Misplaced Pages:Tag team: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:38, 12 August 2008 editElonka (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,958 edits →Tag team characteristics: - reworking← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:42, 30 October 2024 edit undoLevivich (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers40,426 edits →Tag team characteristics: +multi-user edit warring / WP:MUEW
(499 intermediate revisions by 98 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Redirect\|WP:CIRCUS\|the WikiProject\|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Circus}}
	{{Essay}}
			{{Redirect\|WP:FACTION\|Misplaced Pages's policy against creating factions to disrupt its decision-making process\|WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND}}
	{{nutshell\|A "tag team" is a ] technique, where two or more editors work in concert in a disruptive way, on multiple articles}}
			{{Essay\|WP:TAGTEAM\|WP:FACTION\|WP:GANG\|WP:CAMP\|WP:CIRCUS}}

			] to coordinate the actions of multiple editors to circumvent the normal process of ] is inappropriate.]]
			'''Tag teaming''' (sometimes also called an '''editorial camp or gang''', '''factionalism''', or a '''travelling circus''') is a controversial{{NoteTag\|Controversial as there is no consensus regarding the merits of this essay in namespace. Editors have voiced concern that the "characteristics" of tag teams can easily be applied to editors who share a common practice of editing in accordance with policy, and that the essay can be used as a weapon against editors who are acting in accordance with Misplaced Pages's editing policies to cast aspersions on their good work. See ].}} form of ] in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of ]. As with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as ] and ]). Unlike "meatpuppetry", the phrase may be applied to otherwise legitimate editors. The phrase comes from "]s" in ], in which teams of two or more wrestlers take turns in the ring – one brings in a teammate as relief/backup when in danger of ].

			Misplaced Pages encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team. ], and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team.

			Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are ]. Care should be taken to frame assertions appropriately, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our ] process.

			==Tag-team versus consensus-based editing==
			In ]-based editing, a number of editors, sometimes with differing viewpoints, work together to craft an article that is fully compliant with Misplaced Pages's core content policies, such as ] (WP:NPOV), ] (WP:NOR) and ] (WP:V). Editors may revert article changes that violate Misplaced Pages's core content policies; this is not tag teaming. A ] is formed when two or more editors coordinate their edits in a way that is disruptive to an article or to the project.

			There is no Misplaced Pages policy or guideline regarding tag teaming. Tag teaming that clearly falls under the narrow definition in this essay generally violates other guidelines and policies such as ] or ] (which {{em\|are}} guidelines). A group of editors acting in unison does NOT in itself constitute tag teaming.

	==Tag team characteristics==		==Tag team characteristics==
			{{shortcut\|WP:MUEW}}
	A ] is a term used to describe a group of editors that have been working together in a way which is disruptive to an article or project. Tag-teamers tend to work in the same topic area, suddenly appearing at disputes where one of their teammembers may be engaged, even if they have never edited that article, and have not been visibly notified or invited.
			Signs that may point to tag teaming include:
			* Working together to circumvent the ] (multi-user ] or "muewing")
			* ] – terse comments, little talk page justification
			* Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they ] an article. Tag team members will often revert changes, even if they are made based on talkpage consensus, and instead insist that consensus isn't clear yet, and more talking needs to happen on the talk page. This plays into a tag team's ], ] editing style and preserves a preferred version of an article. When discussion is attempted, tag team members will often respond with circular argumentation and a continual ] made by those they oppose. Even if voices from the wider community come in to show a differing community consensus, tag-teamers may refuse to "let the matter drop" at article talk pages. When the community's attention has been diverted to other matters, tag teams may continue to bring up the same matters again and again, to try and create the appearance of a new consensus.
			** ''However:'' Simple refusal to compromise is not necessarily evidence of tag teaming, especially where Misplaced Pages's core policies are involved. If the apparent consensus favors content that obviously violates Misplaced Pages policies, such as those applying to ], then the information should nonetheless be removed.
			* Reluctance to incorporate new ] perspectives in an article. Tag-teamers will often attempt to get an article the way they want it, and then insist that nothing new should be added from then on, because it "violates consensus".
			** ''However:'' Not all sources are created equally, and editors may resist the addition of information from sources that violate the ]. Furthermore, edits that violate the ], for example by giving ] to a minority opinion, will often be reverted.
			* Reluctance to work towards compromise, or to follow Misplaced Pages ] processes. Tag teams are usually reluctant to request opinions from the wider community, as that would upset the appearance of consensus that they are attempting to portray on a particular article.
			** ''However:'' ]. Repeatedly bringing the same (or superficially different) circumstances into dispute resolution forums can be unhelpful, and may be considered abuse of process.
			* ]. Tag team members will often write affirmations of support for other tag team members in order to make it appear that a community consensus exists. This often manifests as disparate users, who do not normally participate in that topic area, showing up ] support or opposition for a particular proposal made by the tag team. The goal is to make it appear that consensus has happened when in fact it has not. Then, if/when other users notice the proposal and take sides opposed to the tag team, the tag team members may respond by claiming an extant consensus.
			** ''However:'' Many editors watch certain pages without participating in the discussions or editing the associated articles. When those editors see an issue arising, they may begin participating in the discussion; this does not make those editors meatpuppets.
			* ] and intimidation tactics. Members of a tag team may resort to {{lang\|la\|]}} arguments against dissenting editors, or even against the authors of reliable sources.
			** ''However:'' Consensus-based editors who are acting in good faith are only human – they may ]. Simple incivility is not proof of tag teaming.

