User:Linuxbeak/There really isn't a cabal

I know, I know. Cabal denial and all that, yeah yeah. I'm asking you to for a fleeting moment of your time to drop your anger, hostility, paranoia, etc. I don't care who you are: Lir, Daniel Brandt, Jimbo, or anyone who even marginally cares about this issue. For a few minutes, I'm asking everyone to please drop their arms, stop yelling at each other from one forum to another, and just listen to what I've got to say. After you're done reading, you're more than welcome to go right back to screaming and fighting each other.

First, a brief history of myself on Wikipedia. I have been an editor for over a year. Back when I was working on the Civil Air Patrol article, I encountered nothing but friendly people who helped me. I learned the ropes, worked on my article, and said "Hey! This is pretty neat!" So, I got to work, brought Civil Air Patrol up to featured article status, and fell in love with this idea of collaboration.

Back when I ran for administrator, I had no idea who Daniel Brandt, Lir, etc., were. Nor did I really care. Heck, I had no clue what the word "cabal" even meant. I've worked with computers for a while, but I wasn't around for USENET, so this idea of "cabalism" was completely new to me.

I worked more and more trying to give back to Wikipedia, as it has provided me with a plethora of information compiled by people like myself. There were no politics, no games, and no cabals. There was only this idea of Wikipedia and free information.

The more and more that I dived into Wikipedia, the more and more I realized that yes, politics were involved. Any organization that involves a lot of people and policies will involve politics. This doesn't necessarily mean that the politics involved are correct or incorrect. I think the NPOV policy is excellent in idea, but in reality we will never reach true neutrality. It just won't happen. I also like our civility policy. It's a good idea to be nice to people, even when you disagree with them. However, this policy is broken all too often, and I myself have been guilty of being hostile towards those who I didn't agree with. I think it's proper to apologize in a case like this to whoever you wronged. For example, I said some mean things to Daniel Brandt, who I happen to disagree with to varying degrees. However, I called Mr. Brandt up and apologized for my rude words, as another editor pointed my mistakes out to him. This wasn't done for the sake of politics; this was done to be a decent human being.

I have done my best to make people feel welcome whenever I'm a part of something, and that means forgiveness, good faith, hospitality and defense. I have nothing to gain from actions such as these except a warmer atmosphere and sense of community. Prime example: there is a user called JarlaxleArtemis. Jarlaxle was a disruptive editor who often created headaches for people. Eventually, he was banned from the Wikipedia community for harassing people on Wikipedia as well as off. I happened to be one of his biggest targets, as I was heavily involved in him being banned. Several months after his ban, he was still being hostile towards me. Nevertheless, I contacted Jarlaxle and asked him if he would like a chance to come back to Wikipedia. After an apology and some mentoring, he was let back into the community. I did the same for an arguably more dangerous user by the name of MARMOT, and I let him back as well.

Another example of something that I don't gain anything from: a pedophilia watchdog group called Perverted Justice published a press release from another supposedly anti-pedophile group which accused several of our editors to be supporters of pedophilia. This is obviously a very touchy situation, and one which could lead to legal issues. I authored a response to this press release defending the mislabeled editors and asked for an apology. Why did I do this? I care for those who work on Wikipedia. They are my friends and my peers. I hate seeing people in a jam that they don't belong in, so I do my best to help them.

Now that I have presented myself to you in such a fashion as to say that I'm not a shady character or a member of the CIA, I'll get on with what I really want to say.

I don't know when I was first targeted to be a "member of the cabal". Everyone always jokes around on IRC about the cabal, but in reality, there really isn't a cabal. Some people are rude, some people are obnoxious, some people have agendas which they try to push. However, I do not believe for one moment that there is some type of organized body that is trying to push for x y and z. I know that you aren't going to believe it, but seriously, I'm telling you the truth. We (those active on Wikipedia) aren't out here to "get" you.

Wikipedia isn't perfect, as we all know. There are things that really don't work. Critics of Wikipedia do tend to get the short end of the stick, and there are definitely overtones of cabalism (although one really doesn't exist). This doesn't need to remain this way. As a matter of fact, I'd love to work with everyone on Wikipedia Review to address complaints and solve whatever needs to be solved. I can't affirm that everything will work out, but the least that we can do is try to sit down and talk to each other.

I'm frequently available on irc.freenode.net, channel #wikipedia. I want to talk to everyone and listen to what they've got to say. I want to talk to our critics as a fellow human and academic rather than snipe at each other through IRC and web forums. I want to reach out like I did to JarlaxleArtemis, MARMOT and Daniel. Let us solve problems rather than war over them.

--Alex Schenck, Wikipedia editor and administrator Username:Linuxbeak