Wikipedia talk:Activist/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Enough!

It does not take a genius to realize that Cla68 wrote most of this essay in the backdrop of the Climate change case, nor does it take one to realize that many of you commenting above were practically at each other's throats six months ago. Give it a rest please! It's entirely unnecessary and not at all helpful to this. NW (Talk) 04:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

NW, some of the most recent and strenuous objections, and extensive editing, of this essay has come from editors who had no connection to the CC case. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? 'Improve' the essay, or bury it under the patio, and pretend we'd never seen it? ;-) (and BTW, I wasn't involved in the climate change case, I'm glad to say). AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I find nothing in this essay that does not add to the content of Wikipedia's official pages. If we are honest, all of us are activists at/or in some area of Wikipedia, so having this page is a helpful reminder of that reality.--Novus Orator 04:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying just leave it. Read if it you want, but don't edit it, don't fight over it, don't comment over every little thing. NW (Talk) 04:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think most of the criticism of this essay is derived from editors feeling guilty about their activist behavior. Give it a rest, we are all activists in some way!--Novus Orator 04:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If only the essay said so... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

...and in the middle of the night, the sound of a shovel scraping through the topsoil could be heard. Then the sound of something heavy being dragged across the patio. Next a dull 'wumph!' as it fell to the bottom of the hole. For the next few minutes one could hear the soil being scooped back in. Then the paving slab being pushed back into place. Footsteps, then silence. Come the dawn, there was little evidence of anything untoward, the birds were singing in the trees, and all was right with the world... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

NW, the parts of this essay which were added by me were not based on one single incident, but on my experiences and observations since I started editing Wikipedia in January 2006. I've said this several times. I think it would work better if editors with contrary opinions to the ones originally expressed in this essay by me and several other editors would write their own, separate essay then add a banner at the top of each linking them to each other with a statement such as "For a dissenting perspective, see..." That approach would hopefully stop the edit warring that has occurred in this essay, which, by the way, I have not participated in. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. If people feel guilty, at least they can get it out somewheres' else...--Novus Orator 04:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If this, and the new essays you suggest creating, were all userfied then that would make sense. I suggest you start the process.   Will Beback  talk  05:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, we could consider stop feeling guilty for being activists and merely realize that activism is a necessary part of the editing process.--  Novus  Orator  05:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You could start a user essay of your own telling editors how to be better activists, if that's what you think would help the project.   Will Beback  talk  05:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess my sarcasm wasn't clear in that comment.--  Novus  Orator  05:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Given that the essay is in project space I have trouble reconciling Cla68's proposal with WP:OWN (note also the numerous comments by Keep voters at MfD stating that the essay needed revision). The best course would be to move the essay back to user space where he will have the clear right to exclude "contrary opinions." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, please don't provide me with an opinion which I don't have. I'm not saying that anyone owns this essay. The original opinions expressed in it were provided by several different editors. Recently, several other editors have removed much of the original text and added contradictory text. In other words, they have removed text they didn't agree with and replaced it with opinions that they evidently do believe in. I believe a more helpful approach would be for the editors with contrary opinions to write their own essay, then readers would be able to decide which opinion they believe has more merit. I believe doing so would be a "win-win" approach for everyone and remove the battleground which some of you all have gotten yourselves into, as noted by NuclearWarfare at the top of this thread. Cla68 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What contrary oponion? That activism doesn't exist on Wikipedia? Funny, but I think that line is a little old...The essay currently admits that activism is something that all editors practice in a certain area. This helps the community be aware of what causes certain editing patterns on contentious subjects.--  Novus  Orator  05:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

...and shortly after sunset a scratching sound could be heard, followed by the louder scrape of a paving slab being pushed aside. The earth stirred, a grisly grey hand reached out, decaying skin and fingernails falling aside as it reached out into the night. Slowly the once-dead corpse of the essay-zombie rose from the hole, clambered out onto the patio, and shuffled down the garden path, once more to spread malice and confusion over the sleeping residents of Wikiville... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the idea of letting reasonable editors make this as neutral and non-polemic as possible finally makes sense? Kindly note that I wrote a lot here trying to do so. Collect (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A neutral and non-polemic essay wouldn't start off by making ridiculous generalisations about how 'activists' can be detected at work in Wikipedia, and then go on to list almost every form of behaviour as 'evidence' for this, with the sole exception of actually agreeing with the reader's point of view. Though the decaying corpse of the essay still seems to be ambulatory, I'm not convinced that the right combination of garlic, sunlight, and a stake through its heart won't finally put it to rest and let us once more wander the leafy realms of Wikiville without fear of molestation. This however will require one more effort. Is it time again to invoke the mighty gods of AfD? I'm inclined to think so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a good essay—not for what it is, but for what it can be. It's greatness (perhaps too strong a word) is in its potential. It is tackling a very important and a very serious problem. The problem the essay attempts to tackle is not an easily addressed problem. Unlike many other essays (not meaning to dismiss the value of other essays—some are very valuable) this essay has as its target a very core problem. I like the essay. The fault I find with it is that it gets bogged down in the specifics. In my opinion this essay could succeed if it took a much more general approach to the problem: the problem, in general, is that editors abuse policy—instead of applying policy conservatively, editors (activist editors) interpret policy to mean all sorts of things it was never intended to mean. They thereby use policy to justify unjustifiable edits. The possible permutations of this phenomenon are virtually endless. Human ingenuity can always outsmart these sorts of policy. What this particular essay has the possibility of doing is pointing out that upholding policy is the responsibility of Wikipedians, and that outsmarting policy is to be frowned upon by the community at large. I don't think that message is really sent out elsewhere. Bus stop (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

But we already have WP:ADVOCACY, which does what you describe. The basic premise of this essay is that anyone who resists advocacy using proper interpretation of policy is a Bad Person®™. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please tell me how, "The basic premise of this essay is that anyone who resists advocacy using proper interpretation of policy is a Bad Person"? Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not the response I was hoping for. I'm not going to sanction any of you, but seriously, take a step back for at least a couple of days and see what you are getting yourselves into. NW (Talk) 18:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't get the response you were hoping for because we prefer to decide for ourselves how we respond. And as for 'sanctions', are you now proposing that talk pages should be patrolled by self-appointed guardians of content, with any 'infractions' being used to remove adverse commentary? I think you should maybe step back a bit yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, stop being so grumpy William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I Grump, therefore I am. (can anyone translate that to Latin?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia: "Grumpy initially disapproves of Snow White's presence in the dwarfs' home, but later warns her of the threat posed by the Queen and rushes to her aid upon realizing that she is in danger, leading the charge himself. He has the biggest nose of the dwarfs, and is frequently seen with one eye shut." So now you know who you're dealing with, WMC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Meaning?

What is

The POVs the activists are arguing in favor of, are frequently notable - appearing in reliable sources. In the context of the topic of the Wiki-article in question, it may even be an irrelevant opinion

intended to mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sound like ZP5's writing style. ZP5, can you explain? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of meaning management (i.e. branding on a hero's journey) but can't claim this one now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've done my best to make it clearer. That section now says something coherent, which is a step up from what it used to be William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Meaning? #2

If no-one knows what it means it might be worth rephrasing it to at least mean something. Meanwhile, what about:

They hound and bait editors with a battleground mentality

Does this mean 'They hound and bait (editors with a battleground mentality) or They (with a battleground mentality) hound and bait editors?

I've clarificationised it. Hopefully in the right way; if I got it the wrong way round please do correct me William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Collect reverted my "fanatics" back to "zealots". I preferred "fanatics", any other opinions? How about "militant", "diehard" or "extremist"? Or "Young turk"? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "shape-shifting lizards"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Jejune sycophants". jps (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Zombies, flesh-eating or otherwise? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should call them irreverence-spewing lions' den habitues of the archetypal variety. That might kill two birds with one Strontium-90 poison pill. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "those who connive with the Infidel to make the crusades fail of their holy purpose"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Retract that PA this instant! William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Either "zealous fanatics" or "fanatical zealots" would be acceptable compromises, and not at all over-the-top. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so this article is only about people who are both "zealous" and "fanatical"? If I'm only one at a time, am I ok? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Where synonyms are concerned, making jokes seems hardly worth the effort some would put in. Collect (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Such extreme language is a sign of bad writing, which of course is a sign of activist infestation. ;) ScottyBerg (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it that the simple word "zealotry" is "extreme" in your point of view? I had thought it distinguished the problematic groups from normal consensus building efforts. What word would you use to make that difference clear? Collect (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

From Wiktionary:

zealot (plural zealots)

1. one who is zealous, one who is full of zeal for his own specific beliefs or objectives, usually in the negative sense of being too passionate; a fanatic

2. a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.

3. a member of an anti-aristocratic political group in Thessalonica from 1342 until 1350.

See also pedant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally "fanatic" is considered "excessively zealous" that is, a fanatic is more than a zealot. [1] Opdycke, and recent usage at [2]. Collect (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a shade of difference. I think the two are considered synonyms in common usage. Zealot is too overheated. An activist may simply be an editor who believes in something and is indifferent to Wiki policies. May not be a zealot. I think that hurts the essay's credibility, such as it is. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuluPapa5 (talk • contribs)

¿Que? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a quote from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Scope of topic bans   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but why is it here? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It was feeling lonely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well well, see what activists will do to themselves to get attention. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these 'anti-activist' activists have been busy around here, haven't they ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(e.c.)Quote arbcom rulings with "warning" as the section header? I guess we could mention that in the essay too! jps (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's called Wikipedia shadow work ... from Freud. Fighting with others, about projections of demons and dragons we can't see about ourselves. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please write a section about this? It would really help this essay shine! jps (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a course is the pseudoscience Ph.D. I am working on, so I guess so. Let me check my references. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Shadow (psychology)? Definitely needs a section in the essay. Our article quotes Jung: "the course of sexual intercourse...exhibits a certain formal regularity. Its signposts and milestones are various archetypal symbols' marking its stages; and of these 'the first stage leads to the experience of the SHADOW". Obviously of great significance. :-O AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Activist classifications

A start. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources?   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL at the new one's ... now where are the recommended solutions? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Activist Classification ... please edit to develop content

0. The Wikipedia:Model Wikipedian: These activists are promoted by Wikipedians and Wikipedia to serve its mission. Comments here There is no such thing as a model Wikipedian. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC) The model Wikipedian is a thought experiment. There are Wikipedia policies, referring to the model Wikipedia, it is simply a fictional user. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 1. The individual with a strong POV: Generally harmless, conflicts are resolved with NPOV material and source verification to present and create content balanced point of view. Disinterested editors are effective. Comments here This designation is highly subjective and I am skeptical of it. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC) That's why we are allowed essays, this character has many essays. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2. The POV thought leader in a topic: These highly experienced users have a substantial Wikipedia following and a reputation. They make edits to defend their reputation. Resolving conflicts will involve a substantial effort. Diplomatic dispute resolution is inevitable. Comments here Same—subjective. I'd be skeptical of such a designation. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC) In the essays. 3. The outside affiliated, paid or unpaid: These users outside interests are causing Wikipedia conflicts. When declared, if they are paid, then is it simple conflicts of interest, and disinterested editors can help. If they have a reputation to uphold among their peers, and they bring this into disrupt Wikipedia, then conflict may be harder to resolve. They may not see how they present a conflict to Wikipedia's interest. Resolution can be found by building diffs of the editors' conflicted history and presenting in dispute resolution. Comments here I rarely encounter this. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Probably encounter more than you realize it. !Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 4. The single purpose account: The is an obvious case, and these editors must be encouraged to broaden their Wikipedia interests and activities. Comments here I think single purpose accounts try to hide this fact, generally. Besides—we all have our own interests and proclivities. That alone doesn't disqualify us. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Again, it's in the existing essays. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 5. Marauding hoardes: a cavalcade of sockpuppets that do the bidding for one master. Comments here 6 Randy from Boise: and his skeleton armies. Comments here 7. Libertarians: and people ideologically married to the proposition that expertise should be distributed away from institutions, academic imprimatur, or normal review processes and instead delegated to private individuals (see Randy from Boise above). Comments here 8. The BLP obsessed: The few, the proud, and the brave who believe that WP:BLP is all that matters on Wikipedia, thus inciting other activists to kill the subjects of biographies just so these goons will get off their backs. Comments here 9. Administrative automatons: Those infatuated with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures, itching to use the various punitive measures to harass bad users that perennially show up on the noticeboards, hoping to get higher status in the Wikipedia social-network game. Comments here

Brilliant indicators...all taken from real life experiences

• Some of the brilliant indicators listed below, all taken from real life experiences on Wikipedia, may open your mind.

It'd be great if the "indicators" and other examples were actually taken from real experiences. However requests to verify these assertions have been rejected. We should either start adding footnotes to show which experiences we're noting, or stop asserting that this is based on real events.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide. No escape from reality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's another issue. I don't think that edits like this are improving the article.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It might help if we could decide how exactly this essay should be different from WP:ADVOCACY. To me, I see it as just being humorously inflammatory. Perhaps we should slap the {{humor}} tag on it? Just a suggestion. jps (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some people seem to have taken it seriously. Or perhaps they just have a sense of humour too subtle for me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realized we'd gone for the humor route. In that case, let's add more funny pictures.   Will Beback  talk  11:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How about just not trying to mess it up by turning it inside out? I get that certain editors don't "like" this essay (perhaps because it hits too close to their M.O. ??). Too bad. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Certain editors"? This talk page seems to be devolving into a barroom brawl. I don't think throwing more punches will help. Getting back to the point of this thread, I don't think this essay can be improved in any meaningful way unless editors are willing to use actual cases as the basis for their observations.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear that certain editors don't like this essay (no scare quotes are needed) because they have said so explicitly. They have also said why, so there is no need to snide guesses William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think my reason's closer to the mark than the ones posited by you and yours. But that's just one guy's opinion, up against a horde of... well, I don't know what its a horde of, but someone has a term for it. I think I'll skip using that one though, charming as some may find it... ++Lar: t/c 23:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How about not 'owning' the essay? That's right, some editors don't like essays that turn WP:AGF (and common sense) inside out, and react acoordingly. Too bad... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it would be best to slap a "humor" tag on this article. Seriously. Presumably there are "activists" at Wikipedia who do not band together into marauding gangs, who do not push their POVs, who obey all policies and guidelines, and who simply want to bring about social, political, economic, or environmental change by getting out neutral information about issues important to them. Per Wings, what's wrong with that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about you all, but I'm beginning to love this essay. I see it as turning into a real thing of beauty owned by no one and countenanced by the Flying Spaghetti Monster Itself! jps (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In the off-chance that this essay is salvageable, I've re-added the list of all ArbCom cases that included findings of advocacy by multiple users. Multiple users because this essay originally addressed activism by groups of editors, as opposed to single editors, which is covered in WP:ADVOCACY. If there are sanctions placed by the community with clear reference to group activism then we could add those too. I hope that having a definitive list will help ground this essay in "real life experiences".   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

New image

This article is in hell. The new image is significantly increasing the article's provocation. I am afraid to touch it. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? This is a talkpage for an essay. jps (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please try to avoid battlefield language like "This article is in hell". Try to stay calm and edit in a collegial atmosphere William M. Connolley (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And which image do you mean? This one [3]? I think the point here is that one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, I think we should make it clear that 'activist' doesn't always mean 'terrorist' (though some people seem to be unable to make the distinction - but perhaps I'd better not drag up issues that got me dragged up before the WikiBeak). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that "activist == freedom fighter" might fly. Hence the image of "good" activism. We do all agree that some activism is good, don't we? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That depends on the objectives of the activism. If I agree with them, then of course it's good. Otherwise it is an obvious plot to destroy the very fabric of society, make the sky fall in, and release the Myriad Demons of Beelzebub. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The selected images are key to the essays tone. Push it over the top and the essay will lose its value. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Images are not tone. Please try to get your commentary straight. jps (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any image should be included to illustrate "activism". Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A while back I suggested an antiquarian image, such as this[4]. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

EC - See Tone_(literature), images are about as significant as exaggeration. The freedom fighter image is powerfully appropriate for a freely serving volunteer in the face of Wikipedia societal rules. I like that one. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Member of the FFI.jpg? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like that one. Looks very much like a "lone editor who is a glutton for punishment". Biophys (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well ... if someone doctored it with a Wikipedia activist slogan. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules, might makes right."'' Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I've tried this edit. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We should probably apply the principle used at WP:GIANTDICK: change the picture to something amusing every now and then William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

But not actually a picture of a, um,... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to see where that image should go! A giant amazon? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop this idiocy

For peace-loving-ground eyes only Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Time to improve the essay, not to make this an example to be archived as an example of how to misbehave! OPuerility should no longer have a place in Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC) (spelling cofrected as a result of comment "'even if you couold spell it correctly" below) Collect (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Time for you to show a little less battlefield conduct, I think. Calling people puerile idiots, even if you could spell it correctly, is really rather unhelpful. If you can't edit here in a calm manner, edit somewhere else William M. Connolley (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC) And your snark-filled edit summary helps? I called no one a "puerile idiot" at all. And using sic-ism does not help make your point one whit. Collect (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Are you trying to raise the tension here or defuse it? Calling the behaviour here "idiocy" and saying "Puerility should no longer have a place" is just calling people puerile idiots, but skating close to the edge of the rules to avoid being blocked. It is battleground behaviour on yuor part and deeply unhelpful at any time, but particularly so if you're trying to calm the situation. Also, "Puerility should no longer have a place in Wikipedia" is very difficult to understand. Read literally, it says that puerility used to have a place but no longer does. Is that what you intended? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Note: if anyone is wondering about my apparently incomprehensible comment about spelling, it no longer makes sense because C has silently corrected himself, in violation of the TPG William M. Connolley (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) You made a big deal that I could not spell when I used an "O" instead of a "P." Correcting clear tpyos is not a violation of anything. I am correcting the correction so that WMC can not cavil any more. I think he is now pwned. :) Collect (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Editing talk page comments so that subsequent comments make no sense if definitely against the rules. And you've done it yet again William M. Connolley (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC) And your comment "even if you could spell it correctly" is what sort of comment? Collect (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Note that the comment is now appended to the egregious spelling error which indicated that I can not even spell "puerility" correctly. Collect (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC) If you want to make silly puerile pwned comments you'll have to learn not to shout it is uncool William M. Connolley (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC) The bolding was of your comment in order for others to judge its intrinsic value on this essay talk page. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Aren't you pleasant, Collect? jps (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Puerility should no longer have a place in Wikipedia is just itching to be started, I think. jps (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I disagree. Wikipedia:Puerility should no longer have a place in Wikipedia should never have a place in Wikipedia. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Shutting this down

This essay and this talk page have completely devolved into utter uselessness. Nothing in these recent talk page discussions look like they have any promise of ultimately helping the encyclopedia. I'm full protecting both this page and the essay for 48 hours. Please take this time to think about what you have written over the past week and decide whether you want to continue editing this essay in the projectspace and if you do, how you can improve your discourse.

