Wikipedia talk:Tag team

Subject knowledge

There is disagreement over whether specific subject knowledge is required to assess whether a group is acting as a tag team or not. Versions of the text that have been proposed include, in favour:

• 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. A reviewer must therefore 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.
• A reviewer needs therefore 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.

and against:

• (nothing), by several people, in one case with the comment This is not practice or policy, and ensures the reviewer will be biased in almost every case- there's a reason for a "jury of peers."

Strangely most versions of the text continue later with

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.

So which are we to recommend: knowledge or ignorance? Richard Pinch (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(desperately trying to suppress urge for sarcastic comment about "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"...) Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me a minimum level of familiarity with the subject is necessary to be able to differentiate opinions on a given subject. While I wouldn't discount a reviewer with no previous knowledge of the subject, but who's willing and able to invest the time necessary to acquire some familiarity with the subject (presupposes he/she is willing to go through the article's references and then some), I think it's illusory to expect that someone with no knowledge of the subject can properly mediate a content dispute.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the first point (strict application...) to the extent that it's an unnecessary overstatement. application of core policies is always useful, but saying that 'strict' application is of 'paramount importance' adds nothing to the understanding of the problem or the solution, and will serve to confuse people (since in fact, core policies and guidelines are intentionally designed to be loose, not strict). this just reads like an attempt at instruction wp:creep

I disagree with the second point (reviewers who are familiar...) because it is (a) incorrect, and (b) largely irrelevant to this topic as it stannds. if you want to add a section dealing with 'mediation of tag team accusations', tthen it might be appropriate, but if you do I'm going to argue that mediators deal mostly with the structure and style of the discussion, not content. in fact, a mediator who starts relying on content issues is no longer a mediator, but is now an editor on the article. this phrase just doesn't work wither way. --Ludwigs2 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand: a reviewer is a single person. In a dispute, if they know of the subject, they'll have a POV. However, getting the opinion of multiple people is a much better idea, as they will have multiple POVs or no POV- that's what I meant by "jury of peers," the jury is not supposed to be biased. A mediator with a POV is a bad idea, therefore on highly controversial topics, a mediator with deep knowledge may be a bad idea. So you don't want, at the least, to try for a mediator with knowledge. Anyway, their job is to deal with user issues mostly- they don't need knowledge of the topic for that, most of the time.

When I was involved in Chiropractic, I saw it was difficult to know these things. In fact, it was so difficult that you either had to be a chiropractor, or you had to deal only with user issues, and use your general knowledge about sources and policy. Being a chiropractor would have made me POV (you don't want to be promoting this). It will be better to have reviewers who stick to non-content issues, and let the actual content be determined by the editors, once the RS sources are chosen, and behavior is under control. Issues are usually over things like attribution, the WEIGHT of sources, etc. You don't have to know much to deal with this, just general policy, and generally what constitutes a good source. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A mediator with zero subject matter competence can do tremendous damage. During the Great Homeopathy Wars, there was an admin who threatened sanctions against editors who said that some homeopathic solutions were so dilute that an ocean would hardly contain a molecule. She said that was a wild exaggeration -- but it is easily shown to be true if you know a little math and chemistry. As to your last point, I agree that it's necessary to know what constitutes a good source, but disagree that such an evaluation can reliably be done by someone with zero subject matter competence. Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't. I especially disagree that WEIGHT can reliably be assessed by someone who knows nothing about the subject matter. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said: WEIGHT is something for the editors to decide. And that admin was talking about content: that's why the admin shouldn't get involved in content. That's why I'm saying what I'm saying. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's point out a couple of things here: a mediator (or a reviewer) is not a judge or jury, and therefore absence of knowledge of the subject doesn't convey impartiality. Also, a content dispute isn't about style and structure, it's about content. Claims of POV-pushing, of notability or of undue weight can only be assessed by someone with a measure of understanding of the subject; otherwise the mediator (or reviewer) is shooting blind, and we all know what that gives. Resolution of content dispute is indeed best achieved with strict adherence to Wikipedia's core policies. These aren't guidelines which can be followed or not depending on the situation: these are policies which must be followed unless there's an overpowering reason not to follow them.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that admins should be enforcing content policy? They should not, and they almost never do. So this is not a really relevant point. If you want to promote that they should enforce content policy, then advocate explicitly. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Basil, Ramdrake. the position of a mediator in a dispute is not to judge on the correctness of incorrectness of particular content positions. a mediator is expected to help editors frame their arguments so that they can decide themselves what the appropriate NPOV solution is. this does not require knowledge of the topic; it requires an understanding of proper communication, and an ability to assist editors in communicating with each other. the editors who are arguing have all the knowledge of the topic that is required for creating a proper article; the mediator only needs to facilitate communication.

and none of this is relevant to the discussion of a tag team. --Ludwigs2 23:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Content knowledge is helpful but is not essential. Remember, the original scope of this essay was for nationalistic conflicts. So if you have (for example) one group of Nigerian editors pushing one POV, and one group of Somalian editors pushing a different POV, and the sources are all non-English to begin with, it's going to be near impossible for an intervening admin to have a thorough understanding of the subject matter. Instead, the best thing that an admin can do with an article that may be the subject of tag-teaming, is to identify the key participants, ensure that reliable sources are being used, and try to diminish any kinds of intimidation tactics that are taking place. Where the Nigerians are ganging up on a Somali editor, and crying, "POV pusher, must be blocked!", the admin is better off focusing on specific edits, demanding diffs, and checking to see if the Somali editor is using reliable sources, and is adequately representing the information from those sources. If the Somali editor is doing those things, then the Nigerians need to be counseled to back off. Oftentimes there will be a ringleader involved, and if that leader can be given a short ban from the article, it usually calms things down quite a bit. --Elonka 00:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you're basically saying tag teaming doesn't and shouldn't apply to science-related articles, right? :)--Ramdrake (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

lol - I'll confess, you have a good sense of humor, R. --Ludwigs2 00:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked my humour. But seriously, this made me think of something: unless there is a discernible mainstream position (or claim of one) to the content dispute, then maybe knowledge of the subject may not be as required as I was saying earlier. However, as soon as there are claims of undue weight, notability andother similar claims, then knowledge of the subject becomes required, to determine what's mainstream, what's notable and what's fringe. Does that sound more compatible to your view?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny that knowing something about the topic can certainly help in mediating a problem, but I don't happen to think it's necessary, and I think it's a double-edged thing. on one hand, knowing something about the topic can help you navigate through some abstruse points in a way you couldn't if you were completely unfamiliar with it. on the other hand, knowing something can pull you out of the 'neutral' mediator role into a 'POV' editor role. there's nothing worse than being in a heated debate and suddenly finding that the person supposedly trying to mediate is presenting yet a third view that just confuses the issue more. I just don't want to present it as always necessary or always beneficial, though I recognize that it can be an aid. --Ludwigs2 01:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree. If there's a content dispute where there seems to be tag teaming, people summoned through the DR process (whether an RFC, 3O, RSN, NPOVN, FTN or mediation) need some measure of understanding of the different positions, in addition, of course, to good communication skills (especially for a mediator). If the parties in a content dispute are unable to arrive at an agreement, outside reviewers need to have some idea of the subject matter in order to be able to help them sort the various claims. This is not a behaviour dispute, and mediation is the only place which can deal with content disputes (ArbCom specifically doesn't touch content disputes).--Ramdrake (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:DR (whcih is official policy): Note that Arbitration is normally for disputes about user conduct, while Mediation is normally for disputes about article content.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, since there's a valid disagreement here, let's create a new section called 'mediating and tag teams' (or somesuch) where we can discuss the various sides of the issue in detail. will that work for you? --Ludwigs2 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's view represents the offical general view of WP. That is, that admins aren't there to rule on content, and that it is the editors at the article who are to do that. Ramdrake would not be so happy about his subject matter experts if he had an experience or two where the admin disagreed about content. He's counting on always being on the admin's side in a dispute. Maybe he edits articles where that's a good bet. But it's not likely to always be the case. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Elonka's view" (the view primarily presented in this essay) represents the fact that, without subject knowledge, there is no objective way to determine whether a group of editors is a tag team, or an attempt to determine and maintain real-world consensus in the article. Hence she, and this policy, chooses to depreciate the content selected by editors who are less civil, even if objectively correct as to content and as to Wikipedia's content policies.

This does not seem helpful. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, there are still ways to identify tag teams, even if an administrator does not have knowledge of the topic area. The key thing I look for, is the types of tactics being used. Tag teams tend to be very aggressive in terms of personal attacks and incivility. Some of these nationalistic groups (or religious cults) are very savvy about this, and may engage in very sophisticated campaigns to discredit an opponent. Their goal is to harass someone right out of the topic area. Consensus-based editors on the other hand, don't need those kinds of tactics, because they have sources on their side. Tag teams will attack a target editor, call them names, make false charges at them, barrage their talkpage with accusations, start admin board threads, and generate a lot of smoke, to make it look like their target is the worst vandal to ever visit Wikipedia. The sad thing about this, is that sometimes admins get taken in by this. They'll think, "Wow, if this editor is generating this many complaints, that editor must really be a problem." So the target may end up blocked for "vandalism" even if they didn't do anything wrong. Then once they've got that word in their block log, they're facing an uphill battle to get their credibility back. What an observing admin should do though, is look at the accusations to see if they are accompanied by diffs, and should look at the diffs to see if they actually back up the accusations. If the diffs and/or charges are false, there's probably a tag team at work, and it's the tag teamers who need to be dealt with, not their victim. --Elonka 15:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A reasoned approach, although I'm not sure I agree. At the very least, we need that in the article for it (the article) to be helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Elonka either. I think there's a problem with the statement that "may engage in very sophisticated campaigns to discredit an opponent", that's conspiracy theory stuff. What may appear to be a "sophisticated campaign" may just be some very angry editors who understand a subject, and are very annoyed with someone pushing a pov. How does one spot a "sophisticated campaign"? If there is a campaign it's sophistication would make it hard to distinguish from a group of editors who are just fed up with some pov-pushers. It would be much less work to simply familiarise oneself with the subject matter at hand than to be mulling over the nuances of this or that editors contributions and trying to determine a possibly non-existent "pattern." We all see patterns where non exist sometimes, it's human nature. I don't agree that just because consensus editors have the sources that means that they don't get annoyed by pov-pushing, having good sources is all very well, but if an admin has no knowledge of a subject, and a pov-pusher is claiming that the good sources are poor sources, how is the ignorant admin to decide if the sources are good or not? I've even had to deal with people who've claimed that a source states the exact opposite of what it really says, because they want to push a pov that is not supported by the source, so they misrepresent it. Arthur's above statement about "Elonka's view" seems spot on to me. Alun (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There are absolutely cases where nationalistic groups have worked to eject an opponent. A common tactic (again using Nigerians and Somalis as an example) would be if there's an article about an African topic, that the Nigerians are camping on. A Somali wanders in, feels that the article is too pro-Nigerian, and adds a sourced perspective that shows the Somali point of view. A Nigerian reverts. The Somali puts it back. The Nigerian then temporarily departs from the English Wikipedia, goes to their project page on the Nigerian Wikipedia, and calls for help. A ton of Nigerians then flood into the article to edit-war with the Somali. If the Somali tries engaging in discussion at the talkpage, the Nigerians pour in to disagree, to make it look like there's a consensus to keep out "fanatic Somali POV-pushing". The Somali, probably frustrated at this point, and extremely concerned that the article is heavily biased, may try putting a neutrality tag on the article. More edit-warring then ensues, and the Somali, heavily out-numbered, may even get blocked for 3RR at this point. What are the Somali's options? They may try an RfC, which will get a bunch of Nigerians posting, but if it's an obscure topic, they'll often not get any coherent neutral responses. If they go to ANI, it's one lone Somali saying, "Hey, there's a problem," and a dozen Nigerians accusing the Somali of POV-pushing and vandalism. The admins monitoring ANI will see a bunch of names they don't recognize, and won't be able to sort out who's who, they'll just see a bunch of bickering, and will often kick it out as "Content dispute, take it elsewhere." Sometimes what the Somali will do at that point is go to the Somali Wikipedia and say, "There's a problem," and if it's a hot topic, then Somali editors may start flooding in, and the article turns into a warzone, with both sides screaming "POV pusher" at the other side. Mediation may or may not be attempted. Both sides may also set up "guard shifts" where they will make open calls in their WikiProjects to try and watch the article 24/7 and systematically revert (yes, I've really seen this happen). I've also seen cases (not involving me) where an admin that tried to wade into the dispute and sort things out, just became a target, as the teams turned all their wrath on the admin to get out of "their" dispute. For each comment that the admin would post, they'd get dozens of complaints at their talkpage. Even beyond the content of the complaints, it can become maddening for the "You have a new message" banner to be popping up every few minutes. In one situation I'm thinking of (again, not me), the admin lost patience, said something mildly uncivil, and then got hauled to Wikiquette Alerts and ANI. By that point the admin was sick of the whole thing, and said they were washing their hands of the whole situation. So, the admin successfully ejected, the teams then went back to their open warfare, on dozens of articles at this point. This is a real tactic, and it's a real problem. Trying to say that tag teams don't exist, is not helping the project. --Elonka 16:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think most of us don't dispute that this can be a problem. The biggest issue to me is that many of the behaviors can also be normal, consensus-based editing. There are many cases where SPA's try to influence an article to support their own POV. Often a true consensus exists that the sources used are fringe sources, or inclusion of the information would give undue weight to a minority viewpoint. And often the SPA will refuse to believe the consensus, will insist that there must be a conspiracy to shut them up, and now, with this essay, can run around and accuse the consensus-based editors of tag-teaming. After all, those editors revert the SPA's additions, refuse to listen to the SPA's well thought-out explanation of why this must be included, and eventually get aggravated and call the SPA names. To someone with absolutely no knowledge of the subject, it may well look like tag-teaming. A bit of research into the subject may make it clearly evident that the SPA has misinterpreted/mischaracterized/misunderstood the sources or that the claims are blatantly false or of improper weight. So yes, there may be issues where the mediator needs to know nothing about the subject, but in many others (particularly science-based arguments), the mediator absolutely should do a little independent research. Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you ask "what can the Somali do", but isn't this the whole point of protecting articles? I've seen it time and again, if an edit war breaks out then in my experience good admins will protect the page and tell those on the talk page to calm down and come up with a compromise before they will unprotect the page. I must admit ignorance as to how and if admins from different Wikis interact. For example I don't know how checkuser works between different language Wikis, but it must be possible, at least in theory, to identify an interwiki call for meatpuppetry by a user. If a user edits say en.wikipedia and then the same user goes to call for meatpuppetry in say fi.wikipedia it must be possible to identify that user, and block them from both wikis for a brief period of time due to their calls for meatpuppetry (surely this is a blockable offence?). Once the page has been protected it comes down to assuming good faith and accepting that the only way forward is compromise. That is the core of consensus editing, we may not agree with someone else's point of view, but we are all aware that other points of view exist and that this encyclopaedia's content policies urges us to include all relevant notable points of view. You ask what an admin can do if there appears to be a consensus for one version of an article with a single opponent, but that's clear, consensus is important, but it cannot be used to exclude other points of view. WP:NPOV states clearly The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Again this emphasises that admins need to understand our policies and their application well. If the Somali in your example has reliable sources and a notable point of view that should be included, then it cannot be excluded by an apparent consensus against it. The problem arises when and if there is some claim that the sources used are not reliable, and determining that involves an understanding of the subject at hand. So I ask you, what should an admin do if they are confronted by this situation? A page is protected, a group seeks to exclude a apparently legitimate pov on the basis that the source is not reliable? In that case the admin surely needs to determine the reliability of the source? At the very least an admin has the responsibility to de-escalate the situation by pointing out the relevant policies and guidelines and clearly stating that consensus cannot be used as an excuse for excluding a notable point of view. Likewise the WP:CON policy states Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. So clearly if a group of editors turns up en mass and claims to be a "consensus" it should be obvious from the talk page that this is not a consensus. This is not "tag teaming", it should be little more than an isolated and short lived edit war, if handled properly. Obviously editors need to learn that they cannot impose their own beliefs on Wikipedia just because they have a short term "majority". Those who then accept that these mass tactics will not be allowed to work will remain and edit cooperatively, those who do not accept this will eventually leave of their own free will when they see that they cannot impose their beliefs here. I've seen many editors leave simply because they have been unable to compromise and also unable to push their own personal beliefs as "fact", on the othe rhand those that refuse to leave, but continue to edit tendentiously always get blocked eventually. Alun (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Speaking to this issue, one has to remember than an uninvolved administrator (the reviewer, mediator) as already,(at least recently) by virtue of his adminship, demonstrated a decent wiki record of editing, met rather demanding questions from other editors, and participated in consensus building. This in itself implies a certain level of judgment and intelligence in our administrators. Not every uninvolved admin will have a background in rocket science, but anyone who has been around for awhile (around the block, that is) will recognize the pattern that Elonka describes above with Nigerians and the Somalis. It is of course more subtle in other conflicts, especially science, but it doesn't require a rocket scientist to see it happening. It needs to be addressed, even at the risk of occasionally being wrong. That type of warfare (and it is a type of underground warfare) is negative & does not need to be on wiki. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that tag teaming is always obvious. I've seen several instances lately of a group of people who are doing consensus-based editing get accused of tag teaming because they are disagreeing with a single other editor. If this essay is to reflect only the issues faced by nationalistic topics, then that needs to be very specifically mentioned. Otherwise, we need to make very sure that it is written in such a way that editors following wikipedia's policies don't get accused of tag teaming. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that tag-teaming happens in all sorts of venues, nationalistic conflicts being just one. I suggest it isn't the end of the world if someone is wrongfully accused...that happens all the time. I've been accused of all sorts of things during my tenure here that are not accurate; generally as part of an attempt to intimidate me into accepting another person's POV when I've disagreed. Fortunately there seem to be a fair number of checks and balances on wiki, and unless the behavior is egregious and demonstrated as such, the chances of receiving a major unfair punishment is quite unlikely. Tag-teaming may not be immediately obvious, but an objective uninvolved administrator (undistracted by content issues) should be able to pick up the clues. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think so called "tag teaming" happens very much if at all. What I think happens is that in controversial articles there are usually two (or more) opposing points of view, and each "side" wants to give undue weight to the point of view they support, while giving less than a fair representation of the point of view they disagree with. This sort of conflict is not usually coordinated, even when meatpuppetry is involved (calling for input from one's compatriots is not the same as coordinating editing in such a way that each editor reverts at a given time in order to maintain a certain version of an article), rather it is usually uncoordinated, with members of each "side" reverting each other as and when they happen to log on. Of course each member of a "side" supports other editors with whom they share the same bias on the talk page, this is not evidence of "tag teaming". "Tag teaming" seems to imply (at least to me) that editors are somehow coordinating their reverts off-wiki, something that would take a great deal of organisation and timing. Usually this sort of behaviour is simply due to bias on both sides, and a lack of willingness to compromise, and I emphasise on both "sides", where one group sees an "opposing tag team", the other group also sees an "opposing tag team", usually both groups are as biased and unwilling to compromise as each other. The basis of consensus editing is compromise. By that I mean that however strongly we "believe" in a point of view, we must accept that other notable and verifiable points of view are entitled to have space in an article. From there it comes down to a question of discussion regarding the relative neutrality of certain points of view. It is not neutral to claim that all points of view have equality, we do not include fringe points of view, excepting when they are included as notable due to their fringe status, then we need to emphasise that their notability is due to their fringe status. Likewise it needs to be clear that minority points of view are not entitled to the same level of inclusion as mainstream points of view. Now when it comes to difficulties between ethnic groups it is apparent that what is a minority point of view in one community may well be a majority point of view in another community. In this case we need to frame the article in these terms. That means saying something like "from the point of view of group X, A is the mainstream view, while from the point of view of group Y, B is the mainstream point of view." These sorts of interactions are important on Wikipedia, and they come from assuming good faith, even when the person you are dealing with holds a diametrically opposite belief to oneself. Consensus is all very well, but it cannot be used to exclude relevant points of view, consensus does not "trump" WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, and WP:CON states this explicitly. Alun (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"If at all?" The "CAMERA incident" demonstrates it does happen (or has happened) -- and the same is implied by the group that was called "Wikipedians for Palestine." The type of editing you are describing is disruptive even if you don't call it "tag-teaming." I absolutely agree with your caveat that one person's (or group's) fringe is another man's mainstream, and that the best way to deal with that is to respect others' opinions and assume good faith. It is exactly when that does not happen that the problems begin. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Alun: if everyone on wikipedia were actively communicative and editing with consensus in mind, then there would be no problem. any group that 'tried' to start up tag teaming would be instantly recognizable as different, and could be dealt with. the problem is that a lot of editors are consensus-lazy and self-righteous about it; they do things that look like tag teaming (because it's easier to do that than actually talk everything out), and these editors get pissy when they are accused of tag teaming (because they really aren't, they're just being lazy about consensus). you seem to be arguing that these consensus-lazy editors shouldn't be 'accused' of tag teaming based on mere fact that they 'look' like they are tag teaming. the only sensible response to that is to note that if they didn't 'look' like they were tag teaming, they wouldn't be accused of it. Do you really want to protect tag teams just because you're unwilling to tell editors to stop being lazy about achieving consensus? --Ludwigs2 22:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's flip the situation: would you like being accused of tag teaming because it looks to someone like you're tag teaming, when in fact you aren't?--Ramdrake (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is a good thing to add to the essay. I've added a section on "false accusations", feel free to continue working on it. --Elonka 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) of course not, but whether I like it or not is hardly relevant. I've been accused of many untrue things in my life (and oddly, I've been accused of them far more often on wikipedia than anywhere else, and I'm pretty sure you're one of the people that's accused me... ), and my response as much as humanly possible is to stand by my actions and my principles and try to talk things out. if someone is accusing me of something, that means that there is a problem - might not be the problem they think it is, of course, but a there's a problem nonetheless - and some effort ought to be made to understand what's going on and address it. you're worried that you might be 'falsely accused' or that you might 'look bad' or that some other insult might be dealt to your public persona, but frankly if there's even the remotest chance that your actions might justifiably be mistaken as tag teaming in the first place, your reputation's shot to hell regardless.

