Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Activist

Wikipedia:Activist

An attack page and perpetuation of a battleground, methinks. It's a none too subtly cloaked attack of active editors on this wiki by referencing particular situations that the main author of this page is concerned about. The page essentially attacks entire swathes of Wikipedians including many of those who work to help on, for example, WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN. Inimical to a collegial editing environment, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Valid essay that represents people's opinions. Activism on wiki is a prominent issue and should be addressed. Yes, it's based too much on the experiences of one author but editing can sort that out. No editors are named here, and the dodgier bits (accused of editing on behalf of a banned user) can be sorted out. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Userfy It overlaps too much with WP:Advocacy really... I imagine that a more neutral version of it would probably overlap even more. I suggest that the author work on the Advocacy essay in order to incorporate more of the ideas put forth here. Gigs (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Perpetuates a battleground mentality and not at all helpful in my opinion. Full of assumptions, over-generalisations and speculation. Could easily stir up ill-will between editors. Johnfos (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Speedy keep -- Bad faith nomination. This is a perfectly valid essay expressing the opinion of several editors (myself included). We don't delete such essays unless they are directly attacking individuals. If this is deleted, then a whole host of essays needs to be examined, starting with Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing for example. If SA is unhappy with the opinions in this essay, he should write an essay to express his thoughts. Isn't that the way it's typically done with essays? ATren (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I acknowledge, but perpetuating the battleground like this is just plain harmful and suggesting competing essays as a competing salvo only makes it worse. Reveling that this essay is also your opinion of groups of your fellow editors does not seem productive to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No individuals are attacked, and a large set of arbitration cases is cited. And the argument that it is battleground or "harmful" is not supported -- this essay documents activities that are themselves harmful to the project, so how could simply documenting them be considered harmful? It's helpful to document patterns editor behavior that are detrimental to the project, not harmful. ATren (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      • The attacking is transparent and clearly directed toward the groups of people I outline above. The essay, for example, attacks people who refer to the WP:WEIGHT section of NPOV in content disputes and accuses them of being harmful to the project. I fail to see how this kind of documentation is "helpful". If the author thinks that WP:WEIGHT is improper, they should try to get consensus to change it, not attack editors who refer to it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Nonsense. The essay refers to those editors who misuse WP:WEIGHT, which is clearly a problem. Do you not acknowledge that the use of weight to advance a POV is problematic? Plus, if this deletion succeeds, it will usher an environment where all essays are probed. This should be a speedy keep, and I've changed my vote accordingly. ATren (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, but it also can be used by people who want to properly cite WP:WEIGHT, not misuse it. This essay is a battleground document, but I don't think that it's so bad that it requires total deletion. As an explanation of Cla68's point of view I think it is acceptable as a subpage. But i object to this being offered up to the community as an essay, especially given that there is an essay on the same subject that is not problematic (WP:Advocacy). ScottyBerg (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
            • • No, there are plenty of essays, and even policy pages, which could perhaps be misused. It is not a justification to delete them. That's a non-argument. ATren (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
                • • ...and this essay is very likely to be used by POV pushers advancing a fringe point of view. All of its arguments can and will be utilized by persons attempting to slant articles in the direction of fringe science, conspiracy theories and the like. I don't see it serving a useful purpose, and it is duplicative of WP:Advocacy.ScottyBerg (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a nonsense argument. Every policy or essay can be gamed. This essay speaks to a real problem and there is absolutely no good reason to delete it. ATren (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But you see this "real problem" as being separate from WP:ADVOCACY? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I see several points in this essay that are not covered in WP:ADVOCACY, so yes. They are two different points of view on the matter, which is why they are separate essays. ATren (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And merging would be impossible, I assume. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. It was you who came right over here with a bad faith deletion nomination rather than trying to work it out on the talk pages. It was you who smeared the author by calling it a "none too subtly cloaked attack"; then calling it, without a hint of irony, "inimical to a collegial editing environment". Now after taking this aggressive stance and assuming the worst possible faith of the author, you insinuate that I rejected merging, even though you never even tried the merge route, or even raised it as a possibility here. The "collegial editing environment" you profess to desire would have been better served by a good faith attempt to merge these essays, respecting the points of both and removing redundancy. You chose to create this battlefield instead. ATren (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, deletion discussions have been used as ways to discuss a whole slew of options for dealing with content that a nominating editor may find problematic for one reason or another. A perfectly valid result of a deletion discussion is "merge". The options are not just "all or nothing". I'd ask you to WP:AAGF on my part and work to try to come to a solution that the largest number of people on Wikipedia can agree to. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • The essay maligns editors with thinly veiled references to their on-wiki behavior. Just because names aren't named doesn't mean that it is impossible for the page to be WP:ATTACK. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And to whom do you think it refers? ATren (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See the nom. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. This apparent bad faith nom does more to perpetuate the battleground mentality than the essay does. Per ATren, SA should try to write his own essay countering this. I look forward to reading the sophistry that will be required to do so in a way that isn't self-refuting. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you think that being combative and insulting me is somehow illustrating that this essay isn't meant to be an attack page? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Given your track record on the insulting others front, that question really ought to be turned around and directed at you, frankly. I stand by my observation that writing a counteressay will require sophistry, as well as my observation that your nom gives the appearance of continuing the battleground mentality you've recently displayed. ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      • So your argument boils down to personal attacks, referring to unrelated issues, and ultimately shooting the messenger. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

        • No. That's more your style than mine. ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Maybe in the past, but I think there has been a change of roles. So do you, apparently. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Whatever. We are none of us perfect... You can't duck away from the fact that you're giving the appearance of hypocrisy with this nom and lashing out at whoever tries to rebut you. That's shooting the messenger. I've made my point, you can have the last word on this topic. But you should consider changing your entire approach to your editing, you're one of the editors the essay is talking about, which no doubt is why you dislike it so. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're being transparent, Lar. It makes it clear that this really is an attack page. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • SA, the very nomination was a personal attack and shooting the messenger, accusing a long term productive editor of a "none too subtly cloaked attack", and now you're accusing others of shooting the messenger? How hypocritical. The more I see from you here, the more convinced I am that this was a bad faith nom and it should be speedily kept. ATren (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Cla68 has revealed here and on Wikipedia Review that the reason he wrote this essay was to shame groups of people he dislikes. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

He wrote it to "shame" people? That's quite an accusation to make without a diff. In any case, this is sounding more and more like sour grapes. ATren (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We can disagree on intent, but the essay to me certainly feels like a shaming of what the author considers "activists" on the face of it. As for "sour grapes", I don't think I'm disparaging the unattainable. Is this perhaps a mixed metaphor? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I've asked SA to strike the accusation that "Cla68 has revealed here and on Wikipedia Review that the reason he wrote this essay was to shame groups of people he dislikes." He has not produced any evidence that Cla68 "revealed" anything of the sort. When asked for specifics, SA quoted Cla68 saying "Wikipedia is better off without them, because otherwise they will cause too many problems," as his evidence of Cla68 "shaming" them. This is yet another assumption of bad faith of a long term contributor (as is the wording in the original nom). ATren (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like caustic shaming to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And that's the problem, it seems. ATren (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Seems like a reasonable essay. I don't see the attack.--SPhilbrickT 15:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the essay is portraying activists in a very poor light and in a very negative way, and can understand that some people would see this as an attack on activists. My experience with activists is that they are far more interested in getting involved in direct action than WP. In my experience, when they do get involved on WP they tend to just be a nuisance, making minor edits and adding Ext links and See also links mainly. I work in several WP subject areas related to activism (such as social movements) but just haven't seen the widespread WP:POV-pushing that is being attributed to activists in this essay. Johnfos (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That's an excellent point, Johnfos. If you would be interested in documenting your experiences (assuming this essay is kept) that might be one direction to take this essay. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That's your experience, but do you deny that others may have a different view based on their experiences? This is an essay after all. ATren (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      • There's a difference between documenting experience and penning a polemic. I submit that the essay it in its current form is the latter rather than the former. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Userify. This essay is a thinly veiled attack on Cla68's opponents in the climate change articles, and also somewhat repudiated by his own topic ban from those articles. However, I think that it falls within the range of pages allowed by users on their own user page space, and should be allowed as a subpage. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this essay is the author's attempt to make sense of what has happened in the controversial climate change area, then that needs to be spelt out at the beginning of the essay. And any wider generalisations need to be made cautiously, with reference to the available evidence in other subject areas, and with the inclusion of counter-examples. Johnfos (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, an appropriate essay. Not kewl to MfD the essays you don't like. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Userify User space is the appropriate place for this kind of personal commentary. Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Whatever: In its current form, this essay should probably be moved to userspace, or else edited to reflect a more general perspective. If you did that, this essay would basically end up looking like Wikipedia:Advocacy, which is a much better-developed version of the same idea. Right now, I share the concern that it's basically one editor's take on a dispute in which he was involved, dressed up with a few generalities. But given the amount of utter crap that one finds under the heading of "Wikipedia essays", I can't really get too worked up to delete this, since it's not the worst of the bunch by a longshot. MastCell ^Talk 23:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Userfy- Thinly veiled attack pages and bitter griping are allowed in userspace as long as no editors' names are used. I do not think it's appropriate for wikipedia space however. Reyk _YO! 01:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and note the irony of the bad faith deletion attempt. Really, you guys crack me up. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Project related essay. Project essays are not a proper topic for MfD. Fix problems by editing. Encourage merging of similar essays. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider WP:ADVOCACY to be a similar essay? If so, which direction should the merge go? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It has already been mentioned multiple times. I don't see merging as obvious at this point. The two are different, but when refined they could well converge. I see that Wikipedia talk:Activist contains a third, even more interesting, essay. These essays should be seen as dynamic. Be bold in fixing them. Ideally, a project space essay will become NPOV. If the author doesn't like they way the essay is going, they can fork it to userspace. If a minority feels the majority isn't listening properly, they can write their own userspace essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, and also support merging with similar essays. MurfleMan (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Wikipedia:Advocacy. A synergy would be created by combining these closely related essays. While it is clear to any knowledgeable reader that much of this reflects a one-sided view of a recent RfAR, it also contains insights that apply to other disputes.   Will Beback  talk  11:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep right where it is; if someone else wants to update the WP:ADVOCACY page, they can do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Bloody obvious to anyone with experience around here. In fact, it might also be obvious to activists, which could explain why some would want it Gone. But, of course, people may support delete for their own reasons. Agree with Smokey Joe et al. This is not "bitter griping." The opposite, in fact, it is Just The Way It Is. And How To Survive. Maybe. --Abd (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)