly identified as personal opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Not even close to being disruptive. AndyTheGrump just put his personal views in an essay (and a pretty good one at that), which any of us has every right to do. Disagreeing with another essay is not only allowed, but encouraged. Atsme, take it to ANI and enjoy your WP:BOOMERANG or drop it. Your behavior is becoming disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how defending oneself can be disruptive especially considering not one of the aspersions is accompanied by a diff to support their claims. What editors need to be looking at is the disruptive editing that caused me to open this ANI. I never said anything to anyone that even comes close to what Andy said to me - "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better." The fact that you are here defending him raises questions about your perception of what constitutes disruptive behavior, incivility and fairness. Atsme^📞📧 19:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative view

I added the alternative view. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And I've just removed it again. As I made clear, it is my personal opinion, and I had no intention of adding it to the essay. It is linked in the 'related essays' section, where anyone can find it if they are interested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I added the link instead. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And it appears that people are now edit-warring over the link. Would an RfC on whether the link should be included be appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence of an edit war, but that more than one editor has removed it shows there is no consensus for its addition. Following WP:NOCONSENSUS it should remain gone until consensus is shown. As you want it included, the onus is on you to prove there is consensus. AlbinoFerret 23:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is normally determined after discussions, rather than beforehand. Still, I am glad to see that you agree that consensus should determine what is or isn't appropriate content for the 'ducks' essay page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus, or the lack of it, can also be shown by removal of the BRD edit WP:EDITCONSENSUS. The removal , by two editors, shows no consensus. AlbinoFerret 23:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And if a third person was to add it again, what would that show? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That there is still no consensus to add it. Another editor may remove it after that. The onus is on you to prove that you have consensus to add it. But you should delete the whole thing in your userspace, doing so may look better. AlbinoFerret 23:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have a strange concept of what 'consensus' means. And no, I'm not going to delete my essay. No consensus... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if this essay which is obviously relevant to this page cannot be linked, I think we should remove all links to userspace. So I did that. jps (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

From a post by Atsme, on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks:

"If you have an opposing opinion to this essay, WP guidelines suggest that you create your own essay expressing your opposing view, and we can link to it." [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI - WP:Essay states, Avoid creating essays just to prove a point or game the system. It makes no difference to me what you do in your user space as long as it falls within WP:PAG and your fantasy crusade falls within acceptable guidelines. It's actually quite entertaining. I remain cautiously optimistic that one day you will find it in your heart to collaborate with me in GF and stop being such a grump. I also believe everyone is entitled to an opinion and you certainly have yours as you've relentlessly made known here. Have a wonderful day! Atsme^📞📧 15:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think on the basis of "avoid creating essays just to prove a point", this essay probably shouldn't have been created. But, now that it's here, we might as well try to make it better. For starters, it contains a lot of grammar and syntax problems. jps (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's the dole we pay for open editing. I am also concerned over what appears to be sock activity by an IP that suddenly showed up to revert my removal of your gibberish to an image caption which does not belong in this essay and what I consider to be vandalism. It is not an improvement. I've alerted an oversight checkuser admin. Atsme^📞📧 18:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC) ^{added 04:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)}

Jps, could you clarify which essay you are referring to? Ducks, or Dragons? I'll admit my essay was somewhat of a stream-of-consciousness effort, and suffers from my usual tendency to write over-long and overcomplex sentences (complete with unnecessary parentheses - and questionable use of dashes), and I'm always open to suggestions - but I didn't think it was that bad... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I think that the ducks essay shouldn't have been written. Now that it is, it probably should be cleaned up a bit. It is abysmally written. jps (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, this essay does not belong to you, and you are not in charge of deciding what is and is not an improvement. Let the rest of the community decide what belongs in this essay (or not). If you want total control over the content of the essay, move it back to userspace. Ca2james (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, it doesn't belong to you, either, so please stop hounding me. Your persistence and ubiquitous presence wherever I edit is annoying. Drop the stick. May I suggest that you create your own essay or maybe even create an article that will help improve WP instead of focusing your attention on me and the articles I edit?

