Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks/Archive 2

---

Should the section Signs of advocacy contain the following additions to help editors, particularly newbies, recognize that project teams, while they may appear to be an advocacy, is not necessarily the case and to self-analyze while attempting to correctly identify the actual cause of the disruption? Additions in green text: ...and may even appear to be members of a project comprising groups of contributors who often collaborate as a team to improve Wikipedia. The latter makes it all the more important to correctly recognize the cause of the disruption and make sure it isn't you. You might see AVDucks in topics that deal with politics, religion, CAM, renewable energy generation, various new technologies, national and ethnic conflicts, life sciences or any other topics that have a following. Advocates almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is their primary catalyst for engaging in long-term tendentious editing that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV; their goal being to impose and maintain their POV in an article or related articles that serve to further their cause. Do not mistake GF attempts of project teams to achieve accuracy, compliance with NPOV, and/or adherence to WP:PAG as advocacy. Atsme^📞📧 13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support by OP. When several editors who are members of the same project suddenly show up at an article and start making changes to make the article compliant with WP:PAGs, the opposing editor(s), particularly newbies, tend to believe they are being tag-teamed or confronted by an advocacy. This addition will help them sort through their suspicions and look to self-analysis first and actual causes for the disruption rather than pointing fingers and assuming. Atsme^📞📧 13:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment by OP - Please keep in mind the following: WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. When you click on that wikilink, it states: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project.. 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Another important note - per WP:Wikipedia_essays#Improving_existing_essays However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from 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. 00:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. A weasel-worded attack on Wikipedia projects, as is self-evident from Atsme's comment above. The proposed wording reads "may even appear to be members of a project", but Atsme states that the intended target is unequivocally project members who 'suddenly show up at an article'. If there is evidence that Wikipedia projects are engaging in advocacy (a claim for which this essay provides precisely zero evidence), rather than merely 'showing up' at articles within their remit (which is what Wikiprojects are for), it needs to be dealt with properly, not just mentioned in passing in questionably-worded advice to newbies. As with so much else within this essay, this 'advice' invites new contributors to look for 'bias' when meeting opposition to their editing, and implies that opposition from multiple experienced contributors is evidence of 'advocacy'. Sure, it then goes on to provide mealy-mouthed calls for self-examination, but the damage has already been done - the essay promotes a suspicious and conspiracy-seeking mindset that is totally at odds with collegial editing. The proper advice to newbies when in disagreement with the sort of experienced contributors who customarily make up Wikiprojects is to discuss issues with them, and then to engage in relevant methods of dispute resolution if and when such discussions fail to achieve progress. Telling new contributors who run into problems that Wikiproject members may be members of advocacy-cabals is a sure-fire way to create drama, but a piss-poor way to create and maintain an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose most additions. This RfC appears to be based on this set of edits where veiled attacks of Wikiproject members were a concern. The idea that being a member of a Wikiproject could be associated with advocacy or some sort of cabal should amount to WP:BEANS, so bringing up the idea in this essay in the first place doesn't really seem appropriate. If anything is going to be kept, the concise, "Do not mistake GF attempts of project teams to achieve accuracy, compliance with NPOV, and/or adherence to WP:PAG as advocacy." may have place somewhere such as the Don't mistake a coot for a duck section. It should not be brought up in the signs of advocacy section though to avoid insinuation that one should even consider the idea. As an additional note, it doesn't appear there has been any talk page conversation trying to justify the new addition, so an RfC seems like a premature course of action here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support with changes, and Comment In general, I support the idea of mentioning the existence of Wiki Projects, along with the fact that some of the features accompanying this reality can be indistinguishable from what may appear like a cabal to the uninitiated. I agree with some points made above. We should remove the mealy-mouthed language and consider a very directly-worded subsection (King makes note that Don't mistake a coot for a duck might be a fitting place) covering these details. For a new editor, or one new to an area such as health-related topics, to run into an organized group of editors who for the most part think, speak and vote as one, it can seem like a cabal has descended. The WProject Medicine has the POV of alopathic medicine and sees ancient or natural healing methods as "fringe". This viewpoint isn't