Jump to content

Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atsme (talk | contribs) at 04:46, 22 April 2015 (→‎Keep your own behavior in check: tweek - added sourcing statement here). 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 looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....it's a duck
Do not mistake a nesting coot for a nesting advocacy duck, although both may show WP:POV and WP:OWN behavior
Undue weight is a common sign of advocacy ducks at work.
File:Black and white mallard hybrid.jpg
COI ducks are ducks of a different color. See WP:COIN
If it's raining ducks, know when to get out of the rain.



Advocacy ducks is an essay to help editors identify certain disruptive behaviors resulting from overly bold or overzealous advocacy editors who are violative of policies and guidelines (PAG). It is difficult to identify what or whose behavior caused the disruption, especially when new editors are involved. It may even require a focused analysis by experienced editors and/or administrators. That is why it is always best to assume good faith (AGF), and not make unwarranted accusations based on suspicion. It could boomerang on you. Disruptive editing and perceived control of an article may or may not be the result of an advocacy, 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 WP:Edit warring or you might become a sitting duck.

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 NPoV, or WP:OWN 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 WP:Civility policy so the utmost care should be taken to properly identify the behavior. Assertions should be framed properly using WP:diffs to cite evidence in the appropriate venues. It's up to you to AGF and closely follow the WP:Dispute resolution process.

*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. In other words, it could be a case of stewardship, not ownership so familiarize yourself with the policy: Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Ownership_and_stewardship. You will probably discover instances of stewardship at WP:GA and WP:FA which helps protect those articles against vandalism, POV pushing and/or advocacy ducks.

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 WP:COI, or unpaid advocacy editing. Advocacy by its very nature tips the scales of balance 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.

On the chance you find yourself subjected to a 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 behaviors of WP:OWN, tendentious editing and WP:BULLYING, 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 WP:Tag team, WP:Sock puppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry in order to gain advantage during an RfC or noticeboard discussion. They may also deploy the tag team revert tactic to avoid a Wikipedia:3RR violation that could result in a block. More aggressive advocacy ducks may attempt to WP:BAIT you into Wikipedia:Edit warring. The information in the sections 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.

Ten step self-analysis

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

  1. Did your edit(s) actually improve the appearance of the article, or create instability? Analyze your edit(s) more closely.
  2. Was it overly critical or biased, or was it puffery? See WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE.
  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, US law 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. 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 argue for the sake of argument or was your argument substantive? A review of relevant PAGs will help you establish your position. Also see WP:POINT.
  8. Did you make any attempt to seek help? 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.
  9. Did you seek a third party for input? Oftentimes an uninvolved editor can provide valuable input.
  10. 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 COI duck, all of whom are ducks of a different color, it is best to follow the road to WP:COIN. On the other hand, if you encountered POV warriors or advocacy ducks, take the road to resolve.

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.
  • Misapplication of WP:PAG 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 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. 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.
  • 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 Wikipedia: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 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 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.quack, quack
  • 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 or possibly 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 devolve into WP:BULLYING.

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 resolve, 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, 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 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 MEDRS and 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.

  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 an Administrator at WP:ANI.
Other Noticeboards to seek consensus
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.
3

Kategorien

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Advocacy_ducks&oldid=658118132"