Wikipedia talk:Activist/Archive 1

Activist shortcut
The "WP:ACTIVIST" shortcut is still red-linked. How do I get it to turn blue? Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I created a redirect so it should work now. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration cases
The list of Arbitration cases is much too short. I'd guess that at least half of the committee's cases involve advocacy, defined one way or another. List all of them. Those cases are the meat of this essay.  Will Beback   talk    08:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I went through the cases fairly carefully and added the ones I thought applied. If you have others you feel should be listed, please feel free to add them. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Many cases involve the principles of no advocacy/soapboxing. Why aren't those included?   Will Beback    talk    02:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added those that included advocacy as a principle.   Will Beback    talk    02:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, one criteria I used when adding a case to the list was where it appeared that more than one person was engaged in advocacy and appeared to be acting together to promote their cause. Cla68 (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do activists never act alone? I didn't get that from the essay. Maybe it should be retitled "activists" or "groups of activists".   Will Beback    talk    03:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An activist acting alone is a different animal. A lone POV-pusher is a pain in the neck, but is usually unable to exercise controlling ownership over a topic.  Perhaps ACTIVISTS would be a better title, as you suggest. Cla68 (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the essay could be focused more on the group aspect. Much of it seems to be address generic advocacy.   Will Beback    talk    04:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I just took a stab at trying to make it clearer that the essay is about blocs of activists working together. Cla68 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've posted the list of advocacy cases above, and bolded the ones that ones that don't appear to concern just one or two users. But I'm sure that some of the remaining cases only involve single activists too. Let's keep narrowing down the list.   Will Beback    talk    13:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at these and it looks roughly correct. I'll go ahead and add the bolded names to the list. We can keep improving it in situ.   Will Beback    talk    10:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Cla68 (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How about declined cases? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the RFC preceding that case evidenced more of same, and the ineffectiveness of RFC, where the same activism is prominent. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll get those links added soon. Thank you for pointing that one out. Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone just blanked that list of arbcom cases. I invited them to participate in this dicussion.  I propose listing all the ArbCom cases dealing with groups of editors, which WillBeback helpfully linked to and bolded above.  Also, as SandyGeorgia suggests, we should consider linking to RfCs that also alleged group activist editing.  I think we can leave it up to the reader to decide if activism was involved in any of those instances or not. Cla68 (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing me to this discussion. I don't think the list is appropriate because the essay should stand on it's own with having to point fingers at individual cases. Maybe it would be okay if a specific case that's relevant to the text could be integrated into the sentence flow and linked as a case example, but to list a whole series of cases really gives weight to the arguments in the MfD that it's perpetuating a battleground mentality, because with that list there they're thinking the target audience is them, when it should be uninvolved readers. We want to inform our readers about certain behaviours that occur but we don't want them being shown the worst of Wikipedia, they can find it themselves. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Participation
Does anyone mind if I participate here? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe everyone is welcome to join in with the ongoing effort to help expand and improve this essay. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I am interested in contributing about Expert editors approaching activism. Maybe with wp:bite when perhaps wp:welcome would better serve Wikipedia's interests.  For example: a 2 year old learns to say "no" and may start annoyingly denying others, while the wise old sage says "no" with acceptance of self and other k NO wledge.  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Easier to understand with examples
Could you maybe show some tactical, intereresting examples on the Wiki of this activity actually going down? Concrete examples make an article come alive.TCO (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did have links to ArbCom case decisions in which group activism was alleged. Another editor removed the links, however, a few weeks ago and no one else weighed-in on whether they thought the links should be restored or not.  Another editor above suggested adding links to RfCs which also might show evidence of group activism.  If you agree that such links are helpful, they could be restored and/or added. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was teasing! It's a better article with the info added, but the way group dynamics and editing work on Wiki, I would leave it off.  The guilty parties can't complain as easily if you don't identify them.  ;)  TCO (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with the long list that used to be here. However, without specifically citing examples from within each case, which is obviously not a good idea, I'm not sure how much value that list would add. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Arbcom list and links were great. Maybe a expandable list. A short pith example from each would be beneficial. Activism is a growing issue. Will be difficult to sort out the NPOV, this article may help. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, that would open a hornet's nest. Once a case has been adjudicated it's best to let matters lie, rather than to stir things up and reopen old wounds. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether all of those cases actually involved group activism is open to question. That's why I simply listed them all and left it open to the reader to decide, after reading this essay and then reading the evidence pages and decisions in those cases, whether group activism was actually present or not.  One of the purposes of this essay is to influence editors to use critical thinking when observing the behavior of groups of editors in controversial topic areas. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Write it off wiki?TCO (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Image
I wonder if anyone would object to switching to a more generic or antiquarian lead image, perhaps something like this. I think it would be preferable to using any current controversy, like anti-nukes. This would be in line with not singling out any particular cause. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved from the essay
I can't understand parts of this, so I'm moving it here until it's clarified. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"Frequently activists are spotted by their continuous treatment of negative information in relation to their POV and the verified truth within the reliable sources presented. They may make a false positive claim to include, when in fact there is none to be source substantiated (i.e. excessive belief). Or, they may make a false negative claim to exclude when supporting content exists in a reliable source; however, the activist's excessive skepticism is the real issue for exclusion. Additionally, they may uncivilly reject or advance content by ignoring rules to benefit their common interests over the neutral goal of Wikipedia, especially for reasons beyond grounding in Wikipedia's principles. Activists may self-identify or, they may be assume this identity from a group, accepting the group's identity with a common interest. How activists handle their behaviors and roles, is key to their survival."


 * What don't you understand? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's oddly written. For example, what does this say? "They may make a false positive claim to include, when in fact there is none to be source substantiated (i.e. excessive belief)." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the diagnostic method elaboration of POV pushing. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what that means either. As written the sentence doesn't have a clear meaning; the rest of the paragraph has similar issues. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (Aside "meaning management" is my favorite branding topic. ) If you can't identify specific issues, how can I help you solve them?  The passage is an attempt to diagnose and identify (spot) Wikipedia activist with specific reference to truth table analysis.  I agree it could be said better.  The line you identified is a method to spot what Wikipedians call POV pushing.  What does "POV pushing" mean to you, how do you spot it? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think parts of this have been written by someone whose first language is not English. I haven't looked to see who it is; if it's you, I apologize. The problem is that it's genuinely difficult to understand what's being said. The first sentence doesn't seem to say much. The second sentence really isn't comprehensible: "They may make a false positive claim to include, when in fact there is none to be source substantiated (i.e. excessive belief)." And so on.


 * I think we all know what POV pushing is, and this isn't really the place to explain it anyway.


 * If we're writing an essay to advise people about writing and research, it must itself be clearly written. Sorry. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Help me make it clearer for relvence to spot activists. I started the section.  My first language is urban American. What do you mean by "genuinely difficult" or "say much" or "isn't comprehensible" can you be clearer? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would copy edit it if I knew what it was trying to say. First sentence: "Frequently activists are spotted by their continuous treatment of negative information in relation to their POV and the verified truth within the reliable sources presented." What is that saying? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, the intent is to diagnose disruptive activism. A key approach in diagnosis is to tests the negatives. I suspect the issue is with "negative information in relation to their POV". That means a suspected activist negation of information, may done in relation to their POV (with original research) and ignore the sources. Somehow, they judge including the information to be negative to their POV and personal interest, rather than negative to what a sources say and wikipedia's best interests (which I assume is the preferred negation method).  The "continuous" word was an attempt to simply say, assume good faith, only repeated denial of sources and Wikipedia principle is cause for activist concern. Everyone makes simple mistakes; however, continuing the issues after errors have been identified, is cause for concern as an activist. I would like to elaborate the section.  Maybe I should write a longer piece, somewhere else first?  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You could try a longer piece in your userspace if you like. I'd be willing to help you copy edit that section, but we'd need to take it sentence by sentence, with you explaining what each one meant in a way I could understand, so that I could summarize it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok ... I'll let you know, when I have something for comment. My writing can be cryptic. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Compromise section
I also moved this because seeking compromise is definitely not a mark of activist editing. The writing is also problematic.

A favorite tools is insistence on compromise. This works because it seems fair and reasonable — as long as you don't think too carefully about it. Wikipedia policies cannot be overruled by compromise or talk page consensus, and if an article violates those policies it needs to be rectified. Editors should not compromise on policy, and insistence on following policies is not Wikilawyering.

Game theory dictates some of the choices of activists. If the end result is to be a compromise, some will stake out the most extreme position possible, trusting that the compromise will thus tilt toward their position. In encyclopedic terms there's no reason to expect that the best solution has to be precisely in the middle. Think of the famous Randy in Boise: a compromise with Randy stating that only half of the soldiers in the Peloponnesian War were sword-wielding skeletons wouldn't be a service to Wikipedia users. Instead of compromise seek principled agreement based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead and fix the writing (which has deteriorated over time, as is the way of Wikipedia). But insistence on compromise is definitely a characteristic of activist editors. You may be falling into a logical misstep: while insistence on compromise is a hallmark of activist editing, not everyone who insists on compromise is an activist. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I fixed the parts of the writing I could understand, and moved the rest here. As for the compromise issue, the essay says activist editors will usually avoid seeking compromise, so adding that section contradicts the rest. In my experience it's the activists who usually dislike compromise, because they want their articles to be "on message". SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Claiming "compromise" can be a component of "activist" editing. I think this paragraph makes a good point:


 * "A favorite tools is insistence on compromise. This works because it seems fair and reasonable — as long as you don't think too carefully about it. Wikipedia policies cannot be overruled by compromise or talk page consensus, and if an article violates those policies it needs to be rectified. Editors should not compromise on policy, and insistence on following policies is not Wikilawyering."


 * The above could be written better but I think it makes a good point. As for it being in contradiction with what is said about "compromise" elsewhere in the article, probably we have to break down the concept of "compromise" further to develop a distinction between "good" compromise and "bad" compromise. I would hazard a guess that we should never sacrifice the articulation and conveyance of information on the alter of "compromise." Nor should we be compromising core Wiki principles except when for instance a case can be made for Ignoring All Rules. Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that this page isn't about whether compromise can be good or bad. And it's not about how compromise relates to the policies. It's about how to spot activist editing.


 * A very clear hallmark of activist editing is an unwillingness to accept compromise, regardless of the policies. That doesn't mean that everyone who does this is an activist editor, of course. But to write that "[a] favorite tools [sic] is insistence on compromise" is completely false. Seeking compromise is usually a sign of good editing, bearing in mind the need to stick to the policies (the subject of another page). SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the second paragraph is also very apt. I would leave out reference to "game theory." In fact I would leave out reference to "Randy in Boise" even though I think it is very funny and illustrates the point well. But I agree that:


 * "If the end result is to be a compromise, some will stake out the most extreme position possible, trusting that the compromise will thus tilt toward their position. In encyclopedic terms there's no reason to expect that the best solution has to be precisely in the middle."


 * What this is saying is that it is an "activist" characteristic to not be aiming to get the most accurate information into the article but to strategize editorially. "Compromise" is an inherently problematic concept, I think, in writing an encyclopedia—even though this is an intensively collaborative project. The need for "compromise" should be a red flag—calling for a major reevaluation of the impasse that editors find themselves at. In my opinion a likely solution is more rather than less information at that point. Bus stop (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is built on consensus and compromise (within the policies). We can't suddenly claim that's a sign of activist editing. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure we can, because it's often observed in practice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to ask for examples, because it would mean posting contentious diffs. All I can do is repeat that in six years of editing, I've never associated that with activist editing. And it would seem that others agree, because the opposite point is made in the essay:


