I have an account in good standing a Wikipedia, and I know a few other people who likewise do. Why can't we form our own "cabals" to restore neutrality to articles that are "WP:OWNED" by the Wikipedia Cabal? I am calling upon members of this Review to discuss this option and to draw up a list of articles which are now indisputably non-neutral, so we can set about correcting them.

Ah, the naivity of youth.

Tag teaming does not a cabal make. You need people who are prepared to misrepresent, deny, censor, refactor and a whole lot of other things. If you try using the techniques the cabal uses against the cabal, you will be banned in no time. It's the way it works. The list of members here that fall into that category is lon.

If it was simply a case of behaving as badly as the "other side", WR would have no problem coping! However, to do the job properly, you need logical reasoned arguments on articles, and we know that this approach can get you banned or transform you into a hideously repulsive banned user whose genes should be scoured from the earth.

Cabal power is maintained with Admin tools. Even the non-Admin Cabalistas (like User:Calton and, now, User:Durova) always run to their Admin Mommies when they need someone blocked or checkusered or permanently rolled back. So, this discussion is moot, unless you think you can organize a counter-Cabal composed primarily of Admins.

Right now, there is a small assembly of admins on Wikipedia who seem to recognize and see through the bullshit, and I think they could successfully collect their power if they so chose. However, to name them here would do permanent damage to their strength, and besides -- a true Cabal does it for the self-satisfying aggrandizement of power, and none of the Admins I'm thinking about here has displayed any of the smug, personally-motivated traits of power acquisition that the Old Cabal routinely displays. Thus, in other words, a Good Cabal is an oxymoron.

Greg

I had an idea like this a while ago -- I should write it up and post it. The idea is this: You set up a group of people who generally don't know each other, and who communicate through a safe, trusted intermediary (I'll explain how to establish trust later). The intermediary ("Giapetto Prime") maintains a collection of account names/passwords ("socks") and a collection of edit requests ("tags"). He doles out a sock/tag pair to anyone wanting to join the team.

Once a member joins the team and makes the edit(s), he or she relinquishes the sock, its password is changed, and the cycle repeats. The socks are "cleansed" every now and then by being passed around to do uncontroversial edits and vandalism reversion.

The socks would be difficult to ID as socks, since they would not come from a single IP, and while they could be blocked, no single sock would do anything block-worthy -- just the insertion of a reasonable citation on (e.g.) the "Gary Weiss" or "Chip Bertlet" page, or whatever, a revert or two, a little piece of talk-page argument, then *poof*, they disappear and go somewhere else, and another takes their place.

After six months to a year of this, we could start to run these socks for adminship. They would look like normal conscientious editors with a slightly broader-than-average scope of interests. Of course, we could use the socks themselves to support the RFAs of their brethren. Soon, with some discipline, you would have your own cabal!

Once a particular sock-runner (e.g. "Giapetto Segundo") had racked up enough edits and established both skill and stealth, they could become a trusted intermediary, establishing their own nest of socks and running them, communicating upward only with Giapetto Prime, and fully compartmentalized. Soon you would have the Amway of cabal creation. Through skillful use of gmail drop-boxes, no one would every have to know who anyone else was.

Dunno if this would really work, but it might be fun to try.

It's called PACMAN (q.v.)

But the Wikipediot Recyclers at this Φorum are too Weenie to Shake.

Jonny

I'm not quite sure what "too Weenie to Shake" means, but you don't really need a forum to run this idea, as when well-run, it is entirely hidden. The only use I can see for an open forum is to solicit ideas on what articles to target.

(Added later): I have jusst reviewed your PACMAN post. It's kinda hard to understand, but I guess the main difference is that I'm not suggesting creating "public accounts". Seems to me the reason people won't do this is that if they're publicized, they will be immediately banned, probably along with the IP of those using them. My proposal is the inverse of this -- not to be used for pure disruption, but rather to combat WP:OWNership of articles.

As Dogbiscuit and TheKohser point out, the deck is stacked against you. When the cabal tag-teams do it, they are doing it for the good of the project, but if you do it, you're gaming the system -- get it?

Also, the strength of the Review is in shedding light on such practices, not in sinking to them ourselves. That's why we have the White Hat logo.

Why would you want to spend hundreds of hours gaming Wikipedia? That's time you could spend here, or watching TV, or sleeping.

Besides, there are still human beings at the top of that food chain. There's only so much you can do by typing text into a computer.

So how do you explain away that the sockpuppets focus on an article for five seconds and then go away, never to be seen there again for a long time?

Wikipedians aren't all stupid, and it only takes one person seeing what you're doing to stop it.

Well, that would be telling, wouldn't it? We have our little ways ...
Your first point is not widely shared, however, the nice thing about this is the compartmentalization -- you find one sock, you kill one sock -- it doesn't get you many others, at least without taking down lots of legit users.

And if you think I'm going to explain it in more detail here, well .... no. Mr. K above has made it clear that this isn't a place to organize it, so I'm going to shut up for now. Email "Bruce.R.Reynolds" on ye olde Gmail for more info, but patience will be required -- this will be slow to get started.

I agree with this attitude. Its a huge waste of time to work on WP. Its just a hole that you dig yourself into. The most productive thing to do with wikipedia is to flag it as slurry. If you spend your time pointing out the mass of absurdities, at least you get to have a laugh with people who "get it".

And if you work on pointing out the blatant pushing of sick personal and commercial concerns, at least you get to warn other people of the crimes that are being committed by editors, admins, and head honchos on a daily basis.

It was quite satisfying to see the cabal scurry around trying and failing to hide their arses after the recent spanking episode. That sort of thing is worth repeating for as long as they continue such self-serving, unethical, and negligent behavior.

I can't believe I am the only one who's going to take the "ethics" angle here. This counter-cabal would surely be very hypocritical.

I always thought the white hat was a joke about Johnny Cache.

And Amarkov is exactly right; such editing patterns will make even indifferent users suspicious. Moreover, there's no point to switching the socks around while making occasionally controversial edits. If anything, that will only postpone successful RFA. Perhaps you could raise an admin hoard first, but no swapping scheme would be required for that.

All that said, I think some admins would be braver if they knew that other conscientious admins would get their back. I think this site is perfect for alerting such users to ongoing persecution.

I must admit that I am a little bit disappointed. The reputation that you guys have at Wikipedia makes you look like a bunch of marauders and desperadoes, but when I meet you up close you seem to be more mild-mannered. Plus, I see more and more Wikipedia admins registered here, which makes it look like you have gone "establishment."

If you don't want me to push the idea here I won't, but just let me say that I have enough accounts lined up that I think I can give the cabal a run for its money. Plus, I think that Bruce's idea can add additional firepower. So, I'm going to take his advice and shoot him an email. Who's with me?

I think it's an excellent idea, but would need some discipline. The socks would have to be nicely ripened and each would have to have their own character. To my mind (sorry Greg) the Kohser always ruins his ones by ranting on about Wikipedia Review or the WikiF audit or whatever within about 2 mins of opening the account and then bang. The right way to do it would be for each sock to stick carefully to their own defined field of excellence, whatever that is, and not stray into WP politics. Perhaps a bit of cleaning up and help and extreme politeness, awarding of barnstars.

As long as there is one expert in each subject area, who could advise the person operating the sock, and an agreed line to take on each issue, should not be difficult.

As for white hat/black hat, what's wrong with offline collusion? The other side (paedophiles, zoophiles) do it all the time, there's plenty of evidence from the public forums on that. So why not?

Count me in. Best idea I've heard in a long time. PM me.



Sad to say I never realised that. I thought it was a 'cowboy' hat!




I'm with you and Bruce. Assuming, that is, that you are different people :-)




Wouldn't it then be obvious what was going on?

Oh dear. Us adminz lowering the tone of the neighbourhood again? Tsk

BTW - you have Best. Username. Evar.

Can you explain to me why the hell I'd want to get my hands dirty to *improve* wikipedia articles? So someone can copy them to another website and make a few adsense pennies?

I really don't need WP to mediate the internet for me, and I am not compelled to mediate the internet for others.

