Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cabals

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cenarium (talk | contribs) at 11:17, 3 April 2008 (→‎Inside views: create). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Desired outcome

The desired outcome is to gain consensus on particular aspects of this debate, as the MfD process is not practical because of how widespread the issue is.

Description

The question: Should "cabals" be allowed, and what should the criteria they are to exist under be? Should there be a restriction for what they may concern, and who may participate in them?

Cabals have been in existence for quite some time. Recently, a user proposed them for deletion in an MfD. As this MfD was thought to be inconclusive by some, it was then brought to WP:ANI here. Since opinions were generally scattered and hard to follow, we're gonna try something more organized. If you'd like to present your own opinion that is completely separate from previous opinions, please add to the "View" section.

Disputed views

Cabals, which are generally an in-joke on Wikipedia (see Cabal for what a cabal is and you'll understand), are small 'clubs' of people which have been assembled for any purpose, ranging from penguins to bathrobes. Editors in opposition to these have stated that they are too clique-like, become bureaucratic in some cases, and that this hierarchical approach may alienate some users and make them feel unwelcome. Others have expressed the opinion that cabals in general are inherently against the spirit of Wikipedia, and still others think that cabals are generally useless and do not result in constructive improvement to the encyclopedia. Naturally, there have been counter-points to all these points.

Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:CABAL (note that this is more of a joke and not really established)
  2. Wikipedia:Editors Matter
  3. WP:MYSPACE

Previous debates

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Cabals
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Great Cabal Debate

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who have participated in the dispute}

  1. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I closed the first instance of debating, the MfD, and was drawn into the subsequent ANI debate. Personally, I feel that the issue at heart is deciding what we feel is defined as constructive behaviour, and whether cabals can be useful or are against the spirit of Wikipedia. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I took no part in the MfD but entered into the ANI discussion when it became apparent to me that the IAR deletion of MfD Kept pages was out of process and unfair. These are userpages, not cabals no matter what they call themselves.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RC-0722 247.5/1
  4. George The Dragon
    Comment: I filed the original MFD, mainly to bring the discussion on ANI to a speedy conclusion as it was getting nowhere George The Dragon (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. - Philippe 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I've dealt frequently with one of the users who seems to be most active in the creation of some of these cabals and have spoken with him regarding both their existence (generally OK by me, with a purpose) and their membership (not okay if it's a "vote-in" exclusionary method). - Philippe 02:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CenariumTalk 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I've been involved in the dispute since my comment on the somehow related RyRy5's adoption program on Jimbo's talk page. I commented in the Great Cabal Debate. I hope that the deletions will be approved by community consensus since I think that these groups (so called "cabals") are not in accordance with Wikipedia's principles. CenariumTalk 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously uninvolved users who endorse this summary

Inside views

This is a summary written by users directly involved with the dispute who would like to express their opinions. These users should not edit outside views, unless endorsing them. Let's try to state only the fundamentals of the dispute here, guys; no specific cabal discussion, but rather discussion of principles. If you'd like to make comments on a specific summary, use the talk page and title it "Comments on <user's> summary". {Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

View by Master of Puppets

Editors matter. Cabals are just a way to have fun, and editors of all colours participate in them; for example, the Bathrobe Cabal has many esteemed editors in it, including administrators and even a bureaucrat. As a cabal, they have done constructive things for Wikipedia. Cabals should be allowed as long as they do not become too bureaucratic or exclusive. For example, yes, a cabal for "12-year-old Pokemon fans" should not be allowed, as we're all in this together; there shouldn't be any visible breaks in the fabric of Wikipedia. Cabals for casual article improvement, say, the page on Puppets, would be acceptable; like WikiProjects but not as formal. Also, users in said cabals should contribute to the encyclopedia on a level other than just the cabal; in other words, cabals should not become the sole focus of any one user, and should not have a "leader". They should also not be hierarchies. Rather, they should be more ambiguous and free-form to suit the adaptable nature of Wikipedia. I feel that as long as we have some base guidelines in place, the rest should be up to the users who choose to participate in cabals.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC) - not really sure how to comment if I have to edit a summary that is already endorsed by others, see discussion page for further comments from me.[reply]
  4. RC-0722 247.5/1 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC) - Good Eats.[reply]
  5. Endorse. Orderinchaos 23:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think this is close to what I said below--Pewwer42  Talk  01:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Indeed. Lara❤Love 02:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This isn't unreasonable. The salient question then becomes what these base guidelines will be. east.718 at 03:04, April 3, 2008
  11. Between Uga Man and George the Dragon. Basketball110  Talk  03:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I could live with this. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Agreed. I think I made some comments to this effect in another thread. seicer | talk | contribs 04:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --EJF (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by George The Dragon