 * "Editors operating in good faith will try to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors. Rather than removing reliably sourced information, good faith editors will work with others to resolve the dispute and try to retain some substance of the text at issue. Activists, on the other hand, usually refuse. During any content dispute with activists, tag-team edit warring and long, convoluted wiki-lawyering on the article talk page become the norm." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You say, "the opposite point is made in the essay." These aren't "opposite" points. I agree that we don't want to "ask for examples". "Compromise" should not be necessary because points at variance with one another can often be accommodated by allotting space to all reliably sourced viewpoints. I think "activist" editing is often characterized by an aim to exclude information. "Compromise" can be a "bad" thing when it serves as a sanctimonious excuse for excluding reliably sourced information. The remedy to this type of "bad" compromising is the inclusion of more information, reliably sourced of course. This can be thought of as an "accommodating" approach. It is the remedy to the misuse of the concept of "compromise" by "activists." Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Activism can also take the form of insistence on including irrelevant information, or placing excessive weight on small-minority views. What about Randy from Boise's insistence on compromise by including at least some reference to sword-wielding skeletons? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That can be a problem with (poor) compromise, but the question here is whether it's a sign of activism.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my experience, yes. (As suggested above I, er, would prefer not to name names...) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Simplifying: The problem is generally with "my way or the highway" proposed "compromises". Real compromises occur when each "side" gives up something - when one side says they will give up essentially nothing, there is a problem, Houston. (self-spam) see essay WP:Advocacy articles for part of my opinion on this. Collect (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See argument to moderation. The "Examples" section is particularly instructive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possible that argument to moderation exists sometimes in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia model, however, requires that attempts at compromise be made when editors disagree with each other.  That means, I suppose, that argument to moderation is possible, but I've never seen that actually happen.  I agree with SV that, based on my observations, a refusal to compromise is a sign of activist editing.  An expectation by editors of efforts to compromise is not really a signal of problematic activism in an article. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And based on my observations it does happen. We seem to be at an impasse. What say you? Shall we -- compromise? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We are not "compromising", even though this is an intensively collaborative project. What we are doing is "accommodating" one another. We are doing so while operating in conformance with nonnegotiable principles, such as the requirement calling for reliable sources. The problem is seeing an "either/or" situation when there is ample room for more than one perspective to be expressed. But any perspective expressed much have adequate support in sources. Material included can have implications that contradict what other included material implies. Also, it is not our responsibility to reconcile seemingly contradictory implications unless of course a source attempts to address that reconciliation. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Vicious circle. What you think is a reliable source I say is an unreliable source. The metric provided by Wikipedia for determining which of us is correct is vague enough to allow for endless argument. In practice, what happens is that certain editors declare certain sources to be reliable or unreliable by fiat because the way reliability is judged in the real world is through personal appraisal of experts which is an activity explicitly forbidden at Wikipedia. Sources which conform to the reliable ones are then permitted for inclusion while sources which do not conform are excluded on the basis of unreliability. And that's how we get things done on Wikipedia. The alternative is allowing every possible boneheaded idea its day in the sun. jps (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguments over what constitutes reliable sourcing is another sign of activist editing. For example, if a group of editors refuses to allow an editorial from a major newspaper or a book published by an independent publisher because they don't agree with the opinion in those sources, then activism is indicated.  As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we don't care if an idea or opinion is right or not.  If a PhD and Randy in Boise are the only two editors involved in a content dispute, and both are advocating the presentation of contradicting ideas backed-up by reliable sources, then both ideas will have to be mentioned in the article after an agreement is reached between the two.  If one is willing to compromise and the other isn't, then the one not willing to compromise appears to be promoting a single POV.  That is activism.  The one trying to compromise is trying to edit in accordance with WP's policies and is in the right. Cla68 (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Arguments over what constitutes reliable sourcing is another sign of activist editing."
 * We need to be careful that we don't conflate legitimate editing conflicts with inappropriate activism. Arguing over reliable sources is also a sign of conscientious editing. Is everyone who participates at WP:RSN an activist? Editorials are often questioned as a source of facts, and "independently published" books may not meet WP:V. Instead of questioning sources, promoting the use of unreliable sources may be a more common sign of activism.      Will Beback    talk    11:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) One example I had of this was around the Jesus articles, where a group of editors repeatedly removed that certain academics doubted that Jesus had ever existed. The argument was that these academics were plain wrong, and weren't specialist enough; even a philosopher of religion was deemed not specialist and UNDUE was cited to keep him out. The sources had to be biblical scholars to be deemed acceptable. Regarding a biblical scholar who does hold that view, he was dismissed on the grounds that he wasn't respected enough, and photographs of him not looking his best were posted on talk and in one of the articles in an effort to ridicule him.


 * This is a clear sign of activist editing—that sources normally regarded as reliable aren't good enough unless the editors in question agree with them, because the aim is to keep the view out of the article; or at least to ensure that it sounds wrong-headed. Compromise is anathema if it allows the view to be expressed as a viable way of looking at the issue. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 11:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure we're both right. Sources are a bone of contention between activists and non-activists, between pro and anti sides, and even between editors acting in good faith. What separates activists from non-activists may not be the side they take on sources, but the passion and doggedness with which they make their case.   Will Beback    talk    11:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree there. I suppose what we're trying to do here is distill the essence of activism. I can think of activist editors who've gone to great lengths to try to include material. But over the last six years I think most of the activism I've seen has involved exclusion; the aim is to make sure people don't read material that's considered deadly to the POV in question. Thinking back to the activist editors you've dealt with—has it not been the case that most of their efforts have been to keep stuff out (either keep it out entirely, or at least remove it from what they see as the main article)? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * True. I recall many instances in which activists have argued against good sources. I can also recall somewhat fewer instances of them arguing for poor sources. But note that activist can also represent the majority view and oppose valid minority POVs requiring inclusion. In those cases the activist may be pushing against seemingly reliable sources that are in the minority. I agree that source-fighting can be a sign of activism, but as a diagnostic tool I'm not sure we've described it properly.   Will Beback    talk    12:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you think of a way to tweak it to make it more accurate, without losing the flavour? The danger with including too much (i.e. it can look like this and that, but also not-this and not-that) is that we risk losing the essence, so that all editing will sound like activist editing. We need ways of spotting the category—and I think we mostly know it when we see it, even if there are ambiguous cases around the edges—without making it so extensive it's meaningless. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There's an elephant in the room here. Eventually I may mention it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean, but I do agree that some version of the compromise section needs to be restored. Also I think the "editing to advance fringe points of view" section needs beefing up/restoration. I've felt for some time that this essay is troublesome because one person's "activist editing" is another person's "good editing." If we are going to have this essay, we need to make if far more balanced than it is at the present time. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * DO tell us what the elephant is. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation tags
LOL at the citation tags. I guess bad faith is the issue to be cited. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure the right way to ask for supporting evidence to show that these are, in fact, "favorite tactics". Are there any examples from the ArbCom cases?    Will Beback    talk    02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ArbCom probably would not decide on a content issue like this, unless there were an overly abusive pattern. It's a matter of faith. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If not based on evidence from ArbCom cases involving activist groups, then on what basis are we making these assertions?   Will Beback    talk    03:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would assume WP:ESSAYS into a NPOV of course. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not following. Is the idea that we can write whatever we want with no connection to reality? Is there any reason I shouldn't delete the tagged lines?   Will Beback    talk    04:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An essay, as stated in the template at the top of the page, is a general statement of opinion. The danger with citing specific examples of what may be editor misconduct is that it may make the essay appear to be an attempt at dispute resolution, which is inappropriate.  Cla68 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The tags are absurd, which is appropriate because this whole essay is farcical. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see this essay as farcical. I am not even sure that I see this essay primarily as an essay. There are so many people providing so many different kinds of input that I would describe as being akin to a workshop. I find this page interesting. It addresses an important problem. The problem is distinguishing between activist editing and non-activist editing. And an associated problem concerns how to prevent the abuse of policy—all policies start out with wholesome intentions, but the activist turns those policies to other purposes. Bus stop (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * SBHB: It's telling that you find this essay "farcial". So what's the elephant? ++Lar: t/c 07:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

One problem here is that these statements are almost mirror images. Activists try to get rid of article and activists try to create articles. Another problem is that if we don't ground these assertions in reality then we're just blowing smoke. While I understand that folks don't want to cite specific cases because doing so could dredge up old conflicts, I don't see how an essay like this can be written without anchoring it to actual instances of inappropriate activism by groups. There are plenty of ArbCom cases that have involved activism but which are now old and settled. Requests for arbitration/Free Republic, for example. I'm not sure if any of the participants of that case are even still active.  Will Beback   talk    08:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A favorite tactic for activists, is to propose to speedy delete new articles in which they disagree, failing to give the article a chance to develop.
 * Activists may attempt to create new articles, which border on content or POV forks, in an attempts to advance their position.
 * Activists may attempt to write essays to demonize their opponents. 
 * Activists typically argue against essays. 
 * A favorite technique of activists is to add neutral, verifiable content to relevant articles, because it makes them look like good editors.


 * The essay is deliberately written to include a broad range of activities - it is not an exercise in "dispute resolution" in itself, and it is intended to offer generally sound advice no matter which "side" is the activist side on any issue.   ArbCom has, in fact, made findings related to perceived groups of editors in a field, and stated This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared views in a manner that contravenes the application of Wikipedia policy or obstructs consensus-building.  which is fairly clear for anything out of ArbCom. Collect (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good material to add. I'm all for grounding this page in solid quotes and citations from authoritative sources.   Will Beback    talk    11:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with this essay won't be solved by citations. It's essentially a prolonged justification for injecting fringe viewpoints into the project. Any effort to turn this into a useful and balanced essay has been ripped out. I agree that it's a farce. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Essays on WP are, sui generis, matters of opinion. "Citations" will not "improve" any essay, not does a lack of citations make an essay valueless. The purpose, as I see it, is to make an essay which points out the real hazards of any group of editors, however well-intentioned and saintly, act in concert, real or perceived, on any group of articles. Digressions into effectively saying "right thought is to be rewarded, wrong thought is to be punished" is not within the theological sphere (or any sphere) of Wikipediology. Collect (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If that's the case (sui generis matters of opinion), you should reinstate the fringe activists section that you ripped out. The rest of the essay is clearly directed at efforts to blunt fringe opinions, so it is imbalanced and really has no credibility. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I "ripped out" nothing - only reworded a strange section to make it compliant with the rest of the essay which does not try to assert that any one side is "right" or "wrong", I fail to see any problem. If you feel the essay should praise "right activism" and oppose "wrong activism" I fear you might properly write your own essay :). Collect (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on now. The "elephant in the room," to use an expression someone utilized here, is that this essay emerged from the Climate Change Arbitration, created by a topic banned editor, and represents the grievances that stem from text being removed on the grounds of being fringe and undue weight. As originally written and proposed for deletion, it was clearly directed at editors seeking to remove fringe points of view. It was retained on the proviso that it could be improved. I tried; you thwarted that. I and other editors have toned down its explicit original message, but not to the extent that a section is not warranted on activism to advance fringe points of view. Yes, advancing fringe points of view is "wrong" in the view of Wiki policy. Right now it is leans in the opposite direction, and, with some softening, attacks activism to advance mainstream positions, because people defending articles from fringe positions do indeed use UNDUE. In fact, I would suggest that this article, if not made more balanced, is itself a form of activism and can be used to advance activism. My only concern is that I'm wasting my time on something that is inherently lacking in credibility and serves no purpose. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And, if you will recall, I had essentially nothing to do with the CC fighting. My only concern is that this essay be worded as neutrally as possible, and so I would ask you extend good faith towards such edits.   My edits at no point have "taken sides" on any issue in this essay, and that you assert that your strange attemnpt to assert that "right activism is good" and "wrong activism is evil" is "thwarting" anything at all is weird.  Activism from any side at all is a problem. Clear? Collect (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At no point have I ever said that "right activism is good" nor identified you as a CC editor. The purpose of the "fringe activism" section that you chopped out was to identify the techniques used by that kind of activist, and at no point does it say that "right activism is good." That's just false. If you're going to mischaracterize my statements and editing, there's no point of further discussion. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The gist of the section which I carefully and neutrally reworded was that "fringe promoting activists are evil (roughly)." The nature of acts by any activists tend to fall into the same categories whether they are protecting the truth, or promoting lies and fallacies.   This essay ought to condemn all such tactics on any side by any group of editors with common beliefs and goals.   I daresay it is difficult to be any more neutral in wording than that! Collect (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not the purpose of this essay to "condemn" activism, but to identify activism. You didn't "reword" the section, you removed it.. The point of what you removed was to show the techniques used by activists to advance fringe point of view. It's not enough to say that "both types of activism are bad." The paragraph as you reworded it is a bald statement of no value whatsoever in identifying activism. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are also quite mistaken when you say that the nature of activism is the same regardless of what kind it is. UNDUE is a good example where its use by fringe activists is different from what is used by non-fringe activists. One must also keep in mind that all the "techniques" stated in this article can be, and mainly are, used in good faith by nonactivists. That is one of my major problems with this essay. However, again, I'm not sure sweating over this essay is a good use of time. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This essay is particularly about the use of a group of editors with a common interest or goal. That is something specifically singled out by ArbCom as being a real problem.  Neither ArbCom nor this essay need make any judgement about whther one side is right or wrong at all.   And pray tell why should "non-activists" act in apparent concert on a general topic to the extent that coordination is suspected?  Collect (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I just said. this essay need not make a judgment about activism, but that is what you did in the text that you inserted after you axed out the section on fringe activism. There was indeed judgmental text, but it has been removed (editors "infesting" a page, for instance). That's not the problem. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note latest copyedit addressing what I surmise is your concern. This is not an essay for fighting out the "SPOV" battles for sure. Collect (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They're a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done for this essay to do more good than harm. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to identify activist activity, then we must describe how it can be disruptive. The "mirror image" presents as NPOV. (smile)  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what we should be saying is that any rule can be used in a damaging way. I don't think I have ever seen that perspective expressed. Policy is supposed to serve a good purpose. It is supposed to guide the activities that result in a good-quality end-product. But policy itself is subject to subversion. It is turned to other purposes than those for which it was created. If we were to define the activist it is the person who is disregarding of the original purpose for which a policy was created, and only (or primarily) mindful of a "message" that is personal in nature. Personal messages are not categorically ruled out for inclusion in Wikipedia—but they probably require the tempering that results from their juxtaposition to material that communicates a countervailing "message". This article (essay) should make clear that "policy" is not a tool for endlessly creative application—there are limits to the advisable functionality of policy. Those limits are important. Even an eminently wholesome policy such as wp:blp is subject to abuse. In fact it may be more subject to abuse than more quotidian and utilitarian policies. Due to the high ideals embodied in wp:blp, the potential for abuse may actually be enhanced—relative to that of policy that is inherently more mundane. But I think every Wiki policy has its limits, which are just as important as its ideals and intentions. I think "activist" is a good term. An activist is diametrically opposed to a rule-abiding Wikipedian. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point!Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Collect apparently dislikes the tags due to some category problem. So I've swapped one for "dubious" instead, which seems better than air-brushing away the problem. Mind you, the rest of this really needs tags too William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just I -- it is generally contrary to policy to have templates in non-mainspace which create listings in a category in mainspace. We don't use such templates in userspace either.   And since essays are not encyclopedia articles, the use of tags is not really of much use.  Do you feel the essay is not neutral about some specific topic? Collect (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree re the tags being not much use (the only problem with them is that they falsely imply that the rest of it is not dubious). As for not neutral: where have you been? There is so much wrong with this article, that I'm not about to try to list it all. Try reading wot Boris has already written William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To Scotty, a number of editors have participated in writing this essay and I can't speak for their motivations, but speaking for myself, what I've added is not a direct response to the CC arbitration case. The parts of this essay that I drafted are based on five years of editing Wikipedia, observing or paricipating to various degrees in a number of arbitration cases or other dispute resolution actions, or otherwise based on behavior that I've witnessed or been told about during Wikipedia's history.  That is one of the reasons why I originally added a long list of arbitration case decisions.  Cla68 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The case was two months underway at the time when you commenced it, and it resulted in your topic ban. For you to say that you weren't influenced by your CC experiences and that case is incredible. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty, can you point out in my statement above where I said, "I wasn't influenced by my CC experiences"? What I said was, "a number of editors have participated in writing this essay and I can't speak for their motivations, but speaking for myself, what I've added is not a direct response to the CC arbitration case.  The parts of this essay that I drafted are based on five years of editing Wikipedia, observing or paricipating to various degrees in a number of arbitration cases or other dispute resolution actions, or otherwise based on behavior that I've witnessed or been told about during Wikipedia's history.  That is one of the reasons why I originally added a long list of arbitration case decisions."  Please don't say that I said things that I didn't say.  Again, a number of editors have added significant portions of text to this essay.  I don't think it's helpful to try to single any of them out except perhaps to thank them for their inputs, and defiinitely not helpful to try to personalize the discussion over this essay's content. Cla68 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You said "what I've added is not a direct response to the CC arbitration case." Sorry, I don't buy that. This essay struck me and some other editors (in the XfD) as just that. I think it's a logical deduction. You were topic banned for a minimum of six months for battlefield conduct in those articles, and there seems to be a direct correlation between much of what you are saying here and the experiences of you and other editors in that CC case. As I said in the XfD, my feeling is that this essay should be identified as the personal reflections of a particular editor involved prominently in the CC case, and not as some kind of arm's length dissertation when it clearly is not. Also I think that the comments in the XfD (e.g., Wikidemon), need to be read carefully and taken into consideration.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty, if you have a personal problem with me, you should be taking it up with me on my talk page. The talk page of this essay should be a discussion of the content, not the contributors.  Most of the editors on this talk page have been following that rule.  I'll take this discussion to your talk page since this appears to be a personal dispute. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cla68, could you indicate which non-climate change disputes were the inspiration for this essay?   Will Beback    talk    22:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've said before, I won't mention any specific examples, because this essay is not an attempt at dispute resolution. Several other editors have also contributed significant content to this essay so I'm sure they probably also have personal experiences in editing Wikipedia that they are drawing on.  See the thread below that SlimVirgin just started as an example of what I'm talking about. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can mention them in the talk page. If CC articles are not your main inspiration for this, then you are not barred from describing what other ones were. I think it would be helpful to know what is the factual basis of this essay. You can certainly describe what article you or someone else created in the "documentation" section. I'm sure there's more than one side to that story. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If the cases are from the past then this wouldn't be part of dispute resolution. I think that studying specific cases would improve this essay. Otherwise it's a bit like arguing over what fruit tastes like without mentioning any specific fruit.   Will Beback    talk    22:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be very helpful if there was a reality check on some of the statements in this essay. Wouldn't it be funny if some of the bald assertions being made here are based upon real-life situations in which good-faith and not "activist" editing was taking place? ScottyBerg (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Essay purpose
(Fork from above) .... This essay probably serves better for the reader to identity how their behavior may be considered as "activist" and how they can regulate their own behavior. Applying this essay to others, just opens a whole can of worms of bad faith. Best for the reader to address their behaviors. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You may not be aware of how "essays" like this are used on Wikipedia. They aren't for introspection - they're for accusation. In arguments with editors we wish to charge with activism this will become a blue-linked, all-caps smear: WP:ACTIVIST.   Will Beback    talk    19:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Possibly; however, that could be a misuse and abuse. I expected WP:ESSAYS supports WP:GUIDES and then WP:POLICIES in the realm of Wiki politics. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Um -- your crystal ball is working overtime? The way this article is written, it is unlikely to be misused - especially with the specific comment that the reader must make sure it is not he who is the activist! Collect (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * When there's a snappy redirect there's no need to actually read the essay. If I understand correctly, one of the main writers of this essay was topic banned for activism. Do you think he wrote this as a description of his own behavior?   Will Beback    talk    20:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no care if Hitler wrote a WP essay - the essay stands or falls on its content, not on who wrote it. Collect (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Godwin! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect, you wrote above that "Essays on WP are, sui generis, matters of opinion." If they are merely opinions then the identity of the writers is very important. However I don't think this page was intended to simply express an opinion. Rather it seeks to explain a type of problematic behavior. If it is based on verifiable information and is written neutrally, then it is no longer just an essay and it no longer matters who wrote it. That's why I think that this page would be improved by reference to actual cases which the community (or the ArbCom) agree have involved activism or advocacy.   Will Beback    talk    23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (EC) @WB: You're gradually wandering toward the neighborhood of the elephant... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will and SBHB, a number of editors have participated in writing this essay. I'm not aware that any of them were "topic banned for activism".  If that's the elephant you think is in this room, then I think you're thinking of an imaginary elephant. Cla68 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A number of the editors participating here were topic banned for "battlefield conduct". Aside from the propriety of creating a fresh battlefield, there's the question of whether battlefield conduct is typical of activists. Since some editors here are familiar with that type of conduct, perhaps we should add a section on it.    Will Beback    talk    21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I for one wish wp:battle had elaboration and better guidance, to prevent its (misuse?) topic banning application. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Writing
Re: the section I've added about quality of writing:

Boris, you're missing the point with this edit. I'm talking about the production of articles that are often a dog's breakfast, yet when you look at the history, they're well-attended (often obsessively attended) by editors who definitely know better, and who if they were writing about an issue they cared less about would notice they were producing bad work. But when it presses their ideological buttons they either don't care or don't see that the page is a mess. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you have an unrealistic view of the general quality of writing on Wikipedia. Not to mention that many activists are excellent writers; indeed, one would expect that an activist would have honed their communication skills. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * When experienced editors spend a lot of time on an article, I'd normally expect to see something reasonably comprehensive with a decent structure. I'm not talking about brilliant writing, just something acceptable. When activist editing has taken over, you rarely see that, because no one wants to spend time on issues that don't matter to them ideologically. So grammar, spelling, sentence structure, flow, comprehensiveness, all go out the window.


 * Yes, we see that in a lot of articles. But with "activist articles," if I can put it that way, what's striking is the stark contrast between the quality of the article and the article's history, where you see a lot of names who definitely know how to produce better work. That, to me, is one of the red flags. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you have an unrealistic view of the general quality of writing on Wikipedia. Even amongst experienced editors. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that poor writing is a product of edit warring as much as anything. While that may include articles with activists, it's secondary. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No matter whether it's a secondary effect of something else, a fairly useful rule of thumb (stress: rule of thumb) is that the greater attention an article receives from activists, the worse the writing is likely to get. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You keep saying this but it does not square with my experience. I've long observed that poor writing is what you get when you have a bunch of people working on things with no one "in charge". Given that, you might well say that poor writing is a marker that people are following the Wiki model. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good and bad writing appears across Wikipedia. I'd conjecture that a problem activists is that they are typically concerned with making sure that certain points are covered (or excluded) in an article and don't care as much about the article as a whole.   Will Beback    talk    22:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Good and bad writing appears across Wikipedia." Precisely. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why ignore the second part of what he wrote? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's unrelated to the first part. A look at non sequitur (logic) may be profitable in this discussion, even moreso accident (fallacy). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't be profitable, because it has nothing to do with what Will wrote. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment was not necessarily directed at what Will wrote. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that simply saying "bad editing is a sign of activism" is too general to be useful. If there are specific kinds of bad editing that are found in articles owned by activists then that's helpful to include.   Will Beback    talk    23:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that simply saying "bad editing is a sign of activism" is too general to be useful. That's what I've been trying to get across in my edits; it looks like that viewpoint may finally be considered permissible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But no one has said that. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (multiple ec) I'm just not seeing that. I am beginning to understand the point someone made about citations. If I knew of a specific example of how bad writing was a sign of activism, I'd have a better understanding of the example. Right now it makes very little sense to me. I'd also like to see some specific examples of behavior recommended in the "documentation" section. I'm sure that, if that ever happened, there was more than one side of that story. I'm sure it did happen, as it is supposedly based on someone's experiences/observations. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciated the point, and it is noble, all two often when perusing articles, I get the sense the resulting collaborative writing may reflect a war zone, with difficult to remove casualties. Quality requires a unity of purpose. That said, the addition could be improved. Many articles require a fresh start. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Surely we can have one example of an article whose writing is poor because of activism? If not, I think this section needs to go. It's just too dubious. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, there should be no examples of poor writing cited, unless from a reliable secondary source or from an ArbCom decision or something like that, because otherwise it will look like the essay is directing criticism at individual editors by name. If you mean to give an example for this discussion, that's still something I'm personally not comfortable with. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even better, as someone suggested, is to include in this essay only statements that can be substantiated by Arbcom decisions, in which the community has decided that certain conduct was unacceptable. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, reliable sourced Criticism of Wikipedia are fair. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mirror
It's unfortunate that the same kind of editing and talk-page responses are starting to show up here as on the articles we're writing about.

This is an essay representing a valid point of view. We may not agree with all of it, and it may not apply across the board, but it's a point of view that experienced editors at the AfD said they wanted to see represented, because it rang bells with them.

I agree that essays that suggest policy violations should be fixed or removed, but this doesn't do that. I also agree that we should ensure this page reflects a rounded perspective (without contradicting itself). That can be done by good-faith editors finding ways to accommodate each other's experiences. It can't be done by engaging in yet more activist editing. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "It's unfortunate that the same kind of editing and talk-page responses are starting to show up here as on the articles we're writing about." Since not a single specific example has been cited, even on this talk page, even when requested, this is as hard to verify as any of the unsubstantiated assertions in this essay. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Examples will bog us down in recriminations. What's needed is for editors with a lot of experience of editing Wikipedia to put their heads together to come up with a description of how to spot where content is being dictated by group ideology, rather than by the disinterested editorial judgment of individuals acting independently of each other. What we don't need is for the issues to be acted out.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I felt that way originally. But as this discussion has evolved, as the examples have become more dubious, as good material has been censored, I've come around to the conclusion that what's needed are verifiable examples, not proof by assertion. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mean like WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with SlimVirgin. There has to be a way to operationalize the observations and experiences of the editors who helped write, voted in the AfD for keep, or who otherwise agree with some or all of the content of this essay.  Personally, I feel that WP's policies on sourcing, NPOV, etc are clear enough to tackle the problem of activist editing.  WP just needs an administrative structure willing and able to enforce those policies. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe if "activists" were as easy as socks to identify (smile, not that easy), they would be pounded on. Best to try and describe the issue first, before moving up the enforcement chain.  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it's a serious mistake to "operationalize" (whatever that means) the views and experiences of just the editors who voted to keep this in the AfD and otherwise agree with it, ignoring the concerns raised in that AfD and on this page. Many of the concerns in the AfD were by keep voters (see Wikidemon for instance). ScottyBerg (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Experts
Examples?  Will Beback   talk    01:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ''Activists may claim to be authorities or experts on a subject and vastly contribute to articles.


 * Well ... I should keep examples out of this; however, I can elaborate an esoteric principle on authoritarianism and Wikipedia's somewhat democratic authoring principles ... if you would like? Simply  said, Experts are fine until they hurt someone.   Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved from the article
Two problematic passages, which would benefit from being rewritten:

"Activists may claim to be authorities or experts on a subject and vastly contribute to articles. However, over reliance on their opinions can lead to a lack of fact checking on specialized subjects. This can violate Wikipedia's NPOV aims if they maintain a conflict of interest, particularly if they edit for financial gains. An activist may actually be a professional political operative or advocate in a public issues.  They may commandeer or sanitize articles.  They have been known to squat in articles to waiting to revert to maintain a systematic bias. If an activist group engages in a systematic effort, an IP scan can help identify an organizational link."

And

"Either zeal in deletion of articles which do not conform to the favoured views of the 'activist group,' (or groups) or corresponding zeal in insistence on keeping (or creating) articles conforming to their views, may also indicate that such a group (or groups) exists."

