Ex 9/11 Conspiracy Noticeboard member NuclearUmpf tells all about the:

Old Conspiracy Noticeboard

Cabal conspiracy

I am gonig to horribly violate WP:AGF but in the hope of explaining to you what happened. I was part of a clique that included Morton, Tbeatty, Mongo, Tom (Harrison) etc. we used to communicate off wiki for deletions, using the noticeboard basically. I would get emails telling me how I should vote and what guidelines etc. Kinda whats on the noticeboard now. Anyway I recently exposed the truth since its really not against any guidelines to tell people how they should vote and what policies, as long as you do it off wiki or in your own user space, meaning not posting to each persons. I cited this as a flaw and exposed how it worked etc, the admin protection we had under an understanding kinda thing, we were doing MONGO's dirty work and all. So Morton posts on my page basically saying he wont be my friend anymore, then removing me from his friends list all together on his own user page. Then in came the workers, I say workers because certain people play certain roles, like Morton removes sources from articles to prep them for WP:RS complains during the AfD, I pose as neutral to give the board a good image and play passive agressive, Tbeatty kinda does as Morton does. Arthur Rubin plays far neutral, not seeming like a member at all, Hipocrite does a lot of the agitating on talk pages and "snitching" and we all work together to preserve our versions. Tom reverts, the Morton, then Tbeatty, then Arthur, then Hipocrite etc. Since the article is on the noticeboard we know what to watch. We know what limits to push, what talk infuriates people. Just keep callnig the opposing party "truthers" and "conspiracy theorists" and they will get annoyed, and usually say something stupid enough to be cited for WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF etc. The thing is Thatcher is the system works on 1 to 1 editing, 3RR stops revert wars when its 1 to 1, but when its 3-1, it just helps maintain a particular view. Its why Travb, FAAFA, Nescio, Seabhcan, Stone Put To Sky, etc ended up on the losing end or gone or de-sysop'd, they worked alone and didnt form up to make their own boards etc. Their own "teams". You can see usually from the AfD's, one person makes an arguement and everyone just rephrases it or says, "per morton", yet they appear to be a concensus because 7 editors on one AfD is higher then normal for such a little known topic, and they all vote the same ... Anyway happy new year, I am gonig to log my trends offline most likely for voting habits of people on that noticeboard as well as admin actions by some etc. Feel free to remove or keep, I mean, what happens when the truth is that people operate in bad faith? --NuclearZer0 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's what I tried to document in that "Cabals on Wikipedia" essay, although I really mean just a POV clique that communicates off-wiki. It is an incredibly common trick these days, and increasingly transparent one as well.

That's not the only clandestine WikiClique that Tom Harrison belongs to.

"Remov[ing] sources from articles to prep them for WP:RS complains during the AfD" is really, really nasty stuff. That's lower than I'd have thought even these kind of people would sink.

That's true, I haven't seen that technique used up close. Maybe FNORD23 can walk us through the process this group uses to get articles deleted as it happens in real-time on Wikipedia? It would be very informative to watch them at work and to understand their technique. I can then document it so that others can learn to recognize it and counteract it (if there are ways to counteract it) or make use of it for their own purposes if they so choose. Exposing these manipulative techniques to sunlight can be very useful for all involved.

Example one. (didn't notice this AFD until after it was deleted) Tactics used : Bogus (overly narrow) Google search to assert non-notability. They exposed their true motives though, as they listed her AFD as 'Wife of 9/11 truther'

AFD Kathleen Christison (16 year CIA agent - now critical of Israel

Discussion of this improper AFD:

Discussion

Under : One particular case with documentation

It wasn't just overly narrow, they combined two book titles, didn't they? She wrote two books, "The Wound of Dispossession" (630 hits by itself), and "Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy" (530 hits by itself).

So they claimed the combined title, "perceptions of palestine and the Wound of Dispossession," only generated 150 hits, which may have been true at the time... but I tried it just now, and it got 438 hits, not 150. They also "cited" two separate Google search links that were for the exact same quoted phrase.

Presumably there have been a whole bunch of new reviews and blog postings since October 2006, of course, but it does look rather underhanded!

I think that this conclusively demonstrates that the good intentions of some members of this forum, who earlier were inclined to give MONGO the benefit of the doubt, were misguided.

Nuclear was giving himself entirely too much credit here. I, for one, don't ever recall e-mailing NuclearUmpf -- he didn't even have e-mail enabled until the last few days of his existence on the Wiki, so what he claims isn't possible. An odd one, that Nuclear. ~~~~

Yes, I've seen his talk page...

Still, you could have come up with a better word than "Mijo," surely? One only has to look it up in the Urban Dictionary to know that it might set the guy off. I dunno, maybe something like "Nuke-man" instead?

His betrayal and outing of 'The Cabal' was one of the highlights of my year+ on Wiki. I was pretty happy whenTravB and I got Gabe to shut down the conspiracy noticeboard too. ;-) You should be happy for NU that he finally woke up from his bush/neocon/GOP koolaid induced stupor! I'm holding out hope for you too!