"Erik Moeller" wrote
I would prefer a term like "ideological factions" to "division". Division is natural and happens all the time when people disagree.
But I wouldn't prefer this. 'Divisive' is clearer than 'ideological': I have just been reading an academic text where it is stated that "ideology" has at least 100 meanings. Divisive writing can be recognised by its intention, to split and polarise.
<snip>
The last thing I want to see is people on [[Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] arguing that a new guy who tries to fix up the currently awful "Criticism" section is trying to "divide the community" by focusing on "contentious and inflammatory content" with "clear intent to disrupt and provoke." In reality, it might well be that an ideological faction of Mormons is dominating the article -- in which case they would be the ones acting against the spirit of Wikipedia by trying to drown out criticism. (No offense intended to Mormons with this arbitrary example.)
This is a known phenomenon (it's on the Raul's Laws page): a standing consensus around an article is broken. But I'm clear that is not what is being targeted. One can disagree with a consensus version of an article, without taking a divisive social line. Some editors don't understand this, true.
Charles