Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Delete While some people, even some that voted delete, noted the need for a noticeboard like this one, the compelling arguements seem to be ones that focus on the misplaced emphasis of a noticeboard like this which encourages commenting on the editor, rather than the editing, which seems against the spirit of Wikipedia. Enough people voting delete did express a support, in general terms, for discussing the matter further, to look at the possibility of working this process and noticeboard into something, however there seems to be a general consensus that this noticeboard is either entirely misguided, or even if not so, its creation has "jumped the gun" and a more thoughtful process needs to go into creating something like this. Jayron  32  20:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy/Noticeboard
This board appears to have been created by supporters of a particular point of view in order to target a specific user, User:Carolmooredc. It was created after discussion at COIN, which itself followed an ANI discussion. No prior discussion took place at an appropriate venue (like WP:VPR, say), and the discussion at COIN does not indicate support for the creation. No policy basis for the board exists, as the talk page discussion shows; the recent clarification as to its purpose moves it to a subpage of an essay (Advocacy). An important historical context is the failed proposal Neutrality enforcement, which explicitly related to the same topic area from which the current board creation stems. Rd232 talk 13:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A point of information: it's important to note here that the board was not created with any user in mind, and certainly not to target any particular person. I wasn't involved in filing the COIN against Carolmooredc, and I'm only dimly aware of the details of that dispute. I created the board because I saw—when that dispute was posted—that editors were once again having difficulty finding the right venue to discuss the problems advocacy creates, as opposed to COI or other behavioral issues. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. That suggestion might have had more credibility if you hadn't announced the creation of the board in the middle of the discussion on Carolmooredc at COIN, with the clear implication that it was created with her in mind, or at least that you expected her to be discussed on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Slimvirgin: You said in ANI "I set up Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard when I saw Jehochman having difficulty finding a suitable venue to post his concerns about her —not a special board for Carol, for heaven's sake, but only as the trigger for an idea I had ages ago." I share your concerns about that user, as her views make me deeply uncomfortable, but I think you'd have to agree that the catalyst for this noticeboard lies in the concerns people had with her. There appears to have been a general overreaction caused by revulsion over her political/ethnic viewpoint. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Scotty, no, the catalyst was not concerns about her. The issue was seeing people once again having difficulty finding an appropriate venue to discuss advocacy concerns, something I've seen many times in the past. You go to AN/I, and it's "no behavioral policy violations, no need for admin action." On COIN, it's "no evidence of conflict of interest." So then you're faced with user RfC or ArbCom, both of which require a lot of work and clear evidence of prior efforts at dispute resolution. So my thinking is this board will provide that venue. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But if the aim is to find a more streamlined way of dealing with user problems, why restrict it just to advocacy? That is just one of many, and one of the more subjective and controversial. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I would argue we already have thiose venues, you mention them slim. I am sure that if you have attmepted to deal with issues but there is no clear notice board then it would (would it not) count as dispute resolution attempts (they do after all have to only be attmepts, no matter how they turn out) Using the justification that RfC or ArbCom  are hard work so we need somewhere to provide 'clear evidence of prior efforts at dispute resolution' implies an acceptance it will fail and that its there only to provide evidance. Also how does this noticeboard make RfC or ArbCom  any easier?Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that should read "her alleged political/ethnic viewpoint", ScottyBerg. When asked for diffs providing evidence for her recent views, rather than the same old tired reference to a single statement made in haste 7 years or so ago (off-Wiki), nothing concrete is ever offered, just insinuations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever the case, the important thing is that one user airing controversial views was apparently the catalyst for this board. There are any number of better venues in such a situation. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems like an unnecessary creation. We've already got noticeboards for BLP, Reliable sourcing, and conflict of interests - as well as RFC content. The more we have the more the number of participants is diluted, and the greater the danger of small groups "cabals" inhabiting them unchecked. A new notice board ought to have discussion on overlapping ones first, to ensure there's a wide agreement that it's necessary, and a wide interest in participating. I'm wondering myself whether broadening out the scope of the COI NB would not be a better response? Anyway, I'm leaning towards delete, but waiting to hear from the creator first.--Scott Mac 13:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifically, I'm hoping that SlimVirgin will explain why she created a new venue for complaining about editors who "promote" minority POVs like, say, animal rights—because when word gets out about this noticeboard, I expect editors (mostly inexperienced) to be lining up to complain about SlimVirgin's own "advocacy", and even her "gaming the system" by continually re-writing the content policies. Why would the target of so much invective encourage more hatefulness by creating another page dedicated to it?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. Maybe experienced, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. (1) MfD is not for policy debates.  If something bad is happening, WP:RFC is the way to go.  (2) This looks like an idea to be trialed, and there is no evidence of bad outcomes.  There is an excessive amount of theorising going on on its talk page, and I cannot see why trialing a focus forum is unacceptable.  If the trial turns out to be non-productive, this page can be redirected to the better page for such discussions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that argument is that there's been no policy debate. I'd support the argument if we said that new noticeboards should have a prior RFC. Process changes need some discussion - and if there's likely to be opposition that discussion needs to happen first. On one hand this isn't a big change - but it might have a big impact if got wrong. Anyway there are plenty of precedents for using MfD to close down a noticeboard or process.--Scott Mac 14:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although in a general sense, a noticeboard falls under project policy, a noticeboard is not policy or guideline in that it doesn't tell anyone to do anything, nor does it authorise any special action. It can educate, and it can develop and establish consensus.  I don't see any process change involved.  I see an open focused forum where someone claims there is a need.  We can use MfD (eg) as the forum to close something down, but I don't see any evidence-based reasons for doing so at this time.