Wikipedia:Self-appointed prophet

Single-purpose editors are a fact of life in Wikipedia. Some editors who have been so described are among the most valued and respected editors Wikipedia has, particularly those who contribute material where they are able to apply their expertise.

Others fall somewhere beyond being simply an obvious POV pusher but may not have a clear financial or other conflict of interest. These editors can be a big problem for Wikipedia. This essay is about the self-appointed prophet. The self-appointed prophet has an entrenched viewpoint when it comes to certain articles or a subject within articles, and sometimes entire ranges of subject matter. The articles become the target for edits slanted toward reflecting personal bias(es), original research, fringe/pseudoscientific viewpoints, and promotional advocacy. This can take the form either of additions or deletion of material and/or entire articles. It can be as simple as distaste for a widely used term, or as complex as adopting a gestalt that differs in peculiar ways from the mainstream understanding of related subjects. The self-appointed prophet is relentless in (re)inserting their personal "truth" into articles.

General Characteristics
There are several specific characteristics which such individuals display. A key feature is that they are unwilling or unable to see that relevant policies and guidelines apply to them.

Among the more frequently seen characteristics are the following:

Long-term SAPs
Some editors fitting this description have been around for some time. They may have learned how to avoid recognition as quickly through various means.

Some specific strategies used
They may also sometimes take advantage of their long-time editor status to engage in the activities of the following kinds, which, in deference to their status as long-time editors, often goes unnoticed or unchallenged.

1. Pushing revisionist, pseudoscientific and other non-mainstream viewpoints and sources without labeling them as such, or labelling dominant viewpoints as "biased" in some way, and/or misrepresenting minor viewpoints as mainstream scholarly viewpoints.

2. Blank material cited to reliable sources, sometimes indicating as much in the edit summary, sometimes not, sometimes by misrepresenting the reliability of the reference.

3. Incremental blanking, either by blanking or reducing content or references over several edits and possibly months or years, knowing that few editors will look through their history over longer periods of time and/or sometimes even see them as keeping the article in good shape by removing poorly sourced material or poor sources. The SAP can be very patient and persistent.

4. Blanking by redaction: removing cited statements and references under some pretext of improving the flow or other purported improvements.

5. Summary blanking of significant material that may appear to be uncited, but which may be WP:OBVIOUS and/or covered by an existing citation, instead of improving the text or requesting a reference (or better reference).

6. Blanking material (and sometimes entire articles) in disregard of citations, with no effort to provide or request backup or better sources, and/or failure to adhere to guidelines such as WP:BEFORE and WP:BEFOREBLPPROD. In some cases, false claims of failed verification may be used to remove a source and its supported statement(s).

7. Strategic "break" taking. Some SAP's cannot apparently believe that they will not, in time, be proven 100% correct. Not surprisingly, of course. So, in the event that they find their behavior commented about negatively, they may take a declared break, for the truly SPA SAP's, or engage in editing marginally related or unrelated content for a period of weeks or months, until they once again appear in the area of conflict. In some cases, the strategic break taking may be effectively an effort to avoid sanctions, as there is no pressing need to sanction someone who is going to be gone indefinitely. Some SAP's employ this particular strategy repeatedly.

Dealing with such editors
It can be extremely difficult dealing with such individuals. They often seem to regard any opposition to their views as being in some way related to some conspiracy-theory "cabal." The more religiously fanatical of them may even start casting any opponents in specifically demonic roles, although any opposition is pretty much by definition an effort to prevent people from being allowed to see their version of The Truth©. For newer editors of this type, they are often recognized quickly and sometimes topic banned or site banned.

For longer term editors, identifying the self-appointed prophet can be more difficult. Some editors, in the generally laudable goal of retaining editors might overlook signs of advocacy owing to a long edit history that may be difficult to wade through in any case. And sometimes, those who recognize the problem may avoid reporting the behavior to administrators or other authorities with the hope that the editor in question might reform. Long-term problematic behavior can be difficult to document sufficiently well for others to believe it. If help dealing with the problem is requested, the amount of time the person has been editor, the number of edits, and the (superficially at least) following of policies and guidelines can trump the statements of others and the evidence that there is a problem.

Alternately, enforcers of Wikipedia policies sometimes incorrectly seek to "spread the blame" to all parties involved in disputes surrounding self-appointed prophets.