Andy - verbosity plagues many writers who want to be thorough and who have more knowledge about topics than brevity allows. I thinks Ducks or Dragons is a great essay title. Atsme^📞📧 19:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Where have I said it belongs to me? I'm not the one reverting edits because I don't like them: you're doing that. I'm trying to tell you that once you put this essay into mainspace, you gave up control over it. I'm guessing that you don't want to hear this, but that doesn't make it less true. Honestly, dealing with you is so frustrating because at the slightest hint of criticism you come out guns-a-blazing in an all-out attack on the criticising editor. There would be so much less drama around you if you didn't respond with an attack when someone doesn't support what you're doing. Ca2james (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sigh* Where I have said it belongs to me? You're the one casting aspersions and baiting me into these fruitless debates. There will never be less drama around me because of editors like you who feel challenged to one-up-me or try to "bring me down." How much more boring does life get if that becomes one's entire focus? Seriously? Please make use of your sandbox and write something constructive and helpful to WP. I'm trying to get some research done on a series of articles and don't want to spend my life responding to your unwarranted comments. Do something creative - become an asset to the project. You're good at editing medical articles - stick with it - expand the encyclopedia! Wish I could help more in that department but I'm not medically inclined. I'm a lowly retired writer and while I appreciate the entertainment value just reading what young editors have to say, I'm really quite busy doing other things to enhance WP. Have a great weekend. Atsme^📞📧 19:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Do we need an RfC on linking user-space essays?

I note that despite the fact that Atsme herself has repeatedly noted that WP:Wikipedia essays gives explicit instructions that essays with an opposing point of view may be linked, [4][5] the links to all user-space essays (not just mine) have again removed. And also note that WP:Wikipedia essays actually states that "Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other", and that the essays were merely listed along with many other links at the bottom of the article. I would therefore ask that those objecting to the essay links give a Wikipedia policy-based explanation for why the advice at WP:Wikipedia essays is being ignored. Should no such explanation be offered, I will again restore the links, and then report anyone removing them for tendentious editing - if there are legitimate grounds for exclusion they need to be properly explained. If policy-based grounds are provided (which will of course have to cite the relevant policy, and provide evidence that it applies here) and we can't come to an agreement, I suspect that it may be necessary to have another RfC on the matter. I am reluctant to have to ask the community for input over what might seem a trivial question, but I do think that the principle matters, and that allowing the WP:OWNership displayed here to extend to what amounts to an attempt to even deny that alternative views exist is something that the community should not tolerate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies - I've just realised that the essays concerned are linked - I'd somehow missed them. The point above still stands though - if anyone removes the links, they need to give a proper policy based explanation why. Vague assertions about 'consensus' aren't enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Public and Commercial Services Union

These ducksgeese are in a union?

Why is it that we are including an image of ducksgeese who are apparently members of the Public and Commercial Services Union? Are we trying to imply that the ducksgeese are members of that union or that union members are likely to be advocacy ducks? What's the point of including the logo of this union on the duckgeese signs?

I recommend removing the image. I could see members of the union getting a little miffed at having their logo used in this fashion.

jps (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It is probably worth pointing out that the original description for the image (minus the photoshopped placards) [6] identifies the birds as 'gooses'. And while I'm no great expert, I think it may be correct... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Right you are. I struck my inappropriate speciesist language. My apologies. Someone should fix the files on commons too. jps (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not asserting as fact that they are geese, rather than ducks. They aren't always easy to tell apart. In fact I'm not even entirely sure that (per cladistics at least) there is a difference. Not my subject though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The cladistics are generally done by counting bones in the neck, if I'm to understand correctly. Anyway, a helpful guide is one such as this. I'm pretty convinced that they're geese. jps (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

These are American Pekin ducks. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Or at least, Pekin Ducks? The original image seems to be used in the gallery for a Russian-Wikipedia article [7] on the Tylihul Estuary, and there seem to be several breeds of Pekin. Not that it really matters. And back to the original topic, regardless of what they are, they aren't members of the PCS, and we shouldn't be using identifiable placards for an image of 'advocacy'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• LOL* City folk. Atsme^📞📧 03:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure they're Pekin ducks. Their necks are much longer than most Pekin ducks. The Russian article identifies them as geese, but whatever.... they're definitely not union members. jps (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

So remove the image?

No objection to replacing it with an image of waterfowl that are not carrying signs from a particular union.

jps (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Any legitimate objection would have to explain how associating an organisation with around 270,000 members with violations of Wikipedia policy was itself compatible with Wikipedia policy. Rather a difficult case to make, I'd suggest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, there appears to be consensus to remove the image per the above discussion. Why did you replace the image with an edit summary indicating a lack of consensus? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The claim after I removed the image was that there is no consensus for the removal. I'm surprised by that claim. Don't see any objections and unlike aesthetic or syntactic appeals, the reason for removal is so that the essay doesn't (intentionally or unintentionally) defame the union in question by associating them with the behaviors being maligned in the essay. Seems a reasonable approach to me. However, if others object, please indicate why in this space. Thanks. jps (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem with that image. The writing on signs is too small to see and the fact that the ducks are picketing seems kind of cute and on topic with respect to advocacy.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I recognized the logo immediately, but then again I've known people in this union in the past. Are you from the UK? jps (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that if there's an objection to the image - which there is - that it should be removed, especially since it does not materially contribute to the understanding of what an advocacy duck is or how to find them. Ca2james (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the image could be photoshopped to remove the logo.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That would address my concerns, absolutely. jps (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying consensus comprises the following 3 editors: AndyTheGrump, JPS and Ca2James? That isn't how we arrive at consensus. I also know why these same editors oppose the duck image. They have opposed the use of "duck" in this essay from day one. What some editors also also fail to acknowledge is that this essay reflects the opinion of its creator and co-authors although it is open for anyone to edit, the latter of which actually refers to improving the essay by copyediting, expansion like what I tried to do and possibly even some modifications to syntax to improve clarity - that doesn't mean editors have a green light to change the intent or opinions expressed by the essay. WP:Wikipedia Essays suggests that there is no right or wrong and if editors oppose the intent or opinions of a standing essay, it best for them to create their own opposing essay and link it to this one like what Andy just did with his Game of Thrones-like synopsis. Any editor who wants to collaborate and improve this essay is certainly welcome, but tendentious editing and removal of images to change the intent and opinions that created this essay is not an improvement. It's an opposing opinion so may I suggest that you collaborate with Andy on his essay and get it into namespace. I'll be happy to help you with that as well. Atsme^📞📧 16:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand the reason I objected to the image? If you want to recreate the image without the logo of that union displayed and, by implication, associated with the bête noire of this essay, that would do a lot to address my concerns. jps (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme I am against the images removal, but BoboMeowCat's suggestion isnt that bad. AlbinoFerret 16:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Just joining in with my meat-puppets...leave the image as it is.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that no one objected to removing the image after discussion, which implies that there was consensus to remove it. You even participated in the discussion and did not object to its removal. You're also misstating the objections, which have nothing to do which not liking "ducks" as a concept, but are twofold: a) there's a union logo in the photo, and b) it isn't clear that they're ducks as they could be geese. It appears that editors are willing to let b) slide but not a). Photoshopping out the logo appears to be a compromise on a). Ca2james (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I GIMP'd the image, and uploaded it in case there is consensus to have a altered image. Anyone wants a better version feel free to make one. AlbinoFerret 16:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick note: I have started a discussion about this issue at BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#AVDUCK_defaming_an_entire_public_services_union jps (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

They probably aren't ducks, they are a real trade union, the 'joke' is 'heavy-handed' and not very witty. I can't believe that anyone thinks it appropriate to keep this image.Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the edited out version while the BLP discussion is ongoing. AlbinoFerret 17:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks great! I like this new image more because I think the new sayings make it clearer why this image in being included in the essay. Ca2james (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme made the newest one, mine was more or less a crude place holder to end the issue while discussion happened. I think she did an excellent job!AlbinoFerret 18:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh I didn't realize that. Looking at them both, yours is good but Atsme's is better. It looks great! Ca2james (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Could somebody please verify that these are ducks not geese ? Following the picture this seemed to be true, but others say Russian geese.Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Anybody speak Russian? it seems that the ducks/geese are described on commons as 'Ducks Pshenyanovo', however on Russian WP, the description is Гуси в с. Пшеняново, Тилигульский лиман Google translate gives 'Geese in Pshenyanovo, Tylihul Estuary'. Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A short scroll up and you'll see a post by Capitalismojo with a wikilink to American Pekin ducks. FYI - ducks have flat bills and they quack. Geese have pointy bills but not the same as WP:POINTY, and they honk, but not like a car. They both eat trout. Atsme^📞📧 00:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that they are American Pekin ducks (which the article says was a breed developed in US), in Ukraine (though obviously could be Pekin ducks) and thought it should be established what the person who took the picture said. I couldn't get the picture to 'honk' or 'quack', am I pressing the wrong button? Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Them bills ain't flat. jps (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Which means we can be certain that they're not platypuses. Duck bills aren't perfectly flat, but I agree that the beaks on the birds in the picture look far more like duck bills than goose beaks (geese usually have a more "conical" beak than ducks...). Thomas.W ^talk 17:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Try comparing them with the lead image of American Pekin Duck.

American Pekin Ducks

DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The real question is, when are we going to write Wikipedia:Advocacy platypuses? jps (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Careful - the males are venomous!DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely seems like an appropriate allegory for Wikipedia and perhaps the Internet in general. jps (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Why dont you try writing it, your sense of humour would at least make it interesting to read. I have found essay creation to be fun, perhaps you will to. AlbinoFerret 17:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And they have spidey senses - electro-reception, for digging up all the little-life they want to consume.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've had my hand in a few essays, but I tend to like the pithy ones over the long-winded ones. For example WP:PUNISH, Wikipedia:Notability vs. prominence or WP:MAINSTREAM. Humor, I have found, is best when it is unexpected. jps (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Will the real duck/goose please quack? A selection of WP water-fowl for your perusal, having spent some time exploring WP pictures, I'm not convinced either way, 'our' ducks/geese have a much more upright stance than American Pekin ducks's and are scrawnier and much scruffier, unfortunately one can't see the distintive 'nether-quiffs' on 'our' picture (btw, according to the APD talk, APD is a misnomer, nobody calls them that, WP uses the term to distinguish them from a - largely 'bred-out'- older German Pekin duck, the whole duck world usually calls the modern form PD's and they are widely commercially raised in Europe).

In the absence of a Russian-speaking domestic water fowl expert, might I suggest the caption is altered to an open-ended question (they look like etc, they walk like etc, so they must be … … mustn't they?). Could I gently point out how silly everyone connected with this essay would look if it turned out these weren't ducks, especially as the Russian article/Google translate actually says 'geese'. Pincrete (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming a huge time-sink for no end. Poultry walk more upright when they are cautious. Poultry plumage always depends on their prior housing conditions. The original image states that they are both ducks and "gooses" - hardly an ornithologist! Let's move on people!DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

brilliant! done here. Jytdog (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to say, I think they are prob. ducks, but we don't here work on what may well be probably true, certainly not in this context. Asking the question may anyway be more constructive than asserting the answer.Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Should the following change be made to the main article?

In the main article, at the very top, should

be replaced with

considering that there are many editors who believe in the validity of this essay. Soham321 (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• No-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• No And lets finish the first RfC before indulging in additional proposals. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• No, most definitely not. Judging by the discussions, both here and on WP:ANI, there are far more editors who do not believe in the validity of this essay than there are who do believe in it. Thomas.W ^talk 14:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• No. There are many editors who do not believe in the validity of this essay. And read next time, WP:RfC first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• The replacement disclaimer is saying: Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. The current disclaimer is saying: It may contain opinions that are shared by few or no other editors. The recent ANI discussion, in which at least three four admins tried and failed to impose boomerang action against Atsme, revealed the strong support for this article and proved that the replacement disclaimer more accurately represents this article than the current disclaimer.For this reason i Support the change to the disclaimer. Soham321 (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the ANI-discussion, because it did definitely not show any strong/widespread support for AVDUCK. Thomas.W ^talk 15:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup. And ANI does not settle content disputes. Not that any of this proposed content had even been discussed there. Or anywhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And Soham321, please stop editing your posts after they have been responded to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• No. The ANI discussion did not indicate widespread support amongst uninvolved editors, not least because the issue wasn't under discussion. Ca2james (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: "Widespread support" is not required for the change in the disclaimer. The new disclaimer explicitly says that the essay could constitute minority opinion. The ANI discussion had to be closed because it had become a stale mate since there were both many proponents and many opponents of this essay. Andy is right that it was not a content dispute that was discussed at ANI but the whole ANI discussion revolved around this essay. Soham321 (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What part of 'ANI does not settle content disputes' do you have difficulty understanding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not disputing your claim that ANI does not settle content disputes; i agree with your claim. Soham321 (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Then stop bringing up ANI in a discussion about content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Right but you're using that discussion to say that there's strong/widespread support for this essay. Based on the responses to the above RfC, where several previously-uninvolved editors are suggesting deletion or userfying, it's clear that there is not support for this essay let alone strong or widespread support. Ca2james (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You will have to concede that the ANI discussion revolved around what was perceived as battleground behavior (from both opponents and proponents of this essay). The fact that the allegations and counter-allegations of battleground behavior ended in a stale mate in the ANI discussion (because of which the thread had to be closed) shows that there was significant support for this essay. Soham321 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

We will have to concede no such thing, since your clearly partisan interpretation of what went on in an ANI thread which wasn't about the content of this essay is of no relevance to a discussion on matters which hadn't been discussed here, there or anywhere else. You asked contributors to discuss your proposal - please allow them to do so without repeatedly bringing up the same irrelevances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict: Soham321, let's please drop the ANI, enough drama for one day, an inconclusive outcome is an inconclusive outcome, it isn't proof or disproof of anything.Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump "your clearly partisan interpretation" Was that really necessary? AlbinoFerret 18:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, I don't see any need, logic, or advantage to the change.Pincrete (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• No ANI revealed nothing about the level of support felt for this essay. Edward321 (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• No per what everyone else has already said. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• No. Almost no support for this essay. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

MFD candidate?

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? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

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. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This essay has already survived an MfD [8]. 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. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 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 user:Pharmboy and user:Farmer Brown). 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.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change. And there is nothing anywhere in any Wikipedia policy or guideline that states that someone has to edit an essay before they express an opinion on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. A lot of people became aware of this essay throughout here 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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 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. AlbinoFerret 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.DrChrissy ^(talk) 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 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? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 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 owns 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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 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 WP:RUBBISH. AlbinoFerret 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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 WP:RUBBISH. If you have another please post it. AlbinoFerret 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

First we hold the MfD, then we analyse the responses. How difficult is that to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 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/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy_ducks --BoboMeowCat (talk) 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! AlbinoFerret 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Vandal-like disruption, aspersions and PAs at WP:AVDUCK. That's what happens when you behave in such a way[9] that you get blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Two points:

(1) Atsme is female.

(2) There is nothing in Wikipedia 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[ing] 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)