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that's the debate. Do we want a new noticeboard? What's the case for it? What's the likely impact of it? That's the discussion we need to have before we can decide whether to continue with this or not. The other option is to close this MFD, suspend the noticeboard, and have a discussion somewhere else. Anyway, I'd like to hear the case for this noticeboard rather than argue about policies.--Scott Mac 14:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with MfD for this is that this is a seven day debate. It is about deleting an existing page.  The real debate is about a concept, and it should not be constrained to a rough consensus close in a fixed time period.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether it's good or bad, stuff like this is routinely done at MFD. Even entire wikiprojects have been removed this way (WP:Esperanza was a highly commented one).  MFD'ing a new noticeboard is no biggie by comparison to that.  67.122.209.190 (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this board is a bad idea, and I'm not convinced that there's consensus that a trial is worth having. I'm not sure that it's a pure delete, more of a depreciate and hold some sort of RFC to resolve what the questions before this trial is foisted on the community.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. This is a proposed process. How can the community discuss the proposal if its details are immediately deleted? Let the discussion go on for a respectable amount of time.  This proposal is not targeting any specific user.  RD232's comment that it does is an assumption of bad faith and has no basis in fact.  Yes, there has been an ongoing discussion of Carolmooredc's editing, spanning muiltiple noticeboards. ANIWQACOIN That happened because Rd232 stepped in and prematurely dismissed my ANI complaint about her apparent use of Wikipedia to advocate the fringe position that Jews control the media.Evidence LinkEvidence Diffs After I got the run around, after being told that my complaint was at the wrong venue, SlimVirgin finally observed that Wikipedia didn't have a good venue for discussing this type of advocacy editing, so she made the proposal.  Of course Carolmooredc has objected and started discussing strategy for immediately deleting the proposal.Link So here we are.  Wikipedia is not a social club. Its a serious reference work. We are not a platform for PR or oddball ideas.  We need a lightweight, easy access way for editors to get outside opinion about perceived advocacy. Please give this process a chance to be discussed and tested. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps (as this is such a complex debate) we could see the diff where the user says that jews control the media? Accusatios of Anti-Semitism are very serious, and are a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is definitely not the venue to discuss editors' behavior. The above materials I only provide for context because Rd232 threw around a bad faith accusation that this board was created just to target one editor. You're involved in that conflict too.  Please don't start re-arguing it here. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK lets stop discusing users then, that of course means all usrs I hop you will now retract your accusatio of anti-semitism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So basically the pair of you forum shopped, and when that didn't work, you thought to create a new forum without prior discussion with the community whether it was remotely a good idea. Cool Beanz. Rd232 talk 20:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I missed the "proposed tag". OK, speedy keep on the condition that the proposed tag remains on until there's (well advertised) discussion and agreement. It isn't a policy, so it doesn't need a supermajority, just an indication of wide participation from across the community.--Scott Mac 14:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Abstain.--Scott Mac 12:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. And then hold a proper debate about (a) whether there is a problem at all with 'advocacy' that occurs within Wikipedia policy (if it is against policy then there are existing mechanisms for dealing with it), and (b) whether the setting up of this noticeboard was itself 'advocacy' by a group intent on creating yet another forum to drag up issues about one particular contributor. I was originally willing to AGF on this, but with the same people repeatedly bringing up the same tired subject, comparing the individual in question to a leader of the KKK, and generally making their intentions utterly clear, I can now only assume that some involved in the debate have their own agenda, and are seeking to modify Wikipedia to stifle minority opinion - or more accurately, to determine what 'opinion' is. This stinks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What minority opinion are you referencing? Don't cast aspersions unless you are prepared to back them up with specifics and evidence. Jehochman Talk 15:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence is in plain sight, both here and on the Advocacy/Noticeboard talk page - the same contributors have repeatedly dragged up the same misguided (off-Wikipedia) comment once (7 years ago?) made by Carolmooredc to vilify her, in spite of repeatedly being told to drop it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have diffs to support any of what you say? That's not what happened.  Are you involved in this conflict, or do you claim to be an uninvolved observer? Jehochman Talk 15:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about that most edds seem to have agreed that heer actions were not a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, diffs are unnecessary. The evidence is plain to see. I don't have to 'claim' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, a much needed venue, as advocacy is a big issue across many realms. Rd232, please don't attempt to influence policy in areas affecting articles you're involved with by MFDing necessary and helpful boards. There is no venue for dealing with advocacy: ANI doesn't work because few admins have the necessary skills and experience or are willing to weigh in to long and difficult discussions, and other DR forums are rendered ineffective by blocs of editors attempting to overrule consensus or Wiki policy.  A specific place to get more eyes on situations where advocacy is overruling policy and concensus is needed. The notion that this is about one user is absurd (and also a bad faith assumption):  this happens at Hugo Chavez (as Rd232 should know), the entire suite of autism-related articles, other BLPs that I follow, and many other examples besides the recent Carolmoore issue, which only highlighted the need for a separate board.  Advocacy discussions are spreading all across Wiki-- this will provide a centralized place for attacking this widespread and difficult problem, by bringing more eyes to articles where ownership prevails, marginal sources are employed, high quality sources are removed, and consensus is overruled by blocs of editors sharing fringe POVs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandy, take a look at how often advocacy is mentioned on this page: Fringe theories/Arbitration cases. It's a rampant problem that we've not dealt with very well in the past.  Advocacy problems tend to fester until they reach arbitration.  It would be much better for us to deal with these problems promptly. Jehochman Talk 16:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that, I live it, don't need to see how often it's mentioned, but there's rarely any "prompt" solution: considering that this one has been going on for six years, I'm troubled at Rd232's motives for launching this MFD, with faulty assumptions about other editors, no less. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Even if it were the worst proposal ever made on WP, MfD is not the place to argue such a claim. File an RfC perhaps - but I have seen too much use of MfD for contentious discussion unrelated to proper reasons for deletion. Collect (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. It seems to me that the only use for a board like this would be for long-term contributors to have another way to "get rid of" opinions they don't like. Because of course the long-term editors who can make use of a board like this are the ones who are presenting material fairly, and it's the new editors who are violating the neutrality principle, right? If there's firm evidence of a problem, open an RFC. Otherwise, let the matter drop. The idea of that we need to root out some sort of hidden agenda strikes me as paranoid and a bad idea. We have been dealing with differing opinions for years, and we're pretty good at it already. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be best if this was closed as no consensus and the debate taken to the proposed notice boards talk pages.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are so good at it, why have dozens of advocacy cases escalated to ArbCom, where they result in lengthy and difficult cases? This board will provide a community means of hopefully avoiding such escalation.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Becasue they are diffuicult to prove? Won't we in fact that add an extra layer of beurocracy which will end up at arbcom anyway?Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not! If a new editors comes in advocating something and gets brought here, they might receive counseling before the bad habit forms. They might be set right quickly and avoid a lot of trouble down the road. For more established editors this step might be like triage: help determine if there's a problem and then what to do about it. Jehochman Talk 16:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If they are not listening now why in the name of Satans left nostrel will they listen to an RFC about something they think will be a witch hunt? Indea what happens if tehy refuse to take part on the grounds its a friverlous accusation designed to drive them away (or indead make the counter accusations that this is a RFC laucnhed by Advococy pushers to force a POV by editor denile attacks?). If tehre is a porblom with user conduct maybe there might be a reason to have a notice boards about that, but is advocacy really more serious then other poor actions?Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "They might be set right quickly". A nice turn of phrase. Note how Jehochman assumes that being 'brought here' constitutes evidence of 'advocacy'. So much for NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding to what Je said, one of the biggest issues on these articles is how new editors are affected, (mis)mentored, and used to add to the POV, thinking that what they're doing is correct. The old hands stand by and watch and keep their hands clean, avoiding sanction, while they mentor newer editors in non-policy based editing. They aren't at all "difficult to prove"-- they are difficult to take to arbcom because the wrong editors will be sanctioned-- the newbies who were merely following the bad examples of more savvy POV pushers. And because the situations are so complex, following them requires a long-term investment. And because advocates tend to operate in blocs, RFCs don't work-- they just pile on, until the case ends up at ArbCOm, and then everyone is tarnished, but the articles are trashed in the meantime.  It's the same pile-on we're seeing here-- some editors who have a vested interest in avoiding scrutiny continue to oppose all efforts to bring scrutiny to this problem, so we end up with complex cases escalating to the arbs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "some editors who have a vested interest in avoiding scrutiny". Care to name names, or are you just going to leave that hanging? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a specific problom with advocacy, I suspect not so I ask again if there are issus why such a specfic board?Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I agree with the sentiments you're expressing. I am afraid this noticeboard will have the same effect - it will only sanction newbies, because there are the only people who are in a position where they can be sanctioned in any meaningful way by a noticeboard. Editors with enough experience will realize how to work around it, or will have enough advocates that no serious sanction can be passed. So rather than ensuring that articles become neutral, the noticeboard would be a tool for editors keep articles in their current state regardless of its neutrality. If the board is kept, I can propose a rule of thumb a la WP:BOOMERANG: in the majority of cases, the person posting the complaint will be equally culpable for POV pushing. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't envision sanctioning anybody from this board. Like WP:WQA, this board would function best by dispensing advice and feedback.  Only if that failed would matters be escalated to WP:ANI, WP:RFC or WP:RFAR where eventually sanctions might be issued after all the facts and feedback were on the table and the user had a chance to adapt. Jehochman Talk 17:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This all seems premised on the basis of the cuusation is a gulit verdict. That does seem a bit iffy to me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well since everyone has a POV, it's structurally inevitable that anyone brought to this board is guilty of having one. Much time can then be spent arguing about whether that POV constitutes "advocacy", and no doubt it won't occur to anyone brought to the board to turn around and say the same of the accusers. Great for popcorn manufacturers, I guess. Not sure how it contributes to dispute resolution. Rd232 talk 20:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd hope this board would help avoid situations reaching a point where sanctions are needed, and help avoid bad habits taking hold among new editors, who get little outside feedback. I've dealt with enough advocacy across a broad range of topics that I could pitch in when the issues arise on areas I don't typically edit, but I don't have a centralized noticeboard for knowing when and where it's occurring. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it a greater problom then any other user activites isseu for which there are no notice boards?Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * keep looks useful. Will need some policing to make sure it isn't abused, mind William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 10 hours a day of various admins time a day should do it. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Requests for comment/dispute resolution is a general RFC for discussion of dispute resolution issues. If that concludes that we need a new board, well then surely we can manage to find an actual basis in policy for it. CBM's brief but astute comment covers the key issue with this board: it essentially enables POV pushers. As I said to one of the main proponents of the board, to which he made no essential response: WP:CPUSH notes "They often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors." This board is just another venue for cpushers to use against their opponents. Proving WP:GAMEing (the only really relevant behavioural issue) cannot be done properly on a noticeboard like this, it needs RFC/U really. Rd232 talk 17:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The point of the board is to give us a dedicated venue for dealing with advocacy, without having to file time-consuming user RfCs and ArbCom cases, or being forced to hunt around for behavioral breaches so we can take it to AN/I. It's definitely not intended to squish minority POVs; I'm on record as strongly supporting the inclusion of minority POVs so long as the sources are good. It's not aimed at regular editors who display POVs, because that's all of us. And it's not aimed at editors who are using good sources out of a genuine desire to educate people. Its purpose is to deal with accounts whose sole or primary raison d'être is using Wikipedia as a soapbox to further personal or political agendas, rather than furthering the goals of the project. Of course there are grey areas, but there are also black-and-white ones. We know the latter when we see them, but currently have no easy way to correct them. My hope is that, over time, the editors who regularly maintain the board will develop a sharper sense of when a desire to educate morphs into advocacy, just as editors maintaining the BLP board have developed a good sense of what best practice allows in that area. The philosophy of the board should wherever possible be corrective, rather than punitive—to nip issues in the bud; to advise editors, particularly new ones, who may not realize they've crossed into advocacy; and to provide a step in dispute resolution that might head off an RfC or ArbCom case. I suggest we set it up for a trial period of three to six months, then if it's not used enough, or we find it's being misused, we can talk again about closing it down.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See my comment at Requests_for_comment/dispute_resolution - a general "user conduct" board might actually achieve some of these stated of objectives of providing a venue "below" RFC/U. Another board which frames problems as THIS GUY DONE BAD (but worse because there's not even a specific policy to measure behaviour against) is not going to help anyone, and as I've argued is going to be counter-productive even if it can somehow overcome the problematic roots of its birth. By contrast, a general place for people to go and say "I have this-and-this problem with this user or group of users", without necessarily even needing to specifically diagnose or declare any breach of policy (if they just describe facts), that could help get more input for disputes that may be resolvable by focussing on content and some gentle education (often the poster as well, I'd guess). it would also help shift some of the stuff away from ANI which doesn't quite really belong there, but doesn't necessarily fit comfortably anywhere else. Now, it's not great to have this discussion at MFD, but that's what you get when you decline to seek consensus at an appropriate venue like WP:VPR before doing something contentious. So, delete now, and take the let's-do-something momentum into the RFC. Rd232 talk 19:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete pending discussion on the wider issues. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This board is as much likely to be used by advocates as against advocates. It will, meanwhile, serve largely as a drama venue. Other noticeboards are grounded on concrete policies (such as BLP), while this one is grounded on subjective perceptions. If I like Climbing Roses and constantly hover around articles on that subject, I view myself as a valuable addition to the Climbing Roses articles, while a climbing rose-hater would view me as an "activist." Meanwhile, I am upset because the Bush Roses Cabal is constantly ganging up on me at the Climbing Roses articles. So we will have a constant "war of the roses" going on, pardon the pun, in every possible field in which there is controversy, from Climate Change to Israel/Palestine. I suggest focusing on behavior and not on pigeonholing editors. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment One problem with this board is that its proponents don't seem to have a particularly clear idea of what kind of conduct would fall under its aegis. See the recent non-discussion here. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge - good idea but we have a profusion of noticeboards - surely it cannot be placed and noted at content noticeboard? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as major policy issue. (See the many objections at Wikipedia talk:Advocacy/Noticeboard.) As was written at WP:ANI:
 * Can I point out that there appears to be a serious problem with this, as has just been noted on the 'neutrality board' talk page: this 'noticeboard' is proposing to implement a policy that doesn't as yet exist. It appears to be based on the assumption that someone working within Wikipedia policy can still be 'tried' for 'non-neutrality'. This runs counter to basic Wikipedia norms as I understand it, which suggests that the content not the contributor should be the concern. Unless and until Wikipedia policy is changed to reflect this (which I would oppose most strongly), this 'board' has no justification to start touting for business, and has about as much credibility as a recent attempt at a 'talk page straw poll' kangeroo court (which incidentally seemed to be involving some of the same issues, if not necessarily the same people). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Signed: CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ACarolmooredc Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you SandyGeorgia, I think most of us are aware that Carolmooredc is currently blocked. However, since she is quoting me, I'd suggest that the point still stands, regardless of who quoted it. In fact, in light of further events, I wish I'd been more emphatic about the link between the 'kangaroo court' and this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Her being blocked is utterly irrelevant, especially since an unblock now seems likely. I'm deeply troubled by the insertion of this user's block record into this discussion. It is beyond irrelevant. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is actually yet another example of how the 'block Carolmooredc advocacy group' have been deeply involved in this right from the start, using every opportunity to drag up their tired and discredited arguments in order to harass her. If a clearer demonstration of why this noticeboard is divisive and liable to be misused could be found, I'd be surprised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * She has also now been unblocked.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete We already discuss users conduct regarding conflict of interest at WP:COIN I don't see a need at this time for this particular board. Plus, the circumstances surrounding the creation is suspicious. Phearson (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because it focuses on persons rather than content. As constructed it does not focus in a way which helps to ensure that discussions will not degenerate to accusations and finger pointing.  Another means of doing this constructively might be possible but this board would merely be another place to escalate conflict. BE——Critical __Talk 20:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Userify, then delete, then develop a proper policy proposal and have the community decide. Not surprisingly, the drama-fest over this page included much discussion over re-hatnoting it from "trial" to "proposal". At bottom, this is a proposed change in policy, maybe a good idea, maybe a bad one. As such, MfD is completely the wrong venue to discuss it. What should have happened is the users who thought of the idea should have carefully developed a proposal for it, listed it at WP:CENT, and asked the community to come to consensus on whether or not to implement it. Just plopping it out as a trial page was a misguided attempt to bypass community input, and the promoters of the page should have known better. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - For several reasons: (1) we already have NPOV and COI noticeboards to meet this need; (2) this appears to be motivated by a single incident/user; (3) we have too many noticeboards already; and (4) WP:Advocacy is just an essay ... how can one violate an essay? (contrast with COI and NPOV which are policies or guidelines).   --Noleander (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - We do already have noticeboards to deal with NPOV and COI problems. If they are not dealing with it adequately start a community discussion somewhere and get some input before doing something like this. I should also note that this noticeboard, by targeting the POV of editors as opposed to their specific edits (which is already covered by the NPOV/N) appears to be against our core principles. The way in which this came about is not particularly appealing either.Griswaldo (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant with other noticeboards and WP:POINTY. —Torchiest talkedits 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * After consideration and following the talkpage: Delete Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Consider creating a system of editorial boards to rule on content. If there is a serious dispute somewhere or allegations that user X actually damages the content (rather than simply makes POVish but sourced edits that may improve articles), such issues could be brought to a board of people who have at least basic knowledge of the subject. They would then come up with recommendation what would be the best for the content, rather than looking at personal views and behavior of users ("advocate", "activist", etc.).Biophys (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - unlike most of the commenters above, I don't think this is actually a bad idea. We do have a serious problem with tendentious editing, particularly in controversial topics. But this noticeboard does seem somewhat redundant to other existing ones, and I suspect these kinds of editors would be better handled by being brought to WP:ANI (or, indeed, Arbitration), where they'll receive more attention. Robofish (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See this diff about more frequent short blocks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree fully with each point that Griswaldo raised above. We already have too much bureaucracy here, and there's no aspect of the proposed board that can't be dealt with elsewhere. There are strong indications that the board will be used by agenda-driven editors to wear down those standing in their way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, based on my experiences, there is a need for this kind of noticeboard, and no other Wikipedia processes currently handle this issue very well. At least it deserves a year or so trial run. Cla68 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See this diff about more frequent short blocks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - What this really is is the IDon'tLikeYou/Noticeboard, and the last thing the project needs is yet another grousing board to use to browbeat others. Tarc (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say keep, since this (advocacy, tendentious editing) is a very important issue that often lies at the heart of the other problems that we have noticeboards for. There are too many noticeboards, so we should certainly be merging them to form a much smaller number, but until that's done, this one seems to potentially serve at least a valuable a purpose as any of the others.--Kotniski (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – This proposal is under discussion, and even if this proposal would fail, it should not be deleted. Instead, it should be tagged as a failed proposal. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 12:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question. (I happen to be posting this question just after HeyMid's comment, but please understand that I am not directing it at anyone in particular, but rather just asking in general.) Several users have described the page as a proposal under discussion. If that is so, where is there a process for editors to oppose the implementation of the proposal, and criteria for deciding whether or not implementation should be rejected? Beyond a too-vague promise that we'll see how it works out, I don't really believe that this has been the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the obvious answer to my question is that no one has bothered to create such an implementation/evaluation process, let me make a suggestion regarding this MfD. I'm not presuming to predict the outcome. But if the decision should turn out not to be a downright deletion (probably the wrong decision, but that's only my opinion), I think that it is very clear that the trial page should be kept only if a specific process for the community to decide whether or not we want it is agreed to and put into place. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a trial process. At least let a few things run through the trial so we can see whether it works or not before deleting it. This MfD seems far too early to be worthwhile and, essentially, has the Delete voters falling under WP:IDONTLIKEIT in terms of its content. Delete voters would have a much stronger case if it could be shown that this board doesn't work, but they can't do that and they are merely making assumptions about it. Silver  seren C 19:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think that reasoning is incorrect. First, it is not true that arguments have simply been IDONTLIKEIT. Secondly (assuming that it is even valid to evaluate whether the "trial" is working via an MfD), the burden of proof for a change in policy lies with those who want to make a change. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thirdly, once something has been running for more than a few months the burden of proof shifts to those who want to remove it making it exceedingly difficult to undo. Thus a trial of more than about a month amounts to de facto adoption. Suggestions that the noticeboard is "only a trial" are naive or disingenuous. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep (largely per Collect). I have serious reservations about whether the Noticeboard is a good idea, but don't think the MfD process is suited for evaluating the suitability.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete --
 * I think that the only thing this board will enable us to do effectively that we currently can't do already, is go on McCarthyist witch hunts after editors whose views don't adhere closely enough to the norm amongst technically inclined, white, male, English-speaking, white collar workers from "developed" nations (i.e. the best represented demographic amongst Wikipedia editors).
 * We've already got boards to deal with people not providing reliable sources; we've already got boards to deal with incivility; we've got boards for determining bias in articles; we've got boards for copyright violations, vandalism, threats, and just about everything other problem we can imagine. Heck, we've even already got WP:RFC/U to deal with "generally obnoxious behavior". What we don't have, though, is a board for judging editors based on how often they include information/perspectives that deviate from the norm. And that's what is being created here.
 * This board is going to enable a certain class of editors to look at a collection of edits, and ignore such things as "Are their facts presented accurately, backed by reliable sources?", "Do they help provide context and expand coverage of the subject matter?", "Are they being civil?" and instead focus on the absurd question, "Do they tend to adhere to a worldview that is significantly different from that expressed in the corporate media establishment and educational system (which is where most of our editors get their information)?".
 * Our goal as Wikipedia editors should be to collectively engineer an informative online research database that is both accurate and comprehensive. Deliberately biasing fact selection towards the norm (i.e. the views most frequently expressed through corporate/state media/education) is not conducive to this goal. We should welcome editors with diverse world views so that our coverage is broad and deep. We should not exclude editors whose views diverge from the norm, as long as they provide reliable sources and are willing to collaborate with other editors. If we exclude these people, then we will then have a systemically biased encyclopedia that misinforms people due to lack of context and absence of important alternative perspectives. I think it is absurd to create a formal mechanism, such as this noticeboard, through which this sort of thing can happen.
 * --Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And on a procedural note, I think the burden should fall on those who wish to create a noticeboard to gain consensus for it's creation first, rather than claiming that anyone can create a noticeboard, and then there must be a consensus to remove it. I think this board was created without any consensus, or in-depth discussion of its potential effects. It should thus be deleted for now, until further discussion on the proposal has taken place. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 *  Well said.  Rd232 talk 23:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's really a process niggle. If somebody wrote up a proposal to create a noticeboard, it would look just like this page!  This page is really just a proposal, not an active noticeboard.  No cases are posted, the page is clearly marked as a proposal, and the page is NOT linked in the noticeboard navigation template.  An editor above correctly observed that if a proposal is rejected, it is marked rejected, and the page is retained.  I believe this MfD is premature and should be withdrawn.  WP:CSN was "deleted" but you'll notice that the page is still there and it is marked as historical. Jehochman Talk 23:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Compare the Revision Deletion Noticeboard, properly discussed at AN, in the context of alternatives, prior to creation. We should not set a precedent that it's fine to whip up noticeboards based on random essays, and then demand the right to trial them and decline to make them subject to MFD. The onus in doing something like this must be firmly on the creators to show that the idea is reasonable and not counter-productive, before the thing is set in motion. In this case, the only thing the creators and their supporters have been able to argue is that there is a problem the board attempts to solve. It is very much of the something must be done; this is something; therefore we must do it school of illogic. Bottom line, there are certainly alternatives, and if there aren't, this quack medicine will only help the disease progress faster, so we're better off without (especially as attempting a bogus and probably harmful solution will likely distract from seeking better ones). Rd232 talk 00:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very little would ever happen on Wikipedia if we had to dot every i before we could get it started. The hope is that wrinkles will be ironed out during a trial, and if there are intractable problems they'll be spotted and the thing won't continue. That's how most of WP functions, by evolution and working consensus. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...And since there is nothing remotely approaching a "working consensus" for this (see above), we should put this failed attempt to invent a solution to a problem that many of us don't actually see evidence of existing, out of its misery, per speedy delete etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ...Making up a new board on your own that alters one of our fundamental processes, and then presenting it as a fait accompli is kind of like a tiny lapse in penmanship, like failing "to dot every i", as you expressed it? And this is just the way things function here, anyway? With all due respect to so prolific a contributor, I'd be fine with that in Calvinball, but here on Wikipedia the attempt and your follow-up justifications strike me as astonishingly disrespectful to the community, despite what I trust to have been your good intentions. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per Rd232, Jrtayloriv, and my own comment, just above. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, not because I necessarily think this noticeboard is a good idea, although it does address a problem which everyone acknowledges exists. If this is a bad idea, deleting the page will not keep anyone from recreating the page in some similar form; if it is a good idea, deleting it will only make it harder to make the page work. Let's take the discussion back to the talk page & hash it out there. -- llywrch (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD springs to mind. Rd232 talk 07:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally, that would solve the problem. But if things always worked ideally, we wouldn't need this page to begin with. People who think that they've been unreasonably treated often respond unreasonably. I think it's best to take a little more time to achieve a true consensus, instead of twice as long to enforce one that has been declared in an unexpected way. -- llywrch (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More frequent short blocks for fairly obvious incivility, soapboxing, trying to add cherry picked primary source material, etc. would have solved 90% of the problems I've had with persistent advocates over the last few years. I'm thinking up a new proposal on that I'll put somewhere next week which might be quite useful. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete One of the main rules is to discuss the edit not the editor. Reading through all of this and AN/i, this got started because of one situation.  I agree with what Griswaldo and some other have said here like the OP who brought this here.  As for removing this after a month or even longer, history shows us that it's difficult to do (ie: WP:OOK.)  There are too many boards already and adding this one IMHO adds nothing useful.  Most of the problems described has a location already to file a complaint about.  I find it hard to understand how this board got started without discussion and concensus to start this board.  I feel this is really a wrong way to bring editors to complain about them  Again, as everyone knows, everyone has a POV, that being said we are supposed to leave our POV at the 'door' and not use it.  Of course there are editors who still use there POV, editors above have forgotten at times to leave their POV at the door.  I'm sure I have too.  No this board is of no use and should be marked historical and/or deleted.  Thanks, this is my opinion about this which just happens to agree with others above.  Disclosure: I am not involve in anyway with the other comments at other locations.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If the consensus here is that this noticeboard is such a bad thing that it should be stopped now, it should not be deleted, but archived, according to the old line "If we deleted (read hide/suppress) our mistakes, then we doom ourselves to repeat them". Rather then delete, I suggest a directly worded tag, such as Closed down.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Jrtayloriv at 22:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC). The board is a poorly conceived attempt to discipline, without object, purpose or policy.  It is the apex example of fuzzy wuzzy thinking in relation to governmentality, and a step backwards from principles of transparency.  As such, it has taken the mantle of officialdom on itself without community discussion: it should be deleted for this reason alone. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I think it was created in good faith I can't see it being helpful in the way it's structured to deal with these problems, and could lead to unhelpful pursuits of editors who are merely controversial rather than breaking Wikipedia's norms. If the user around which this revolves is presenting a problem to Wikipedia with their behaviour, take them to Arbcom. Orderinchaos 07:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Having watched the discussion for the last week or so, I don't see how any good can come of this proposed board. Other boards of this sort, like NPOV/N, COI/N, BLP/N or FT/N, are based off of policies or guidelines. Their feet are grounded in policy, and their have a scope that can be defined. This board finds it parentage in an essay. As for scope, after a week of discussion, no one seems to be able to come up with anything more definite than "I know it when I see it". This is a problem. Without a clear scope, with a mandate in policy, the second question arises - what will this board do that isn't already done by existing process? It's focus is on editors who have persistently violated NPOV. If that's the case, why can this not be handled through AN(I) or RFC/U? If there are persistent problems, then there should be two editors who can certify the basis for the dispute. If the threshold for an RFC/U hasn't been met, that's a red flag. To make matters worse, this board doesn't actually bypass RFC/U. Finally, I think that the demise of the community sanction noticeboard should serve as a cautionary tale. Do we really want an obscure board dedicated to discussing a set of poorly defined misdeeds of editors? Guettarda (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Carl/CBM and Guettarda. Should we report practically every single user that edits in the I-P area to this board? And what could possibly be the outcome of that? There are numerous other boards that deal with concrete policy violations. For more complex concerns about a user there's RfC/U etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for now with no prejudice towards future expansion of the noticeboard system for cases that do not fall within the jurisdiction of other boards. This is mostly per Guettarda who correctly points out how this board isn't derived from policy but an essay. The policies that would be applied here (COI, BLP, NPOV, etc) would be better discussed at their respective noticeboards, or in more complicated cases at ANI. My opinion is that WP:ADVOCACY should be reworked into a behavioural guideline. We should see how this turns out before creating a community noticeboard for the issue.  Them  From  Space  11:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Can I point out that although this issue has been debated for some days now, we still seem to have no agreed definition of what 'advocacy' is. In fact we don't seem to have any definition at all: see Wikipedia talk:Advocacy/Noticeboard. Unless and until this is resolved, I cannot see any way that allegations of 'advocacy' can fairly be discussed, much less ruled on. We cannot reasonably set up a noticeboard to police behaviour we do not define. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ArbCom routinely sanctions editors for advocacy under the policy WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not for advocacy nor for ideological battle. Perhaps we should move this noticeboard to What Wikipedia is Not/Noticeboard.  The problem with WP:ANI is that it's for incidents.  One cannot report a pattern of behavior and discuss it.  The request will be immediately shut down after somebody loudly demands what administrative action is requested here?  Jehochman Talk 21:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing this noticeboard to be based on the WP:NOT policy would be a significant improvement over being based on WP:Advocacy, which is a mere essay. May I also suggest the WP:Disruptive editing guideline as a better choice than WP:Advocacy  - is it not true that most overzealous advocates violate Disruptive Editing guidelines?   Between WP:NOT and WP:Disruptive editing, the latter may be more manageable because it is more specific. WP:NOT seems too multi-faceted for a single noticeboard. --Noleander (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have RFC/U for reporting patterns of user conduct. While cumbersome, I presume that's for a reason. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Noleander. Yes but most disruptive editors may not be advocates. Noleander's point actually strikes at the heart of the problem with the suggested board.  In the end, what distinguishes this board from the other boards we already have to deal with editor behavioral issues (the actions of editors), is that it seeks to remedy editor "intent" as opposed to actions.  What makes something advocacy, or what makes someone an activist, will come down to a value judgement about why they are doing what they are doing.  This is exactly against our core principles which suggest we focus on the edits and not the editors.  Even when we do focus on editors we try to focus on what they have done, and not on why they are doing it.  Let's keep it that way.  I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that all of a sudden your intent may be more problematic than what you actually do.  How much longer do we have to discuss this?  I see a clear consensus to delete.Griswaldo (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see a clear consensus to delete, Griswaldo. It should be closed by an uninvolved admin after the usual period. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats odd I see something like twice an many Deletes as keep. Now its true this is ot a vote but I have seen no compleing argument for this pagers retnetion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The current system, correctly, does not seek to divine intent because often the intent is marginal. Editors stake out a position out of sincere belief, or simple stubbornness, and not necessarily because they are "activists." That is a central fallacy of WP:ACTIVISM. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus as I wrote on the not-assuming-good-faith essay WP:Activist: I have a problem with the defacto slur against real world "activists." The assumption being that anyone who is active outside of wikipedia is going to bring their strong POV in and be disruptive with it, instead of trying to work within the rules. The issue is ADVOCACY on wikipedia and anyone who has a strong opinion but has never been "active" in any kind of online or real life activist group can decide that their only "activism" is going to be editing wikipedia "for the cause," including after getting email, web site or other encouragement from activist or organizational outreach. (And someone whose only organizational experience is in business or sports, for example, [added later here: not to mention government or the military] can be a highly effective "team player" once they become a wikipedia "activist," and willing to violate policy "for the team.")  CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per SV. ATren (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Give it a chance. Whether or not a particular user was in mind with its creation is actually irrelevant. In fact it is nearly always the case that action is only taken when some event or circumstance draws attention to a perceived need. To argue that a perceived need makes the action illegitimate is counterintuitive. I'm in the process of developing a nutshell description for this board, something which is lacking. We need that. If the purpose is clear, then maybe we can avoid misunderstandings. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: And maybe there's a "perceived need" because the current bias is against single editors, allowing gangs of editors to get away with harassment and constant false allegations about current alleged editing or views without providing relevant evidence and even despite wikiquettes against them for their behavior. Wikipedia already has ways of dealing with one editor that are effective if enough neutral editors get involved. If Wikiquette, RfC/User, WP:ANI are allowed to be used to deal with groups of editors, their descriptions need to make that clear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think RFC/U on groups of editors is one possibility worth discussing at Requests for comment/dispute resolution. Currently such things are only really handled when it gets to an Arbcom case. Rd232 talk 15:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It has a witch hunt flavor to it.  It also is assessing/judging the individual rather than actions.  Sounds like the opposite of wp:no personal attacks. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Are there any problems with this proposal?  AN/I could be a witch hunt.  Any talk page can become a witch-hunt.  An absense of good faith, and a lack of civility.  Such objections are problems that necessarily plague any Wikipedia endeavor, because this is a wiki.  That is why we developed policies to promote civility and good faith - but in the end it is up to members to promote fairness and civility.  Is advocacy a problem at Wikipedia?  Yes.  It is not the only problem, and perhaps not the biggest, but when it actually occurs, it is a serious threat to the credibility of the encyclopedia.  It is no secret that the freedom for people to hijack articles for self-promotion or advocacy is one reason why many academics still dismiss Wikipedia.  Do we need a noticeboard to deal with it?  I would argue that any one who has concerns about witch-hunts or the abuse of accusations of advocacy should actively support keeping this page, because it will provide a place for reasoned discussion.  I remember a time when there was no Wiquiquette alert page, or whatever it is called.  I remember a time when there were no noticeboards at all.  At WP we have always developed a forum for addressing recurring problems, whenever we came to understand that there may be a need.  We once had one noticeboard for all problems, and we created more, many more noticeboards when it became clear that AN/I could not be overloaded or was not the ideal forum for addressing all problems.  Frankly I am surprised it has taken us this long to set up this page.  As many others have said, let's give it a try.  All this page is doing is emulating a now well-established model for providing a community space for addressing specific and potentially highly disruptive problems.  Well-done. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Slr, I don't think you'll find many people voting delete here who wouldn't agree with you that activism and advocacy are problems, but can you name one advocacy/activism related situation which cannot be handled through one of our current processes? Keep in mind that other noticeboards are linked to actual Wikipedia policies while this one is not. The manner in which we resolve issues and solve problems at those noticeboards is by grounding our arguments in policy and then forming a consensus.  What will arguments at this noticeboard be grounded in?  How will people determine what is or is not "advocacy"?  At best we'll end up with mob rule based on whatever the mob decides is correct.  That does indeed sound an awful lot like a recipe for witch hunts.  By the way, other venues may also be susceptible to witch hunts, but that doesn't mean that we can't try our best not to create new venues that would attract them at an alarming rate.  The counter argument to that is a bit like saying that just because someone can kill another person with their bare hands, we ought not to regulate any other, more effective weapons.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary of issues
This MFD has been wobbling all over the place, and because of the nature of what's being discussed, it's more than usually important not to confuse consensus with voting. So a brief summary (from me, the MFD nominator) is in order, I think.

