User talk:Wer900/There is a cabal

This page was nominated for deletion on 5 November 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Winning an election sometimes proves only that a candidate can promise the voters the moon. Honest candidates might be unable to compete. I think you overestimate the extent to which the new, inexperienced cabal would be more likely to do things your way than the old, experienced cabal does now. Art LaPella (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But I see anything as an improvement to a self-proclaimed Cabal which tries to avoid coordination of the encyclopedia for the pure joy of angry repetitive debate ad nauseam. The current Cabal has no intention of running the encyclopedia effectively; perhaps the very existence of a governance structure founded on authority would help, rather than on filling a power vacuum left by the failed "collective anarchy" experiment. Wer900 • talk 21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the development of WP:Pending changes policy, the way it worked was that User:Beeblebrox wrote a draft policy, there was a long and contentious debate which unsurprisingly enough produced no consensus, at which point his policy was adopted as default. Wnt (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this essay[edit]

Like

Bfpage |leave a message 19:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. :O) - Such cabals exist in most organizations, why would we think Wikipedia is any different? --Mark D Worthen PsyD 04:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]