| Revision as of 23:58, 26 April 2015 editCa2james (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,294 edits →Your own behavior: bold change - remove questions related to policies and guidelines, which could possibly go in another essay← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:31, 27 April 2015 edit undoCa2james (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,294 edits →Road to resolution: bold change - rewrite a lot, remove quote (but keep link), and remove civility template because this is an essay about advocatesNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| ==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. Don't be a vigilante; bring problems to the community at noticeboards. | |||
| So you've found an advocacy duck; now what? | |||
| ⚫ | Now you follow ] processes. Keep in mind that unsubstantiated allegations of tendentious editing, advocacy, or COI may be considered violations of the ] policy and can result in you being blocked, so you must take the utmost care 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 ]. 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. | ||
| If you think you have discovered a COI duck or a paid editing duck then first try politely talking to the editor on their Talk page. If the editor admits to having a ] with a topic, then refer them to ] for help on editing articles in that topic area. If the editor does not respond, or responds with insults, then bring your concerns to ]. Remember that you cannot ] someone to show that they have a COI or are being paid; even if you know that an editor is head of a company and edits pages about that company, you may not disclose that information. | |||
| If you have discovered an advocacy duck on pages you are editing and advocacy is limited to article content, then first either seek a ] or start an ] to achieve consensus. 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, and state your case concisely, with diffs. Other options include ] or ]. | |||
| If the advocacy duck is showing conduct issues, first try talking to the editor about their behavior on their Talk page. If they have violated ], then make a new report at ]. If their behavior includes incivility or they are being disruptive, then the next option is ] or ]; if these fail, the final option is ]. | |||
| Don't be a vigilante; bring problems to the community at noticeboards. | |||
| Final tips: | |||
| *When confronted by advocacy ducks, it is all the more important for you to remain focused on article content and follow ]. | *When confronted by advocacy ducks, it is all the more important for you to remain focused on article content and follow ]. | ||
| ⚫ | *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. | ||
| *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. | *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. | ||
| *If you have questions, seek |
*If you have questions, seek another 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. | |||
| #] 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 ]. | |||
| #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 the community at ]. | |||
| ;Other Noticeboards to seek consensus: | ;Other Noticeboards to seek consensus: | ||
| *] – to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article | *] – Neutrality noticeboard to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article | ||
| *] – for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable to support specific content | *] – Reliable Sources noticeboard – for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable to support specific content | ||
| *] – to raise questions and alerts about material that might be original research or source synthesis | *] – No Original Research noticeboard – 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. | *] –Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard, – to raise questions and alerts about violations of our biography articles. | ||
| *] – to report theories that are given undue weight in articles | *] – Fringe theories noticeboard – to report theories that are given undue weight in articles | ||
| *] – to raise questions and alerts about external links | *] – Misplaced Pages:External links noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about external links | ||
| ;Final Steps: | ;Final Steps: | ||
| *] |
*] – adminstrators' noticeboard (only for seeking reversal of a close of an RfC) | ||
| *] |
*] – administrators' noticeboard —incidents. For dealing with behavior issues, not content. | ||
| *] - WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey. |
*] - WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey. | ||
| {{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) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Civility}} | |||
| ==Related essays, policies, and guidelines== | ==Related essays, policies, and guidelines== | ||
Revision as of 00:31, 27 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 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 new editors who aren't familiar with editing an encyclopedia or with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. There are few occasions when disruptive editing by advocacy ducks requires a focused analysis by administrators, and even more rare for it to elevate to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration which is a long and arduous process and highest level of dispute resolution (DR) for conduct disputes.
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 perceived control of an article may or may not be the result of a paid or unpaid advocacy duck situation. One suggestion that appears regularly throughout this essay is to assume good faith (AGF) because it is often a guiding light to the path of happy editing. Even if disruption seems obvious, do not make unwarranted accusations based on suspicion without evidence. Doing so is considered a personal attack and you can be blocked for it. Just remember, AGF and avoid WP:Edit warring or you might become a sitting duck.
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 science, politics, religion, sports, or any other topics that have a following. They may or may not be editing with an undisclosed WP:COI or be paid for their editing. Advocacy ducks and POV zealots are disruptive editors. They almost always engage in long-term tendentious editing behaviors and fundamental noncompliance with NPOV in an effort to impose their POV in an article.
- 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, and may focus on negative aspects of the subject, all of which give undue weight to denigrating and discrediting the article subject. They typically revert edits that reflect anything positive about the subject. While criticism may very well be warranted in an article, it must be properly sourced in adherence with 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 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.
Advocacy ducks may display ownership behaviors, tendentious editing, WP:BULLYING 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 as WP:Tag team, or engage in WP:Sock puppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry. Advocates 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 you into Misplaced Pages:Edit warring or violating WP:CIVILITY policies.
Non-advocate behavior
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. Like ducks, coots live on the water and they are birds, but they are not ducks.
- single purpose accounts (SPA) may or may not be advocates. 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 WP:PAG and ensure the article remains neutral. In contrast, the behavior of overzealous advocacy ducks are typically abusive of PAG and often violate WP:NPOV.
- 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 not bite the newbies. 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 blocks or topic bans 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.
- In some cases, what appears to be advocacy is stewardship, not ownership. Stewardship can be most commonly seen at Good Articles and Featured Articles to help protect those articles against vandalism, POV pushing and/or advocacy ducks. Medical and health articles also require a higher degree of reliable sourcing and stewards at those articles ensure that all edits must adhere to WP:MEDRS guidelines.
- Editors that appear to be working together as a tag team, may be working together to prevent advocacy ducks from pushing their POV.
- If editors have PAG rationale for their edits and can point to consensus for their edits then they almost certainly aren't advocacy ducks.
Your own behavior
If you think you have come across an advocacy duck, stay calm, AGF, and introduce yourself on the editor's Talk page.
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. 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.
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 instability? Analyze your edit(s) more closely.
- Were your edits overly critical, biased, or did they introduce puffery?
- 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 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 likely that you are editing outside consensus and the problematic editor is you.
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.
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 duck, which is a special type of advocacy duck, it is best to follow the road to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. On the other hand, if you are certain encountered POV warriors or advocacy ducks, take the road to resolution.
Road to resolution
So you've found an advocacy duck; now what?
Now you follow dispute resolution processes. Keep in mind that unsubstantiated allegations of tendentious editing, advocacy, or COI may be considered violations of the WP:Civility policy and can result in you being blocked, so you must take the utmost care properly identify such behavior. 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 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.
If you think you have discovered a COI duck or a paid editing duck then first try politely talking to the editor on their Talk page. If the editor admits to having a WP:COI with a topic, then refer them to WP:COIN for help on editing articles in that topic area. If the editor does not respond, or responds with insults, then bring your concerns to WP:COIN. Remember that you cannot out someone to show that they have a COI or are being paid; even if you know that an editor is head of a company and edits pages about that company, you may not disclose that information.
If you have discovered an advocacy duck on pages you are editing and advocacy is limited to article content, then first either seek a WP:3O or start an WP:RFC to achieve consensus. 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, and state your case concisely, with diffs. Other options include WP:MEDIATION or WP:DRN.
If the advocacy duck is showing conduct issues, first try talking to the editor about their behavior on their Talk page. If they have violated WP:3RR, then make a new report at WP:ANEW. If their behavior includes incivility or they are being disruptive, then the next option is WP:ANI or WP:AN; if these fail, the final option is WP:ARBCOM.
Don't be a vigilante; bring problems to the community at noticeboards.
Final tips:
- When confronted by advocacy ducks, it is all the more important for you to remain focused on article content and follow WP:PAG.
- 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 another opinion from an experienced editor or if you are a relatively new editor, consider a WP:Mentor.
- Other Noticeboards to seek consensus
- WP:NPOVN – Neutrality noticeboard to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article
- WP:RSN – Reliable Sources noticeboard – for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable to support specific content
- WP:NORN – No Original Research noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about material that might be original research or source synthesis
- WP:BLPN –Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard, – to raise questions and alerts about violations of our biography articles.
- WP:FTN – Fringe theories noticeboard – to report theories that are given undue weight in articles
- WP:ELN – Misplaced Pages:External links noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about external links
- Final Steps
- WP:AN – adminstrators' noticeboard (only for seeking reversal of a close of an RfC)
- WP:ANI – administrators' noticeboard —incidents. For dealing with behavior issues, not content.
- Arbitration Committee - WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey.