| Revision as of 04:46, 22 April 2015 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,804 edits →Keep your own behavior in check: tweek - added sourcing statement here← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:11, 22 April 2015 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 editsm →Signs of advocacy behavior: ceNext edit → | ||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| #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. | #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. | ||
| == |
==Signs of advocacy behavior== | ||
| *An |
*An advocate may have a ] (single purpose account). Notice if most of their edits are spent on one article or a set of articles about the same topic. The advocacy could be for or against a given subject, but either way an advocate will seek to skew an article in ways that violate ]. | ||
| *Pro-cause advocates may add non-neutral positive language (]), may give ] to positive content about the subject, and may add content about their favorite issue that is off-topic (see ]), while excluding and/or reverting well-sourced negative content. | |||
| *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. | |||
| *Anti-cause advocates may add non-neutral negative language (]), may give ] to negative content about the subject, and may add content about their favorite issue that is off-topic (see ]), while excluding and/or reverting well-sourced positive content. They may be interested in turning articles into ]. | |||
| *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 ]. | |||
| *Key signs of advocacy in content editing and talk page behavior are described in the essays on ], ], and ]. | |||
| *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. | |||
| *New editors may come to Misplaced Pages with an ax to grind, and often don't understand Misplaced Pages's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. While being a new editor does not make advocacy acceptable, it is important to ] and try to teach new editors the importance of NPOV. Some will be willing to learn, and some will not. | |||
| *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. | |||
| *Advocates may work in teams to skew articles. See ]. Do not confuse ] that goes against you with tag-team advocacy; you may be the advocate. | |||
| *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 ]. | |||
| ⚫ | *If you suspect an undisclosed ] may be involved because another editor is advocating for or against a person, product, or company, ask the other editor politely about that, and take the issue to ] for further investigation. | ||
| *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. | |||
| '''REMEMBER TO ASSUME GOOD FAITH''' | |||
| *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. | |||
| *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> | |||
| *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. | |||
| ⚫ | *If you suspect an undisclosed ] may be involved, |
||
| *Veteran advocacy ducks are expert at ]. They may even try to convert their opposition to see their POV or possibly assume a ] posture. | |||
| *Advocacy ducks may try to ] in a ] manner beyond article content straight into behavioral issues which could devolve into ]. | |||
| ==Keep your own behavior in check== | ==Keep your own behavior in check== | ||
Revision as of 11:11, 22 April 2015
Advocacy ducks
| “ | 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 resulting from overly bold or overzealous advocacy editors who are violative of policies and guidelines (PAG). It is difficult to identify what or whose behavior caused the disruption, especially when new editors are involved. It may even require a focused analysis by experienced editors and/or administrators. That is why it is always best to assume good faith (AGF), and not make unwarranted accusations based on suspicion. It could boomerang on you. Disruptive editing and perceived control of an article may or may not be the result of an advocacy, paid or unpaid. Of course, no topic or article is immune from advocacy or the possibility of nesting advocacy ducks who push a strong POV but it is not so common. AGF and avoid WP:Edit warring or you might become a sitting duck.
- Advocacies may involve tag teams, sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry to 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.
- Disruptive editing can be driven by paid or unpaid advocacy. Don't become a POV warrior.
On the chance you believe you may have wandered into a flock of aggressive advocacy ducks (real or imagined) that have demonstrated behaviors like fundamental noncompliance with NPoV, or WP:OWN over an article or correlation of topics, it is of the utmost importance to AGF, maintain civility and remember, things aren't always what they seem. He who quacks loudest may be you. Unsubstantiated allegations of tag team behavior may be considered violative of WP:Civility policy so the utmost care should be taken to properly identify the behavior. Assertions should be framed properly using WP:diffs to cite evidence in the appropriate venues. It's up to you to AGF and closely follow the WP:Dispute resolution process.
*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 an undisclosed paid WP:COI, or unpaid advocacy editing. Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance whether it involves advocating for or against something. If you happen to arrive at an article only to have your work quickly reverted, do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy. There are certain steps you should take to avoid disruption beginning with stop, breathe, think.
On the chance you find yourself subjected to a pattern of aggressive editing behavior by one or more editors who repeatedly disrupt progress and foil attempts to improve or expand an article while displaying behaviors of WP:OWN, tendentious editing and WP:BULLYING, remember to AGF and start a polite discussion on the article's talk page (TP) to introduce yourself. Other disruptive behaviors may include coordinated efforts by a WP:Tag team, WP:Sock puppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry in order to gain advantage during an RfC or noticeboard discussion. They may also deploy the tag team revert tactic to avoid a Misplaced Pages:3RR violation that could result in a block. More aggressive advocacy ducks may attempt to WP:BAIT you into Misplaced Pages:Edit warring. The information in the sections below is formulated to help you analyze your own edits, and identify certain disruptive behaviors. There are proper steps you can take to insure a pleasant editing experience.
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:
- Did your edit(s) actually improve the appearance of the article, or create instability? Analyze your edit(s) more closely.
- Was it overly critical or biased, or was it puffery? See WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Were you polite throughout the discussions? Calm discussions focused on content not editors are the most productive means to reach a compromise.
- 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.
- 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.
- Did you seek a third party for input? Oftentimes an uninvolved editor can provide valuable input.
- 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.
Signs of advocacy behavior
- An advocate may have a WP:SPA (single purpose account). Notice if most of their edits are spent on one article or a set of articles about the same topic. The advocacy could be for or against a given subject, but either way an advocate will seek to skew an article in ways that violate WP:NPOV.
- Pro-cause advocates may add non-neutral positive language (puffery), may give undue weight to positive content about the subject, and may add content about their favorite issue that is off-topic (see coatracks), while excluding and/or reverting well-sourced negative content.
- Anti-cause advocates may add non-neutral negative language ("labels"), may give undue weight to negative content about the subject, and may add content about their favorite issue that is off-topic (see coatracks), while excluding and/or reverting well-sourced positive content. They may be interested in turning articles into attack pages.
- Key signs of advocacy in content editing and talk page behavior are described in the essays on advocacy, tendentious editing, and Civil POV pushing.
- New editors may come to Misplaced Pages with an ax to grind, and often don't understand Misplaced Pages's content and behavioral policies and guidelines. While being a new editor does not make advocacy acceptable, it is important to not bite the newbies and try to teach new editors the importance of NPOV. Some will be willing to learn, and some will not.
- Advocates may work in teams to skew articles. See WP:TAGTEAM. Do not confuse consensus that goes against you with tag-team advocacy; you may be the advocate.
- If you suspect an undisclosed WP:COI may be involved because another editor is advocating for or against a person, product, or company, ask the other editor politely about that, and take the issue to WP:COIN for further investigation.
Keep your own behavior in check
If you performed the Ten step self-analysis above, read the relative PAGs and identifying behaviors, and feel confident that you have been subjected to advocacy duck behavior, make sure you have substantial evidence with diffs to make a case. But before you head out on the road to resolve, read the following pointers....
- When 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 escalate quickly which is why it is best to avoid confrontation. Take a nap in the duck blind, even if you feel your integrity and/or ability as an editor has been challenged.
- 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.
- If you have questions, seek a third opinion from an experienced editor or if you are a relatively new editor, consider a WP:Mentor.
- The best way to address sourcing issues is to make good use of the sourcing guidelines. For topics that are health and medical related, use MEDRS and avoid primary sources. If you find passages in an article that were cited to unreliable sources, first try to find one. If that doesn't work, 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.
- 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.
- COI or suspected undisclosed paid editing situations that have created disruption should go to WP:COIN.
- Also read, learn, and follow the steps to take at WP:DRN.
- 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
- Neutrality noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article
- Reliable Sources noticeboard – for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable
- No Original Research noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about material that might be original research or source synthesis
- Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about violations of our biography articles.
- Fringe theories noticeboard – to report theories that are given undue weight in articles
- Misplaced Pages:External links noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about external links
- 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.