39:
95:
338:
Block evasion, such as when one member is blocked for violating policies, other members of the team may continue with the same disruptive behavior, "carrying the torch" for the blocked member. An example of this might be when one editor is blocked for edit-warring, and then suddenly another editor
367:
give the best hope. Accordingly, a reviewer must be able to discern mainstream, notable, and fringe points of view, and reliable and unreliable sources; this often requires that the reviewer be familiar with the subject matter of the article. It is particularly important to maintain a cool, calm
246:
while ignoring incivility by their fellow tag-teamers. They may also repeatedly accuse dissenting editors of policy violations without providing proof. A dissenting editor may be targeted for harassment on the basis of their personal beliefs and be falsely accused of POV-pushing whenever they just
229:
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
241:
and intimidation tactics. Tag-teamers may make coordinated attacks at "dissenting" editors, not just on the talkpage of an article in dispute, but also at the user's talkpage, and sometimes at other unrelated articles where the targeted editor may be working, in an attempt to distract them from
136:
Only a fraction of the cooperative behavior seen on
Knowledge (XXG) can be considered tag-teaming. Knowledge (XXG) encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, so not all editors who share the same point of view are working as a team: Remember to
116:
is a term used to describe editors who work together as a group in a way that is disruptive to an article or project, usually in order to promote a particular agenda or point of view. Editors working as a tag team may attempt to circumvent the normal process of
242:
another dispute. They may badger dissenting editors for breaches of
Knowledge (XXG) policies or protocols while not complying with the protocols themselves; for example, they may provoke dissenting editors into incivility and then rebuke them for being
234:
arguments against dissenting editors or the authors of reliable sources may be used by tag-teamers to further their goals. Tag-teamers may attempt to and succeed in hijacking the consensus of
Knowledge (XXG) dispute resolution
392:
188:. Tag teams tend to disrupt this process. Thus, compliance with Knowledge (XXG)'s core content policies is a key element in distinguishing between a tag team and legitimate consensus seeking editors.
355:
remains the best solution, but tag team behavior may compromise dispute resolution processes up to a point, by undermining the consensus process. Strict application of core content policies such as
267:
by tag-teamers. Tag-teamers may refer to each other as great editors while the dissenting editor's contributions to
Knowledge (XXG) are belittled. A dissenting editor may be unfairly called a
129:) that editors are required to follow, or by marshaling support artificially, in order to blockade, obfuscate, or overwhelm discussions. Tag teaming is considered a pernicious form of
169:, but the end result has the opposite effect of consensus-based editing. Key to understanding tag-teaming is the distinction between tag-teaming and consensus-based editing.
176:
editing, a number of editors, often with differing viewpoints, work together to craft an article that is fully compliant with
Knowledge (XXG)'s core content policies,
230:
attempt to create an illusion of consensus. They may attempt to get a dissenting editor blocked or banned, which if successful, furthers the illusion of consensus.
203:
Tag-teamers may make an unusually large number of edit reverts to an article, and edits that assist their teammates in edit-warring. They may use a good deal of
153:
is a term used to describe a group of editors that has been working together in a way that is disruptive to an article or project, usually to try and breach our
383:
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.
191:
It should be pointed out that if there are two (or more) groups of editors supporting specific versions of an article or group of articles, either,
342:
Diluting the information that they find distasteful in an article by removing as much as possible or by attempting to delete or merge the article.
247:
happen to make an edit that supports their beliefs. Discussion of dispute resolution by a dissenting editor may be met with accusations of
54:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
55:
417:
287:
Overreaction to criticism. They may repeatedly rebuke an editor who criticized a tag-teamer or tag-teamers in a way that attempts to
288:
207:
language. The tag team may jump from dispute to dispute on different articles in the same topic area, engaging in similar behavior.
291:. The editor continues to be rebuked for the criticism for a substantially longer period of time than would be considered normal.
397:
327:
information in an article construed as contradictory to or critical of their point of view. Tag-teamers may try to discredit
427:
407:
351:
In most cases tag-teams are involved in content disputes with other groups of editors. Under these circumstances following
130:
294:
Attempt to discredit uninvolved editors who intervene in article disputes and do not side with the tag-teamers.
210:
Tag teams are typically characterized by aggressive tactics, which may include one or many of the following:
339:
appears to make the exact same edit, even if they had never before participated at that article or talkpage.
195:
may be acting as a "tag team". A group of editors opposing a tag team is not necessarily consensus-based.
402:
252:
173:
166:
118:
59:
376:
126:
69:
459:
331:(WP:RS) or the authors of reliable sources. Tag-teamers may also use their preferred sources without
313:
302:
324:
238:
47:
29:
393:
Knowledge (XXG):Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report#Definition of tag team
260:
243:
277:
progress on articles by engaging in endless debates and other disruptive tactics on talkpages.
165:(WP:V) policies. As such, discussions attacked by tag teams may superficially appear to be a
422:
412:
380:
369:
356:
306:
264:
256:
177:
154:
439:
221:
Consensus-blocking. Tag-teamers are usually reluctant to compromise, follow
Knowledge (XXG)
364:
332:
281:
268:
215:
185:
158:
138:
122:
352:
328:
248:
222:
121:, by organizing their edits so that they can manipulate policies and guidelines (such as
104:
360:
320:
226:
181:
162:
453:
274:
204:
62:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
231:
335:
while demanding that sources they disagree with be attributed repeatedly.
150:
113:
103:"Tag teaming" is a technique in which editors work in concert in a
370:
try to generate emotional reactions to confuse the issue at hand
375:
Concerns about editors' personal behavior can be addressed in
89:
33:
107:
way, usually in order to promote a particular point of view.
298:
Potential goals of tag teams are many, but may include:
77:
17:
20:better expresses my experience with tag teams.
8:
56:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
214:They work in concert to circumvent the
145:Tag-team versus consensus-based editing
418:Knowledge (XXG):Single-purpose account
7:
319:Coordinating activities to exclude
398:Knowledge (XXG):Disruptive editing
60:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
428:Knowledge (XXG):Assume good faith
413:Knowledge (XXG):There is no cabal
408:Knowledge (XXG):Gaming the system
289:make a mountain out of a molehill
423:Knowledge (XXG):SOCK#Meatpuppets
368:attitude, since tag teams often
255:, asking the other parent, or a
93:
37:
316:points of view from an article.
305:or agenda in disregard of the
1:
307:neutral point of view policy
259:. Dissenting editors may be
476:
67:
27:
403:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
440:Meatball:DefendEachOther
257:refusal to get the point
199:Tag team characteristics
101:This page in a nutshell:
225:processes, or consider
30:Knowledge (XXG):Cabals
377:requests for comments
321:appropriately sourced
58:, as it has not been
280:Behaving as if they
159:no original research
249:tendentious editing
353:dispute resolution
223:dispute resolution
24:Wikipeida:Tag team
216:three revert rule
139:assume good faith
111:
110:
88:
87:
467:
329:reliable sources
263:and new editors
97:
96:
90:
80:
41:
40:
34:
475:
474:
470:
469:
468:
466:
465:
464:
450:
449:
444:
436:
389:
349:
201:
174:consensus-based
147:
94:
84:
83:
76:
72:
64:
63:
52:
38:
32:
26:
18:achived version
12:
11:
5:
473:
471:
463:
462:
452:
451:
448:
447:
443:
442:
435:
434:External links
432:
431:
430:
425:
420:
415:
410:
405:
400:
395:
388:
385:
348:
345:
344:
343:
340:
336:
317:
310:
296:
295:
292:
285:
278:
272:
253:forum shopping
236:
219:
200:
197:
146:
143:
109:
108:
98:
86:
85:
82:
81:
73:
68:
65:
53:
44:
42:
25:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
472:
461:
458:
457:
455:
446:
445:
441:
438:
437:
433:
429:
426:
424:
421:
419:
416:
414:
411:
409:
406:
404:
401:
399:
396:
394:
391:
390:
386:
384:
382:
378:
373:
371:
366:
362:
358:
354:
346:
341:
337:
334:
330:
326:
325:proportionate
322:
318:
315:
311:
308:
304:
303:Pushing a POV
301:
300:
299:
293:
290:
286:
283:
279:
276:
275:Filibustering
273:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
245:
240:
237:
233:
228:
224:
220:
217:
213:
212:
211:
208:
206:
205:wikilawyering
198:
196:
194:
189:
187:
183:
179:
175:
170:
168:
164:
163:verifiability
161:(WP:NOR) and
160:
156:
152:
144:
142:
140:
134:
132:
128:
124:
120:
115:
106:
102:
99:
92:
91:
79:
75:
74:
71:
66:
61:
57:
51:
49:
43:
36:
35:
31:
23:
21:
19:
374:
350:
297:
261:wiki-stalked
209:
202:
192:
190:
171:
148:
135:
131:meatpuppetry
112:
100:
45:
15:
460:User essays
333:attribution
284:an article.
235:mechanisms.
157:(WP:NPOV),
46:This is an
312:Excluding
239:Harassment
232:Ad hominem
155:neutrality
105:disruptive
28:See also:
167:consensus
119:consensus
454:Category
387:See also
347:Remedies
151:Tag team
127:civility
114:Tag team
70:Shortcut
381:WP:AN/I
357:WP:NPOV
314:notable
244:uncivil
227:sourced
193:or both
178:WP:NPOV
78:WP:GANG
365:WP:NOR
363:, and
265:bitten
186:WP:NOR
48:essay
16:This
372:.
361:WP:V
323:and
184:and
182:WP:V
125:and
282:own
269:SPA
172:In
123:3rr
456::
379:,
359:,
251:,
180:.
149:A
141:.
133:.
309:.
271:.
218:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.