Misplaced Pages

:Advocacy ducks: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:11, 19 April 2015 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,804 edits →Related essays, policies, and guidelines: columns for Wikilcnks← Previous edit Revision as of 19:14, 20 April 2015 edit undoAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,804 editsm Atsme moved page User:Atsme/sandbox Adovacy ducks to User:Atsme/sandbox Advocacy ducks: original title misspelledNext edit →
(17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Userspace draft}}
{{Userpage blue border}} {{Userpage blue border}}


=='''Advocacy ducks'''== =='''Advocacy ducks'''==
] ]
] and ] behavior]] ] for a nesting advocacy duck, although both may show ] and ] behavior]]
] ] is a common sign of advocacy ducks at work.]]
] ducks are ducks of a different color. See ]]]
] ]

<br> <br>
<center>{{prettyquote | If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck <br><center>{{Duck}}....</center></br>}}</center> <center>{{prettyquote | If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck <br><center>{{Duck}}....</center></br>}}</center>
</br> </br>
'''Advocacy ducks''' is an essay to help editors identify certain disruptive behaviors that are violative of ]. Such behavior is often associated with an article under the ''perceived control'' of an overzealous or overly bold editor or group of editors who may be driven by a paid or unpaid ]. No article is immune from advocacy or the possibility of nesting advocacy ducks who push a strong POV. It can be rather difficult to identify such behavior, especially for ], which is why it is always best to ] (AGF), and not make unwarranted ] based on flimsy evidence. It could ]. '''Advocacy ducks''' is an essay to help editors identify certain disruptive behaviors that are violative of ]. Such behavior is often associated with an article under the ''perceived control'' of an overzealous or overly bold editor or group of editors who may be driven by a paid or unpaid ]. No article is immune from advocacy or the possibility of nesting advocacy ducks who push a strong POV. It can be rather difficult to identify such behavior, especially for ], which is why it is always best to ] (AGF), and not make unwarranted ] based on flimsy evidence. It could ].


However, if you notice a '''pattern''' of questionable behavior in combination with a '''correlation of topics''' and/or repeated editing characteristics such as ], ] and ] by one or more editors working in '''a concerted effort,''' and you also notice or experience other questionable behavior by some of the same editors which closely resembles ] or ] or ] to gain advantage in an RfC, noticeboard discussions and forums, you may have wandered into a flock of advocacy ]. It is of the utmost importance to maintain civility and remember, things aren't always what they seem. He who quacks loudest may be you. Read the ] below as they are formulated to help you analyze your own edits, identify what you perceive to be bad faith editing (real or imagined), and get you back on the road to a pleasant editing experience after following the road to resolve. However, if you notice a '''pattern''' of questionable behavior in combination with a '''correlation of topics''' and/or repeated editing characteristics such as ], ] and ] by one or more editors working in '''a concerted effort,''' and you also notice or experience other questionable behavior by some of the same editors which closely resembles ] or ] or ] to gain advantage in an RfC, noticeboard discussions and forums, you may have wandered into a flock of advocacy ]. It is of the utmost importance to maintain civility and remember, things aren't always what they seem. He who quacks loudest may be you. Read the ] below as they are formulated to help you analyze your own edits, identify what you perceive to be bad faith editing (real or imagined) and get you back on track to a pleasant editing experience after following the road to resolve.


{{talkquote|*Do not mistake a nesting ] for an advocacy duck. At first glance, coots look like ducks but upon closer observation you will see that coots don't have webbed feet and they don't quack. They are actually birds not ducks. In other words, it could be a case of stewardship, not ownership so familiarize yourself with the policy: ]. You will probably discover instances of stewardship at ] and ] which helps protect those articles against vandalism, POV pushing and/or advocacy ducks.</br>}} {{talkquote|*Do not mistake a nesting ] for an advocacy duck. At first glance, coots look like ducks but upon closer observation you will see that coots don't have webbed feet and they don't quack. They are actually birds not ducks. In other words, it could be a case of stewardship, not ownership so familiarize yourself with the policy: ]. You will probably discover instances of stewardship at ] and ] which helps protect those articles against vandalism, POV pushing and/or advocacy ducks.</br>}}


