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.  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)
 * 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  &#9775;  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
I will add more as time permits. Atsme &#9775;  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 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: 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  &#9775;  Consult  01:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasnt a serious suggestion, 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)
 * , what are you planning to do with the new essay? Ca2james (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.  SMirC-thumbsup.svg Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  04:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Resume discussion on User_talk:Atsme/sandbox_Adovacy_ducks
See you over there!! Atsme &#9775;  Consult  04:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)