Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks

removing the template of a guidance

Could you help me understand the nature of your objection? I left an edit summary so "unexplained" is incorrect. The original author even thanked me for changing to the proper template, so I'm puzzled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I am pasting Short Brigade Harvester Boris here from my userpage since it is pure article discussion. FYI: teh word "Nope" in the edit summary is no explanation. the fact that atsme thanked you for your edit is irrelevant to me.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If I may please interject with a few of my thoughts on the subject of essay vs guidance essay. Considering what we've been through and the distrust expressed by a few editors regarding the motivation behind this essay, I think we have done our best to demonstrate its "worth" but now we need to see how it's going to perform. In other words, it has to prove its worth. I respectfully request that we all try to focus on the big picture, not the small things that can be upgraded/modified/deleted later once the essay has earned its place. I understand both sides of this debate and appreciate both positions but I also believe in compromise especially when it comes to trivial matters. I have always welcomed collaboration, substantive criticism and suggestions for improvement, and we have done our best to accommodate both perspectives. Now it's time for the essay to prove its worth. Wuerzele, you have been a good collaborator and helped improve this essay with your contributions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris, you expressed your concerns and I have done my best to address them but it is WP's essay now. I think we all want what's good for the project which is why I have addressed the concerns expressed by Jytdog and other editors who questioned or disproved certain aspects of the essay. I now respectfully request that we please let the essay have a chance to perform and see what happens. I realize some editors will never recommend it, but let's wait and see, ok? I think it's going to surprise us....hopefully in a good way. --Atsme^📞📧 23:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks Atsme. I am waiting to see what boris has to say- he did the unexplained ("Nope") content removal.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

archives

thanks for fixing the archives albino. this one-click archiver is not a great tool if it moves things to the wrong place as it did here and here. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, it was a chance to learn something. I kind of like having the archives in the header with the search function. The problem is there were no archives 2-9. archive 10 is now a redirect, Im debating having it deleted G6 because when archive 10 is needed this will probably be forgotten. We could also just leve it and when 10 is needed remove the redirect. AlbinoFerret

yep i would advise G6ing it. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Just placed the G6 tag. AlbinoFerret 14:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

AF - I'll ask T13 if there's a work-around. What appears to be happening, and I didn't even notice it when I archived, is that the One-Click defaults to whatever I had it set to for my user TP archives. I guess it doesn't automatically adjust to the relevant article TP archive and has to be manually set. Thank you for fixing it. I apologize for the inconvenience. Atsme^📞📧 20:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I like to fix things Atsme, so no inconvenience. You probably copied the code from your talk page to this one and forgot to change the archive number. It was easy to fix once I figured it out. AlbinoFerret 23:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's working properly, in Special:Diff/662259393 you had the counter set to 10, which is why it archived there. I just tested and confirmed it is indeed working correctly now. Happy archiving. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)