Learning to recognize problematic advocacy ducks is not an easy task 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 edits conflict with ], including your own. Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance whether advocating for or against something. If you happen to arrive at an article that attracted your interest, and you attempted to make a few ] (GF) edits only to have your work quickly reverted, '''do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy.''' Take care to not confuse ] which makes it all the more important to familiarize yourself with relevant policies. However, if the questionable behavior elevates into ], and the edit summaries that accompany the edits or reverts are violative of ], there are certain steps you should take in an effort to identify the problem area(s). '''Stop, breathe, think'''...and above all, avoid ]. Learning to recognize problematic advocacy ducks is not an easy task 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 edits conflict with ], including your own. Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance whether advocating for or against something. If you happen to arrive at an article that attracted your interest, and you attempted to make a few ] (GF) edits only to have your work quickly reverted, '''do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy.''' Take care to not confuse ] which makes it all the more important to familiarize yourself with relevant policies. However, if the questionable behavior elevates into ], and the edit summaries that accompany the edits or reverts are violative of ], there are certain steps you should take in an effort to identify the problem area(s). '''Stop, breathe, think'''...and above all, avoid ] or you might become a sitting duck.


{{talkquote| {{talkquote|
*Advocacies tend to involve ], ] and/or ] to sway consensus, control the article and make it appear as though you are the one disrupting the community. *Advocacies tend to involve ], ] and/or ] to sway ], ] and make it appear as though you are the one ].
*Most advocacy ducks are accomplished at ] and switching blame to the opposition. *Most advocacy ducks are accomplished at ] 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. *Behavior can be driven by paid or unpaid advocacy which explains why edits that don't support the advocacy ducks' ] are quickly reverted.
*In some cases, they will make the offending editor feel unwelcome as a collaborator.}} *In some cases, they will make the offending editor feel unwelcome as a ].}}


==Ten step self-analysis==
==First, analyze your edits==
There actually exists a strong possibility that your edit was problematic and triggered the revert. Read the edit summary objectively and consider the following: There actually exists a strong possibility that your edit was problematic and triggered the revert. Read the edit summary objectively and consider the following:
#Did your edit actually improve the article, or did it create ]? #Did your edit(s) actually improve the appearance of the article, or create ]? Analyze your edit(s) more closely.
#Was it overly ] or was it ]? #Was it overly ] or ], or was it ]? See ], ] and ].
#Did you cite your passage to a ] that is ]? #Did you cite your passage to a ] that is ]? Articles that relate to ] require close attention to ] guidelines. ''Read them, learn them, follow them.''
⚫ #Is the article a ] or the ] (BLP)? BLPs require strict adherence to policy, US law and compliance with ], ], and ].
#Is the topic of the article about health or science which requires close attention to ] guidelines?
⚫ #Did you initiate a discussion on the article's talk page and request input from the community? If the dispute continues, it may be time to initiate an ].
⚫ #Is it a ] or the ] (BLP) which requires strict adherence to policy and compliance with ], ], and ]?
#Were you polite throughout the discussions? Calm discussions focused on content not editors are the most productive means to reach a compromise.
⚫ #Open a discussion on the article's talk page and request input from the community.
#Did you argue for the sake of argument or was your argument substantive? A review of relevant PAGs will help you establish your position. Also see ].
#Be polite, even if you encounter conflict instead of resolve.
#Did you make any attempt to seek help? There are several ways to acquire help on WP. For example, you can include the <nowiki>{{help me}}</nowiki> template on your user talk page, or ask a question at the ] or ]. The ] is another forum for general discussions, advice and for seeking technical help.
#Do not argue for the sake of argument. Calm discussions are the most productive means to accomplish your goals.
#If you still have doubts after checking the relevant ], consult a ] for input. #Did you seek a ] for input? Oftentimes an uninvolved editor can provide valuable input.
#If after your consult, you feel even stronger that the reverts of your edits were unwarranted, you may have encountered a ] ]. #Did you follow the above suggestions and are still of the mind that your reverted edits were unwarranted? It could be that you came to a fork in the road. If you suspect you've encountered a ] ], all of whom are ducks of a different color, it is best to follow the road to ]. On the other hand, if you encountered POV warriors or advocacy ducks, take the road to resolve.
The next step is take the road to resolution. Keep reading.


