Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Great Cabal Debate

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Excessive cabals

Take a look at User:Diligent Terrier/Cabals. These cabals are beginning to look like the start of yet another social networking, hangout. Users vote each other into the cabals and it appears to, essentially, be just a handful of users joining all of the cabals. A lot of the users here appear to be borderline unproductive as well, focusing on hanging out and having wikifriends rather than helping the project. Any thoughts on these? Metros (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There were some recent thoughts here... — Scientizzle 02:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that. I just stumbled upon these today so I wasn't aware of that discussion. Metros (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Metros - if you look at user contribs of this user and one or two related they seem to do very little else when here (although he has started and scoped a WikiProject on which development appears to have now ceased.) Orderinchaos 03:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll note one of the feelings at MfD seemed to be that cabals (and other myspace-y things) are ok, so long as their not an editors primary focus. Looking at RyRy5 (talk · contribs), out of his 3990 edits, 503 are to the mainspace and 420 to wikipedia, most are talk and user edits. Nothing444 (talk · contribs) has 369 mainspace out of 2313 and 252 wikipedia. Since both these users have declared an intent to become admins, someone might want to let them know that a 1 to 8 ratio of articles to comments will probably hurt their odds at rfa. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed that most of the users involved are speculating on future runs at adminship. Orderinchaos 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also Misscutie27 (talk · contribs) with just over 150 edits, and only about a dozen in the article space and everything else to the user space. Metros (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick check of contribs through wannabekate for a bunch of accounts, most of the users in question have 50% or more of their edits in user space or user talk space, with two approaching 75% (RyRy5 - 72.88, Einsteinewton - 75.46). Orderinchaos 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Does someone want to close the related now 10-day-old redirects for discussion debate re WP namespace redirects to the cabals? Orderinchaos 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been a few thoughts shed here also. Basketball110  Talk  03:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that there are some groups who either do constructive things (e.g. this) or whose members are constructive and need some downtime (e.g. this.) That being said, if neither of those things are occurring, the members should be gently reminded to work on the encyclopedia (which I should be doing instead of posting here...) at the very least. We all need a break from writing/admining, but it can go too far, especially when one does very little writing or adminning. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues here is that there is a huge level of bureaucracy with these projects which we've seen brought down in the past in other userspace cliques such as the codeshops/marts that were all deleted a little while back. Users have to have a particular template added to their pages, there are cabal clerks, only particular users can approve membership, etc. I don't see how that's allowable in light of previous decisions about this. Metros (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have spoken - ad nauseum - with RyRy about moving his primary focus out of User and User talk space and into mainspace. Although I !voted "Keep" on some of the cabals at MfD recently, I'm beginning to change my mind, due to what I believe to be an exclusionary nature of them. In a couple of cases they require that you get "voted in", and without sufficient support you can't be allowed "in", etc. I really am concerned by that. - Philippe 03:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the cabals linked at User:Diligent Terrier/Cabals are by vote-in only (private). There's a voting process, clerks, and a person who can grant membership. Metros (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, would a hefty application of IAR be a good idea here? (In deleting the pages) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe after a check with Master of Puppets, since he did close the MfD. But yes, another example one could cite was the whole Motto of the Day hierarchy situation. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note at his talk page asking if he'd care to weigh in here. Metros (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You must have been denied membership then. I'm still waiting for the Wikipedia Clans, like in MMORPG's. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oy vey. I've deleted them all, basically because they're a massive timesink. Feel free to reverse the deletion, DRV it, whatever, but this is ridiculous. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note there are others related, such as User:Einsteinewton/Cabals and links therein. Orderinchaos 03:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like only days ago that even bringing up this issue would get you blocked indefinitely as a troll... --Onorem♠Dil 03:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have strong opinions on User:RyRy5/Adoption Program/Classroom/Teachers, looks a lot like a cabal. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh, they're duplicating WP:AAU. If no one has any serious objections to keeping the Adoption thing and the deletion of all the other junk, then we can tag this resolved and encyclopedia get on with the important stuff. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting that feeling again... Daniel (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully they'll get the message. I've marked as resolved. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed the resolved tag, 'cuz this isn't really fully resolved (rather, editors are still unsure from the looks of it).

In my opinion, I agree that as long as editors don't focus on the cabals/groups and turn them into MySpace-like cliques/hierarchies, it should all be good. Anyway, on to my personal thoughts on the existence of these cabals; I think we'd all agree that Wikipedia can be intimidating. New editors are very often overwhelmed by the complexity of the gears that move here. I think cabals are one way to get away from the feeling of helplessness; you know, form a sort of meetingplace where people like themselves can meet up, figure out where they are in the community. Yes, that's a step towards social networking, but different people deal with the same situation in different ways.

Now, I think the approach should be more gentle than just plain flat-out deleting them. To put it honestly, there are quite a bit of people here who take things a tad too seriously from time to time, and that sometimes can negatively impact events here. I say, instead of deleting a blue streak across Wikipedia, we take a different approach and instead try to make this a learning experience. I'd appreciate getting some opinions on this before someone marks this as resolved again. ;) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For the most part we're not dealing with newbies here. This had gotten to a point where something needed to be done, it was starting to expand and become a little empire in userspace and its existence was encouraging others to do likewise. We have blocked editors in the past for this sort of stuff once it gets beyond a certain point (I'm thinking of the Gp75 case). I say this not suggesting as a remedy for the present case but to address the "this is being taken too seriously" argument. Orderinchaos 05:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I being thick? Is this an April fool? It was only a few days ago it was decided these would be kept, wasn't it? They also have on most of those cabal's pages a challenge to bring a random article up to GA status or something, which could encourage editors in their work. At most- merge it into one cabal rather than several, as it's mostly the same people.special, random, Merkinsmum 12:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no substantial debate earlier (it got piled on then closed rather rapidly) and the information available to those considering the situation was not sufficient basis to make a decision. With the exception of one editor who clearly was both a regular editor and a minor participant in the cabals, only two of the users had more than 50% of their contributions outside user/user talk space despite some having several months of history, and only one had contributed significantly to any mainspace article - and certainly not to any potential GAs - in the past four days. It appeared that these cabals had become their sole focus of editing attention, and were not only becoming self-perpetuating but were expanding into other userspaces. Orderinchaos 13:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

These pretended goals to improve mainspace content are pretexts and have never been really implemented. Cenarium^Talk 18:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I want to know why someone took the initiative to go ahead and delete all of the cabals. Just a few days ago there was an anti-cabals post here that was shot down very quickly, and a nomination at MfD, which closed very quickly in a matter of hours with a snowball keep result. Especially when the cabals have been improving articles, as in their random article contest, I think it is very inappropriate for an admin to act against the consensus and delete the cabals without any giving anyone a chance to comment. Please restore the cabals pages until a consensus is reached. Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 15:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I for one had issues with the "cabals" as those in them didn't appear to know what a "cabal" was. For example, the "Doggy Cabal" was created to improve the dog article, even though the Dog Wikiproject already exists. A cabal is not a wikiproject. As well as that issue, the groups were not open membership based, there were votes, and that goes against what wikipedia stands for. George The Dragon (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll weigh in on this one. But first let me get this straight: First, an admin deletes the cabals after there was a consensus to keep a few days ago. Second, Orderinchaos, there was a consensus to keep and the deletion discussion was closed with a consensus to keep. Also, I would be very interested in knowing who that user that was, "only one had contributed significantly to any mainspace article - and certainly not to any potential GAs - in the past four days."? Mind telling me that one, as I am a heavy RC patroller, and I know that basketball110 and DT are as well. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, reverting vandalism does not count as significantly contributing to mainspace articles. George The Dragon (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above re consensus. You and DT are, I'll give you, the closest to 50% of the editors in question - DT was 50.50% of contributions in user/user talk space, you were 50.83%. Of all the users, yourself with 1,230 had the most by a *long* way in mainspace. Your article improvement efforts (related to Medabots) were entirely your own, and no other cabal people were involved. It's worthy of note that every one of you except Einsteinewton has more userspace edits than myself, and I have 31,000+ total edits, an FA and two GAs to balance that up. Orderinchaos 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to prefixindex the userpages and usertalkpages of all users involved in these cabals. Others may have been created since, for example User:Nothing444/Secreteaters Cabal. Cenarium^Talk 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will politely assume that deleting pages after a keep consensus [1] is simply extending the idea of the day a little too far & that they will be restored by midnight. Alternatively, if I'm assuming too much of a sense of humor, no admin has a right to override the community on something like this. I will then accept the deleting admins prior invitation to revert those deletes, and assume she will be doing a deletion review. (Personally, I hate the idea of calling informal groupings here cabals, but that's another matter) DGG (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Per above and the mfds going on, it seems that there is a new consensus and that the aforementioned consensus was due to a lack of information/consideration. Cenarium^Talk 18:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It was near consensus that it was decided to KEEP. I have no idea why some admin decided to unilaterally delete. As for "borderline unproductive as well", promoting and discussing ideas is inherently non-productive until putting them into action, but quality can be the result. I would give some of these "cabals" (it's just a little humor people, not necessarily a bad thing. Levity is not banned from Wikipedia) in a user space a little more than a day (yes, some were deleted in that timeframe) to prove/disprove their worth. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The MfD was closed very quickly; perhaps if it had remained open, it would have shown a more diverse collection of viewpoints. In any case, per my usual viewpoint, I think the deletions here are reasonable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The MfD debate the keepers are claiming as "consensus" was simply a pile-on - it opened at 6:57am my time (10:57pm GMT) on 29 March. It closed at 9:46am (1:46am GMT). I agree with Carl, Cenarium and others. Also new information was provided in this section which pointed to a different conclusion, as faulty conclusions were being bandied around in the MfD. Orderinchaos 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To all of you defending the "cabals": Are you aware of what you sound like? Are you aware of why we are here? No, seriously? Do you understand that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Do you understand what a noble goal this project has? Stop bitching over this bullshit and get to work. John Reaves 21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Orderinchaos 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you singling out these cabals? There are many more cabals out there that don't help the encyclopedia as much as these did. Basketball110  Talk  21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was the Potato Head Cabal deleted? It was actually helping wikipedia with the Random Article Contest and other activities. I understand the rationale for deleting the other cabals because they had no wikipedia-related purposes but the Potato Head Cabal had a purpose.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If what you guys want to do is delete the cabals (which is obvious), then let's play this clean at take it to MfD. Speedy deleting the cabals without any speedy deletion criteria is inappropriate, especially when the consensus is pointing the other way. Until then the cabals need to be restored, per the MfD consensus just a few days ago, which closed at a snowball keep. If someone does not do this soon, I will alert an admin, and report the admin who deleted the cabals. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Which admin and where are you going to report the deleting admin? How many admins have already told you to get over it? John Reaves 21:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, why were the productive cabals chosen to be deleted, such as the ones which were improving the dog article, and participating in the random article contest? The unproductive ones, such as the Bathrobe Cabal, which uses the shortcut WP:BRC, still exists as I am writing this. By the way, I also see several respected admins in that cabal. You guys are really working against the consensus by deleting these. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

- no evidence whatsoever of any article improvement or productivity. I challenge you to demonstrate it here. Orderinchaos 23:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If your going to delete stuff, why stop there? Secret pages don't help the encyclopedia; so why not delete it? User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie doesn't do anything; so why not delete it? It's the same principal; only in our case it's worse. At least we were doing something productive. So why would you delete these and not those? Care to explain that one? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason the Bathrobe Cabal isn't deleted is because the members are all constructive contributors, and they are allowed to have a bit of fun. These "cabals" went way too far. DGG, this was not an April Fool's joke, this was a serious deletion. If you want a deletion review, that's fine by me. Regards, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All worthless cabals should be deleted, only those that help wikipedia should be kept such as the Potato Head cabal. The following is a list of worthless cabals that ought to be deleted:

• User:Greeves/Canadian Cabal
• Wikipedia:Rouge admin
• User:LaraLove/Bathrobe Cabal
• User:Hirohisat/Earth Cabal
• User:Carrera/THCCMC
• Wikipedia:Knights of NPOV
• User:Lights/Invisible Cabal
• User:Arknascar44/Love Cabal
• User:Ryulong/Penguin Cabal
• User:Regret Tenenbaum/The Regret Tenenbaum Cabal

Cabals need to have a wikipedia-related purpose otherwise they are a waste.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is the fact that the users in the groups you have named are often very productive contributors to the encyclopedia, not exclusive, bureaucratic "cabals". This discussion is a waste of time, we should be writing articles. Oy vey. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, in case you haven't noticed, we are constructive contributors, and we do take WP seriously. Also, so what you are saying is that new editors aren't allowed to have fun because some of their edits don't appear as constructive as an established one's?? Also, I noticed that my other issues about these deletions were not adressed. Also, not all of those cabals aren't constructive. And as I said before, if you want to delete useless things, why stop here? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Several of the common members are approaching 75% of edits in user/talk space. That isn't really constructive, IMO. I do delete useless things, these "cabals" are most definitely useless, thus I deleted them. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So your saying that anything useless gets deleted? Then why haven't you deleted secret pages and ubox designated pages and uboxes not related to WP deleted? Just because someone has a lot of user talk edits doesn't mean they aren't productive. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, stuff like that is fine as long as the people using them are spending most of their time doing something productive. As for the user talk count, that is indeed the case, it's not like they're having discussions about controversial subjects, they're just inviting each other to their new groups. That's not productive. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you're grasping so hard

Why we have procedure -- we have it to prevent messes like this. I see the MfD has been reopened, which was the appropriate thing to do. I'm going to comment there, where this discussion belongs. Sorry, I was looking at the secret pages MfD.

The point of procedure is that when one doesnt like a XfD close, one can do one of several things: If it was a bad non-admin close, and admin can and should simply revert it. If an admin closed it, as was the case here, then one can talk to him about it. If one still doesnt like it, one has a choice: bring it to Deletion Review, or if it was totally wrongheaded, bring it here or to ANB--and get some agreement there about what to do. . What one should not do is simply take the opposite action unilaterally using admin powers. That is really wrong. What is best to do here I am not sure of. DGG (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

to explain a little further. Step One: I really dislike these cabals, and would have voted to delete them--I think they are a violation of the spirit of WP, and that goes for all of the others mentioned. Step Two: I didnt comment at the MfD because it wasnt open long enough--I think it was not good judgment to close it quite that early. Step Three. Having been closed, another admin dealt with it in the wrong way entirely, by deleting against expressed consensus at the MfD, and without real agreement here. Step Four. I could simply follow her earlier invitation and revert her deletions, but it seems a little silly to be restoring pages I object to. Step five. The real problem is the manner of operating chosen by the admin who deleted the articles--to follow her judgment without waiting for consensus either here or at DR. DGG (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what IAR is for. IMO the best thing to do is what the community decides it best. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't get it. One MfD to decide it, plus a conversation in which I promsied to reform all the cabals I could reform, and still someone bitches about it here, and they get deleted. Am I missing something? Basketball110  Talk  00:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I wash my hands of this matter. I am sick and tired of all this. I just don't care what happens to these cabals anymore because this whole thing is getting out of hand and I'm sure that most people are one step from letting loose a stream a personal attacks that are about as dirty as mud in a barnyard. So I give up on this whole thing. I'm just going back to my near single-handed improval of Medabots and all of it's related sub-articles. I still don't understand why someone would delete cabals that are improving article that otherwise wouldn't get improved; that makes no sense whatsoever, and the admin that deleted them was wrong in doing so as she went against the consensus. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it again. If anyone wants to open a DRV, please, by all means, do. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We're getting ahead of ourselves, guys. What's the point in opening a MfD when it's clear that isn't enough? At least, it seems it isn't; there's this plethora of opposing opinions here, some of which have chosen until after the previous MfD to emerge, and we can't even agree on what cabals we want to deal with, even. For example, to quote UgaMan, there are lots of "worthless" cabals that need pruning; however, how can we prune when we've still got life in the branches? Take, say, the Bathrobe Cabal, which consists of a multitude of highly respected, seasoned administrators. Is that considered worthless? Should it be purged, even though the members of said cabal are all valued, respected members of the community? The reason I think an MfD would be fruitless is the same; we haven't even decided what we dislike, cabals in general or just specific ones. If specific, then we'd have to go around and develop consensus on every single cabal, and then do so again if there are some that were missed. If in general, then clearly it would take a lot more consensus.