politicians will sc$#w anyone and anything they have to to make sure their reputation is squeaky clean; all they care about is appearances. Normal people stand by their actions, and don't worry too much if people throw mud at them because they know the mud won't stick. why are you arguing for the political side? --Ludwigs2 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that a lot of editors are consensus-lazy and self-righteous about it- But this is what I would call pov-pushing. What you call "consensus lazy" I call disruptive editing and pov-pushing. I'm all for being bold, but it's clear that if an editor is bold, but get's reverted, then there is some problem with their edit. At this point in time the editor should take it to the talk page and explain their edit. If they don't then the editor may engage in an edit war, but without taking it to talk they are never going to persuade anyone else editing the article that their edit was justified. What I've seen happening is the opposite of what you describe, mostly editors who refuse to go to talk are single individuals working to push their own pov, especially when they edit war, they are rarely a group who is "tag teaming". Besides I don't see how I am advocating "protect tag teams just because you're unwilling to tell editors to stop being lazy", did you actually read my post above? It appears not, in it I explicitly state that this is why admins sometimes have to protect pages. If an edit war breaks out the page should be protected and the protecting admin should ask users to thrash out the problem on talk. That's how to deal with the problem, that's not "protecting" anybody. If any editor refuses to go to talk at this point, then they will lose the opportunity to give their point of view for inclusion in the article. Your experiences are clearly diametrically opposed to mine, I've never seen a so called "tag team", I've only ever seen two groups of editors with different povs reverting each other as and when they come online it's not coordinated in my experience. No I don't accept that such things as "tag teams" are real, you can disagree with me all you like, but you won't convince me because it's about belief. You believe you can see a "pattern" of coordinated editing when what I see is simply different groups of editors reverting when they happen to randomly come on line. Alun (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Yes, Alun, I read your post, and no, I can't get you to see something that you are unwilling or unable to see. however, you ought to recognize 'you don't see it' and 'it doesn't exist' are not logically or morally equivalent, and give up trying to insist that they are. the facts of the matter are so:

• it takes a lot of time to craft an edit - minutes at minimum, maybe hours for a large edit
• it takes a lot more time to discuss an edit - often days or weeks if it's contested
• it takes practically no time to revert - 5 seconds, or 10 if you want to craft a particularly pithy edit summary

all that three or four editors who want to defend a page need to do is take 15 seconds each out of their day to revert, and they can totally uproot hours or days worth of work by other editors. they don't need to justify themselves, because they never violate 3rr, and they don't need to bother to talk on talk pages (except to throw in the occasional boilerplate reverted that edit because it violated wp:SYN, WP:V, and was against consensus). it's incredibly effective, commonly used on some pages, and for some editors (I won't name names) it is their primary mode of editing on wikipedia. it also violates every conceivable definition of consensus - doesn't that matter to you? now if you want to sink whole hog into methodological individualism and claim that group action never exists anywhere on wikipedia, just say so and get it out of your system. otherwise I have no idea what you're going on about. --Ludwigs2 20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• you ought to recognize 'you don't see it' and 'it doesn't exist' are not logically or morally equivalent, and give up trying to insist that they are.

Where have I ever "insisted" that they are "morally equivalent". I don't think I've used the terms "moral" or "equivalent" in any of my posts here. I don't think I've insisted "tag teams" don't exist, where have I done that? Could you point that out to me please? What I said is that the existence of "tag teams" is a question of belief i.e. I am sceptical of their existence, but you have a strong fundamentalist faith in their existence (like a belief in god), so it is you who are confusing "I believe" with "this is truth". I never said you are "wrong" I said I don't see it. Why are you claiming I've said things I clearly haven't? You claim to read my posts, but you keep claiming I've said things I obviously haven't. I have the right to disagree with you, you don't seem to think that anyone has this right and you attack them and misrepresent them when they do disagree with you. You should read what I say and respond, not claim I've written something I clearly haven't and then "respond" to something I have never said. Above you claim that I want to "protect tag teams just because you're unwilling to tell editors to stop being lazy", but I've never said anything like that on any of my posts anywhere. Where have I ever said that we shouldn't encourage editors to discuss on talk pages? Where have I said that we shouldn't protect pages when edit wars break out? Why do you keep ignoring my posts and inventing things I have said? Now you make further baseless claims against me. If this is the attitude you show on article discussion pages, then I'm not surprised you've had problems. You spend far too much time commenting on things you've made up that editors are supposed to have said, rather than content. You've invented things that you claim I've said (that I clearly haven't) and then you've "responded" to these invented things to me. That's just annoying. If you can't respond to what I say rather to things you've made up then what is the point? The rest of your post just discussed edit warring. So what, edit warring happens. I don't care how long it takes to make a long edit, frankly one can spend a month editing an article, but if all that edit does is add nonsense into Wikipedia then we need to get rid of it. I don't measure an edits worth by how much time it has taken, I measure it's worth by how much it improves the encyclopaedia. What I don't understand is why you think that a general discussion of edit warring is relevant to an essay about "tag teaming"? How is any of your above post relevant to so called "tag teams"? As far as I can see you're talking about edit waring. That happens on Wikipedia and we have plenty of ways to deal with it. Furthermore we have all had what we think are good edits reverted, no one has the right to demand that their edits are always included, however much "time" has gone into them. Alun (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

heavens to betsy! look what you wrote right here:

No I don't accept that such things as "tag teams" are real, you can disagree with me all you like, but you won't convince me because it's about belief. You believe you can see a "pattern" of coordinated editing when what I see is simply different groups of editors reverting when they happen to randomly come on line.

basically what this says is (a) you disagree with me about whether they exist, (b) because there is disagreement, it is simply a matter of belief, so (c) tag teams must not exist in reality, but only as beliefs, which implicitly (d) makes your belief true. I mean, lets be frank: if you really don't believe tag teams exist, then what the heck are you doing here? you're wasting a whole lot of time and energy squabbling over an essay about a thing that you don't even believe in (and is therefore, from your supposed perspective, of absolutely no consequence)! If you don't think tag teams exist, then go away and let us poor misbegotten souls who do think they exist get on with out pointless exercise in futility.

I swear, I did not start editing on wikipedia to teach other editors the basics of logical reasoning, and it irritates me that I have to. --Ludwigs2 21:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Heavens to bloody betsy indeed! That's absurd. Read what I said and don't put your personal spin on it. Points (a) and (b) you make are accurate, (c) and (d) seem to be things you have plucked out of thin air that are clearly not part of what I wrote, but something you have made up. Section (c) in particular is a logical fallacy, a non sequitur, i.e. who said beliefs are necessarily not part of reality? I believe in many things that are part of reality, I believe the world is round, are you suggesting that "the world must not be round in reality, but only as a belief?" I said that you believe that "tag teams" are real, and that I do not. That makes it a matter of belief. Whether that are "real" is not considered in what I wrote. I am happy to accept that I might be wrong, I don't believe because I don't think there is really evidence of coordinated activity, as I say where you see a pattern I simply see two opposing groups edit warring, but the fact is that either of us could be wrong and I have never claimed that I am right, I've only stated my belief. Please stop putting words into my mouth. You are apparently deliberately misrepresenting what I have said and the quote of mine you give doesn't support your accusation against me. Again I ask you to not to claim I've said things I clearly have not said. Stick to discussing the essay and direct your comments to what I said and not to what you think I mean. Thanks. Alun (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, see? now we're getting somewhere. too bad I had to piss you off to get this conversation on track, but such is life...

indeed, the belief that the earth is round is exactly that - a belief. the soundness of this belief comes from the fact that there is empirical evidence which makes it credible. the same goes for tag teams, except that you are making the logical error that an absence of evidence can be used as evidence of an absence. it's equivalent to someone who has never seen Foucault's pendulum, never heard of satellites, and never travelled out of his home town saying 'you believe the earth is round and I don't - I've never seen anything that would lead me to believe the earth was round - therefore we'll just have to agree to disagree on the matter'. that's relativism: by reducing the disagreement to a matter of pure belief (by denying that there is any valid evidence one way or the other) you effectively hog-tie the conversation. but there is evidence - there is evidence that tag teaming is a logical and practical possibility (for one), and more evidence (that I've seen, but you haven't) that it is actually put into practice by a few aberrant groups. the fact that you don't see or accept the evidence is not sufficient grounds for claiming that it's purely a matter of belief. now I'm not trying to force you to believe something you're not willing to believe (not my business, that), but I am not about to let you sit there and tell me that there is no evidence on this one way or another, when I happen to know that there is. the practical possibility alone is sufficient grounds for writing the essay - or are you saying that tag teaming is not a practical possibility on wikipedia? --Ludwigs2 23:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• you are making the logical error that an absence of evidence can be used as evidence of an absence

For Christ's sake get a grip will you. That's just rubbish. There's no "logical fallacy" there. Now you're saying that unless I agree with you then I'm making a logical fallacy? What are you on mate? So far all I get from you is crap. You seem to think that you must insult and fight with everyone who doesn't see things from your point of view. Well that's not assuming good faith. Please stop insulting my intelligence, and please stop making absurd claims. Get this, it's the last time I'm saying it, I'm fed up with repeating myself, and you seem to be unwilling or incapable of accepting anyone else's point of view: Yes absence of evidence can and should be taken as evidence of absence (but not as proof of absence). Otherwise you are saying that we should always assume a group is a tag team even when there is no evidence. and that's not assuming good faith. Indeed I am extremely angry with you at the present because of your constant and apparently deliberate misrepresentations, your sophistic arguments and the artificial way you have derailed this discussion to make it an irrelevant sideshow about your personal beliefs. Get this, I don't care what you believe I am simply pointing out that what you believe is not necessarily a fact. Editors who cannot accept that others can and do have different points of view, and that those points of view are just as valid, usually are the ones who have problems on articles, and it's usually got nothing to do with so called "tag teams" on the articles, and everything to do with the fact that these editors cannot accept that their point of view is not the only one in the world, and often they edit war, become tendentious and make wild claims for the truth If you take this attitude on article talk pages then I'm not surprised that you are constantly getting reverted, it seems to me that you think your personal opinions are "facts" that should always be included here, and that anyone who disagrees with you should be labelled "stupid" as you have tried to do to me, or a "tag team" as you seem to want to do to any group of editors who don't agree with you. I have never "reducing the disagreement to a matter of pure belief", what I said is that we have different beliefs, that means that we interpret the evidence differently. Or if you prefer, I demand a far greater level of proof for the existence of so called "tag teams" than you do. As far as I can see your only criterion for believing that a tag team exists is that a group of editors reverts your edits. In effect you never assume good faith, you just always assume that when a group of editors disagree with you they are a "tag team". That's just sad, and it's certainly not the level of evidence we should accept for labelling a group a "tag team". Alun (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Alun - I don't need to insult your intelligence; you're doing a fine job of that on your own. when you've actually taken the time to read what I wrote dispassionately enough so that you can make some sense out of it, we can continue this conversation. until then, though, continuing this is pointless. --Ludwigs2 16:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to insult your intelligence; you're doing a fine job of that on your own. Enough, guys. I think we need some admin intervention here... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I have made a sequence of edits to make this essay more useful as a reference and explanation. I have referred to this a few times [1][2][3] and want to be sure it provides good information to these editors. Please don't blind revert all my edits without discussion. Feel free to do a partial reversion if you disagree with some of my changes. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 07:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the "is uncivil" wording should be returned in order to match WP:POVPUSH. Some of the disclaimers were useful, but the removal of redundancy is a good thing. Verbal chat 08:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The "is uncivil" wording is too definitive. If somebody appears to be tag teaming, the problem should be brought to their attention in a civil way, without mincing words. Perhaps, "Accusations of tag teaming may be uncivil if presented incorrectly." Then explain how to present the concern in a civil way, using friendly language and citing evidence so that the other editor can respond to specifics. "I know this might not be your intention, but you appear to be tag team editing. [diff][diff][diff] To avoid that problem you could instead ..." Jehochman ^Talk 08:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's uncivil to call someone a pov-pusher, then it's uncivil to call someone a member of a "tag team". Why do you suppose that some name calling is acceptable and other name calling is not? Alun (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Alun, it is not uncivil to accurately describe problematic editing, especially if evidence is cited. Please discuss each revert you did. It seems that you reverted all my edits. Explain why each is disputed, or else I will restore those for which no objection is stated. Jehochman ^Talk 11:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's not uncivil to accurately describe problematic editing. Whoever said it was? It is uncivil to call people names. One can claim to be concerned that an article is the target of a "tag team" without making accusations of "tag teaming". Why are you threatening to edit war? I don't think there's any rule here that your edits are always right and can never be changed. Ireverted your edits because I totally disagree with the way you are attempting to steer this essay. There is no consensus about so called "tag-teams", a concept that I feel will produce bad feeling and avoid concensus editing. I think your changes will encourage this more than the essay does already.

• What weasel words? I can see none, weasel words are saying that "some people believe" or saying "many claim" etc. This is just a statement of fact supported by a link.[4]
• Sorry, my mistake, no reason to remove this.[5]
• I disagree. [6]
• Again what weasel words, please see avoid weasel words for a definition of what constitutes weasel words, there are no weasel words here and this is a perfectly reasonable statement. [7]
• I think editors need to be much more careful when making these judgements than your change implies, the original wording is far more careful and therefore more appropriate. [8]
• Why not? We need disclaimers so people do not use this essay as an excuse to edit war and throw accusations around. [9]
• Section is no longer empty. [10]

Alun (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I have attempted to do some of the edits again, in a better way. If the essay is somehow wrong, I suggest fixing it, rather than undermining with the use of disclaimers (statements that essentially say, "Warning: this essay does not reflect consensus."). As for incivility, it might be incivil to call somebody a tag team member, but if there is evidence of actual disruption, we do not need to beat around the bush. In the accusations section, much of what I did was simple copy editing to remove redundancy and awkwardness. Feel free to add or modify, but try to avoid restoring redundant statements. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I modified your edits, and reverted a few that I found unacceptable, at least for now. Let me explain fully: if you look at this talk page and its archive, you will see that there is a lack of consensus as to what exactly constitutes tag teaming. Different editors have very different interpretations. Under the circumstances, in the absence of even a rough consensus definition, using the expression "tag teaming" is problematic, as it amounts to a vague accusation, which can have wildly different meanings depending on the editor wielding it. Whenever there is consensus as to a more formal definition of what is or isn't tag teaming, then we will be able to do without the caveats. However, until such a time as we achieve a consistent, consensus definition of "tag teaming", it would make more sense to me to be extremely circumspect about its use. Please understand that my objection to removing the cautions is not on principle, but rather situational, given that the expression can be used in so many different ways right now. Further discussion, I hope, will allow a consensus to emerge around what is or isn't tag teaming.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehohman, the essay WP:SPADE specifically states: "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks. Discuss problematic edits, in reasonable terms, on that article's discussion page." it does not say that it's OK to label an editor or a group of editors a "tag team". One can point out problems without resorting to name calling. If someone thinks that an article is the target of so called "tag team" tactics, then frame it in those words, and not by making accusations against an editor or a group of editors. WP:SPADE does not exhort us to be incivil or to accuse other editors of wrongdoing. It does ask us to address specific concerns explicitly and not to beat around the bush. For example if I find a particular edit to be unsupported by a citation, I can bring this up on the talk page without calling the editor who made the edit a pov-pusher. That's an example of WP:SPADE, calling the editor a pov-pusher would be an example of incivility. Comment on content and not on users, but comment on content clearly. Alun (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If somebody is pushing a POV, we can say "Please stop pushing the pro-Elbonian POV.[diff] Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires..." You have repeatedly reverted this essay to your preferred version and only allowed a few superficial changes.[11][12] If you want to own the essay so badly, I'll let you have it. What a bummer. Jehochman ^Talk 16:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I really don't think it's an issue of owning the essay. There are several editors who agree up to a point at least that accusations of tag teaming are generally incivil, some with exceptions, some basically without. If you think that's appropriate, we could have an RfC on the matter to get a wider audience and try to settle the dispute. I don't think it's worth getting acrimonious over this.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehoman, I have included what I think are important points that you have removed. You may not agree with me, that is your prerogative, but any cursory look at the edit history of this page will show that I am far from one of the most active editors here, I've edited it a bit, but much less that many other editors, so claims of WP:OWN seem a bit of an overreaction. This is how Wikipedia works, we discuss here, and we edit the article. On the other hand I don't think you have been interested in what I have been saying, or in taking my concerns into account. This essay is controversial to say the least, and I might go so far as to say that it directly undermines our policy on consensus building. As such it needs to be full of qualifications and clarifications. It certainly needs to reflect the views of those who are sceptical of it's utility and who are worried that it provides a figleaf to those who want to engage in pov-pushing. I think your version made the essay far too confrontational in tone. If you disagree with me, then explain why I am wrong rather than making unfounded accusations of ownership. Alun (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Examples

In the various sections above, there are several hypothetical examples of so-called "tag teaming" used to explain the theory of the essay. Given that there are editors who are not convinced that tag-teaming exists and those that do, it probably would be beneficial to have actual examples of “tag teaming”. The examples would need to include diffs rather than just “look at Article X”. Shot info (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team
• Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive19
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Proposed decision
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Proposed decision
• User:Moreschi/The Plague
• User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5/Archive1
• User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign (added 19:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

I can provide plenty more, but that's a start. --Elonka 00:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A few comments:

• The first reference must be Elonka's little joke. It's nice to know that she has maintained her sense of humour even in these troubled times. :-)
• All the other examples seem to be valid uses of the term, and involve editors with a common nationalistic point of view.
• Another example of nationalistic tagteaming was the recent assault on the BLP of Michael Atiyah. Here meatpuppetry was identified and several users banned. Bharatveer had his account suspended during investigations. In this case, Elonka failed to identify the tag team, although alerted. Wikipedians familiar with the content and sources contacted arbitration committee members FT2 and Charles Matthews as well as administrators Slrubenstein, Nishkid64 and Alison who helped sort out the mess behind the scenes.
• There have also been attempts to identify academic tag teams and name their purported members by Elonka herself [13]. Nothing that Elonka has written here or in this essay gives even the slightest hint as to how she reached her conclusions.

I doubt that anybody would disagree that nationalism has united editors into tag teams. I have been cornered by banned nationalist editor User:M.V.E.i. participating in a tag team as User: log in, log out on my own talk page. However it would seem perverse to apply the term to groups of established academics with a history of solid content contributions. That would indicate a particularly jaundiced view of our higher education system. Mathsci (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, care to improve your diffs? You're accusing me of naming tag team members at that diff, but the only people using the term "tag team" (or tag-team) on that page, are you and Moreschi. --Elonka 00:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly did you mean by writing this?

My concern is that a small group of editors, all agreeing with each other, moving from article to article and rolling over opposition, does not define "consensus". And that this group is adamantly opposed to any kind of wider community input such as an RfC or AfD, further concerns me.

In this diff [14] you used the term "lynch mob" in reference to Jagz/161.243.114.45/Fat Cigar. What precisely did you mean by that? Mathsci (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There was also this [15].

This is not the venue to discuss editors' behavior in detail, but yes, I have considerable diffs which show disruptive behavior on the part of a few of the editors who claim to be "defending the wiki" on some of these topics. I think we have probably also all seen places where an editor is called a "POV pusher" from one side, and "a damn good editor dealing with cranks" from the other side. It goes with the territory in this large collaborative environment. And ordinarily, we deal with things reasonably well, assuming good faith, working through dispute resolution procedures, and so forth. But where things go awry, is when we have a few people who decide that they know "the best way" to handle an article, and they camp on it to deal with the POV pushers. Indeed, often such articles are the target of POV-pushing, and so the encamped editors may be doing a good thing, 95% of the time, keeping the article cleaned up and protected from crud. But then I think the encamped folks can go into a bunker mentality, where they see any new editor as a POV pusher. If the new editor just participates once or twice and then wanders away, the problem seems to go away as well. But if the new editor tries to stick around, the encamped folks then often go into a case of "circling the wagons" against the interloper, and dispute resolution sometimes goes out the window, along with the rules of civility.

Extraordinary. Mathsci (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility question

Okay, so we seem to have a dispute on how to deal with the "is the term uncivil" question? The key points of view seem to be:

• The term is always uncivil
• The term is sometimes uncivil
• The term is uncivil when directed at a particular editor, but not uncivil if used as a general description of behavior
• The term is just as uncivil as "POV pushing", which according to WP:POVPUSH is always uncivil.

Can we find compromise wording for the essay which incorporates different viewpoints? For example, "Some editors feel that the term is uncivil, and others do not"? --Elonka 00:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it may be a false dichotomy, as even if accusations of POV pushing are uncivil, they are still being made. It is my interpretation that saying "accusations of X are uncivil", doesn't mean they can never be made, it just means be sure of your facts and check everything, because if you're wrong you've just insulted someone needlessly. In that sense, I don't see a problem in saying that accusing people of being part of a tag team is uncivil; people will still use it when they feel it's warranted.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that if an admin goes to one of the Irish articles and says, "I am concerned that there may be tag teaming here," that the admin has just violated WP:CIVIL? I don't agree with that assessment. --Elonka 00:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

if you ask me, accusations of incivility are themselves always uncivil, so this whole issue is an unpleasant, irresolvable mind game. if anyone gets to the point where they feel the urge to say 'editor X is being uncivil when s/he says...' they ought to just admit to themselves that they and editor X are in the middle of a fight, and refrain from saying it. I mean, really... unless editor X is remarkably self-reflective, s/he's not going to stop and think "wow, I can see how my last comments might be taken in that unfortunate way", and so an accusation of incivility is going to be taken as an attack, not as a incitement to reconsideration. I don't think anyone should ever be accused of incivility; I think that people should simply list out the difficulties they are having in a particular conversations, so that if an admin gets involved, the admin can draw a conclusion of incivility and apply the appropriate sanctions.

-end of rant-

I think we should just say either "the term is uncivil" or "the term may be considered uncivil", without qualifiers or modifiers. and I think POVPUSH should say the same (I'd edited it to say that earlier, but I haven't checked to see if it's been reverted...). --Ludwigs2 00:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's uncivil for an admin to say "I am concerned that there may be POV pushing here," then it's equally uncivil to say "I am concerned that there may be tag teaming here." I'm most concerned of all with the obsession with civility to the detriment of content guidelines (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and the like), but that's probably another conversation for another day. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly routine for admins to say, "So and so has been POV-pushing at article X". The thing to be careful about, is venue. If someone is making a report at ANI, a different type of language is allowed than might be allowed at an article talkpage, where we say, "Comment on content, not the contributor." So while at an article talkpage, if editor A said, "Joe is pushing a pro-Nigerian POV", that might be considered uncivil, but if the exact same language was used at WP:ANI, ArbCom, or a User Conduct RfC, it would be perfectly fine. --Elonka 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be uncivil on the talk page of the article? How would you want the wording of that sentence changed to make it not uncivil? Risker (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Boris: civility (the concept, not the rule) is a key part of consensus editing. there's no possibility of consensus where editors get caught up in flaming each other, because even if they agree they will be too busy snarking to recognize that they agree. and yes, I've seen that happen. civility can be a problem in its own right, mind you (where editors get established enough on a page that they consider anything that contradicts their viewpoint to be an uncivil personal attack), but that's a separate issue. in fact, the application of content guidelines relies on civility to a certain extent, because they rely on editors being willing to recognize that the guideline is pertinent. no sense even talking about verifiability if another editor is steadfastly refusing to accept any of your sources as valid.

Risker: it's uncivil on a talk page because it's usually leveled at the other editor (either directly, or by declaring it to third parties), primarily to interfere with that editor's ability to edit. by contrast, on ANI or ArbCom pages, 'incivility' is usually given as a label for an evidentiary claim (e.g. editor X is being uncivil because of diff, diff, diff...), primarily to ask for official sanctions or solutions. it's the same reason, really, why it's legal to call someone a murderer in court, but slander/libel to call them a murderer in public. there's due process for handling incivility; handling it outside of the process is improper. --Ludwigs2 02:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(out) Elonka I think you have misunderstood the disagreement here. I don't think it can be summed up as a dispute on how to deal with the "is the term uncivil". The term "tag team" by itself is neutral and is obviously not uncivil. The term "pov-pushing" is not uncivil either. What is uncivil is to make accusations against specific editors or groups of editors. An editor may believe that "tag teaming" is a problem on a specific article, they may express those concerns on the talk page, as in I believe there is a "tag team" working on this article. That's different to saying "user x is a member of a tag team". It's clear that the first is not any sort of accusation and does not call any other editor a member of a "tag team". The second is both an accusation and specifically calls an editor a member of a tag team. There's a big difference here. It is uncivil to make accusations or to call another editor a member of a tag team, it is not uncivil to say that one is suspicious that a "tag team" is operating on an article. On the other hand if it has been established that a tag team has been in operation on a specific article (eg by an RfC or mediation or some such process) and the members of the "tag team" have been identified, then it is perfectly acceptable to refer to these individuals as members of a "tag team", that is not an "accusation" because their membership has already been established, or in other words, I can't "accuse" someone of a crime they've already been convicted of. Alun (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alun and would say that the term (like many others) may be unwelcome without being uncivil. For example, it cannot be a breach of civility merely to use the word during dispute resolution, if that is indeed the subject or nature of the dispute. Using the phrase merely to insult is uncivil in any context. But serious and measured discussion must not be blocked by playing the incivility card, as Ludwig2 points out. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced "to an administrator" by "in a neutral forum" as a description of an appropriate context to use the term without incivility. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Remedies and the role of administrators

I'm deeply unhappy about the position underlying the final section. Administrators are not judges or managers: they are editors who have tools which can be used to enforce the consensus of the editing community. The only suggestion that petains directly to administrators is

• Editors who have a history of making false accusations, should be treated as disruptive, and warned, banned, or blocked.

All the others could and should be moved up, and the line

• Request an administrator's attention, perhaps by posting at WP:ANI. If an affected article can be placed on probation or closer admin supervision, it will be more difficult for a tag team to be effective.

rewritten as

• Request the attention of third parties, including administrators, perhaps by posting at WP:ANI. If an affected article can be placed on probation or closer admin supervision, it will be more difficult for a tag team to be effective.

Richard Pinch (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me and I think your neutral forum change is good also. Verbal chat 16:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is taking a look at remedies for the tag-team article, I would suggest that recommending the reliable sources noticeboard as a place to ask for an opinion is confusing.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard see: Am I being tag-teamed or am I just wrong? Television/The Real Housewives. (File a Request for comment,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.)

"We can't say anything about whether you have been tag-teamed."-was the response that I received with my query there. It appears that RSN is busy considering questions mainly related to sources.Unless there is a more step by step way of addressing RSN for tag-team remedies?24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Broken link

I just noticed that the link for meatpuppetry in the lead section goes to the top of WP:SOCK, not to WP:MEAT. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I will be bold and fix it. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something? (aka, essay or de facto policy?)

In practice, "Tag teaming" has been elevated to a high offense in Wikipedia, where people have been fairly or unfairly blocked to "doing" it, and warriors can score points against their opponents by painting their efforts with a "tag teaming" moniker Yet the only place that I've seen that defines it (this, and I think that it does a reasonably good job) isn't even a guideline much less a policy. If I'm right, then it would seem that this should get elevated to (or the definition summarized within) a guideline. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

How timely. I have just had my first (unexpected) brush with the same invisible undefined de facto policy. I plan to formulate something for village pump, and would welcome preliminary ideas to help collate that post either here or at my talk page. And if there have been prior attempts at this, please let me know where to look for the record so I don't re-plow the same ground without forewarning! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A few links for you, NewsAndEventsGuy. The essay has remained an essay probably because the notion of tag-teaming is illogical and poorly thought out. It should be in User:Elonka's userspace at best. It was proposed for deletion soon after being created, with for instance User:Risker (an arb now, though not then) arguing that "it is mostly a very useful checklist for POV warriors (singly or in groups) to use when attacking their opponents". It was kept per the unusual criterion "Snow No Consensus". Tag-teaming is a cheap, unprovable, and unfalsifiable slur to use against opponents. Falsifiability is the criterion for whether an assertion, or as here an accusation, is useful or not. If it can't be proved or disproved — and how is one supposed to defend oneself against this one? — it may be either true or false, but it's useless. It's not in the empirical realm, but mere metaphysics. Didn't the scientific revolution happen yet? I was shocked, as I wrote yesterday at the Tea Party arbitration, to see the committee invoke the paranoid "tag-team" notion in the proposed decision, and widely supporting it, too. Pity Risker's not active on that case. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC).

It would probably be best to kill the concept of "tag teaming" itself being an offense. My comment opening this post was sort of a "second best" solution. People have able "run amok" with the term specifically because it has no definition in policies and guidelines. This essay sets a tougher standard for calling something "tag teaming" than the de facto one. So elevating this to a guideline would probably reduce the problem. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

People often run amok with accusations of sockpuppetry or of disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT, but that doesn't mean that the guidelines on sockpuppets and disruption are bad policies. Any reliance on a large, verbose body of policy in a dispute brings out the rule lawyers. Too late to put that genie back in the bottle. K7L (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are missing my point. Which is that there is NO policy or guideline on "tag teaming". Which means that everybody is free to call any agreement/action of 2 or more people "tag teaming" And that one way to reduce that problem might be to promote/upgrade this essay to a guideline. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Per Bishonen, above, it is unprovable. Disrupting to make a point and sockpuppetry can often be pinned down with a sufficient degree of certainty to justify action. Tag-teaming is (in the absence of a confession or cracked email account) not possible to distinguish from ordinary editing by two or more vigilant editors who share a view. Medical editors get it flung at them all the time by disgruntled homeopaths and acupuncturists (and when there's more than one of those, we fling it at them.) It is a squeal, an epithet, not a graspable thing that has any use. This essay should be userfied, not elevated. --Anthonyhcole (team Bish) (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hehe. Team-tagging Anthony! <joke>. Yes, I can only imagine the horrors that take place on the medical articles, it's bad enough in the Shakespeare authorship question area. Did you see the recent stuff at the Tea Party RFAR talkpage? Since 2008, many people have picked up the stupid word and run with it, in the service of FRINGE-pushing and the battleground; as AGK wrote in his vote, it's become "firmly embedded in Wikipedia's vocabulary". But I was still taken aback to see ArbCom swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Editing before coffee would be the kindest assumption. The Bishonen Conglomerate | talk, 20:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC).

I agree with all of you. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I might put something in there to emphasize this.North8000 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Challenge of tag teams

I think this article underestimates the difficulty of an independent Editor trying to work with a tag team, without being able to call it a tag team. By "tag team", I mean a group of 3-6 Editors who all work, simultaneously, on articles in a limited topic area, who support each other and basically drive off anyone who challenge their point of view. They own the articles they work on.

And I'm not even a participant, I'm just a bystander, watching it unfold. It's persistent and it has to be apparent to anyone who sees the articles, yet it is so entrenched, it's not easy to dismantle it. I mean, how is "creating an unwelcome environment for others" a conduct violation? It's clearly uncivil but Admins are not going to block without diffs of specific acts, when it is more common to have a Talk Page where new users are just ignored, dismissed or talked over, not abused. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it goes largely unnoticed because it's only affecting articles on a narrow subtopic where no one is paying attention? With millions of articles, there are many that aren't being watched by more than one small group who are free to push an agenda without attracting oversight. K7L (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the remedy is to be found in calling it tag teaming. Especially since the main way that the monopolies drive away editors is by trying to villainize them them on talk pages (with false accusations of misbehavior, violating policies and guidelines etc.).North8000 (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

We've certainly had problems from time to time with inappropriately coordinated editing, as well as with page ownership. But when I see this essay cited, it's virtually always by an editor who refuses to accept that a good-faith consensus has gone against him/her. That's why I doubt this essay will ever be "upgraded", and why the mention of it causes experienced editors to roll their eyes. How does one distinguish between a consensus of editors working in good faith and a "tag-team"? This essay tends to be cited by people who either fail to understand that distinction, or who choose to elide it out of self-interest. MastCell ^Talk 00:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"Superior numbers"

I added a section about rapid responses to edits that was considered redundant by another editor, and possibly motivated by edits made to articles on topics in the news. (See the revision involved and User talk: Roches for more details.)

My addition wasn't directly motivated by the edits to Shooting of Michael Brown. Several of the active editors took the time to discuss their opinions on my user talk page. Their opinions are quite different, and I don't think they're working together at all. I don't assume editors are colluding, even when they support each other on the talk page.

However, I was reading essays and came upon this one (which I've never seen before) when reading about ownership topics. My addition was considered redundant to the first point, which appears to be about the 3RR. I was referring to talk pages, and thought about how, hypothetically, two people working together just to cause trouble might be able to steer the discussion better than one person would be able to respond.

If you consider an example where multiple ownership or tag-teaming really is happening, the multiple owners have an ability a single owner doesn't. They can object to a legitimate editor, then continue replying back and forth to each other, without having to wait for a comment by another legitimate editor who has a legitimate concern. Thus, so many objections can be raised that the original, legitimate edit can't be restored.

If this offended anyone, I apologize for that. And I want to thank the editors who posted to my talk page again, because in this case it made it clear that they had intelligent opinions that, it turned out, weren't all that different from mine.

Roches (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Guess I was sloppy and equated bypassing 3RR (bullet 1) with subverting consensus (bullet 3). To technically minded wiki-lawyers they are not the same, and I probably should have referenced the latter in my edit summary instead.

As for the substance of your comment - the answer to suspected tag teaming is to make dispassionate and effective use of WP:Dispute resolution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Officially, like-minded editors cannot gang up to violate policy. In practice, I'm not so sure that is the case. Worse, it often seems that editors see the civility rules as a way of avoiding a content dispute — just make endless little violations and personal digs to make the opposing editor mad; feign ignorance and edit-war when he makes policy objections, and eventually he will lose his temper. Then you can get him banned. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

SPA's

I just read this and see that it has generated more than a little response. A main reason it has not been given due importance is that concerns of tag-teaming is generally deemed to violate other guidelines and policies so it became dusty. I have run into clear cases of SPA tag-teaming at AFD, in attempts to sway consensus, and many times this is caught but it doesn't make it less of a problem. Otr500 (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Why the title of this essay is overly influential and mis-used

The essay is pretty reasonably and carefully written....the common misuse of it has nothing to do with what is actually written in it. The common misuse is due to the fact that this essay creates a catchy pejorative term that can be easily slapped on any group of editors acting in agreement with each other or per a consensus and making such sound like a wiki-offense. Further, it has an air of being an official and link-able term because it is a title of "some sort of wiki-page". While the real concepts are well described here, it is in a way that they are easily ignored. What is probably needed is a stronger, more prominent and and more succinct caution in the lead paragraph.North8000 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that the main thing to understand is that WP:MEAT violations are a prerequisite to any accusation of tag teaming; it ought to be rewritten to make that more clear. If that was unambiguous then it wouldn't be as controversial as it is. If you ignore that requirement, or make it a "soft" rather than "hard" one, then accusations of tag-teaming become impossible to answer - a minority in an argument can continue to demand that they be WP:SATISFYed forever and accuse people of tag-teaming endlessly. The presence of WP:MEAT is the key point that turns this from "multiple people disagree with me and that's unfair" into something concrete or actionable. --Aquillion (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: But as written it already sits on both sides of that fence. IMO it should either:

1. Get modified to match what you just said (only applicable when there are wp:meat violations) or
2. To explicitly acknowledge that it is often applied to legitimate behavior and so is not per se a wrong behavior.

I think #1 is better. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

A related WP:GAMING proposal

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Followers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Gaming the system#Proposal for an additional point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)