Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cabals are evil

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Userfy. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cabals are evil
This essay is written in the first person and is basically a paranoid rant. While there are a lot of worthless or unhelpful user essays out there, this one seems to me to be the very bottom of the barrel and at the very least it should be moved to userspace. And the shortcut WP:CABALDEMONS has but one purpose, to accuse someone of being a member of of one of these cabals. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as ranty pants ranting of ranting. Seems like someone's got an axe to grind. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep  as it describes the cabals who protect politically charged pages, among others, and, for example, the tag teaming they do. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It does read like a rant, a first-person complaint by someone who didn't get their way somewhere. What's the point? Drmies (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Say, how about if people improve the article then? The point may be to provide approved guidance on how to handle cabals. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, first off it is not an article. Secondly, if we don't happen to agree with the opinions expressed it's kind of hard to expand on them. Thirdly, we already have numerous, better essays on how to deal with difficult or pushy users, such as WP:COOL, WP:MANDARINS, WP:OWN and of course WP:CABAL, a much better essay on this same topic that presents a more reasonable and balanced view. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see now and agree.  I have struck out my vote and now change to Userfy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete . Calling editors WP:CABALDEMONS is an outright personal attack, which I see has only ever been used by one editor.    Will Beback    talk    02:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy essay, Delete WP:CABALDEMONS shortcut.   Will Beback    talk    12:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Will Beback, remember WP:AGF. I just came across this CABALDEMONS page and did not realize its limitations.  Indeed, I just changed my vote on the page to match yours.  That said, CABAL does fit in certain circumstances, and that's why CABAL exists in the first place.  When pages are protected by the politically motivated, like the Southern Poverty Law Center page is right now, then the few editors who happen along and who are not part of the cabal can get discouraged from editing, as the Talk page efforts over time to add criticism evidence, and as the recent WP:LAME incident over the BIAS tag evidences.  In such a case, it is appropriate, in my opinion, to advise such people not to be discouraged and to seek advice on how to handle cabals at the CABAL page.  Had I had such information ahead of time, the tag team efforts of the cabal to remove the BIAS tag despite its clear language would have been more noticeable to me and I might have acted differently.  The point is to improve Wikipedia, not to protect cabals from being identified as cabals. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I don't see how calling editors "cabaldemons", in all caps, is a helpful exercise. For example, if we had an essay called "don't mind the idiots", and a shortcut, WP:IDIOTS, then would it be a good idea to use that shortcut to refer to other editors as WP:IDIOTS? No, in both cases it would be a personal attack. As for your other claims about those editors, anyone can see who's failing to assume good faith.   Will Beback    talk    21:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my habit to use all caps when referencing a policy. I regret that the name of the policy essay is CABALDEMONS.  I thought that was a little weird, but it was what it was, and I was not aware of CABALS at that time.  I would have used that instead.  No bad faith is involved here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse my continued nitpicking on this point, but this is not an article or a policy, it is an essay. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Userfy if the essay creator wants it. Otherwise, delete as outdated (i.e. suggesting that current policy does not call for the deletion of secret pages). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Metropolitan90. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Definitely project related, not entirely unreasonable rant.  Belongs in userspace as a single editor's rant.  For reference, note Words of wisdom as per Scott MacDonald 15:59, 16 December 2008.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy - Seems more of an analysis of particularly selected facts/views that is used to produce an indictment (cause for blame) rather than to produce a Wikipedia essay. As a strictly personal viewpoint, userfy as a user essay. Also per Metropolitan90. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy on request of any contributing user. --Bsherr (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Serves no useful purpose. I suppose if an editor wants to express this opinion in their userspace I would not take the page to MfD, but the page is not suitable as an essay in WP space since it would only be useful to berate an opponent, and to make unprovable and uncivil accusations against other editors (namely that cabals exist, and that the targeted editor is acting as a cabal member). Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Creator You can edit it to make it less harsh, I admit it is a bit ranty. However, I stand by my opinion that cabals are not just something to laugh at, they do exist and we must be frank about that. It's very rarely intentional, but people of like minds working together leads all to often to pernicious groupthink that can become very hostile to those not involved. They laughed about the backbone cabal, turned out that it did exist. More insidious is when it's done intentionally, anyone remember the Eastern European Mailing List? Just as antitrust laws encourage competition, by identifying power groups and working to head off their biases we encourage more involvement from neophyte editors and bring a wider array of ideas to the table, bringing us closer to neutrality on contentious subjects. Please, we've seen it before on many of those same subjects, denial by mockery is like sticking your head in the sand at the unpleasant flaws in the collaborative process.

Whew, after several months inactive I can still edit like a pro.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I support Ipatrol's right to express himself in this way, and urge him to userfy, where it is clearly interpreted as his own expression. Changing it, watering it down, to give it a semblance of being everybody's opinion detracts from the honesty behind the rant.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I don't object to userfying this, thus making it clear that it is one user's opinion and does not represent even a significant minority. Editing it to represent a wider range of views is not really a good road to go down since we already have perfectly good essays of that type on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Userfy- Appropriate as a userspace essay, not a Wikipedia-space one. Reyk  YO!  22:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.