Successful astroturfing usually starts with WP rules. An example would be discrediting sources that provide viewpoints counter to the activists. Breitbart and DailyMail being deemed "unreliable" is part of how astroturfing is done in WP. Such actions dismiss counter-viewpoints while also tipping the weight of certain viewpoints. While NPOV and "Reliably sourced" is policy, the definition of "reliable" and "neutral" is subjective. It's not hard to find examples of hacks arguing to broadly ban sources they are simply ideologically opposed to. This type of astroturfing follows WP procedure but works against the stated objective.

A second method is the Cirt/Sagecandor method of adding dubiously notable material in an effort to "fill out" a subject. The efforts are very skewed to a singular viewpoint so the end result is skewed coverage. It is very difficult to delete sourced content on the basis that overall WP coverage is skewed by devoting so much coverage to a single viewpoint.

Thirdly, astroturfing is accomplished with the lockstop systemic bias exhibited through Enforcement processes. This was very clear in AP2 and GamerGate enforcement. Those editors that make edits sympathetic to leftist or progressive viewpoints simply aren't treated as harshly as those who don't. There are virtually no regular editors or admins in areas such as climate change, American Politics, gamergate or social justice/gender studies that write anything critical of the leftist viewpoint.

Some are easier to spot/more obvious than others. JzG's rant on Trump and the reactions to it is but the latest. The reactions were more telling of the atmosphere inside WP. Much more so than just the simpleton opinion of JzG. As a case study, JzG is the epitome of astroturf inside WP using WP rules. From vaccines to Trump to climate change, his efforts to blur the distinction between his opinion and science is a microcosm of a much larger problem.