I'll rewrite the latter now, and place it in a new section. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, strike that. I tried to rewrite it, but don't know what it's trying to say with the current "on the one hand, this; on the other hand, that" format. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Editing this essay sometimes makes me laugh out loud. Really, it does. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How did that comment help, Boris? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it highlights the rather absurd direction this essay and discussion have taken (compared to more stable and sensible expositions of the same idea, such as Advocacy). I'm not sure what value this essay adds, except as a formal proof of Sayre's Law. MastCell Talk 04:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When compared to real world issues, debate over the content of this essay probably does invite comparison to Sayre's Law. When it comes to the internal culture of Wikipedia, however, the discussion over how to stock Wikipedia's articles with information is a subject of often intense debate.  As I've said elsewhere, "It's all about the content."  Wikipedia's freely-contributed content model, it's high-powered Google juice, and disorganized administrative structure, all seem to combine to create a sometimes chaotic editing environment, especially in controversial topics.  Many editors, often activists, want the articles to present the unvarnished truth as they see it.  In my opinion and, evidently, in the opinion of a few others, Wikipedia's policies, such as NPOV and RS, promote a presentation of information that is often a little more ambiguous. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting thought. Perhaps we should note that an emphasis on ambiguity sometimes serves the activist's agenda as well? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We, as far as Wikipedia goes, don't care if Intelligent Design (ID) or evolution are the "truth." We don't care if ID activists succeed or not in getting ID put into the curriculum of any public school systems.  We just report what the (reliable) sources are saying.  If ID activists or anti-ID activists try to use Wikipedia to promote their cause, and do so by not following WP's rules, we should care about that. Cla68 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're trying to say that pro-ID activists want to introduce ambiguity into the creation debate. That's a different matter from what we're doing here in Wikipedia.  All we do is report what the sources are saying.  If the reliable sources introduce amibiguity into the topic, then we reflect that.  If they don't, then we don't.  In controversial topics, of course, there is usually some ambiguity in the sources. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict x ∞ I guess I have two concerns. First of all, fighting over the wording of this essay doesn't seem to be a productive way to address concerns over how we cover controversial topics. Secondly, the essay has become a laundry list of often contradictory "tells", as in "Activists can be identified by their tendency to do X, except when they do the complete opposite of X." We might as well replace the essay with the words "I know activism when I see it" and a picture of Potter Stewart. MastCell Talk 05:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That gets to the fundamental problem, which is that some (though certainly not all) of the "tells" could be signs of valid editing. That's the concern that I have had with this essay from the beginning. To give this essay any degree of intellectual honesty it has to be hedged, lest it be overtly harmful by actually promoting, not curbing, activism. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BINGO! You found the elephant. Which prize do you want? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Elephant Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a herd of elephants in the room, actually. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the introduction of contradictory material has been interesting to observe. In my experience, if editors disagreed with the premise of an essay, they usually wrote their own as a rebuttal. Cla68 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, I don't think anyone disagrees with the premise that activism is a problem. It seems like the dispute is about how to define the problem, and I'm not sure that multiplying essays can address that issue. MastCell Talk 05:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * MastCell, from a legal view is all boils down to Intent to construct or intent to destruct Wikipedia. Can you see that? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this article should mention the policy of Ignore All Rules. The guidelines that policy sets up can be circumvented by human ingenuity. The beauty of Ignore All Rules is that the editor wishing to rely on that policy to justify an editorial action has to really work hard and convince others of the soundness of his/her trailblazing. Policies other than Ignore All Rules become stale with time and editors find ways to use abuse them. Activism utilizes standard policy to justify its actions. It might seem like a reckless thing to do but I think that this is the sort of essay in which Ignore All Rules should be suggested. In my opinion Ignore All Rules is not one of the policies that activists exploit. In my opinion activist editing does not wish to call attention to itself. Activists don't want too much scrutiny. On the other hand I think non-activist editors are much more open to dialogue. Just some thoughts. Bus stop (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I haven't seen IAR used in hotly contested articles, as it would immediately be shot down by people on the other side. Since it's rarely used, I don't think it's absence would mean much of anything. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we don't have to advocate the use of IAR. We should just mention it. It could be mentioned in the context of rules (policy) being used to support types of editing that those rules were never intended to support. It is true that IAR is rarely invoked. But it is an important policy. In fact it is the one policy that serves as an antidote to the misuse of other policies. IAR requires that you substantiate your claims for a given editorial action by a thorough explication of all your reasoning supporting that action. In IAR there is no hiding behind policy, therefore there is no possibility of misusing policy. In essence, we are "reinventing the wheel" when we invoke IAR. Sounds crazy—but this essay, in my opinion, is about how editors fail to remain within a conservative interpretation of basic policy. We sometimes get carried away with our own sense of righteousness (or whatever) and begin invoking policy to support editorial actions that the policies were never intended to support. Bus stop (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It seems to open a can of worms. Just my initial impression. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Just a thought. We don't have to mention IAR. But I think the essay is about the abuse of basic policy. An overview might be in order, either here on the Talk page or in the essay itself. We should be taking taking a general view of what the essay is about. We don't have to be tackling each variety of policy misuse piecemeal. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration list

 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
 * Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel
 * Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid
 * Requests for arbitration/Anonimu
 * Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou
 * Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand
 * Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
 * Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti
 * Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein
 * Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris
 * Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying
 * Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann
 * Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium
 * Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes
 * Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong
 * Requests for arbitration/Free Republic
 * Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
 * Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino
 * Requests for arbitration/Gene Poole vs. Samboy
 * Requests for arbitration/His excellency
 * Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
 * Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ
 * Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names
 * Requests for arbitration/IZAK
 * Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich
 * Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch
 * Requests for arbitration/Jimmyvanthach
 * Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2
 * Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al.
 * Requests for arbitration/Kuban kazak
 * Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins
 * Requests for arbitration/List of Republics
 * Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2
 * Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche
 * Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2
 * Requests for arbitration/Macedonia
 * Requests for arbitration/Mlorrey
 * Requests for arbitration/Obama articles
 * Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
 * Requests for arbitration/Paranormal
 * Requests for arbitration/Polygamy
 * Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2
 * Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat
 * Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia
 * Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair
 * Requests for arbitration/Rex071404
 * Requests for arbitration/RK
 * Requests for arbitration/Robert Blair
 * Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce
 * Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath
 * Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba
 * Requests for arbitration/Scientology
 * Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
 * Requests for arbitration/Shiloh
 * Requests for arbitration/Sortan
 * Requests for arbitration/Strider12
 * Requests for arbitration/Terryeo
 * Requests for arbitration/Transnistria
 * Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle
 * Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts
 * Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review
 * Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education
 * Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding
 * Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu
 * Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria
 * Requests for arbitration/WHEELER
 * Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian
 * Requests for arbitration/Yuber
 * Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000

Can anyone explain what the purpose of this list is, and what the criteria for inclusion are? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For me it's like a reference room to activist behaviors; however, consensus seems to be that directly citing cases here would not benefit Wikipedia. It provides the objective basis to form un-cited opinions.  If wiki had a legal process, then an Administrative Judge Opinion might be in order to review these and write an essay; however, no such process exists yet. It's up to us fair minded folks here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia activist group alert
Ambassadors ......thank goodness, for the guided learning. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What a pile of poop
This 'essay' amounts to little more than a conspiracy theory: "when people try to change my edits, they are plotting against me"... Sad. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To put it another way, the article ascribes bad faith to what well may be good-faith, non-activist editing. Since an effort to delete this article has failed, can you suggest some changes that might result in this article doing more good than harm? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really, no. It is founded on a fundamentally false premise - that there are 'neutral' contributors, and 'activist' ones, and that they operate in fundamentally different ways. Everyone has strong opinions about something, which will make them an 'activist' over that issue. The correct way to deal with people you consider to have a strong POV is to discuss issues of content, not make sweeping assumptions about their motivations. To do otherwise is itself 'activism' - trying to impose your own views of 'neutrality' and exclude those who you see as not conforming. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you're right. I also suspect that trying to "fix" this essay is a waste of time, given its fundamental problem that you've stated quite well. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You can look at the essay in two ways. Some think it's actively harmful. My view is that it's so ham-fisted that it's (unintentionally) funny and paints its authors in a very poor light. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's actively harmful AND unintentionally funny, almost a self-parody in spots. In fact, one could write a humorous essay using this one as inspiration. I don't know if such a thing would be kosher on-wiki, however. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Put it up for AFD again? Maybe people are sick of trying to improve it and it might die this time William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Be careful, lest "frequent nominations for AfD" become part of this essay. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's attempt a rewrite. I don't have much time, but I'll try to make some minor edits right now. Count Iblis (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiments expressed in this section: the essay is a disaster. Consider "Rather than removing reliably sourced information, good-faith editors will work with others to resolve the dispute and try to retain some substance of the text at issue." (that's in the section pointing how if someone removes your text citing UNDUE, then that person is an WP:ACTIVIST and not a good-faith editor). This misguided nonsense might (just) be acceptable in user space because it would then be the opinion of an editor, and there is a lot of tolerance for such things. However, in Wikipedia space, the essay is toxic as it could easily mislead naive readers into believing that there is support to regard UNDUE, SYN, BLP and V as mere tools of an activist. I also agree that another AFD is probably not advisable atm, so a rewrite is required. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This essay is founded on the same principles as WP:BATTLE ... don't like the essay, stop the battle ground behavior then. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you recommending that editors should not follow the UNDUE, SYN, BLP and V policies? Instead, if another editor really wants the material despite the policies, then some accommodation should be made? Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No to first sentence, yes to second. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)
 * ...if another editor really wants the material despite the policies, then some accommodation should be made?
 * Is this a serious assertion? Is the idea that activists should be accommodated? That seems contrary to community and ArbCom consensus.   Will Beback    talk    23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus that some people should be arbitrarily labelled 'activists' and treated differently accordingly? If so, who is responsible for this categorisation? Perhaps we should give their user names a special symbol to indicate affiliation. A hammer-and-sickle? A swastika? A pink triangle? A yellow Star of David? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Activism or advocacy are not tolerated by the community. Activism is practiced by activists. When they are not engaging in activism, they are no longer activists. Likewise, POV pushing is practiced by POV pushers, edit warring is practiced by edit warriors, etc. The behavior is the problem, not the persons. Maybe the essay could be improved by moving it to "WP:Activism".   Will Beback    talk    23:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for not answering the question. Who decides who is an 'activist'? Maybe the essay could be improved by people not trying to push their own conspiracy theories as 'community policy'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary for any such determination to be made? We don't determine that a person is an edit warrior, we simply determine that they have engaged in edit warring. That's why I suggest moving the page to a title that addresses behavior. As for community policy, there are long-standing policies against using Wikipedia as a soapbox or a battlefield, both of which are aspects of activism.   Will Beback    talk    23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Wikipedia has no need for articles on 'activism' or 'activists' because everyones' contributions should be judged on their merits, and not on stereotypes imposed by others. This essay is arguing the opposite, and as such is contrary to the established norms and practices. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IOW, the ArbCom findings are meaningless about behaviour of blocs? Collect (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ArbCom can make decisions about 'blocs' after appropriate investigations and procedures. This article is advocating deciding for yourself who is an 'activist'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IOW, the general findings of ArbCom now cease to exist as a valid basis for creation of an essay because the essay does not deal with individual cases already settled? Outre.  Collect (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. And please stop misrepresenting what I've written with 'IOW'. If ArbCom decide that a bloc has been involved, they can act accordingly. It isn't our job to prejudge this by assuming that editors are acting as a bloc from the start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a general practice, the ArbCom does not initiate RfArs. It is members of the community who set the standards of behavior, and who complain when editors don't follow those. The ArbCom, or the community, may make a determination that standards have been violated.   Will Beback    talk    00:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is the behaviour of editors that should be the issue. Not a preconception that those who disagree with you are part of an 'advocate' conspiracy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would tell it differently. This essay suggests that "a lone editor who is a glutton for punishment" should oppose one or several groups of users. Doing so is against WP:Consensus. It suggests creation of articles to provoke the perceived "activists". Doing so is WP:POINT. In fact, a potential reader would be better served by following WP:Do not feed the trolls. Biophys (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It violates neither.  In fact, WP is founded on the willingness of any editor to confront the tailors of the emperor's clothes.  By the way, it is quite odd that many of those opposed to this essay are, in fact, possibly companions in an ArbCom decision - which is possibly a coincidence.   Collect (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As contrasted with the stellar behavior of the author of the essay. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I realize that you want to fix serious problems, but you can not. A group of several SPAs will eat this "lone editor" alive. Of course this not is a coincidence. I simply know what I am talking about. Biophys (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "You can not" is inane - the purpose of doing anything on WP is, if anything, to "fix problems."  The alternative is to believe in WP:Be an ostrich. Collect (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of things one can not do in wikipedia. The key point: are you going to actually fix problems or create them? I too tried to fix problems, but end up creating them. At the same time, I respect people who are stil trying. Good luck!Biophys (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying, without Wikipedia authorities it is difficult to get a fair deal. The difference between help and harm is an ever shifting line. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "...it is quite odd that many of those opposed to this essay are, in fact, possibly companions in an ArbCom decision - which is possibly a coincidence." And that is possibly the best example so far for why I see this 'essay' as nothing but a conspiracy theory. Don't ever actually offer 'proof' of the existence of activist groups, but assume that they are there, and then analyse anything that occurs on the basis that it contains further evidence that these groups exist. This is getting close to tinfoil-hat territory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not I who made that observation at AN/I - and trying to shout "conspiracy" is silly. My goal is a neutral non-polemic essay. Period.  And if you wish to say ArbCom is wearing "tinfoil hats", then do so. Preferably to its members.  Face to face. Collect (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I wished to say that, I would. I didn't. As usual, you twist what others write to suit your preconceived notions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Grammatically your use of "don't" is in the "imperative mood" and appears (as is always the case with imperatives) directed at the person you are talking to. The subsequent sentence is then also directed at the same person - but since you insist you did not do so, then I must clearly misunderstand what appeared clearly written. Collect (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, don't let Collect know that his misrepresentation is getting to you -- it will motivate him to bore in that much harder. Best thing is to try and shrug it off. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're interested in bizarre coincidences, try looking at the first entry in Collect's block log William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Borderline WP:PA. How can that help here? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. How does Collect's endless deliberate misreading of other peoples' words (here and elsewhere) help? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Feigned incomprehension used to be consider uncivil; however it is a question of difficult to improve intent. For some its an annoyingly natural approach (i.e. they may be unaware) to test an Counterfactual conditional. Until, someone calls them out on it. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me assure you that my incomprehension of the above statement is in no way feigned. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would is be intentional incomprehension? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would is be bad grammar? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)