Misplaced Pages:Advocacy ducks: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:29, 1 August 2015 editජපස (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits →top: advocacy is not an adjective.← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:44, 1 August 2015 edit undoAtsme (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,804 edits remove gibberish unrelated to this essayNext edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:

	]		]
	] is a common sign of advocacy ducks at work. In relevance to this page, in '']'' a woman is accused of being a ]. Since witches are ], they must be made of wood, since it burns as well. Wood floats on water, as do ]s. Therefore, if the woman weighs the same as a duck, she must be able to float on water, which means she is made of wood, and consequently must be a witch.]]		] is a common sign of advocacy ducks at work.]]
	] for a nesting advocacy duck, although both may show ] and ] behavior]]		] for a nesting advocacy duck, although both may show ] and ] behavior]]
	]		]

Revision as of 17:44, 1 August 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

WP:AVDUCK

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.

This essay is about advocacy ducks. It aims to help editors identify and 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, 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 more likely to attract disruptive advocates 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 when first encountering 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 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, Complementary and alternative medicine, renewable energy generation, various new technologies, national and ethnic conflicts, life sciences or any other topics that have a following. They almost always have a WP:BIAS that they cannot set aside that 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 (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 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 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 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 reliable 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 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 - administrators' 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

Misplaced Pages essays (?)

Essays on building, editing, and deleting content

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Misplaced Pages is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Misplaced Pages Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Levels of consensus Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not broken is ugly Not editing because of Misplaced Pages restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Misplaced Pages Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta We are absolutely here to right great wrongs Misplaced Pages in brief Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia Misplaced Pages is a community Misplaced Pages is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub What is a reliable source Understanding Misplaced Pages's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Misplaced Pages is a work in progress Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source Misplaced Pages is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete or merge Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Emptying categories out of process Follow the leader How the presumption of notability works How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Misplaced Pages is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Don't retaliate Editors' pronouns Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A thank you never hurts A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Misplaced Pages clichés Misplaced Pages is not about winning Misplaced Pages should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Be pragmatic Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it concise Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Misplaced Pages:Because I can Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't ignore community consensus Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Hate is disruptive Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No queerphobia No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance Policy writing is hard

Categories: