Copyediting/condensing |
Too many changes at the same time, and some of them definitely are a departure from consensus so far. Please take it to the talk page. |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Cabals|Wikipedia:Assume bad faith|User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing|altphrase=For other views, see also}} |
|||
{{Essay|WP:GANG}} |
{{Essay|WP:GANG}} |
||
[[Tag team]] is a controversial term sometimes used to describe editors who work together in a way that is disruptive to an article or project,<ref name="controversial">Controversial as there is no consensus regarding the merits of this essay in namespace, with some editors opposed to the very idea that "tag team" is a valid concept, see [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team]]</ref> usually in order to promote a particular agenda or point of view against consensus. Editors working as a tag team may attempt to circumvent the normal process of [[Wikipedia:consensus|consensus]], by organizing their edits so that they can manipulate policies and guidelines (such as [[wp:3rr| |
[[Tag team]] is a controversial term sometimes used to describe editors who work together as a group in a way that is disruptive to an article or project,<ref name="controversial">Controversial as there is no consensus regarding the merits of this essay in namespace, with some editors opposed to the very idea that "tag team" is a valid concept, see [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team]]</ref> usually in order to promote a particular agenda or point of view against consensus. Editors working as a tag team may attempt to circumvent the normal process of [[Wikipedia:consensus|consensus]], by organizing their edits so that they can manipulate policies and guidelines (such as [[wp:3rr|3rr]] and [[wp:civility|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 form of [[Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets|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 most, if not all, editors who share the same point of view are not |
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 most, if not all, editors who share the same point of view are not working as a team: remember to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Editors working together to build or enforce consensus is wikipedia working normally. Making an accusation of tag teaming is [[wp:civil|uncivil]], even if the editors have already broken other wikipedia policies such as [[Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets|meat]], [[wp:3rr|3rr]], etc., and thus use of the term should be restricted to obvious and extreme situations, if then. |
||
Making an accusation of tag teaming can be regarded as [[wp:civil|uncivil]], so the term should be used with care. Note also that some editors do not accept the validity of the idea of "tag teams".<ref name="controversial"/> |
|||
==Tag team versus consensus-based editing== |
==Tag team versus consensus-based editing== |
||
In |
In [[WP:Consensus|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|neutrality]] (WP:NPOV), [[WP:NOR|no original research]] (WP:NOR) and [[WP:V|verifiability]] (WP:V). Editors who share a common understanding of existing sources and who have achieved consensus on an article's content may sometimes be accused of tag teaming when they revert article changes that violate Wikipedia's core content policies. However, this is not an appropriate use of the term. "[[Tag team]]" is instead used to describe a group of editors that work together in a way that is disruptive to an article or project. Some editors do not accept the validity of the idea of "tag teams".<ref name="controversial"/> |
||
⚫ | 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, ''any or all'' of these groups may be acting as a disruptive tag team. A group of editors opposing a tag team need to be consensus-based and act within policy, lest they also be accused of tag teaming. The methods of tag teaming should never be used to combat perceived tag teaming; wikipedia is not a [[wp:battle|battleground]]. |
||
==Tag team characteristics== |
==Tag team characteristics== |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
* Coordinated [[WP:POVPUSH|POV pushing]]. Tag-teamers will often behave as if they [[WP:OWN|own]] an article. They are often reluctant to consider [[WP:V|sourced]] perspectives or arguments with which they disagree. |
|||
* Tag-teamers are usually reluctant to compromise, or follow Wikipedia [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] processes. They are usually resistant to requesting opinions from the wider community. |
|||
* Creating artificial consensus. Tag-teamers, by agreeing with each other, may create an illusion of consensus. Then 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 talkpages. They may continue to bring up the same matters again and again, to exhaust the community's patience and create an appearance of a consensus. Then once they have a manufactured (false) consensus, they will refer to it repeatedly in the future, and try to use it to de-rail any attempts to get wider community input. |
|||
* [[WP:HARASS|Harassment]] and intimidation tactics. Tag-teamers often are uninterested in the explanations for or reasoning behind other editors' edits, and may not engage in good faith discussion about their own edits. Members of a tag team will often issue multiple [[Ad hominem]] arguments against dissenting editors, or even against the authors of reliable sources. |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
* Consensus-blocking. Tag-teamers are usually reluctant to compromise, follow Wikipedia [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] processes (though sometimes they will go through the motions, while missing the fundamental concept that such processes are to resolve disputes, not to win a dispute), or consider [[WP:V|sourced]] perspectives or arguments with which they disagree on principle, 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. Note that simple refusal to compromise may not be evidence of tag teaming. In an extreme example, a group of editors who adamantly insisted on the approximate sphericity of [[Earth]] and refused to compromise with another who insisted that [[Earth]] was a [[tetrahedron]] would not constitute a tag team. |
|||
⚫ | * [[WP:HARASS|Harassment]] and intimidation tactics. Tag-teamers often are uninterested in the explanations for or reasoning behind other editors' edits, and do not offer to other editors explanations of their own edits. [[Ad hominem]] arguments against dissenting editors or the authors of reliable sources may be used by tag-teamers to further their goals. Please note, however, that calling someone part of a tag team can also be considered a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]. Furthermore, consensus-based editors acting in good faith are only human -- they may [[WP:BAIT|lash out after extended provocation]]. |
||
* Behaving as if they [[WP:OWN|own]] an article. |
|||
Potential goals of tag teams may include: |
Potential goals of tag teams may include: |
||
* [[WP:POVPUSH|Pushing a POV]] in disregard of the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]], either by giving too little or too much exposure to a specific viewpoint as determined by applicable Wikipedia policies. For example, including a [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] viewpoint that is not notable or giving undue weight to a notable fringe viewpoint. |
* [[WP:POVPUSH|Pushing a POV]] in disregard of the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]], either by giving too little or too much exposure to a specific viewpoint as determined by applicable Wikipedia policies. For example, including a [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] viewpoint that is not notable or giving undue weight to a notable fringe viewpoint. |
||
* Intimidating a perceived adversary out of a topic area, or even off Wikipedia |
|||
* Discrediting editors with opposing opinions, or admins who may be perceived as a threat to the tag-team's ownership of an article or topic area. |
|||
== Accusations of tag teaming == |
== Accusations of tag teaming == |
||
While calling someone a member of a "tag team" is |
While calling someone a member of a "tag team" is always [[wp:civil|uncivil]], even characterizing edits as tag-teaming should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as tag-teaming in order to challenge them. Suspected tag teaming should be dealt with by sticking to [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] and other relevant wikipedia policies, and by going through the normal dispute resolution process. Any accusations of tag teaming against an editor does not give other editors extra rights or privileges to revert or act outside of policy when dealing with that editor or their edits. The best way to deal with a tag team (see below) is to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and treat it as though it is ''not'' a tag team, and to rely on normal dispute resolution procedures and act only in accordance with established policy. |
||
==Remedies== |
==Remedies== |
||
Line 40: | Line 33: | ||
Concerns about editors' personal behavior can be addressed in [[WP:RFC/USER|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. |
Concerns about editors' personal behavior can be addressed in [[WP:RFC/USER|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. |
||
⚫ | 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, ''any or all'' of these groups may be acting as a disruptive tag team. A group of editors opposing a tag team need to be consensus-based and act within policy, lest they also be accused of tag teaming. The methods of tag teaming should never be used to combat perceived tag teaming; wikipedia is not a [[wp:battle|battleground]]. |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
Revision as of 23:11, 5 September 2008
Tag team is a controversial term sometimes used to describe editors who work together as a group in a way that is disruptive to an article or project,[1] usually in order to promote a particular agenda or point of view against consensus. 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 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 most, if not all, editors who share the same point of view are not working as a team: remember to assume good faith. Editors working together to build or enforce consensus is wikipedia working normally. Making an accusation of tag teaming is uncivil, even if the editors have already broken other wikipedia policies such as meat, 3rr, etc., and thus use of the term should be restricted to obvious and extreme situations, if then.
Tag team versus 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: neutrality (WP:NPOV), no original research (WP:NOR) and verifiability (WP:V). Editors who share a common understanding of existing sources and who have achieved consensus on an article's content may sometimes be accused of tag teaming when they revert article changes that violate Wikipedia's core content policies. However, this is not an appropriate use of the term. "Tag team" is instead used to describe a group of editors that work together in a way that is disruptive to an article or project. Some editors do not accept the validity of the idea of "tag teams".[1]
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, any or all of these groups may be acting as a disruptive tag team. A group of editors opposing a tag team need to be consensus-based and act within policy, lest they also be accused of tag teaming. The methods of tag teaming should never be used to combat perceived tag teaming; wikipedia is not a battleground.
Tag team characteristics
The concept of a tag-team is poorly defined, and the term is often misapplied. It is suggested that a tag team may be recognized by the following criteria, all covered by existing policy:
- they work in concert to edit-war or circumvent the three revert rule (meatpuppetry)
Tag teams are typically characterized by aggressive tactics, which may include one or many of the following:
- Consensus-blocking. Tag-teamers are usually reluctant to compromise, follow Wikipedia dispute resolution processes (though sometimes they will go through the motions, while missing the fundamental concept that such processes are to resolve disputes, not to win a dispute), or consider sourced perspectives or arguments with which they disagree on principle, 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. Note that simple refusal to compromise may not be evidence of tag teaming. In an extreme example, a group of editors who adamantly insisted on the approximate sphericity of Earth and refused to compromise with another who insisted that Earth was a tetrahedron would not constitute a tag team.
- Harassment and intimidation tactics. Tag-teamers often are uninterested in the explanations for or reasoning behind other editors' edits, and do not offer to other editors explanations of their own edits. Ad hominem arguments against dissenting editors or the authors of reliable sources may be used by tag-teamers to further their goals. Please note, however, that calling someone part of a tag team can also be considered a personal attack. Furthermore, consensus-based editors acting in good faith are only human -- they may lash out after extended provocation.
- Behaving as if they own an article.
Potential goals of tag teams may include:
- Pushing a POV 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 Wikipedia policies. For example, including a fringe viewpoint that is not notable or giving undue weight to a notable fringe viewpoint.
Accusations of tag teaming
While calling someone a member of a "tag team" is always uncivil, even characterizing edits as tag-teaming should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as tag-teaming in order to challenge them. Suspected tag teaming should be dealt with by sticking to consensus and other relevant wikipedia policies, and by going through the normal dispute resolution process. Any accusations of tag teaming against an editor does not give other editors extra rights or privileges to revert or act outside of policy when dealing with that editor or their edits. The best way to deal with a tag team (see below) is to assume good faith and treat it as though it is not a tag team, and to rely on normal dispute resolution procedures and act only in accordance with established policy.
Remedies
It is often not immediately possible to determine whether users are acting as a tag team or are truly engaged in consensus-based editing. Most disputes involving tag teams are content disputes, and a certain amount of discussion is necessary to determine whether or not participants are communicating fairly and effectively. Suspected tag teaming should be dealt with by sticking to consensus and other relevant wikipedia policies, and by going through the normal dispute resolution process. However, tag team behavior may compromise dispute resolution processes by undermining the consensus process. Strict application of core content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR give the best results. It may be wise to ask at relevant noticeboards, such as the reliable sources noticeboard, to determine a wider consensus as to whether an edit might fall under policy. 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.
See also
- Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report#Definition of tag team
- Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
- Wikipedia:Consensus
- Wikipedia:Gaming the system
- Wikipedia:Cabals
- Wikipedia:There is no cabal
- Meta:What is a troll?
- Wikipedia:Single-purpose account
- Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets
- Wikipedia:Assume good faith
- Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing
- Wikipedia:Describing points of view
Notes
- ^ a b Controversial as there is no consensus regarding the merits of this essay in namespace, with some editors opposed to the very idea that "tag team" is a valid concept, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team