Content
 * 1) It was initially created under an inapplicable policy (WP:NPOV applies to articles, not editors; we already have WP:NPOVN for articles) before being moved to an essay. To my knowledge there is no other noticeboard which seeks to enforce an essay, and the concept is really so ludicrous that it ought to be squashed without requiring much discussion, before moving on to serious discussion (eg Requests for comment/dispute resolution) of what to do about the problem the noticeboard sought to tackle, which indisputably exists.
 * 2) The broadest sense of what this board attempts to handle is civil POV pushing by "advocates" of a view. Yet the board is far more likely to enable such pushing: as WP:CPUSH notes, [such editors] often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors. It is particularly likely to strengthen long-term experienced advocates against relative newcomers learning the ropes and perhaps genuinely seeking to combat entrenched advocacy (or at least to balance existing dominant advocacy for a particular view with some advocacy for a different view). The loose freeform format makes it highly likely that the effect often seen on noticeboards, where relatively small numbers of people can easily overwhelm a discussion, will make the board a weapon for advocates, not against. This is different from WP:RFC/U and other venues where more thought and wider and/or deeper scrutiny is likely, including often scrutiny of those commenting.
 * 3) There is a substantial sense that one reason for creation is because WP:RFC/U is too much work. Well there's a good reason it's a bit of work: to reduce frivolous complaints and abuse. The slower, more considered process of RFC/U also reduces the structural advantage that WP:BATTLE editors have who keep track of every little actual or perceived miss-step by opponents, and can use this to overwhelm freeform noticeboard discussion in a way they cannot at RFC/U.
 * 4) Deleted somewhat similarly ill-defined board Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination) (2008) and failed related proposal Neutrality enforcement (2009).

Process Rd232 talk 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Nowhere was the board discussed prior to creation. The only link to prior context is the creator's note to WP:COIN in regard to an existing discussion about User:Carolmooredc.
 * 2) Contrary to some Keeps, this was not created as a proposal. It was created, with no prior discussion, as an actual noticeboard, with a remark by the creator on the talk page that "we could use it on an experimental basis, and re-evaluate its effectiveness after, say, six months." A trial policy template was briefly added by someone else, before being amended to proposal by a third person.
 * 3) If we fail to delete (taking delete as "close down", as is usual in these cases) a board so fundamentally misconceived and created without even the tiniest smidgen of respect for the way the community amends its dispute resolution procedures, we open the floodgates to a host of similarly ill-conceived nonsense. There are 43 pages in Category:Wikipedia supplemental essays, where WP:ADVOCACY is classified. There are over 1000 Wikipedia essays. But taking the reasonable approach of dismissing out of hand the existence of a noticeboard to enforce an essay, we're still left with, for example, 19 behavioral guidelines, of which only 2 currently have boards (Conflict of interest / WP:COIN and Etiquette / WP:WQA). It's just a terrible precedent to allow people to create noticeboards at will; if we permit this, we'll soon end up with the ludicrousness of Creation and maintenance of noticeboards/noticeboard, to tackle people who go too far in creating noticeboards...
 * Thanks for reminder about Requests for comment/dispute resolution and I'll opine there. Also info on Arb com. It seems I've seen a list of editors people had problems with somewhere, but obviously not very often, or I'd remember where. CarolMooreDC (talk)
 * It is indeed an excellent summary, But, with all due respect, I wonder if it might not be better on the talk page? ScottyBerg (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? No-one will read it there. This is supposed to be a discussion of the arguments, not a vote. Rd232 talk 17:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus people can always start a subsection with their summary of the issues and identify it as such in intro and in signature. Newbies to the page might appreciate summaries of different perspectivies.Then if they are interested they can wade through the whole thing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a wikipedia. I find this discussion of process silly.  I people object to the new noticeboard, that is one thing - but to object about process on a move to delete page is a littl absurd, since the very existence of this page shows that there is a time-honored community check on any individual creating an ill-conceived page.  And as is quite right we are haing a robust discussion.  So: the process is working fine.  I see nothing wrong ith a well-established editor creating the page after so many editors have had to struggle with recurring problems of people trying to hijack articles for advocacy.  It demonstrates precisely the creativity and initiative a ikipedia is meant to promote.  If you don't think the page is a good idea, fine, register your reasons why above.  that is the process - that is to say, the process we need, an open, transparent forum for discussion. participate, or don't, but you can't have it both ways. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. People don't get to whip up a noticeboard on a lark and demand that it be on the same level as our various ANIs, RSNs, and so forth.  This is simply an MfD on whether the page should be deleted; it is most certainly not a referendum on the usefulness or need of the board itself.  That is a conversation that should have been had elsewhere, prior to creation. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe most of the other boards were created by someone just starting them who saw a need, e.g. AN/I (by TBSDY), NORN (by me), BLPN (by Jossi). SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that most of the other boards are based on community-consensus policies, rather than poorly reasoned essays. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.