Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks

Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

comment - thx F98, just wanted to mention, it's needed; in a recent dispute, Jytdog instructed me to read #9. Atsme^☎️📧 12:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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. Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

  ...and now I see my last point was already made here by Atsme. Oops. ekips39 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Per Happysquirrel, Atsme, Serialjoepsycho, and bd2412 T.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• 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)

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