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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:45, 26 April 2015 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,804 edits →Road to resolution: add ARBCOM overview← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:19, 15 January 2022 edit undoSmall Jars Lack Gold (talk | contribs)246 edits →Examine your edits: Actually that didn't work very well, even though it improved the grammar. Maybe it's best just to shorten this and put those other points elsewhere if they aren't already 
(287 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Guidance essay|WP:AVDUCK}}
{{Userpage blue border}}
{{nutshell | Knowing how to respond to ] 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 ] in an effort to avoid ], ] and overall disruption that impedes productivity.}}


]
]
]
]
]


This essay is about '''advocacy ducks''' and was created to help editors identify and properly respond to aggressive or overzealous editors who ] for certain causes, and display certain behavioral characteristics that disrupt productive editing. The ] is a good analogy because not all disruption is hatched from a paid or unpaid advocacy. Paid advocacies or ] are subject to the policies set forth for ] as well as Misplaced Pages's ]. There are associated behaviors that are recognizable so if it acts, looks and sounds like an advocacy duck, it could be one; therefore, editors need to know how best to respond.
=='''Advocacy ducks'''==
]
] 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 ]]]
]


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 are basic procedures that editors should follow when seeking ] (DR) for disruptive editing, beginning with polite discussion on the article's talk page (TP). If discussions fail to resolve a content dispute it may prove beneficial to request a ] or seek a wider range of input to achieve community consensus by initiating a ] (RfC). If disruption continues after a consensus has been reached and it escalates into disruptive behavior, it may be necessary to file a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). If after all of the earliest attempts at DR have failed and the disruptive conduct continues, it is probably time to invite an ] to review the disruption or you can open a case at the ] (ANI) where administrators provide input and will take necessary action to stop the disruption, especially if the article is subject to ]. Incidents involving disruptive behavior are usually resolved at ANI, and rarely elevate to ] which is a long arduous process at the highest level of conduct DR.
<br>
<center>{{prettyquote | If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck <br><center>{{Duck}}....</center></br>}}</center>
</br>
'''Advocacy ducks''' is an essay to help editors identify and respond to certain disruptive behaviors resulting from overly bold or overzealous advocacy editors. In other words, If the editor acts, looks, and sounds like an advocate, they may be one. It can be difficult to ascertain whether the disruption is caused by advocacy editors, especially when dealing with ] who aren't familiar with editing an encyclopedia or with Misplaced Pages's ]. There are few occasions when disruptive editing by advocacy ducks requires a focused analysis by ], and even more rare for it to elevate to ] which is a long and arduous process and highest level of ] (DR) for conduct disputes.


Certain articles in Misplaced Pages are more likely than others to attract disruptive advocates which can leave editors with the impression that one or more advocates have assumed ] of an article. Such behavior may also be associated with and reinforced by ] behavior as a way to avoid ] or gain advantage over community consensus. The best advice when first encountering a perceived advocacy is to assume good faith because things aren't always what they seem. Unwarranted accusations are considered a personal attack and may result in a block in much the same way as it does for edit warring. However, if the disruption prevents article improvement, you will need to collect evidence to establish whether your suspicions are correct, and if they are, to make your case.
Disruptive behavior that prevents improvement of an article is not normal but it does happen. No topic or article is immune from advocacy or the possibility of nesting advocacy ducks who push a strong POV. Disruptive editing and '']'' of an article may or may not be the result of a paid or unpaid ] duck situation. One suggestion that appears regularly throughout this essay is to ] (AGF) because it is often a guiding light to the path of happy editing. Even if disruption seems obvious, do not make unwarranted ] based on suspicion without evidence. Doing so is considered a ] and you can be blocked for it. Just remember, AGF and avoid ] or you might become a sitting duck.


==Make no mistake== ==Signs of advocacy==
{{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. Like ducks, coots live on the water and they are birds, but they are not ducks. In other words, what might appear to be advocacy editing could be a case of ]. Stewardship can be most commonly seen at ] and ] to help protect those articles against vandalism, POV pushing and/or advocacy ducks. Medical and health articles also require a higher degree of ] and stewards at those articles ensure that all edits must adhere to ] guidelines.</br>}}


Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of ] 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 science, politics, religion, sports, or any other topics that have a ''following''. They may or may not be editing with an undisclosed ] or be paid for their editing. Advocacy ducks and POV zealots are ]. They almost always engage in long-term ] behaviors and fundamental noncompliance with ] in an effort to impose their POV in an article. Advocacy 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 a controversial article, or on any article whose subject has a following. Advocates often have a bias they cannot set aside which prevents them from editing in compliance with ] (NPOV). They often engage in long-term tendentious editing by attempting to impose and maintain their point of view in an article or related articles that serve to further their cause.
* Pro-cause advocates may add ] and various peacock terms to whitewash an article creating ]. They may revert edits they deem negative about the subject which is typically when disruptive editing comes into play.
* Anti-cause advocates may add defamatory language, ], or give undue weight to negative aspects of the subject in breach of NPOV. While criticism may very well be warranted in an article, it must be ] (RS) and in compliance with ] so the article doesn't become a ] or ]. 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 POV. All editors should read and understand the policies and guidelines 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 reliable per WP:RS. 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 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 bullying. Other disruptive behaviors can include tag team editing, ] or ]. Advocacy ducks may also deploy the ''tag team revert tactic'' to avoid a ] violation that could otherwise result in a block. More aggressive advocacy ducks may attempt to ] editors into edit warring or violating civility.
* Some operate as ] (SPAs), who should not 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==
If you happen be working on an article and find your changes reverted or challenged, '''do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy.''' Even if other editors appear to be working together as a ], 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 ] policy and can result in you being blocked, so the utmost care should be taken to properly identify such behavior. The ] "keep your ducks in a row" applies here with regards to putting forth a substantive argument. Assertions must be framed properly using ] to cite evidence at the ]. If you think you have stumbled into a nest of advocacy ducks, '''stop, breathe, think''' before doing anything. Remember, he who quacks loudest may be you.
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 ]. Remember, AGF. Stewardship is commonly seen in the stable waters of ] and ] 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 is good etiquette to propose changes, other than correcting grammatical or link errors, on the article talk page first. Medical and health articles require a ], and wise to seek input from members of ] prior to making any changes.


==Examine your edits==
{{talkquote|If by chance you find yourself subjected to a '''''long-term pattern of aggressive editing behavior''''' by one or more editors who repeatedly ] and foil attempts to improve or expand an article while displaying ], ], ] and the like, remember to AGF and start a polite discussion on the editor's talk page (TP) to introduce yourself. Other disruptive behaviors may include coordinated efforts by a ], ] or ] in order to gain advantage during an RfC or noticeboard discussion. Advocates may also deploy the tag team ] tactic to avoid a ] violation that could otherwise result in a block. More aggressive advocacy ducks may attempt to ] you into ] or violating ] policies.}}
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 ] to a reliable source that is ]? Articles relating to medicine or health require close attention to ] guidelines.
# Is the article a biography or the ] (BLP)? BLPs require strict adherence to policy, country-specific laws and compliance with ], ], and ].
# 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 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 <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, and a ] can provide assistance. Oftentimes an uninvolved editor can provide valuable input.
# Are your arguments based on policies and guidelines? If not, then you are the one engaging in ] 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 conflict of interest, which is a special type of advocacy, it is best to follow the road to the ]. On the other hand, if you are certain you encountered POV warriors or advocacy ducks, take the road to resolution.
The information in the sections below is formulated to help you both analyze your own edits and identify certain disruptive behaviors. There are proper steps you can take to insure a pleasant editing experience.


==Avoid confrontation==
==Self-analysis==
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 ] 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.
Before assuming that you are dealing with an advocacy duck, examine your own behavior. There is a strong possibility that what you are perceiving as advocacy are other editors responding to your own advocacy editing. If your edits have been reverted or challenged and other editors are arguing with you, carefully consider the following:
#Did your edit(s) actually improve the article, or create ]? Analyze your edit(s) more closely.
#Were your edits overly ], ], or did they introduce ]?
#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, country-specific laws and compliance with ], ], and ].
#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 ].
#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 <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, and a ] can provide assistance. Oftentimes an uninvolved editor can provide valuable input.
#Were you polite throughout the discussions? Calm discussions focused on content not editors are the most productive means to reach a compromise.
#Are your arguments based on ], avoiding ], and substantive? If not, then you are the one engaging in ] and it's likely that you are the advocacy duck.
#Are you the only editor arguing your position? If so, it is likely that you are editing outside ] and the problematic editor is you.


If you followed all the above suggestions and still think you have come across an advocacy duck, stay calm, AGF and remember:
If you realize that your behavior and edits are 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.
* When confronted by advocacy ducks, it is all the more important for you to remain focused on article content and follow PAG.

* Veteran advocacy ducks are skilled at gaming the system so if you behave inappropriately you may find yourself waving goodbye from the back of a little red caboose after being ] into an unexpected ] or ].
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 ] duck, which is a special type of advocacy duck, it is best to follow the road to the ]. On the other hand, if you are certain encountered POV warriors or advocacy ducks, take the road to resolution.
* 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.
==Signs of advocacy==
* 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 ].
*While an advocate may or may not be a ] (SPA), whose edits customarily focus on one article or group of articles about the same topic, SPAs may not necessarily be advocates and may not necessarily be harming the encyclopedia. Be careful not to confuse an editor's interest in a specific topic with SPA behavior. Misplaced Pages is fortunate to have a wide range of experts who create articles and help maintain factual accuracy. Although these experts tend to edit in one topic are, their edits customarily follow ] and ensure the article remains neutral. In contrast, the behavior of overzealous advocacy ducks are typically abusive of PAG and often violate ].
]
*'''Pro-cause''' advocates may add ] and various ] to whitewash an article creating ]. 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, ], and may focus on negative aspects of the subject, all of which give ] to denigrating and discrediting the article subject. They typically revert edits that reflect anything positive about the subject. While ] may very well be warranted in an article, it must be ] in adherence with PAG so the article doesn't become a ] or ]. 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 POV. All editors should read and understand the PAG mentioned in discussions they are involved in. By doing so newer editors will gain a better understanding of how Misplaced Pages operates and help them avoid doing it themselves.
*New editors often don't understand Misplaced Pages's content or its PAG. While being new is not an excuse for advocacy or POV pushing, it is important to ]. Instead, try to teach them the importance of NPOV. In some instances, new editors may simply be old advocacy ducks who have returned with a new identity after repeated ] or ] and the like. It is important to AGF even though you may suspect the latter. Move forward with the belief they returned in GF and will not repeat their old behaviors. If they prove otherwise, simply follow the ''road to resolution''.
*Do not confuse ] that goes against you with ] advocacy or you could appear as the advocate. Also keep in mind that while editors must respect the consensus of the standing community, it is not set in stone and can possibly change if adherence to policies is still in question. Become familiar with the guidelines for initiating an ] and other PAGs if you believe the situation requires a new consensus.
*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 on their Talk page if that is the case and take the issue to ] for further investigation.

{{talkquote|] ] with ] <br>
*Ducks often act collectively, perhaps cooperatively, and attack something they see as threatening&nbsp;— this is known as ]. Advocacy ducks may involve ], ] and/or ] to sway ], ] and make it appear as though you are the one ].
*Ducks often walk more slowly than necessary while some are reluctant to stay in line as they should. Advocacy ducks may engage in ] while ignoring consensus.
*Ducks learn from failed attempts at being captured and become more difficult to find. Advocacy ducks have learned how to ] and switch blame to the opposition to avoid being caught.
*Ducks that are hungry will aggressively chase a June bug, thus the expression of eagerness and alacrity, "all over that like a duck on a June bug". Paid advocacy ducks may be far more motivated to rid ''their'' article of opposition and may deploy aggressive tactics to do so, like ], ] and ]. Don't be a June bug. Avoid the temptation to enter into an edit dispute by becoming a ] or responding in-kind to ]. Stay the course on the ''road to resolution''.</br>}}

==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 resolution'', 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 ].
*Veteran advocacy ducks are skilled at ] so 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 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 ].
*The best way to address sourcing issues is to make good use of the ]. For topics that are health and medical related, use ]. If you find passages in an article that were cited to unreliable sources, first try to find a suitable source. If that doesn't work, use the ] template and begin a discussion on the Talk Page.


==Road to resolution== ==Road to resolution==
] ]
====So you've found an advocacy duck; now what?====
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. Don't be a vigilante; bring problems to the community at noticeboards.


Now you follow the dispute resolution process. The idiom applies here with regards to putting forth a substantive argument. Assertions must be backed up with evidence (usually in the form of "diffs"). Keep in mind that there is always a good chance that—rightly or wrongly—discussion at a noticeboard will lead ''you'' to be warned, blocked or sanctioned instead of the reported duck.
#] is the first step to achieving ] if you encounter one or more editors who appear to be entrenched in a particular POV.
* If edit warring has ramped up and the three-revert rule was violated, initiate a report at ].
#COI or suspected undisclosed paid editing situations that have created disruption should go to ].
* If feathers are flying over content issues, you can either seek a 3rd opinion or initiate a request for comments RfC to achieve consensus. Avoid ] and ]. 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 ] or ].
#Also read, learn, and follow the steps to take at ].
* 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 discretionary sanctions, you can request ]; and if that fails, the final option is ].
#Advocacy duck situations that have elevated into disruption and repetitive incidents of incivility should be brought to the attention of the community at ].


{{talkquote|Don't be a vigilante; bring problems to the community at noticeboards.}}
;Other Noticeboards to seek consensus:
*]&nbsp;– to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article
*]&nbsp;– for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable to support specific content
*]&nbsp;– to raise questions and alerts about material that might be original research or source synthesis
*]&nbsp;– to raise questions and alerts about violations of our biography articles.
*]&nbsp;– to report theories that are given undue weight in articles
*]&nbsp;– to raise questions and alerts about external links
;Final Steps:
*] - adminstrators' noticeboard (only for seeking reversal of a close of an RfC)
*] - administrators' noticeboard&nbsp;—incidents. For dealing with behavior issues, not content. State your case concisely, with diffs. Beware the ] - if you let yourself behave 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 or sanctioned.
*] - WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey.


====Other noticeboards to seek advice====
{{Quote box | quoted=true | bgcolor=#FFFFF0 | salign=center | align=center | quote=''ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the cases it hears. This may not always be clear, but anyone who fails to resolve matters at the community level and comes to ArbCom is running the risk of not getting the case or result they wanted. We define the scope of the case and the possible remedies, and have wide latitude to impose what we see fit, based on our judgment. This is because we are the last stage in dispute resolution, and the aim is to get matters sorted for the good of the encyclopedia as a whole, not attend to the finer details of due process for individual editors. There is also a need to not let things linger on and on. Good advice to those under arbitration is to accept the results of arbitration and work within the constraints set down. Anything else is unproductive, no matter how 'right' you think you are. And I appreciate the thought, but please don't try and shift discussion to my talk page, as you will likely get blocked for that. This discussion should be the last on the matter for some time. Your only options now are to file a formal appeal for relaxation of the topic ban (the page to do this at is ]), or to do some work in other areas - trying to spin out this discussion elsewhere will likely see you blocked for discussing your sanction in the wrong area. It should be obvious that some quiet work in other areas would go a long way to seeing an appeal (in a few months) actually succeed, and it should also be obvious that an immediate appeal will almost certainly fail. I really can't put it any plainer than that. I also am unlikely to have time to respond further here, as there are other arbitration matters that need attention as well.'' ] (]) 11:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
* ] &nbsp;– to help resolve article content disputes
}}
* ]&nbsp;– for discussion and alerts regarding the neutrality of an article
* ]&nbsp;– for discussion about the reliability of a source to support specific content
* ]&nbsp;– for discussion and alerts about material that might be original research or ]
* ]&nbsp;– for discussion and alerts about violations of living persons; violations may apply to any page in Misplaced Pages
* ]&nbsp;– to report fringe theories that are given undue weight in articles
* ]&nbsp;– for discussion and alerts about external links


====Final steps====
* ] - administrators' noticeboard (for seeking reversal of or a close of an RfC, or other actions needing an administrator)
* ] - administrators' noticeboard/incidents. For dealing with behavior issues, not content. State your case concisely, with diffs. Beware the ].
* ] - WP's "supreme court" which can be a long and arduous journey. of an arbcom motion.


==Related essays, policies, and guidelines==
{{Civility}}
{{columns-list|colwidth=22em|

===Related essays, policies, and guidelines===
{{columns-list|3|
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] *]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
}} }}


{{Civility}}
===Categories===

*]
*] ]
]
]

Latest revision as of 05:19, 15 January 2022

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.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...is it a duck? (Are these ducks or geese?)
Undue weight is a common sign of advocacy ducks at work.
Do not mistake a nesting coot for a nesting advocacy duck, although both may show POV and OWN behavior
Advocacy ducks may show signs of puffery
If it's raining ducks, know when to get out of the rain.

This essay is about advocacy ducks and was created to help editors identify and properly respond to aggressive or overzealous editors who advocate for certain causes, and 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. Paid advocacies or conflicts of interest are subject to the policies set forth for paid editing as well as Misplaced Pages's Terms of Use. There are associated behaviors that are recognizable so if it acts, looks and sounds like an advocacy duck, it could be one; therefore, editors need to know how best to respond.