==Typical identifying signs of advocacy duck behavior== ==Typical identifying signs of advocacy duck behavior==

*An advocacy duck may be a ] (single purpose account). Notice if most of their edits are spent on the same article or correlation of articles about the same topic. The advocacy could be for or against but either way an advocacy duck will purposely or inadvertently disrupt the ], create ] and/or be noncompliant with ]. *An advocacy duck may be a ] (single purpose account). Notice if most of their edits are spent on the same article or correlation of articles about the same topic. The advocacy could be for or against but either way an advocacy duck will purposely or inadvertently disrupt the ], create ] and/or be noncompliant with ].
*Misapplication of ] to further a specific POV is a possible advocacy duck tactic. Make sure you are not the one perceived as employing such a tactic.
*Do not confuse an advocacy duck with a new editor who is simply not aware of the complex and sometimes ambiguous WP:PAG. It is important to ]. *Do not confuse an advocacy duck with a new editor who is simply not aware of the complex and sometimes ambiguous WP:PAG. It is important to ].
*GF editors are open to discussion and will welcome input if you ], avoid edit warring and participate in civil discourse on the article's talk page. *GF editors are open to discussion and will welcome input if you ], avoid edit warring and participate in civil discourse on the article's talk page.
*In extreme cases, advocacy ducks may subject you to incivility including ] and ]. The best course of action is to '''stand down'''. Stop, breathe, think. Analyze the situation to determine whether or not you've stumbled onto an advocacy situation. If the behavior appears to be ] with indications of ], they may go so far as to provoke '''you''' into behaving uncivilly so they can ] you into a block, topic ban or worse. Do not give them ammo.
*Some of the more persuasive advocacy ducks will use editing tactics to rid an article of opposition, including skillful deployment of ], ], and ]. You may be faced with several editors working together to revert edits they oppose which is why it is important to analyze your own edits first and not jump to conclusions. It may or may not be ] or ] which requires other means of identification. Also read and familarize yourself with ] and ]. *In extreme cases, advocacy ducks may subject you to incivility including ] and ]. The best course of action is to '''stand down'''. Analyze the situation to determine whether or not you've stumbled onto an advocacy situation. If the behavior appears to be ] with indications of ], they may go so far as to provoke '''you''' into behaving uncivilly so they can ] you into a block, topic ban or worse.
*Some of the more persuasive advocacy ducks will use editing tactics to rid an article of opposition, including skillful deployment of ], ], and ]. You may be faced with several editors working together to revert edits they oppose which is why it is important to analyze your own edits first and not jump to conclusions. It may or may not be ] or ] which requires other means of identification. Also read and familarize yourself with ] and ].
*Another tactic of aggressive advocacy ducks is to ] you into conduct violations with the skillful deployment of tactics such as ], ], ], and ]. *Another tactic of aggressive advocacy ducks is to ] you into conduct violations with the skillful deployment of tactics such as ], ], ], and ].
*Advocacy ducks will try to get you blocked or banned by initiating behavioral complaints against you at noticeboards such as ], ], ], and ] depending on the situation. They may even provide ] that do not support their argument, the latter being a tactic to inundate admins and possibly fool them into believing they have a claim. *Advocacy ducks will try to get you blocked or banned by initiating behavioral complaints against you at noticeboards such as ], ], ], and ] depending on the situation. They may even provide ] that do not support their argument, the latter being a tactic to inundate admins and possibly fool them into believing they have a claim.
'''REMEMBER, DO NOT GIVE THEM AMMO''' '''REMEMBER TO ]'''
*It is more to the advantage of a lone advocacy duck to maintain civility, and defer tactical deployment until joined in force by a flock of other advocacy ducks who support or advocate the same cause or POV. The quacking can become rather loud at that point. Again, refer to self-analysis and be sure your edit wasn't the cause. *It is more to the advantage of a lone advocacy duck to maintain civility, and defer tactical deployment until joined in force by a flock of other advocacy ducks who support or advocate the same cause or POV. The quacking can become rather loud at that point. Again, refer to self-analysis and be sure your edit wasn't the cause.
*Pro-cause advocacy ducks tend to weigh down articles with ] while excluding and/or reverting negative material. *Pro-cause advocacy ducks tend to weigh down articles with ] while excluding and/or reverting negative material.
