I strongly urge people on the mailing list to also look at that ANI link. Here's a perm link, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Unless we are changing the definition of a cabal, that hardly describes these groups of students. One group even self-identified, and stated that they were presenting opinions about a dispute, for a class assignment. The other groups might simply not have thought of this, or didn't think it was a big deal. They caused no harm, and actually provided us with many good solutions to some existing disputes, from fresh, neutral minds.
They discussed things amongst themselves before hand, and carefully thought about how to present their ideas so that they would be best received. We do that on-wiki all the time, and not with the intent to manipulate, but simply understanding that how you present an idea is sometimes just as important as the idea itself. It's not much different than a micro-consensus being formed on one talk page, and then those editors going to a larger community discussion after having thought about what was discussed in the first discussion. It did not appear that any of them said anything they didn't actually believe, either as an individual or as a group.
This dispute didn't happen from the students, but more from a fear that came after discovering that they collaborated off-wiki. As [[User:Gladys j cortez]] said:
"I am of absolutely no consequence to this discussion, but the concern I see among the "regular" Wikipedians here is one of transparency. Had the participants announced their presence and intentions, as one group apparently did, I would imagine this would have been a non-issue. Gladys J Cortez01:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)"
-- Ned Scott
On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:54 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
How natural for the Ivy League. Real life cabalists become virtual ones.