Comments about my action can be posted at User talk:NuclearWarfare should you so desire. NW (Talk) 03:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be actually a good idea to write an essay about tag teams of "advocates" or an extended version of The Plague. The villains are obviously the people who were sanctioned by Arbcom (please see the list). However, I have a problem with the title of this essay. I do not know about other cases, but all people in a couple of my "favorite" cases were only activists of wikipedia. None of us was a member of Animal Liberation Front, acted on behalf of a political party, or was an activist of any other sort. Hence my concern on this talk page above. I'd like to help, but this is hardly possible, unless we change the title. Biophys (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Read a version from before the rampant weirdness began, and you will see that is the direction it was headed in. Some who apparently wished to see it "gone" made edits seeking to make it incomprehnsible and incoherent even where the essay had valid points to make. Collect (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there has been nothing but destructive, activist editing that turned what was once a very useful essay into a farce. This version described quite well what goes on at, for example, Hugo Chavez, Catholic Church and multiple articles involving activism in the medical realm—all involving the use of marginal sources to the exclusion of higher quality sources, and tag-teaming. I suggest a revert to that version, and then some contemplation of motives here. Climate change and others are not the only area of Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly all political and religion areas have seen this behavior (including, but not limited to, Scientology, Transcendental Meditation, Prem Rawat, and all political BLPs (during silly season mainly)), science-related articles (including pseudoscience, broadly construed, and BLPs related in any way thereto), political irredentism articles, or any articles which could remotely be construed as having irredentist editors, Eastern Europe articles, and, of course, the infamous "Climate Change" article contretemps and associated BLPs. Did I miss anything notable? Collect (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to say, well, all of Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well not quite all of Wiki :). I do think that my addition of the link to the ArbCom archived discussions would help for folks who would like to see exactly how bad the "collaborative editing" problem has been in some areas in the past. And I have not found too many accusations in the ornitohology articles ... Collect (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you still want to make this essay useful, it probably should be reverted to an old version before the weirdness began. Right now it does not serve any good purpose. I am not denying that activist editing can be a problem if the people are indeed activists of an outside organization, like CAMERA or Scientology movement. Biophys (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Or those who accept the scientific consensus on climate change? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say some of the problem began in mid-December. This version is from early December, and perhaps it's worth reverting to that.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That version describes the basics of what I've seen in multiple areas involving entirely differents kinds of articles, which amount to 1) removal of text cited to high quality mainstream sources, 2) replacement with text cited to marginal or partisan sources or sources not appropriate for a BLP, 3) tag-teaming, and 4) taking the talk page off-topic with obfuscation, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, refusal to answer direct question or engage policy, et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the earlier version of this essay was a thinly-veiled continuation of Cla68's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in the Climate Change case, as many others have noted. If Cla68 or anyone else wants to protect the essay against the perspectives of those who disagree with it in any way, it should be in user space instead of project space. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, and that statement is lacking an AGF-ometer. Cla gets around more areas of the Wikipedia than Climate Change. I certainly discussed this essay here on talk very early on with him in terms of the breadth of topic areas that it applies to, and I pay almost no attention to the toxic Climate Change articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"that statement is lacking an AGF-ometer". Sadly, so is the essay. I only got involved in editing Wikipedia after the Climate Change affair, and I've not really tried to figure out who did what, why, when, where, or how. I suspect had I been around at the time I'd have pitched in too, but I didn't, and on that basis I think I can say that it appears to me, as someone not actually involved in that particular custard-pie fight, that this essay is predicated on an inversion of WP:AGF, and the assumption that any attempt to modify articles in ways one doesn't approve of is evidence of conspiracy. I may be wrong, but I think this dooms the essay to be a POV-pushing exercise from the start. I have been honest (if not downright rude) in my appraisal, not because I have issues with contributors, but because I think Wikipedia deserves better. If the conspiratorial model of Wikipedia that this article presents actually existed, I doubt very much it would be celebrating its 10th anniversary, or receiving the media attention it is. Somehow, in spite of the contradictions, it seems to have worked well enough without this divisive essay, so why fix something that ain't broke? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you "only got involved in editing Wikipedia after the Climate Change affair", perhaps you'll see things more realistically after you've gotten around other areas of Wikipedia. Describing behavioral issues that occur is not a failure to AGF; if it were, we wouldn't have pages like WP:TEND, WP:DISRUPT, WP:3RR and all manner of pages to deal with what goes on here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've been involved in enough controversial issues by now to get an idea of the general way things work. (check my edit history if you like). My objective is not to suggest that POV-pushing doesn't go on, but to suggest that 'assuming conspiracy' isn't an appropriate way to deal with this. AGF isn't an argument to bury one's head in the sand, instead it is actually a well tested method of dealing with those who act against it - it forces them to deal with content rather than engaging in faction-fighting. Yes, you need rules to deal with specific actions. You don't need instructions on how to predict them in advance, or how to get your retaliation in first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess we don't need WP:DISRUPT either, then. Funny thing that: it's a guideline. Hard to understand why so many editors have their knickers in a twist over a mere essay. (Checked; didn't find much.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should start over again from a blank page?   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The best suggestion I've heard so far. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of a few of you battling so hard over the content of this essay, why don't you write another essay containing your ideas that are different from the ones originally expressed in this essay, then link them both together? Cla68 (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's a user essay then folks can write whatever they like. But if it's in project space then it should represent some kind of consensus of more than one editor. Cla68 is always welcome to userfy his early drafts, for example.   Will Beback  talk  08:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert to AFD

I've reverted to the version that was presented to AfD, and which seemed to persuade people the essay was worth keeping. That's the only version we know has consensus of some kind, and so that's the version we should carefully work on, gaining prior consensus on talk for substantive changes. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Good choice. I hope folks working here will remember that Wikipedia exists beyond Climate Change, and is a target of all sorts of activist editing-- something that WP:DISRUPT doesn't pretend to ignore. And it's an essay for gosh sakes-- those who don't like it don't have to read it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you know whether you like it if you don't read it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The essay on advocacy has a good lead sentence that defines the term: "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and the neutral point of view."

In contrast, the lead sentence of this essay doesn't define anything, and instead casts suspicion on everyone who is attracted to Wikipedia by its high internet traffic ranking: "Perhaps because of its high Internet traffic ranking, Wikipedia appears to attract a number of ideological, religious, philosophical, political, and other activists." This essay needs a lead sentence that defines what "activist" means for purposes of the rest of the essay. Does it mean someone who engages in advocacy as defined by the essay on advocacy? Or not? Is an activist any Wikipedia editor who we think ought to be stigmatized, or is there a less subjective standard?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

At this point I'll agree with most anything that moves the essay's definition of activist away from "anyone who disagrees with me, especially anyone who acknowledges that WP:WEIGHT is policy." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

When first created, the essay was about groups of activists rather than individual activists. The new intro makes it explicitly about single activists. That's a significant change in scope. Would anyone object if I modify it to reflect the previous intent of the essay?   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the meaning of activist tends to get lost in a definition that relies on a multitude of activists. I think it should be pointed out separately that it is not unheard of for like-minded activists to band together, thereby magnifying the damage that can be done. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If the scope's going to be limited to groups (and I have no opinion about that one way or the other), then the title ought to have an "s" at the end, or be changed to "groups of activists". In any event I hope the definition I inserted at the beginning can remain.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It would just mean changing it to "For purposes of this essay, activists are editors who repeatedly violate Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy."

I'm not sure that's a good definition, though. One can violate NPOV without being an activist.   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Learning to write using the NPOV is not easy, and I'd guess that many if not most new editors unintentionally violate it. for example, if I see a news story about a DUI arrest of a notable figure, and come to Wikipedia to add three paragraphs about it, I've violated the UNDUE section of WP:NPOV. I might even insist on including and get into an edit war about it. That doesn't mean that I'm a activist, just that I don't understand why minor events receive only minor attention. I could give a hundred other examples. It's too easy to violate NPOV, and violations are too common, for that to be the primary definition of "activist".   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So we could just insert the word "intentional" into the first sentence?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How do we discern the intent of an editor?   Will Beback  talk  02:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose by the techniques they use, what they say, and their level of experience. But if you don't want to try to discern intent, then there's no reason for this essay to make the intentional/unintentional distinction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What if we "comment on content, not on the contributor" as the old saw goes? That is, describe the characteristics of activist editing instead of engaging in amateur psychoanalysis by trying to divine intent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that, at the risk of tautology, we could say that activists are editors who use Wikipedia to promote their activism.   Will Beback  talk  03:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I oppose that because of the tautology. Moreover, I do not understand why you removed the lead sentence. No one has stated any objection to the notion that an "activist" is someone who violates NPOV, and the only concern is whether we should focus on a sub-class of those people (e.g. the ones who do it intentionally or who exhibit certain traits).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's work up a meaningful definition that doesn't end up calling 3/4 of Wikipedia editors "activists".

Stepping back, is the defining characteristic of activists that they violate NPOV? Or is it that they use Wikipedia to promote a cause?

More existentially, how is this essay going to be different from WP:ADVOCACY and WP:Tag team?   Will Beback  talk  03:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that by having no definition, 100% of Wikipedians can be assailed as "activists". Also, beware the false dichotomy. We could say that an activist is someone who violates NPOV to promote a cause. Everyone is at Wikipedia for some cause or other. As for the existential question, I'm unaware why the advocacy and tag team essays aren't sufficient, but if this essay remains then it should do as little harm as possible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me throw this sort of wording out there:

"An activist has an underlying "theme" to their editing that has some unsavory flavor to it. Their editing returns time and again to certain types of articles. Activist editing is a personality trait which places a private vision above objective editing. The activist mindset refuses to accept the ideal of evenhandedness that is called for in scholarly writing."

The above are some of the points I would touch upon. Bus stop (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This essay should have nothing to do with TAG TEAM. Nor should it overlap with ADVOCACY. This essay should address a more subtle problem. An activist has a philosophy. That philosophy is broad. The activist is passionate and has a "vision". The activist is more irrational than the person who merely "advocates" for something. Advocacy can be defined; activism eludes definition. I am not suggesting we include all that in the article. But this is what I had in mind when I suggested wording such as I suggested above, for the lead. Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this essay does not have to be perfect. "Activist" is an abstract idea. As long as the editors of the essay have an idea in mind of what the word means, they should just go along and write the essay. As the saying goes—if the shoe fits, wear it. The subject of this essay should be something that editors can reflect on. No one is being identified, so as long as the commentary is nonspecific, I don't think we have to worry too much about labeling all Wikipedians activists! Bus stop (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

People who edit in NPOV fashion at a particular set of articles that interests them, or that they have expertise about, is perfectly okay, and should be welcomed instead of battled.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For crying out loud, how long are people going to carry on suggesting that 'NPOV' exists, except as a concept for debate? It doesn't. It can't. If you were a Virginia tobacco-plantation owner in 1860, 'NPOV' on slavery might well be centred around whether your slaves would work harder if you whipped them daily, or merely once a week. Nobody is neutral because we aren't living in a 'neutral' environment. Instead we live in an environment where everything is contested, and nothing is static. By and large, those who claim 'neutrality' are actually instead claiming their own right to determine what it is 'neutral'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Activist#Arbitration list for examples of advocacy by groups as determined by the ArbCom?   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not simply wikilink the word "activists" in the first sentence to the Wikipedia article that defines that word? I believe this is the manner in which this essay originally defined what an activist was. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason that the Advocacy essay begins by adopting a specific definition for purposes of that essay. After all, there's nothing wrong at Wikipedia with advocating for neutrality, verifiability, and the like. So the Advocacy essay makes clear at the outset it's not talking about that kind if advocacy. By the same token, intentional action to bring about social, political, economic, or environmental change may include trying to educate the public about neutral and well-sourced facts. Is that sort of activism in our crosshairs?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What are we looking to say in this essay that isn't already covered in WP:ADVOCACY or related essays?   Will Beback  talk  05:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Cla68's suggestion to begin with a (linked) definition of activism is a good one and have implemented it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This essay will never get written. There is more disagreement than agreement. This should be written by one person. Bus stop (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Userfying it might be wise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There are shades of meaning to "activist". Martin Luther King does not represent the activist that this article is primarily about. The type of activist that I think this article is written about has no scruples about bending the truth. That is not a characteristic commonly attributed to Martin Luther King. By the way, I just removed the picture of Martin Luther King from the top of the article. Bus stop (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So by using this image are you implying that anti-nuclear protesters "have no scruples about bending the truth"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Provided whoever writes it stays within Wikipedia policy (broadly interpreted), anybody can write an essay on his or her user page. Likewise, if an essay is written in public Wikipedia space, anyone should be free to edit it, subject to such edits conforming to Wikipedia policy (interpreted according to norms). That is how Wikipedia works. Much of the difficulty with this essay seems to be due to particular editors insisting that (a) they have a right to write an essay about 'activists', and (b) they have the right to exclude viewpoints that are contrary to theirs. In most circumstances, I'd say this was unexceptional for Wikipedia articles, essays etc, but when the essay in question is itself about 'neutrality', the attempt to control content to maintain a particular POV seems ironic to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't like the idea of anti-nuclear folks being singled out. I've replaced that image with the one from the activism article. It has people with bullhorns, which fits the essay's theme of aggressively promoting a message. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought the anti-nuclear picture was better because the people in the picture were facing into the essay which, IMO, is more aesthetically pleasing than the subject of the image facing to the outside of the page. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

An editor has now put up the image of "Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy speaking to a crowd of African Americans and whites through a megaphone outside the Justice Department; sign for Congress of Racial Equality is prominently displayed." This is a poor choice of image, relative to the previous image, which was the "Anti-nuke rally in Harrisburg, [Pennsylvania] at the Capitol." The difference between the two is that one is a starkly clear instance of activism and the other is a subtle and less clear instance of activism. This essay is unlike the advocacy essay because this essay is about a more subtle phenomena. Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this picture? Cla68 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because it is unclear who is right and who is wrong. The hallmark of activism, in the sense of this essay, is that it is difficult to define. Bus stop (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think this captures the phenomenon admirably, although I don't know about the licensing issue. MastCell ^Talk 05:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They are too relaxed. They look like they are having a picnic. Bus stop (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand that if we're linking to Wikipedia's article on activism as Cla68 suggests, it's somehow wrong to use the image from that article. That is not logically consistent. The picture of the war protesters is a poor choice for the same reason as the picture of the nuclear protesters is a poor choice -- it singles out one side of a contemporary issue. Better to use a historical image. Note the picture of the war protesters doesn't fit the space as well and doesn't satisfy Cla68's criterion, but it's going to be hard to find an image that satisfies every criterion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't need any image.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris—you point out that it is a "contemporary" image. Contemporary images would tend to be preferable. We are less clear as to who is right and who is wrong as concerns contemporary issues. Bus stop (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be a little optimistic, Bus Stop. Historians still engage in often-heated debate regarding who was in the right during the English Civil War. Come to that, I've heard anthropologists debat whether the neolithic revolution was a good thing (personally, I'd say it is too soon to tell...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The civil rights movement is almost 100% supported in the present day. Bus stop (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The picture of Kennedy does depict activism in action. My only objection to it was for aesthetic reasons. MastCell's suggestion, I thought, was a good alternative if the image is pulic domain. Cla68 (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, the Kennedy picture shows a lone activist. Since the essay is about group activism, then a picture showing a group of people advocating something would be better. Cla68 (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The picture of Kennedy involves the civil rights issue. It is a poor choice because the contemporary view is that everyone supports such ideals as integration. No one in present-day America agues for racial segregation. Americans unanimously support the Voting Rights Act. The Jim Crow Laws are universally condemned. The activism we are writing about in this essay is subtle. Bus stop (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

True. It is subtle now because the issues present-day activists are promoting have yet to become mainstream. Would the Civil Rights movement have been accepted as NPOV if Wikipedia had existed in the 1960s? I doubt it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The RFK image is the best possible image this article could use, because it emphasizes that even the most righteous type of activism is inappropriate at Wikipedia. Or do we want a sliding scale? Only the kind of activism that's despised by a majority of ArbCom should be punished at Wikipedia? And it's very silly to have a title that's singular (activist) if the subject is plural. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Righteous is irrelevant. I didn't use the word righteous or imply righteousness. Clarity is the issue. Activists are never clearly activists. We are always talking about below-the-radar activism in this essay. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need any picture?   Will Beback  talk  08:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As RFK would say, why not?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A) Because we can't agree on one. B) This is an essay, not an illustrated story. C) We haven't even agreed yet on what this essay is about.   Will Beback  talk  09:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparent premise of essay

This essay appears based on what the ArbCom has repeatedly found - that groups of editors (by whatver name one wishes to call them) may become so tightly involved with a particular point of view on a topic (long list of cases at ArbCom) that they fail to observe core WP principles and policies.

That among these are NPOV, AGF and NPA, and, within material relating in any way to living persons, BLP.

This essay supposes that a person who subscribes to those core principles and policies runs into a topic where such a group exists, and indicates, briefly, how one ascertains that the topic does have such a group involved.

The single word "activist" may not be the best word - I think "zealot" in the common definition of the word fits well, but certainly "monomaniac" is silly. Perhaps "ardent editors sharing a common point of view on a topic" is sufficient.

The essay also asks the reader to make sure it is not they who has the "point of view" or fails to adhere to WP policies and principles. Collect (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good summary.   Will Beback  talk  12:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You left WP:V off of the core policies. Perhaps referring to such editors in the terminology used by ArbCom will be useful, although that brings us back to Climate Change, when the kinds of behaviors described on this page are not all about Climate Change. It is about "collective behavior of blocs of editors" on topics where "editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along philosophical lines due to shared beliefs or personal backgrounds" who "systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared views in a manner that contravenes the application of Wikipedia policy or obstructs consensus-building". Such blocs of editors are identified precisely in the "contravenes the application of Wikpedia policy or obstructs consensus-building" description; they never use policy in their discussions or edits, and Wiki-lawyer their whacky interpretations to the point of exhausting good-faith editors, who are frequently chased off of such topics (has that been mentioned? IDIDNTHEARTHAT is frequently an issue, as is forum-shopping).

IMO, "activist" is the correct title, because in my experience across a broad range of very different kinds of articles, they usually are (both on and off-Wiki), but I don't think it's helpful to hold up progress on this essay over either the title or images. Build it and they will come: if you focus on content first, clarity on the rest will emerge over time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This essay already is being used (by User:SandyGeorgia at this diff) to try to trump and reverse policy on WP:Harassment per these three edits at a WP:ANI. (Feel free to explain what the last one even means.) This is particularly absurd since I just noticed this section of the article Wikipedia:Activist#Hostility, which is what I have to put up with in this harassment case. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

Please leave the AfD version in place, and gain consensus for each change that goes beyond fixing typos and grammar. We can do that easily enough without a huge amount of discussion. People should create a section for the proposed change, then others can comment RfC-style. It seems absurd to have to impose this, but given that several editors are trying to reduce the page to nonsense, it seems necessary.

Bear in mind that this is an essay, and people are given a degree of leeway in essays, so long as they're not advocating policy violations. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree-- for example, forget about the images for now, for gosh sakes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN much? This is typical of the hypocrisy that pervades this essay from beginning to end: it complains of people keeping articles "on message," but when others try to add their views to the essay there is a massive meat-axe revert to remove every single change since the "on message" version. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I would add that there is a consensus in recent weeks that this essay requires changes, and that there is no consensus for freezing it in shape at the "AfD version" or endorsing some absurd proviso that BRD is not applicable to this essay. What is also being ignored here is that there was substantial sentiment even among the "keep" voters that this essay required change, perhaps even, as one suggested, cutting it by two-thirds. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is just an essay. No one is being singled out as an activist. "Activist" is an abstract concept in this essay. There is a cliche that, "if the shoe fits, wear it." This is about a type of mindset that is anathema to the project. And that is all that it is about. In the final analysis "activism" can't be defined. But it nevertheless should be frowned upon. We are not writing policy here, but rather expressing a thought. It is an essay. The referred-to frowned-upon behavior is potentially applicable to every editor. That is the mindset with which we should be writing this essay. We should consider that we are as much speaking to ourselves as to any particular editors out there. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Boris and Scotty, propose changes in good faith and people will take on board what you have to say. Will and I disagree about certain parts of it, for example, but I'm certain that between us we could come up with a version we could both go along with. I've been trying to write a version off-wiki that takes different views into account, and I can see it's not easy.

What's really unhelpful is the playing around. That's the thing that entrenches positions and gets everyone fed up. Make sensible suggestions for change (actually write out here what you'd like to add), do it in good faith, and people will listen. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The article had to be reverted to something before the weirdness, and the AFD version was the most neutral choice. A little AGF and talk page discussion of content will go a long way here (as everywhere). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a little talk page discussion would have been nice when SlimVirgin truncated my "activism to advance fringe points of view" section, which no one had object to up to that point. That was done without discussion and with the edit summary "trying to tidy some of the writing."[5] That wasn't just "tidying the writing" but making a substantial editorial change. I think the "playing around" and "weirdness" began with that and similar edits. That's why I think SBHB is on point when he talks about OWN behavior. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Scotty, when I reverted to the AfD version, bear in mind that I reverted the edits I'd made since then too, including a section I'd added. Whatever you think of that version, it's the one lots of uninvolved people looked at, so it gives us a place to start. If there's something you'd like to change or add, please propose it in a new section here and let's talk about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My comments above are made without examining individual edits (except to note that an image issue appeared in edit summaries). When a page has been subjected to the kinds of editing that went on here, I look at the talk page to see who's discussing before editing. That's the way forward. I'm not going to take the time to look at individual edits when I don't see talk page discussion of those edits, when a major task is underway. That's the way I do it: YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on now. This is an absurd discussion. An editor unilaterally and without discussion reverts to a particular version, and then says "if you want to make changes in the version to which I've unilaterally reverted," please be sure to go to the talk page. That really smacks of OWN behavior. Someone, I think it was NW, suggested reverting to a different version. If consensus is going to rule here, one needs to reach it before the wholesale reversion that was made. This kind of behavior is going to prolong conflict, not avert it and reach agreement. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the "do as I say, not as I do" approach is galling. And a textbook example of activism. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There was consensus that some kind of revert was needed, and the chosen version was a good and neutral one, based on good reasoning. I don't often agree with SV, but I do here. I again suggest that involved editors here stop focusing on SV or Climate Change, as this issue goes far beyond Climate Change, and affects the integrity of many Wikipedia articles. Other than watching that FAs stay at standard, I have no use for the debacles that occur on Climate Change; we all have different reasons for wanting this essay to be well written, and mine are that I have seen ACTIVISTs at work on numerous medical articles and BLPs, with evidence of off-Wiki involvement, completely unrelated to Climate Change, where I do not get involved. Please-- stay focused on the bigger picture and set aside individual differences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) By the way, I just wanted to point out that the "activism to advance fringe points of view" section was not in the version that was just reverted. Instead, an entirely different concept of the essay was advanced through a series of edits. Again, it is arguable whether the latest version was good or not. However, I think that that needs to be determined by consensus, not by one or two editors acting unilaterally to change the direction of the essay another 180 degrees. That kind of use of brute force just won't work. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Then stop personalizing the issues to one editor or one topic, and start discussing content on talk. And while you're at it, think of Catholic Church, the entire suite of autism-related articles, and the entire suite of POV Venezuela-related articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No one is doing anything of the kind (except perhaps you, by raising the issue of the CC articles, which I didn't mention). Please don't misrepresent my position. That is indeed an activist technique. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Look in the mirror :) IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Please try to remember that Wikipedia is not All About SlimVirgin or All About Climate Change. And at least she's discussing on talk, based on experience with a broad range of articles. How much experience with contentious activist editing do you have? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In my view, some of the best contributions to this talk page have been by editors who were not involved in any previous disputes, such as AndytheGump. They've provided a reality check, and describing their contributions as "weirdness" is both false and unfair. The issue here is whether consensus applies to all editors involved in this article, and whether unilateral actions are going to help bring about a useful essay or just contribute to more heat. I think that this very discussion proves that such tactics just don't work. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not attribute the "weirdness" to any specific editor; as I stated, when editing behavior like we've seen here affects an article, I don't focus on who added or deleted what from the article-- I look at who's discussing now, ignoring the past. I don't think it would be accurate or fair to put AndyTheGrump above anyone else here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing inappropriate "editing behavior." I'm seeing editors making bold edits in accordance with policy. True, there has not always been talk page discussion, but as I indicated above, that was true before the edits that you describe as "weirdness." There was a stable version for some months. Those editors did not begin making unilateral changes. That began with the edits that removed the "activism to promote fringe points of view" section and similar edits. To me, the editing behavior that is problematic is what we are looking at right now: a wholesale reversion for which there is no consensus. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be mired in IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so I'm moving on now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify, because you're not making any sense. You've made several combative references to the Climate Change articles, which I haven't mentioned. You did. Now you make reference to "IDIDNTHEARTHAT," when it's inapplicable. Either clarify, site diffs, or stop the nonsense. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Clue: where did I say you mentioned Climate Change? I checked your contribs and see a relatively uninvolved editor, anywhere. I have no idea what your particular interest is here, nor does it matter. Point I was making is that this essay is not all about SV or Climate Change. Time to move one now ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's another non sequitur, and it's becoming disruptive. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Essay should mention Organized POV warriors

This essay fails to mention real world incidents or even link to Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Exposure_to_political_operatives_and_advocates. That article lists alleged efforts to influence wikipedia by members of the U.S. House of Representatives; Marxists; Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America; Sarah Palin supporters; French politicos; federal employees; or Cyprus/Iranian editors (hard to figure out).

That article needs updating about several 2010 mainstream articles about pro-Israel-organized wikipedia editing. This essay needs to be cut down on the generalities that are being used to excuse over-riding wikipedia policies (see my complaint here) and focus more on specific incidents and specific remedies that do not violate Wikipedia policies.

I believe more community input is needed on this essay, given abuse I've just witnessed of it and I will encourage that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are all good samples, beyond Climate Change (and no, we don't need to update to focus on one given area-- it's general), as is this as further evidence that the issues extend to many areas of the Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify your response which doesn't make sense. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Which part doesn't make sense? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• "all good examples" - of what?
• "and no, we don't need to update to focus on one given area-- it's general' - update what? what area? what's general?
• "as further evidence that the issues extend to many areas of the Wikipedia." which means what and is relevant to what of the two things above that need clarification? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you read this talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Vague comments with possible multiple references can be confusing to even the most well read editor. Simple clarifications are always useful. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading a talk page before you comment is also polite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Relevant edit

I changed the lead to read: A criticism of Wikipedia is that such activists can affect Wikipedia's reliability. with relevant wikilinks. If someone finds it necessary to revert this, we can discuss it here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess that answers my question about whether you've read the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think clarification would be useful. This seems to be a modest and reasonable addition. If it isn't please say so in clear language. Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Caption

The caption currently says "Don't use Wikipedia articles to promote your cause". Any objection if we add "unless your cause is to provide a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia"? Think that would help focus this essay. It's true that people who merely want to help build a neutral and reliable encyclopedia may sometimes adopt inappropriate means to achieve that legitimate end, but are they among the people that this essay is targeting? It doesn't seem like it. This essay seems more targeted toward people who have a cause that conflicts with the mission of Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be a step backwards, into farce territory again. Perhaps expand it with positive information about productive editing, rather than sarcasm-- something policy-based. Personally, I think the caption is fine but still think it's premature to focus on images rather than article content, and in battleground topics, we often see the battle focusing on images and the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a reason why it's impossible to write a Wikipedia article without first selecting a title. Such things help to steer and guide the enterprise. More generally, anyone can always be shown to be promoting a cause (e.g. the cause of writing an essay to combat activism), and we need to remove innocuous causes from the crosshairs. But I see there's a suggestion that I'm engaging in battleground editing, so I'll be quiet before it escalates to an assertion of activism. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That was not my intent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you and/or SV please explain what this essay is supposed to do that is not already covered or almost covered by other essays like advocacy, tag-teaming, et cetera? If one follows every one of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, can one still run afoul of this essay?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No other essay currently works with the ArbCom findings about collaborative editing of blocs of editors sharing specific points of view. Read the premise section above. Collect (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, long post that says the same thing Collect just said in one sentence.) I only re-engaged here when I noticed the edit warring, but 1) the problem is not in "follow[ing] every one of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines" as much as wikilawyering a fringe view of them, and 2) from my own (real) experience, I distinguish between advocacy and activism (others may differ). I came to Wiki originally as an "advocate" for accurate and reliably sourced information about Tourette syndrome (the article at the beginning of 2006 when I came to Wikipedia), but I'm not an "activist", I edit within policy, and am not part of a "collective bloc of editors" who are circumventing policy. I think we can all be classified as "advocates" in some sense, but our Advocacy essay--as it relates to Wikipedia editing vs real world-- defines advocates as those who edit with "personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies", which is different than my personal definition above. So, to me the distinction between the two essays has to do with the difference between dealing with individual Wikipedia "advocates" and blocs of editors acting collectively as "activists" with an agenda that circumvents policy to present a fringe view based on real world personal alliances. Dealing with blocs of editors is very different than dealing with an individual with a POV that circumvents policy-- i.e.; MUCH harder. Look at the battleground that were our vaccination articles related to autism for years, with activism promoted by (per reliable sources) "nincompoop" celebrities like Jenny McCarthy (not my words, source's words); there were legions of activists influencing Wikipedia, against boatloads of reliable sources and no evidence whatsoever of the link between MMR vaccine and autism. Individual POV editors can make life miserable, but blocs of editors can dominate an entire topic area for years, and they can even prevail in dispute resolution, where more involved activists are likely to show up, so that these cases typically have to end up at ArbCom after lots of useless and messy dispute resolution. We can more easily deal with an individual advocate via typical DR. That's the distinction I draw, but I haven't read the Advocacy essay closely so I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Collect and Sandy for those replies. Collect, if reliance on certain ArbCom decisions is what can make this essay most useful, then those decisions ought to be alluded to somewhere earlier in the essay than they are now (ArbCom isn't mentioned until a bunch of cases are listed at the end). Also, may we add specifically near the start of the lead that "For purposes of this essay, activists are part of a collective bloc of editors that is circumventing policy"? That would resolve my concern that this essay could be used against people who are following policy. Incidentally, this essay briefly mentions that an admin may be one of the activists, but gives no special advice as to what to do in that case. Also, it would be nice to have a section specifically about what other essays may or may not offer on this subject.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at the edit history (including diffs and edit summaries) to see the point where the disruptions achieved their goal of making a neutral non-polemic essay difficult to achieve. Also note my attempts to add the ArbCom material in a reasonable paragraph. Collect (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple factions

This section is particularly stupid. Right, the faction whose "edits align more closely with what one would expect from a serious, respectable reference work," are the ones that need to be "dealt" with first! (and am I the only one who finds this language of "dealing" with people disturbing?) Let the factions whose edits align most closely with what one would expect from a completely useless, biased, badly written, fringe, pov garbage website take over! Has the person who wrote this stuff actually, you know, *thought* about what they were saying???? Volunteer Marek  21:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem that you're highlighting is one of the many that was dealt with in the edits that preceded the recent wholesale revert [6]of this essay back to the "AfD version". As you can see in the pre-wholesale revert version[7], that problem was dealt with, and then some, and the "multiple factions" section had some coherence and connection with reality that it no longer has. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I added that phrase earlier today. I thought it was important. The essay suggested that if one "faction" dominates over another, then the only possible explanations are sinister. But in fact, a "faction" may dominate simply because its viewpoint aligns with what one would expect from a serious, respectable reference work (as an aside, the failure to appreciate that vital aspect of WP:ENC is at the heart of a lot of misguided administrative intervention).

For instance, it's not unheard of for AIDS-denialist editors to claim that our articles on HIV/AIDS are subject to "activism" from people who believe that HIV causes AIDS. And, in fact, editors who subscribe to the HIV/AIDS paradigm do dominate the articles. Some of them may even be zOMG IRL AIDS activists. But that's not a problem - in fact, it's exactly the way things should be, assuming we want to create a serious, respectable reference work rather than an MMORPG with a level playing field. MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. Well, I stand corrected on that. What do you think of the older, somewhat longer pre-revert version? It made a somewhat different point. I think that if it is cleaned up it actually is better. In fact, I think a reversion of the wholesale revert would save everyone a lot of trouble, rather than making it necessary to reinvent the wheel. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see - you were trying to clean it up. But it ended up sounding even more sinister and loopy. I agree with the intent here but at the very least the text is not clear as now it seems to propose that the most mainstream, responsible "faction" be "dealt with" (through blocks, bans, summary executions, whatever) first. Maybe just better to remove the whole section until something better is written from scratch? Volunteer Marek  22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the history here it appears that this is a pretty clear cut example of what happens when one tries to fix something that is fundamentally broken (i.e. this section) - you can make it worse. I'm guessing the edits in question were made in good faith and were intended to make sense but because they were plopped down in a middle of nonsense, acerbated the nonsense. Volunteer Marek  22:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To some editors the pre-revert version was nonsense, and to some the post-revert version was nonsense. I think you mean the latter, but I don't want to jump to conclusions. Can you clarify? ScottyBerg (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)