Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
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.
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.
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.
{Users who have participated in the dispute}
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.}
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:
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:
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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 by electrons, the food of thought--Pewwer42 Talk 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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 breach the principle of open community. I add that these groups were overly bureaucratic and hence violate Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
Editing Wikipedia's mainspace is a serious purpose, though it can be done in a humorous atmosphere. 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.
Template:humor were misused because the primary focus of these pages were not to be funny, but to monitor a group of individuals. Per the exclusionary and bureaucratic attitude aforementioned, I would say more: they betray the grounds of WP:HUMOR.
However, groups working on a specific topic of the encyclopedia should be allowed as long as they don't use template:humor but a variant of it, clearly explain their goals to improve mainspace content, how they differentiate from wikiprojects and don't break other policies or guidelines, in the way proposed by Master of Puppets. Subsequent guidelines should be created if necessary.
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 the community.
Users who endorse this summary:
Obviously our first concern is the encyclopedia. But, for some of us, Wikipedia is our downtime and we don't just come here to edit (cuz that can sometimes remind us of our workplace/school). They come here to have fun, laugh at the vandals, talk to other editors half way around the world, tell Mitt Romney jokes. And cabals help us do that. Now, I'm not saying that having 20+ cabals is a hot idea, but if we limit the number then I really don't see what's wrong with cabals as long as the number is limited and the membership isn't restricted.
Users who endorse this summary:
Cabal pages are no more pointless than other user subpages created for amusement. They are fun pages in user space. Cabals that promote friendship and community and are not a detriment to the project should not be deleted. All work and no play makes for a dull job, and we're not getting paid for this, so those who work hard should be allowed to have a little fun. This is where the cabals deleted this week differ from other, existing cabals, such as the BRC and Ryulong's Penguin Cabal. Established editors who contribute constructively and regularly should be allowed lenience in their user space to create such subpages for their own amusement and that of others, providing that those involved continue to spend the vast majority of their editing time improving the project rather than fooling around on a subpage. Otherwise, such pages that prove to be a distraction for editors, and leave the community with the impression that those involved are not here with the goals and betterment of the project in mind, should be deleted, and those participating in them reminded that we are here to build an encyclopedia and that should be our main focus, not using Wikipedia as a social networking site because editing is "a lot like work".
Users who endorse this summary:
I believe it is important to get Wikipedia's users to smile and be friendly with each other. However, there are some people who believe cabals do nothing other than distract users from their work on articles or slow down Wikipedia's servers. I would tell them that some of the cabals were productive. The Mr. Potato Head Cabal and the Nerd Cabal were helping improve article through the Random Article Contest. The UserSpace cabal helped people with their userspace. These kind of productive cabals need to be tolerated, provided admission is free and public, and the cabals are easy to join. I also think that if a cabal becomes purely social, the user whose userspace it is in should be notified at least a week before the admins consider deletion. This will give the members a chance to work towards improving Wikipedia in some way. So in the words of Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, "Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing." - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
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".
O_o NonvocalScream (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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:
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:
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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)
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)
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
Wikipedia exists for its mainspace - the articles. Yes, other things need to be done in the background to keep up the quality of the articles. One of these is groups of users who work on a common task - be it improving the articles about Dinosaurs, or keeping the level of spam down. Such a group is commonly called a WikiProject, not a cabal. Any cabal which, in fact, does that should be promoted to the status of WikiProject, and any which doesn't - the group doesn't belong on Wikipedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I can't believe that people are even bothering to discuss this. Whatever you all decide to do, I'm sure it will have no positive or negative effect on Wikipedia. So I'm coming down firmly in the "I don't really care, go right ahead and do whatever" camp.
Users who endorse this summary:
The creation of these kinds of groups have unfortunately become a bit of a MySpace-ish enterprise. The social networking and clique-like aspects of some of them devoid attention away from improving Wikipedia (whether intentionally or unintentionally). Editors do matter and groups created with the intentions of collaboration are indeed to be commended but not when the collaboration is over the expansion of userspace. To me even the serious aspects of cabals (such as improving a genre of articles) at times strikes me as unnecessary forks of WikiProjects but perhaps that's being a bit too nitpicky. In regards to the humorous ones that embrace more of the inside joke cabals were originally intended to be, we have enough humor pages to ironically fill an encyclopedia (450+ in the humor category alone)! So it seems we have enough pages to keep the smiles on our faces for for a long time :)...I perhaps would agree with the KISS approach mentioned in the Inside/Outside Views above and keep the ones that relate to improving the project.
Users who endorse this summary:
I don't see a problem with cabals, as they are not disrupting the encyclopedia. However, I think if you are such cabal you should still mainly work with the mainspace (because that's why we're here), and I don't think it should be overdone, as in a cabal for anything you can think of. Summary: don't make it a huge deal.
Users who endorse this summary:
I feel compelled to start a section on this. No matter what position you take on this, ignoring everything in general and just deleting the "cabals" out of the blue and not notifying the involved parties was absolutely wrong. Any real "outside view" would see it this way, in my opinion. And that's totally ignoring whether anyone feels the cabals should or shouldn't stay. User:DGG summed it up well. Enigma msg 05:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I cringe at the thought of 'policy' being created in regards to cabals. Every time a policy is made, a law is enacted, or a guideline is put into action, that means something I was allowed to do on Monday, is no longer allowed on Tuesday. That's not the way it should work. When this becomes a problem, disruptive, or starts breaking Wikipedia, it should be taken on a case by case basis. Deletions of particular cabals, without review, is utterly disappointing. It's entirely subjective to say that one cabal is productive, while one is a joke, while another has good editors, while another is using Wikipedia as MySpace. It's a slippery slope that is generally avoided by what we call 'criteria for speedy deletion' - not 'I have deleted pages per my own discretion, and take it to DRV if you have a problem.' IAR doesn't generally apply to things like speedy deletions and civility (although one could argue I have ignored the latter). Who is going to deem one cabal merits inclusion and another does not? Certainly not me. All these recent debates make me think there is some possibility that editors are beginning to feel that high school is happening all over again because the 'cool kids' aren't sitting with them at lunch. When one 'cabal' becomes an issue, address it when and if that should ever happen, on an individual basis on what damage the cabal has done, and not on the merits or lack of in regards to the members and their contributions.
Whether or not the "cabals" distract editors from the Encyclopedia is a he-said-she-said red herring. I think the real question is: Do they distract readers from the encyclopedia? My answer would be a resounding "yes", and the readers that aren't distracted may well question the overall maturity of a project with geeky self-consciously ironic "cabals" everywhere. The feather-ruffled editors racing to cry "Editors Matter" should keep in mind that, unlike a 9-5 job, nobody is forcing them to remain on Wikipedia. Hence, "friendly" perks need not be handled in the same way that they are in progressive workplaces - if you're bored, there's nobody stopping you from playing some Yahoo! Games, or even logging off the computer (should it come to that!). --Action Jackson IV (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As dozens have said already, cabals should be allowed, but not exclusive cabals. I have one more thing to add to this medley: Overdoing it is not okay. If several cabals are formed within weeks of each other with virtually the same members in each, as was the case here, all but one should be deleted. Having fun is okay. Clogging up the encyclopedia with dozens of cabal clones is not. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary
Why do you care? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so I've run through all opinions and sort-of created a conglomeration of them. Discuss to your heart's content on the talk page; basically, I'm trying to get down the basics of a ground policy for these sorts of things. So feel free to take my draft and change it up, state your changes, and we'll slowly but surely develop consensus. If you support this view as it is, feel free to sign it. There may be more than one revision that needs signing, of course; depends on what the community agrees on.
The draft: Cabals are inevitable, as with millions of users browsing Wikipedia daily, friendships and groups are bound to form. However, these groups should never become exclusive, and should never hide activities or deny information to others who are not in the group. The name 'cabal' is primarily humorous, and should not be taken literally. These groups should also never lose focus of the goal of building an encyclopedia. Ideally, they should be used for cooperation and to improve Wikipedia. Hierarchical or arbitrative activities, such as voting, promoting, and such, should not occur; also, there should be no prizes or pacts (for example, "improve article X and you're nominated for an admin/get a barnstar") because, as Giggyaka. Dihydrogen Monoxide brings up, editing should never become work, but remain a hobby. Humour inside these groups should be allowed, though it should not group to silliness, and editors should never lose sight of Wikipedia.
Users who endorse this summary:
Just made a few minor changes so it's more toward the main point, IMO.
The draft: "Cabals" are inevitable, as with millions of users browsing Wikipedia daily, friendships and groups are bound to form. However, these groups should never become exclusive, and should never hide activities or deny information to others who are not in the group. The name 'cabal' is primarily humorous, and should not be taken literally. These groups should also never lose focus of the goal of building an encyclopedia. Ideally, they should be used for cooperation and to improve Wikipedia, however, "cabals" containing otherwise productive users are given some leeway in this regard. Hierarchical or arbitrative activities, such as voting, promoting, and such, should not occur; also, there should be no prizes or pacts (for example, "improve article X and you're nominated for an admin/get a barnstar") because, as Dihydrogen Monoxide brings up, editing should never become work, but remain a hobby. Humour inside these groups should be allowed, though it should not group to silliness, and editors should never lose sight of Wikipedia's goal of building an encyclopedia.
Basically, this would mean the TSQUAD is allowed (as a collaboration), the BRC is allowed (as the participants work on the encyclopedia too), but most of the cabals that were deleted by Keilana would stay so. Cabals that only help with userspace, and don't contain otherwise productive members (as is the case here) should be deleted, because improving your userpage does not improve the encyclopedia. Also, cabals that say they're improving articles (Dog, Giant Panda, etc.) should actually show edits to said articles, or else deleted (and none of them have done that so far, as demonstrated by Orderinchaos).
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
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)
Created one at User:Master of Puppets/Cabal policy, take a gander. It's based on the draft we wrote, and the opinions on the views section. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 19:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)