Also, I disagree that cabals are a violation of WP spirit; I see no reason why we can't form groups of editors interested in a single subject, as long as membership isn't limited to others. And there's no set-in-stone prohibition on cabals improving articles; improvement is improvement, and I'm fairly sure that can be viewed from a utilitarian viewpoint in terms of this case. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Another obstacle here is that we can't even decide what constructive contributions are. One editor expresses his opinion that reverting vandalism isn't a significant mainspace contribution, yet the practice is an integral one. I, for one, am against this focus that's being expressed. I'd rather have an ambiguous nature to the policies involved here, so that editors can be in cabals and be lightweight users, or do generally what they want to do to be happy, as long as they help on the encyclopedia. If they want to be hardcore and patrol it for hours on end, that's great; if they want to be Wikignomes and contribute once a day or so, that's also fine. Editors matter, and everyone has different schedules; if we start creating specific definitions of a class of editors who contribute enough to be able to participate in cabals, then I fear we're going to go against what we're trying to achieve and alienate an even greater number of people. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally speaking, what happened should not be so surprising. The MfD was stacked and closed within barely 2 hours of its opening, and done without information pertinent to the facts and in such a way that actively discouraged any reasoned discussion (even threatening to block people!) By the time I awoke at about 9:30 that morning the whole thing was over and I saw no point in commenting. With the discussion yesterday, with actual facts being considered and a less hostile atmosphere, I expressed my opinion, so did others, they were taken on board, someone acted on those opinions, others came behind endorsing, a few (nearly all of whom were directly involved in the situation) vigorously and loudly opposed with very little factual basis to back their own arguments, and that's where we are now. I believe that contribution to the encyclopaedia can come in one of several ways - fixing vandalism is one, article development is another, facilitation of whatever means is another. Basketball110, for example, I see as providing primarily the latter function, so I have seen no need to bring his contributions into question. Incidentally, if you tally up all the 11 or so users, they come to 32,350 edits as of 3am GMT yesterday, 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. Additionally, I should add that I don't see, and never did see, this as being about "cabals" - I saw it as being a particular group of users, only about 11 or so in total, treating Wikipedia as a social networking device, in a way that was becoming infectious and roping in otherwise good editors. Orderinchaos 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

May I ask where you see the social networking? Half of the cabals had no meaning indeed, they stated no goal, and didn't really do anything; but the other half helped the encyclopedia in ways listed on this page multiple times. And my comment posted below hasn't been answered, and it has to do with this. That cabal (Giant Panda) was only for improving an article, as said below. Basketball110  Talk  03:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dog has not been edited by any of the 11, and Giant Panda has only been edited by yourself, with one very minor edit by RyRy5. I see no evidence that the 1,000+ edits (about one quarter of which were yours) to the now-deleted cabals actually achieved anything - had those edits been made to Dog and Giant Panda, we might well have better articles. Orderinchaos 03:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you speaking about the "CabalSpace," or things promoted by CabalSpace (e.g. The Random Article Contest)? Basketball110  Talk  04:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Cenarium had it right above when they said, "These pretended goals to improve mainspace content are pretexts and have never been really implemented." I have not seen any evidence that they have improved mainspace content, and my requests for evidence have gone unanswered. Orderinchaos 10:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason to delete one in particular: the Giant Panda Cabal. It wasn't a bureaucracy, and it didn't have any fancy userboxes invitation templates or anything, it was just trying to help a single article. Why was it deleted? Basketball110  Talk  02:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what Wikiprojects are for.

Cabal pages are no more pointless than other user subpages created for amusement or the like. Autograph pages (which, by the way, have been endorsed by Jimbo) serve no meaningful purpose to the project. But they encourage friendship and community. Although I don't feel there's an imminent threat to the BRC, I feel inclined to bring a little clarity.

The BRC is almost exclusively off-wiki at this point, however, we are a "cabal" of Wikipedians, so the page is there for everyone to see who's a member, to display our bathrobe images, which is really what the cabal is about, and to bring a little laughter to others (I average one message a week, either on my talk page or by email, from someone who appreciates the page and is inclined to let me know). It also encourages further membership, which is a plus. Does it serve a meaningful purpose to the project? On the surface, not at all. It's all about bathrobes, a little fun, and some friendship.

Behind the scenes, our members span from fairly new editors to a bureaucrat. We're all constructive editors, we're active in the community, we create and participate in Wikiprojects, we write GAs and FAs along with other article improvement, and those of us with the admin bit are all active. We help each other, answer questions, guide and encourage. We're a support system that I, as a member, believe is invaluable.

Deleting the BRC page would not end the cabal, but I oppose such an action as the BRC, unlike some of these other cabals that have been deleted, is neither pointless nor meaningless. The cabal has served as an inspiration for editors to set adminship as a goal (before we opened to anyone); it welcomes newer editors with a constructive editing history, bringing them into a group of established and experienced editors and admins to help guide them and assist them; it serves as great stress relief and an awesome support system for those of us who tend to get stressed over WP (particularly the admins); and we do, on occasion, do something constructive as a cabal... sort of. See the image on Bathrobe.

Anyway, cabals that promote friendship and community, and are not a detriment to the project, should not be deleted, especially out of process and against consensus. Those who argue that this is a project to build an encyclopedia and these cabals are a waste of time: 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. And bitching about cabals is also a waste of time, so it's a hypocritical argument. Lara❤Love 05:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Lara, I think what you say above is exactly why these pages all wrong, including BRC That it consists mainly of established eds. here, mainly admins, is exactly why it is even more wrong than the others. It comes too near the nonexistent C_ _ _ _ -- I recognize that the very name is part of a joke about it, but still it comes too near. Unfortunately, it was snow kept at [2], but perhaps people were too timid to oppose it. I'm not going to say that because I think otherwise, I'll delete it.

But in any case, all such pages that are objected to should be put up individually at MfD, and the consensus there followed until overturned at a later MfD or deletion review. DGG (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

BRC (and many others of both productive and silly purposes) are fine. I don't think anyone has any problem with cabals, it's a bit of a long running in joke (or more properly, an increasingly unrelated set of in jokes). It's at no-one's expense, it harms no-one, I doubt anyone has a problem with it. This applies to most userspace groupings and other such entities on Wikipedia and is why I would firmly vote against banning them if it were ever raised as a policy proposal. I should also note I voted to keep Esperanza too, although wiser heads prevailed on that one.

The issue being targetted in this particular matter though is a very specific situation involving a set of "cabals" that are not really cabals in the sense of the joke, but more the sort of exclusive "clubs" we form at about 11 or 12 in primary school where members are voted in and out and so on. I did it at that age, I'm sure most did. The problem is this particular crop of them were starting to rope in genuine, good-faith newbies and distract them from any meaningful purpose here, three more had been created since the MfD and those editors involved became more focused on them than ever (31 March was the peak of activity on most of them), had become intensely internally focussed, and when those who had founded them were spoken to about it, regular users and good faith admins were met with outright aggression, threats and various other things (and one new user was even blocked out of process just because he disagreed). That's not in the spirit of the way you or BRC have ever operated, or most of the other random groupings in user space one finds would operate. I hope I've explained the concerns sufficiently. Orderinchaos 10:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough already?

OK, so it sounds like there is consensus that the early close at MfD and the IAR deletion here were both unwarranted. If we don't restore them, it's impossible for non-admins to discuss them (and a pain for admins to do so). The discussion here isn't exactly easy to find. The cabals are arguably of differing qualities. Can we simply agree to restore all of the deleted cabals and nominate them all for deletion separately at MfD so each can be discussed on its own merits at a location where most users will think to go look for them? If, on the other hand, we would prefer to have an RFC on what exactly we want to allow for this sort of thing, like we recently did for userboxes, we still need to restore them for discussion. We don't really need a DRV for this do we folks - unless we're just trying to obtain even more exposure - the result would quite likely be to overturn both the IAR deletion and the early close, wouldn't it?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that there was any such consensus re the IAR. We are not discussing "cabals" generally (that would need to be hammered out at Village Pump (policy) and to be honest I would not favour abolishing the concept as it is a bit of fun as Lara and others have said - when in proportion it is acceptable and even beneficial), but those belonging or relating to about 10 or 11 particular users which had become a growing and present problem. It is within the scope of admin actions to deal with disruption. Restoring them would be generally regarded as disruptive at this juncture. Orderinchaos 10:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you see the Smiley Cabal and the Nerd Cabal were both having a random article contest? Many of those articles have now been peer reviewed and improved now. Deleting these cabals might warrant deletion of autograph books and secret pages if we don't stop now. 12:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? Be specific. Orderinchaos 12:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Which cabals? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 12:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Any, given that all of them were created in the last 3 weeks and, as far as I can see, none has edited, let alone improved, a single article. Orderinchaos 12:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Informal Consensus Survey

This is not a vote by any means ... I'd just like to get an idea of who is on what side. Please answer say whether you support or oppose the idea below. Do not make comments by your 'support' or 'oppose'; instead make them in the comments section ... I don't want to start another long discussion in the middle of the opinions. Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

---

• There were several productive cabals, such as the Mr. Potato Head Cabal, the Smiley Cabal, and the UserSpace Cabal which intended to improve Wikipedia through the random article contest, or helping people with their userspace. These cabals should be restored and kept.
  • Support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 12:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

---

• Non-productive cabals should also be kept because the promote a spirit of friendliness, such as the Smile template. Deleting them would warrant deletion of many pages, such as WikiProject Shave the Wales. It is also hard to judge whether a cabal is productive or not, and many people who do not like cabals may try to say that productive cabals are unproductive in order to have them deleted.
  • Support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

---

• This survey is pointless because we are not here to "find out what side" people are on. We need to discuss, not lop ourselves into set categories. Metros (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Metros (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Orderinchaos 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Abstain from both, as questions are loaded. The first implies that they intended to improve Wikipedia, whether one supports or opposes; the second implies that the fate of these groups is necessarily linked to anything else on Wikipedia, which is a fallacious argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and also as it has never been argued those groups/pages are disruptive. Orderinchaos 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You can add your own argument up there if you want. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Is there really a positive effect of restricting users from getting together and competing to improve the encyclopedia (considering that is the encyclopedia's ultimate goal and that competition would only make editors more efficient and faster). — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 12:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If they were doing that, none of this would ever have happened. Orderinchaos 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I see a stack coming on. 22 talk page canvasses - you didn't think I wouldn't check after your games at WP:ALTED etc? I'm rather disappointed in you - I had hoped that you had learned from those earlier instances. Orderinchaos 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I came here as a result of the message, but am grateful for it... I commented on an MfD, as keep. That MfD was closed as keep, perhaps incorrectly early. The resolution to such a scenario isn't an IAR deletion organised through ANI - there's a community driven process in place to organise deletions, and it seems to have been curtailed for no good reason in this case. I'd urge for undeletion of the cabals and a reopening of the MfD as the swiftest way to resolve this and offer the community, as opposed to a select group of admins, the opportunity to comment. This whole situation is a complete disgrace to be honest. Thanks, Martinp23 13:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OIC, he did learn of earlier instances. So notifying users is cavassing now huh? Well then, what about invites to wikiprojects? It's the same principal. Explain that one. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No he didn't - he behaved *exactly* as I thought he would, although hoped he wouldn't. That sort of "notification" of a "survey" (which he claims is not a vote) with an intent to stack is a blatant breach of WP:CANVASS, and always has been for as long as we've had that guideline. I quote: "...messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive". As for inviting to join WikiProjects, there is actually no problem with such notifications as long as they are not excessive (see "excessive cross-posting" under the canvassing guideline). Orderinchaos 13:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I care, anyone who commented on the MfD to start with should have been informed of this discussion rather than it being allowed to continue in (oh, the irony!) such a cabalistic manner. Martinp23 13:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the message did seem pretty neutrally worded, and as long as everyone was informed, not just the SNOW keepers of the initial MfD, this does not seem to be a breach of WP:CANVASS. GlassCobra 13:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Keilana, Scientizzle, Metros, Daniel, Carl/CBM, Onorem, myself, John Reaves, Cenarium and anyone who has expressed a contrary view to the cabals had not received such a talk page notice. Orderinchaos 13:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Then it's canvassing. -- Naerii 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally I can't stand it when people cite AGF at each other, but it seems plausible to assume in this case that Diligent Terrier had merely started with the people from the MFD and was going to move on to everyone else when Orderinchaos accused him of canvassing. GlassCobra 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

All the messages were posted in a 3-minute period. There was 6 minutes on here, 16 on his talk page between the end of that and my accusation. Orderinchaos 13:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What we're dealing with is a completely new situation. The activity actually peaked on 31 March (270 edits on that day alone) and was starting to become intensely disruptive and was spreading beyond its locus (three of the cabals were created after the MfD) - also, the particular users involved in the situation were not subjected to any scrutiny during the MfD, and no valid points whatsoever were made to keep it, beyond a few personal opinions about the category of pages generally. The one person who disagreed was blocked indefinitely for no apparent reason - way to have a debate, for sure. As soon as they were put under the spotlight, certain things became rather blatantly obvious, and concerns that newbies were being roped into this were aired. This could have been dealt with under WP:DISRUPT, but it was clearly more civil to do so under WP:IAR instead. The MfD was therefore irrelevant to the issue, as we were now dealing with behaviour, and the existence of the pages was simply a tool to enable that behaviour. Orderinchaos 13:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be edit warring over these messages which I must say is pretty late considering that anyone logging on is going to check their talk page history to see what the edit warring was over... please just stop. And for what it's worth, I voted keep but now they're gone I'm happy for them to stay deleted. -- Naerii 13:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If the creators want them restored they can take them to deletion review just like everybody else. -- Naerii 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise wholeheartedly for my silliness on this - I should probably have left them reverted and ignored the barb in the edit summary. *sigh* As I keep telling others (when in a better frame of mind), and hereby remind myself, it's only a website. Orderinchaos 13:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the way the "message group" was selected (based on the MFD), the survey itself was incredibly biased. There's not one option there that supports the opposite side of Diligent Terrier's beliefs. There is no option that says anything like "cabals can be okay, but none of these cabals were okay" or any phrasing like that. Metros (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was actually notifying everyone, including George the Dragon (the original complainer) and DGG, who favors deletion. After I finished notifying the MfD people, and started with the people on this page (as you can see) the new message bar popped up, so I had to stop. I really don't see how this was canvassing. My message was not biased one bit. All I said was that there was an ongoing discussion! Now can people please fill out the survey ... it is not a vote, I just would like to see who is one what side. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Message bar popped up" happened 30 minutes (13:21 UTC) after your last notification (12:51 UTC). With comments like that, I'm now convinced that you have no intention of operating in good faith when it comes to this particular matter. "Whatever it takes" did not work at WP:ALTED as an approach two weeks ago, and it's certainly not working today. Orderinchaos 16:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly did take a break after that. I got called away from the computer. I'm serious! Otherwise, why would I have started to get the rest of them opposing it, but not finish. This is ridiculous. You need to start assuming good faith and stop picking on people. And why are you archiving the survey? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And DT - I'm not "picking on" anyone. When someone raises an argument which does not withstand criticism and is internally inconsistent, I think it's only fair to question it. Your annoyance seems to stem from this. Orderinchaos 16:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You also alerted several people who talked in this thread but not the deletion discussion like Doug and Lara Love. Those appear to be the only two who were alerted to this survey who only discussed here. Ironically, both appear to support cabals. Metros (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"I just would like to see who is one (sic) what side." We don't draw up sides here. We discuss. And as I stated a few up, where is "the other side" in this survey? All this survey does is support the cabals, but there's no opposing side. How is that not biased? Metros (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I said you can add your own argument if you want, or oppose one of the existing ones. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Logical flaw. Oppose means accepting the contention or basis of the argument, while disagreeing with its orientation. Orderinchaos 16:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's say you have a referendum which asks a question. Answering yes to the referendum accepts its premise and its intent. Answering no to the referendum accepts its premise but for whatever reason (ideological, political, practical etc) rejects its intent. Abstaining means acknowledging the entire process is completely flawed because the question sucked. Look up the Thai general election, April 2006 for a good example. Orderinchaos 16:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Myspace is down the hall. Here, it's an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I am so sick of this whole discussion. Since we can't appear to come to an agreement with all of this, why not just let some neutral party settle this whole thing for us. If it's all right with everybody, I will contact B (after all, have seen him on here?) and see if he will comment on this subject. Sound fair to everybody? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

All that some of us are looking for is a straight answer. That hasn't been forthcoming. Until it does, even a neutral party isn't going to be able to manage the good faith chasm which has emerged. Orderinchaos 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"All some of us"? meaning? Also, then there is another option: WP:ARBCOM. How 'bout that one? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom wouldn't accept it unless other means of dispute resolution have been tried, and frankly, even if it had, I think they'd reject it anyway. Fixed sentence - hope it makes more sense. Orderinchaos 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The time that has been spent arguing over this far outweighs any time that may have been wasted in the making and maintaining of these cabals. -- Naerii 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are so sick of disccusing this, stop discusssing it and get over it. An arbcom case? You do realize that April Fool's Day was yesterday? John Reaves 17:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Ring a bell? WP:CIVIL. Sound familiar? WP:BITE. Hmm, that one would apply. Also, it's comments like that that will result in an arbcom case. Also, I agree with User:Naerii on this one. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I know this one...is it "acronym-policies irrelevant to anything I've said"? I'll bet 20 US dollars there will be no arbcom case. John Reaves 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost everyone else here is an admin. Many of us have been in ArbCom proceedings before. I'm fairly confident that arbs would not agree to hear it. We're talking about a bunch of users who are upset because their cabals got deleted. They were deleted with good, and defensible, reason. So far, the one basic question I've asked has gone unanswered. When claims are made with no evidence behind them, they should be tested. A lot of claims have been made - mostly the same one repeatedly, but others too. The evidence appears to contradict them entirely. You are a good contributor and I respect that, but none of your positive contributions have arisen out of the cabals. Same is true of Basketball, and of Maximillion Pegasus. Where is the productivity coming out of the cabals - where's the evidence? Even one diff? If this is ruled an irrelevant question, I shall have to note all the occasions that this assertion has been made by members, including in the flawed MfD, and wonder why it was ever made other than perhaps to try and sway the debate to an opinion it wouldn't have come to on the evidence. Orderinchaos 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And almost everyone here is an admin because non-admins can't even look at the pages we are discussing and because this is the Administrators Noticeboard.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, anyone can - it's not a restricted page. Several non-admins are posting. Orderinchaos 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)*Several times DRV has been mentioned, at least 4 times by the deleting Admin, but DRV says in extreme cases to bring things to ANI which is where we are. Thus any DRV would be superfluous. I have never looked at any of these pages and I don't believe I commented at the MfD. My issue with this is that the deletion was out of process - Speedy/IAR deletion of pages that were just discussed at MfD is inappropriate - even if the MfD was incorrectly speedy closed per WP:SNOW. These pages should be undeleted and individually discussed. Without them being undeleted we cannot even fully discuss them!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! If the admin was going to delete them; he should have at least reopened the MFD case. Also, OIC, User:Diligent Terrier/Random Article Contest that was being pretty helpful. Also, if your trying to scare me, it's not working. "Almost everyone else here is an admin."? Recomputing. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that appeared at all threatening - that wasn't the intention. My point was more along the lines of "when you don't know much about a process, and are in a room full of people who do, it's generally best to try and avoid looking silly." I find myself in that situation frequently at conferences where everybody is a professor or a PhD or subject expert and I'm like a vaguely interested person with a professional affiliation somewhat related to the field in question. On looking through I found the page you referred to - that was never deleted, my point related to the pages which were deleted. Orderinchaos 18:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So now I Don't know anything about the arbcom process? hmmm. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't before I'd been a peripheral party in three of them either. Orderinchaos 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is the job of admins on this site to prevent disruption. In effect we have a responsibility to do that. I believe, as do quite a few other good faith admins and others, that the removal was valid on that basis. There has been no good argument for keeping them, and the spurious arguments raised in their favour (including at the woefully flawed, closed-out-of-process and defended-with-a-WP:BITE-indef-block MfD) have been demolished with the sheer weight of evidence. If the users forgot about the cabals (like RC-0722 said earlier on this page he intended to) and actually developed articles with the time they're spending on cabals and spending here defending them, or put the effort into the article drive at the WikiProject quite a few of them originate from, they'd *have* a GA by now. Orderinchaos 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of my arguments getting thrown by the wayside. The question is not, "Why should I listen to him?" The real question is, "Why shouldn't I listen to him?" Arbcom would probably take this seriously, as an admin went against the consensus and deleted them a few days after they nominated for deletion and the consensus was keep. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No it didn't. A flawed process with non-arguments was invalidly speedy closed by an admin before the sun even rose in most of the developed world. People were intimidated into not challenging the result by unusually heavy-handed conduct on AN/I and threats (and in one case action) of a block. See this quick analysis of the MfD. From the deletion guidelines we admins are bound to follow: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Every one of the 14 delete votes fit into one of the latter two criteria. Orderinchaos 18:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)

RC-0722, Your arguments are not getting thrown by the wayside, Orderinchaos just doesn't agree with you. I don't either with respect to starting an ArbCom case.

Orderinchaos, I absolutely disagree that there has been no good argument for keeping these (an Admin closed an MfD as Speedy Keep - seems like he thought there was a good argument) and more importantly that we can't discuss this properly without allowing non-admins to see what we're talking about. There are fewer editors commenting here than at an average MfD. It is completely out of process to close as IAR delete after a recent MfD. It's not like speedying for G12. You don't just say, you know that MfD not only doesn't represent consensus but clearly the three people who have commented here do, so much so that I'm going to unilaterally overturn the closing admin. That's not the way this is done. It looks bad even if it's completely correct in the end. Better to let the process run than correcting a speedy keep with a speedy IAR delete.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It was out of process - just because an admin did it doesn't make it valid. 10 admins are on the record here and on AN/I disagreeing with the close. Several people (both users and admins, strangely) have said they felt uncomfortable with expressing their opinion due to the intimidation being levied at the time. There is no need to "let the process run" merely to continue the time-wasting and disruption. People should move on and prove me wrong. I would be happy to be proven wrong and have these people creating GAs and improving articles and contributing productively to WikiProjects and getting their U/UT-to-other-edits ratio below 1:1 (RC-0722 is the closest to the boundary line so about 200 edits would get it down to about 45% - I got my FA with 137.) I am even considering at this stage offering a reward for the first person of those 11 to get a GA or FA out of a stub article if it would mean these people would get into the Wiki spirit of doing things. Collaboration - I'm all for it, that's what the talk page is for, and the WikiProject talk pages/subpages. If more than one user has an even claim to it, I would offer one reward to each user. (That is a serious offer, by the way.) Orderinchaos 18:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

----

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question

Someone who has been watching this page, please give me a good reason not to restore the cabals and put them through a full and proper MfD? I'm asking this here to save me from reading the full 69kB posted here, though I will do if I need to.. Martinp23 02:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - this looks like blind idiocy, I know. Basically I object to the fact that the community's right to offer input has been curtailed... I mean MfD is there for a reason, and if a nom is closed early the answer is usually to reopen it. Is the encyclopedia going to be harmed by letting these pages exist for 7 days more while a full MfD takes place? Um, no. Martinp23 02:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be a problem as it's under RfC right now (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cabals.) I would suggest deletion review as the proper place. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well DRV is for in-process deletions, which this wasn't. I feel that re-opening an MfD is going to be the best way to determine the consensus for these pages (at least), and perhaps act as a springboard to further discussion in the future. Martinp23 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening an MFD is of course your prerogative, however, I'm simply suggesting that DRV would be a better route. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The MfD process utterly failed the community the last time. Why should a second work now, especially after the heat and light that's been generated out of this? Orderinchaos 04:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A point that hasn't been made really is that these groups were accomplishing something. Did you see the Random Article Contest, the articles that were peer reviewed through it, and the ones working towards GA status? There was a lot of activity on improving those articles, which is why the MfD closed in hours, before I or almost any of the members of any of the cabals (with the exception of one member) could comment on it. Now, when one person complains to AN/I, and one admin agrees with him, all of the sudden that's a good enough reason to delete everything that's productive? I'm sorry, but no, this has not been resloved. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't start this crap again, take it to the RfC or whatever. -- Naerii 19:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already there. And this discussion never ended, so how can we start again if we didn't stop? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I should be telling you: don't start your bit where you say the cabals ruin Wikipedia, and do nothing but slow down the servers, when really you know they do more than that ... you know they improve articles. I think you're just envy the fact that the cabals are as successful as they are. Instead of coming to a compromise, you play dirty tricks like getting an admin to delete the cabals despite a earlier wide and unanimous consensus to keep them! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Any time I sit down and spend time working on the encyclopaedia, the result is either an upgrade in status of the article or a new article at minimum Start class. If I saw similar productivity amongst the cabal members, I would not at all be calling for their deletion. It's the fact that productivity in mainspace has been reduced by them - those editors who are to some extent contributing stop doing so - that creates the issue. I do find it amusing how noone can point to a single article improved by the cabals while making such wildly hyperbolic claims. Orderinchaos 00:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. First of all, the cabals did nothing. Neither dog nor giant panda was improved beyond marginally by the groups. The only remotely productive thing was the random article contest, which I encouraged. Second, Naerii did not ask me to delete anything. I deleted what I deleted of my own accord, and I stand by that action, and will be held accountable for it. There seems to be a general consensus among non-"cabal" members that the ones deleted were unproductive and we're better off without them. Also, the MfD cannot be called a consensus, many U.S. editors had no chance to comment because of the time. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Giant Panda diffs between when we started, and now... Basketball110  Talk  22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Impressive! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I see a change in image size, some link fixes, and wording changes. No content additions or anything like that. I'm also seeing ~20 edits made by "cabal" members. If you want to start a loose collaboration group - see the WP:TSQUAD for example of loose - that would be fine, but excessive bureaucracy will just get it deleted again. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the people who supported keeping the cabals, DT. Keilana, I'm pretty sure they're taking the piss now. -- Naerii 23:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Basketball's contribution to the Giant Panda article was good. My only point re that was that it was his individual contribution and had nothing to do with the cabal. Also the points above re the Random Article Contest are completely moot as that was not deleted. Orderinchaos 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RyRy5 also edited. Basketball110  Talk  00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The deletions were well done. I don't see any reason to consider restoring; has any evidence been presented that they were valuable? Let's just call this a lesson learned and leave it alone. Friday (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Random Article Contest... wasn't that the slightest bit valuable? And all the other small evidence is in the deleted content, but that wasn't much. Basketball110  Talk  00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As I keep highlighting, that was not deleted. Orderinchaos 00:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's why it wasn't deleted. If there are no objections, both this and the RfC can be closed soon, and we can all get back to the encyclopedia. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But will the participating cabals be restored? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the cabals need to be restored in order for this contest to be run. Metros (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Metros is absolutely correct. Why do you need to be in some kind of "cabal" to work on an article? We seem to be okay with you running this contest in your userspace, but it doesn't need to be accompanied by some hierarchical group. GlassCobra 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)