Wikipedia talk:Cabals

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

It would be good to find some appropriate pages where this could be added as a link, so it's not an orphan.--Father Goose (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did a couple (WP:CABAL and WP:ROUGE). Now it needs a section on "imagined cabals", of the type described at WP:CABAL.--Father Goose (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There Is No Cabal[edit]

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and we show a disclaimer that there is no cabal at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that's not enough to convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woah there! Did you get Lumber Cartel permission to write this? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? Flamingraptor (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Groups of editors conspire offline[edit]

I have seen firsthand on Wikipedia how the word "conspiracy theory" is used to keep those in power in power, and to have the larger public discount evidence "out of hand".

During the biography wars a few years ago, when Scott deleted several hundred poorly resourced articles and got an "ATTA BOY" from User:Jimmy Wales. Someone squealed that this group of 20 or so people were working offline together. One of the administrators who was involved in this scandal refused to say more, but the offline cabal did exist, and probably does exist still today.

I was mildly shocked to find something out today. The source of the term "conspiracy theories" was popularized and become part of the mainstream America culture by the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who labeled people who didn't believe that Oswald acted alone in the death of JFK as "conspiracy theorists".

This past eight months living in Moscow Russia, I have seen first hand how the Russian media has since picked up on this very valuable tool to manipulate their own population and squelch ideas that are unpopular and dangerous.

There are no conspiracy theories, there are only interests. Jimmy Wales supports a group of people who want to severely restrict what is on wikipedia. It is in his best interest, and those cronies who surround him, to dismiss minority ideas like "Cabals". Just like it is in the best interest of state governments to do the same. Moscowamerican (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably confusing the word "cabal" with "clique" or "camp". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think sometimes Cabals may potentially function by instinct. I'll be back! =\ Greg Kaye 01:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate controversy[edit]

AE enforcement of GG articles is an example of cabal. 86.125.45.220 (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]