Buster,

I order to beat people at their own game you would have to know what their game is.

That is where I see the fundamental flaw in this whole thread, since many of the more n00bish commentators on this thread remain so brainwashed by Wikipediot PR that they can't see the game for the moves.

Welcome to the Hole In The Wall …

Jonny

I'm thinking that this little game could be fun. I'm not seeing it as "hundreds of hours" -- probably more like "handful of hours". I'm also not seeing it as a long-term "improvement" of articles in Wikipedia. My goal would be to maximize the counter-response effort and time, so that the Wikipediots (they love to debate and insult one another, even more than us) actually end up spending an order of magnitude more time reacting to our activity than we actually spend on our activity.

Small investment. Potentially huge comical returns.

It's only a waste of time in a hypothetic reality in which Wikipedia had the credibility it should merit (none). Because it would be needless to try changing things to prevent harm, when it has no credibility to harm anyone. Unfortunitly, Wikipedia has some credibility.

Good point, but I think you're quoting Docknell, rather than me.

Sorry, fixed.

I wonder all those who contribute on Wikipedia, how many of them knowing how the project is working would want to create Wikipedia if it did not exist. Can those who still contribute there answer? Wikipedia seems to be separated by the damage controlers on one side and the POV pushers on the other and those lucky ones in the middle who have found a spot where there could be reasonable academic contribution.

Those lucky ones won't care much of its nonexisance, they can have their little personal site to share their knowledge. The damage controlers will pray each day that such project never comes to light and the POV pushers will hit their heads on the walls wanting to recreate it.

The only unhappy ones who will lose from its nonexistance are the very same who are making Wikipedia fail. Such a paradox.

Academic contribution lol, I wouldn't characterise most contributions to Wikipedia, especially my own, in those terms.

We're not all damage controllers or POV pushers, it's sad to say that some of us just find contributing to wikip fun

And while I would be too apathetic and not have the rallying motivational powers of Jimbo to be able to create it from scratch, I enjoy it while it's there. Speaking for myself, I contribute due to enjoyment, if it were destroyed and someone else started it up again, I would happily contribute. Though it might not be as fun as it is, if there were less people contributing.

Of course I'm sometimes enraged by the shocking stuff that happens on wikipedia, and I feel for those who've been treated badly by it. But it's still my guilty pleasure.

Some people- perhaps such as Slim, Durova etc, see wikipedia as 'work' it seems, 'the project' etc. They would have more of an investment in damage control, suppression of information and so on. Whereas I would suggest the greatest amount of contributors do so for pleasure- especially the vandals and trolls lol (which I'm not of course.)

You sound like a weekend pot smoker. Are you describing recreational drug use or editing Wikipedia? Its difficult to tell the difference.

Maybe I wasn't clear on what I implied by damage control. Damage controlers are not admins, damage controlers are those who contribute for the sole purpouse of fixing crap lefts by bad intentioned people. Those tree categories are independent from someones statue on Wikipedia.

Those who only contribute to fix stuff already there, not grammar but intentional mistakes would want the entire project to come to its end. The only same ones who want Wikipedia to survive after knowing all its weaknesses would be the very same ones who make it fail.

All this cabal stuff, and administrative irrelevencies you guys are so talking about are just minor and not the root of the problem. Wikipedia could have the best intentioned administrators who really care making an encyclopedia work, it will still fail as a project. The problem reside with the project itself not those who runs it. Those who runs it can make it worst and only precicipate its downfall, but they are not the cause of the imminant downfall.

Not really.
Don't you have some activities you engage in primarily just for amusement?



Perhaps some people enjoy the kudos they get on wiki from being a do-gooder, and from being right and accurate, correcting inaccuracies and unfairnesses. For people to contribute much of their time to wikipedia, I doubt they would want it to go, as they enjoy the process of cleanup etc and improving wiki as they see it- as such they often have some dedication to the 'project.'



What do you personally believe will cause wikipedia to fail? (Not that I disagree with you, I just need to understand what you believe it is.) Do you mean the fact that, allegedly, anyone can edit it?

I disagree, those same who fix it know its weakness they would want to create something else which would address the very same problems they face. It's only the ill intentioned people who would want to create the same Wikipedia, since its Weaknesses are the very reason why they injoy editing.

As for your last question. It's preciselly that. The fact that everyone can edit it. There should be exchange of knowledge in the preparation of articles, not its redaction directly in mainspace. The community should be centered around providing the sources, determining their credibility. The redaction of the articles should be done by people who are fit to write articles based on the materials and gathering of information by the community. Those making the redactions should disclose their personal informations and take responsability of what they write.

That's the only way that any online open encyclopedia could ever work, this is not what Wikipedia is. And this is why Wikipedua is a failure, it already failed. It's not because it isen't dead that it means it hasn't failed. It failed because it's not what it claims to be. It's not an encyclopedia.

Working on Wikipedia is a little bit like working in Dr. Frankenstein's Lab.

If you succeed, you bring the monster to life.

If you fail, you feel like a failure at bringing the monster to life.

Bringing the monster to life is fun. For a little while.

But then one has to learn to live with the monster as a housemate.

If ever there is a playing field that, in fact, nurtures the building of a work of knowledge and goodness, free of politics and endorsements, then it will approximate A.A., certainly not WP.
The latter is all about politics and endorsements and super secret ego boosting.

This is just my personal opinion, but I'd have to say that there's no point in participating in Wikipedia unless you want to attain adminship, and are willing to do whatever that entails, including sucking up and generally pretending to buy into the whole pseudo-quasi-utopian BS concept of it all. (This is why I myself don't bother trying! )

Any effort to gain recognition for good writing or actual editing is obviously pointless, unless you only do it for the sake of practice and self-improvement as a writer/editor - and mind you, I'm not saying that's a bad motivation. But even then, you're in for mostly heartbreak and misery in the long term. More importantly, trying to help expose bias, spam, and revenge-getting on WP without admin status - and I do mean status - is one of those "pissing in your pants on a rainy day" sort of affairs (i.e., it gives you a good feeling for about 2 minutes, but nobody notices, and in the end all you've accomplished is to ruin a perfectly good pair of pants).

But once you've attained adminship, and are hopefully not corrupted or sucked into the cult-like ethical void in the process, then you can probably do some good, I would think. But you'd have to be fairly subtle and very patient about it, and not "blow your wad" on one particular issue, incident, or topic area.

I believe a lot of people are actually doing this now - and have, in fact, actually done it in a few cases. This results in a certain amount of suspicion and divisiveness between the older "cabalist" admins and the newer non-cabal ones, some of which is wrongly blamed on people like us here at WR. The newer admins have little or no personal investment in maintaining various farcically abusive practices, and have fewer allies to defend - so some of them are starting to ask some uncomfortable questions. This, of course, results in a lot of talk about "seniority," "experience," and so on.

Eventually, the maintenance phase will give way to the lockdown phase, and any sense of enjoyment that non-admins may have obtained from just about any aspect of Wikipedia will evaporate. But it will still exist, and people will still use it to look things up, for a fairly long time, depending on the Google rankings. So, quite frankly, anyone who wants to be a Wikipediot for the purpose of either reform or mere self-aggrandizement should get started on that fairly soon - if it isn't already too late.

Your observation doesn't take into account that Wikipedia is 1) popular and 2) injoy some credibility which means that it can be very harmful.

The only way to combat the beast is to expose it. Target where it really matters expose why it is not credible and why it can not be trusted. If it loses its credibility it loses its ability to harm.

True that. I wouldn't still be there if it didn't top practically every google search. I'm there for the same reason that conflicts of interest and POV-pushers are.

I admire the goals of this thread's proposal, but any structure like Wikipedia is not the appropriate means. In the meantime, I'm just correcting some slander toward people I admire, and I'll expose absurdity whenever possible. Here's hoping the absurdities will eventually cause the project to collapse. We're making progress. The press actually covers them skeptically now.

You can not beat them in their own game, because there is no ''success'' (call that beating) with such a project, only failure. Wikipedia structure itself doesn't allow using its own ''game'' to do good. It doesn't work that way. You can have all the good intentions set a group of people to go fix stuff, the inevitable consequence will be a counter answer. The system can not work period, it was a failed experiment.

The only thing to do, is for all those good intentioned users who still are there with the main reason to build an accurate and true encyclopedia to leave the project and build theirs where ill intentioned people are not welcome and that where those who attempt to scrap it are answered by having their butts kicked without having to pass on such an inquisitionary stupid system called arbitration.

Wikipedia was supposed to be a collaborative project.

But in the absence of a functional conflict resolution process, it developed a cancerous tumor in the form of competitive editing and competitive strategies to disempower competing editors.

In Game Theory, it is an unsolved problem to convert a Game of Competition into a Game of Cooperation. The Prisoner's Dilemma is the classic introduction to this problem, since it's a game that's delicately balanced on the cusp separating Games of Competition from Games of Cooperation and Collaboration. Getting someone who is a fierce competitor by nature to shift from the Competitive Stance to the Cooperative Stance is equivalent to getting someone to change their religion. It requires an Epiphany. There is no reliable way to midwife the requisite Epiphany.

However, there is a popular way, and that is through the medium of a custom-crafted comic opera. It doesn't always work, but it's a better practice than pissing and moaning about what a dickhead the other guy is.

There was more in your message than you probably wanted to imply. The game theory draw a very good model of what Wikipedia is. The only reason why there are invasionists (parasits) it's because it's expected and predictable. Replace Wikipedia by artificial selection and you have the game similar as those between foraging producers, scroungers and a special third class and for every socialogists to study its phenomenon it is particularly this third class which is interesting. This third class has survived unexpectably and against the odds so there must be something, something in the system which worth replicating.

And the St. Fu Academy Award goes to …

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑

Not to mention a boatload of Barf Stars.

Jonny

That's a possibility, but I do believe that it is to give too much power in the hand of a limited number of people. It's knowledge we're talking about.

Also, believe it or not, a professional could be more biased on a subject. A professional has studied in his field, researched, published, and formed an opinion which may transcend in the articles he writes. There is a place for open encyclopedia, but it is neither Wikipedia nor Citizendum which can fulfil it.

Speaking of creating monsters, I've now got 5 legit. user accounts.

It's a work in progress, and I'm very proud of it so far.

For obvious reasons, I can't discuss who they are but I've taken a range of different characters including an openly gay male editor in his 40's - not that there is anything wrong with that, to a twenty something Asian born female university student.

Its not hard to do, just take one interest (no, I'm not gay) or hobby in your life and assign it to a character, and build it into a real person.

All these identities are creating editing different articles, and all are coming from different IP addresses. I typically use internet cafes and university accounts. One character has earned the respect of the person that had me kicked.

It's starting to become a monster, as I have to record which location I'm editing from in a book and briefly summarize what I'm currently editing. At this stage no user has crossed paths in Wikipedia.

I spend a couple of hours a week on the exercise.

Hmmm ... That's what I was accused of doing, developing my bondage enthusiasm (!!) and photographing stations enthusiasm (!!) and eminent German chemists enthusiasm (!!) into distinct people.

Planned something like that, then didn't see why I should hide myself. If I wasn't banned maybe creating different socks each working on some hobbies could have worked and could not have been considered the same thing.

It's a waste of time changing IP's and being careful about that, it's like you're a prisoner who escaped prison and come back to society wth a forged identity.

Good work, Brutus! I will be in contact in a few weeks, after you have ripened them. I advise you to write a para or two of 'back-story" for yer socks, in the event you decide to trade them with our burgeoning sock-trading society (still looking for a name: The Sock Drawer? Secret Sockciety? Tag-Team Editing Club?) I've put together a database to organize this sock-sharing and re-distribution, to minimize the chances of getting caught.

I'm also thinking about techniques for "inoculating" socks against WP:SOCK claims. Most I don't want to discuss, but one is to have two socks edit several pages in common over some period, but clearly from two different locations/IPs, then post Requests for Checkuser against them, accusing them of sock-itude in a situation where they will clearly be found "unrelated". The two socks then go their separate ways. This might muddy the waters for future sock accusations.

Xidaf is only half right. It is important to create the socks from different IPs, and not bang-bang-bang one after the other in time, as that info is kept forever. Once created, though, if you're going to be low-key and uncontroversial (and non-confrontational), then it doesn't matter what IPs, browser, etc, you edit from, as that info is only kept for 4-8 weeks.

You will need to let you socks "rest" for a while, either in your hands or another's, before they engage in anything that might get them checkuser'd, because the IP info does show up if checked.

But this "creation IP" issue is my biggest concern, because I have to keep track of that in order not to get other socks in trouble. If you are going to create a sock-drawer, be sure to make a note of the IP from which the sock is created!

When I made that comment, I wasn't commenting on the use of several socks which would appear unconnected, my point was that it is pointless to do that.

I can sock, yet no one will know it's me even if I do not use open proxies and be left on my own IP. If you don't want to be checkused you just have to behave in a way to not be checkused. None of my socks have been suspected to be me and checkused before I said they were me.

There is really no point of using several different IPs, what's the point of creating several accounts and make them look unconnected other trying to fake concensus? Besides in my case, using my own IP for all the socks was a protection, no one can then pass as me since my IP is known.

I suggest keeping a written record of who's who in the "sock" drawer.

I've always thought someone could start a "clan". Where members talk and discuss editing strategy, but no one knows the identies of each members sock accounts . Its all very Orwellian, as Wikipedia resembles 1984 in some ways.

Members could slowly and silently create a respected editing history for their sock accounts has until a point in time where they could be turned en mass against difficult editors, admins, and arb's. These accounts could be used to defend "socks" who are "outed".

Hey Brutus - Yes, the strategy I'm pursuing allows for minimal -- almost zero -- knowledge between the participants. In effect, we're just talking about using confidential off-wiki communication as effectively as the cabal, as an organizing tool. Socks will only be needed initially to be used in some circumstances to offset the imbalance of power with admins -- i.e., they can block/ban, and they can investigate us in ways we cannot investigate them.

Kelly Martin seems to be on board, here's what she recently posted elsewhere:

You guys are funny. 1984 or Star Wars Episode IV?

1984

As in 1984, Goldstein and his followers may or may not exist. The Clan could exist in name only, all u have to do is create a site where people register.

Well I've got some accounts ready for ripening - all doing good work for the moment, cleaning up articles, adding actual facts and removing trivia. Some questions:

* Why is the initial IP address important? I've followed this rule, but what is the evidence for it?

* I've checked that as long as you open a different browser, you can edit from different accounts simultaneously, so your socks could meet each other and talk, although there would have to be a plausible reason why this happened.

* What are we going to do with all this? One use would be for elections. The signal is given, and all the socks vote. But what is our common cause? What does this all stand for?

* If there is going to be control from some hidden account, how do we prevent it being busted? If all the sock names are there, it just takes one 'raid' and everyone lands 'in jail'. Could there be a layering system of cells so that the worst case is one cell gets busted? Then there would have to be an 'inner cabal' which has a highly trusted membership and admission that is carefully regulated according to certain principles. Then it starts looking ever more like a real cabal, of course.

You're wasting your time, in fact you are using one of Wikipedia's worst weakness. Your intentions may be good, but believe me you're not going to improve anything. What are your long term plans? Having several admin accounts? Don't you think the system is enough corrupted already?

Well that was the point I was making against those who originated the thread. There has to be a reason for doing this and a common shared goal, otherwise it won't work.

My own reasons are 1. curiousity to see if it would work - it does. 2. dramatic interest - can I create genuinely different characters who begin their lives and quite separate parts of the virtual world but find themselves drawn together by circumstance in a great drama that transcends mundane existence 3. more curiousity: could one of these write an FA, get RfA, get into the Cabal itself 4. pragmatic reasons - if this does work, it would take years, so best start early. And so on.

Yes, yes. I agree with points 1 & 2. Point 2 is remarkably similar to Second Life!

Point 3. All good insurgencies take a few years to take effect.

It doesn't have to be all real. They only have to think some people are out there organizing some sort of "fifth column".