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 are basic procedures that editors should follow when seeking dispute resolution (DR) for disruptive editing, beginning with polite discussion on the article's talk page (TP). If discussions fail to resolve a content dispute it may prove beneficial to request a third opinion or seek a wider range of input to achieve community consensus by initiating a request for comments (RfC). If disruption continues after a consensus has been reached and it escalates into disruptive behavior, it may be necessary to file a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). If after all of the earliest attempts at DR have failed and the disruptive conduct continues, it is probably time to invite an uninvolved administrator to review the disruption or you can open a case at the administrator's noticeboard/incidents (ANI) where administrators provide input and will take necessary action to stop the disruption, especially if the article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Incidents involving disruptive behavior are usually resolved at ANI, and rarely elevate to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration which is a long arduous process at the highest level of conduct DR.

Certain articles in Misplaced Pages are more likely than others to attract disruptive advocates which 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 tag team behavior as a way to avoid 3RRV or gain advantage over community consensus. The best advice when first encountering a perceived advocacy is to assume good faith because things aren't always what they seem. Unwarranted accusations are considered a personal attack and may result in a block in much the same way as it does for edit warring. However, if the disruption prevents article improvement, you will need to collect evidence to establish whether your suspicions are correct, and if they are, to make your case.

Signs of advocacy

Advocacy 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 a controversial article, or on any article whose subject has a following. Advocates often have a bias they cannot set aside which prevents them from editing in compliance with neutral point of view (NPOV). They often engage in long-term tendentious editing by attempting to impose and maintain their point of view 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 may revert edits they deem negative about the subject which is typically when disruptive editing comes into play.
  • Anti-cause advocates may add defamatory language, contentious labels, or give undue weight to negative aspects of the subject in breach of 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 coatrack or 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 POV. All editors should read and understand the policies and guidelines 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 reliable per WP:RS. 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 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 bullying. Other disruptive behaviors can include tag team editing, sock or meatpuppetry. Advocacy ducks may also deploy the tag team revert tactic to avoid a 3RR violation that could otherwise result in a block. More aggressive advocacy ducks may attempt to bait editors into edit warring or violating civility.
  • Some operate as single purpose accounts (SPAs), who should not 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 WP:Good articles and WP: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 is good etiquette to propose changes, other than correcting grammatical or link errors, on the article talk page first. Medical and health articles require a special degree of sourcing, and wise to seek input from members of WT:WikiProject Medicine prior to making any changes.

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.

  1. Did your edit(s) improve the article?
  2. Were your edits overly critical, biased, or did they introduce puffery?
  3. 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 MEDRS guidelines.
  4. 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 NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR.
  5. 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 consensus. If the dispute continues, it may be time to bring in more voices and 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 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.
  8. Are your arguments based on policies and guidelines? If not, then you are the one engaging in tendentious editing and it's likely that you are the advocacy duck.
  9. 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.
  10. 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 conflict of interest, which is a special type of advocacy, it is best to follow the road to the COIN. 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 PAG.
  • Veteran advocacy ducks are skilled at 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 WP:Mentorship.

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 backed up with evidence (usually in the form of "diffs"). Keep in mind that there is always a good chance that—rightly or wrongly—discussion at a noticeboard will lead you to be warned, blocked or sanctioned instead of the reported duck.

  • If edit warring has ramped up and the three-revert rule was violated, initiate a report at AN3.
  • If feathers are flying over content issues, you can either seek a 3rd opinion or initiate a request for comments RfC to achieve consensus. Avoid canvassing and 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 mediation or 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 discretionary sanctions, you can request AE; and if that fails, the final option is ArbCom.

Don't be a vigilante; bring problems to the community at noticeboards.

Other noticeboards to seek advice

  • DRN  – to help resolve article content disputes
  • NPOVN – for discussion and alerts regarding the neutrality of an article
  • RSN – for discussion about the reliability of a source to support specific content
  • NORN – for discussion and alerts about material that might be original research or source synthesis
  • BLPN – for discussion and alerts about violations of living persons; violations may apply to any page in Misplaced Pages
  • FTN – to report fringe theories that are given undue weight in articles
  • ELN – for discussion and alerts about external links

Final steps

  • AN - administrators' noticeboard (for seeking reversal of or a close of an RfC, or other actions needing an administrator)
  • ANI - administrators' noticeboard/incidents. For dealing with behavior issues, not content. State your case concisely, with diffs. Beware the WP:Boomerang.
  • ARBCOM - WP's "supreme court" which can be a long and arduous journey. Example of an arbcom motion.

Related essays, policies, and guidelines

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
Categories: