User talk:Master of Puppets/Cabal policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sounds reasonable so far, though I think maybe it should be broadened into, um, a "Frivolity policy". "Secret pages" were put up for deletion recently (outcome: no consensus), and many of the issues are the same, and I've also seen userpage games such as chess and "20 questions" criticized, in a spirit of serious fuddy-duddism.--Father Goose (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - Is there really any need for a policy/guideline about Cabals? I think that all the relevant discussions took place in November/December 2006 when Esperanza was proscribed. The discussion was lenghthy and crossed over many discussion pages and projects. I just don't see why we need to reinvent policy when the systems we have in place aren't broken. If new users need help with explaining with their secret club has been deleted just refer them to Signpost. Policy and guidelines for the sake of it is counter-productive and bureaucratic. -- BpEps - t@lk 10:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    re Esperanza - I was around in Nov/Dec 2006, but wasn't aware of the issues (then or now - and nowadays I'm an admin). As WP is an evolving community it is appropriate that such matters are reviewed and updated - and the best format is when similar incidents occur. Self identified cabals are a fact, and need to be considered on the basis of that. Which is what we are doing here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the difference with Esperanza and these cabals (for the most part) is that the cabals are just a jokey way to hang out. Esperanza had specific goals (and bureaucracy), and was threatening to become a sort of "inner encyclopedia" (i.e., an actual cabal).
On the surface, there would seem to be nothing wrong with socializing with fellow Wikipedians, even on Wikipedia itself. But if they turn into, in essence, lobbies -- or cliques that impact the actual encyclopedia -- then that becomes a problem that needs to be addressed.--Father Goose (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I written a version of this "policy", although mine is very much an essay here. -- BpEps - t@lk 13:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Nicely-written essay. I'd support this approach; just document what they are and what we usually do about them, without getting all "policy" on the situation. I tweaked your essay a bit, I hope you don't mind. I'd support moving it into the Wikipedia: namespace.--Father Goose (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please tweak away, I only wrote it to give another perspective on how it could be framed. I doubt that this whole thing is ever going to move beyond the scope of essays. One of the longest threads on the Wikien-l was about The Bathrobe Cabal. -- BpEps - t@lk 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, that is one of the lamer discussions ever had on a mailing list... and that says a lot. It wasn't even about the validity or acceptability of the cabal. It was whining about a harmless redirect, page protection of my user subpage, and CSS "hacks", along with some other inappropriate comments. I don't see a need to cite something so shameful. Lara❤Love 04:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I actually forgot all the details but I remember everybody getting heated about it. Sorry to bring it up. I only used it as an example of how harmless cabals provoke strong opinions on all sides. -- BpEps - t@lk 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - stuff it. Cabals happen, no policy is going to do anything about that, get over it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I hope you're aware that the RfC on this issue broadly disagreed with you. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Partially support One of the purposes on this is to stop attacks on those "cabals" which are supported by practice here, so even if one likes these groups much more than I do, there would be reason for having this policy. But I simply disagree with " Ideally, they should be used for cooperation and to improve Wikipedia, however, "cabals" containing otherwise productive users are given some leeway in this regard" --some people do think this--but I do not think that part has consensus. DGG (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Better phrasing might be more akin to "such groups should not interfere with or distract from work on the encyclopedia." Other than that, I do have to point out the obvious pitfalls of trying to regulate interpersonal associations (off-wiki, even?); about the best we can do, there, is to say that any group seeking to exist on-wiki should have justifiable membership criteria in step with project goals (generally, this will mean things should be as open as possible to keep in step with our ideals, but OTRS could be an example of a legitimate but closed association due to its needs). – Luna Santin (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - there should be no prizes or pacts (for example, "improve article X and you're nominated for an admin/get a barnstar") - So we're getting rid of the reward board? If people want to encouraged others to improve the 'pedia with prizes, that is completely acceptable. Wikiprojects do this during backlog elimination, assessment rating and article improvement drives. It should be no different for Cabals which intend to be productive. Why penalize a group actively improving the project? That makes no sense. Lara❤Love 04:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It depends, if the member of the groups promise their !vote for the RFA of the other members for example, as a reward or not, it's heavily cabalistic and it's not the spirit of Wikipedia. And barnstars, nowadays, mean nothing. CenariumTalk 16:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Avoid the slippery slope of 'which cabal is better than another' by tackling the issue on a case by case basis, should any damage actually occur as the result of a cabal. This is far too subjective. I know not a single editor fit to judge when another editor 'loses sight of Wikipedia's goal.' the_undertow talk 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Less laws the better, you need to weigh up the extra weight/confusion/spaghetti that new policies add against what actual value would the bring to the table. Personally this current draft brings very little, basically nothing that is not already covered elsewhere. So in summary I'm sorry but I will have to oppose. Appreciate the effort and thought put in to this, but it should not be made formal policy. (let it carry on existing as a userpage/essay/etc....) Mathmo Talk 05:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose never thought I'd say this but this is needless instruction creep. All issues with cabals etc, can be addressed under existing guidelines. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose An essay will be fine. I don't think that a guideline will be that useful, but rather a source of dissensions. Also, I'm not comfortable with the idea to grave rules on "how groups of people should behave". However, It's possible to amend WP:NOT and other guidelines in the following sense. For example: WP:BURO, we should say that it applies to internal groups of users also (we take this for granted maybe, but this precision in the guideline will make things clearer and easier in the future I think). Same for the principle "Wikipedia is an open community". I.e., these rules are "hereditary". CenariumTalk 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That was a reference to hereditary properties in mathematics. A self reference may be: a cascading guideline. CenariumTalk 16:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not already states most of this information in the sections WP:MYSPACE, WP:BURO and WP:DEMO Antonio Lopez (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose - A hard, fast set of rules on how cabals or groups should operate is against the spirit of Wikipedia, not to mention the concept of WP:IAR.--WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)