The primary focus of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. We also have a reputation (to either create or maintain, depending on one's view) and we should not be giving any ammunition to those who think Wikipedia is little more than a social network. We have WP:MYSPACE for a reason. Also, Wikipedia is NOT about awards, adminships or games. Building an encyclopedia is serious business and we have to remember that we survive on donations - and would people be as likely to donate if we start getting more and more Facebook/MySpace/Bebo-like?


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. George The Dragon (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yep MBisanz talk 23:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Orderinchaos 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sensible. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. east.718 at 03:04, April 3, 2008
  7. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Five Years 05:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by Uga Man

This is actually very simple. Delete cabals that do not have a wikipedia-related purpose to improve the mainspace, and keep those that do.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 00:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 00:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Orderinchaos 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Good KISS view, endorse--Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Five Years 05:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --EJF (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Indeed. And any real cabals need not worry about getting deleted anyway. MER-C 06:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes. x42bn6 Talk Mess 07:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by Orderinchaos

Firstly for introduction - jokes about cabals are as old as Wikipedia itself, and originally started as a bit of a poke at those who attack the way they perceive Wikipedia operates. As such, we're not talking about actual "cabals" that control Wikipedia, as most of them were set up as a parody of some sort, and are really just a bit of fun for those involved.

However, in a way the cabals issue is a red herring, as the main problem here was in fact a small group of users whose social activities were disrupting the project. The core group helped to found a new WikiProject, homeschooling, in late February and early March. Diligent Terrier (talk · contribs), who was no stranger to controversy and had been told to pull his head in and "rethink his approach" by various people including respected admins [1], had always exhibited a sense of ownership of the project [2], even extending to invite notices [3] [4]. He had appointed himself founder and was holding elections for various positions within it [5], which seemed to have taken a fair amount of attention away from editing articles. An early mission was to attempt to shut down a perceived rival, the alternative education WikiProject. Some of the same problems which showed themselves later arose at this early stage (see here and here), complete with loaded proposals, extensive canvassing (in that situation, also provided with misleading information - see a little further on from the previous link) and even removing comments. I was called in at this stage as a then-neutral admin by the AE people, and attempted to address the issue there and at Diligent Terrier's talk page. It appeared by the end of 18 March that most of these issues were resolved. There was a minor issue thereafter regarding attempting to tag 20 or so articles (mostly former US Presidents) into the WikiProject which were not remotely related to its scope, but that too was resolved.

Quite separately from this, a group of users from around 13 March onwards, the main core of whom had been associated with the homeschooling project, created a group of closely interlinked "cabals" which were a group of friends, each having very similar membership. Each had an approval system, either had to be appointed by a director or voted on by the others, etc - similar to the issues we'd attempted to sort out previously at the WikiProject. As the days went on, more "cabals" started popping up with different "directors" and "rules", and in some cases entire users' Wikitime was being consumed by joining and chatting on these pages, or starting and trying to get others to join theirs. There was over 1,100 edits to these pages between 13 and 31 March - nearly a quarter on the last three days alone. Of concern was the decline in mainspace-to-userspace ratio of every editor involved. DT was reported around this time for abusing Twinkle in reverting good-faith newbie edits as vandalism.[6]

Hours later, a newbie raised a concern on AN/I about the now-growing list of cabals.

"How are the following "cabals" appropriate for Wikipedia? (list) Wikipedia is NOT a social networking site and these serve no purpose but to cause server overload. They should be speedily deleted by an admin and their creators warned, because if we put these pages through an AFD all the "members" would vote keep. Wikipedia should not continue on this trend towards MySpace and Facebook."

What followed was utterly vile. For the crime of expressing his opinion, he was repeatedly called "Mr. SPA" and such names by numerous contributors, was blocked almost immediately by User:JzG - all for expressing opposition to something they saw was a problem and raised it for discussion which is exactly what we expect our users to do. A few people queried the block but the response to those concerns were treated in a similar vein. In the course of this discussion (and in this climate), User:George The Dragon took it to MfD. The discussion there was just as hostile, just as free with the facts, and ended in an out-of-process speedy close after almost three hours. I have attempted to analyse the responses to the MfD here. As I've also noted there, if you tally up all the 11 or so users, they come to 32,350 edits as of 3am GMT on 1 April, with 7,047 (21.8%) of these being mainspace edits, 2,229 talk page, 2,419 Wikispace, 837 WT space, 7,017 (21.7%) user space, 12,203 (37.7%) user talk, and 598 in other spaces. The editors themselves ranged from 48% to 89% in user and user talk space, most were in the 50s or 60s.

In the final three days leading to the deletion, activity proceeded at an increasing pace on the cabals. By this point, new ones were springing up every 8 hours with increasingly sillier names, the same groups were signing up, etc. Claims were being made (as in the MfD) that articles were being developed, but despite asking the question which articles were developed and how no less than nine times in the last debate, none of the people involved even attempted to answer me. A quick check of Dog and Giant Panda, each a focus of its own cabal, showed no edits whatsoever on Dog and a few edits by the cabal founder on Great Panda. At a later point during one of the debates, User:Cenarium noted, "These pretended goals to improve mainspace content are pretexts and have never been really implemented." - I think that interpretation is borne out by the facts. What was of particular concern to me was that newbies were starting to get roped into these groups and were editing nowhere else - hence they had become detrimental to the project and something needed to be done about it. On 1 April, User:Keilana deleted all of the groups after a discussion at AN/I which for the first time focussed on the actual edits and editors. This was endorsed by a number of admins at AN/I, but became controversial only when the owners returned.

I believe the case I've presented above isn't one that questions the future or existence of cabal groups or those using that title, but addresses the particular circumstances of this case. Orderinchaos 00:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Orderinchaos 00:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. George The Dragon (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. east.718 at 03:04, April 3, 2008
  6. MBisanz talk 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lara❤Love 04:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Five Years 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --EJF (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by Pewwer42

I came to wikipedia back in 2006 but didn't start full participating until 2008. It was then that in my time of vandalism reverting on some archived talk pages(new vandalism of course) I came across deep thoughtful discussions of editors that I decided I wanted to learn more about. When I went to there userpage, I often found a black banner on the top with one simple word. RETIRED. This made me want to know more about why they left. What I found from some of there last comments and messages for leaving was they were tired of wikidrama. drama that comes from arguments, vandalism, and arguments that last forever about the same thing. I'm not saying this discussion shouldn't happen, thats not my point. My point is that cabals help add a little humor to some of the more dull and emotion draining tasks of wikipedia. I don't plan to leave wikipedia ever (sorry guys:P) but I know that the cabal I made (the 42nd cabal) was a little bright spot when I saw some of the vandalism I have seen. The cabal I made did require applications that consisted of a quiz, but it was just a little fun thing for someone to do for a short break from editing (all answers could be filled in with 42 shhhh keep that quite ) and in the whole time of existence, I only rejected one application becuase the user was currently under suspicion of sock puppetry(its all in my talk archives). So any user could have been a part of it, and any user could have ignored it. I feel that cabals add to the users of wikipeida, keeping them editing with a gentle hand an not a harsh assuming bad faith one. These humble opinions brought to you be electrons, the food of thought--Pewwer42  Talk  01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. it would be odd if I didn't--Pewwer42  Talk  01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good answer, good answer. RC-0722 247.5/1 01:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by User:Philippe

Summary: Clubs are ok. Exclusionary clubs are not ok.

It's been an open-secret that despite our NOTMYSPACE tendencies, there are occasional cabals (bathrobe, etc). These cabals have been of limited purpose and mostly social networking or humorous groups. What's more gravely concerning are the recent proliferation of cabals that (despite lofty goals such as "improve article XYZ") engage in clique-ish behavior such as mandating that users be "voted in" or tell users that they don't have a sufficient number of "support" votes to be allowed. Some even require sponsorship by other members! The borderline is between incidental networking and active bureaucracy. When a cabal creates membership tiers, clerks, and a vote-in system, it ceases to be incidental networking and begins to be active bureaucracy. Incidental networking is to be tolerated, if not even encouraged. Active bureaucracy is to be frowned upon, if not immediately removed. - Philippe 02:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I'm User:Philippe and I approve this message! - Philippe 02:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. east.718 at 03:04, April 3, 2008
  3. Lara❤Love 04:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mr.Z-man 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. MBisanz talk 05:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Orderinchaos 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --EJF (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pedro :  Chat  06:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


View by Cenarium

Wikipedia is an open community, hence the creation of exclusionary groups, whatever their name or their namespace, is against Wikipedia's principles.

The requirement for menbership in these deleted cabals is a vote by the members, with no clear rule whatsoever on what the vote should be based. So these cabals are exclusionary groups within Wikipedia, as a consequence, they are against the principle of open community. I add that these groups were overly bureaucratic and hence violate Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

Editing Wikipedia is a serious purpose. Wikiprojects are community-approved projects to coordinate the editing of a specific area of the encyclopedia.

These cabals were subject to template:humor in the sense that they displayed it and so, assuming good faith, should not be used for any remotely serious purpose. So cabals shouldn't be used as a coordination tool to improve Wikipedia. Hence the argument "these cabals should be kept because they help to improve article content" is irrelevant. Moreover, it's the role of wikiprojects which are approved by the community, and so it's a duplicate. I add that the efficiency of these cabals to improve article content has not been demonstrated, see the above comment by Orderinchaos. Hence, I suspect that these goals to improve mainspace were pretexts to create new groups.

Per the above, the deletions are justified. If there is a community consensus on this point, the deletions taken under WP:IAR are hereby approved by community consensus.

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside views

This is a summary written by users who are not involved with the dispute and would like to express their opinions. These users should not edit inside views, unless endorsing them. Let's try to state only the fundamentals of the dispute here, guys; no specific cabal discussion, but rather discussion of principles. If you'd like to make comments on a specific summary, use the talk page and title it "Comments on <user's> summary".


Outside view by NonvocalScream (talk)

O_o NonvocalScream (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I think we all ought to move on, and follow common sense, e.g. WP:CANVASS is all that is really needed. You can't really control groups of folks from forming friendships. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. seicer | talk | contribs 04:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by J-stan

Let the people have their fun. Unless they're doing anything outright incivil, disruptive, or otherwise restricted, they're fine. There's only a cabal if you want there to be one. I mean a real cabal, controlling wikipedia. These others are nothing more than glorified wikiprojects, if even that.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Soxred93 | talk bot 22:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. seicer | talk | contribs 04:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by LessHeard vanU

A group by any other name would smell just as sweet; Cabal is just a name for an irregular grouping of like minded people, which would likely form in any large community or enterprise. We should acknowledge the existence of this behaviour, tolerate it where is serves - or does no harm to - the community, and have in place guidelines to ensure that the interests of a cabal is always secondary to that of the encyclopedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. seicer | talk | contribs 04:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Keeper76

I'm truly an outside view. I'm not a member of any cabals. I don't want to be a member of any cabals. I don't care if others are members of any cabals. My "outside view" is exactly this: This RfC, while well-intentioned, will result in exactly, and most inevitably, nothing. No consensus to keep or remove cabals. Call me Nostradamus, but the arguments that are about to fly around here will not lead to anything of substantial difference than has already been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. This Rfc will only result in hard feelings, and increased factionalism. If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. If you don't like cabals, don't join one. I move to close this RfC. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, this is a bigger waste of time than the cabals themselves... Keilana|Parlez ici 23:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. True, that's why I supported narrowing its scope to the particular group in question. Orderinchaos 04:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. So much time wasted on whining about stuff wasting time. Makes teh sense. Lara❤Love 04:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ^^^^^ what Lara said. Pedro :  Chat  06:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by JzG

There is no cabal. Just to be clear, here. And Wikipedia is not a social network either. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. MBisanz talk 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. George The Dragon (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Orderinchaos 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. east.718 at 03:04, April 3, 2008
  5. --EJF (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Until(1 == 2)

