[kayxspre]

I have since distanced myself from Wikipedia as I feel I was increasingly pushed out of the "Cabal" (a term used to describe editors with aligned interest who usually worked together to set standards others must follow) who vigorously enforced the policy without considering the experience of, and willingness to engage with, new editors. I would rather have them create their own world while I move on to contribute to other communities more willing to welcome me.

[Kim_Bruning]

I should probably be the last person to say "There Is No Cabal" but ...

Many times, what you actually experience is a variant on the smart mob concept [1], which are enabled by watchlists and diverse central coordination pages[2] . The number of ways you could organize people on wikipedia without them even realizing (let alone being offended by it) by smart use of smart-mobs was (and probably still is) endless.

Of course, for a casual observer, these smart mobs look very much like coordinated cabals, even if in reality the individual members don't even know each other.

I'm not sure how well this base principle has been documented though. Possibly

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_mob

[2] eg DRN, ANI, AFD, diverse wikiprojects:

   * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

   * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

   * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion

   * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject

[mikhailfranco]

Agree, I had one very bad experience on Wikipedia. It was not a controversial or political subject area. I reverted ~30 bland look-at-me copy pasta contributions that might have belonged on the category page, but certainly not on every instance page. Obviously the right thing to do. Not controversial - or so I thought...

Some jumped-up self-appointed 'editor' appeared as-if-by-magic, made an obviously stupid decision to keep all the copy pasta, backed it up with a kangaroo court of 1 or 2 buddies weighing in on the Talk page, and that was that - 30 polluted pages.

[jugad]

> backed it up with a kangaroo court of 1 or 2 buddies weighing in on the Talk page

If they had a couple of other editors backing them up, then it doesn't sound all that "jumped up" to me. Sounds more like you are playing with a different set of rules in mind.

[denton-scratch]

> and that was that - 30 polluted pages.

This happens. Unless you're heavily-invested in the subject of an article, you can just shrug and move on, no? There's over a million articles you can choose to edit.

And by the way, when you made your edits, were you appointed to the position of editor, or were you a " jumped-up self-appointed 'editor'" as well?

[mikhailfranco]

I moved on, it was many years ago. But now that you mention it ... :)

No, I was doing everyday wikigardening of pages that were well-known to me. The 'editor' was jumped-up and self-appointed in the sense that: they were not the original poster of the copy pasta; they had no previous record of creating or editing those pages; they had a bezillion WP edits (indicating an almost full-time obsession with editing random pages); and they had no rational argument against my common-sense application of normal WP rules & style guidelines.

[denton-scratch]

> obsession with editing random pages

I've been editing since about 2005, so I have a lot of edits (but nothing you could describe as a bazillion). They would seem fairly random, because I edit when I find a page that needs improving. Arguably, it's more likely to be "obsessive" if the edits are not random, but all in one subject-area.

Also, I revert crap edits when I find them, usually when I was not the original poster. You don't have to be the original poster to revert a crap edit; and if you were, there's a smell of edit-warring and proprietorship.

[momirlan]

i think there is a "cabal" everywhere where moderation is involved. i have hit the wall on various platforms. i just try to move on, there are things that are more important in life than who is right on the internet.