*Anti-cause advocacy ducks tend to discredit their opposition creating ], and in extreme cases will use ] to devolve articles into ] or ]. *Anti-cause advocacy ducks tend to discredit their opposition creating ], and in extreme cases will use ] to devolve articles into ] or ].
*The work of pro advocacy ducks is noticeable in the overall context of an article which tends to be whitewashed. For example, an article on ] should not leave readers thinking he was a good ole chap, but extremely shy of women which necessitated meeting them in alleyways at night.<sup>quack, quack</sup> *The work of pro advocacy ducks is noticeable in the overall context of an article which tends to be whitewashed. For example, an article on ] should not leave readers thinking he was a good ole chap, but extremely shy of women which necessitated meeting them in alleyways at night.<sup>quack, quack</sup>
*Advocacy ducks typically create POV issues by ] *Advocacy ducks typically create POV issues by ]
*They also tend to be involved more often in recurring content disputes over the same articles and related topics resulting from issues with one of more of the following: ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. It can work both ways - pro cause or anti cause. *They also tend to be involved more often in recurring content disputes over the same articles and related topics resulting from issues with one of more of the following: ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. It can work both ways&nbsp;— pro cause or anti cause.
*If you suspect an undisclosed ] may be involved, stand down and take the issue to ] for further investigation. *If you suspect an undisclosed ] may be involved, stand down and take the issue to ] for further investigation.
*Veteran advocacy ducks are expert at ]. They may even try to convert their opposition to see their POV and assume a ] posture. *Veteran advocacy ducks are expert at ]. They may even try to convert their opposition to see their POV and assume a ] posture.
Line 60: Line 61:
==Keep your own behavior in check== ==Keep your own behavior in check==
*If confronted by advocacy ducks, it is all the more important for you to remain focused on article content and follow ]. *If confronted by advocacy ducks, it is all the more important for you to remain focused on article content and follow ].
*Advocacy ducks may try to convert you to their POV but if that doesn't work, they may attempt to ] in a ] manner beyond article content right into behavioral issues. Veteran advocacy ducks are skilled at ], and if you behave inappropriately, you may find yourself waving goodbye from the back of a little red caboose after being ] into an unexpected ] or ]. *Veteran advocacy ducks are skilled at ], and if you behave inappropriately, you may find yourself waving goodbye from the back of a little red caboose after being ] into an unexpected ] or ].
*Disputes with advocates can quickly escalate into ] and other forms of ] as a result of ]. It is best to avoid confrontation, so take a nap in the duck blind, even if you feel your integrity and/or ability as an editor has been challenged. *Disputes with advocates can quickly escalate into ] and other forms of ] as a result of ]. It is best to avoid confrontation, so take a nap in the duck blind, even if you feel your integrity and/or ability as an editor has been challenged.
*It is important to maintain a sense of professionalism and level-headedness. Sit quietly and learn by observation. *It is important to maintain a sense of professionalism and level-headedness. Sit quietly and learn by observation.
*Remember, the article isn't going anywhere, WP has no deadlines, so don't flatline your editing experience by attacking the issue with a sense of urgency. *Remember, the article isn't going anywhere, WP has no deadlines, so don't flatline your editing experience by attacking the issue with a sense of urgency.
*Be mindful of ], ], and ]. Read them, learn them, and follow them. *Be mindful of ], ], and ]. Read them, learn them, and follow them.
*If you have questions, seek a third opinion from an experienced editor or if you are a relatively new editor, consider a ]. *If you have questions, seek a third opinion from an experienced editor or if you are a relatively new editor, consider a ].
*] may support many different points of view. The best way to address any advocacy issue is to make good use of the sourcing guidelines WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. When you find passages in an article where there are no ] supporting a particular passage, first try and find one, if you can't find one use the ] template and begin a discussion on the TP. *] may support many different points of view. The best way to address any advocacy issue is to make good use of the sourcing guidelines ], and ]. When you find passages in an article where there are no WP:RS supporting a particular passage, first try and find one, if you can't find one use the ] template and begin a discussion on the TP.


==Road to resolution== ==Road to resolution==
] ]
It is not wise for an individual editor to ascertain with certainty that a content dispute stems from paid or unpaid advocacy ducks. It is always better to seek a third opinion or try to achieve consensus by means of an ]. If paid editing is suspected, seek community oversight at the ] (COIN). If you've followed the steps above and are still being subjected to aggressive behavior, it may be time to seek an administrator's assistance. Other options include the relative noticeboards for consensus. Read the instructions associated with each of the noticeboards listed below so you don't end up in the wrong place. Also keep in mind that the goal of this essay is not to encourage wikiconspiracy theorists to skulk talk pages looking for advocacy ducks or to use this essay as a cudgel to gain POV advantage. It is possible that if we set enough advocacy vigilantes loose across the project they are likely to find a few real advocacy ducks, but just as likely to bag a coot or two along the way. The noticeboards exist for good reason. It is not wise for an individual editor to ascertain with certainty that a content dispute stems from paid or unpaid advocacy ducks. It is always better to seek a third opinion or try to achieve consensus by means of an ]. If paid editing is suspected, seek community oversight at the ] (COIN). If you've followed the steps above and are still being subjected to aggressive behavior, it may be time to seek an administrator's assistance. Other options include the relative noticeboards for consensus. Read the instructions associated with each of the noticeboards listed below so you don't end up in the wrong place. Also keep in mind that the goal of this essay is not to encourage wikiconspiracy theorists to skulk talk pages looking for advocacy ducks or to use this essay as a cudgel to gain POV advantage. It is possible that if we set enough advocacy vigilantes loose across the project they are likely to find a few real advocacy ducks, but just as likely to bag a coot or two along the way. The noticeboards exist for good reason.

#] is the first step to achieving ] if you encounter one or more editors who appear to be entrenched in a particular POV. #] is the first step to achieving ] if you encounter one or more editors who appear to be entrenched in a particular POV.
#COI or suspected undisclosed paid editing situations that have created disruption should go to ]. #COI or suspected undisclosed paid editing situations that have created disruption should go to ].
#Also read, learn, and follow the steps to take at ]. #Also read, learn, and follow the steps to take at ].
#Advocacy duck situations that have elevated into disruption and repetitive incidents of incivility should be brought to the attention of an Administrator at ]. #Advocacy duck situations that have elevated into disruption and repetitive incidents of incivility should be brought to the attention of an Administrator at ].


;Other Noticeboards to seek consensus: ;Other Noticeboards to seek consensus:
*] – to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article *]&nbsp;– to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article
*] – for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable *]&nbsp;– for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable
*] – to raise questions and alerts about material that might be original research or source synthesis *]&nbsp;– to raise questions and alerts about material that might be original research or source synthesis
*] – to raise questions and alerts about violations of our biography articles. *]&nbsp;– to raise questions and alerts about violations of our biography articles.
*] – to report theories that are given undue weight in articles *]&nbsp;– to report theories that are given undue weight in articles
*] – to raise questions and alerts about external links *]&nbsp;– to raise questions and alerts about external links
;Final Steps: ;Final Steps:
*] - administrators' noticeboard *] - administrators' noticeboard
*] - administrators' noticeboard - incidents *] - administrators' noticeboard&nbsp;— incidents
*], WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey. *], WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey.

<br>
And for those with a sense of humor: ]. {{P|big-grin}}
</br>


{{Civility}} {{Civility}}


===Related essays, policies, and guidelines=== ===Related essays, policies, and guidelines===
{{columns-list|2|style=width: 500px;| {{columns-list|3|
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 119: Line 115:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
⚫ }}

===See also===
* The template {{t|Duck}}, which appears as {{duck}}
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 132: Line 124:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
⚫ }}


===Categories===
*] *]
*] *]

Revision as of 19:14, 20 April 2015

Template:Userpage blue border

Advocacy ducks

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....it's a duck
Do not mistake a nesting coot for a nesting advocacy duck, although both may show WP:POV and WP:OWN behavior
Undue weight is a common sign of advocacy ducks at work.
File:Black and white mallard hybrid.jpg
COI ducks are ducks of a different color. See WP:COIN
If it's raining ducks, know when to get out of the rain.


“ If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck
 Looks like a duck to me....

 ”


Advocacy ducks is an essay to help editors identify certain disruptive behaviors that are violative of WP:PAG. Such behavior is often associated with an article under the perceived control of an overzealous or overly bold editor or group of editors who may be driven by a paid or unpaid WP:Advocacy. No article is immune from advocacy or the possibility of nesting advocacy ducks who push a strong POV. It can be rather difficult to identify such behavior, especially for new editors, which is why it is always best to assume good faith (AGF), and not make unwarranted accusations based on flimsy evidence. It could boomerang.

However, if you notice a pattern of questionable behavior in combination with a correlation of topics and/or repeated editing characteristics such as WP:OWN, tendentious editing and WP:BULLYING by one or more editors working in a concerted effort, and you also notice or experience other questionable behavior by some of the same editors which closely resembles WP:Tag team or WP:Sock puppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry to gain advantage in an RfC, noticeboard discussions and forums, you may have wandered into a flock of advocacy ducks. It is of the utmost importance to maintain civility and remember, things aren't always what they seem. He who quacks loudest may be you. Read the sections below as they are formulated to help you analyze your own edits, identify what you perceive to be bad faith editing (real or imagined) and get you back on track to a pleasant editing experience after following the road to resolve.

*Do not mistake a nesting coot for an advocacy duck. At first glance, coots look like ducks but upon closer observation you will see that coots don't have webbed feet and they don't quack. They are actually birds not ducks. In other words, it could be a case of stewardship, not ownership so familiarize yourself with the policy: Misplaced Pages:Ownership_of_articles#Ownership_and_stewardship. You will probably discover instances of stewardship at WP:GA and WP:FA which helps protect those articles against vandalism, POV pushing and/or advocacy ducks.

Learning to recognize problematic advocacy ducks is not an easy task 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 edits conflict with WP:PAG, including your own. Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance whether advocating for or against something. 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, do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy. Take care to not confuse stewardship with ownership which makes it all the more important to familiarize yourself with relevant policies. However, if the questionable behavior elevates into WP:INCIVILITY, and the edit summaries that accompany the edits or reverts are violative of WP:PAG, there are certain steps you should take in an effort to identify the problem area(s). Stop, breathe, think...and above all, avoid WP:Edit warring or you might become a sitting duck.

Ten step self-analysis

There actually exists a strong possibility that your edit was problematic and triggered the revert. Read the edit summary objectively and consider the following:

  1. Did your edit(s) actually improve the appearance of the article, or create instability? Analyze your edit(s) more closely.
  2. Was it overly critical or biased, or was it puffery? See WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE.
  3. Did you cite your passage to a reliable source that is verifiable but not false? Articles that relate to medical, health or science require close attention to WP:MEDRS guidelines. Read them, learn them, follow them.
  4. Is the article a biography or the biography of a living person (BLP)? BLPs require strict adherence to policy, US law and compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR.
  5. Did you initiate a discussion on the article's talk page and request input from the community? If the dispute continues, it may be time to initiate an RfC.
  6. Were you polite throughout the discussions? Calm discussions focused on content not editors are the most productive means to reach a compromise.
  7. Did you argue for the sake of argument or was your argument substantive? A review of relevant PAGs will help you establish your position. Also see WP:POINT.
  8. Did you make any attempt to seek help? There are several ways to acquire help on WP. For example, you can include the {{help me}} template on your user talk page, or ask a question at the help desk or Teahouse. The Village Pump is another forum for general discussions, advice and for seeking technical help.
  9. Did you seek a third party for input? Oftentimes an uninvolved editor can provide valuable input.
  10. Did you follow the above suggestions and are still of the mind that your reverted edits were unwarranted? It could be that you came to a fork in the road. If you suspect you've encountered a COI duck, all of whom are ducks of a different color, it is best to follow the road to WP:COIN. On the other hand, if you encountered POV warriors or advocacy ducks, take the road to resolve.

Typical identifying signs of advocacy duck behavior

  • An advocacy duck may be a WP:SPA (single purpose account). Notice if most of their edits are spent on the same article or correlation of articles about the same topic. The advocacy could be for or against but either way an advocacy duck will purposely or inadvertently disrupt the balance, create UNDUE and/or be noncompliant with WP:NPOV.
  • Misapplication of WP:PAG to further a specific POV is a possible advocacy duck tactic. Make sure you are not the one perceived as employing such a tactic.
  • Do not confuse an advocacy duck with a new editor who is simply not aware of the complex and sometimes ambiguous WP:PAG. It is important to not bite the newbies.
  • GF editors are open to discussion and will welcome input if you assume good faith, avoid edit warring and participate in civil discourse on the article's talk page.
  • In extreme cases, advocacy ducks may subject you to incivility including WP:PA and WP:BULLYING. The best course of action is to stand down. Analyze the situation to determine whether or not you've stumbled onto an advocacy situation. If the behavior appears to be aggressive or unusual with indications of WP:OWN, they may go so far as to provoke you into behaving uncivilly so they can railroad you into a block, topic ban or worse.
  • Some of the more persuasive advocacy ducks will use editing tactics to rid an article of opposition, including skillful deployment of WP:SQS, WP:OWN, and WP:TAGTEAM. You may be faced with several editors working together to revert edits they oppose which is why it is important to analyze your own edits first and not jump to conclusions. It may or may not be WP:Sock puppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry which requires other means of identification. Also read and familarize yourself with Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations and WP:SOCK/A.
  • Another tactic of aggressive advocacy ducks is to WP:BAIT you into conduct violations with the skillful deployment of tactics such as WP:PA, WP:HARASS, WP:HOUND, and WP:BITE.
  • Advocacy ducks will try to get you blocked or banned by initiating behavioral complaints against you at noticeboards such as WP:3RR, WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:AE depending on the situation. They may even provide diffs that do not support their argument, the latter being a tactic to inundate admins and possibly fool them into believing they have a claim.

