This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ok, while editors are picking at the original essay and 1st rewrite, I have written a 3rd. If we could spend less time bickering and more time editing we would be much further ahead. Atsme☯Consult04:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
A very peaceful plan, leave the bickering on older pages and continue working on others. Even if it takes a few more pages it seems like a good idea. :) AlbinoFerret05:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Old COI and Advocacy discussion - we've moved on
Resume COI and Advocacy discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Advocacy or POV-editing for several reasons. First, I see COI editing - defined on WP as editing for financial gain - as separate but related to advocacy or POV editing. An editor can have a COI and turn out an NPOV article, and an editor can have no COI and turn out a POV-pushing article. Second, it's impossible to determine who has a COI because we are not allowed to OUT anyone. The only way to find COI editors who aren't writing NPOV articles is via their behaviour, and that behaviour is pretty well indistinguishable from and is as unwelcome as anyone who edits in a non-NPOV way. Finally, I think that a focus on COI means focusing on the editor themselves because it's the editor, not the edits, that has the COI. In contrast, focusing on advocacy or POV-editing means that the focus is on the edits and behaviour, not the editor themselves. I think looking at POV-editing is assuming better faith of other editors than looking for a COI.
I see that instead of rewriting the essay as was strongly suggested at the MfD close, Atsme is ignoring this discussion and is editing the latest version of it. Atsme, it seems that you do not actually want to collaborate with other editors on this and that's bad because your essay is fatally flawed. At its core, it encourages readers to assume bad faith of other editors (and of course there's the misuse of the duck term, which contributes to the assumption of bad faith). It needs to be rewritten from scratch through collaboration with editors who aren't anti-Project Medicine or anti-MEDRS. It needs to be written with an underlying goal of actually dealing with the problem instead of the current apparent goal if providing editors who disagree with MEDRS or RS guidelines a way of discounting their opponents. No one editor can do that on their own, and they most definitely can't do it if they start by assuming bad faith. Ca2james (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with much of what you say. I don't think Atsme has refused to collaborate, but I agree more collaboration will need to take place to get a revised essay published. I dislike the continued assertions that it must be completely rewritten. That leads to the unreasonable suggestion that there is nothing salvageable of the essay and/or that there is nothing worthwhile about it. Collaboration is not about rejecting the entirety of the essay but working on what is good and addressing what needs to be corrected. Doing the same with BoboMeowCat's revised essay is no more helpful. Black/White assertions are not helpful in this regard. Specific criticisms, evidence for them, and proposals to correct them are collaborative. Blanket rejections are not helpful. David Tornheim (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
David Tornheim, we're all here talking and developing a consensus while Atsme has rewritten her essay yet again without engaging here. She's also questioned the motives behind anyone else writing a similar essay. Between those two facts, I think it's fair to say that she has so far refused to collaborate.
Atsme's third essay is better than the first two but it still has issues with negative tone and the "duck" theme. It isn't that there's nothing worth saving; it's that not enough assumptions of bad faith are being discarded. It is still much too easy to imagine an anti-MEDRS editor reading that essay and using it against editors who are attempting to apply MEDRS. Yes, there are cautions against assuming bad faith in there but that's not enough. Ca2james (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Ca2james: Can you give specific examples where the essay assumes bad faith? Can you identify sentences or phrases that you believe do this? I hear this asserted over and over to characterize the entire essay, but I just don't see it. The essay cannot be fixed with such broad brush criticism and black/white thinking. We need details of specific examples of sentences and phrases that you believe are against policy, guideline and/or ArbCom decisions. David Tornheim (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Progress - We seem to have a consensus on one thing: The essay should not be about COI to the extent of advocating outing or research with that in mind to prove a COI. Is there any objection to my claim we have a consensus on that? If you have a better way of stating this, please offer it below. David Tornheim (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Here is a suggestion to help avoid adding to the large and growing number of [clarification needed] tags on WP (Speaking as a member of Wikiproject citation cleanup).
"WP:ADVOCACY may support many different points of view. The best way to address any advocacy issue is to make good use of the sourcing guidelines WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. When you find passages in an article where there are no WP:RS supporting a particular passage, use the Wikipedia:Citation needed template and begin a discussion on the TP."
Would you consider adding the following "where there are no WP:RS supporting a particular passage, first try and find one, if you cant find one use the Wikipedia:Citation needed template and begin a discussion on the TP." AlbinoFerret16:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
What are the opinions of adding something like "Make sure to read and understand all policies and guidelines that are mentioned or linked to. Misapplication of policies and guidelines to further a specific point of view is a possible duck tactic." ?AlbinoFerret13:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
In the ten steps section the line "Did you argue for the sake of argument or was your argument substantive? A review of relevant PAGs will help you establish your position." might do well with a link to WP:POINT in the argue for argument sake wording. AlbinoFerret16:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
comments
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments1 person in discussion
DNA is still the same as 2 prior versions:
still abuses DUCK concept and has some assumptions of bad faith
The concept of the WP:DUCK essay employs a ubiquitous idiom...if it walks like a duck, etc. which clearly points toobvious correlations in behavior.It fits well with Advocacy ducks which also helps to identify correlations, patterns and concerted efforts and/or repeated editing characteristics such as WP:OWN, tendentious editing and WP:BULLYING
"DUCK" is a technical term used at SPI as has been said many times by me and others. Acting as though that is not true, is IDHT. You can say "I know and I don't care" but pretending like it is not true is just... frustrating.
still casts consensus as conspiracy, like:
"If you have taken all the steps suggested in this essay and still believe a group of advocacy ducks are picketing against you..."
Such criticism is unwarranted and unsupported by the contents of the essay which even includes the Consensus chart. It is not any more conspiracy like than what is exampled in the main space Duck essay:If consensus appears to be approaching one direction, aside from a handful of accounts that are using the same bad arguments (often "I like it" or "It's just not notable"), it might be reasonable to conclude that, even if direct sockpuppetry is not occurring, that the accounts may have still ganged up together.That essay used "ganged up together" and my essay uses a group that is "picketing against you".
yes, this is how DUCK is used at SPI, and sockpuppets are very often used in exactly the way described there. They show up all at once, are new accounts, and give lame arguments the same way. nothing - not a damn thing - like what you describe in this essay. In this essay you describe any consensus against you as a conspiracy of bad faith editors; no distinction made between plain old consensus and whatever this flock of ducks thing you describe is. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
"Advocacies tend to involve tag teams" (this seems directed at WikiProject Medicine which is not an "advocacy")
Pardon me, but these objections are based on assumptions, not fact. Your Project Medicine concerns are put to rest in Ten step self-analysis:Did you cite your passage to a reliable source that is verifiable but not false? Articles that relate to medical, health or science require close attention to WP:MEDRS guidelines. Read them, learn them, follow them. Again in the 8th Bullet point under Keep your own behavior in check which states: WP:ADVOCACY may support many different points of view. The best way to address any advocacy issue is to make good use of the sourcing guidelines WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. When you find passages in an article where there are no WP:RS supporting a particular passage, first try and find one, if you can't find one use the Wikipedia:Citation needed template and begin a discussion on the TP. Advocacies undoubtedly use tag teams and what actually concerns me more is the misapprehension that this essay somehow targets WikiProject Medicine, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
My objection here is the claim that advocacies tend to involve tag teams. Please provide, say 5 examples where different sets of advocates act in tag teams. Just five. That should not be at all hard if it is so common. In my experience groups of advocates are rare; for example the collection of advocates opposed to mainstream medicine gathered around this essay who are acting in a tag team fashion are an exception, not the rule, in my experience. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Tag team essay states: Unlike "meatpuppetry", the phrase may be applied to otherwise legitimate editors. The phrase comes from professional wrestling "tag teams", where teams of two or more wrestlers take turns in the ring, and one brings in his teammate by tagging him.Perhaps you should direct your objections to the published mainspace essay and see where that takes you.
bullets 4 through 8, and 15 and 16 under identifiers are all conspiracy theorizing/paranoid and the REMEMBER, DO NOT GIVE THEM AMMO between bullets 7 & 8 is really... paranoidish. Editors ~should~ always be civil etc. ( we all, including me, fall down sometimes. but "don't give them ammo" comes from a place where you are already certain you are dealing with Someone Evil.
I have long since removed REMEMBER DO NOT GIVE THEM AMMO because I agreed with your reasoning. The phrase was replaced by REMEMBER TO WP:AGF. Bullet 4 now reads GF editors are open to discussion and will welcome input if you assume good faith, avoid edit warring and participate in civil discourse on the article's talk page. The other bullets define extreme cases, persuasive and aggressive advocacy and encourage GF behavior such as stand down, do not edit war, refer to self-analysis and be sure your edit wasn't the cause.
Yes you did do take out that AMMO thing; that was good.
the numbering of bullets has changed since i made my comments.
you added a new bullet #2 so what was bullet 3 is now 4. The former bullets 4-8, and 15 (don't where i got 16) (now 5-9, 16) are unchanged. And they are all paranoid. And Atsme, GF is actual good faith in the other editors - it is not about acting nicely. the thing about "They may even try to convert their opposition to see their POV" remains in there. oy. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
pretty much everything under "keep your behavior in check" - this is really dug into a conviction that you have The Truth and the editors opposing you are Big Evil, and you describe consensus as conspiracy. The 2nd bullet is really, really bad. "Advocacy ducks may try to convert you to their POV" is, in the actual world of a Talk page, discussion to try to reach consensus. So, just yikes. (this really explains your behavior on the talk page of griffin by the way - totally uncompromising) Stuff like this in the essay, is why so many of the "delete" !votes said that the essay promotes a BATTLEGROUND mentality.
To begin, Keep your behavior in check is introduced after all the problems have been sorted out and identified. It's referred to as hierarchy in layout and is not unlike other main space guidelines and essays. By the time the reader gets to that section of the essay, he/she knows it's best to AGF and is better able to exercise good judgement in identifying the problem and knowing how to deal with it. As for your spurious allegation that the essay describes consensus as conspiracy, it appears you haven't paid very close attention to WP:Tag team, Wikipedia:Cabals, User:Wer900/There_is_a_cabal in contrast to Wikipedia:Words_of_wisdom#On_Wikipedia_and_the_Cabal, and WP:Canvassing to name a few.
Oh, and since you brought up Griffin (yet again) with more of the same misinformation, (yawn), may I remind you that Srich32977 and I were consistently trying to reach a compromise on that article. He gave up. I also find it rather amusing that whenever you bring up Griffin you consistently fail to mention the fact that the RfC you initiated proved me right and you wrong regarding a fundamental noncompliance with NPOV which is still in question at that article. Back on point - this essay isn't about Griffin so please stay on topic.
you don't describe any way to distinguish consensus against your stance, from conspiracy. in this essay, any consensus of which you are not a part, is apparently a conspiracy. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
identifiers
first bullet is great
2nd bullet - actually in my experience many new editors are here b/c they are passionate about something and new editors' edits are often very POV. you never know how editors will progress as they figure this place out. some figure it out and realize that cannot do what they wanted and they leave; some figure it out and stay but stay committed to their advocacy; some figure it out and become good members of the community. but most come here due to some passion, in my experience. something about that would be useful. but yes, dont BITE is good
3rd bullet, meh. mostly seems cover for 4-8, 13, 15, and 16. 13 is really driven by your experience at Griffin and you should take that out.
bullets 9 & 10 (pro and anti) need clarification. both do UNDUE, both can do COATRACK
bullet 11 should be combined with 9
bullet 12 is what an unrestrained (and usually newbie) advocate looks like. POV content and disruptive/WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. on the other end of the continuum is the Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing editor who is not as aggressive but is still disruptive. this could be elaborated a little and made bullet #1
bullet 14 is fine. you may want to give some reason why someone might suspect actual COI. suspect. additionally you might also say something like "if you suspect another has a COI because they are making promotional edits about a company, product, or person, or if another editor says they have a connection with the subject of the article (like 'i am a public relations rep for X" or "I am x"), please see guidance for handling other editor's conflict of interest"
don't understand the "coot" thing. text in green box in lead about coots is just confusing like this: "At first glance, coots look like ducks but upon closer observation you will see that coots don't have webbed feet and they don't quack. They are actually birds not ducks" don't understand what is going on there.
in "Road to resolution" section, "you may bag a coot or two along the way" seems really messed up. i thought coots were OK. why would you be happy about "bagging" one or two? the jokey attitude in some of the writing, like here and elsewhere, is in general is infelicitous. are you serious about this or not?
kudos
"He who quacks loudest may be you." nicely done
"road to resolution" section is great
things to clarify
" It may or may not result from paid or unpaid editing, both of which can be equally problematic if the editing conflicts with WP:PAG." you can be more specific - the really key content policy that advocates violate is NPOV.
Although this essay has differences from the previous versions, at its core it is the same because it encourages its readers to assume bad faith of other editors. As long as it has this underlying bad-faith point-of-view, no matter how many times the essay says to assume good faith, it will not be acceptable as a mainspace essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015
Major issues
These are issues that, if they are not resolved, will prevent this essay from going to mainspace.
The use of "duck". As I've said previously, WP:DUCK has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and using it in this other context is confusing and misleading. There is another problem with the term, however, which is that labeling someone an "advocacy duck" is commenting on the editor, not commenting on the editor's edits/behaviour and this sets up a foundation to assume bad faith.
The list of problematic behaviours are not unique to advocacy editing so saying that if editors do those things they're an "advocacy duck" is a false conclusion and assuming bad faith. The essay sets those statements apart and nowhere in that box does it indicate that these behaviours may not indicate an "advocacy duck".
It's not clear that advocates on Wikipedia actually engage in those problematic behaviours. I don't have much experience in identifying these problematic behaviours and neither do you, AFAIK, so how do you know that that's what these editors do?
There is an additional problem with the list of these behaviours, and that is that they are the same as the pharma shill gambit. While you have removed some items, this gambit is the heart of the essay because those are the behaviours identified. Comparing the essay from the linked site:
This essay
Pharma shill gambit
Advocacies tend to involve tag teams, WP:Sock Puppetry and/or WP:Meatpuppetry to sway consensus, control the article and make it appear as though you are the one disrupting the community.
Pharma Bloggers on usenet use multiple “bloggers” in a swap-&-relay fashion to create an aura of the “consensus view” in an effort to isolate posters who question the value of mainstream medicine. You will see this tactic used more often than any other
Most advocacy ducks are accomplished at gaming the system and switching blame to the opposition.
Pharma Bloggers on usenet post the majority of their responses simply to bury the comments of others; they also strive obsessively to have the last word. Pharma Bloggers on usenet are much faster at posting than casual participants; they almost always respond first to a new thread, question, or observation.
Pharma Bloggers on usenet are much faster at posting than casual participants; they almost always respond first to a new thread, question, or observation.
Behavior can be driven by paid or unpaid advocacy which explains why edits that don't support the advocacy ducks' POV are quickly reverted.
In some cases, they will make the offending editor feel unwelcome as a collaborator.
Pharma Bloggers on usenet use intimidation, mockery, and insults to silence those who express belief or interest in natural medicine.
Pharma Bloggers on usenet attack those who question the effectiveness of mainstream medicine and defend disease-management “healthcare” as the only viable form of medicine.
I realize that this essay uses different words than the ones at the linked site, but the sentiments are the same. And even though the name for this gambit is "pharma shill gambit", it can be applied to any area so is sometimes called a "shill gambit". The fact that the essay is using these shill gambit behaviours makes the essay look like it's not actually against advocacy editing, but that it's against anyone upholding MEDRS or other RS. An essay encouraging editors to use this gambit, which this one does, will not be allowed into mainspace.
Did you follow the above suggestions and are still of the mind that your reverted edits were unwarranted? It could be that you came to a fork in the road. If you suspect you've encountered a COI duck, all of whom are ducks of a different color, it is best to follow the road to WP:COIN. On the other hand, if you encountered POV warriors or advocacy ducks, take the road to resolve. An editor must have more than being "of a mind" that reverts were unwarranted. With this the essay is suggesting that evidence is not required and that the road to bad faith right there. Also, "COI duck" is not defined; how would anyone know if they'd encountered someone with a COI?
They also tend to be involved more often in recurring content disputes over the same articles and related topics resulting from issues with one of more of the following: WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE/PS. It can work both ways — pro cause or anti cause. - The editors who are trying to uphold those policies are also involved in many disputes because they're working against POV-pushers. Painting all editors who are engaged in disputes as having an advocacy problem assumes bad faith.
Veteran advocacy ducks are expert at gaming the system. They may even try to convert their opposition to see their POV and assume a WP:IAR posture. - again, this is assuming bad faith for the reasons previously discussed.
Advocacy ducks may try to calmly lead you in a passive aggressive manner beyond article content straight into behavioral issues which could involve WP:BULLYING. - and again, assuming bad faith. Also, this and the previous two statements are the shill gambit which I've already discussed.
The Road to resolution section advocates taking steps that are not listed as part of WP:DR. For example:
WP:RfC is the first step to achieving WP:Consensus if you encounter one or more editors who appear to be entrenched in a particular POV. - actually, it isn't. First comes WP:DISCUSSION.
