Moving all comments from my TP to this TP in order to keep everything in one place regarding the new essay.
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)
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.
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.
|
I will add more as time permits. Atsme☯Consult 14:41, 17 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)
See you over there!! Atsme☯Consult 04:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)