Can we beat them at their own game?, Why not? Options

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.

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

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.


This post has been edited by Bruce Reynolds:

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.

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?

Well, that would be telling, wouldn't it? We have our little ways ...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

That's why we have the White Hat logo.

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

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

The only use I can see for an open forum is to solicit ideas on what articles to target.

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

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."

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

BTW - you have Best. Username. Evar. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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.

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.

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.

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

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

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.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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

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.

This post has been edited by Xidaf: