Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kelly, memes, and cabals

User Kelly (and others) attack campaign (IDCab meme)

I noted on ANI that Political positions of Sarah Palin was becoming an edit warground. In the course of attempting to slow things down and get parties talking, I made a simple post on Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin, reiterating what most experienced editors know already: that you don't need 3RR to be blocked for edit warring, and stating my position that Kelly's edits were not removal of clear POV nor BLP violations (Kelly was at 6RR at the time.) [1] Kelly responded by personalizing the dispute, claiming this was some kind of "IDCab vendetta"[2] which was noted by others on AN3 (Note MastCell and Carcharoth's comments.) Carcharoth posted on Kelly's talk page[3] Kelly responded by saying "The IDCab folks push my buttons; they have tag-teamed me before. Based on my experience, any article they get involved with is sure to become a hellhole of POV-pushing and BLP vios"[4] This was at 21:39, 7 September 2008. No evidence was offered for Kelly's accusations against the ID Wikiproject, which Kelly persists in calling the "IDCab". Please note that no other member of the ID Wikiproject has posted on that talk page, or on Kelly's talk page. This did not stop Kelly from continuing to present this as an "attack" by the "IDCab" - which is a phrase I view as a violation of NPA. Carharoth informed Kelly that "the ID cabal comments are grossly inappropriate. Please don't perpetuate that meme"[5] Kelly responded wtih " I take it you've never been the target of the ID folks...But I promise to be nice and bite my tongue when I see them around"[6] This both perpetuated the meme and indicated that Kelly would not attack me with that particular NPA. Cla68 made a comment supporing the meme and making a blanket accusation without any supporting links.[7] Followed by Kya the Catlord's highly disruptive "Screw them all. I'm out of here. IDcab and their new found attack dog jossi have won"[8] which manages to insult myself (as the only member of the ID Wikiproject involved), the ID Wikiproject in general, although the article is not related to ID, ID has not been mentioned, and no other project members have edited there; and Jossi, who is now being lumped in with the "IDCab" - why I have no idea. Attacks on Jossi: See this section on Kelly's talk page. Kelly states "there are a lot of left-wing folks" on Wikipedia; Jossi stated he was not left-wing, and Kelly responded, astonishingly enough, with "Hey, Jossi - don't you have some wheel-warring to do somewhere, or maybe an ArbCom case to comment in?" Now, while I think jossi was wasting his time discussing his political views - they should be irrelevant unless one allows bias to creep into one's editing, and should not be mentioned by anyone unless that is the case - there is no excuse for the repsonse Kelly gives. I attempt to work it out with Kelly: here Kelly responds with more of the same, rejecting my attempt and (again) using the "IDCab" nonsense and adding further insults.[9]

Now, throughout all of this, I was the only member of the ID wikiproject involved; ID was not mentioned; the article was not an ID article, and Kelly has attacked me and the project (calling it "the IDCab") and Cla has supported that attack; and Kyaa has not only supported that attack but has added jossi, with whom Kelly had several content disputes on the article in question, of being "the IDCab's new attack dog". This nonsense must stop. It is disruptive and insulting and poisonous, and prevents any productive discussion, as Kelly et al merely tar and feather those with whom they disagree with the "IDCab" label, even if ID is not involved in the slightest, and apparently now even if they are not a member of the ID Wikiproject. I have attempted discourse; I have been not only rebuffed but additional attacks and insults added. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend trout all around and that everyone just avoid each other for a week. Go write on Birds and Camels for a while.--Tznkai (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As you have missed much of the background of this, you may be unaware of the pervasiveness. This is the last chapter in quite a saga, and I for one would be happy enough if editing "Birds" would fix the problem. Unfortunately, it won't. Otherwise, editing "Sarah Palin" would have fixed it, since it has nothing to freaking do with Intelligent Design, and There is No Cabal, but that doesn't stop some editors from screaming "Oh noes I'm being attacked by the Evil Id Cabal" whenever they disagree with anyone even remotely associated (and in the case of jossi, not associated at all) with the the Intelligent Design Wikiproject. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Have the relevant users mentioned in the above text been informed of this thread? I'd like to hear their side of the story. how do you turn this on 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly is aware of this thread. I would not dismiss this matter so quickly as KC has brought diffs and claims that those diffs at least on face value appear to back up. MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is to be done, anyway? I see the options are nothing, asking everyone to back off for a while, or push people through dispute resolution. You can't tell people to stop believing theres a cabal. Asking people to stop saying its the work of a cabal takes a lot of patience, but there isn't really a remedy that can be done.--Tznkai (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NB: from WP:NPA Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Implication? Stop accusing eachother of being part of cabals, its unproductive.--Tznkai (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the point of KC's post, as I read it -- to request, or at least bring attention to, the lack of enforcement of that particular snippet you posted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all." Doesn't always cut it in all cases, but any "enforcement" is best done by outside parties.--Tznkai (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What is isolated about this? The whole point KC is making is that it is repetitive and not at all isolated. And the outside parties are here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The "outside parties" would be you and others reading this, Tzn. Its why I am ehre. I am tired of this constant BS. I am tired of being repeatedly maligned. I am tired of the gaming of the system. I am pinging the "others" to step up to the plate and start doing something about this poisoning of the well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I presume you mean asking everyone who is actually promulgating the attack meme, not innocent parties who are being maligned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the whole IDCabal meme is becoming old. It's really just a thinly veiled attack on what certain editors' politics are presumed to be. It's one thing to say "Lol, yeah the cabal is gonna get you" jokingly, without referring to any specific editors explicitly or implicitly. It's a whole different thing to identify the group, identify or strongly imply who the editors are, and accuse them of everything short of Nazi eugenics. Oh wait, I forgot, it's the ID cabal so it's ok to bring that sort of thing up cause they all believe that right? (See how easy it is to fall into that trap)? It's not something so easily dismissed as saying "Go do something else for a week", when whatever "else" it is that certain editors do, their detractors follow them there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What I'm saying is, the IDCabal accusation is not different from any other cabal accusation. Its already against policy, and normal warnings about personal attacks and inflammatory statements apply. There is nothing else to be done her ehtough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tznkai (talk • contribs)

It's significantly more in-depth than other accusations in that it has lasted longer, is more direct, and has perpetuated through various arbitrations. Are you in fact familiar with the situation?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. It took exactly 43 minutes of this thread being open before someone mentioned the nazis. Is that a record? Keeper ǀ 76 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I really think Kelly and others should stop making the dispute personal (comment on content, not the contributor). It's a bad enough dispute as it is without people attacking each other. how do you turn this on 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. However, you will note in my evidence above, that several people made just that suggestion; one in fairly strong terms, and the response was to repeat, not cease, the attacks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest taking some dispute resolution with Kelly (who seems to be the main person here). Requests for comments? With the intended outcome that Kelly stops attacking other editors? If he/she realizes his/her behavior is a problem, perhaps he/she'll listen and stop it. how do you turn this on 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a polite warning on Kelly's Talk. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could say it was going well[10] KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Kelly appears to be laughing this off and isn't taking it seriously, I really do urge an RfC. Looking at some of the above diffs, this is somewhat of an ongoing problem and needs to be nipped in the bud, before irreversable damage is done. how do you turn this on

I actually suggest against that. An RFC is just another forum for Kelly to perpetuate the same allegations. Either block, or continue the discussion on his/her talk page, or whatever, but opening up an RFC only invites the ID allegations to be drawn out even more, inflamming things even more, etc. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Kelly has responded to multiple requests and warnings on his/her talk page, and to this discussion here, with disdain and more attacks. An Rfc would simply change the venue, not what the problem is nor Kelly's attitude. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also agree that an RFC is not necessary (or even remotely helpful towards any resolution)right now. Keeper ǀ 76 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how do you propose Kelly changes their behaviour? how do you turn this on 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since there pretty much is an existing community consensus among uninvolved that there is a group of users, often referred to as the IDcabal, who regularly act as a group and attempt to run roughshod over others, the meme is not going to die out. It will only die out when the behavior does. Unfortunately for KC, the facts are that his behaivour is once again that of coming to a dispute other members of the group were involved in. He may or may not have been aware of this, but edits at Sarah Palin and Kingdom Now theology and their talk pages definitely reveal edits by other members of the group as part of this dispute. Frankly, if he wants the description to go away, the behavior has to go away first. GRBerry 19:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Berry, withdraw your very serious, and wrong-headed, accusation. I have not edited either of those articles, and not only am I unaware of any edits by others who are members of the ID Wikiproject, it does not matter if there were, that is a personal attack. Wtihdraw it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding, if my behavior has at any time during this been questionable, name it and link to it. This bullshit about "behavior must go away first" is yet more propegation of the thoroughly wrong and divisive and false IDCab meme. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding, to save others the time and effort, GRBerry is being very misleading in linking to that Rfc; there is NO consensus as he claims; that is false. The Rfc was started by members of the ID Wikiproject in an attempt to get this kind of labeling stopped, and the most endorsed sections are: Not a Battleground (SirFozzie), 19; Waste of time (A'li), 18; and Labels are bad (Rocksanddirt), 16. All of those were endorsed by members of the Wikiproject. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Viewing every editing dispute as a battle in an ongoing war of cabals is stupid, destructive conspiracism. This approach to editing and to working with each has damaged the project. It needs to stop, but I have no idea how to stop it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I habve no idea what to do. See the last two links in my long evidence post. I tried to talk to Kelly, who responded to a 3RR warning with allegations of persecution by the "IDCab", although none were there and the article had no relation to ID. Kelly's talk page became a morass of others supporing that meme and adding on to the attacks. Now GRBerry has gone so far as to tell me that I edited the talk page of an article which was related to an article which another ID project member had edited, so it is all my fault and I must change my behavior! That is such nonsense I cannot believe a sane person is suggesting it. Its a personal attack; I suggest we block on sight. I'm out of other ideas. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There certainly has been some collusion between "ID cabal" members. I don't know if that's the case here, but it certainly happens. --NE2 20:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes? What was the result of the RfC? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The only "result" of an RFC is comments, hence the name. --NE2 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design? I figured you were asking a rhetorical question, since I hadn't mentioned any RFC. --NE2 21:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised, because the comments at that RfC mostly contradict your claim that 'certainly has been some collusion...', and suggest that accusing people of membership in such a cabal is a problem. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the one that mentioned the RFC. I'm just saying that I have noticed some collusion between the people who are commonly known as the "ID cabal". --NE2 21:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the impulse to block, and persistent name calling justifies it. But recall how blocks of established users for personal attacks have gone in the past. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am, as I said, open to suggestions. However I am also frustrated that this divisive name-calling and tarring and feathering is either being blown off, ignored, or - and this is appalling to me - supported by the admins here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion I would have would be that anyone who repeats this meme needs to go help improve an article (I've got a very long list of articles that need a lot of work). But I might be in this the evil IDcabal so I guess my opinion isn't valid. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

KC, I agree with you, and I don't support it, but we have to recognize that a block won't be sustained. And you see from my discussion with NE2 above how little good an RfC will do. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: (1) Accusations of cabalish behavior are not, in themselves, an attack, and stopping them altogether is not really a realistic or desirable solution. However, (2) there is an appropriate time, place, and way to bring up such criticisms, and content disputes are generally not appropriate. It appears that Kelly has diverged from the topic at hand and started commenting on contributors, which is rarely a good thing; however, Kelly does seem to have disengaged for the time being, which will hopefully give them a chance to cool off. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think there was a problem with a group of editors based around ID but it has been largely resolved through the passage of time and the intensity of some of the past fighting and the community's reaction to it. That was months ago, though. The fact I'm not seeing its main actors at this place every 3 days suggests to me that attempts to keep it alive are probably misjudged. Orderinchaos 13:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

• It is time to stamp out this stupid and childish meme once and for all. I propose that if any of editor ever mentions the so-called "ID cabal" ever again in a way that even smells faintly of bad faith, they be blocked, with escalating blocks for future recurrences. It has gone on for far too long, it is an absolute case of assuming bad faith and ascribing motives where none need exist, combining elements of ad-hominem and poisoning the well - and that's even before you get to the undeniable fact that ID is a WP:FRINGE view and therefore would quite rightly be the target of careful ring-fencing against the documented relentless POV-pushing of its advocates, an issue which occurs as much in the real world as on Wikipedia. And I don't give a toss who it is who raises this stupid and malicious meme, be they my best friend or my worst enemy, they should be blocked because it is well past its sell-by date. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Don't think this is a good idea due to more or less Sχeptomaniac's reasoning above. Probably better to just block when we would block normally. Accusations of cabalism when made in an obviously uncivil fashion and bad faith fashion should be blocked almost regardless of what group one is talking about. On the other hand, the line for that sort of thing is very hard to draw. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to JzG's position, and would've suggested the same way back when, I think this will only escalate the distrust. That having been said, Sχeptomaniac is wrong. It IS a personal attack, because it is designed to attack the editor, who we hope is a person.--Tznkai (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be a personal attack, but it also happens to be undeniably true (in that they work together to "protect their own" against outside people). I'll repeat what someone said further up.. if they want people to stop calling them that, then it's time to stop acting like that. SirFozzie (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fozzie why don't we paraphrase that and make it more explicit: If any group of editors edit the same articles and have each others talkpages watchlisted and Fozzie doesn't like them then any conspiracy theory about them is fine. And the only way for them to get rid of that is to pretend that they never ever notice an edit by any of the others and can't comment on any edit remotely related to one of the others. And it doesn't matter how diverse the editing interests of those editors are. Hmm, said that way it sounds a bit less reasonable doesn't it? And if you have any doubts that that is precisely the sort of situation we are talking about you should go and read the above discussion carefully. KC gave a standard 3RR warning and was then accused of cabalism because another one of teh-evil-cabal editors had edited a related article. Do you see why this is ridiculous? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re to Fozzie: Let me get this straight: I tell someone at 6RR they are edit warring. They claim "IDCab harassment" even though the article is not an ID article, has nothing to do with ID, and no othe ID Wikiproject member is anywhere in sight. You tell me I need to change my behavior. Have I got that right, Fozzie? Is that what makes it "undeniably true" that the "IDCab" is "working together to protect their own"? Does this make any sense in your world? Because in the world the rest of us live it, its nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In my world that's called having friends. Friends are not cabals, even when they share an interest in protecting the project against the promotion of a particular fringe view. I thought ProtectEachOther was supposed to be a good thing, but it seems that what is happening here is the drawing of battle lines, and I feel the best reaction to that is to take away the flags and banners - in this case the blatantly ill-faith "ID cabal" label. Or perhaps we should simply balance things out and call the other lot the POV-pusher cabal? No, I thought not. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am putting on record without further comment that I oppose the above view, for reasons related to the history of this particular incident. I think commenting at this juncture on events three months past, however, when they now appear to have abated is not a productive enterprise and likely to induce drama. Orderinchaos 14:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Inaccurate, Tznkai. I never said that Kelly's accusation of cabalism was not an attack. What I said is that whether an accusation is an attack or criticism largely depends on context. Making the accusation in the middle of a content dispute is usually an attack, as it changes focus from the content to the contributor (WP:NPA). However, stopping all accusations of an "ID Cabal" (ugh, I never did like that term) is not a realistic solution. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the sophistry and hyperbole, Joshua. Editors involved in the Wikipedia Project: Intelligent Design have a long, detailed history, brought up in Requests for Comments, ArbCom, of basically watching each others backs when one of them gets in a heated discussion/edit war. This is not a bad thing on it's face.. it's even codified in one of WP's principles.. "Defend Each Other". But there's a danger in taking that too far, that when a group of users band together and basically work as a steamroller.. (One, or more, provokes, another comes in and pretends to be neutral, "It looks like you're getting heated", etcetera, and then when the target finally snaps from the constant badgering, the resulting diffs are then used to discredit others in future arguments. I've seen it happen multiple times. And for, as you say, a group of editors whose editing interests are REMARKABLY diverse, it's rather interesting to always see "The Familiar Faces in the Familiar Places" when it comes to disputes about one of them. In fact, there's a proposed decision in an ongoing ArbCom case that notes just that. SirFozzie (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re to Fozzie: Let me get this straight: I tell someone at 6RR they are edit warring. They claim "IDCab harassment" even though the article is not an ID article, has nothing to do with ID, and no other ID Wikiproject member is anywhere in sight. You tell me I need to change my behavior. Have I got that right, Fozzie? Is that what makes it "undeniably true" that the "IDCab" is "working together to protect their own"? Does this make any sense in your world? Because in the world the rest of us live it, its nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh grow up. All you've done is rephrase identical accusations. And indeed you seem to have ignored or misunderstood my points. If you have a large number of editors with diverse interests it makes it more likely not less like that they will end up running into each other over multiple areas. And I find it interesting that you completely ignored any issue of talk page watchlists and ignored my comment about the original context of what led to this particular accusation. I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond to you at this point. If you are going to continue, maybe say something productive? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I say Kelly was not edit warring? Nope. Don't believe I did. I even suggested Kelly take a break from WP, to avoid further being antagonized with an attempt to discredit them. And yes, I think there is a group of editors, commonly referred to by the phrase under question, that need to change behavior. And it makes sense not only in my world, but to at least certain ArbCom members as well. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#FeloniousMonk.. (E) From time to time, FeloniousMonk has edited certain articles, particularly those relating to controversies involving intelligent design, in conjunction with one or more other users in a fashion that has created at least a perception of excessively coordinated editing. (3 supports, 0 Oppose, 1 Abstain, needs two more supports to pass). So I feel like I'm pretty firmly grounded in the real world here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed the FeloniousMonk = All members of Wikiproject ID - could you link me to that? Also where Calling the project, both members and en toto, the "IDCab" is acceptable whenever you encounter them, for any reason or no reason. - where is that, please? And the bit where 3 supports = consensus by the entire Wikipedia community - you're on firm ground are you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering who you thought the "one or more editors" were then? And yeah, I think I'm on bedrock, here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Take 3 on getting a straight answer out of you on this question: Let me get this straight: I tell someone at 6RR they are edit warring. They claim "IDCab harassment" even though the article is not an ID article, has nothing to do with ID, and no othe ID Wikiproject member is anywhere in sight. You tell me I need to change my behavior. Have I got that right, Fozzie? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And Take 3 at saying the same thing despite you and I talking past each other, KC. The members of the Wikiproject:Intelligent Design have been noticed by quite a few people, including members of the Arbitration Committee, as working in a fashion that resembles "Excessively Coordinated Editing". When Kelly earned AT LEAST a warning about 6RR (and as I've said before, despite you twisting my words, that Kelly deserved that at the very least, and as I've said before, I suggested on Kelly's page that they take a break from WP to avoid getting overly frustrated), I object to the messenger, not the message. I do think members of Wikiproject:Intelligent Design DO need to modify their behavior. Does that answer your question in sufficient detail, or are we going to have to continue to try to score points on each other? SirFozzie (talk)

(Outdent) No, it really doesn't. My complaint is that Kelly responded to the EW post I made by claiming it was some kind of persecution by the "IDCab". I fail to see how your statement addresses that at all. I have not intentionally "twisted" your words; I have a valid issue and you've responded by basically repeating that there is a cabal, and the ID wikiproject members need to change their behavior. I see absolutely no connection or logic in what you're saying. You are perpetuating and encouraging name calling as a reflex attack whenever anyone sees any member of the ID Wikiproject anywhere. This is unacceptable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As I suspected, we;re talking past each other, and both of us repeating the same things over and over again. That you think I'm "Perpetuating and encouraging name calling as a reflex" with my viewpoint on members of the ID Wikiproject. and that I think that there is a group of editors who work as a unit to discredit and harass other users. I think we'll leave it there or take it private, if you so wish, I don't think we're adding value at all at this point. SirFozzie (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it here, as others may be having the same difficulties communicating. Or they may be able to see the "missing bit" that one or the other of us is simply not getting from the others' posts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• What if the group of people who are strongly in favour of adding a "scientific point of view" that results in non-neutral, highly negative articles, edit the intelligent design article (and related articles) in ways that resemble cabalism? Using the two line description I just typed is tiresome. But it's OK; I didn't say the badwords, right? Giggy (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ID is WP:FRINGE, evolution is mainstream. That's not some kind of extremist scientific point of view, it's simple fact. And it is also simple fact that ID proponents have been battling for years in the real world and on Wikipedia to paint their fringe view as a valid mainstream alternative to evolution. We are duty-bound to resist that, per WP:UNDUE. The fact that some people who support the mainstream view of ID - i.e. that it is a fringe view - joined the ID wikiproject is an entirely good thing. Wikiprojects made up only of those with a supportive point of view are a recipe for disaster. And editors helping each other not to get overheated? That's a good thing too. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When you take an article about someone who may or may not have intended to help push a fringe view by signing a petition and make it mostly about that signature, that's undue weight. That's what the so-called "ID cabal" are probably best-known for doing. --NE2 23:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the ID proponents' laughable "scientists who oppose evolution" petition? That's the only one I know of that's being abused by either side in this debate. Mainstream support for evolution is a simple fact, it's not even slightly controversial outside of a subset of fundamentalists in the North American Bible belt. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If something is "undeniably true" then it doesn't need to be said. Now, this conversation about bad faith is being done in bad faith. This isn't ironic, but it is stupid and unproductive. Accusing someone of cabalism, especially in the culture and language of Wikipedians is highly insulting. Just because something is in your view true, doesn't mean you should say it. Pointing out someone is say, descendant of a mass murder is seldom going to be anything but an attack, even when its true.--Tznkai (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh you mean Intelligent design which got to featured article status and despite intense focus by people claiming that this evil cabal exists have not changed almost anything on that article? Yeah that's real non-neutral. So non-neutral that when other editors come along they keep it just as is. Right... JoshuaZ (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• For those who think BADSITES didn't go far enough, let's have a BADWORDS policy! I nominate "meme" as one of the banned words, since the main thing it seems to be used for is to try to discredit ideas without actually refuting them logically, by claiming them to be BADMEMES, probably being promoted by BADPEOPLE on BADSITES. But if you start blocking people for saying taboo words, then as somebody has pointed out on one of those Sites Which Must Not Be Named, this strongly brings to mind that funny Monty Python routine about people being stoned for saying "Jehovah". *Dan T.* (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Meme"Memes propagate themselves and can move through the cultural sociosphere in a manner similar to the contagious behavior of a virus"--MONGO 01:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, which makes it very easy to discredit something as a reasonable viewpoint by referring to it as a 'meme'. Personally I think ID is a load of rubbish, but I also feel that there has been quite a bit of over-coordinated editing on the topic by several people who feel the same way as I do. While 'cabalism' might not be a particularly useful word, there is often the impression of something going on that people will refer to in that way. Remember that truth is a pretty subjective thing. Brilliantine (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Guy's proposal above. My reasons are known to arbcom. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose on the principle that harsh measures such as if any editor ever mentions [...] ever again in a way that even smells faintly of bad faith, they be blocked is a tad to strict, especially on valued editors who do important work for this (encyclopedia) project. Better to approach editors with as light a touch as possible, especially when circumstances vary. In this case, Kelly was doing a difficult job and KillerChihuahua seems to have come on a little strong. Kelly's ID comment was made in the context of having had a prior involvement in commenting at the ID arbcom case. I guess I'd feel pretty hypocritical not opposing this after being in favor of gentler treatment in an RfC back in March for a certain editor accused of worse conduct. -- Noroton (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• JEHOVAH! *ducks rocks* Viridae^Talk 12:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis that it would make bringing scrutiny to any further actions of the type we were forced to witness a while back including hijacking of debates, stacking of nominations, bad blocks and bad faith all around for at least two months, very difficult indeed. Editors need to be able to speak freely about what takes place, although to do so does not exempt them from CIVIL, NPA or other general policies or guidelines - that's why we have them. Orderinchaos 14:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose simply because this is basic melodrama, and not anything serious. People should learn that calling something a cabal instead of identifying what your problem is will not help that problem be solved or actually analyzed. Blocking them wont solve this problem. Maybe grabbing them and shaking them might. But any kind of block related punishment just causes them to stew and become more "certain". As someone with a long block history, I can testify that my first reaction was always to point fingers, blame a conspiracy, and the rest. After being helped to ween off of this by privately ranting, then realizing that even that was just nonsense, to recognizing the whole purpose of trying to show me my disruption via blocking, we could really cut to the chase and try to guide (not block) people. I shouted some at some of the people holding the banner. However, I'm just.... *count* one person. The community needs to agree that labels are melodramatic, and melodrama only hinders improving the encyclopedia and encourages the ignoring of actual problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting it

Can someone explain to be what a supposed "ID Cabal" has to do with the Sarah Palin pages? I edit the Intelligent Design pages from the scientific POV, and I also edited Kingdom Now theology and Political positions of Sarah Palin. Am I a part of the cabal now? FWIW, I started editing the SP pages after numerous pleas on this board for assistance from Kelly. It's not like these pages are obscure now. Can one of the anti-anti-ID people show me a supposed connection, or they going to support this completely unsubstantiated attack?

I have also hesitated joining any wikiproject because of these attacks. There's no way I'm going to put my name on a list just so I can be considered a conspirator. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

One diff I've seen suggests an argument over how to describe Sarah Palin's position on ID and Evolution. Currently, the article says "Palin supports allowing the teaching of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of requiring the teaching of creation-based alternatives." which seems a fair description, based on the sources provided. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben, that has nothing to do with this. Please go back and read my initial post, and the linked edits. I don't know who was in that argument, but it wasn't me and it wasn't related to kelly's 6RR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"ID cabal" is a term of art that has caught on, perhaps misleadingly, and refers to certain names that keep "popping up everywhere" and were first noticed in relation to ID. Unless you plan to do the things the "ID cabal" is accused of doing, I doubt you'll be lumped in. --NE2 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't everyone have a watchlist? I have the talk pages of others who hold similar interests watchlisted. I even look at their edit histories. They will point me to articles that I may have overlooked. Palin has been a subject of The Panda's Thumb blog and Pharyngula (in addition to every political blog out there) which I doubt I'm the only wiki anti-IDer to read. So using Palin to claim cabalism is just silly. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "term of art", it's a slur. It was hammered away by Moulton at WR to slur the people who opposed him over here. It was adopted by the WR regulars and used here as a slur. Everyone uses it differently, but basically it means "people that I want to discredit who can be loosely tied to a certain group of editors who built the intelligent design article up to FA status". It's sort of like the way the far right uses "liberal" as a slur. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a group of editors, some of whom are members of the Intelligent Design WikiProject, who frequently support each other in various areas of the project (and sister projects where they have not previously edited), unrelated to Intelligent Design, in order to promote a common goal. So, editing the articles or even joining the project do not make one a member of what some refer to as the "ID cabal", rather editing other areas of the Wikimedia projects that do not relate to the project, with this same group of editors, on a regular basis would. And this sort of behavior cannot be solely attributed to watchlists and contrib stalking, as there is evidence of them going over to other projects in order to support one side when they have not previously edited that project. I can grab the diff of a Request for Checkusership on Commons, if need be here to give a diffed example. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. What evidence would there be of this? If you're going to engage in these sorts of attacks, would you please be so kind as to provide some evidence? Either that, or strike your attacks. Guettarda (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And in at least one proven case, the group of editors were caught emailing each other, canvassing to mass-oppose a nominee at WP:RfA. SirFozzie (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[Probably not helpful]. Guettarda (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dihydrodgen Monoxide, by Filll? You remember, the one he apologized for and said he was sorry for creating controversy? Not too long ago, mind you. Three-Four months ago... if I'm doing the math right. And glad to see that you still hold the BADSITES meme close to your heart. (since we're already speaking of memes above...) SirFozzie (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So the two - or was it three - people who Filll emailed were, what you call "IDCabal" members? There's evidence of one editor emailing two or three other unrelated editors. It certainly has nothing to do with what you said. [Probably not helpful]. As for the "BADSITES meme"...hey, they fact that a policy proposal didn't pass doesn't mean that WR isn't used to coordinate attacks on Wikipedia editors, or to out editors...and none of the regulars bat an eye when it happens. [Probably not helpful]. Guettarda (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of what Jennavecia is referring to: [11]. In the past, when one editor from the the IDCab took issue with something, in this case, Guettarda, the same group of editors would usually suddenly appear within a short time of each other to join in the discussion in support of the first editor's comments and to try to shout down the response from the other editor involved (in this case, me). To be fair, I haven't heard of these editors engaging in the same tactics as much lately since one of their group was given some adult supervision a couple of months ago. Hopefully, their behavior has been corrected. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? That isn't explainable by watchlists or wikistalking? Really? Fascinating. Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell me how this was watchlisted, considering at least one of you (and if memory serves, more like three) had never edited Commons before. Enlighten us. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lara, I have edited commons before - but FYI I heard about Johnny via an email which was from Cary, and included Jimmy in the distribution list. Several others were on that email list. I suggest you stop looking for bad guys here, you'll get egg all over your face. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So it was a mailing list thing? How many of you are on the mailing list? Perhaps that explains much of the perception here, if you're all chatting up issues on the list then going over to support each other in your common goals in various areas. And stop making suggestions. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow. Jimbo Wales and Cary Bass are part of the evil IDcabal. Wow, that is a far-reaching and powerful cabal. So, where do I sign up? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I should probably note that the emails had nothing to do with ID, nor even much to do with Johnny - he was mentioned in a different context and I went to check him out, as I frequently do with any editor mentioned to me. The emails were unrelated, and neither Cary nor Jimmy mentioned the cu, that was something I hit quickly enough in doing a contrib check. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So what about the others that are commonly associated with you and the meme that showed up. Like Orangemarlin who had never before editing Commons? Is he on the list? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of you thinking I sound "condescending" again, allow me to point out that a) if the email was sent by Cary and Jimmy was included it was both fairly important and also private, so I'm not likely to post the entire distribution list here for your amusement, thus violating both Beans and any consideration of the privacy of emails; and b) if you want to know something about OrangeMarlin, ask him. I am not a mind reader. I'm off to the dentist's now, any further querys will have to wait. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. My own amusement. Okay, thanks for the non-answer. I'll take it as a no. So much for a viable explanation... oh, but I just wanted lulz, right? Yea, okay. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lara, are you seriously ordering me to "stop making suggestions"???? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, KC. It was an order. >_> Actually, it was a statement to reflect my lack of appreciation for your condescending tone. [Removed unhelpful sarcasm] Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Now if only I could order people to help me on my Western Australian election articles... Orderinchaos 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Offtopic, but I've always felt that administers should be able to hand out yard duty.... "3RR again Johny? Go and Cleanup Barometer question!" Cheers, Ben Aveling 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree on what we disagree about. Firstly, does anyone disagree that Cabals are bad? I suspect not. Secondly, does everyone agree that a Cabal (for this purpose) is a bunch of people trying to achieve an outcome through force of numbers, rather than through logic and discussion? If so, the specific question becomes - is there or is there not logic in the position the alleged Cabal are trying to put. If not, then there might be something to discuss here, but until we establish that, I don't think there is any point going over who said what about whom. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben, it's taken me a while to find out what's going on here, but my reading is that one person, Killer Chihuahua, made a comment and was attacked for being a "cabal" by several editors, specifically Kelly and Cla68 who goes out of his way to perpetuate this personal attack on a number of editors. As far as I'm concerned, such personal attacks should be dealt with in the normal way – warnings should be issued, and if the offender persists in making the personal attack they should be blocked by an uninvolved admin. Do you think civility is pointless? . . dave souza, talk 09:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a common theme throughout this thread by some of those participating here is stop acting like a cabal if you don't want the word used in reference to you and yours. Continuing to call the use of "cabal" a personal attack when it fits the description by definition does not a personal attack make. Just as guettarda repeatedly saying I've personally attacked him here. He can say it until the end of time, but it doesn't make it true. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 11:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So why don't you go read the difs given by KC at the beginning of the discussion and explain how anything in her actions was remotely cabal like? JoshuaZ (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm involved and couldn't do anything about it if I wanted to. That's not why I joined the discussion. KC said she was personally attacked because Kelly said she was part of the "IDcab". That's the only part of this I'm speaking on. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Except the context of that is what is precisely relevant to the matter in question. What prompted Kelly's remark and whether Kelly's accusation has any relevancy at all matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to move on

Notwithstanding this, which I still stand behind as a valid observation, it may be time to try to put the past behind us and move on. A way to avoid being labeled as a cabal member is ... don't act like you're a cabal member! Don't reflexivly defend and deny, but accept that there may be some merit in some of the criticism and try to see the perspective of other good faith contributors, and temper your actions. While I don't think a BADWORDS blocking approach is the right way to go, I'm ready to never ever say the word IDc*b*l ever again. But I'd like to ask those who many feel are "members" to try to act with more good faith. The discussion I see here is not exactly evidence of that, yet. I think some "members" could actually learn from Orangemarlin, who has vowed to internalise the feedback he received, and who has been reaching out to people to find common ground and to understand concerns and move forward. We are none of us perfect but that strikes me as the approach that is more likely to be productive. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, Lar? Read my initial post. Follow the links. And point out precisely how I ws "acting like a (member of) a cabal". Seriously. Take your time. This is important. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, really. I read your initial post, and I followed the links. I was dismayed at the actions of many, there was a lot of bad faith all around. But you need to acknowledge that maybe there is some truth to the perception others have, just as there is a lot of truth to the perceptions you have. Until you do that, you won't make progress. I stand behind my comments. I think your response to what I just said shows you still have some way to go yet... it fits the characteristics in my blog post quite well. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lar, KC is absolutely in the right here. This isn't two parties in a dispute, it's Kelly abusing KC. The lazy both-parties-are-wrong approach is a big part of the continuing problem. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So where precisely did I act "cabal like"? I am waiting. Your blog essay doesn't cover this situation, which is me being hounded with baseless accusations for months. I don't appreciate you sweeping past that bit and ignoring the harassment I am enduring, and trying to paint it that "oh, she's unhappy with the label, it must be true" nonsense. Care to show a little support for the person being wrongly harassed here? Care to show a little common sense? Care to provide me with on dif of me acting like a "cabal member"? You cannot provide such a dif because none exists, I was attacked for politely warning an editor at 6RR about edit warring, and that's all there is to it. And yet you, and others, perpetuate the bullshit that "where there's smoke, there must be fire" and blithely tell me to mend my ways. Explan to me precisely which action of mine reinfored the "IDCab" bullshit in this, and I willlisten. Until then, you are blowing smoke and pontificating with no substance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking for any examples of you acting as part of this "cabal", or in this specific incident? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This specific incident, since that is the entire point of my initial post. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Jennavecia is entirely right and provides a good summary of how we got to where we are, and I'd endorse it. However, the ridiculous behaviour was located in the period around June. I see some of the stuff above (as in, the debate here, not the original incident being reported) as being an escalation of a situation which had largely until now settled through the passage of time and the (not before time) chilling effect of certain statements of and proposals from arbitrators. The current matter doesn't seem to have anything to do with the old stuff, nor were the same actors involved - one person does not a cabal make, it's not even possible unless they have multiple personality disorder. It is probably best for all concerned to drop it and move on. Orderinchaos 13:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Except for the minor details like allowing 6RR to go undealt with, allowing largescale personal attacks. Oh, and the fact that the so-called IDcabal seems to be largely responsible for brining Intelligent design up to featured article status. A status which no one has substantially questioned. Indeed, despite all the scrutiny over the last few months that article has remained almost completely static. "moving on" and "dropping" it make sense if you think there ever was a problem. If you don't, then this isn't acceptable behavior. When lies and inaccuracies are allowed to be repeated unchallenged the result is that more people believe them. One doesn't have the luxury of just moving on and letting Kelly and others repeat these antics. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I sympathize to some extent JoshuaZ's comments, I largely agree with Orderinchaos, there was a time consuming dispute in June, and this debate seems to be re-opening old wounds. If necessary there should be a rfc on Kelly, focusing on excessive use of the revert button, however I think it would be preferable to just ignore Lar's vague and unhelpful accusations. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Vague and unhelpful accusations? Now I'm really confused. I'm calling for people to put the past behind them, to move on, but to engage in a bit of introspection rather than a kneejerk reaction. If that's unhelpful I'm not sure what to say... We are none of us perfect here, after all. Feel free to carry on without taking my advice into account. ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

JZ: Like I said, the accusation of cabalism in this case was blatantly dumb and doesn't cast the person who made it in a good light - conflict of interest, perhaps, in the event that past disputes between them was being alleged to colour the admin's judgement, but I don't believe that case was made. Like I said to JzG above, there is no point on commenting on past events which seem to have settled other than to induce drama. The only thing I'll note is the ironic thing about the "IDCabal" is that the abuses which were perpetrated by them rarely had anything to do with ID, nor was for the most part their extreme behaviour aimed at people of an opposite ideological viewpoint (although some inevitably were, but that was probably coincidence). Several of the strongest opponents of their behaviour would have found a lot to agree with them on re content. Several of the worst offenders then have behaved perfectly since, without any cause for concern worth noting, and I reiterate the point I made above. Orderinchaos 14:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Joshua: You really should stop bringing up the FA status of that article as if it means anything considering the questions that surround it's promotion and retention of that status, and the fact that their content contributions have absolutely nothing to do with the "meme". As for the 6RR, do something about it. But speaking on "personal attacks", it's not a personal attack if it's demonstrably true. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jenna the FA status is relevant. I'm not going to drop a relevant point. And if you don't think the article should be an FA then you should go over there and detail what is wrong with it. The bottom line is that many users have looked at the article and have kept it almost exactly as is. (And yes true things can be personal attacks. The fact that this isn't any shape true and is just a vague general accusation against editors makes that claim all the more relevant). JoshuaZ (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your participation here is wholly unhelpful. It doesn't matter whether or not the article is FA, rightfully so or not. We're not talking about their content contributions. And there is plenty of evidence of them working in a way that satisfies the label, even according to ArbCom. So stay out of the conversation if you can't keep up with it. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you ordering Joshua to stop posting? Because that's how your edit summary reads. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FACEPALM. What sort of power do you think I wield that anything I say to someone else is an order? Focus, KC. He's being unhelpful, and I'm letting him know that if he can't be constructive, he need not participate. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So this group isn't an IDcabal. So what exactly is the reason you even label this amorphous group that way? Could it have anything to do with the fact that banned user Moulton labeled them that way? If we want to play that game I can start labeling you and all the other editors who think this is an ok term as part of a WR-cabal. And then we could play the same game and claim it wasn't a personal attack "because its true." These sort of attitudes get us to mudflinging pretty quickly. That's why looking at the content contributions is helpful. Especially given that one of the central claims about this "cabal" is that it pushed an anti-ID POV. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

JZ I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think that's a central claim I've made. I have said repeatedly that I think the ID viewpoint is fringe science, if that, and that it should get relatively short shrift. My issue rather is with the instinctive defensiveness that we see (and that applies not just to the "member" but also to some of those who are not members. Perhaps it's because the folk that edit in this space the most don't get enough support from others... over time it's easy to get a siege mentality if it's just you and the same few people over and over. In this particular instance, yes, I think Kelly went too far in their remarks. But this big dramafest isn't the best way to sort this all out, is it? ++Lar: t/c 14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Mainly in agreement there. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Josh, if you were caught up on the events and knew the history, you'd know I've already been labeled as part of the WR cabal, and I doubt you'll find me calling it a personal attack or harassment anywhere. I am a member of WR, and if people want to label it a cabal, then so be it. I'm obviously not turned off by cabal membership, and if I've acted inappropriately as part of the "WRcabal", then by all means, diff me. But do it somewhere relevant, 'cause this ain't the thread for it. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lara, you really don't get it do you? Of course I know that you and other editors have been accused as such. That's part of the bloody point. The point is that those sorts of claims don't help at all. Regardless of the group in question. Gah. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggested an RfC above, but others thought it wasn't needed. I would have agreed with them, but judging by Kelly's replies on his/her talk page, I really think something should be done. how do you turn this on 14:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Solution

I think the best solution is for all the members of the ID Cabal to stand up and say, "Yes, I am sorry for being part of such a crap cabal. Our nefarious methods failed to instill terror in any of our enemies, our shadowy evil genius figure lurking behind the scenes was frankly pathetic, and our obvious communication with one another rendered futile our every attempt at secrecy; in fact the only thing we got right was keeping our ultimate common goal a complete mystery." Then perhaps we could all go back to assuming good faith, avoiding personal attacks, and so on. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I like that suggestion. Unfortunately, I'm still confused about who is supposed to be in this cabal. Am I in it? Is Aunt Entropy in it? Is MastCell in it? Is Orangemarlin in it? Is Hrafn in it? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this "solution" is very helpful at all. It doesn't actually solve anything. how do you turn this on 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> We've now got a heading "#Time to move on" over Lar's post in which he links to his blog post and says he stands by it. That blog describes what he thinks are "bad signs", talks of "a slippery slope." and says "We should all be vigilant against that sort of sliding." Doesn't look much like moving on. From what I've seen, this "IDcab" meme began as a slur spread by Wikipedia Review, though I'm sure Lar knows more about that than I do. MessedRocker makes a very sensible response as a comment on that post, referring and linking to the essay which includes "There IS a cabal. It's a core group of editors united by the belief that the encyclopedia must protect itself against jerks, and against people who write junk." [12] That's the behaviour I've seen in a number of editors who've edited ID related pages, and I'm proud to be associated with that description. If others use the term as a slur, that's clearly a personal attack which should be dealt with by warnings and, if repeated a couple of times as a slur, by a report to ANI and blocking by an uninvolved admin. We've been lax about such incivility up to now, but no point in going over the past. Kelly's had one warning and any further such attacks can be dealt with appropriately using this standard procedure. On that basis, I'm content to move on. . . dave souza, talk 15:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while I could take the tack that there are things you've said about what I was saying that are wrong... that misses the point! I'd RATHER find the common ground and identify the things that we all can agree with. We're all here to build an encyclopedia. We don't do that by being jerks to each other. So let's all be excellent to each other... let us not let junk get in, let us not tolerate incivility but let us rather calmly point it out when we see it regardless of who did it, and if we see folk that we think might be acting beleaguered, like they are in a cabal (whether that be the WR cabal, the ID cabal, the whatever...) try to think... is it maybe because they actually ARE beleaguered? Can we step in and aid them with the good work they are doing, roll back the POV pushers they are faced with, without being judgmental? Show by example that lashing out isn't needed? I think that's what you're saying Dave. I think that's what I'm saying. It is how I want to be. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Lar. There's a lot of harm in thoughtless labelling of people, and every individual should be dealt with on their own merits, not on the basis of some vague accusations about some group they're supposed to fall into. On that happy thought I'll head back to trying to help with article content and calming down people acting like jerks elsewhere. . . dave souza, talk 15:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lar, the one catch is that if the beleaguered editors want help, they should actually accept it when it's offered. I got trolled and attacked by certain editors when I agreed with them that a minor word change was a bad idea, but apparently didn't use the "correct" reasoning for it. Those same editors have repeatedly done the same kind of thing to others, and those in the best position to get them to stop just defend them, reasoning that they drive off "jerks and people who write junk." Well, they drive off potential allies, too. It's not nearly as bad as it was, but it's still a problem. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Long ago, in lifesaving class, they used to teach you to beware of the drowning person. Sometimes a rope is better than a hand, so if you're going to jump into a conflict, maybe a little more emotional distance than normal is necessary, a recognition that you may get a little bruised, a tendency to ask questions and approach all conclusions with caution. Usually when you're going in to help out, you're the one without the scars and the beleaguered have gotten too used to pulling the trigger. The beleaguered deserve a little more slack at first. -- Noroton (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have cut them some slack. I walked away from the initial attack, chalking it up to a bad day. However, when it continues to happen on a regular basis, enough is enough. It's one thing to attack a person in a heated moment and realize later that wasn't appropriate, but it's something completely different to consistently make those kinds of attacks and defend them as if they were acceptable. Do you realize, that of the group of editors who lined up to back up their own after one of them spouted a damaging lie about myself, not one had the integrity to publicly admit that it was not true. This is not the flailing about of beleaguered editors, it's just plain dickish behavior, and cutting them slack is not what is needed, because it only allows the problem to grow.

Look, I know we're getting a bit off-track here. Suffice to say, I'm a reasonable, easy-going person, up to a point. Kelly's statements were out of line based on the tone and context, but shutting off discussion of serious issues, as was proposed above, is certainly not an answer. There are a number of people who don't feel things are quite resolved yet in that area, and I count myself among them. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think my comment may have looked like a criticism of you Sxeptomaniac, when actually it was just me bloviating. Sorry. I don't know anything about the case you're referring to, and therefore I shouldn't have offered general suggestions. -- Noroton (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary. The situation is a tangled mess, if you're new to it, and I'm intentionally being vague in order to hopefully avoid stirring up things any further. However, I wanted to give you an idea of just how long-running and deep this issue runs for some, like myself. I got a little more heated than originally intended during the explanation, but, as you can guess, I've got my own unresolved issues on the subject. On the other hand, I am not interested in warfare, so I'm in the process of working on some wording for extending the olive branch to KC, who I believe is an asset to WP, when all is said and done. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Agree with Lar. Help the Beleaguered League of Anti-POV-Pushing Ladies and Gentlemen. Membership includes many of our best, most extraordinary editors. You can identify them as the ones imperfectly trying to promote NPOV, etc., while sometimes slipping up in CIV, etc. When they stop bothering with CIV, etc., even after you've (1) gently, (2) repeatedly pointed it out to them and (3) tried to help, then you know they've resigned from the League. Dues-paying members, however, continue to deserve your support, including by example. Especially by example. Got a problem with that, pals? -- Noroton (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing good

Nothing good is coming out of this thread. I recommend we shut it down. If somebody is behaving badly, please present specific evidence with diffs. Should that fail to resolve the problem, see dispute resolution. This is notice board for administrators, not a boxing ring. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think that nothing good is coming from this long thread. I suggest it either be moved elsewhere, or the different parties attempt to get along (the latter being preferable). how do you turn this on 15:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jehochman, for stating concisely the correct process, which is in line with what I've stated above. The two main offending parties that I've noticed in this incident aren't admins, I trust all concerned will take more care to be civil and thus will avoid there being any future problem. . . dave souza, talk 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with the last three comments. -- Noroton (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• So once again the fatuous "ID cabal" meme is uttered in order to further a dispute, causes drama and is left uncorrected? Not a great result. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the message is beginning to get through.[13] . . dave souza, talk 17:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what this ID cabal is, but if someone could direct me to their webpage I would be happy to consider the information there. Otherwise, Kelly is just trying to do a good job in the wikipedia and maybe we dont agree on everything, but I think everyone who is freaking out should just take a chill pill. If there are more than 3rr, than clarify the policy but lets not make a mountain out of an anthill. Testmasterflex (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)