Simply having the word "cabal" in the name of a page does not make it so. If people were actually living up to the meaning of "cabal", then one would be able to demonstrate this through Wikipedia's extensive logs. Show me proof of secret collaboration, then I will believe in cabals. (1 == 2)Until 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The cabal decrees that there is no cabal. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What, no cabal? Orderinchaos 04:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm still waiting for a shot of you in a bathrobe. ;) Lara❤Love 04:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of John Carter

There are two very serious questions here. One is whether the groups calling themselves "cabal" as a joke should be required to rename the pages involved or have them deleted. The other is whether groups which function as "cabals" in any sense can and should be eliminated. Regarding the former, I can see how some people might object to the use of the word, but some people can object to pretty much every article we have too. That's not necessarily cause for forcing changes. The second question is what to do with groups which can be called "cabalistic". These include the WikiProject Council, the coordinators of the Military history, Film, and Novels projects, and any others which may create such positions later, the ArbCom, the GA, FA, and 1.0 reviewers, and any number of other groups. In some cases, I think these groups are almost required for wikipedia to continue functioning at all. Specific groups which "self-select" to perform "cabalistic" behavior within these groups, if that behavior is counterproductive, could reasonably be at least challenged, but there already are procedures in place for such situations. In short, I can see no reason to censor the use of the word "cabal" in most if not all cases, and I personally can't imagine many real "cabals" would be stupid enough to call themselves that, and thus draw attention. Without proof, all we necessarily have are like-minded individuals acting in accord with each other and their own individual beliefs or senses of humor. There's no reason, or even chance of success, in trying to prevent that. It is also possible that several of the people being accused of being called a "cabal" may in some cases actually be the ones acting in accord with policy and guidelines, and getting criticized possibly as a smokescreen on that basis. In short, which is clearly rare for me, no way can I support the basic idea. In any cases when counterproductive cabalistic behavior can be proven, that's different, but there are already venues for discussion of such things. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by bibliomaniac15

Having been in a cabal and now taking part in a clique of sorts (maybe), the issue here in my experience is an age-old conflict of interest. More than a year ago, we had those great and terrifying MFDs which deleted numerous "fun" pages and converted Esperanza into an ominous essay. Now the conflict has arisen again. I think it is very important to keep in mind that we are not an ordinary encyclopedia. We are sustained by a dedicated group of volunteers, many of whom are under 18. We need to interest and sustain this group while keeping in mind that our ultimate goal is the encyclopedia.

If these cabals help people put a smile on their face before going to squash vandals, then they have succeeded. If they encourage people to stay in the encyclopedia and continue contributing, then the cabal is triumphant. The main problem here is that these cabals have overshot their goals. They have not merely encouraged editors to stay, they have encouraged social networking and a great deal of distraction. It follows that a reorganization of priorities is in order. I do think that actual voting of members is a bit much. It is easy to decline a sockpuppet or a vandal membership to a group of editors, and a vote has got to be the least efficient way to do it.

I think, however, the biggest thing confusing all this is that a cabal is defined as "a small group of secret plotters." Yet somehow, there seems to be a misunderstanding that all groups are cabals, even when no intrigue is planned or even mentioned. Wikipedia is not secret. It is transparent, save for the flecks that are deleted and oversighted contributions. This discussion is not about real cabals. They do not control Wikipedia to any great extent. As usual, the community will have another discussion in which no consensus will be figured out. Surely countless straw polls on restructuring WP:RFA have taught us that? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the admin who irregularly deleted the other cabals is a member of this one, speaking of conflict of interest. DGG (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who, Keilana? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means the Tzatziki Squad. The difference there is that the T-squad actually does what it intends to do -- improve articles. Also, there is no bureaucracy, just structured collaboration. Does that clarify? Keilana|Parlez ici 02:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. TSQUAD is just like WP:ACID, only possibly with a more casual (and more dedicated) atmosphere. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. To the original comment, I don't think any of the groups are or try to be cabals - I try to use the word "groups" for that reason. I should also note while I never participated in Esperanza, I thought in general it was a good thing and was sad to see it go. Orderinchaos 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Hersfold

Cabals on Wikipedia should exist to be a joke. I am a member of User:Ryulong's Penguin Cabal simply because I have a funny little penguin icon on my user page. That's perfectly fine and harmless. Cabals become a problem, however, when they become exclusive: we've been criticized in the past for having an overly powerful group of dedicated editors - even though this has been dealt with to some degree with the fall of Esperanza, there is still a degree of intimidation experienced by new editors who don't know what's going on. This problem is compounded with the addition of cabals that have restrictive membership, groups that perpetuate the negative stereotype expressed in the Wikipedia is Failing essay I linked above. Most of these have been forcefully shut down of late due to another recent discussion, however there is certainly a possibility for some to still exist. In summary, cabals are OK when we're making fun of ourselves, or we're using them to actively contribute to the project as an informal WikiProject, however when membership is limited to a select few, they become harmful and potentially dangerous to the proper functioning of the Wikipedia project as a whole. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Hersfold (t/a/c), of course
  2. I could live with a good part of this view. MBisanz talk 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per MBisanz. Orderinchaos 04:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lara❤Love 04:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Dihydrogen Monoxide

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Social groups are not generally associated with an encyclopedia, and thus lenience should only be given in cases where participants have proven they're here to help with our actual goal. Editors matter, but the encyclopedia matters more. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. MBisanz talk 03:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. east.718 at 03:04, April 3, 2008
  5. Mostly. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. VegaDark (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Orderinchaos 04:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Lara❤Love 04:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --EJF (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Outside view by Mathmo

There is nothing inherently wrong with calling a group a "cabal", however I feel a large portion of these groups have got carried away too far... It is ok to have social groups, but it is worrying when there are groups that form no purpose (other than being "social") which are contained largely of people who predominately do not do any constructive editing of wikipedia itself. Could there be laws be made against this? Potentially yes, but I'm of the view that the less legal webs we create to deal with this the better. For instance if we introduced a certain minimum percentage of mainspace edits for all editors. The problem is as always we would be dealing with varying shades of grey, where do we draw the line?! Personally I prefer taking the "action" of no action and being hands off, unless it can be clearly showing a group is actively causing a negative impact (such a group discussing how to carry out effective methods of vandalism to bring down wikipedia). However I've noticed a process of voting in members to the cabal, this is a more worrying development, as no where else in wikipedia is such a voting process used on editors (outside the "official" roles of sysop etc...).Mathmo Talk 09:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Mathmo Talk 09:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Orderinchaos 10:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Yeah, this is a bit new...

This may be completely new to everyone here, as it is a sort of rework of the base User Conduct RfC, with some changes made to keep it relevant. Sorry for the confusion if any, tried my best to make it straightforward. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored all the comments from the initial attempt at setting this up to the discussion page where they seemed to fit best.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues

First, What do do about the previous discussion-- I am not happy with anything about this: i dislike the traditional cabals, the new ones being discussed, the joint MfD on them, the decision to make an early close of the MfD, the actual close at the MfD, the AN/I discussion, the reversal of the MfD at the AN/I discussion, the canvassing during the AfD discussion, the holding of a poll during the AN/I discussion, or the close of the AN/I discussion. I cannot defend those cabals, but neither can i defend most of the later actions. The question has become split: what should be done about those pages, and what should be done about the actions of individuals in discussing them. My current reaction is amnesty towards everything, blame it on April 1, restore the pages, and renominate individually.

Second, What to do about cabals at WP in general. --I strongly support individual expression at WP. I strongly opposed the action of organized groups to try to run things for other people. I would eliminate almost everything that presently calls itself a cabal, and look very carefulyl at future attemptts to inhibit open discussion. DGG (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your second point, there will need to be a clearer line drawn. You oppose the action of an organized group to try to run things for other people and would eliminate almost everything presently calling itself a cabal. That encompasses a lot. It allows for unconstructive groups to form and simply not call themselves a cabal, but doesn't allow for constructive groups to form under the joke title of cabal.
As far as your first point, I think it would be faster and easier to just go through DRV and restore those believed to be worthy of restoration, if any. Lara❤Love 05:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cabals&oldid=203020172"