Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cabals

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)

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)

Disagree. There should be a consensus to delete before something is deleted. Since there wasn't, they should be restored and then vote on them. Voting whether to recreate them is wrong and slanted. Enigma ^message 02:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason why WP:IAR exists. History has shown that MfD is useless in deciding on policy or behavioural matters, anyway. Also note that we do not vote ... that sort of mentality encourages canvassing. Orderinchaos 03:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know we don't vote. So !voting then. Or commenting. Or discussing. However you wish to say it. Doesn't change my point. Also, yes now we know why WP:IAR exists. So people can ignore MfDs and then proceed to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place. Enigma ^message 03:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the last MfD had about as much fairness and due process as Mugabe's last election. Participating under threat of block for having the "wrong" opinion in a speedy-closed affair (with one newbie having been blocked out of process for having one seconds before the MfD commenced) is not the way to get a community to decide in a sane and detached manner what should happen in these situations. The MfD was an embarrassment to Wikipedia and we should act, in all honesty, as if it never occurred. I think in the end, judging from the responses to this RfC, the admin who invoked IAR and deleted them actually had the community pulse about right. Orderinchaos 03:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly disagree more. User:DGG was spot on in this regard. If an admin believed the MfD was closed too early, reopen it. Completely ignoring it and deleting all of them was more than WP:BOLD; it was WP:Reckless. Enigma ^message 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

He's right. To be fair, we should have another MfD and whatever the outcome of that is should be the fate of these cabals. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the outcome of this result would ideally give us the fate of the cabals. That's the point of it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an issue of being closed too early. It was an issue of the entire conduct of it. Even if I was to assume the MfD was valid, the closer's comment in the MfD did in fact allow for what occurred on 1 April - "as long as editors participate in actual encyclopedic areas, a bit of fun now and then is harmless". Evidence was brought forward that the editors were not contributing and that good faith newbies were being sidelined into non-productive pursuits by the more experienced users. Also, like I said, MfD's are incredibly poor venues to decide on behavioural issues. Most in the past have resulted in either no consensus or a contestible result that has ended at DRV and provoked more drama than it deserves. The process it's at now - RfC - incidentally is a consensus-gathering mechanism, and as such calls for duplications of the process seem to be process for its own sake. Orderinchaos 03:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• A DRV would be silly, this has already been to ANI and that's where DRV reviews refers really complicated deletion issues. This will just go around in circles. Besides, I'm not sure that between MfD, ANI (including some canvassing), and this RFC, we haven't nearly exhausted the likely participants.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, saying we should just !vote whether any of them should be allowed back is pretty ridiculous and biased, given that almost anything would result in No consensus. This is similar to saying that if an admin decided to delete 2,000 articles out of the blue, we should vote on whether any of them should be allowed back. As far as I'm concerned, Keilana was out of line in what she did. I have a feeling most would agree with that. Given that statement, all the cabals she deleted should be reinstated, and then just go through process and delete those believed to be worthy of deletion, if any. Enigma ^msg 05:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  This RfC endorses her close. Consider it like a DRV. No need to repeat ourselves. If she deleted 2000 articles, chances are at least 1900 would be restored, and she would be de-sysopped. But she didn't. You may find her out of line, but the community doesn't. So again, as she's said many many times, feel free to DRV it, but don't be upset if it's snow closed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not DRVing anything. Just know that I'm not alone in feeling this way. The 2,000 article example was an extreme example of doing something similar without attaining community consensus first (and blatantly ignoring an MfD, that whether it was closed too early or not, was held). Enigma ^msg 06:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Effectively the only people defending them were the members. That tells me something. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Enigmaman, you have a few options then.

1. Respect whatever consensus comes out of this RfC.
2. Create a DRV for Keilana's IAR deletions per ANI discussion.
3. MfD them (using Google cache, if it's still up).
4. Continue to tell us that you're not the only one who disagreed with the deletion.