			===Goals of tag teams===
	Note that some behaviors described as "tag team" characteristics, may not necessarily be bad. For example, it might be reasonable for the same editors to show up on the same pages, since they have a common interest in the subject matter. "Tag team", however, is when this kind of coordinated activity starts to become disruptive, such as to collectively ], circumvent normal ] methods, evade ] mechanisms, claim ] of an article, or act in other ways which are disruptive to the project.
			Potential goals of tag teams may include:
			* ] in disregard of the ] policy either by giving too little or too much exposure to a specific viewpoint as determined by applicable Misplaced Pages policies, or by imposing or blocking edits that advance or suppress ]. This may involve editing in concert to whitewash an article by excluding all criticisms, giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint, or excluding everything {{em\|except}} uniformly positive or uniformly negative information.
			*Revenge or personal vendetta, driven by a real or imagined grievance can be a powerful motivation. Once an editor or administrator is identified as an enemy, tag-teamers might ] that editor's contributions or user pages to annoy them, to try to undermine their credibility, or to keep them distracted from the tag team's sphere of control. If an editor is fending off attacks on their prized ], they will have less time to spend on one of the tag team's closely guarded articles.
			* Support of a team member. Tag team members may support anything that another member does, without question. Some team members may have no knowledge of the actual topic being discussed, but are just interested in supporting their friend against perceived adversaries.

			===Multiple-editor ownership===
	Tag teams are typically characterized by aggressive tactics, including:
			{{Main\|Misplaced Pages:Ownership of content#Multiple-editor ownership}}

			A related problem is ]. In theory, no one editor or group of editors owns an individual Misplaced Pages article. In practice, an article on an obscure topic will often be on the ] of only a small handful of editors who revert on sight any changes proposed by ] while insisting quite forcefully that their version is "consensus".
	* Consensus-blocking. Tag-teamers are usually reluctant to compromise, and resistant to requesting opinions from the wider community. They may refuse to "let the matter drop" at article talkpages, and instead continue to bring up the same matters again and again, usually agreeing with each other, in an attempt to create an illusion of consensus.
	* Name-calling and ] at perceived opponents.
	* Attempts to discredit their opponents' character or motivations
	* ] and intimidation tactics, such as showing up on multiple articles on an opponent's watchlist. Tag-teamers may make coordinated attacks at "dissenting" editors, not just on the talkpage of an article in dispute, but also at the user's talkpage, and sometimes at other unrelated articles where the targeted editor may be working, in an attempt to distract them from another dispute.
	* ], trying to provoke opponents to incivility or other rash actions. Tag-teamers may make unfounded charges and uncivil comments, in an attempt to goad their target into responding with incivility. Any negative reaction by the target is then picked up and amplified in further attacks.

			If the newcomer persists in editing the page, group members might accuse them of ] or ], target them with spurious complaints to ], threaten them with blocks or bans, or bluntly tell them (sometimes even in the edit summary of a revert) to ]. As the ] is normally extended by administrators to users who have made valid contributions in the past, often little is done initially when two or three users act to chase a new contributor away from modifying "their" article. A small group thereby could succeed, largely unnoticed, in intimidating a new editor into avoiding one specific encyclopaedic subject or into leaving Misplaced Pages entirely.
	==Goals of tag teams==
	Potential goals of tag teams are many, but might include:

			The best defence in these cases is to {{em\|seek a broader consensus}}. Check the edit history for others who had proposed changes to the same or similar topics, perhaps only to be reverted, and ask for their input (but avoid ]). Seek a ] from an outside or neutral source, get ] to get an outside look at the content of the page instead of focussing on the behaviour of individual editors. Encourage others who may have an interest in the topic to add the article to their watchlists and offer their own input. Don't edit war as an army of one, but don't assume that two or three people asserting ownership of one obscure topic speak for all Wikipedians. An outside editor might be able to propose an entirely different alternative which would serve as a compromise while advancing the primary goal, which is to build an encyclopaedia.
	* Wanting to ] (often a ] or a ] POV), in disregard of the ]
	* Claiming ] of an article
	* Coordinating activities to exclude information in an article which is critical of their POV. Tag-teamers may also try to discredit ]

			==Accusations of tag teaming==
	==Other identifying characteristics==
			It is always better to comment on content rather than on contributors, so calling someone a member of a "tag team" should be avoided as it is ]. Use of the term on article talk pages should be descriptive only. For example, it might be acceptable to offer an opinion that proper development of the article seems to be being impeded by multiple editors working in tandem. This frames concerns in terms of a general trend in editing activity, rather than as accusations against specific editors. It is generally not necessary to use the term "tag teaming" in order to deal with a dispute, though it can be an effective shorthand when describing the situation in a neutral forum such as a ].

			Suspected tag teaming should be dealt with by sticking to ] and other relevant Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and by going through the normal ]. Where at all possible, ] and start from the assumption that there is {{em\|not}} a tag team.
	Tag team members may have:
	* Long block logs
	* Very few actual article edits, and instead a large number of talkpage edits, as they jump from dispute to dispute, with a great deal of wikilawyering language
	* Or if they do edit articles, tag-teamers may just be edit-warring in support of one of their teammates.
	* Tag-teamers may have limited participation in other articles, except for those in the area of dispute, and the related admin board discussions, showing a profile which may be similar to that of a ].

			===False accusations of tag teaming===
	Tag-teamers may also use intimidation tactics towards administrators, to defend each other against admin actions. For example, when one teammember is blocked, other members may immediate attack the credibility of the blocking admin, and/or start threads at administrator boards to challenge it. Then even if the community backs up the admin's action, tag team members may continue to ], challenging each of the admin's future actions. Other tactics include:
			It is often difficult to tell the difference between tag teaming and consensus-based editing. Consequently, some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team".

			What should you do if accused of being a member of a tag team? The accusation may be a form of ] that attempts to provoke you into reacting in an uncivil or otherwise undesirable way. Therefore, it is important that you:
	* Unreasonably challenging an admin's ] status, for example asking the admin to apply sanctions against other editors, and then arguing the admin should be considered involved, because of article edits dating from several years ago, or because of the sanctions they applied.
			* ]
	* Moving the article away from the ], with the justification of 'there isn't a consensus'
			* ]
	* Claiming a policy or guideline justifies ], for example a sterile revert away from a compromise accepted by most editors is characterized as ].
			* Avoid ]
	* Starting threads on noticeboards to attempt to overturn any admin action
			* Keep discussions based on the content of the article, and not on the contributors.
			* Stay {{em\|fair}}. A common problem on Misplaced Pages is when editors point out policy infractions from opposing editors, but ignore or condone the same infractions from editors on "their side". This kind of behavior, rooted in a common ], may be regarded as "tag-teamish", even if it isn't a specific tag team. So to avoid even a {{em\|perception}} of being a tag team, ensure that policies and guidelines are being adhered to equally. If you see someone being uncivil even if they're on your side – make that {{em\|especially}} if they're on your side – point it out to them, and ask for calm. This can be an excellent way to de-escalate the dispute, as the "friendly" editor may be more likely to listen to you if they see you as an ally, and the "opponent" editor may calm down if they see that policies are being enforced equally. This goes not just for incivility, but other policies as well. For example, if the "opponent" editor is being chastised for adding information without sources, then it's essential that all other editors are also held to the same standard of using sources.

			Ultimately, don't let false charges intimidate you. Just stay calm and civil, abide carefully by all policies, and treat everyone fairly. In an ideal world, the truth of the matter should be apparent to outside observers.

			==Remedies==
			It is often not possible to determine whether users are acting as a tag team or are truly engaged in consensus-based editing. However, it is particularly important to maintain a cool, calm attitude, since tag teams – and those who accuse others of behaving as a tag team – may ].

			No sure method can be recommended for identifying or dealing with a suspected tag team, but the following strategies have been proposed:

			* Engage in good-faith discussion to determine whether or not participants are communicating fairly and effectively. Assume good faith, try to build ], and work through the normal ] process.
			* In the case of a content dispute, strict application of core content policies such as ], ], ], and ] is of paramount importance.
			* ] is an essential part of the Misplaced Pages code of behaviour and should be maintained.
			* Open a ], and ask for additional outside opinions at relevant noticeboards, such as ], to determine a wider consensus. Ideally, you will be able to attract the opinions of reviewers who are familiar with the subject matter and will be able to discern mainstream, notable, and fringe points of view.
			* Don't go after the team as a whole, but focus on specific policy violations by individual editors. Concerns about user conduct can be addressed at ] (]).
			* Request the attention of third parties, perhaps by posting at the most appropriate ].
			* Check if the article is in an increased supervision area, by reviewing the categories at ]. Look also to see if any of the editors are under specific sanctions, at ].

			Note that if there are two, or more, groups of editors supporting specific versions of an article or group of articles, or even a group of editors claiming to be fighting a tag team, none, any, or all of these groups may end up acting as a disruptive tag team, so be cautious. A group of editors opposing a tag team must be careful to stay within policy, and must make genuine good-faith efforts to build consensus and to seek outside opinions. The methods of tag teaming should never be used to combat perceived tag teaming; Misplaced Pages is not a ].

			Accusations of tag teaming do not give any extra rights or privileges to revert, or to otherwise act outside of policy, when dealing with those editors or their edits.

			Finally, consider the possibility that you may be mistaken. While it can be frustrating when one's edits are repeatedly resisted, what looks to you like a tag team may instead be editors who are more knowledgeable about the topic at hand, more familiar with the nuances of content policies, or otherwise working within the goals of Misplaced Pages.

			===Suggestions for third parties===
			* Determine to what extent additional subject knowledge may be necessary to resolve the dispute.
			* Identify the key participants in an article or topic area.
			* Examine accusations that are being made. It is particularly important that any accusations be accompanied with ]. Review the diffs to ensure that they back up the accusations.
			* Examine the situation in detail so as to build a complete picture. Just looking at a few ] may not give sufficient context to understand the editing environment that led to the accusations. A superficial view of the situation may also play into the hands of those who ] others into lashing out.
			* Check contribution histories, to see if any of the potential tag-teamers are ] or throwaway accounts.
			* Tag-team editors can sometimes be identified because they spend very little time actually editing articles, and instead simply jump from dispute to dispute.
			* Check block logs.
			* Determine whether administrator action is required.

			===Suggestions for administrators===
			Sometimes the best way to deal with a tag team is to obtain the attention of an administrator. If an affected article is placed on probation or closer admin supervision, it will be more difficult for a tag team to be effective.

			* Administrators should follow the suggestions for third parties above, especially in terms of analyzing evidence.
			* Check to see if any of the editors or affected articles are within the scope of an increased supervision area, via the lists at ] and ]
			* If admins observe any editors who have a history of making false accusations, those editors should be treated as ], and warned, ], or ] as necessary.
			* Check to see if policies are being enforced fairly. If a group of editors is insisting that the rules need to be enforced only on "opposing" editors, and not on editors on "their side", then this may be tag-teaming behavior. Thoroughly examine the history of the dispute to verify such claims and counter-claims. Policies must be enforced evenly.

	==See also==		==See also==
			* ] (article)
	* ]
			* ] (article)
	* ]
			* {{Section link\|Misplaced Pages:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report#Definition of tag team}} (report)
	* ]
	* ]		* ] (policy)
	* ]		* {{section link\|Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry}} (policy)
			* ] (guideline)
	* ]
			* ] (guideline)
			* ] (guideline)
			* ] (guideline)
			* ] (essay)
			* ] (essay)
			* ] (essay)
			* ] (essay)
			* ] (essay)
			* ] (essay)
			* ] (essay)
			* ] (essay)
			* ] (essay, referencing ] and ] essays)
			* ] (essay)
			* ] (essay)
			* {{Section link\|Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes#Externally coordinated editing}} (ArbCom case)

			== Notes ==
			{{reflist\|group=note}}

	==External links==		==External links==
			* ] (essay)
	* ]		* ]

	]		]

Latest revision as of 21:42, 30 October 2024

"WP:CIRCUS" redirects here. For the WikiProject, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Circus. "WP:FACTION" redirects here. For Misplaced Pages's policy against creating factions to disrupt its decision-making process, see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Essay on editing Misplaced Pages

This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

Tag teaming (sometimes also called an editorial camp or gang, factionalism, or a travelling circus) is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. As with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV). Unlike "meatpuppetry", the phrase may be applied to otherwise legitimate editors. The phrase comes from "tag teams" in professional wrestling, in which teams of two or more wrestlers take turns in the ring – one brings in a teammate as relief/backup when in danger of losing.

Misplaced Pages encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team.

Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. Care should be taken to frame assertions appropriately, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our dispute resolution process.

Tag-team versus consensus-based editing

In consensus-based editing, a number of editors, sometimes with differing viewpoints, work together to craft an article that is fully compliant with Misplaced Pages's core content policies, such as neutrality (WP:NPOV), no original research (WP:NOR) and verifiability (WP:V). Editors may revert article changes that violate Misplaced Pages's core content policies; this is not tag teaming. A tag team is formed when two or more editors coordinate their edits in a way that is disruptive to an article or to the project.

There is no Misplaced Pages policy or guideline regarding tag teaming. Tag teaming that clearly falls under the narrow definition in this essay generally violates other guidelines and policies such as disruption or canvassing (which are guidelines). A group of editors acting in unison does NOT in itself constitute tag teaming.

Tag team characteristics

Shortcut

WP:MUEW

Signs that may point to tag teaming include:

Working together to circumvent the three-revert rule (multi-user edit warring or "muewing")
"Ninja" editing – terse comments, little talk page justification
Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article. Tag team members will often revert changes, even if they are made based on talkpage consensus, and instead insist that consensus isn't clear yet, and more talking needs to happen on the talk page. This plays into a tag team's tendentious, disruptive editing style and preserves a preferred version of an article. When discussion is attempted, tag team members will often respond with circular argumentation and a continual ignoring of points made by those they oppose. Even if voices from the wider community come in to show a differing community consensus, tag-teamers may refuse to "let the matter drop" at article talk pages. When the community's attention has been diverted to other matters, tag teams may continue to bring up the same matters again and again, to try and create the appearance of a new consensus.
- However: Simple refusal to compromise is not necessarily evidence of tag teaming, especially where Misplaced Pages's core policies are involved. If the apparent consensus favors content that obviously violates Misplaced Pages policies, such as those applying to biographical material on living persons, then the information should nonetheless be removed.
Reluctance to incorporate new sourced perspectives in an article. Tag-teamers will often attempt to get an article the way they want it, and then insist that nothing new should be added from then on, because it "violates consensus".
- However: Not all sources are created equally, and editors may resist the addition of information from sources that violate the guideline on reliable sources. Furthermore, edits that violate the neutrality policy, for example by giving undue weight to a minority opinion, will often be reverted.
Reluctance to work towards compromise, or to follow Misplaced Pages dispute resolution processes. Tag teams are usually reluctant to request opinions from the wider community, as that would upset the appearance of consensus that they are attempting to portray on a particular article.
- However: Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Repeatedly bringing the same (or superficially different) circumstances into dispute resolution forums can be unhelpful, and may be considered abuse of process.
Meatpuppetry. Tag team members will often write affirmations of support for other tag team members in order to make it appear that a community consensus exists. This often manifests as disparate users, who do not normally participate in that topic area, showing up to parrot support or opposition for a particular proposal made by the tag team. The goal is to make it appear that consensus has happened when in fact it has not. Then, if/when other users notice the proposal and take sides opposed to the tag team, the tag team members may respond by claiming an extant consensus.
- However: Many editors watch certain pages without participating in the discussions or editing the associated articles. When those editors see an issue arising, they may begin participating in the discussion; this does not make those editors meatpuppets.
Harassment and intimidation tactics. Members of a tag team may resort to ad hominem arguments against dissenting editors, or even against the authors of reliable sources.
- However: Consensus-based editors who are acting in good faith are only human – they may lash out when provoked. Simple incivility is not proof of tag teaming.

Goals of tag teams

Potential goals of tag teams may include:

Pushing a certain point of view in disregard of the neutral point of view policy either by giving too little or too much exposure to a specific viewpoint as determined by applicable Misplaced Pages policies, or by imposing or blocking edits that advance or suppress particular points of view. This may involve editing in concert to whitewash an article by excluding all criticisms, giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint, or excluding everything except uniformly positive or uniformly negative information.
Revenge or personal vendetta, driven by a real or imagined grievance can be a powerful motivation. Once an editor or administrator is identified as an enemy, tag-teamers might stalk that editor's contributions or user pages to annoy them, to try to undermine their credibility, or to keep them distracted from the tag team's sphere of control. If an editor is fending off attacks on their prized featured article, they will have less time to spend on one of the tag team's closely guarded articles.
Support of a team member. Tag team members may support anything that another member does, without question. Some team members may have no knowledge of the actual topic being discussed, but are just interested in supporting their friend against perceived adversaries.

Multiple-editor ownership

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Ownership of content § Multiple-editor ownership

A related problem is ownership of articles. In theory, no one editor or group of editors owns an individual Misplaced Pages article. In practice, an article on an obscure topic will often be on the watchlists of only a small handful of editors who revert on sight any changes proposed by newcomers while insisting quite forcefully that their version is "consensus".

If the newcomer persists in editing the page, group members might accuse them of edit warring or disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, target them with spurious complaints to administrators, threaten them with blocks or bans, or bluntly tell them (sometimes even in the edit summary of a revert) to drop the stick. As the benefit of the doubt is normally extended by administrators to users who have made valid contributions in the past, often little is done initially when two or three users act to chase a new contributor away from modifying "their" article. A small group thereby could succeed, largely unnoticed, in intimidating a new editor into avoiding one specific encyclopaedic subject or into leaving Misplaced Pages entirely.

The best defence in these cases is to seek a broader consensus. Check the edit history for others who had proposed changes to the same or similar topics, perhaps only to be reverted, and ask for their input (but avoid canvassing). Seek a third opinion from an outside or neutral source, get peer review to get an outside look at the content of the page instead of focussing on the behaviour of individual editors. Encourage others who may have an interest in the topic to add the article to their watchlists and offer their own input. Don't edit war as an army of one, but don't assume that two or three people asserting ownership of one obscure topic speak for all Wikipedians. An outside editor might be able to propose an entirely different alternative which would serve as a compromise while advancing the primary goal, which is to build an encyclopaedia.

Accusations of tag teaming

It is always better to comment on content rather than on contributors, so calling someone a member of a "tag team" should be avoided as it is uncivil. Use of the term on article talk pages should be descriptive only. For example, it might be acceptable to offer an opinion that proper development of the article seems to be being impeded by multiple editors working in tandem. This frames concerns in terms of a general trend in editing activity, rather than as accusations against specific editors. It is generally not necessary to use the term "tag teaming" in order to deal with a dispute, though it can be an effective shorthand when describing the situation in a neutral forum such as a dispute resolution noticeboard.

Suspected tag teaming should be dealt with by sticking to consensus and other relevant Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and by going through the normal dispute resolution processes. Where at all possible, assume good faith and start from the assumption that there is not a tag team.

False accusations of tag teaming

It is often difficult to tell the difference between tag teaming and consensus-based editing. Consequently, some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team".

What should you do if accused of being a member of a tag team? The accusation may be a form of baiting that attempts to provoke you into reacting in an uncivil or otherwise undesirable way. Therefore, it is important that you:

Stay calm
Stay civil
Avoid personal attacks
Keep discussions based on the content of the article, and not on the contributors.
Stay fair. A common problem on Misplaced Pages is when editors point out policy infractions from opposing editors, but ignore or condone the same infractions from editors on "their side". This kind of behavior, rooted in a common cognitive bias, may be regarded as "tag-teamish", even if it isn't a specific tag team. So to avoid even a perception of being a tag team, ensure that policies and guidelines are being adhered to equally. If you see someone being uncivil even if they're on your side – make that especially if they're on your side – point it out to them, and ask for calm. This can be an excellent way to de-escalate the dispute, as the "friendly" editor may be more likely to listen to you if they see you as an ally, and the "opponent" editor may calm down if they see that policies are being enforced equally. This goes not just for incivility, but other policies as well. For example, if the "opponent" editor is being chastised for adding information without sources, then it's essential that all other editors are also held to the same standard of using sources.

Ultimately, don't let false charges intimidate you. Just stay calm and civil, abide carefully by all policies, and treat everyone fairly. In an ideal world, the truth of the matter should be apparent to outside observers.

Remedies

It is often not possible to determine whether users are acting as a tag team or are truly engaged in consensus-based editing. However, it is particularly important to maintain a cool, calm attitude, since tag teams – and those who accuse others of behaving as a tag team – may try to generate emotional reactions to confuse the issue at hand.

No sure method can be recommended for identifying or dealing with a suspected tag team, but the following strategies have been proposed:

Engage in good-faith discussion to determine whether or not participants are communicating fairly and effectively. Assume good faith, try to build consensus, and work through the normal dispute resolution process.
In the case of a content dispute, strict application of core content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR is of paramount importance.
Civility is an essential part of the Misplaced Pages code of behaviour and should be maintained.
Open a request for comments, and ask for additional outside opinions at relevant noticeboards, such as the reliable sources noticeboard, to determine a wider consensus. Ideally, you will be able to attract the opinions of reviewers who are familiar with the subject matter and will be able to discern mainstream, notable, and fringe points of view.
Don't go after the team as a whole, but focus on specific policy violations by individual editors. Concerns about user conduct can be addressed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I).
Request the attention of third parties, perhaps by posting at the most appropriate noticeboard.
Check if the article is in an increased supervision area, by reviewing the categories at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions. Look also to see if any of the editors are under specific sanctions, at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions.

Note that if there are two, or more, groups of editors supporting specific versions of an article or group of articles, or even a group of editors claiming to be fighting a tag team, none, any, or all of these groups may end up acting as a disruptive tag team, so be cautious. A group of editors opposing a tag team must be careful to stay within policy, and must make genuine good-faith efforts to build consensus and to seek outside opinions. The methods of tag teaming should never be used to combat perceived tag teaming; Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.

Accusations of tag teaming do not give any extra rights or privileges to revert, or to otherwise act outside of policy, when dealing with those editors or their edits.

Finally, consider the possibility that you may be mistaken. While it can be frustrating when one's edits are repeatedly resisted, what looks to you like a tag team may instead be editors who are more knowledgeable about the topic at hand, more familiar with the nuances of content policies, or otherwise working within the goals of Misplaced Pages.

Suggestions for third parties

Determine to what extent additional subject knowledge may be necessary to resolve the dispute.
Identify the key participants in an article or topic area.
Examine accusations that are being made. It is particularly important that any accusations be accompanied with evidence. Review the diffs to ensure that they back up the accusations.
Examine the situation in detail so as to build a complete picture. Just looking at a few diffs may not give sufficient context to understand the editing environment that led to the accusations. A superficial view of the situation may also play into the hands of those who bait others into lashing out.
Check contribution histories, to see if any of the potential tag-teamers are sockpuppets or throwaway accounts.
Tag-team editors can sometimes be identified because they spend very little time actually editing articles, and instead simply jump from dispute to dispute.
Check block logs.
Determine whether administrator action is required.

Suggestions for administrators

Sometimes the best way to deal with a tag team is to obtain the attention of an administrator. If an affected article is placed on probation or closer admin supervision, it will be more difficult for a tag team to be effective.

Administrators should follow the suggestions for third parties above, especially in terms of analyzing evidence.
Check to see if any of the editors or affected articles are within the scope of an increased supervision area, via the lists at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions and Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions
If admins observe any editors who have a history of making false accusations, those editors should be treated as disruptive, and warned, banned, or blocked as necessary.
Check to see if policies are being enforced fairly. If a group of editors is insisting that the rules need to be enforced only on "opposing" editors, and not on editors on "their side", then this may be tag-teaming behavior. Thoroughly examine the history of the dispute to verify such claims and counter-claims. Policies must be enforced evenly.

Notes

Controversial as there is no consensus regarding the merits of this essay in namespace. Editors have voiced concern that the "characteristics" of tag teams can easily be applied to editors who share a common practice of editing in accordance with policy, and that the essay can be used as a weapon against editors who are acting in accordance with Misplaced Pages's editing policies to cast aspersions on their good work. See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team.

External links

Meta:What is a troll? (essay)
Meatball:DefendEachOther

Categories: