Misplaced Pages

:Tag team - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 19:38, 12 August 2008 (→See also: + SPA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:38, 12 August 2008 by Elonka (talk | contribs) (→See also: + SPA)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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.
This page in a nutshell: A "tag team" is a Disruptive editing technique, where two or more editors work in concert in a disruptive way, on multiple articles

Tag team characteristics

A Tag team 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.

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 push a POV, circumvent normal consensus-seeking methods, evade dispute resolution mechanisms, claim ownership of an article, or act in other ways which are disruptive to the project.

Tag teams are typically characterized by aggressive tactics, including:

  • 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 personal attacks at perceived opponents.
  • Attempts to discredit their opponents' character or motivations
  • Harassment 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.
  • Baiting techniques, 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.

Goals of tag teams

Potential goals of tag teams are many, but might include:

Other identifying characteristics

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 single-purpose account.

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 forum shop, challenging each of the admin's future actions. Other tactics include:

  • Unreasonably challenging an admin's uninvolved 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 Neutral Point of View, with the justification of 'there isn't a consensus'
  • Claiming a policy or guideline justifies disruptive editing, for example a sterile revert away from a compromise accepted by most editors is characterized as being bold.
  • Starting threads on noticeboards to attempt to overturn any admin action

See also

External links

Categories: