Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks

< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was KEEP. Clear cut consensus to keep and it says that this is a useful essay for newbies to help them with advocacy. 62.5% support. (non-admin closure) -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks

edit
Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Keep. After reading the previous MfD discussion and the current essay, I believe that all the criticisms have been addressed. From things I have read on and off wiki, I think there is a major issue of advocacy to be addressed. I find this essay presents a decent and balanced tool for individual editors. The section "A coot is not a duck" is both humorous and addresses the issue that some behaviours may look like advocacy but not be. The constant emphasis throughout is to follow policy and remain civil and content-focused. Editors are also encouraged to examine their own behaviour. All in all, this essay seems balanced, useful and necessary to me. It could of course do with improvements, but that will come. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 02:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this MfD is unwarranted. According to WP:Essays, WP:WPESSAY disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently than when writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view, rather than re-writing an existing essay to say the opposite of what it has always said. Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other. I conducted a preliminary survey a week or so before I made the move to main space and the results were 8 APPROVE and only 3 OPPOSE. [1]. Atsme☎️📧 02:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The base of your argument ignores WP:CONLIMITED. Conlimited seems to be the basis for WP:NOESSAY. You can not override or attempt to override policy with an essay even if you have a limited local consensus. That seems to be the basis for this deletion review. That's not harassment.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My intent is not to harass anyone. Serialjoepsycho has the right of it: I filed this to be sure that the essay does not violate policy even though it received local consensus to write and publish it. I have a feeling that this essay might still have some anti-policy bad-faith assumptions but I also recognise that I'm close to it and might be wrong.
I think this MfD is a good thing, especially since both previous versions of the essay were deleted. If the version of the essay survives, then I'll know I was wrong about it, Atsme will be vindicated, and we'll know that all the work into it made it into an acceptable essay. If it doesn't survive, then we know that its premise is truly fatally flawed. Either way, we'll have an answer and that will give us some closure. Ca2james (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will offer that yes this MfD is a good thing. If someone thinks something is wrong with (insert what ever here) they should seek a consensus. That's what this is. I'm not really seeing how Atsme will be vindicated. Perhaps her position that her position that this essay is acceptable to be posted in the mainspace will be vindicated but only that. This MfD does nothing to endorse this essay for the entire English wikipedia community.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "vindicated" only to mean "right that this version of the essay is OK to put up in mainspace". Ca2james (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That text appears in Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays, not Wikipedia:Essays, in case anyone else was confused by the comment. ekips39 (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find this essay to be poorly written and ultimately useless. I don't see this as a criteria for deletion. I've seen plenty of essays that are poorly written that I find useless. Using WP:NOESSAY as a yard stick I do not see any reason to delete this. I think it presents the notion that editors will run across bad faith editors, but I'm not seeing a clear case of ABF. This falls more to an acknowledgement that AFG is not a suicide pact.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Short Brigade Harvester Boris offers good advice here. While this poorly written essay does not meet the deletion criteria now, concerned users can monitor the article. If the essay is ever changed in a way that merits deletion, it can be brought back. If the essay ever proves to be problematic it can be brought back. Those with issues should monitor this essay.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Redact-Serialjoepsycho- (talk)[reply]
Keep - I am the editor who nominated the original version of this essay for deletion. That version struck me as undermining multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines by encouraging assumptions of bad faith and labeling enforcement of our sourcing guidelines as evidence of COI. It frankly struck me as a transperant effort by one group of editors to gain the upper hand over another group with which they had been having content disputes. Atsme has been a remarkably good sport about all the criticism, and has conducted a rewrite incorporating comments from her harshest critics. At this point I don't think the essay is especially needed (no one has explained why it would be useful to determine whether someone is an "advocacy duck", and dispute resolution procedures are well laid out elsewhere), but it does no real harm. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 10:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - thx F98, just wanted to mention, it's needed; in a recent dispute, Jytdog instructed me to read #9.

[[

File:SMirC-wink.svg|20px|;-)]]

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

no. i cited it because you were not listening to anyone else, and i added this to my comment, thinking you ~might~ listen to yourself. i will probably never cite this other than to you or others who advocated for it, as the use of DUCK is wrong-headed, as i have explained before explained before. Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
That link doesn't work now, so here is what I wrote about DUCK: "as i have written before, i think bringing DUCK into COI matters is really a bad idea. DUCK is used at SPI, the most controlled context in WP, where we have checkusers empowered to explore editors RW identities. and behavior tests are used alongside that to determine if someone is a sock or not. DUCK just summarizes the careful behavioral explorations done there. That behavioral examination is done carefully, and sloppy work will get you nothing, and maybe even dinged yourself. And a finding of DUCK leads to action. It is really, really inappropriate to bring DUCK into the wider community as proposed here. COI charges are already flung way too readily in content disputes, when editors personalize them. This would just enable that already too-common tendency. And on top of that, my sense is that those pushing for the application of DUCK to COI would expect the community to take action based on their DUCK claim. I see almost no chance of that happening, as the context is so different." I wrote that when this essay was "COI duck" or whatever, but the same thing goes, with applying DUCK to advocacy. it is a technical term in WP, and the claim that "quacks like duck" exists outside WP is not relevant. This is not a !vote. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good argument for a delete. Furthermore, the duck test WP:DUCK is not exclusive to COI [meant sockpuppetry]. It applies to internal matters within the project, and also applies to copyvio, and the following example (which relates to the advocacy duck essay): A variation of the duck test in conversations can be found in community discussions where consensus is required, most obviously Articles for deletion. If consensus appears to be approaching one direction, aside from a handful of accounts that are using the same bad arguments (often "I like it" or "It's just not notable"), it might be reasonable to conclude that, even if direct sockpuppetry is not occurring, that the accounts may have still ganged up together. The ganging-up behavior described in the essay is an example for the duck test. --Atsme☎️📧 06:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC) [edit to correct ref to COI] 14:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an essay, and validly expresses the consensus opinions of the editors who have worked on it (including those editors who made suggestions that were rejected). It is firmly placed in the essay space, unlikely to be either deleted or promoted to any more authoritative status. bd2412 T 14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no expert on these things, but the essay looks ok to me -- it recommends following policy rather than saying people may be ducks because they cite policy, and it advises to not mistake coots for ducks and to examine one's own behaviour, which eliminates the feeling that we're illegitimately conspiring against people. Also, the pictures and captions are amusing. Jytdog makes a good point about the word "duck", but the saying didn't originate with Wikipedia at all so I think it would be wrong for us to enforce a very narrow definition of it when using it here. ekips39 (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and now I see my last point was already made here by Atsme. Oops. ekips39 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Happysquirrel, Atsme, Serialjoepsycho, and bd2412 T.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you read this comment you will understand the purpose of the page. The creator of the useless essay wrote "What??!!! No way. Our admins would never allow such a thing. Sounds too much like...(drum roll please)...ADVOCACY DUCKS quack, quack, quack. Seriously, that can't be happening, can it?". The essay is being described as "the Quackers essay"[2] QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only ones who should take issue with the quacking are advocacy ducks. --Atsme☎️📧 20:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@QuackGuru, the diff you provided is out of context. This is a link to the page at the time of the edit. It shows Atsme was commenting on a section about a group of advocates called "guerrilla skeptics" that were organized off wiki. In this case, the essay is applicable as it could help identify them. AlbinoFerret 20:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Atsme wrote above "The only ones who should take issue with the quacking are advocacy ducks." This is more proof the useless page is being used to attack others. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Polly want a quacker? Parroting me is not a substantive argument for deleting. --Atsme☎️📧 22:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Atsme's taunting there is a good point to be made. The evidence you have chosen isn't really in the article. It's of someone's talk page comments. Can this essay be abused? Yes. But in my time on wikipedia I've seen a number of policies and guidelines abused and misused, in addition to essays. That in itself doesn't seem to be a reason to delete this. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't "taunting"; it was a humorous lead-in to my parroting sentence. The essay also has some light-hearted comments throughout - it's a style of writing, not taunting - so please try to understand the difference. The insulting criticisms aimed at the editors who collaborated on this essay is taunting...such as "the creator of this useless essay", and "being described as 'the Quackers essay'" and "pseudo-clever pile of special pleading again?" Those are not substantive arguments. They are meant to insult and taunt. Editors who oppose this essay based on such arguments are being disruptive. --Atsme☎️📧 00:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, God in Heaven, this pseudo-clever pile of special pleading again? Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic won't keep this from sinking. --Calton | Talk 21:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HappySquirrel 100%. Also agree that this MfD is unwarranted. petrarchan47คุก 03:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A number of editors who were strongly opposed to the original have collaborated and through their effort the essay is vastly improved. It is now much more focused and has plenty of good advice for new editors and references to WP:PAG and relevant Wiki essays. Well done! --David Tornheim (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite my dissatisfaction with the earlier versions of the article, especially the anti-science POV use which such version appeared to be intended to support, the current version is satisfactory. I'd like to assume the earlier discussions have contributed not just to the clarification of the essay, but the greater understanding of npov policy by its original authors . DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because any essay that implies that some sort of simplistic 'duck test' is remotely applicable in the context of determining what is or isn't inappropriate 'advocacy' on Wikipedia is misleading. Not just wrong, but misleading. If the essay was merely wrong it wouldn't matter, but bad advice is worse than no advice at all. And we already have a perfectly good essay on advocacy - which gets the point across well enough without ducks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I was unaware that AGF was bad advice, or that STOP-BREATHE-THINK was bad advice, or that opening a discussion on the TP and seeking a 3rd opinion was bad advice, or that evaluating one's own edits or considering an RfC or do not edit war or seek help was bad advice. What paragraph do you consider bad advice? --Atsme☎️📧 17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basing ones judgement on simplistic and confused analogies about ducks is bad advice. The essay is cobbled-together around this contrived analogy in such a way as to add nothing useful to what is already said in the existing advocacy essay, and to give the distinct impression that advocacy-spotting by checklist is appropriate. It isn't. Not remotely. This would of course be more evident if the duck nonsense was removed entirely. Which is probably why it hasn't been. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your inpput, Andy. Did you happen to read Jytdog's comments above? He believes the duck analogy belongs to COI [meant sockpuppetry] so I guess if it was up to you, there would not be any reference to the duck analogy in guidelines or essays. Of course, I disagree because without the duck analogy we're left with essays like WP:Don't be a dick, or we could always link to articles like The_No_Asshole_Rule but I much prefer Advocacy ducks over the former and later. --Atsme☎️📧 22:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC) [edited] 03:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DUCK belongs to SPI, not COI. And there is no reason to call anyone names at all; much better to name behavior like "advocacy" or "civil POV pushing" Part of the problem with the essay is its focus on personalization rather than behavior. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No sir, it doesn't belong to SPI. It is neither copyrighted nor trademarked. It is nothing more than a ubiquitous analogy used internally as applicable. It's time to drop the stick. --Atsme☎️📧 23:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a writer i would think you would be sensitive to your audience. You say DUCK here and it means SOCK. Please again read the original MfD -- many people wrote that. This is the same thing Andy is saying below. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, when this MfD concludes, we can certainly discuss your concerns at the essay TP. I will give your views careful consideration as I'm sure others will as well. --Atsme☎️📧 03:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: If it's your position that the consensus of the MFD of Coiduck what ever had a consensus that this duck analogy shouldn't be used in this way, perhaps you might post some diffs? Regardless, perhaps you could ask that the closer review that MfD and see if your position is the consensus there. They could then perhaps review if any consensus here overrides that consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there were a host of reasons why COIDuck was rejected. Most of those reasons no longer have grounds here and the abuse of the DUCK concept is not going to get this one deleted. It is snow keep. As someone else wrote, not being deleted is a different thing than this essay gaining wide consensus. But all I am doing here, is responding to Atsme's arguments, and it appears that she just finally stopped arguing. Which means i am done too. Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Analogies are only ever useful if they use something people already know to explain something they don't. And in all my years of observing ducks (Mallard drakes in particular), I've never seen one engage in advocacy. Gang rape (or at least something that looks close to it) certainly. Necrophilia (or at least showing an inordinate interest a clearly-dead female - floating inverted!) at least once. Advocacy? Never. The 'analogy' here isn't with ducks at all - it is with the so-called 'duck test' sometimes cited in SPIs. And as such clearly inapplicable. We can spot sockpuppets not because they resemble other sockpuppets in general, but because an individual sockpuppet exhibits behaviour so similar to the individual sockmaster that the conclusion that they are one and the same person seems inescapable - that is the only circumstance in which the 'duck test' is legitimately applied. And since this essay is about identified individuals supposedly engaging in advocacy rather than sockpuppetry, a test which merely confirms that the individual concerned is the individual concerned is useless. Or rather, it would be, if that was the intent. It isn't though, is it? Instead, the essay suggests applying a subjective 'duck test' to supposedly determine whether 'advocacy' is going on. A test that comes down to saying that if you think someone is engaging in advocacy, they are... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Verbose and unrelated, and not surprising that you would support its use in COI sockpuppetry despite your own reasons for opposing its use all together. I stand by my belief that your perception of the duck analogy is not representative of its use in this essay or anywhere else. Perhaps a sense of humor helps bring the duck analogy into a more universal perspective. Thank you for your input. I won't be troubling you for further explanations. --Atsme☎️📧 01:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC) [edited] 03:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. You have just created a rare example of a self-defining post: "Verbose and unrelated" indeed. I said nothing whatsoever about COI. Evidently your self-evident urge to post a hectoring response to every delete !vote or comment has run away with itself, and you aren't even bothering to read them first. As for my sense of humour, I generally don't find 'jokes' that have to be explained funny. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but no explanation was necessary...I saw your user name. --Atsme☎️📧 02:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Essay appears to have been significantly restructured and is now relatively well-written. All further complaints should be placed on the talk page, not here. -A1candidate 17:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an extremely well written and insightful essay. The duck analogy is entirely appropriate. The resolution tools and links to other resources are all here in one source - a huge benefit, particularly for new editors. I also agree this MfD is unwarranted.DrChrissy (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retaining my original comments as other editors have responded to them:

A cynical person might suspect that the essay has been recast in this rather bland form so that it can survive deletion, after which it will drift back to its original POV (see DGG's comment above). But of course we will WP:AGF here. As someone else was fond of saying, "trust but verify." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'drift' seems to already have started: this edit [3] adds a 'nutshell' definition with a link to Wikipedia:The duck test, implying that contributors should act according to their own subjective opinions as to what constitutes 'advocacy'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your unsupported comments and questionable behavior is noted. Particularly your comment above [4] wherein you described "gang rape" and "necrophilia" but further added the statement "(or at least showing an inordinate interest a clearly-dead female - floating inverted!)" which I find extremely offensive and somewhat threatening considering the position you have taken regarding this essay. I also believe it needs the attention of an administrator because you crossed the line. Atsme📞📧 20:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Atsme. I too have spent many hours watching mallard drakes but I have no idea why those aspects of behaviour were chosen to illustrate a point. Furthermore, the term "rape" to explain behaviour amongst non-human animals is highly anthropomorphic and has been almost completely dropped from modern ethological use.DrChrissy (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They were chosen to make the same point that this essay actually makes (though it pretends otherwise) - that nothing ducks do has anything to do with advocacy. As for the suggestion that the comment was 'threatening', if you really feel that, Atsme, feel free to raise it at WP:ANI - where I will of course respond by asking what exactly was threatened. And ask that your continued hectoring on this page of anyone who expresses a negative opinion of this essay be looked into. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In ethology, ducks are well known for congregating in groups and then being highly susceptible to social facilitation. This means that when one quacks, all the others quack. When one starts attacking, they all start attacking. When one preens with puffery, they all preen with puffery. When one hides, they all hide. The analogy is perfect.DrChrissy (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Generalisations, aren't they fun? One could probably say the same about ethologists... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the essay was about the old saying, "if it looks like a duck". I guess the meaning can shift as needed, whatever facilitates conspiracy theories about editors you don't get along with. Geogene (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a essay on arguing or placing blame on those you dont get along with. But it is possible that advocates can tag team. Only by viewing the behaviour can this bee seen, as with most advocates. They dont come out and say "Im an advocate". They may not even be technically be tag teaming, but two advocates that have the same agenda backing each other up without any communication. The essay also mentions that you have to self examine, and if you think there is a problem, to take it to a noticeboard for community input. AlbinoFerret 23:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every Wikipedia editor knows advocacy when they see it: it looks like whoever is disagreeing with them at the time. This is the real reason it's hard to get genuine advocacy dealt with. This version of the essay is much improved since it pushes for introspection more than anything else. I'm still concerned about some of the banter that follows it around on talk pages, and I'm worried about what some editors might take away from the essay...but both of these things are outside the author's control. Is it the essay's fault? I'm having trouble seeing it that way. Geogene (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A cynical mind may come up with a conspiracy theory, but someone interested in facts need only look to the discussions that played into the new version of the essay. If the new version was not informed by previous criticism, why should anyone waste their time giving feedback? Isn't this exactly the way WP was meant to work? IMO, conspiracy-minded editors could also make a case for questioning the outrageous backlash resulting from this essay, and whether it is based on PAGs, or whether "The lady doth protest too much". petrarchan47คุก 21:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @JzG and Roxy Thanks for the endorsement of my vote guys. I had not expected it from you. I have a little warm glow inside.DrChrissy (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrChrissy - Be careful of being baited into violating your topic ban. It is best to limit your responses here. -A1candidate 14:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'JPS, your comment According to those who support this essay, it apparently will be used to attack editors is a PA against a lot of editors. It conflicts with AGF and is based on nothing but empty speculation with not one diff or quote from one of the passages in the essay that actually supports your claim. Focus on content, not editors. --Atsme📞📧 18:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I don't see it as a personal attack. But I do think that would be a justifiable reason for deletion. Could you provide diffs so this can be verified?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look.[5][6] This edit claims the misleading essay is in part about the duck test. That is confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c. -- QG beat me to the punch, and I agree with his choice of diffs which are all made by stereotypical alternative medicine supporters.)In particular, I was disturbed by this diff. The implication there is that the Guerrilla Skeptics who have in the past collaborated to improve content on Wikipedia are somehow in violation of Wikipedia norms. I definitely think that this is anti-scientific POV-push — and it seems that this is the goal of having an essay that can be referred to in Wiki-parlance as a way to indicate "in-group preference" in the same way that we might cite policy like WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR. jps (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Groups of people organized off WP to edit collaboratively to a specific agenda are Advocates. It doesn’t matter what the topic is. That is the context of that diff if you read the hatted section it comes from. AlbinoFerret 22:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. There are loads of classes who organize off WP to edit for credit through Wikipedia:Education program. Are you saying that they are advocates? jps (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it is on wiki, and we dont know if the specific editors have any agenda other than getting a good grade. The groups in question in my last reply share an common agenda to promote a specific viewpoint. Thats what makes them advocates. AlbinoFerret 22:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
University classes have an agenda to promote the academic viewpoints on Wikipedia. That academic viewpoints coincide with NPOV is why most people don't care too much (but I can show you cases of where student contributions to Wikipedia have been a really big problem too). At the very least, this is exactly the same situation as with any skeptical organization. The "skeptical" viewpoint is the neutral one when it is done the way the Guerrilla Skeptics describe their activities. jps (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this diff [7] where the editor read the essay and incorrectly concluded that they were facing so-called "advocacy ducks". I know that's not enough evidence to show that this essay is harmful it's the one that led me to thinking that this essay could be misused. Ca2james (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link in the article to the WP:DUCK where the essay is nutshelled is highly questionable. The other diffs don't really amount to a smoking gun. Albinoferret's interpretation of one of them does seem reasonable. Still there's that pesky link to wp:ducks. I think if at all possible more evidence supporting that conclusion would be beneficial for a consensus for deletion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been pointed out before that the duck test pre dates wikipedia. Advocates that dont have links to them outside WP have a pattern that can be seen. At this point the essay deals with the proper steps to take if you think someone is an advocate. First look at your behaviour and question if you are in the wrong. Second take it to a noticeboard for community discussion. Pretty standard because AGF is not a suicide pact. AlbinoFerret 22:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Duck test does predate wikipedia but the WP:DUCK Test does not. Advocacy ducks makes piss poor use of inductive reasoning. WP:DUCK properly uses inductive reasoning. I can see QuackGuru's position that it could be confusing. You missed above however, I didn't suggest it be deleted. I suggested that those for deletion should provide more evidence supporting their conclusions. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not one substantive argument - only POV and ABF. All one has to do is read the essay and see that it promotes AGF and discourages battleground behavior. However what we're seeing now in the arguments favoring delete is what is highly questionable. Is the purpose to keep new editors in battleground mode so you can have them TB because that's what will be happening. We will be seeing the same battleground behavior that we're seeing now at ANI with poor unsuspecting new editors getting blocked and TB. Based on the oppose argument, me thinks the lady doth protest too much. Speculation and POV are never good arguments. Atsme📞📧 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I deal with advocates all the time, but some of the most problematic behavior isn't advocacy, it's the assumption by advocates that anyone opposing their POV is themselves an advocate. The ideas presented in this essay have been fired at me repeatedly, and unfortunately, those assumptions have only served to prevent problematic editors from being helped. I've wasted breath on more than one new editor trying to help them all the way to their blocking on ANI, all in vain because they thought I was the POV pusher. The idea that adding or removing critical information is a red flag of advocacy is downright toxic. It is even more toxic to new editors than veterans. We should not encourage casting aspirations such as these on others, even when the assumptions turn out to be true, because they prevent collaboration and introspection, polarize the discussion, and serve only to poison the well. That this essay provides no tangible advice on addressing supposed advocacy is not a strength, and its very best advice is already contained in WP:DR without all the harmful baggage. I get we want to help new editors; this isn't the way to do it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Jess who said it well. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this essay as particularly useful, and parts aren't particularly well written but I don't see it as any more harmful than the advocacy essay. Advocacy is only harmful when it violates WP aims and goals, so advocacy is irrelevant because behaviour against WP goals is already against policy. I also don't understand why the quack quack quack diff is particularly troubling but maybe I'm missing something in the context? SPACKlick (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SPACKlick I have no argument with your !vote but I want to note that advocacy violates WP:SOAPBOX which is both a policy and a pillar of Wikipedia. Advocacy is never OK here. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually any point to this essay anyway?

edit

It seems to me that as it is presently constituted, the essay lacks any useful legitimate purpose - it provides a list of problematic behaviours that may (it claims) be evidence of 'advocacy'. Behaviours which, even without the mind-reading exercise that duck-spotting seems to require would be sanctionable anyway. If someone is contravening policy, they need to be reported, and if appropriate, sanctioned, regardless of whether they are 'advocating' or not. We don't need to label people as 'advocates' (or ducks) to deal with the problem, and doing so merely personalises the issue, and adds room for pointless Wikilawyering over what 'advocacy' is or isn't. Cut out the mind-reading, and deal with the edits... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sorry you dont see that new users may find this helpful. AlbinoFerret 23:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that supposed to be a response to my comments? It seems not to actually address anything I wrote... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think your points were covered above. At this point WP:SILENCE does not apply. AlbinoFerret 23:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no real point to it I can see.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the alleged essay should be deleted because it will mislead editors and confuse editors. New editors should not get confused. What is the purpose of the page? What will it be used for? QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some editors need to read what essays are about. They are not guidelines or policy. They are opinions. If you have an opposing opinion to this essay, WP guidelines suggest that you create your own essay expressing your opposing view, and we can link to it. Not sure what all the fuss is about but the fact that there is so much of a fuss by the same editors we see so often at ANI asking for blocks and TB of new editors certainly raises question. Atsme📞📧 12:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy_ducks&oldid=1151041058"