necessarily shared by all Wikipedians or all parts of the world. Because I have only run into members of this Project it will have to serve as my only example of how the work of a WProject may appear cabal-like or biased to those independent editors on a page with a different POV and who are unaware of these Projects. I do think we could use help with the wording, and since this essay has been so unrelentingly contentious, would recommend purposely seeking input on the presentation as well as on this RfC from WikiProjects besides Medicine. petrarchan47คุก 22:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though this is just an essay, I don't think it's in the best interests of the project to foment paranoid and conspiratorial thinking. WikiProjects that act in bad faith can be brought to ANI or whatever. Otherwise, it's best not to make vague accusations about them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• oppose same opinion as NinjaRobotPirate..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed additions do not actually help readers to distinguish between wikiprojects and advocates but instead create a link between the two. The way these sentences are framed in pairing wikiprojects with advocacy behaviour - even while saying that they're not advocates - links them in the reader's mind and creates a guilt by association subtext that says that members of wikiprojects are advocates. This encourages conspiracy thinking and the assumption of bad faith which is against Wikipedia principles. If the goal is to ensure that readers do not mistake members of wikiprojects as advocates, then Kingofaces43's proposed change accomplishes that goal without the bad faith. Ca2james (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• The fact that Atsme is still pushing this nonsense is concerning as the essay is an attack on the core NPOV and RS fundamentals of Wikipedia—if several editors oppose the addition of pseudoscientific waffle to an article, they must be guilty of advocacy! Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• The fact that you find it concerning is what I find disconcerting. Comment on the content, not the editor. I haven't heard one substantive response yet. Perhaps that will improve. Atsme^📞📧 01:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely per the first two sentences of User:Ca2james above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Editors already believe it and not because of this essay. Some editors who happen to be members of certain project teams are disruptive and they do tag-team and exhibit WP:OWN, so the problem does exist. The passage is meant to point out the difference and focus on the behavior, not the project team that is trying to improve the encyclopedia and maintain a standard. It only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole basket, so it's better to differentiate between teamwork to improve the article vs disruptive behavior. Atsme^📞📧 02:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

So much for commenting on the content, not the editors. And I note that yet again you are making allegations about Wikiproject members that you refuse to follow up with evidence - behaviour that is liable to result in sanctions against you if continued much longer. Either back up your claims with evidence, and report it at the appropriate noticeboard where it can be dealt with, or stop making such unsubstantiated claims - before you are obliged to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The essay's content focuses on disruptive behavior. Wiki-project teams do not hold a trump card over other editors so I don't see why they should receive immunity from being mentioned in this essay. They are volunteers just like everyone else. Again, there is nothing substantive in the oppose comments - they are similar to the arguments given when Ca2james initiated the 3rd MfD so they come as no surprise. Furthermore, this is an essay which is an opinion and as long as there is nothing in the proposed addition that violates policy, there is no reason it should not be allowed. Atsme^📞📧 13:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing 'substantive' in your endless tendentious bad-faith allegations against Wikiproject members - if there were, you would have reported the matter by now, providing evidence. And as long as this essay is in Wikipedia space, rather than being marked as your personal essay (which it clearly isn't, since you are by no means the sole contributor), the community will decide what content is appropriate, and whether it conforms to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I was about to mirror this as well. Seems like you're describing WP:OWN behavior pretty well. Essays are not a space for personal soapboxes. If someone wants to discuss something though, remember that Atsme even started a threaded discussion section, so there shouldn't be a need for anyone to reply in the survey section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Re Atsme's: 'Wiki-project teams do not hold a trump card over other editors so I don't see why they should receive immunity from being mentioned in this essay' Well, yes, but they also deserve the same courtesy as everyone else, which is 'innocent until proven otherwise' i.e innocent until shown to be a significant part of this problem. Advocates may be members of projects, but they may equally be female, Irish, Jewish, gay or left-handed. We would be unlikely to mention membership of any of these groups without some very good reason to do so.Pincrete (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a cynical implication of bad-faith editing by editors who happen to associate with WikiProjects. I am not conviced that this is a common problem. As others have mentioned, there are ways to address the matter when/if it does occur. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support Seasoned project members sometimes leave very harsh edit summaries which although supporting the consensus of a project, may be discouraging (especially to newbies) or perhaps uncivil. This proposed change will bring to the attention of (new) editors that although an offensive/discouraging edit summary may have been posted, this actually might reflect a project's aims. It then becomes a matter of dealing with the behaviour of the editor/s, rather than the project.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose conspiracist claptrap. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose new wording is unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per NinjaRobotPirate & Ozzie10aaaa 173.228.118.114 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• oppose this is a big slide backward to the "consensus against me must be conspiracy" ideas that led to the deletion of the "COI ducks" essay. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Ca2james. Edward321 (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Doc James. This also seems to be very much like why the original essay was deleted. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kingofaces43 and AndyTheGrump above. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inserts more conspiracy into a conspiracy-minded article. Manul ~ talk 08:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, having not seen this essay before today, I won't make a call on whether the proposed language improves the essay or not. However, I would suggest that some {{disambiguate}} entries at the top of the essay would be helpful, in meeting what seems to be the thrust of the suggested change, aka cluing in beginning editors on the subtle concepts involved here. AVDUCK *is* distinct from WP:OWN, for instance (although often an advocate or group-of-advocates will try to 'own' an article, that alone is not the only cause of WP:OWN behaviors), and in turn both are distinct from GA/FA/DYK-related stewardship behaviors. Along the same lines, wiki-projects are often advocacy-prevention-mechanisms, and also *very* often article-stewardship-mechanisms, but the concept of the wiki-project is distinct from stewardship (they are orthogonal -- stewardship can occur with or without a wikiproject being involved ... and just because an article has a wikiproject banner on the talkpage does not guarantee that stewardship of the article actually is happening 24/7/365). Anyways, it might help focus the essay, to be specifically about the difference between a coot and a duck, if some brief not-to-be-confused-with sentence fragments were at the top, and an intro-paragraph gave pointers to the various interrelated-yet-distinct concepts that the meat of the essay depends upon. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment - IP User talk- you made some excellent points. Please help further by incorporating your suggestions as you envision them to be placed in the essay. You can start a new section below on the TP. Atsme^📞📧 20:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per DocJames and Andy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per reasons given by Atsme at first entry of survey. David Tornheim (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per AndyTG, DocJames and several others above (IMO this entire essay should be sent to the trashbin, again...). Thomas.W ^talk 13:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and AFD this monstrosity move to userspace. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose , this addition (and indeed other aspects of the essay), seem very 'pointy'. I can see the value of a beginners guide to 'dispute, advice' boards, but this is not it. Rather it encourages a 'I smell a rat' mentality, which is likely to get an inexperienced editor in trouble before they can say Jack Robinson. While I am well aware of battle-ground articles, I am not aware of 'advocacy groups', being the problem, nor this article being a helpful contribution to resolving the problem. Other 'pointy' elements include naming specific 'problem areas' (eg Alt Medicine), perhaps text could discuss controversial areas by linking to less 'subject specific' advice. I have elsewhere said that the very title is (IMO) unconstructive, since 'duck' in WP-speak is a reference to a 'weapon of last resort', used when the community has already decided that there is a very significant problem, but cannot prove exactly what it is, but which here is being mis-used to prop up initial subjective assessment. The essay invokes the image of flocks of advocates roaming WP abusing PaG, which I don't think is either true, nor a constructive mindset. Pincrete (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

*Conditional Support. In my opinion it should be ok to add the words "Advocates almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is their primary catalyst for engaging...." The material about members of a project who might demonstrate this behavior is true, but it could be perceived as an indirect or subtle criticism of project team members even though later on it is clarified that the good work project team members do should not be confused with advocacy. In my opinion, the vast majority of the Opposes are occurring because of the mention of project members. Someone might wish to start a new RfC with just the words "Advocates almost always demonstrate WP:BIAS which is their primary catalyst for engaging...." to be included in the main article; i think this will find the support of the community. Soham321 (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

