Misplaced Pages:Advocacy ducks: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:04, 18 April 2015 editAtsme (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,815 edits new sandbox essay		Revision as of 01:30, 18 April 2015 edit undoAtsme (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,815 edits change caption, tweak proseNext edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:
	{{Civility}}		{{Civility}}
	]		]
	] behavior]]		] and ] behavior]]
	]		]
	]		]
	<br>		<br>
	</br>		</br>
	'''Advocacy ducks''' is an essay to help editors identify certain disruptive behaviors often associated with an overzealous or overly bold editor or group of editors who may be driven by a paid or unpaid ]. No article is immune from advocacy or the possibility of nesting advocacy ducks. It can be rather difficult to identify such behavior which is why it is best to ] (AGF), and not make unwarranted ] based on suspicion or flimsy evidence. It could ]. However, if you notice a pattern of questionable behavior in combination with a correlation of topics and/or repeated editing characteristics such as ], ] and ] by one or more editors working in '''a concerted effort,''' and also notice or experience other questionable behavior by the same editor(s) which closely resembles ] or ] or ] to gain advantage in an RfC, on noticeboards discussions and in forums, you may have wandered into a flock of advocacy ]. If you believe that may be the case, it is of the utmost importance to maintain civility and remember, things aren't always what they seem. 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. They are actually birds not ducks.</br>		'''Advocacy ducks''' is an essay to help editors identify certain disruptive behaviors often associated with an overzealous or overly bold editor or group of editors who may be driven by a paid or unpaid ]. No article is immune from advocacy or the possibility of nesting advocacy ducks who harbor a strong POV. It can be rather difficult to identify such behavior which is why it is best to ] (AGF), and not make unwarranted ] based on suspicion or flimsy evidence. It could ]. However, if you notice a pattern of questionable behavior in combination with a correlation of topics and/or repeated editing characteristics such as ], ] and ] by one or more editors working in '''a concerted effort,''' and also notice or experience other questionable behavior by the same editor(s) which closely resembles ] or ] or ] to gain advantage in an RfC, on noticeboards discussions and in forums, you may have wandered into a flock of advocacy ]. If you believe that may be the case, it is of the utmost importance to maintain civility and remember, things aren't always what they seem. 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. They are actually birds not ducks.</br>

	Learning to recognize problematic advocacy ducks is not an easy task to undertake because it involves a broad range of articles and advocacies. It may or may not result from paid or unpaid editing, both of which can be equally problematic if the editing conflicts with ]. Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance whether advocating for or against something. If you happen to arrive at an article that attracted your interest, and attempted to make a few ] (GF) edits only to have your work quickly reverted, '''do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy.''' Take care to not confuse ] which makes it all the more important to familiarize yourself with relevant policies. However, if the questionable behavior elevates into ], and the edit summaries that accompany the edits or reverts are not supported by PAG, there are certain steps you should take in an effort to identify the problem area(s). Stop, breathe, think...and above all, avoid ]. Follow all the proper steps outlined below and if you still believe it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it may very well be <sup>quack, quack</sup> a duck. Sorry, WP does not offer any duck blinds to protect against such behavior, so you are basically on your own but don't despair. You can always seek ''']'''.		Learning to recognize problematic advocacy ducks is not an easy task to undertake because it involves a broad range of articles and advocacies. It may or may not result from paid or unpaid editing, both of which can be equally problematic if the editing conflicts with ]. Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance whether advocating for or against something. If you happen to arrive at an article that attracted your interest, and attempted to make a few ] (GF) edits only to have your work quickly reverted, '''do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy.''' Take care to not confuse ] which makes it all the more important to familiarize yourself with relevant policies. However, if the questionable behavior elevates into ], and the edit summaries that accompany the edits or reverts are not supported by PAG, there are certain steps you should take in an effort to identify the problem area(s). Stop, breathe, think...and above all, avoid ]. Follow all the proper steps outlined below and if you still believe it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it may very well be <sup>quack, quack</sup> a duck. Sorry, WP does not offer any duck blinds to protect against such behavior, so you are basically on your own but don't despair. You can always seek ''']'''.

Revision as of 01:30, 18 April 2015

Template:Userpage blue border

Advocacy ducks

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 proccess 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 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

Advocacy ducks is an essay to help editors identify certain disruptive behaviors often associated with an overzealous or overly bold editor or group of editors who may be driven by a paid or unpaid WP:Advocacy. No article is immune from advocacy or the possibility of nesting advocacy ducks who harbor a strong POV. It can be rather difficult to identify such behavior which is why it is best to assume good faith (AGF), and not make unwarranted accusations based on suspicion or flimsy evidence. It could boomerang. However, if you notice a pattern of questionable behavior in combination with a correlation of topics and/or repeated editing characteristics such as WP:OWN, tendentious editing and WP:BULLYING by one or more editors working in a concerted effort, and also notice or experience other questionable behavior by the same editor(s) which closely resembles WP:Tag team or WP:Sock puppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry to gain advantage in an RfC, on noticeboards discussions and in forums, you may have wandered into a flock of advocacy ducks. If you believe that may be the case, it is of the utmost importance to maintain civility and remember, things aren't always what they seem. 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. They are actually birds not ducks.

Learning to recognize problematic advocacy ducks is not an easy task to undertake because it involves a broad range of articles and advocacies. It may or may not result from paid or unpaid editing, both of which can be equally problematic if the editing conflicts with WP:PAG. Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance whether advocating for or against something. If you happen to arrive at an article that attracted your interest, and attempted to make a few good faith (GF) edits only to have your work quickly reverted, do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy. Take care to not confuse stewardship with ownership which makes it all the more important to familiarize yourself with relevant policies. However, if the questionable behavior elevates into WP:INCIVILITY, and the edit summaries that accompany the edits or reverts are not supported by PAG, there are certain steps you should take in an effort to identify the problem area(s). Stop, breathe, think...and above all, avoid WP:Edit warring. Follow all the proper steps outlined below and if you still believe it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it may very well be a duck. Sorry, WP does not offer any duck blinds to protect against such behavior, so you are basically on your own but don't despair. You can always seek help.

Advocacies tend to involve tag teams, WP:Sock Puppetry and/or WP:Meatpuppetry to sway consensus, control the article and make it appear as though you are the one disrupting the community.

Most advocacy ducks are accomplished at gaming the system and switching blame to the opposition.

Behavior can be driven by paid or unpaid advocacy which explains why edits that don't support their POV are quickly reverted.

In some cases, they will make the offending editor feel unwelcome as a collaborator.

First, analyze your edits

There actually exists a strong possibility that your edit was problematic and triggered the revert. Read the edit summary objectively and consider the following:

Did your edit actually improve the article, or did it create WP:UNDUE?
Was it overly critical or was it puffery?
Did you cite your passage to a reliable source that is verifiable but not false?
Is the topic of the article about health or science which requires close attention to WP:MEDRS guidelines?
Is it a biography or the biography of a living person (BLP) which requires strict adherence to policy and compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR?
Open a discussion on the article's talk page and request input from the community.
Be polite, even if you encounter conflict instead of resolve.
Do not argue for the sake of argument. Calm discussions are the most productive means to accomplish your goals.
If you still have doubts after checking the relevant PAGs, consult a third party for input.
If after your consult, you feel even stronger that the reverts of your edits were unwarranted, you may have encountered a COI duck.

The next step is take the road to resolution. Keep reading.

