User talk:Atsme/Canine notability/Archive 3

Moving all comments from my TP to this TP in order to keep everything in one place regarding the new essay.

Just a question

Atsme, I see your rather busy at the moment with a lot going on. I do believe that what your trying to do you are doing with good intentions. But I have to wonder if banging your head into a wall will really accomplish this. I know your a diehard believer that things might go in your favor at some point. But is it really worth it to go after one specific form of advocacy (COI)? If you drop the COI focus and instead focus only on advocacy you still will get the COI people. AlbinoFerret 19:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I am slightly inclined to agree, but in an extremely positive way and willing to help you in some of this absolute mess. Not sure where the essay on Advocacy is at the minute but this might be a new tactic for you to include. Editor challenges one of the bad dog pound, seems to get hackles up, best way to deal with this is for a big black hawk (friendly editor) to descend and close the thread before bad dog can get wounded.[1] Unfortunately, there is collateral damage; an editor gets banned and cast aside because I raised the issue. hmmmmm. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy The COI Ducks essay in one of the versions(not sure if its the last one) tried to go "Advocacy and COI Ducks" I am of the mind to remove mention of COI completely. This doesnt mean that the resulting essay wont have application to COI. It will, because the main problem of COI is that they are advocates. Getting rid of the word COI will solve a lot of problems of finding a very specific form of advocacy (COI) that is almost impossible to prove by focusing in on the actions, which is what the DUCKS article does well. Advocacy by itself can be proven by actions. AlbinoFerret 21:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears we may be overlooking the forest for the trees. In fact, the forest with the most trees provides the most shade. Get what I mean? It's a numbers game. There is a reason for why the opposers doth protest too much and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with how the essay is written but what it contains and how it actually affects them. I've heard a lot of criticism, but nothing specific. I've heard the COI issue is the reason - what exactly does that mean? That editors who have a COI don't want the essay to be published? Atsme☯^Consult 14:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The ducks test is a behaviour test, based on advocacy, with or without mentioning COI, and dealing with the exact same problems. So if they do have a COI, and act as advocates, the essay will deal with them even if they have a COI. If they do not act as advocates the ducks test will not get them even if COI is mentioned in the essay. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

to be really clear, to "get" anybody - to have action taken, is going to be very different than you appear to be thinking. As I have said a bunch of times, "DUCK" is used at SPI and you have to bring real evidence there - diffs, and the behaviors there are very obvious because mostly it is crazy people who go back to exact same article and make the exact same comments and the exact same edits. You are comparing two or more different accounts to see if they are the same or not. Very identifiable at a high level - you can literally find identical phrasing. All you are doing is comparing two or more versions of something (editing histories of the master and of the socks) to see if they match or not. The content under discussion is really irrelevant.

With advocates, though, it is completely different. You are not comparing two existing things. Instead, you are comparing one editor's content changes, against a (nonexistent) standard of NPOV edits. The standard itself is something that is often argued (the question comes up all the time, "what is NPOV in this instance?"). Right? so not clear at all. And advocates are all over the place, doing all kinds of things. Some of them tear down X and build up X-prime: others just build up X-prime; others just tear down X-prime. Showing a pattern of NPOV editing is not going to be "quacks like a duck" in any way. I am copying part of this over to the other essay's talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The comparison table

Original Essay Lead

New Essay Lead

Conflict of interest ducks is an essay to help editors identify certain patterned behaviors often associated with COI editing driven by paid and unpaid advocacies. It can be rather difficult to identify the behavior at first which is why it is best to assume good faith (AGF), and not make unwarranted accusations based on suspicion or flimsy evidence. It could boomerang on you. However, if you notice a correlation of topics and/or habitual characteristics such as tendentious editing by one or more editors working in a concerted effort, and also notice or experience other questionable behavior by some or all of the same editor(s) on TPs, noticeboards and forums where they continue to quack away at a targeted editor like ducks chasing a June bug, you may have wandered into a flock of COI ducks. Do not confuse COI ducks with editors who are experts in a given field, most of whom have COI statements on their respective user pages, and have identified areas of potential conflict. Wikipedia is fortunate to have editors from various levels of academia, researchers, lab techs, scientists, physicians, pharmacists, nurses, mathematicians, software techs, attorneys and others too numerous to mention. There actually are more fun and successful collaborations on Wikipedia than not, but because of WP's open edit policies there are no guarantees that every experience will be trouble-free. Learning to recognize problematic COI ducks is not an easy task because it involves a broad spectrum of articles, and range of advocacies that can result from paid or unpaid editing, both of which can be equally problematic. Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance and can create WP:PAG issues. If you happen to arrive at an article that attracted your interest, and you attempted to make a few good faith (GF) edits only to have your work quickly reverted, you may have inadvertently wandered into a COI situation which mimics WP:OWN behavior. But do not automatically assume that is the case. Take care to not confuse stewardship with ownership so familiarize yourself with the relevant policies. However, if the bad behavior elevates and the edit summaries that accompany the reverts are not supported by PAG, it may start sounding more like frenzied quacking...revert,quack revert,quack revert,quack. There's no need for alarm. Stop, breathe, think...and above all, avoid WP:Edit warring. No article is immune from advocacy or the possibility of nesting COI ducks, so if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it probably is a COI duck. quack, quack Sorry, WP does not offer any duck blinds to protect against such behavior, so you are basically on your own, but don't despair. You can always ask for help.

Advocacy and COI ducks is an essay to help editors identify certain patterned behaviors often associated with overzealous WP:Advocacy and undisclosed COI editing driven by paid or unpaid advocacies. It can be rather difficult to identify the behavior at first which is why it is best to assume good faith (AGF), and not make unwarranted accusations based on suspicion or flimsy evidence. It could boomerang on you. However, if you notice a correlation of topics and/or habitual characteristics such as tendentious editing by one or more editors working in a concerted effort, and also notice or experience other questionable behavior by some or all of the same editor(s) on TPs, noticeboards and forums where they continue to quack away at a targeted editor like ducks chasing a June bug, you may have wandered into a flock of COI/advocacy ducks. If you believe the latter to be the case, it is of the utmost importance to maintain civility because things aren't always what they seem. Learning to recognize problematic advocacy ducks whether it be driven by an overzealous COI or other forms of advocacy wherein WP:PAG may be abused is not an easy task to undertake because it involves a broad range of articles and advocacies. It may or may not result from paid or unpaid editing, both of which can be equally problematic if the editing doesn't maintain compliance with WP:NPOV. Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance. If you happen to arrive at an article that attracted your interest, and attempted to make a few good faith (GF) edits only to have your work quickly reverted, do not automatically assume it was the result of a COI or advocacy. Take care to not confuse stewardship with ownership so it is important that you familiarize yourself with the relevant policies. However, if the bad behavior elevates and the edit summaries that accompany the reverts are not supported by PAG, there are certain steps you need to take. Stop, breathe, think...and above all, avoid WP:Edit warring. No article is immune from advocacy or the possibility of nesting COI ducks, so it is important to take the recommended steps before the slightest semblance of an ID can be made, keeping in mind that it is still based on assumption. However, if you are certain after following all the steps below that it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it may very well be quack, quack a duck. Sorry, WP does not offer any duck blinds to protect against such behavior, so you are basically on your own, but don't despair. You can always ask for help. *Wikipedia:COI declaration editors should not be confused with COI/advocacy ducks, reversion warriors, cranks, and impolite users. Advocacies tend to involve tag teams so they can sway consensus, control the article and make it appear as though you are the one disrupting the community. Most advocacy ducks are accomplished at gaming the system and switching blame to the opposition. Behavior can be driven by paid or unpaid advocacy which explains why edits that don't support their POV are quickly reverted. In some cases, they will make the offending editor feel unwelcome as a collaborator.

I will add more as time permits. Atsme☯^Consult 14:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you have done a lot of changes when reading this section on the essay itself. Tag teams are a problem, and the duck test may be helpful in identifying when it is an advocacy tag team. AlbinoFerret 22:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There are some additional sentences, yes, but moving prose around and changing from prose to bullets does not constitute a significant change to the essay, which is why it was deleted and why that delete will be endorsed at the deletion review. The "duck test" is used for sockpuppets on Wikipedia, and its use in this essay is assuming bad faith of the editors that you think have a COI (or advocacy problems, or whatever). Ca2james (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

We are all entitled to our opinion. Just because the duck test is used for one thing does not mean it cant be used for something else. But if Atsme wanted another animal, perhaps rabbits would be good, because advocates seem to breed like them on WP. AlbinoFerret 00:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Rabbits? Ok, AF I took the focus off COI, and went with advocacy ducks. I spent most of the day writing and rewriting, and will look at the copy editing tomorrow. I think I've taken root to this chair. The adage, If it looks like a duck..., doesn't belong exclusively to the Wikipedia:The_duck_test. The advocacy duck image is now filled with sign carrying ducks. Also, in an effort to avoid recurring issues, I borrowed part of Jytdog's closing statement: [2] many editors here have misread the proposed addition, its possible uses, and its intention - some wildly so. With that in mind, I decided to rename it Advocacy ducks. I'll leave this discussion here because I'd rather start from scratch at the new page. User:Atsme/sandbox_Adovacy_ducks Atsme☯^Consult 01:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasnt a serious suggestion Atsme, more of a joke. :) Because to me, problem editors seem to show up in great quantities, like breeding rabbits. AlbinoFerret 01:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, what are you planning to do with the new essay? Ca2james (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Ca2james work on it in collaboration with GF editors who are willing to contribute prose and viable suggestions, not just groundless criticisms or opinions because they don't like a particular word or reference, and I'm not pointing any fingers. I've endured at least of week's worth of such treatment and I don't have time for it anymore. You have made some good suggestions, I am trying to keep everything together and use those suggestions to improve the essay. If you see where something can be improved or stated more succinctly then make the changes. What I want now is toe-tapping, fingers-rolling-on-the-desk, head-scratching, lip curling thought put into this essay so we will end up with something more than just a good essay. Let's shoot for a great essay - one we will be referring users to for information they can actually use and understand. And that's what I plan to do with it. Atsme☯^Consult 04:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Resume discussion on User_talk:Atsme/sandbox_Adovacy_ducks

See you over there!! Atsme☯^Consult 04:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)