Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence/User:Abd/Cabal

I'm disappointed. Am I no longer a member of the cabal? tsk. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure if we're allowed to add ourselves. Nevard (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. Cabal not accept just anyone. What have you done for cabal lately? You want honor of cabal membership, you must work for it. Support other members, do some helpful reverts, vote to ban critics of cabal, dig up some dirt, stick your neck out by defying ArbComm. Where were you when WMC was fighting alone against Rootology? Why was he forced to hit 4RR to keep Abd from corrupting RfAr with his disruption? Are you going to let WMC take the fall like ScienceApologist?

want the real reason? Relevance was considered. Make yourselves relevant, and you can have the honor. There may be many Cabals as I've defined it, but I've only come across one, originally visible in RfC/GoRight. Nevard, you may hold similar POV, but you've not stuck your neck out enough to make the cut, for, contrary to rumor, disagreeing with Abd isn't the qualification, I didn't even think of you. Spartaz, you didn't show up on enough lists. I'm taking risks, not committing wikisuicide.

It's about time that tag-teaming is addressed. Who tag teams? Cabals are the only teams that can usually get away with it. -- Abd (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You still havent answered the question of why I'm no longer a cabal member if you thought I was earlier. That's a very serious allegation you made that was upsetting and you haven't made any effort to apologise or put right your finger pointing. I would also like an exaplanation why you made what turned into an unsubstantiated allegation without being sure of your ground beforehand? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Me too! I have voted for Abd's banning, and I still haven't got on the list. I think its a conspiracy. Wizzy…☎ 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You will have to work much harder than that, Wizzy. The minimum for the cabal list at RfAr was, prior to the RfAr, two participations in discussions showing clear cabal POV, and specifically prejudgment, plus participation in the RfAr or related activities. I haven't seen it, but perhaps you made some expression on the RfAr Workshop about a ban? Not nearly enough. Your intention to join the cabal is noted, that might be useful to someone else in the future. Most (not all) cabal "members" also do substantial service with tag-team reversion in fringe science or pseudoscience articles, so for future situations, you might think about that. I haven't reviewed your contributions, nor did I review contributions, generally for other cabal members; I'm aware of patterns, but the evidence on the attached evidence page here goes into that on a very little bit.

The "cabal" list is only a listing of editors who would be expected to have prejudgment on the issues before the arbitration that's all, however, you assert something interesting.

The cabal is a conspiracy? I didn't think so, but if you have evidence to that effect, please provide it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - I thought the barrier to entry was a lot lower. I can pitch in with some knowledge on Cosmology, but if I got involved with Fringe Science it would just be reverts. My conspiracy remark was directed at not getting on the Cabal list - after all, I agree totally with Raul, so I am surprised I didn't make it. I am still miffed. I tangled with this RfAr, but the time commitment is huge. I see whole man-years of dedicated peoples time swallowed up reading your stuff. Maybe next time. Wizzy…☎ 15:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you want more of an answer: You did ask. I didn't accuse you of being a cabal member earlier. There was no "unsubstantiated allegation earlier." Try finding it, if you disagree. There were some lists of editors who had done certain things. Unless I made a mistake, you did do those things. So, in fact, did some editors who are very clearly not cabal members, such as Beestra.

The final list was conservative in at least some ways. It considered prior involvement in actions that showed cabal interest. Proposing to ban an editor in an RfC on another editor is fairly diagnostic, it's actually irrelevant, not the place to present such a motion, particularly without evidence. If you wanted to try to ban me, you'd start with an RfC, perhaps (if lower stages failed), then if the RfC showed sufficient evidence and support for a ban, you might go to a noticeboard or other process -- or to ArbComm, if there is enough possible dispute. Those votes in that RfC demonstrated axes to grind. Beetstra has an axe to grind, but it's an idiosyncratic axe, I haven't really figured it out yet. He's essentially handed me about everything I've asked for, yet he seems to resent my asking! Maybe this will eventually resolve itself. The axes of interest are the cabal community (RfCing a cabal administrator is not going to be popular, and positions on Fringe science and related issues, such as ScienceApologist. The original clue to me about the cabal was the severe polarization of !votes in RfC/GoRight. There is the cabal on one side, matching editors who had edit warred with GoRight, an admin who'd blocked him, etc, and on the other side, many editors I'd never heard of before; it was my introduction to two of the sitting arbitrators. This is really important to notice. I was neutral, I'm actually opposed to GoRight's POV, and I compiled the evidence in that RfC beause, quite simply, I'd help to get the RfC certified -- Raul had failed to sign it! -- and I felt a bit responsible, the complaint was truly awful. Badly written, plainly unsupported polemic. GoRight had made mistakes, but so had the cabal editors, and, as was noted in the fracas over the present RfAr, some of them are administrators, i.e., expected to behave much better.

And the statement I made, which was solidly supported by the evidence, it was open and shut, was rejected by all the cabal editors, and accepted by nearly all or all of the apparently neutral editors, including highly reputable editors. That's the sign of what I'm calling a cabal, an interest group that is highly polarized and that can accomplish things like tag-teaming without needing any conscious coordination. Just watch common articles and each other's talk pages -- and the talk pages of enemies. Very simple.

Over the next year and a half or so, I saw this cabal in action many times. When I became involved with the JzG affair, I started to attract more attention. I was hoping, in fact, that some cabal member (I didn't think of the word "cabal" at the time, I would just have said, "friend of JzG") would notice what was coming, I was pointing to the railroad tracks and waving a big flag saying "train coming." One editor warned me about standing on the tracks, missing the entire point. I was trying to encourage someone who didn't want JzG lost to talk to him privately. It apparently never happened. From insider information, I was told that ArbComm wasn't desysopping because of JzG's monumental contributions to OTRS, but that he was now going to be on a "short leash." JzG apparently didn't want to be on that leash, and has stopped editing. This wasn't my anticipated outcome, and as far as my proposal of desysopping, it was framed as "until JzG assures ArbComm that action while involved will not repeat," which, I argue, requires showing an understanding of the problem!

And that's the situation now. WMC is insisting on his right to stand over me and be the judge and censor of my editing. It's not just that he acted while involved, that, by itself, is fairly minor. It's that he insists he can continue it, and I know the precedents. I don't see how ArbComm can avoid desysopping him if he doesn't back down, because if all it does is prohibit him from blocking me, he will do it again with someone else. But, hey, it's not up to me. But if I were WMC's friend (I'd like to be, actually, but he's blown it off), I'd advise him to take a deep breath and decide if he wants to continue as an administrator. Neither I nor ArbComm have punitive motive. I'm trying to prevent future problems, with others as well as myself.

Now, about your cabal membership. If you want it back you can have it. It could mean that you'd be considered "involved" in some situations that otherwise would have that appearance. That's about it, as far as I can think. Self-declaration of involvement is noble, and actually makes an administrator quite safe. That's generally true of recusal, admins get in trouble for failure to recuse and never for recusal. If an admin has sound IAR reasons for acting even though involved, and promptly discloses the involvement and recuses from further action, I've not seen a desysopping even tried, except in one case where the admin should have known that he was involved and there wasn't an emergency. (Recent desysopping, if I've got the case right.)

This recusal thing is important. It's what RfAr/Abd and JzG was about, and it's what this case is about. Whether I'm banned from cold fusion or the site is a small thing, comparatively, admin recusal failure causes continual disruption, much of it invisible, i.e., it's damage to Wikipedia's reputation out in the real world in personal contacts between people. It results in sock puppetry far beyond what would normally take place (put this together with tag team reversion and incivility, it's a formula for creating editors who can be banned, having been set up, and some of these decide, "Screw them!" I'll do this as a hobby for the next ten years. In two years, Scibaby, blocked by WMC and then Obedium, either sock or meat puppet, unclear which, blocked by Raul654, who then has a major job tracking Scibaby socks, 300 and counting over less than two years. And if we look at the original editorial contributions, it's a problem that might have been handled with some warnings and maybe a little mentoring, and the sock puppetry was a product of tag team reversion, it's a natural response! (But it was months before Scibaby actually had more than once account registered and editing at a time. He took up from Scibaby with Obedium when Scibaby was blocked, then it was months before the next discovered socks were registered. Basically, once Scibaby and Obdium, editing in sequence, broke 3RR if you put the edits together. That's not a certain, carefully prepared history, but it's at least roughly true.

I answered your questions about cabal identification in my response to you on the RfAr Evidence page. My general impression is that you are a cabal member, but that it wasn't necessary to assert it, there was enough evidence, I'd say. But I was trying to keep the list small and extensive and highly partisan evidence presentation and proposals in the RfAr were a largely crucial characteristic. You hadn't at that time qualified.

Remember, "cabal member" isn't specifically perjorative about you. It certainly makes no claim of bad faith. It simply means that you could be expected to have a bias, and probably you should be very careful about (1) possible tag team reversion. Cabal members might be considered as meat puppets of each other, normally harmless, but not when reverting! and (2) blocking someone in a dispute with another cabal member. Ditto, basically. There are a handful of cabal administrators, this hardly makes a dent in the number of admins able to deal with disruption. I hope this doesn't have to be tested with a case! (And I certainly wouldn't troll for it.)

As well, where !votes require uninvolved editors, the involvement of one cabal member in a way that affects cabal interests might cause other cabal members who participate to be involved. That's important for community bans.

Clear enough? If you do actually read this, consider: is there a risk to WMC's sysop bit? Do you think he'd listen to you? If so, like I tried to say to TenOfAllTrades with such negative results, he's not going to hear it from me, but he might hear it from someone he perceives as a friend. It's a long shot, but an experienced administrator is a serious asset to the project, and losing one is just that, a loss. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)