Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....it's a duck. Recognising advocacy may not always be so easy however...

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 WP:POV and WP: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. It aims to help editors identify and respond to aggressive or overzealous editors who advocate for certain causes and display certain behavioral characteristics that disrupt productive editing. The duck metaphor is a good analogy because not all disruption is hatched from a paid or unpaid advocacy, but there are associated behaviors that are recognizable so if it acts, looks and sounds like an advocacy duck, it may very well be one.

It is easy to spot disruptive editing, but somewhat difficult to ascertain whether it was caused by advocacy (paid or unpaid) or a new editor with a strong opinion who is simply not yet familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There have been occasions when administrators were called into play because of unyielding disruption, especially when discretionary sanctions are in place, but such incidents rarely elevate to Wikipedia:Arbitration which is a long, arduous process at the highest level of conduct dispute resolution (DR).

Certain articles in Wikipedia are more likely to attract disruptive advocates than others, and can leave editors with the impression that one or more advocates have assumed ownership control of an article. Such behavior may also be associated with and reinforced by WP:Tag team behavior as a way to avoid WP:3RRV or gain advantage over community WP:Consensus. The best advice when first encountering a perceived advocacy is to assume good faith (AGF) because things aren't always what they seem. Unwarranted accusations are considered a personal attack which may result in a block, just as for WP:Edit warring. However, if the disruption prevents article improvement, do collect evidence to bolster your suspicion and make your case.

Signs of advocacy

Advocacy tips the scales of balance either for or against something. Learning to recognize advocacy ducks is not an easy task because they may nest in a broad range of topics and articles. You might see them in topics that deal with politics, religion, Complementary and alternative medicine, renewable energy generation, various new technologies, national and ethnic conflicts, life sciences or any other topics that have a following. They almost always have a WP:BIAS they cannot set aside that prevents them from editing in compliance with neutral point of view (NPOV). They often engage in long-term tendentious editing by attempting to impose and maintain their point of view (POV) in an article or related articles that serve to further their cause.

• Pro-cause advocates may add puffery and various peacock terms to whitewash an article creating undue weight. They typically revert edits they deem negative about the subject which is usually when disruptive editing comes into play.
• Anti-cause advocates may add defamatory language, contentious labels, or give undue weight to negative aspects of the subject in breach of NPOV. While criticism may very well be warranted in an article, it must be reliably sourced (RS) and in compliance with policies and guidelines (PAG) so the article doesn't become a WP:Coatrack or WP:Attack page. Negative information should be included in articles, but positives or mitigating factors from the same source should not be excluded.
• Both pro- and anti- advocates have been known to misapply PAG to further their specific POV. All editors should read and understand the PAGs relative to the discussion. For example, if the reason for a revert is that the source is questionable, the editor who added the information should be able to explain why the cited source is reliable per WP:RS. Another example, if the reason for the revert is that the added statement is puffery, the editor who added the information should be able to explain why it is not puffery per NPOV. Know the PAGs relative to the challenge and subsequent discussion. By doing so, newer editors will gain a better understanding of how Wikipedia operates, and it will also serve as a self-reminder.
• Advocacy ducks frequently display ownership, tendentious editing, and may resort to WP:Bullying. Other disruptive behaviors can include coordinated actions such as WP:Tag team, WP:Sock puppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry. Advocacy ducks may also deploy the tag team revert tactic to avoid a Wikipedia:3RR violation that could otherwise result in a block. More aggressive advocacy ducks may attempt to WP:BAIT editors into Wikipedia:Edit warring or violating WP:CIVILITY.
• Some operate as single purpose accounts (SPA); not to be confused with well-intentioned editors who have a niche interest. The disruption occurs when edits are made for the purposes of promotion or showcasing a particular POV, which is not allowed.

Don't mistake a coot for a duck

At first glance, coots look like ducks but upon closer observation they don't have webbed feet and they don't quack. Coots live on the water, and they are birds but not ducks. What you might think is advocacy editing could be a case of stewardship, not ownership. Remember, AGF. Stewardship is commonly seen in the stable waters of Good Articles and Featured Articles to help protect those articles against vandalism, POV pushing and/or advocacy ducks. If you see a GA symbol or FA symbol () in the top right margin of an article, it's good etiquette to propose major changes on the article talk page first. Medical and health articles require a reliable special degree of sourcing.

Examine your edits

If your edits were reverted or challenged by other editors, you should examine your edits more closely and listen to editors who disagree with you.

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 WP: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 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? Consider the common ground on which editors have agreement, and focus on compromising whenever possible to build WP:CONSENSUS. If the dispute continues, it may be time to bring in more voices and initiate an RfC.
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, 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 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 COI , which is a special type of advocacy, it is best to follow the road to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. On the other hand, if you are certain you encountered POV warriors or advocacy ducks, take the road to resolution.

Avoid confrontation

If your edits were reverted or challenged, do not automatically assume it was the result of advocacy. Even if other editors appear to be working together as a tag team, keep in mind that they may be working together to prevent advocacy ducks from pushing their POV. Unsubstantiated allegations of tendentious editing or advocacy may be considered violations of the WP:Civility policy and can result in you being blocked, so the utmost care should be taken to properly identify such behavior. Remember, he who quacks loudest may be you.

If you followed all the above suggestions and still think you have come across an advocacy duck, stay calm, AGF and remember:

• When confronted by advocacy ducks, it is all the more important for you to remain focused on article content and follow WP:PAG.
• Veteran advocacy ducks are skilled at WP:Gaming the system so if you behave inappropriately you may find yourself waving goodbye from the back of a little red caboose after being railroaded into an unexpected block or topic ban.
• Disputes with advocates can escalate quickly which is why it is best to avoid confrontation. Take a nap in the duck blind, even if you feel your integrity and/or ability as an editor has been challenged.
• Maintain a sense of professionalism and level-headedness. Sit quietly and learn by observation.
• Wikipedia has no deadlines, so do not exhaust your editing by attacking the issue with a sense of urgency.
• If you have questions, seek a third opinion from an experienced editor, or if you are a relatively new editor, consider a WP:Mentor.

Road to resolution

So you've found an advocacy duck; now what?

Now you follow the dispute resolution process. The idiom "keep your ducks in a row" applies here with regards to putting forth a substantive argument. Assertions must be framed properly using WP:diffs to cite evidence at the appropriate venues. Beware the WP:Boomerang - if you behaved poorly prior to bringing the issue to ANI or if the editor about whom you have a concern has really done nothing wrong, discussion there could turn to your behavior and you could be warned, blocked or sanctioned.

• If edit warring has ramped up and the three-revert rule was violated, initiate a report at WP:3RRV.
• If feathers are flying over content issues, you can either seek a 3rd opinion (WP:3O) or initiate a request for comments (WP:RFC) to achieve consensus. Avoid WP:Canvassing and WP:Forum shopping. You can also post on the relevant noticeboard for assistance in determining reliable sources, neutrality, original research, external links, BLPs, or fringe topics. Read the instructions associated with noticeboards so you don't end up in the wrong place. State your case succinctly with diffs to support your assertions. Other options include WP:MEDIATION or WP:DRN.
• If your edits are consistently being challenged by an overzealous individual or flock of advocacy ducks that keep flapping their wings and ruffling your feathers in displays of poor conduct, the next option is administrator action at one of the noticeboards. If the article is under WP:DS, you can request WP:AE; and if that fails, the final option is WP:ARBCOM.

Don't be a vigilante; bring problems to the community at noticeboards.

Other noticeboards to seek consensus

• Neutrality noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article
• Reliable Sources noticeboard – for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable to support specific content
• No Original Research noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about material that might be original research or source synthesis
• Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about violations of our biography articles.
• Fringe theories noticeboard – to report theories that are given undue weight in articles
• Wikipedia:External links noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about external links

Final steps

• WP:AN - administrators' noticeboard (for seeking reversal of a close of an RfC)
• WP:ANI - administrators' noticeboard —incidents. For dealing with behavior issues, not content. State your case concisely, with diffs. Beware the WP:Boomerang.
• Arbitration Committee - WP's supreme court. It can be a long and arduous journey. [1]

Related essays, policies, and guidelines

3