REMEMBER TO WP:AGF

  • It is more to the advantage of a lone advocacy duck to maintain civility, and defer tactical deployment until joined in force by a flock of other advocacy ducks who support or advocate the same cause or POV. The quacking can become rather loud at that point. Again, refer to self-analysis and be sure your edit wasn't the cause.
  • Pro-cause advocacy ducks tend to weigh down articles with puffery while excluding and/or reverting negative material.
  • Anti-cause advocacy ducks tend to discredit their opposition creating WP:UNDUE, and in extreme cases will use contentious labels to devolve articles into coatracks or attack pages.
  • The work of pro advocacy ducks is noticeable in the overall context of an article which tends to be whitewashed. For example, an article on Jack_the_Ripper should not leave readers thinking he was a good ole chap, but extremely shy of women which necessitated meeting them in alleyways at night.
  • Advocacy ducks typically create POV issues by tendentious editing.
  • They also tend to be involved more often in recurring content disputes over the same articles and related topics resulting from issues with one of more of the following: WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE/PS. It can work both ways — pro cause or anti cause.
  • If you suspect an undisclosed WP:COI may be involved, stand down and take the issue to WP:COIN for further investigation.
  • Veteran advocacy ducks are expert at gaming the system. They may even try to convert their opposition to see their POV and assume a WP:IAR posture.
  • Advocacy ducks may try to calmly lead you in a passive aggressive manner beyond article content straight into behavioral issues which could involve WP:BULLYING.

Keep your own behavior in check

  • If confronted by advocacy ducks, it is all the more important for you to remain focused on article content and follow WP:PAG.
  • Veteran advocacy ducks are skilled at WP:Gaming the system, and if you behave inappropriately, you may find yourself waving goodbye from the back of a little red caboose after being railroaded into an unexpected block or topic ban.
  • Disputes with advocates can quickly escalate into personal attacks and other forms of WP:Incivility as a result of edit wars. It is best to avoid confrontation, so take a nap in the duck blind, even if you feel your integrity and/or ability as an editor has been challenged.
  • It is important to maintain a sense of professionalism and level-headedness. Sit quietly and learn by observation.
  • Remember, the article isn't going anywhere, WP has no deadlines, so don't flatline your editing experience by attacking the issue with a sense of urgency.
  • Be mindful of WP:NOR, WP:MEDRS, and WP:RS. Read them, learn them, and follow them.
  • If you have questions, seek a third opinion from an experienced editor or if you are a relatively new editor, consider a WP:Mentor.
  • WP:ADVOCACY may support many different points of view. The best way to address any advocacy issue is to make good use of the sourcing guidelines WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. When you find passages in an article where there are no WP:RS supporting a particular passage, first try and find one, if you can't find one use the Misplaced Pages:Citation needed template and begin a discussion on the TP.

Road to resolution

It is not wise for an individual editor to ascertain with certainty that a content dispute stems from paid or unpaid advocacy ducks. It is always better to seek a third opinion or try to achieve consensus by means of an RfC. If paid editing is suspected, seek community oversight at the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN). If you've followed the steps above and are still being subjected to aggressive behavior, it may be time to seek an administrator's assistance. Other options include the relative noticeboards for consensus. Read the instructions associated with each of the noticeboards listed below so you don't end up in the wrong place. Also keep in mind that the goal of this essay is not to encourage wikiconspiracy theorists to skulk talk pages looking for advocacy ducks or to use this essay as a cudgel to gain POV advantage. It is possible that if we set enough advocacy vigilantes loose across the project they are likely to find a few real advocacy ducks, but just as likely to bag a coot or two along the way. The noticeboards exist for good reason.

  1. WP:RfC is the first step to achieving WP:Consensus if you encounter one or more editors who appear to be entrenched in a particular POV.
  2. COI or suspected undisclosed paid editing situations that have created disruption should go to WP:COIN.
  3. Also read, learn, and follow the steps to take at WP:DRN.
  4. Advocacy duck situations that have elevated into disruption and repetitive incidents of incivility should be brought to the attention of an Administrator at WP:ANI.
Other Noticeboards to seek consensus
Final Steps
  • WP:AN - administrators' noticeboard
  • WP:ANI - administrators' noticeboard — incidents
  • Arbitration Committee, WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey.
Misplaced Pages essays (?)
Essays on building, editing, and deleting content
Philosophy
Article construction
Writing article content
Removing or
deleting content
Essays on civility
The basics
Philosophy
Dos
Don'ts
WikiRelations
Essays on notability
Humorous essays
About essays
About essays
Policies and guidelines

Related essays, policies, and guidelines

3

Categories