After thinking this over further i have changed my mind, and am voting for Support. Even in the earlier vote, i had mentioned that "The material about members of a project who might demonstrate this behavior is true". Soham321 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, is there some reason to believe that project members are more likely to engage in 'advocacy'? (I'm not a project member, so the question is not rhetorical).Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are a part of any clique on WP, there will be a tendency to engage in 'loud', advocacy like behavior and a general intolerance for differing minority viewpoints. (I am not saying all editors will behave like this.) It is for this reason that i refuse to join the Wikipedia project consisting of a group of editors with the declared agenda of improving articles related to my country of origin. I have no desire to be a part of any clique, much less an officially sanctioned one. Soham321 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I removed the phrasing you suggest because catalyst isn't the right word there. Also, advocacy isn't just about an editor having a bias (everyone has biases), but occurs when the editor is unable to set their bias aside. Ca2james (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ca2james you are surely addressing the wrong person since the edit you have changed is not mine. In fact i have not done any editing on the main article till now. Soham321 (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed my point, which was not that you had edited the essay, but was that the wording you're suggesting had already been in the essay and was modified by me for the reasons I gave. Ca2james (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, Mmmmmmm, I also have my own reasons for not joining things, and projects do often lead to OWN, in my experience, that sometimes is very beneficial (some history articles), othertimes not so. However, I think what you are saying is that projects can become clique-y and clique-y may mean blind to one's own bias. If that is what you are saying, I don't disagree, but wonder whether 'singling out' projects is constructive.Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that its obvious it can happen. I wonder how many of the oppose votes belong to active and organized wikiprojects? AlbinoFerret 20:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Well please per WP:AGF do your wondering somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing against AGF in wondering which of the editors casting oppose !votes belong to wikiprojects. Its clearly a question of who is involved in the topic. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a great deal wrong with using an RfC thread for speculation about the motivations of the participants. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I admit it, I am a member of wikiproject Ice Hockey. Are we allowed here? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Andy I am not discussing motivation, I simply wonder who is involved. @Dbrodbeck lol, every editor is allowed. AlbinoFerret 21:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

It appears few realize this essay is an opinion piece. The simple solution would be if you disagree, write an opposing essay. The comments from the last attempt at MfD, like the Sting comment, and having this essay on the watch lists of the opposition is overboard. The opposes have no substantive reason - other than opinion - to oppose the addition of the proposed statement. It does not violate PAG, it is helpful to those who are faced with team advocacy, and it advises the editor to self-analyze before drawing a conclusion. I also noticed that many of the same editors who are opposing this essay now attempted to keep it off mainspace with 2 successful attempts and one failed attempt which is the current essay. One has to wonder why the lady doth protest so much. Atsme^📞📧 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you move this essay to your user space, where you can control the content. Otherwise you have no choice but to accept community input and editing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Community consensus doesn't trump PAGs. I suggest those who oppose this essay create one that suits them better. This essay is an opinion piece, not a PAG. If you have a different opinion, write an essay expressing it. Atsme^📞📧 16:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as this essay is in Wikipedia space, it is open to anyone to edit - and when there is a dispute over content, it is up to the community to decide what is appropriate. If you wanted to write a personal essay, you shouldn't have moved it into community space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't work that way. See Wikipedia:Essays#Creation_and_modification_of_essays. If it's in WP space it's open for editing by anyone -- whether the original author likes the result or not. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is open for anyone to edit. But what you don't seem to understand is that essays don't work like articles, or PAGs. They are opinions and if it's a case of opposing opinions as it is now, you cannot exclude one opinion just because you disagree with it. It has to be non-compliant with PAGs and in this case, the opinion is not non-compliant. The closer should be familiar enough with Essay guidelines to understand it's an opinion essay. If editors were able to do what this particular team of opposing editors would like to do - keep certain information out of an essay because they don't agree with it, we wouldn't have any essays but the ones you write. Atsme^📞📧 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no 'information' being excluded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy is correct. The idea that a "team of editors" is trying to "keep certain information out " of the essay is absurd. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What's absurd is denial and unwarranted attempts to censor and control what is or isn't included in this essay. We don't see anywhere near the activity at any of the other essays. The statement is important information with regards to behavior, the latter of which is the crux of this essay. Per WP:Wikipedia_essays ...and may even appear to be members of a project comprising groups of contributors who often collaborate as a team to improve Wikipedia. The latter makes it all the more important to correctly recognize the cause of the disruption and make sure it isn't you. It isn't at all an attack on project teams, rather it is distinguishing between GF project teams and those editors who are clearly advocates. Our PAGs recognize that the problem exists. Project team guidelines even recognize the problem exists. Denial of it is not helpful. Atsme^📞📧 01:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no information about behaviour in the disputed text. You have never provided the slightest evidence that any project has been engaging in advocacy. Either do so, or accept that this essay isn't going to be used as a platform for your tedious conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme please step back and consider a bit. You asked for comments when you posted the Request for Comments. I hear it that you don't like the responses, but they are not "unwarranted attempts to censor and control"... they are responses that you invited. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I asked for this RfC because ATG kept reverting my edits and I wanted substantive input to see where I could make improvements. Doc James said the text wasn't clear which is a start. There is far too much unwarranted haranguing of me and ridiculous second-guessing about my motives. It doesn't belong here - focus on content, not editors. To say there is no information about behaviour in the proposed text appears to be misapprehension of not just the proposed text but the entire essay which happens to be about behavior. Atsme^📞📧 03:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Supposed behaviour for which you still have failed to provide the slightest bit of evidence. If you want to write a fantasy about slaying hordes of imaginary fire-breathing advocacy-dragons, find somewhere else to do it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a sword and sorcery forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The RfC asks whether the text should be included at all (Should the section Signs of advocacy contain the following additions). It hardly seems appropriate to ask editors one question and then to dismiss their responses to that question on the grounds that they didn't answer some other question that wasn't asked. Ca2james (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Again - keep in mind the following: WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. I'm sorry if that ruffles any feathers but I didn't write that sentence. I'm just trying to cover all the bases with regards to this essay. When you click on that wikilink, (and please read the following carefully) it further states: However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. I didn't write that, either. I don't see any haranguing over those sentences on the project advice page. The fact that it's happening to me here should raise all kinds of red flags.

I will also repeat another important note some appear to be overlooking - per WP:Wikipedia_essays#Improving_existing_essays However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from 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. Atsme^📞📧 14:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Quoting guidelines that say that Wikiprojects have engaged in ownership behaviours is not evidence that Wikiprojects have engaged in advocacy behaviours. Ca2james (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

But this RfC is about perceived project advocacy and makes the point this perception might be erroneousDrChrissy ^(talk) 16:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there is precisely zero evidence presented in the essay that 'project advocacy' exists anywhere but in the authors imagination, the sensible thing to do (per the clear consensus above) would be not to discuss it in the first place. Anyone new to Wikipedia who reads warnings about 'project advocacy' is going to assume that if the warning is there, it is because the danger is real. We have enough problems already with new (and not so new) contributors who see any disagreement as evidence that they are being conspired against - an essay which warns tells them to beware of a whole new class of conspirators for which we have no evidence at all is a recipe for trouble. It amounts to an instruction that if you meet opposition, assume bad faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Read [[6]] because that is where the information comes from that this RfC is about. You are not demonstrating GF with your attempts to make it appear as though I'm on a some crusader mission to attack project teams when I'm about to create a project that is much needed and long past due, or that I authored and/or created the project team issues regarding WP:OWN, and advocacy, etc. If after you read that section you still want to criticize, condemn and/or make more snarky comments - take it to the authors of the WikiProject Council/Guide. Atsme^📞📧 17:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have read that several times - and at no time has it suggested that Wikiprojects engage in advocacy. Why do you insist that I read it yet again? It isn't discussing advocacy, it is discussing ownership - more specifically, the tendency of some projects to act as if their preferred approach over issues of style were policy. That is a problem, certainly, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed topic of this essay - advocacy, or the misuse of Wikipedia to promote particular external causes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:AndyTheGrump I do not read it that way. I read it that an editor may mistake multiple concerns being expressed against them, all from the same project, as being "Project advocacy". The essay says "think again - this may not be the case". I think it actually says the opposite of "assume bad faith", rather it says "question your own perception".DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme is insisting that 'project advocacy' is real, and using that argument as the basis for including the disputed material. If it 'said the opposite', why would she be arguing that way? It simply makes no sense. It seems that your dispute is with Atsme, not with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy - your comments have become....well, strange. I don't have a clue what you're referring to regarding 'project advocacy'. Did you just make that up? You might want to go back and read some of your own comments. They are so far out in left field that it is bordering on being obsessive. Step back - try working on something you enjoy writing about. This essay has only been viewed 134 times in the last 30 days - and I imagine at least 100 times by you and QG alone. Stop acting like it's on the front page of Wikipedia as a FA, for Pete's sake. It's just an essay. Atsme^📞📧 21:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Did I just make that up? No, it was a direct quotation from what DrChrissy had just written. Try reading before writing next time. As for 'stepping back', if you didn't insist on hectoring contributors who post here, there would be nothing worth commenting on. The question asked in the RfC is clear enough, and I am sure that the closer will be able to decide for him/herself what the consensus is, and what should be done regarding the disputed content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I borrowed the phrase from you! Scan up about 5-6 posts. You used the term and put it in ' '.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The diff is here.[[7]]DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - a diff that clearly shows that you used the same phrase in the previous post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I think you are being rather disingenuous here - I may have coined a term that you felt you wanted to use (pat on the back for me!), but the term I coined was "perceived project advocacy". That is entirely different from "project advocacy". Please be more careful before misrepresenting my posts.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention in engaging further in this ridiculous exhibition of infantile nit-picking. So yes, if you want to believe that I misrepresented you, fine. Feel free to believe it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It is hardly nit-picking drawing attention to the fact I was discussing a perception of behaviour, rather than stating the actual occurrence of a behaviour. However, thank you for your input.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Atsme, I notice that you inserted the text under discussion in this RfC when you reverted changes by another editor. Don't do that. If the RfC closes in favour of including the text, then it can be inserted but to push it through before the conclusion of the RfC is inappropriate. Ca2james (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment - what I would like for you to do is please stop sniping at me, and start noticing things that are important, like the fact that an essay is not an article, a policy or a guideline. Anyone can edit an essay but there is nothing in our PAG that give editors a green light to revert GF edits, or change the original intent or opinions expressed in an existing namespace essay. In fact, WP:Wikipedia Essays states ...disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from 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 called this RfC with expectations of getting helpful comments and plausible suggestions for improvement. Instead we got disruption, tendentious editing, PAs, snarky comments, mockery of the essay, attempts to change its meaning, and relentless baiting and harassment. Atsme^📞📧 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The stated purpose of the RfC to determine whether the community approved of a specific edit. It is entirely clear that they don't. Still, I'm glad to see that you point out that "Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other". On that basis, I shall be restoring the link to my essay in the article, along with the other user-space essay links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's already there. I added it when I reorganized the list of links. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Re Atsme's comment "What's absurd is denial and unwarranted attempts to censor and control what is or isn't included in this essay", Atsme is free to move the essay to his userspace, where he has control over the content. That's what I did when I created WP:1AM; that particular essay is my advice, not the advice of the community, and thus I decided to retain control of the content. Once you put an essay in wikispace, the community is free to change it in any way, subject only to Wikipedia policy and to consensus. See WP:OWNERSHIP. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)