I don't think anybody is going to stand in the way of you doing any of these. It's just that all of them, in my humble opinion, (apart from the 1st) would be a waste of time. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. Continue to tell you? I made my point once. Everyone knows what I'm talking about. All of the options you presented, including respecting whatever consensus comes out of this (hint: there will be little to no consensus coming out of this. User:Keeper76 is right on, as usual), would be a huge waste of time. As such, I won't be further commenting here unless someone directly addresses me as you have done. Enigma ^msg 06:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Inside View discussion

Let's be clear about what we're talking about. We're talking about the recently deleted "cabals". These are not real cabals, they are humorous projects in userspace some of which have an expressed purpose of improving articles to GA status. Here are most of the recently deleted pages (note some still have subpages up, apparently nobody bothered to look for those):

User:Diligent Terrier/Cabals - a list of "cabals" page categorized as humor by it's creator - Speedied during the ANI discussion, not part of WP:MFD.

The following were kept at WP:MFD but later Speedied on grounds of IAR during the ANI discussion:

User:Diligent Terrier/Smiley Cabal - a "cabal" to tag userpages with smileys

User:ComputerGuy890100/Road_Cabal - No idea what they were for except that it appears to have been humorous - it lists "N/A" as current activity

User:RyRy5/UserSpace Cabal - "This cable's main task is to help improve or keep improving your's and other member's userpage and talkpage by giving them suggestions, tips, ect"

User:RyRy5/Cool Cabal- "This cabal is for improving your cool head. But really, anyone who has a cool head or is just plain cool can join, but NO NERDS ALLOWED" The entire intro: Welcome to the Cool Cabal. This cabal is for improving your cool head. But really, anyone who has a cool head or is just plain cool can join, but NO NERDS ALLOWED. Actually, nerds can be cool, never mind. If you would like to join or if you were invited to join and would like to join, then add your name to the "Users being Considered" section.

User:Diligent Terrier/Nerd Cabal - See User:Diligent Terrier/Random Article Contest - which is still up and is an award system for article improvement

All of these were in name "member only" but this appears to have been a joke.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also included were:

MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request that you remove the "NO NERDS ALLOWED" part of the cool head cabal, as they said later in the intro that nerds were allowed. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one I came across that was deleted per IAR/ANI:

User:Einsteinewton/Sprite Cabal - Purpose: This cabal's goal is to get sprite (soft drink), sprite (computer graphics), and sprite (creature) promoted to GA then FA.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Question. What about the Giant Panda cabal? Basketball110  Talk  22:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Giant Pandas are almost extinct. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You point with that is???... Basketball110  Talk  22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside View discussion

I can't imagine that it would be particularly easy to eliminate anyone using that word to describe themselves. On that basis, unless you come up with very clear criteria for definition of the term as you're using it here, which you haven't done yet, I can't see how this conversation will even have a chance of getting anywhere. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we already know the answer

Contributors in good standing are allowed reasonably wide latitude in user space. That said, if you've got something in user space that people object to enough to bring it up, you should consider changing or removing it. Also, let's be clear: these are not "cabals". A cabal is a social construct. These are user space pages. Just because the page contains the word "cabal" doesn't mean it should be treated any differently than any other user space page. If people are objecting to these user space activities, they probably ought to stop. Friday (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

From the comments I read, some of the cabals were actually social constructs with membership votations, etc, so they are not just simple user space pages, and the word "cabal" is actualy descriptive of what was going on --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Friday said it well. I also think removing his comment was not the way to go[1][2], it makes some good points. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Who removed his comment? He put it here. He just posted it before MoP had this set up correctly and when MoP redid the page it got overwritten, so I restored it. It was originally here on the discussion page but it was all alone because comments above were on the RfC page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should be on the RfC page, but I'll leave that to Friday.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh (seeing that you've added diffs), well I put it back on the same page it started on. MoP and Friday can work it out if one of them wants it somewhere else.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, I was intending for all the opinions like Friday's to go on the RfC page for easy perusal by other users. Having stuff out of place may lead to some people oversighting it. So don't make it sound like I tried to censor him. :P Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Dihydrogen Monoxide summary

Fasces

So what your saying is is that even tho WP wouldn't be here without the editors, WP still matters more than the people that maintain it? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bundle of sticks?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 03:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the fact that many of the users operating cabals are almost solely dedicated to playing around with them, and that Wikipedia's goal is to create an encyclopedia. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Biblio said it. Nothing against you, me, or anyone else - we all matter. But while we're on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia matters more. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, some of them do do that. But still, WP is based on volunteers and more vonluteers we have the less work each one of us has to do. But if we drive away our workforce then what happens? Personally, I think that cabals are really a type of fad, and eventually they'll fade away. Also, "Bundle of sticks" Recomputing... RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, some people do write FAs for fun. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What does that have to do with anything? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"more vonluteers we have the less work each one of us has to do" - say what? 1) We don't have to do anything (because, ironically enough, we're volunteers). 2) If you want to contribute, other people doing so shouldn't stop or slow you down. I think Biblio was alluding to the fact that your comments aren't really of the "volunteer"ish type, but more towards the (IMO) "many hands make light work, and we have a deadline!" type. Which is totally not what WP is about. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

However, he has a good point; having a workload that is spread apart makes for much quicker, efficient work. For real world application, think of, say, an assembly line; if editors organize themselves and set personal goals, a lot of good work can be done. Also, I think he meant "have" as in possess, not be obligated to. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but to me, that's just hinting towards making editing obligatory, which is something I'm really against. Maybe I'm just paranoid though :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, if editing isn't obligatory, then what are we worried about? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 13:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Fasces. --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 03:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 13:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a this point. Cenarium^Talk 03:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I still agree with his summary of this situation - which is common sense - though I do think the particular situation to which you refer was a case of using a hammer to crack a nut, and blogging about the guy for all to see was probably ill advised. Orderinchaos 03:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "Editors matter, but the encyclopedia matters more." needs clarification. I can't endorse it in this form. However, I endorse the rest and the rewording. Cenarium^Talk 11:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Lara❤Love's summary

I believe you misunderstood me. What I meant by, "it's a lot like work" I didn't mean that editing was a lot like work; what I meant was that for some people editing reminds them of work and a lot of people don't want to be reminded of work (unless they work as a taste tester for Hersheys or a game programmer). RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, we come here to work on the encyclopedia, if it weren't work there would be a problem. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you missing the point. I didn't mean that editing was work; I meant that editing can sometimes remind of our workplace/school. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 01:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference? Editing reminds you of work, so editing is a lot like work... I'm not misunderstanding anything. I think you're misunderstanding the point of this project. If you don't enjoy editing, then there are more appropriate places for you to make friends. Lara❤Love 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Back the truck up. I didn't say that I didn't enjoy editing. If I didn't, then why am I here? I said, "editing can sometimes remind of our workplace/school." And I didn't say that work was a bad thing now did I? I like work, but that's not why I like editing. At work you don't get that feeling that you've accoplished something. You don't get that feeling that you've helped the world. So what am I saying? I am saying that without a little fun now and then, wikipedia essentialy becomes work away from work. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that some of the users in your circle aren't editing much, if at all, outside of user space. Those people obviously don't enjoy editing and need to go elsewhere for their chatting. If you do, that's great. But my statement is still clear and true that there is a big difference between my cabal and those created recently. Lara❤Love 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

New Wiki for cabals

OK, who created this wiki? I suspect it is someone in this discussion. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Weren't me. Too bad it's going to be deleted soon, though. I'd love to see the Community Portal, and actually considered starting one, but that would be too much deleting to be done later. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. It's not hard to figure out whom if you use the History function there and Special:Contributions here. Orderinchaos 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you hinting that you know who created it? Also, I went to Special:Listusers there, and all I saw was the "Admin", "Nothing444" (who begged me to sign up) and myself. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Line In The Sand discussion

Discuss this here. The discussion may get large, but this will help us out a lot. :) Cheers all, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many "nevers". Never denying any information? Including, like, maybe, my real name, Heinrich Gottfried Finkelmeyer John Smith? A few amendments there, indicating "relevant information" or something similar, might be in order. John Carter (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the principal guidelines of Wikipedia come first, of course. So if I say never deny any information, I'm referring to the thought that cabals shouldn't hide their activities. I'm not saying that they should be disclosing their credit card information and passwords. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing, I think there should be a limit on time spent working on the groups. Not a limit on mainspace activities done by the group, but a limit on editing the actual groups/cabals' spaces. Also, this doesn't address the issue of whether or not the pages I deleted should be restored. Should there be a DRV involved? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My version below answers most of those questions, I think. I don't think imposing a limit is a good idea - ratios are better IMO - but yes, if most of their time is spent on the cabal pages, they couldn't be defined as "productive". And yes, my rewording justifies your deletions. No need for a DRV. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Placing limits is a bit too arbitrary; we've already specified that they can't spend all their time on the groups. I think it's best we leave that a floating value; same way we define consensus, after all. The ones you deleted can be taken to a separate DRV if their creators object. I'm thinking that this policy should be a blanket for all future cabals, which should be created to follow it's guidelines. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we should get some more input, but if most people agree with DHMO's wording then this can be closed. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not arbitrary limits, I think that generally speaking "ye shall know them by their fruits" applies. If we're seeing GAs and FAs and thousands of productive mainspace edits spilling out of it, I for one don't care how it operates as long as it follows policy. If there is pretty much nothing coming out of it and editors are spending all day in "cabal space", even then it's not a major problem (although probably does need to be dealt with per WP:NOT#SOCIAL) as long as they don't do outreach and suck in potentially productive newbies. Just my 2c. Orderinchaos 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to: But all you added is an example! Just kidding, sounds good. If I make this into a policy, of course, I'll use example cabal names. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, policy (/guideline) works best when there are minimal specifics. Don't name any cabals in any policies or guidelines that this RfC results in. Just link to this page - there are plenty of relevant examples here that demonstrate both sides of the coin (see my analysis just above the endorsements here). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant using their behaviour to enforce points (for example, "cabal A shouldn't have elections"), as that usually helps along comprehension. However, we'll leave that for later. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I've expanded on my thoughts which lead up to my proposed version here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Keeper76's summary

Comment Should the cabals be restored in that case? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care. Which is why I wrote this outside view. There are no cabals. If there are cabals, then there are no cabals. If there aren't any, then there aren't any. This is a useless RfC. Different kinds of cabals. Some are set up like "schools", some are set up to push articles into better articles. Former should stay deleted (or get deleted), latter should stay and be rewarded for actually doing something around here of value. I simply recommend closing this RfC. The way it was set up, however well-intentioned, seems to be an attempt at making a blanket rule where a blanket rule won't do anything to stop Wikipedian editors from joining groups of like-minded editors. By that definition, are WikiProjects next? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Until(1 == 2)'s summary

Comment You think cabals should be illegal on Wikipedia? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If by cabal you mean an organization that secretly collaborates to gain influence, then WP:MEAT makes it clear what the community's position is. I assume by "illegal" you mean against the position of the community. But what I see being shown here has nothing to do with that, the listed pages are not actual cabals, if they were then existing policy would deal with them. If you know of an actual "cabal", e-mail me the diffs that demonstrate collusion. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Bibliomaniac15's summary

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)

Who, Keilana? bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

A reminder

Discussion doesn't take place on the RFC page. So I've moved all of it here. Please keep it here. :) Lara❤Love 14:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the discussion section on the RFC page? Should we move that here also? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the talk page is for responding/opposing outside views and the like. But don't quote me on this ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Action Jackson IV's summary

That makes no sense to me. How often do you think readers stumble upon user subpages? I'd guess very rarely. To say that any user subpage, much less to single out cabal pages, are distracting to the readers is utterly ridiculous to me. Lara❤Love 14:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review

There is now a deletion review regarding the cabals, located at WP:DRV. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)