Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atsme (talk | contribs) at 03:44, 27 April 2015 (Reverted edits by Ca2james (talk) to last version by Atsme). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Userpage blue border

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.

Make no mistake

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. In other words, what might appear to be advocacy editing could be a case of 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.

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.

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 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. 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. 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 by chance you find yourself subjected to a long-term pattern of aggressive editing behavior by one or more editors who repeatedly disrupt progress and foil attempts to improve or expand an article while displaying 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 by a WP:Tag team, WP:Sock puppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry in order to gain advantage during an RfC or noticeboard discussion. 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.

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.

Self-analysis

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:

1. Did your edit(s) actually improve the article, or create instability? Analyze your edit(s) more closely.
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 that relate to medical, health or science require close attention to WP:MEDRS guidelines. Read them, learn them, follow them.
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 WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR.
5. Did you initiate a discussion on the article's talk page and request input from the community? If the dispute continues, it may be time to initiate an RfC.
6. 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.
7. Were you polite throughout the discussions? Calm discussions focused on content not editors are the most productive means to reach a compromise.
8. 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.
9. 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.

Signs of advocacy

• While an advocate may or may not be a single purpose account (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 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.

• 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.
• 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.
• Do not confuse consensus that goes against you with tag team 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 RfC and other PAGs if you believe the situation requires a new consensus.
• If you suspect an undisclosed WP:COI may be involved because another editor is advocating for or against a person, product, or company, ask the other editor politely on their Talk page if that is the case and take the issue to WP:COIN for further investigation.

Anatidae ethology with comparative psychology

• Ducks often act collectively, perhaps cooperatively, and attack something they see as threatening — this is known as "mobbing". Advocacy ducks may involve tag teams, sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry to sway consensus, control the article and make it appear as though you are the one disrupting the community.
• Ducks often walk more slowly than necessary while some are reluctant to stay in line as they should. Advocacy ducks may engage in tendentious editing while ignoring consensus.
• Ducks learn from failed attempts at being captured and become more difficult to find. Advocacy ducks have learned how to game the system 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 WP:Bullying, WP:Hounding and WP:Baiting. Don't be a June bug. Avoid the temptation to enter into an edit dispute by becoming a POV warrior or responding in-kind to personal attacks. Stay the course on the road to resolution.
  

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 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.
• Remember, the article isn't going anywhere, WP has no deadlines, so don't flatline your editing experience by attacking the issue with a sense of urgency.
• If you have questions, seek a third opinion from an experienced editor or if you are a relatively new editor, consider a WP:Mentor.
• The best way to address sourcing issues is to make good use of the sourcing guidelines. For topics that are health and medical related, use WP:MEDRS. 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 Misplaced Pages:Citation needed template and begin a discussion on the Talk Page.

Road to resolution

It is not wise for an individual editor to ascertain with certainty that a content dispute stems from paid or unpaid advocacy ducks. It is always better to seek a third opinion or try to achieve consensus by means of an RfC. If paid editing is suspected, seek community oversight at the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN). If you've followed the steps above and are still being subjected to aggressive behavior, it may be time to seek an administrator's assistance. Other options include the relative noticeboards for consensus. Read the instructions associated with each of the noticeboards listed below so you don't end up in the wrong place. Also keep in mind that the goal of this essay is not to encourage wikiconspiracy theorists to skulk talk pages looking for advocacy ducks or to use this essay as a cudgel to gain POV advantage. Don't be a vigilante; bring problems to the community at noticeboards.

1. WP:RfC is the first step to achieving WP:Consensus if you encounter one or more editors who appear to be entrenched in a particular POV.
2. COI or suspected undisclosed paid editing situations that have created disruption should go to WP:COIN.
3. Also read, learn, and follow the steps to take at WP:DRN.
4. Advocacy duck situations that have elevated into disruption and repetitive incidents of incivility should be brought to the attention of the community at WP:ANI.

Other Noticeboards to seek consensus

• Neutrality noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article
• Reliable Sources noticeboard – for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable 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 (only 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 - 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.
• Arbitration Committee - WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey.

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment), 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. Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Related essays, policies, and guidelines

Categories

• Category:WikiProject Integrity
• Category:WikiProject NPOV