Typical identifying signs of advocacy duck behavior

An advocacy duck may be a WP:SPA (single purpose account). Notice if most of their edits are spent on the same article or correlation of articles about the same topic. The advocacy could be for or against but either way an advocacy duck will purposely or inadvertently disrupt the balance, create UNDUE and/or be noncompliant with WP:NPOV.
Do not confuse an advocacy duck with a new editor who is simply not aware of the complex and sometimes ambiguous WP:PAG. It is important to not bite the newbies.
GF editors are open to discussion and will welcome input if you assume good faith, avoid edit warring and participate in civil discourse on the article's talk page.
In extreme cases, advocacy ducks may subject you to incivility including WP:PA and WP:BULLYING. The best course of action is to stand down. Stop, breathe, think. Analyze the situation to determine whether or not you've stumbled onto an advocacy situation. If the behavior appears to be aggressive or unusual with indications of WP:OWN, they may go so far as to provoke you into behaving uncivilly so they can railroad you into a block, topic ban or worse. Do not give them ammo.
Some of the more persuasive advocacy ducks will use editing tactics to rid an article of opposition, including skillful deployment of WP:SQS, WP:OWN, and WP:TAGTEAM. You may be faced with several editors working together to revert edits they oppose which is why it is important to analyze your own edits first and not jump to conclusions. It may or may not be WP:Sock puppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry which requires other means of identification. Also read and familarize yourself with Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations and WP:SOCK/A.
Another tactic of aggressive advocacy ducks is to WP:BAIT you into conduct violations with the skillful deployment of tactics such as WP:PA, WP:HARASS, WP:HOUND, and WP:BITE.
Advocacy ducks will try to get you blocked or banned by initiating behavioral complaints against you at noticeboards such as WP:3RR, WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:AE depending on the situation. They may even provide diffs that do not support their argument, the latter being a tactic to inundate admins and possibly fool them into believing they have a claim.

REMEMBER, DO NOT GIVE THEM AMMO

It is more to the advantage of a lone advocacy duck to maintain civility, and defer tactical deployment until joined in force by a flock of other advocacy ducks who support or advocate the same cause or POV. The quacking can become rather loud at that point. Again, refer to self-analysis and be sure your edit wasn't the cause.
Pro-cause advocacy ducks tend to weigh down articles with puffery while excluding and/or reverting negative material.
Anti-cause advocacy ducks tend to discredit their opposition creating WP:UNDUE, and in extreme cases will use contentious labels to devolve articles into coatracks or attack pages.
The work of pro advocacy ducks is noticeable in the overall context of an article which tends to be whitewashed. For example, an article on Jack_the_Ripper should not leave readers thinking he was a good ole chap, but extremely shy of women which necessitated meeting them in alleyways at night.
Advocacy ducks typically create POV issues by tendentious editing.
They also tend to be involved more often in recurring content disputes over the same articles and related topics resulting from issues with one of more of the following: WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE/PS. It can work both ways - pro cause or anti cause.
If you suspect an undisclosed WP:COI may be involved, stand down and take the issue to WP:COIN for further investigation.
Veteran advocacy ducks are expert at gaming the system. They may even try to convert their opposition to see their POV and assume a WP:IAR posture.
Advocacy ducks may try to calmly lead you in a passive aggressive manner beyond article content straight into behavioral issues which could involve WP:BULLYING.

Keep your own behavior in check

If confronted by advocacy ducks, it is all the more important for you to remain focused on article content and follow WP:PAG.
Advocacy ducks may try to convert you to their POV but if that doesn't work, they may attempt to calmly lead you in a passive aggressive manner beyond article content right into behavioral issues. Veteran advocacy ducks are skilled at WP:Gaming the system, and 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 quickly escalate into personal attacks and other forms of WP:Incivility as a result of edit wars. It is best to avoid confrontation, so take a nap in the duck blind, even if you feel your integrity and/or ability as an editor has been challenged.
It is important to 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.
Be mindful of WP:NOR, WP:MEDRS, and WP:RS. Read them, learn them, and follow them.
If you have questions, seek a third opinion from an experienced editor or if you are a relatively new editor, consider a WP:Mentor.
WP:ADVOCACY may support many different points of view. The best way to address any advocacy issue is to make good use of the sourcing guidelines WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. When you find passages in an article where there are no WP:RS supporting a particular passage, use the Misplaced Pages:Citation needed template and begin a discussion on the TP.

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. It is possible that if we set enough advocacy vigilantes loose across the project they are likely to find a few real advocacy ducks, but just as likely to bag a coot or two along the way. The noticeboards exist for good reason.

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.
COI or suspected undisclosed paid editing situations that have created disruption should go to WP:COIN.
Also read, learn, and follow the steps to take at WP:DRN.
Advocacy duck situations that have elevated into disruption and repetitive incidents of incivility should be brought to the attention of an Administrator 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
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
WP:ANI - administrators' noticeboard - incidents
Arbitration Committee, WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey.

And for those with a sense of humor: Misplaced Pages:How_to_Ban_a_POV_You_Dislike,_in_9_Easy_Steps.

Misplaced Pages

:Advocacy ducks: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages