| Revision as of 20:56, 30 July 2015 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Final steps: extra spaces← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:06, 30 July 2015 edit undoAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,013 edits rv - Sorry, but no. This was a personal opinion, and I had no intention of adding it to the essayNext edit → | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
| * ] - adminstrators' noticeboard (for seeking reversal of a close of an RfC) | * ] - adminstrators' noticeboard (for seeking reversal of a close of an RfC) | ||
| * ] - administrators' noticeboard —incidents. For dealing with behavior issues, not content. State your case concisely, with diffs. Beware the ]. | * ] - administrators' noticeboard —incidents. For dealing with behavior issues, not content. State your case concisely, with diffs. Beware the ]. | ||
| * ] - WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey. | * ] - WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey. | ||
| ==Alternative view== | |||
| There is a genre of fiction no doubt familiar to many of our readers which goes by the name of ] - a genre full of tales of daring-do by a hero who repeatedly triumphs over his (or occasionally her) enemies by a combination of artful swordplay, the judicious use of magick, and good old-fashioned street smarts. A genre perhaps entertaining enough in its way, but frequently somewhat lacking in substantive plot development, and by the time the hero has demonstrated his (or her) foe-slaying skills for the twelfth time, the reader may feel somewhat bored by the whole thing, and look for other forms of entertainment. Perhaps, being fond of words, the reader might turn to Misplaced Pages for something else to read. And perhaps being fond of words being properly spelled (or spelt), of punctuation being at least approximately plausible, and of things not being obviously ''wrong on the internet'', the reader may take the opportunity to embark on the adventure that is Misplaced Pages editing. As adventures go, it probably starts off with nothing more adventurous than a battle in which our foe takes on the Wikimarkup-monster (fearsome to see, but not actually capable of inflicting more than psychic scars) and beats it into submission in order to add a reference to our article on ]'s '']''. The markup beast defeated, our hero may then do the sensible thing, and go outside, to take part in that great adventure known as 'a life'. Or possibly may choose to remain in the semi-darkness to seek out further foes/things that are ''wrong on Misplaced Pages''. And (this adventure having a little more of a plot than his/her past reading) may encounter other heroes, likewise seeking foes. Or possibly, seeking our hero, to explain that he/she is doing it all wrong, and that foe-destroying must be done according to the rules of Magick, known (ominously) as Policies and Guidelines which must Always be Obeyed (including of course the ], which can only be Obeyed some of the time). | |||
| Emboldened by the knowledge of the Rules (or by the belief that he or she knows the rules: true wisdom comes later with the realisation that nobody knows all the rules, and if anyone ever did, they would be out of date anyway - but I digress), our hero looks for further foes - and comes across a whole new menagerie of fearsome beasts - not error-monsters, but malevolent creatures deliberately let loose by fellow adventurers - the dreaded pushed-opinion snake, the bias-ogre and the malevolent misshapen creature that some who have encountered have described as the Google-mined cherry-picked half-quote - a thing so fearsome that nothing but summary deletion followed by a cold shower and a rub down with emery cloth can erase the stink. Having defeated the new monsters, our hero once more sets forth, traipsing across the Land of Misplaced Pages looking for further foes. And then makes an unwelcome discovery. A bias-ogre once defeated may rise again from the dead! Grasping his or her sword firmly in hand, our hero smites it again - and sees it rise again! Some foul 'fellow adventurer' is reanimating the ogre each time it is slain. And so the dreaded edit-war starts - our hero fearing that he or she may be trapped for eternity in a battle against an ever-returning beast. But no, an eternal edit-war is against the Rules, and a hero (or villain) will turn up soon enough to put a stop to it, inflict a fearsome punishment at random on one or other (or both) of the contenders, and leave them both trembling in the knowledge that they have encountered an 'admin' - a creature possessed of supernatural powers, and no sense of humour. | |||
| Shaken from the encounter with the mysterious 'admin', our hero may choose for a time at least to tangle with lesser foes - once more smiting the bad-grammar-hound, the misplaced-comma-weasel and the emdash-for-a-hyphen-python. And with growing confidence as the memory of the fearsome 'admin' fades, our hero may begin once more to take on what he (or she) comes to recognise as the most dangerous of foes - the 'fellow adventurers' who fill the Land of Wikip with dreadful misinformation-lizards, facts-plain-wrong-rodents, and things they read in the '']''. And what is worse, these 'adventurers' are going around in gangs! Gangs who's identifying mark is the infamous advocacy-dragon, boldly tattooed for all to see on their foreheads as a mark of defiance. Even the supernatural admins appear to tremble as the dragon-gangs rampage across the Land of Wikip, summarily beating the *#@% out of anyone who gets in their way. At last, our hero has met his (or her) true purpose in life - to slay the advocacy-dragons, and leave the land of Wikip in peace. But can the dragons be slain by our hero alone? Surely not, there are too many, and with too much power. Then fellow-adventurers must be recruited, for one final battle. But strangely, ominously, few fellow-adventurers seem interested - and few seem even to recognise the dragon gangs at all. The tattoos our hero sees emblazoned on their foreheads are seemingly invisible to others, and when asked to provide actual evidence of dragon-gangs, our hero seems unable to find anything that convinces anyone of anything much, beyond the