Also read, learn, and follow the steps to take at WP:DRN. - DRN isn't the first stage, and editors need to know Dispute resolution, not its Noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015
You need to read WP:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Tag_team#Tag team characteristics, WP:SP, and WP:Meat Puppetry which are main space guidelines and essays. I drew from them to write parts of my essay which you now claim to be representative of the pharma shill gambit as evidenced in your comparison above. It also appears you are confused between an essay and a guideline. You might want to read up on those differences as well. I invited editors here for GF collaboration but I do not appreciate your sarcasm and innuendos, not to mention yours and Jytdog's attempts to make my essay into something it is not. If you have no intention of collaborating here in GF, and your only concern is silencing what you consider to be pharma shills, whatever the heck that is, then you need to write your own essay and I'll be happy to help you with the copy-editing. Atsme☯Consult12:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
my comments are in good faith. your first essay was deleted by the community - i didn't do that. i have tried to tell you how the current essay has some of the same stuff that the community already rejected. by retaining that stuff, you showed that you didn't listen to the community through the MfD, and by blowing me off and calling my comments bad faith, you are doing it again. and -- this is the problem with the essay. the heart of it - the DNA - is finding an excuse for the rejection of the consensus position that you already rejected. you need to learn to be aware of consensus - to try to find it (not to "win") and to yield to it when it goes against what you wanted, if you do put a stake in the ground. Every Wikipedian needs to know how to lose with a semblance of grace. that is how the essay Wikipedia:How to lose starts out; you should read it and its friend, Wikipedia:Get over it, and try to learn from them Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”. Lincoln said these words and they have proven true over and over again. In the case here, it appears that Atsme has made significant changes that addressed concerns. That some editors do not believe that "all" of the concerns have been addressed is plain to read. But the goal isnt to please all of the people all of the time. Its to write an essay, and essays dont have to be agreed with by the entire community. AlbinoFerret13:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
this is true. i am not about getting what i want. this is about what atsme didn't change, that still expresses what the community found unacceptable. the !delete comments were consistent and clear and were reflected in the close -- too much ABF, too much promotion of battleground; rejection of consensus. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
yes, it said start anew,. which you did not do - much of this is direct from the original (and those are the main parts i pointed out to you) Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, it also stated: I recognize that to some degree, this essay has become a moving target, with substantial edits performed between the time of its nomination and now. Had it not been touched, it probably would've made a relatively simple close. I note that none of the "key quotes" included in the nomination remained in the essay, and statements like "MEDRS is a content guideline that is highly respected by the community" mitigated some of the essay's previous harshness. It further stated: I would encourage the supporters of this essay to start anew, if they so desire. We can probably all appreciate that this will be easier work without the ongoing threat of deletion. Similarly, I would encourage those who wanted this essay deleted to give some latitude to the creators of a new essay, if we go down that path. Your POV about the close is not going to work here on the essay's TP because it misrepresents what the close actually stated. I am not giving in to any form of POV pushing, be it inadvertent or deliberate. This is an essay, not an article and essays are intended to reflect one of more editors' POV. Sorry, but while some of your suggestions were applied, not all of them work in this essay the same way they didn't work in the essay you proposed at COI talk. Atsme☯Consult16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, my comments are in good faith. I have read the pages you linked to and by themselves there's no issue. What this essay does is to conflate them in a way that not only corresponds to the shill gambit, but doesn't reflect actual advocacy behaviours. If this was a WP article, that section would be WP:SYNTH, a form of WP:OR. Instead of saying that I'm wrong and implying that I'm part of big pharma, show me that I'm wrong by linking to examples of advocates who have behaved this way.
As for writing another essay, that's what we were doing while you were working on this third version, and which you labelled "bickering". Moreover, you have made disparaging remarks about Jytdog working on another essay. This seems to be a situation where other editors can't win. Ca2james (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You said I have read the pages you linked to and by themselves there's no issue. My recommendation to you then is to read them individually which is how they apply instead of all together which is how you are applying them. You also need to understand that an essay is an opinion of either one or more editors. In this case my opinion with support from collaborators who are of the same opinion. Sorry, but your opinion does not have full support of this collaboration although they were considered and some were even adopted. This essay is in perfect alignment with WP:PAG. Atsme☯Consult16:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You and your collaborators are outside broader consensus on this essay and instead of hearing that, you're attackingcommenting on the messengers. If a building is built on quicksand, no amount of window dressing and decoration will save the building from disaster. This essay is predicated on assuming bad faith and instead of showing its detractors that you're right - with diffs - you're attackingcommenting on them. Honestly, if you can prove that you're right, that advocates and only advocates actually engage in all of those behaviours, then I'll withdraw my comments with an apology. If you can't or won't do that, that's fine, but that's no reason to assume bad faith of my motives by callinge a big pharma supporter. I have been trying to engage in a good-faith civil discussion with you with a focus on the essay. However, your behaviour is becoming increasingly personally directed and disruptive and if you continue in that vein you'll wind up blocked. Please let's focus on the content. Ca2james (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I highly recommend that you read the close of the MfD if you haven't already. I also recommend reading this essay again. With regards to your threat to me that "you'll wind up blocked", I will ignore it for the most part with a sidebar caution to you that unwarranted block warnings and WP:NPA such as Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views and Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. are highly frowned upon. I also suggest that you pay closer attention to your own comments, some of which I've listed below with accompanying diffs. Also keep in mind that this is still essay is still in my user space where you and Jytdog are both welcome to join in and collaborate in GF but threats and disruption are not part of the deal. I have had no issues working with other GF editors who have been collaborating with me on this essay. However, you and Jytdog have been overly critical and have brought a personal aspect into the essay for no determinable reason aside from the fact is simply does not reflect your POV, and that alone speaks volumes.
"I think it's fair to say that she has so far refused to collaborate. April 17, 2015April 17, 2015
"Atsme, it seems that you do not actually want to collaborate with other editors on this and that's bad because your essay is fatally flawed.April 17, 2015
"It needs to be rewritten from scratch through collaboration with editors who aren't anti-Project Medicine or anti-MEDRS.April 17, 2015
"I don't have much experience in identifying these problematic behaviours and neither do you,"April 19, 2015
"Moreover, you have made disparaging remarks about Jytdog working on another essay. This seems to be a situation where other editors can't win."April 20, 2015
"You and your collaborators are outside broader consensus on this essay and instead of hearing that, you're attacking the messengers.April 20, 2015
"This essay is predicated on assuming bad faith and instead of showing its detractors that you're right - with diffs - you're attacking them.April 20, 2015
"If you can't or won't do that, that's fine, but that's no reason to assume bad faith of my motives by callinge a big pharma supporter."April 20, 2015
"However, your behaviour is becoming increasingly personally directed and disruptive and if you continue in that vein you'll wind up blocked."April 20, 2015
None of them are personal attacks. I am not giving you an unwarranted block warning; I said that if you continue with the behaviour you have shown, you will wind up blocked. That is a true statement. It is also true that you did not collaborate with other editors, and that you then dismissed the discussion we were having. And it is true that you are not responding to criticisms of the essay or requests for proof that you are right: instead, you are going after its critics with personal attacks, disparaging words, condescension, and negative insinuations. That is why I asked you to please focus on content, not people. Ca2james (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I realize that your comments have not risen to the level of a personal attack and saying that you had was wrong. Therefore, I have stricken that part of my comments above and inserted "commented on" (with underlining to make it clear it was inserted). I sincerely apologize for falsely accusing you and I will be more careful with my words in the future. Ca2james (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
After considering this, "The use of "duck". As I've said previously, WP:DUCK has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and using it in this other context is confusing and misleading. " I have come to the conclusion this essay is properly using the term and it actually improves clarity on the essay. There often may be no way to prove this type of advocacy as if it is some kind of conspiracy.....but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... then what's the difference? It is a duck. ie It is advocacy editing. Personally I really don't care what the essay is titled. More important to me is that this cancer be removed as much as possible from WIKI. So I am fully behind the essay. Assuming of course WIKI wants to continue to improve its reputation as a credible reference source for controversial subjects.Redddbaron (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Minor issues
These issues probably wouldn't stop the essay from going to mainspace... but that doesn't mean that they aren't problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015
Ten-step self-analysis
There actually exists a strong possibility that your edit was problematic and triggered the revert - is incorrect because it minimizes the fact that while advocacy behaviours are problematic, they are not more common than non-advocacy behaviours. The statement should read It is more likely that your edit was problematic in some way
Did you cite your passage to a reliable source that is verifiable but not false? Articles that relate to medical, health or science require close attention to WP:MEDRS guidelines. Read them, learn them, follow them. There's nothing here about editors rightfully upholding MEDRS or RS guidelines, and "read them, learn them, follow them" doesn't help.
Is the article a biography or the biography of a living person (BLP)? BLPs require strict adherence to policy, US law and compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. There's more to Wikipedia than the US. What about Canada, or the EU? They have laws, too.
Did you initiate a discussion on the article's talk page and request input from the community? If the dispute continues, it may be time to initiate an RfC. The second sentence recommending a remedy doesn't belong here. Better to state that the editor needs to discuss the edits on the Talk page.
Did you argue for the sake of argument or was your argument substantive? A review of relevant PAGs will help you establish your position. Also see WP:POINT. Unclear. What does "substantive" mean? And while it's good to seek help from policies and guidelines, how does an editor know which ones are relevant? And what does WP:POINT have to do with this?
Did you make any attempt to seek help? There are several ways to acquire help on WP. For example, you can include the {{help me}} template on your user talk page, or ask a question at the help desk or Teahouse. The Village Pump is another forum for general discussions, advice and for seeking technical help. Better to include this in dealing with advocacy - ie the editor should follow normal WP:DR processes, including RfC, Third opinion, dispute resolution for content issues and Talking to the editor and ANI for conduct issues.
Did you seek a third party for input? Oftentimes an uninvolved editor can provide valuable input. Same as above. Also, WP:3O actually has a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015
Typical identifying signs
This list is composed of behaviours that might be signs of advocacy but the four bullet points before "remember to AGF" are the pharma shill gambit again. By assuming all editors who behave that way are engaging in advocacy, the essay is encouraging readers to assume bad faith. Also, do editors engaging in advocacy actually engage in those behaviours?
It is more to the advantage of a lone advocacy duck to maintain civility, and defer tactical deployment until joined in force by a flock of other advocacy ducks who support or advocate the same cause or POV. The quacking can become rather loud at that point. Again, refer to self-analysis and be sure your edit wasn't the cause. - The use of "quacking" is derogatory and encourages more bad faith assumptions. Name-calling is a personal attack on Wikipedia.
quack, quack - see above
Advocacy ducks typically create POV issues by tendentious editing. - do they? how do you know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015
Keep your own behaviour in check
Veteran advocacy ducks are skilled at WP:Gaming the system, and if you behave inappropriately, you may find yourself waving goodbye from the back of a little red caboose after being railroaded into an unexpected block or topic ban. - once again, this is the shill gambit.
Be mindful of WP:NOR, WP:MEDRS, and WP:RS. Read them, learn them, and follow them. - discussed above.
