This achived version better expresses my experience with tag teams.
This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: "Tag teaming" is a technique in which editors work in concert in a disruptive way, usually in order to promote a particular point of view. |
Tag team is a term used to describe editors who work together as a group in a way that is disruptive to an article or project, usually in order to promote a particular agenda or point of view. Editors working as a tag team may attempt to circumvent the normal process of consensus, by organizing their edits so that they can manipulate policies and guidelines (such as 3rr and civility) that editors are required to follow, or by marshaling support artificially, in order to blockade, obfuscate, or overwhelm discussions. Tag teaming is considered a pernicious form of meatpuppetry.
Only a fraction of the cooperative behavior seen on Wikipedia can be considered tag-teaming. Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, so not all editors who share the same point of view are working as a team: Remember to assume good faith.
A Tag team is a term used to describe a group of editors that has been working together in a way that is disruptive to an article or project, usually to try and breach our neutrality (WP:NPOV), no original research (WP:NOR) and verifiability (WP:V) policies. As such, discussions attacked by tag teams may superficially appear to be a consensus, but the end result has the opposite effect of consensus-based editing. Key to understanding tag-teaming is the distinction between tag-teaming and consensus-based editing.
In consensus-based editing, a number of editors, often with differing viewpoints, work together to craft an article that is fully compliant with Wikipedia's core content policies, WP:NPOV. WP:V and WP:NOR. Tag teams tend to disrupt this process. Thus, compliance with Wikipedia's core content policies is a key element in distinguishing between a tag team and legitimate consensus seeking editors.
It should be pointed out that if there are two (or more) groups of editors supporting specific versions of an article or group of articles, either, or both may be acting as a "tag team". A group of editors opposing a tag team is not necessarily consensus-based.
Tag-teamers may make an unusually large number of edit reverts to an article, and edits that assist their teammates in edit-warring. They may use a good deal of wikilawyering language. The tag team may jump from dispute to dispute on different articles in the same topic area, engaging in similar behavior.
Tag teams are typically characterized by aggressive tactics, which may include one or many of the following:
Potential goals of tag teams are many, but may include:
In most cases tag-teams are involved in content disputes with other groups of editors. Under these circumstances following dispute resolution remains the best solution, but tag team behavior may compromise dispute resolution processes up to a point, by undermining the consensus process. Strict application of core content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR give the best hope. Accordingly, a reviewer must be able to discern mainstream, notable, and fringe points of view, and reliable and unreliable sources; this often requires that the reviewer be familiar with the subject matter of the article. It is particularly important to maintain a cool, calm attitude, since tag teams often try to generate emotional reactions to confuse the issue at hand.
Concerns about editors' personal behavior can be addressed in requests for comments, WP:AN/I and other such boards. In cases where this is not applicable or does not resolve the problem, article probation could be sought by a community discussion.
This achived version better expresses my experience with tag teams.
This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: "Tag teaming" is a technique in which editors work in concert in a disruptive way, usually in order to promote a particular point of view. |
Tag team is a term used to describe editors who work together as a group in a way that is disruptive to an article or project, usually in order to promote a particular agenda or point of view. Editors working as a tag team may attempt to circumvent the normal process of consensus, by organizing their edits so that they can manipulate policies and guidelines (such as 3rr and civility) that editors are required to follow, or by marshaling support artificially, in order to blockade, obfuscate, or overwhelm discussions. Tag teaming is considered a pernicious form of meatpuppetry.
Only a fraction of the cooperative behavior seen on Wikipedia can be considered tag-teaming. Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, so not all editors who share the same point of view are working as a team: Remember to assume good faith.
A Tag team is a term used to describe a group of editors that has been working together in a way that is disruptive to an article or project, usually to try and breach our neutrality (WP:NPOV), no original research (WP:NOR) and verifiability (WP:V) policies. As such, discussions attacked by tag teams may superficially appear to be a consensus, but the end result has the opposite effect of consensus-based editing. Key to understanding tag-teaming is the distinction between tag-teaming and consensus-based editing.
In consensus-based editing, a number of editors, often with differing viewpoints, work together to craft an article that is fully compliant with Wikipedia's core content policies, WP:NPOV. WP:V and WP:NOR. Tag teams tend to disrupt this process. Thus, compliance with Wikipedia's core content policies is a key element in distinguishing between a tag team and legitimate consensus seeking editors.
It should be pointed out that if there are two (or more) groups of editors supporting specific versions of an article or group of articles, either, or both may be acting as a "tag team". A group of editors opposing a tag team is not necessarily consensus-based.
Tag-teamers may make an unusually large number of edit reverts to an article, and edits that assist their teammates in edit-warring. They may use a good deal of wikilawyering language. The tag team may jump from dispute to dispute on different articles in the same topic area, engaging in similar behavior.
Tag teams are typically characterized by aggressive tactics, which may include one or many of the following:
Potential goals of tag teams are many, but may include:
In most cases tag-teams are involved in content disputes with other groups of editors. Under these circumstances following dispute resolution remains the best solution, but tag team behavior may compromise dispute resolution processes up to a point, by undermining the consensus process. Strict application of core content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR give the best hope. Accordingly, a reviewer must be able to discern mainstream, notable, and fringe points of view, and reliable and unreliable sources; this often requires that the reviewer be familiar with the subject matter of the article. It is particularly important to maintain a cool, calm attitude, since tag teams often try to generate emotional reactions to confuse the issue at hand.
Concerns about editors' personal behavior can be addressed in requests for comments, WP:AN/I and other such boards. In cases where this is not applicable or does not resolve the problem, article probation could be sought by a community discussion.