Misplaced Pages

:Advocacy ducks: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 04:43, 22 April 2015 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,820 edits add sourcing statement← 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 
(370 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.}}


]
=='''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 ]]] ]
]


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.
<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 certain disruptive behaviors resulting from overly bold or overzealous advocacy editors who are violative of ] (PAG). It is difficult to identify what or whose behavior caused the disruption, especially when ] are involved. It may even require a focused analysis by experienced editors and/or ]. That is why it is always best to ] (AGF), and not make unwarranted ] based on suspicion. It could ] on you. Disruptive editing and ''perceived control'' of an article may or may not be the result of an ], paid or unpaid. Of course, no topic or article is immune from advocacy or the possibility of nesting advocacy ducks who push a strong POV but it is not so common. AGF and avoid ] or you might become a sitting duck.


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.
{{talkquote|
*Advocacies may involve ], ] and/or ] to sway ], ] and make it appear as though you are the one ].
*Most advocacy ducks are accomplished at ] and switching blame to the opposition.
*Disruptive editing can be driven by paid or unpaid advocacy. Don't become a ].}}


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.
On the chance you believe you may have wandered into a flock of aggressive advocacy ducks (real or imagined) that have demonstrated behaviors like fundamental noncompliance with ], or ] over an article or correlation of topics, it is of the utmost importance to AGF, maintain civility and remember, things aren't always what they seem. He who quacks loudest may be you. Unsubstantiated allegations of tag team behavior may be considered violative of ] policy so the utmost care should be taken to properly identify the behavior. Assertions should be framed properly using ] to cite evidence in the appropriate venues. It's up to you to AGF and closely follow the ] process.


==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. They are actually birds not ducks. In other words, it could be a case of stewardship, not ownership so familiarize yourself with the policy: ]. You will probably discover instances of stewardship at ] and ] which helps protect those articles against vandalism, POV pushing and/or advocacy ducks.</br>}}


Learning to recognize problematic advocacy ducks is not an easy task because it involves a broad range of articles and advocacies. It may or may not result from an undisclosed paid ], or unpaid advocacy editing. Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of ] whether it involves advocating for or against something. If you happen to arrive at an article only to have your work quickly reverted, '''do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy.''' There are certain steps you should take to avoid disruption beginning with '''stop, breathe, think'''. 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==
On the chance you find yourself subjected to a '''''pattern of aggressive editing behavior''''' by one or more editors who repeatedly ] and foil attempts to improve or expand an article while displaying behaviors of ], ] and ], remember to AGF and start a polite discussion on the article'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. They may also deploy the tag team ] tactic to avoid a ] violation that could result in a block. More aggressive advocacy ducks may attempt to ] you into ]. The information in the ] below is formulated to help you analyze your own edits, and identify certain disruptive behaviors. There are proper steps you can take to insure a pleasant editing experience.
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==
==Ten step self-analysis==
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.
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(s) actually improve the appearance of the article, or create ]? Analyze your edit(s) more closely. # Did your edit(s) improve the article?
# Were your edits overly critical, biased, or did they introduce puffery?
#Was it overly ] or ], or was it ]? See ], ] and ].
#Did you cite your passage to a ] that is ]? Articles that relate to ] require close attention to ] guidelines. ''Read them, learn them, follow them.'' # Did you ] to a reliable source that is ]? Articles relating to medicine or health require close attention to ] guidelines.
#Is the article a ] or the ] (BLP)? BLPs require strict adherence to policy, US law and compliance with ], ], and ]. # 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? If the dispute continues, it may be time to initiate an ]. # 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. # 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.
#Did you argue for the sake of argument or was your argument substantive? A review of relevant PAGs will help you establish your position. Also see ].
# 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.
#Did you make any attempt to seek help? 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.
# 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 seek a ] for input? Oftentimes an uninvolved editor can provide valuable input.
# 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.
#Did you follow the above suggestions and are still of the mind that your reverted edits were unwarranted? It could be that you came to a fork in the road. If you suspect you've encountered a ] ], all of whom are ducks of a different color, it is best to follow the road to ]. On the other hand, if you encountered POV warriors or advocacy ducks, take the road to resolve.


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.
==Typical identifying signs of advocacy duck behavior==


==Avoid confrontation==
*An advocacy duck may be a ] (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 ], create ] and/or be noncompliant with ].
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.
*Misapplication of ] to further a specific POV is a possible advocacy duck tactic. Make sure you are not the one perceived as employing such a tactic.
*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 ].
*GF editors are open to discussion and will welcome input if you ], 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 ] and ]. The best course of action is to '''stand down'''. Analyze the situation to determine whether or not you've stumbled onto an advocacy situation. If the behavior appears to be ] with indications of ], they may go so far as to provoke '''you''' into behaving uncivilly so they can ] you into a block, topic ban or worse.
*Some of the more persuasive advocacy ducks will use editing tactics to rid an article of opposition, including skillful deployment of ], ], and ]. 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 ] or ] which requires other means of identification. Also read and familarize yourself with ] and ].
*Another tactic of aggressive advocacy ducks is to ] you into conduct violations with the skillful deployment of tactics such as ], ], ], and ].
*Advocacy ducks will try to get you blocked or banned by initiating behavioral complaints against you at noticeboards such as ], ], ], and ] depending on the situation. They may even provide ] 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 TO ASSUME GOOD FAITH'''
*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 ] while excluding and/or reverting negative material.
*Anti-cause advocacy ducks tend to discredit their opposition creating ], and in extreme cases will use ] to devolve articles into ] or ].
*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 ] should not leave readers thinking he was a good ole chap, but extremely shy of women which necessitated meeting them in alleyways at night.<sup>quack, quack</sup>
*Advocacy ducks typically create POV issues by ]
*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: ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. It can work both ways&nbsp;— pro cause or anti cause.
*If you suspect an undisclosed ] may be involved, stand down and take the issue to ] for further investigation.
*Veteran advocacy ducks are expert at ]. They may even try to convert their opposition to see their POV or possibly assume a ] posture.
*Advocacy ducks may try to ] in a ] manner beyond article content straight into behavioral issues which could devolve into ].


If you followed all the above suggestions and still think you have come across an advocacy duck, stay calm, AGF and remember:
==Keep your own behavior in check==
* When confronted by advocacy ducks, it is all the more important for you to remain focused on article content and follow PAG.
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 resolve'', read the following pointers....
* 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 ].
*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 ], and if you behave inappropriately, you may find yourself waving goodbye from the back of a little red caboose after being ] into an unexpected ] or ].
* Maintain a sense of professionalism and level-headedness. Sit quietly and learn by observation.
*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.
* Misplaced Pages has no deadlines, so do not exhaust your editing by attacking the issue with a sense of urgency.
*Maintain a sense of professionalism and level-headedness. Sit quietly and learn by observation.
* If you have questions, seek a third opinion from an experienced editor, or if you are a relatively new editor, consider ].
*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 ], and medical and health related articles use MEDRS avoid primary sources. If you find passages in an article that were cited to unreliable sources, first try to find one. If that doesn't work, use the ] template and begin a discussion on the TP.


==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. 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.


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 an Administrator 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
*]&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:
*] - administrators' noticeboard
*] - administrators' noticeboard&nbsp;— incidents
*], WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey.


====Other noticeboards to seek advice====
{{Civility}}
* ] &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=== ==Related essays, policies, and guidelines==
{{columns-list|3| {{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] *]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
}} }}


{{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:
Misplaced Pages:Advocacy ducks: Difference between revisions Add topic