If you have questions, seek a third opinion from an experienced editor or if you are a relatively new editor, consider a WP:Mentor. - "third opinion" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, as I've already stated. Better to say "another opinion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2015
Road to resolution
It is possible that if we set enough advocacy vigilantes loose across the project they are likely to find a few real advocacy ducks, but just as likely to bag a coot or two along the way. - this sentence is encouraging people to be advocacy vigilantes and that's not a good thing. Wikipedia doesn't need more vigilantes. And what is a coot?
Other noticeboards - would be better split between content and conduct boards. Also include abbreviations as that's how people refer to them.
The section "Make no mistakes" states "If by chance you find yourself subjected to a pattern of aggressive editing behavior"..."remember to AGF and start a polite discussion on the article's talk page (TP)" This is great advice consistent with that given in the Help:Edit summary essay. However, I have been warned by User:Zad68 that it is inappropriate to discuss editor's behaviour on article Talk pages, citing WP:TPG. (Please see my Talk page section "Please don't use article Talk pages to discuss editor behavior" to see the interchange.) I have been unable to see on WP:TPG where the discussion of another editor's behaviour is discouraged. This probably needs clarification for this important essay.DrChrissy(talk)18:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a good catch: article Talk pages are for discussions regarding how to improve content on the article. Therefore, discussions there are focused on content whereas behavioural discussions get brought up on that editor's Talk page. This is covered in WP:TPYES, where it says Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.Ca2james (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I have no agenda here other than clarification. We seem to have an essay that suggests one course of action, but a separate guideline which can be interpreted to suggest a completely different course of action. The quote you gave refers to "personalities". To my mind, this would be stating that an editor is "argumentative", "bullying", "insulting", etc. What I am talking about is "behaviour" such as "repeated reversions WP:3RR", "editing another editor's comments", "repeatedly not leaving an edit summary". Is it the different interpretations that is causing the problem?DrChrissy(talk)19:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
This essay just needs to be tweaked to say to go to the editor's talk page. The guidelines are quite clear to me: discussions of content go on the article talk pages. If the quote above isn't clear, try this one, from WP:TPG: The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. In other words, article talk pages are for discussing content; if you're not discussing content, the discussion goes on the editor talk page. A discussion about the things you're talking about - 3rr reversions, edit summaries, changing another editor's comments - are not about article content. Therefore, those discussions go on the editor's talk page. Ca2james (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Responses to comments
Latest comment: 9 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion
AF: Here is a suggestion to help avoid adding to the large and growing number of [clarification needed] tags on... ✅
AF: Also this essay may be of help to new users WP:POV RAILROAD ✅
AF: ...adding something like "Make sure to read and understand all policies and guidelines that are mentioned or linked to.✅
see essay, 4th para...which makes it all the more important to familiarize yourself with relevant policies.
see essay section...Ten step self-analysis (#7)
AF: Misapplication of policies and guidelines to further a specific point of view is a possible duck tactic." ? ✅
see 2nd bullet essay section Typical identifying signs of advocacy duck behavior (ID signs)...added your suggestion
see essay section ID signs ...The advocacy could be for or against but either way an advocacy duck will purposely or inadvertently disrupt the balance, create UNDUE and/or be noncompliant with WP:NPOV.
see 2nd bullet after Remember, Do Not Give Them Ammo...Pro-cause advocacy ducks tend to weigh down articles with puffery while excluding and/or reverting negative material.
see 6th bullet after Remember, Do Not Give Them Ammo...content disputes over the same articles and related topics resulting from issues with one of more of the following: WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE/PS. It can work both ways — pro cause or anti cause.
AF: In the ten steps section the line "Did you argue for the sake of argument.... ✅
Thanks Atsme, Its nice to see the suggestions applied. They were just suggestions, and I am happy you were able to incorporate them. AlbinoFerret00:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Jdog said: DNA is still the same as 2 prior versions - I went a step further in an effort to address some of your concerns. You said still abuses DUCK concept and has some assumptions of bad faith and also still casts consensus as conspiracy. My responses follow and include the changes that were made regarding the suggestions:
WP:The duck test: ...suggests that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. The essay is doing just that. Also, please take a look at Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.
see changes in 1st para......help editors identify certain disruptive behaviors that are violative of WP:PAG. Such behavior is often associated with an article under the perceived control of an overzealous or overly bold editor or group of editors who may be driven by a paid or unpaid WP:Advocacy. It also further defines the problem areas.
All throughout the essay it says to assume good faith, such as:
1st para...which is why it is always best to assume good faith (AGF), and not make unwarranted accusations based on flimsy evidence.
2nd para...It is of the utmost importance to maintain civility and remember, things aren't always what they seem.
4th para...do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy.
4th para...there are certain steps you should take in an effort to identify the problem area(s). Stop, breathe, think...and above all, avoid WP:Edit warring or you might become a sitting duck.
Ten step self-analysis...There actually exists a strong possibility that your edit was problematic and triggered the revert.
Typical identifying signs of advocacy duck behavior...which includes...
Misapplication of WP:PAG to further a specific POV is a possible advocacy duck tactic. Make sure you are not the one perceived as employing such a tactic.
GF editors are open to discussion and will welcome input if you assume good faith, avoid edit warring and participate in civil discourse on the article's talk page.
I removed the Do Not Give Them Ammo references per your suggestion.
Again, refer to self-analysis and be sure your edit wasn't the cause.
And #7 bullet states If you suspect an undisclosed WP:COI may be involved, stand down and take the issue to WP:COIN for further investigation.
Keep your own behavior in check...it is all the more important for you to remain focused on article content and follow WP:PAG.
Regarding consensus...
Road to resolution...it clearly states It is not wise for an individual editor to ascertain with certainty that a content dispute stems from paid or unpaid advocacy ducks. It is always better to seek a third opinion or try to achieve consensus by means of an RfC.
First in list states WP:RfC is the first step to achieving WP:Consensus if you encounter one or more editors who appear to be entrenched in a particular POV.
Also included is: Other noticeboards to seek consensus
It makes no sense to have an essay that doesn't directly address the problems editors have to deal with on a regular basis. The essay addresses those issues head-on. If it didn't, it would be just like the other essays and PAGs which obviously are not helping resolve the issues, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Atsme☯Consult20:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Almost everything you wrote misses the mark, of what i wrote. some general responses:
I've written a few times why DUCK is inappropriate in this context. You've not responded. You don't have to, of course. But what you write above about DUCK doesn't address my objections.
You can have all the positive statements you want about AGF etc (and I am aware of them, there was no need to repeat them) but as long as the ABF stuff is still there, it is still there. Maybe read the essay on WP:ADVOCACY to see how to discuss objectionable behavior without building in ABF.
I asked earlier what gap among essays this is attempting to fill, and I still don't understand.
it is funny you recommended i read the civil pov pushing essay. i did read it this morning, and it is exactly your behavior at griffin. it is crazy.
Well, that's unfortunate but its your choice. I won't stoop to your level of name calling or bother responding to your spurious claims so I'll end this discussion by bidding you good night with kind regards. Atsme☯Consult22:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
your first essay was overwhelmingly rejected for promoting disruptive behavior. this essay has the same DNA. already you didn't hear what the community said when you wrote this. ... in my comments i tried - i really did - to show you how the objectionable stuff is still here. you didn't hear it when i said it either. obdurate = stubbornly refusing to change one's opinion or course of action. it's apt. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong - read the close again. I made the changes that the opposers actually pointed out in GF and continued to do so after the essay was deleted. Your views are what has been rejected because this essay isn't about your POV. The essay you attempted to write based on your POV is what was rejected at COIN. [1] Mine has been changed dramatically to address those issues. As I stated above, read the MfD close again because it appears you have forgotten what was said [April 11, 2015] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 14:43, 20 April 2015
yes, it said start anew,. which you did not do - much of this is direct from the original (and those are the main parts i pointed out to you). i didn't try to write an essay; i attempted to amend the WP:COI guideline -- and you should learn from that rejection how sensitive the community is to just describing signs of possible COI which is much less dramatic than applying DUCK. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect - I did start anew. I changed the name, I changed the focus, I changed some of the photos and added more, I changed emphasis in the sections, I changed section titles, - ALL NEW - I just didn't change it to your POV. Atsme☯Consult15:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
? a lot of the content is exactly the same, the overall shape is the same. you added some new stuff, you tweaked some of the old stuff. some stuff is directly from the former one. and it is the stuff that is closest to the old one that you retained, that was most objectionable in it. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, I think you might be defining "start anew" differently than I do. To me, starting anew means to start from scratch with a blank edit box, not to edit an existing version. By not starting from scratch, the things that made the original essay unacceptable on wikipedia according to consensus at the MfD were not removed. That's why both Jytdog and I have said that the core of the essay is the same even though lots more has gone into this essay. The premise of the essay is fundamentally flawed because it's outside consensus. Ca2james (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not Atsme, but the words "start anew" have to me read in the context of the closing. The closer first started out talking about improvements and changes to the essay that negated some of the complaints. Then he "encouraged" to start anew. Was it a command, no. But by looking at the original essay, I would say its probably 70% or better new material. The choice on how to go about creating the essay is Atsme's. Not anyone elses. Unless you have a firm community decision, or one from arbcom that says the essay "had" to begin at a clean page I think your arguments are just for argument sake at this point. AlbinoFerret17:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Close enough AF. However, what start anew meant to me is evident in the comment by BDD when he said I recognize that to some degree, this essay has become a moving target, with substantial edits performed between the time of its nomination and now. Had it not been touched, it probably would've made a relatively simple close. I note that none of the "key quotes" included in the nomination remained in the essay, and statements like "MEDRS is a content guideline that is highly respected by the community" mitigated some of the essay's previous harshness. A common dictionary definition of anew is in a new or different, typically more positive, way: her career had begun anew. Same career but a different more positive direction and that is exactly what this essay demonstrates; i.e., same sentiment, but a different more positive direction:
New direction and a different focus which now emphasizes disruptive POV pushing and aggressive advocacy behavior with less focus on COI except to direct it to the correct noticeboards;
More positive approach with more emphasis on AGF, less emphasis on a particular industry. It covers a much broader scope;
Key quotes as mentioned by the closer were removed, and more improvements have been added along with further modifications;
More emphasis on AGF, following PAGs, seeking consensus, seeking 3rd opinion, seeking help, self-analysis, and I removed the Ammo references per Jytdog's suggestion;
The problem I have with modifying the essay to the degree a few have suggested is that it not only dilutes the purpose of the essay, it appears to be motivated by some sort of denial that such problems exist. Sorry, but that's like burying one's head in the sand, the latter of which requires a fairly long neck. The only thing I'm long on is verbosity. Atsme☯Consult19:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, i work helping managing COI every day here, and work trying to help advocates see that they are violating NPOV every day here. Every day. On the ground. So if you are referring to me when you say someone "appears to be motivated by some sort of denial that such problems exist" that is just kooky. It is one thing to work to manage problems - to talk to people like they are fellow humans, and another to write essays that treat other people as some kind of monsters, as "ducks" to be hunted. And we always, always, listen for and work toward consensus. Those things are really deep in the heart of this place. (and when we need to take against people because they are showing NOTHERE behavior, it is never a happy thing; its a sad thing) The stuff that was rejected in the first essay , and that is still here, express a real "othering" of other editors - an assumption of bad faith that "they" are in a conspiracy to mess up this place, and only the author of the essay (with whom the reader is meant to identify) has integrity. It is just messed up, Atsme. It is not Wikipedian. I keep looking for ways to try to help you see this... Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, you're actually the one who needs help seeing it properly because your arguments are personal attacks on me and not content related. I understand where you spend the bulk of your time on WP and also acknowledge that it is a remarkable amount of time as an unpaid volunteer. I know of no other editor who spends as much time as you spend here. Btw, there are lots of very capable editors who work in the trenches volunteering their time writing code, editing and creating articles, reviewing articles, getting articles ready for DYK or GA/FA reviews, helping with copy-editing, contributing where they can in RfCs, on noticeboards and so forth. They have experienced many of the same behaviors you described, some have experienced a great deal more. I acknowledge that you are doing your best to productively identify COI editing to better maintain NPOV but I've also seen you overstep your boundaries. Why have you taken such an interest in it? I'm well aware of your behavior and style of editing, Jytdog. I've experienced it for weeks on end when you were armchair coaching at Griffin. That isn't the topic here so let's get back on point.
You stated above: ...talk to people like they are fellow humans, and another to write essays that treat other people as some kind of monsters, as "ducks" to be hunted. For you to imply my essay treats other people like monsters or as "ducks" to be hunted is more of a reflection on your behavior than mine. You don't seem to mind the dog names, Jytdog. You just don't like duck? You don't mind calling a BLP a quack or lunatic charlatan. You're okay with calling them sock puppets or meat puppets. You just don't like ducks. Do you have a prejudice against the little quack-quacks? You need to read WP:DUCKS because I didn't write that essay, but you were certainly quick to defend its context.
I am also concerned over your other comment above: So if you are referring to me when you say someone "appears to be motivated by some sort of denial that such problems exist" that is just kooky. Do you speed-read perhaps? What I actually stated was modifying the essay to the degree a few have suggested. I also stated, it appears to be motivated by some sort of denial that such problems exist. Does that describe you? You seem to think it does. Your criticism of my essay applies to almost every behavioral guideline and policy in WP. It's time to move on. We've got articles to edit. Atsme☯Consult20:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
i'm not claiming to be the only person who works on these things. i was just reacting to your implying that i deny they exist, which was kooky. the rest of what you write there is mostly incoherent - this in particular "You don't mind calling a BLP a quacks or lunatic charlatan. You're okay with calling them sock puppets or meat puppets. " -- are you talking about article content or interactions among editors? anyway, i get it that you are upset. i am sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Not the least bit upset. Why should I be? As for nomenclature issue you referred to as incoherent, perhaps the "s" on the end of quack tripped you up? Sorry, it was a typo so I removed it. Names such as duck, dog, quack, lunatic charlatan, meat puppet, sock puppet and the like identify behaviors related to people, or they may be pet names. Does it matter if the names are applicable to editors, subjects of a BLP, or other article? Try to consider such naming conventions a kooky form of applied science. They refer to people relative to their behaviors or pet names but they all still apply to people. Does that help clarify it for you? Surely you get the gist of Aesop's fables even though animals are used, right? Crazy like a fox, slow as a turtle, etc. Context is a strange animal. <---metaphor. Atsme☯Consult18:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
collaboration
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
ok, i took a shot at directly editing the essay, in these diffs. I tried to make the "signs" be clear, to help readers of the essay be able to point to specific behavior that identifies advocates. (yes I took out "duck") Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
An example *Misapplication of WP:PAG to further a specific POV is a possible advocacy duck tactic. Make sure you are not the one perceived as employing such a tactic." This behaviour is very indicative of an advocate. AlbinoFerret15:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Took all the criticisms and suggestions into consideration
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Ok - with the collaborative help I've received, I think this essay has finally hit its mark. Please add any new suggestions below.
Approve - but I will add that if collaborators have any suggestions to shorten or improve this essay a little more, please comment or effect the improvement. Atsme☯Consult16:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The essay is better. The "ten step self analysis" section focuses on how to react when edits are reverted. Reverted edits are part of the problem but there's more to advocacy editing than that. Including bullet points on dealing with disruptive talk page behaviour would be more helpful. I think it might also be better to put signs of advocacy editing before the self-analysis section because right now the essay goes from pattern of aggressive behaviour to reverted edits to signs of advocacy behaviour. It makes sense to me to identify signs of advocacy behaviour first, then discuss how to respond (which includes the road to resolve).
There are a few tweaks I'd like to make if that's ok with you but I need to step away from the computer right now. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for opening up direct editing, I think I will add a few minor things, and perhaps replace at least one removed one. If you think they are not needed Atsme, I am sure you will comment here after doing so. AlbinoFerret00:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. First and foremost, a very active member of the COIN board (as in: a "flurry of edits") has made edits that he should not including his latest edit. Being on the WP:COIN board and asking for referral of cases or lobbying, is in direct conflict with the matter. Plus, please note he has not declared that COI in his edits on the COI page.
The essay has zero refs.
The focus on SPA´s is not only entirely empirical, but it targets private individual ducks, rather than "corporate fed" ducks. In my experience, corporate ducks are medium to high volume multiple page editors, thereby ducking an old fashioned and now lame scanning instrument called WP:SPA for advocacy.
These sentences are noncompliant with WP:NPOV,Wikipedia:BALANCE, Wikipedia:UNDUE, and do not assume good faith towards "New editors: [which] may come to Wikipedia with an ax to grind, and often[how often?] don't understand Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. While being a new editor does not make advocacy acceptable, it is important to not bite the newbies and try to teach new editors the importance of NPOV. Some will be willing to learn, and some will not."
Comment - Wuerzele, thank you for your input. I read your reasons for opposing the essay, and wanted to let you know what I did to address your areas of concern.
a very active member of the COIN board (as in: a "flurry of edits") has made edits... I am aware of those edits, and in fact solicited his input along with that of other editors who originally opposed my first essay. I believe the best collaboration presents all sides of an issue. I also believe that most of the edits made so far by all collaborators have been an improvement. Some were redundant, others just needed a little tweaking. I hope you will reconsider.
The essay has zero refs...to my knowledge, essays don't require refs because they are the views of the author and collaborators per Wikipedia:Wikipedia_essays.
The focus on SPA´s is not only entirely empirical, but it targets private individual ducks, I just finished tweaking that segment a bit. After applying SPA in a broader context, I thought it best to not throw the baby out with the bath water. (I was once accused of being a SPA at an ANI that was wrongfully initiated against me last year). IOW, we have quite a few editors who volunteer their time to topics they enjoy and/or have an interest in. We don't want them to be by-catch.
Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
There is another behaviour (term) that ducks perform which might be incorporated into the essay, mobbing. Mobbing in animals is a behaviour which occurs when individuals of one species (POV pushers) mob an individual of another species (the suffering editor) by collectively, perhaps cooperatively, attacking or harassing it. I'm sure many of us can provide examples.DrChrissy(talk)10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, DrChrissy. I made a few changes for consistency in format and focus. I kept the most prevalent issues without creating too much repetition and shortened it a little. Atsme☯Consult17:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a shame you felt the essay should be shortened of repetition by removing my edits from the quote/box. I thought they were hanging well together and thought removal of repetition should actually be in the body of the text. I was going to move that way and formulate a table with "Duck behaviour" and "Avocacy duck behaviour" as the two column headings. By the way, the "Chasing the June bug" phrase may be a North Americanism....it means nothing to me here in the UK. I think this needs re-wording.DrChrissy(talk)18:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the bottomline here is that I want this essay to be accepted into main space so I'm doing what I think best to make that happen as I'm sure you are, too. I've already had two of my essays deleted so I hope you will trust my judgement. I'm sorry that you feel the essay was "shorted" by my edits because that wasn't my intention. I don't see it that way, and I certainly didn't feel that way when you modified what I had written, rather I opted for compromise. Your concept is still in tact as is the main gist of what you presented and how you presented it with only a few changes. As for the phrase, like ducks on a June bug, look at the brighter side - you now know a new phrase. It may not be ubiquitous world-wide but neither are a lot of the phrases that originated in the UK. I've learned quite a few them since I started editing WP starting with cheers, gobsmacked, snookered, a bit knackered and the like. Atsme☯Consult20:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The aim is to get this essay into the mainspace - we are both totally agreed on that. In the past, I have found that the best essays have a touch of humour and are also educational. That is why I worked on the duck metaphors, e.g. if you see a duck muddying the water, it probably IS a duck muddying the water. I do trust your judgement and no arguments from this end about your edits....but I will still have to research June bugs! A new one from the UK... "It's just not cricket" ...which means, people are abusing the rules...and they know they are!;-) Just looked this up on WP and It's Not Cricket leads to Unsportsmanlike conduct! Could be used perhaps...but ducks (at least British ducks) don't play cricket ;-)DrChrissy(talk)20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Love it!! Better yet, I can actually understand it. No, ducks don't play cricket - they just make a racket. Thank you, DrChrissy! Atsme☯Consult20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have just realised, in cricket, if you are out with a score of zero we say you are "out with a duck". If you are out on the first ball you receive, you are "out with a golden duck"!...this really is quacking good stuff ;-)DrChrissy(talk)20:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
with caption "Do not try to pull the head off a duck without using the appropriate resolution process" is going to upset people who care about animal welfare, i think. i mentioned before that the violent metaphors (e.g hunting) are not good in general. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You may well have a point. I didn't think of that, and I'm not sure who included the picture but I'm sure they will understand. Political correctness can really take the wind out of one's sails. Atsme☯Consult20:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It was me who added the picture. I do care about animal welfare, which is partly why I included the picture to highlight the cruel practices we have in regard to animals. But, dealing with this subject on a daily basis I have possibly become rather hardened to such images and now it has been pointed out, I can totally understand the point that it might not belong here in this article. Oh - and it is a goose...I was using artistic license.DrChrissy(talk)23:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
i gotta say that the essay has come a long way; much of the stuff that got this deleted is gone. i made some edits just now, you can of course take them or leave them.
the two bad things that are left are the DUCK thing (which is by now a dead horse for me to say) and the other is this strange claim that advocates often work in teams. i do not encounter that frequently at all. otherwise, pretty good! Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jytdog. Regarding the team work, see WP:Tag team#Multiple-editor ownership which is a form of advocacy. That and several other behaviors, like canvassing, meat puppets, etc. tie-in to WP:Advocacy which describes the behavior as the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy.Atsme☯Consult21:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
i am not saying it doesn't happen (it does); the issue i am raising is the relative weight given to it. as i wrote above in my experience it is uncommon. to be frank, i think the emphasis given to it, arises from the experience of a FRINGE point of view on a health topic being rejected by a consensus of editors associated with WikiProject Medicine or otherwise following MEDRS, neither of which is advocacy. This is why i said it is one of the bad thing remaining; it is one of the few places where the roots are still showing. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting page of expressions
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I thought this page [2] had a few rather interesting phrases that might be appropriate such as "water off a duck's back"! @Atsme I have placed a link to this in the essay so keep/delete as you wish.DrChrissy(talk)10:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
PS - DrChrissy, I moved your above comment from the user page to the TP. Those links would be better served here. Atsme☯Consult21:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
unbalanced and beating round the bush
Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
At this time, I find the essay unhelpful for someone who wonders what advocay ducks are, and in my opinion quite unbalanced. a glance at the section titles says a lot:
Make no mistake (a negative adhortation right off the bat, motivational k.o.)
Self-analysis ( ok , but again seems to shift burden/accuse the reader
Signs of advocacy (Finally cut to the chase...
Keep your own behavior in check ( again, make no mistake and self analysis like)
Road to resolution
Its poor pedagogy to start explaining what something is by talking about what it not is first. switching section sequences would be teh first step and after that it becomes obvious how imbalanced the thing is.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The essay seems to be suggesting that there is something called an 'advocacy duck', but fails to properly explain what it is, why we should describe it as a 'duck', and why the essay is necessary at all. We already have an essay on on-Wikipedia advocacy which seems to cover the topic perfectly well without bringing ducks (and coots) into the discussion, and without meandering wildly off-topic into alleged behaviour of anatidae. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes I see both your points. Advocacy duck as a term isn't well-defined, some of the language could be more positive, and the sections would make more sense if they were shifted around. I don't like the duck theme either (including the anatidae section) but I've beaten that theme to death I think. I added the stuff in the self-analysis section about being sure that the reader isn't the problem because otherwise this essay could be used by advocates to argue against editors wanting to preserve npov.
I've been going through and tightening things up but I'm tending to make a couple of changes and then waiting to see how they're taken, so I'll try to incorporate this feedback if no one else does first. Advocacy and tendentious editing are good essays but I don't see how another one is necessarily bad - as long as the advice it gives is valid and doesn't go against policy. Ca2james (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
These pages are built by consensus. I believe this page is necessary. We AGF and AGF and AGF, but sometimes we eventually get the feeling that AGF is not working. This is why dispute noticeboards exist and this article helps editors to identify that help is available. I like the duck analogy. We have an expression in the UK which is similar "If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd...it probably is a turd". I think ducks are a little more appropriate to the WP audience than calling people "turds".
As for the incorporation of duck (animal) behaviour into the essay, I inserted these for two reasons. First, for education (sorry, but it's an opportunity to enlighten people about animal behaviour which I could not resist). Second, and much more importantly, it helps people remember the patterns of behaviour which this essay discusses. Research into learning shows that if an example is made which stimulates a reader's imagination, the information is much more likely to be committed to long-term memory. Talking about the behaviour of humans in terms of the behaviour of ducks provides such stimulating examples. (There is a third reason but I hardly dare mention it ... they are entertaining and perhaps even humerous.)
For what it's worth, I believe the duck theme should be strengthened throughout the essay, rather than weakened.
If you want to write about the behaviour of ducks, please do so - in an article about the topic. Complete with sources. In a manner which doesn't make sweeping generalisations about a diverse taxon that exhibits a wide range of behaviour. The 'duck' analogy clearly does nothing to this essay beyond confusing the reader, and making it less readable. And no, 'if it looks like a duck...' (or turd) isn't a lesson we should be applying when discussing advocacy. We should instead be emphasising the exact opposite to the 'judge by immediate appearances' snap judgement this implies. The essay is concocted around a poorly-chosen title, and the structural faults it exhibits are largely in my opinion the consequence of this poor choice. Drop the misleading duck analogy, and start again with an essay that stays on topic - assuming that it can actually add anything to the essay we already have, which in my opinion is yet to be demonstrated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the essay is bent over backwards to avoid suggesting snap decisions. I also think the duck theme shows that essays dont have to be dry and boring. We are more likely to have people continue reading it if it is not dry and boring.AlbinoFerret15:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
If it 'bends over backwards to avoid suggesting snap decisions' it is because it has to, since the title implies the exact opposite. And no, readability comes from conciseness and staying on topic, not from diversions into confusing analogies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope - if you can't figure out for yourself why rambling analogies about things you assume the reader doesn't know and presumably isn't reading the essay because they want to learn about are confusing, I really can't be bothered to try to explain. This is only an essay, and I sincerely doubt that it is one that anyone much will consider useful - we already have policies, guidelines and a better essay on the subject of advocacy, and we don't need a rewrite of Aesop's Fables going over the same stuff again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough - there are clearly no analogies that are so confusing you can be bothered to discuss. End of discussion.DrChrissy(talk)16:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy, no end of discussion, cause it has barely started. Ca2james, thanks for your reply. I am sorry I seem to have offended both camps; predictably the replies drifted off to the metaphor, the ducks. I for one said nothing, nada, nyshta about the ducks, am not against the ducks, not against humor, but the same that you may enjoy creating , which is great in and of itself, isnt very useful so far, sorry, no offense intended. my point in a nutshell again: unbalanced (puts too much weight on self-doubt, the reader) and beating round the bush, or as Albino put it "the essay is bent over backwards to avoid suggesting snap decisions", not coming out with the definition.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I"m not offended; I see your point (and AndyTheGrump's too). You may have noticed that I've been making some bold structural changes and removing some redundancy to make it better balanced. I think it looks better and flows better, with a tighter focus on what to look for, what isn't advocacy editing, and what to do when you find it (including examining your own edits - which section I'm probably going to reduce). I think including a section on what isn't advocacy editing and how it's different is a useful addition to the essay suite. We'll see what happens. Ca2james (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Great collaboration!
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Great collaboration results in great work. I walked away intermittently from this essay and focused on prepping a couple of articles for GA and FA. I came back to the essay today, read it, and...WOW! Great job!! A special thank you to DrChrissy, AlbinoFerret, Ca2james, and even Jytdog despite his request to remind him "never to try to be nice again". [3] When my kids were little they used to say mean things like, "I don't love you" or "Leave me alone" and start pouting. I'd just grab them up, give 'em a big ole hug and lots of smooches, and tickle 'em till they laughed. Life is too short to be any other way. Celebrate it! Atsme☯Consult19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Made some big changes
Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion
I've just finished making some big changes to the essay, including moving sections around, renaming sections, deleting quotes, moving quotes, and deleting other information that was repeated. My rationale was based on the idea that it made more sense to have the following sections: "what is advocacy editing?" "what isn't advocacy editing?" "am I the advocate?" "what now?" (named differently, of course). To create those sections, I moved sentences from other sections to put all the same information in one place and then went in and trimmed each section down. I did remove several of the talkquotes, including the one about anatidae, because the behaviours described in that section didn't jibe with the behaviours described in the "what is advocacy editing" section. I also removed the long arbcom quote (which is still linked) because it was ...long and didn't add to the advocacy ducks theme. Also, I removed the Civility template as this is an essay on advocacy, not civility.
While I appreciate any effort to improve the Project, this essay is not another Advocacy essay. Why an additional Advocacy essay is needed is lost on me, but regardless, this isn't the place to create it. This essay is a response to the problem expressed by Sarah (SV)here. Here is some background. If editors want to claim there is no basis for believing that monied special interests have sunk their teeth into this website, and that they can and should be called out based on behaviour alone ("acts like a duck"), they simply can't be taken seriously. If we allow all of the drama and whining to castrate the essay completely (Stockholm Syndrome?), we are doing a huge disservice to all those families who suffered from the actions of WifiOne, at the very least. petrarchan47คุก02:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Another way to describe the difference between what this essay is meant to cover and an Advocacy essay, is that this is a specific type of advocacy, different from the work of an overly-enthusiastic rock climber or an advocate of the Democratic Party. This essay meant is to describe advocacy editing which used to advance the goals of a business/special interest. petrarchan47คุก02:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ca2james, you should have made suggestions and discussed the proposed changes before you made them. I had no issue with moving the sections around, and trimming redundancies but you also removed some of the reasons this essay came to be. As Petrarchan47 stated, it grew from a discussion with a particular goal in mind and we were on track in achieving that goal. Civility does matter as it relates to certain advocacy behaviors. I don't quite understand why you're not seeing that aspect of it. It also appears there may be a misunderstanding with regards to what essays are intended to do. Atsme☯Consult04:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured you wouldn't like these changes but I went ahead anyways.
This is an essay whose main topic is identifying and dealing with advocacy, right? Advocacy editing is more than incivility: a civil pov-pusher isn't uncivil by definition but still engages in advocacy editing. It doesnty make sense to include the civility template when the essay is not focused on ways to be civil. Besides, the template documentation says It is probably best to transclude Template:Wikipedia essays instead, as that is better maintained.Tendentious editing is in the {{Wikipedia essays|building}} section of that template so why not include that to keep that template instead?
As for the rest of the changes, the title was changed from COI to advocacy in this third version. There was nothing in the essay about focusing on or identifying COI editors before I made these changes.
Moreover, there's no way to focus on COI editing because there's no way to determine whether an editor has a COI. And even if an editor has one that we know of, unless they say something about it we can't say anything about it because we're not allowed to out them. A COI editor is uncovered by looking for advocacy editing. That's how Wifione was discovered - her COI was the reason behind the advocacy editing.
Now, I do suspect that a paid advocate and an editor passionate about a topic engage in slightly different editing behaviour even though both are engaged in advocacy editing. However, there's no data on that so we can't say that COI editors do this while passionate editors do that. Well, except for the pharma shill gambit, but that's based on a logical fallacy and may be ignored. So we're kind of stuck with generalities right now, at least until more is known. Ca2james (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I did like a good part of what you did, just not all of it. Editors who have been exposed to advocacy editing or who engage in such activities know full well what's involved and how to the game the system so they remain undetected. I imagine we have a few admins who aren't immune from such behavior. It wasn't that long ago when an admin started acting whack-o with me, but fortunately he was desysopped over another incident around the same time. Surely you don't believe the majority of incidents at ANI and ARBCOM are not related in some way to some form of advocacy, do you? I have been exposed to it at various articles, and I've seen other editors get railroaded and end-up with indef blocks. WP's history is full of such events, and what's really sad is that it's all over the internet. Anyway, I've taken some of the changes you made that were beneficial to the essay and have edited them back in, but I still have a ways to go. Atsme☯Consult06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact it is happening right now on the organic food page. a double team to prevent me from fixing it as I will be the one banned should I attempt to edit the paragraph again. I have already been warned that my attempt to fix problems on the page is considered by them as edit warring. So I either let the page stay poor quality or I try and fix it and get banned. No win situation. The same group has repeatedly done the same thing to multiple editors. And the big looser is WIKI not me. The page has lost it's good article standing, it has been tagged for bias editing. Nothing ends up happening because a flock of advocacy ducks own the page and are determined to make sure that the organic food page has an anti organic bias. I walked away months ago and when I came back they are still there.Redddbaron (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Redddbaron, collect diffs, evidence, you may join here too. Dont get banned. most of us know the exact problem you are alluding to. see my edits today. --Wuerzele (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Redddbaron, the editors on Organic food don't have a COI and don't appear to be engaging in advocacy editing, and edit-warring isn't helping to fix anything. If there's a dispute over what the lead should say, start an RfC and ask which of the two is preferred. That's one of the potential problems with this essay: people who are involved in run-of-the-mill content disputes (like the one at Organic food) might read this essay and come to the conclusion that the people involved with the dispute have a COI or are advocates. The opposite problem is more likely to be true: the reader is the one engaging in advocacy, and is reading this essay to try to find a way to silence their opponents who are (rightfully) working to keep the article neutral. I wish more editors could see their own biases and set them aside when editing and would try to understand other points of view as it would make editing so much easier for everyone. Of course if wishes were fishes we'd walk on the sea, right? Ca2james (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Redddbaron. This is a friendly warning. Be very, very careful about launching an RfC. I launched my first one a few weeks ago and it was like I had kicked a bee-hive. I'm not saying don't do it, just be very aware that many of these people are very skilled at WP:Boomerang throwing. Best of luck.DrChrissy(talk)17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
oppose - i remain opposed to what i view as an abuse of the WP:DUCK concept, which has specialized meaning in Wikipedia related to WP:SOCK. Some of the conspiratorial thinking has crept back in, especially in the third paragraph of the lead. Finally, i was able to identify something has been bugging me about the "examine your own edits" section. it comes from a right vs wrong paradigm, and doesn't deal with the reality that most times there are some good points and some not-so-good points on all sides of disagreements and that trying to reach consensus based on PAG and sources is what we are about here. I made some tweaks to that section to bring in more of the messiness of working in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Could you explain why you disagree with this section you removed in your tweak: Were you polite throughout the discussions? Calm discussions focused on content not editors are the most productive means to reach a compromise? petrarchan47คุก02:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
there is nothing wrong with that per se, feel free to put it back. overall the tone of that section has been, in my view, written with only an inward-looking viewpoint - it was only about "was my behavior and edit good"' and not at all "is there something useful in what others are saying and how can i reach consensus with them?". The second thing is the essence of what makes this place work - the heart of CONSENSUS which is in turn the heart of this place. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog - I think Petra addressed your concerns quite well with the way she worded #5 and adding back #6. It clearly promotes consensus (more so than some of our published guidelines. ☺️).
5. Did you initiate a discussion on the article's talk page and request input from the community? Consider the common ground on which editors have agreement, and focus on compromising whenever possible to build WP:CONSENSUS. If the dispute continues, it may be time to bring in more voices and initiate an RfC.
6. Were you polite throughout the discussions? Calm discussions focused on content not editors are the most productive means to reach a compromise.
7. Did you make any attempt to seek help from uninvolved editors? There are several ways to acquire help on WP. For example, you can include the {{help me}} template on your user talk page, or ask a question at the help desk or Teahouse. The Village Pump is another forum for general discussions, advice and for seeking technical help, and a third party can provide assistance. Oftentimes an uninvolved editor can provide valuable input.
As for the duck concept, it doesn't belong to WP and if you'll look at the actual WP:DUCK essay, it reads: The "duck test" is meant to be used for internal processes within Wikipedia. It uses sock puppet as an example, but clearly states: (my bold) ...even if direct sockpuppetry is not occurring, that the accounts may have still ganged up together.Atsme☯Consult15:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
yep, P's changes are fine. the adding back the "civil" thing and putting it in the context of authentic discussion (not just ass-covering) is very good. On the duck thing, yes i know what the essay says. i also know how it is used, which is a) in one of the most tightly controlled environments in WP (SPI) and b) in situations where you have somewhat obsessed editors who make socks and come back to the same articles and make the same edits and say the same things on Talk and in edit notes; and c) in a context that leads to action when a duck is actually identified. "duck" just summarizes that clear-as-day behavior at SPI and leads to blocks. long-term advocacy behavior is not so simple to identify nor take action on, and my bet is that slapping a "duck" label on an editor will become as loosely used as COI is often now in content disputes. it is not helpful. i really do not see why you are insisting on using the term here, for something this complex to identify and act on. Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
SOCKS are called socks. Duck test is a humorous term for a form of inductive reasoning. The actual article (not the essay) is here: Duck_test. It is not a real test. On WP we share our toys. Atsme☯Consult13:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
socks are identified as socks via DUCK. it is a technical term here, like "neutral" or "reliable" is. Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
OPPOSE The fact that Redddbaron read this essay and concluded that editors without a COI were these advocacy ducks says that this essay does not encourage good faith and so does not belong in mainspace. That the editors approving this essay have not worked at COIN, have minimal experience in identifying advocates, and have had conflict with editors upholding RS and NPOV, says that this essay has a goal other than helping wikipedia. And the use of ducks goes against accepted usage here. I suggest that this essay stay in user space until or unless it is supported by editors with experience in identifying advocates as well as editors with whom current supporters have been in conflict. Ca2james (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Ca2, I don't know you from Adam, nor do you know me. How is it that you feel so confident making claims about editors you don't know, I wonder. As for 'none of you know squat about COI', this statement seems pulled from someone's wild imagination. I have well over two years of extensive experience working with a COI editor (at BP) and am one of the original proponents for this essay. I have had conflict with editors pushing POV, and have spent enormous amounts of energy trying to attain NPOV. At BP, the points I raised were overwhelmingly agreed upon by the entire community in multiple RfCs, and I was shown to be correct about the advocacy editing I was trying to stop. It is true that advocacy editing takes place here, and not uncommonly it is seen where big money is at stake. If you have no experience witnessing such activity, your opinion on this essay seems to have a goal besides neutral, informative and helpful collaboration. (But I could be wrong - I don't know you.) petrarchan47คุก01:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I apologize if I've misjudged the editors working on this essay. My thinking was this: based on what I've seen at noticeboards, the editors that started this essay haven't been involved in putting cases together against advocates or those with a COI. I meant no disrespect. I was unaware of your history with COI and advocacy at the BP article, Petrarchan47; thank you for pointing that out to me. If I'm wrong about the other editors that started and worked on this essay, please let me know.
This essay started out about COI and although it has changed focus, it still includes a section on identifying and dealing with the "COI duck". To me this means that COI is a part of this essay. Ca2james (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no section on "identifying" a COI, what is there is a section that says if you "think" you have found one take it to COIN. There is nothing in the essay on how to identify a COI. AlbinoFerret13:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the diff Atsme, perhaps that section should be removed if its being complained about by the person who wrote it. I just edited the other mention of COI to remove ducks as its confusing to some. AlbinoFerret13:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The changes I made, including what I had written about COI ducks above, were completely reverted by Atsme. She apparently re-added those words, which indicates that she agreed with them. My comments were based on the version of the essay at the time I made the comments. Please don't make me out to be engaged in some shady behaviour or responsible for something you dislike when it is clearly Atsme the one driving this bus. Ca2james (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought it best to remove it from the Road to resolution section as there was already a reference to it in the Examine your edits section as follows: If, however, you are certain that the problem is not you, then you may be at a fork in the road. If you suspect you've encountered a COI , which is a special type of advocacy, it is best to follow the road to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. On the other hand, if you are certain you encountered POV warriors or advocacy ducks, take the road to resolution. I think the latter is sufficient mention. Atsme☯Consult13:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Ca2james, before this sideline discussion becomes any more of a distraction - no one was suggesting shady behavior on your part. You were the one who, in your oppose statement above, made the following allegation: ....this essay has a goal other than helping wikipedia. You followed with an apology but then you kept on with the accusation that editors here are trying to make you out to be engaged in some shady behaviour. Wow, two in a row. We have bent over backwards to be accommodating but we also recognize there will always be some opposition no matter what we do. I suggest you analyze your own behavior, keeping in mind that you made a very bold edit [5] to this essay moving large blocks of text and adding some without discussing it on the TP first. That was poor etiquette and inconsiderate of the original author and subsequent collaborators.
[6] You stated: "As for the rest of the changes, the title was changed from COI to advocacy in this third version. There was nothing in the essay about focusing on or identifying COI editors before I made these changes."
[7] I responded: "Actually, I did like a good part of what you did, just not all of it." and ended with "Anyway, I've taken some of the changes you made that were beneficial to the essay and have edited them back in, but I still have a ways to go." Even after that was done and much of what you changed and/or added was added back, you still opposed the essay. My patience has worn thin. Atsme☯Consult00:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
APPROVE If editors misapplication of policy or essays was all that took to stop them being made none would survive. This essay has changed considerably from the original COI one, I just hope that people see that. AlbinoFerret15:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
APPROVE A number of editors who were strongly opposed to the original have collaborated and through their effort the essay is vastly improved. It is now much more focused and has plenty of good advice for new editors and references to WP:PAG and relevant Wiki essays. Well done! --David Tornheim (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - I sincerely respect and appreciate Atsme's efforts to address the concerns that were voiced about the original essay. She's really been a good sport in the face of some harsh and sometimes unfair and undiplomatic criticism, some of which came from me :>( . Nonetheless, I think the core problem with the original essay is still present. It creates a category of bad faith (or at least badly behaved) editors and focuses on how to determine whether those you have a content dispute belong to that category. Reading the essay, I find myself placing editors I have dealt with into that category who would be very surprised to find themselves there, including some who collaborated in the original creation of this essay. And on some level, it leaves me more comfortable dealing with those editors as "problem people" rather than trying to figure out a way to work with them.
Overall I don't think this type of thinking helps us build consensus or create a more congenial editing atmosphere. I think an essay on how to constructively deal with content disputes, including situations in which one feels their POV is not getting fair consideration would be a helpful thing. But is should focus on strategy and the various mechanisms that are in place for dealing with content disputes (and when necessary, editor behavior) without focusing on categorizing other editors as problematic. In the final analysis, the only thing any of us can control is our own behavior and attitudes. And it is the sum of those behaviors and attitudes that will create the atmosphere here. Respectfully, Formerly 98talk|contribs|COI Statement12:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Formerly 98 The same could be said on any essay that deals with problem editors. Sockpuppets, the subject of the other duck test essay can be misapplied and editors can see socks all over. Should we place it up for deletion? AlbinoFerret14:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you've made a good point Albino, but for example, the essay Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry gives multiple relatively objective attributes to look out for, such as "
[Use of] A pair of usernames consisting of the same word followed by a pair of numbers in succession",
"If multiple editors without a long history come into the scene, these may be sock or meat puppets.",
"If two accounts have edit histories that consistently show sets of edits made around the same time, one after the other, just minutes apart, but never at the exact same time, this may be reason to believe that they are operated by a single user "
"Common spelling/punctuation/grammar errors"
And so on. This is in contrast to the current essay, in which the criteria for defining an editor as a "duck" are dangerously subjective and closely tied to "disagrees with me" criteria. An inexperienced editor who is frustrated at their inability to get their POV incorporated into an electronic cigarette or pharmaceutical article against consensus could subjectively use this essay to categorize either one of us as a "COI duck". I think in either case such a categorization would be misplaced, and would encourage such an editor to engage in edit warring rather than working toward and accepting consensus. Formerly 98talk|contribs|COI Statement14:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This essay does not deal with COI, there is no "COI duck". The essay does give examples of POV pushing. The essay also speaks against edit warring and gives good steps in dealing with the issue. AlbinoFerret15:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Albino, aside from the fact that I used the phrase "COI duck" instead of "advocacy duck", your comment is unresponsive. Half of this essay is dedicated to determining whether the person on the other side of the content dispute is an "Advocacy Duck". What value is created and what decisions are facilitated once this determination is made? On the other hand, how are you going to respond when someone looking at your own editing history concludes that you show an excessive fondness for pond vegetation and that your walk in some ways resembles a waddle? Will such a person be easier to collaborate with or more difficult?
I think if you cut everything out above the paragraph entitled "examine your own edits" this would be a good start. I've said all I have to say about this. If people want to hear me they will. Those who would like to see me on a cast iron platter covered with bean sauce and scallions will of course write off everything I say as ill-intentioned and self-serving. I can't control that. Formerly 98talk|contribs|COI Statement15:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
All of your questions in the first section of your response are answered by a read of the essay. It is a buffet of policy and guidelines, possible avenues to choose from in response to advocates working in, seemingly, some sort of unified, organized way. We know that such a thing exists when it comes to, for instance, the "Guerrilla Skeptics". Some people have found it difficult to make changes and to edit in a normal fashion when engaged within certain areas of WP. I found this to be the case at BP, and had to stumble around in blindness for a couple of years through various unhelpful and time consuming noticeboards. This essay would have been just the thing I needed back then, when I was newer and didn't know many experienced editors and no admins to whom I could go for advice. petrarchan47คุก01:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what a "guerrilla skeptic" is, but I'd nonetheless be interested to know how categorizing them as "advocacy ducks" would help you deal with them more effectively. Or how exactly you are sure that others will not apply the label to you. Formerly 98talk|contribs|COI Statement02:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The essay gives readers substantive advice for more effectively dealing with advocacy ducks. The label helps readers to choose this essay over one addressing COI or Advocacy, which do not deal with the reality of gang/group editing (to my knowledge) and the distinct behaviours that are often seen accompanying Advocacy Ducks. The label is only meant to give a hint as to the content, it is not derogatory. (It stems from "If it quacks like a duck...")
The Guerrilla Skeptics is an advocacy group consisting of over 100 editors, according to their leader, who claims to have control over their edits. Here is their blog. The details I just mentioned were gleaned from viewing multiple videos and reading all that I could find online, but the blog could give you a rough idea of what I'm talking about.
Another example of an advocacy group that also organizes off-wiki and serves monied interests is CREWE. I've run into them when working on the BP RfCs. They only show up to vote in favor of the corporation, but never actually contribute to the article, in my experience - and they could flip an RfC based on sheer numbers alone. petrarchan47คุก21:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting. I've never knowingly run into either of these groups myself. But by and large, its hard for me to see that these groups have been terribly effective. Its hard to point to an article about a corporation on Wikipedia that that many people would describe as complementary. Formerly 98talk|contribs|COI Statement07:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