fact that our hero has read too many sword and sorcery novels, and has failed to notice that the Land of Wikip is an encyclopaedia, not a realm of myth and mystery, and that contributing to it isn't actually the same thing as playing a role in a life-shaping adventure where good must triumph over evil - but only with the hero's personal intervention. Sure, there may be fellow-adventurers engaging in the dreaded advocacy - and even (dare it be said) getting paid to do it. And sure, such advocacy (when it can be identified) needs to be dealt with. But not by dragon-slayers. By evidence. Presented to people who don't believe in dragons, and won't believe in dragons until they see at minimum the scorch marks and the sulphurous dragon-scat. Because no matter how much you personally believe in dragons, you aren't going to convince anyone by recounting your heroic adventures, your personal encounters with fearsome fire-breathing beasts, and your narrow escapes from their fiery blasts. Slay one and bring its leathery asbestos pelt before the mighty ] and maybe people will recognise you for the hero after all, but short of that, all your tales of bravado, of skilful swordplay, of well-timed magick incantations and of artful sidesteps as the beasts lunge at you with their red-hot claws will convince nobody of anything but the folly of reading too much L. Sprague de Camp. | |||
| The moral of this story: neither dragons nor ducks exist. If there is advocacy on Wikpededia, it is carried out by people, and needs to be identified properly and dealt with accordingly. | |||
| ==Related essays, policies, and guidelines== | ==Related essays, policies, and guidelines== | ||
Revision as of 21:06, 30 July 2015
Essay on editing Misplaced Pages | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. | Shortcut |
 | This page in a nutshell: Knowing how to respond to tendentious editing, being able to correctly identify the cause and knowing how to properly engage without creating disruption can sometimes be a daunting task, especially if it's you creating the disruption. This essay will help guide editors down the road to resolution with guidance tips to help identify certain behavioral characteristics peculiar to advocacy in an effort to avoid edit warring, battleground behavior and overall disruption that impedes productivity. |
Advocacy ducks is an essay to help editors identify and respond to aggressive or overzealous advocacy editors who display certain behavioral characteristics that disrupt productive editing. The duck metaphor is a good analogy because not all disruption is hatched from a paid or unpaid advocacy, but there are associated behaviors that are recognizable so if it acts, looks and sounds like an advocacy duck, it may very well be one.
It is easy to spot disruptive editing, but somewhat difficult to ascertain whether it was caused by advocacy (paid or unpaid) or a new editor with a strong opinion who is simply not yet familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. There have been occasions when administrators were called into play because of unyielding disruption, especially when discretionary sanctions are in place, but such incidents rarely elevate to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration which is a long, arduous process at the highest level of conduct dispute resolution (DR).
Certain articles in Misplaced Pages are known to attract disruptive advocacies more so than others, and can leave editors with the impression that one or more advocates have assumed ownership control of an article. Such behavior may also be associated with and reinforced by WP:Tag team behavior as a way to avoid WP:3RRV or gain advantage over community WP:Consensus. The best advice at first encounter of a perceived advocacy is to assume good faith (AGF) because things aren't always what they seem. Unwarranted accusations are considered a personal attack which may result in a block, just as for WP:Edit warring. However, if the disruption prevents article improvement, do collect evidence to bolster your suspicion and make your case.
Signs of advocacy
Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance either for or against something. Learning to recognize advocacy ducks is not an easy task because they may nest in a broad range of topics and articles. You might see them in topics that deal with politics, religion, renewable energy generation, various new technologies, national and ethnic conflicts, life sciences or any other topics that have a following. They almost always engage in long-term tendentious editing that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV with the goal to impose and maintain their POV in an article or related articles that serve to further their cause.
- Pro-cause advocates may add puffery and various peacock terms to whitewash an article creating undue weight. They typically revert edits they deem negative about the subject which is usually when disruptive editing comes into play.
- Anti-cause advocates may add defamatory language, contentious labels, or focus entirely on negative aspects of the subject which creates undue weight and noncompliance with neutral point of view (NPOV). While criticism may very well be warranted in an article, it must be reliably sourced (RS) and in compliance with policies and guidelines (PAG) so the article doesn't become a WP:Coatrack or WP:Attack page. Negative information should be included in articles, but positives or mitigating factors from the same source should not be excluded.
- Both pro and anti-advocates have been known to misapply PAG to further their specific WP:POV. All editors should read and understand the PAGs relative to the discussion. For example, if the reason for a revert is that the source is questionable, the editor who added the information should be able to explain why the cited source is a RS per WP:RS. Another example, if the reason for the revert is that the added statement is puffery, the editor who added the information should be able to explain why it is not puffery per WP:NPOV. Know the PAGs relative to the challenge and subsequent discussion. By doing so, newer editors will gain a better understanding of how Misplaced Pages operates, and it will also serve as a self-reminder.
- Advocacy ducks frequently display ownership, tendentious editing, and may resort to WP:Bullying. Other disruptive behaviors can include coordinated actions such as WP:Tag team, WP:Sock puppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry. Advocacy ducks may also deploy the tag team revert tactic to avoid a Misplaced Pages:3RR violation that could otherwise result in a block. More aggressive advocacy ducks may attempt to WP:BAIT editors into Misplaced Pages:Edit warring or violating WP:CIVILITY.
- Some operate as single purpose accounts (SPA); not to be confused with well-intentioned editors who have a niche interest. The disruption occurs when edits are made for the purposes of promotion or showcasing a particular POV, which is not allowed.
Don't mistake a coot for a duck
At first glance, coots look like ducks but upon closer observation they don't have webbed feet and they don't quack. Coots live on the water, and they are birds but not ducks. What you might think is advocacy editing could be a case of stewardship, not ownership. Remember, AGF. Stewardship is commonly seen in the stable waters of Good Articles and Featured Articles to help protect those articles against vandalism, POV pushing and/or advocacy ducks. If you see a GA symbol 
or FA symbol (
) in the top right margin of an article, it's good etiquette to propose major changes on the article talk page first. Medical and health articles require a reliable special degree of sourcing.
Examine your edits
If your edits were reverted or challenged by other editors, you should examine your edits more closely and listen to editors who disagree with you.
- Did your edit(s) improve the article?
- Were your edits overly critical, biased, or did they introduce puffery?
- Did you cite your passage to a reliable source that is verifiable but not false? Articles relating to medicine or health require close attention to WP:MEDRS guidelines.
- Is the article a biography or the biography of a living person (BLP)? BLPs require strict adherence to policy, country-specific laws 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? Consider the common ground on which editors have agreement, and focus on compromising whenever possible to build WP:CONSENSUS. If the dispute continues, it may be time to bring in more voices and 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 make any attempt to seek help from uninvolved editors? 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, and a third party can provide assistance. Oftentimes an uninvolved editor can provide valuable input.
- Are your arguments based on policies and guidelines, avoiding repetition, and substantive? If not, then you are the one engaging in tendentious editing and it's likely that you are the advocacy duck.
- Are you the only editor arguing your position? If so, it is possible that you are editing outside consensus and the problematic editor could be you.
- Did you determine your behavior and edits may have been the problem? Apologize and walk away from the topic for a while. If you continue on a tendentious editing path you could be blocked or banned from editing anything related to that topic.
If, however, you are certain that the problem is not you, then you may be at a fork in the road. If you suspect you've encountered a COI , which is a special type of advocacy, it is best to follow the road to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. On the other hand, if you are certain you encountered POV warriors or advocacy ducks, take the road to resolution.
Avoid confrontation
If your edits were reverted or challenged, do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy. Even if other editors appear to be working together as a tag team, keep in mind that they may be working together to prevent advocacy ducks from pushing their POV. Unsubstantiated allegations of tendentious editing or advocacy may be considered violations of the WP:Civility policy and can result in you being blocked, so the utmost care should be taken to properly identify such behavior. Remember, he who quacks loudest may be you.
If you followed all the above suggestions and still think you have come across an advocacy duck, stay calm, AGF and remember:
- 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 so 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.
- Misplaced Pages has no deadlines, so do not exhaust your editing 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.
Road to resolution
So you've found an advocacy duck; now what?
Now you follow the dispute resolution process. The idiom "keep your ducks in a row" applies here with regards to putting forth a substantive argument. Assertions must be framed properly using WP:diffs to cite evidence at the appropriate venues. Beware the WP:Boomerang - if you behaved poorly prior to bringing the issue to ANI or if the editor about whom you have a concern has really done nothing wrong, discussion there could turn to your behavior and you could be warned, blocked or sanctioned.
- If edit warring has ramped up and the three-revert rule was violated, initiate a report at WP:3RRV.
- If feathers are flying over content issues, you can either seek a 3rd opinion (WP:3O) or initiate a request for comments (WP:RFC) to achieve consensus. Avoid WP:Canvassing and WP:Forum shopping. You can also post on the relevant noticeboard for assistance in determining reliable sources, neutrality, original research, external links, BLPs, or fringe topics. Read the instructions associated with noticeboards so you don't end up in the wrong place. State your case succinctly with diffs to support your assertions. Other options include WP:MEDIATION or WP:DRN.
- If your edits are consistently being challenged by an overzealous individual or flock of advocacy ducks that keep flapping their wings and ruffling your feathers in displays of poor conduct, the next option is administrator action at one of the noticeboards. If the article is under WP:DS, you can request WP:AE; and if that fails, the final option is WP:ARBCOM.
Don't be a vigilante; bring problems to the community at noticeboards.
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 to support specific content
- 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 - adminstrators' noticeboard (for seeking reversal of a close of an RfC)
- WP:ANI - administrators' noticeboard —incidents. For dealing with behavior issues, not content. State your case concisely, with diffs. Beware the WP:Boomerang.
- Arbitration Committee - WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey.
Related essays, policies, and guidelines
3Category:WikiProject Integrity Category:WikiProject NPOV
Category: