129:
521:. Use of the term on article talk pages should be descriptive only. For example, it might be acceptable to offer an opinion that proper development of the article seems to be being impeded by multiple editors working in tandem. This frames concerns in terms of a general trend in editing activity, rather than as accusations against specific editors. It is generally not necessary to use the term "tag teaming" in order to deal with a dispute, though it can be an effective shorthand when describing the situation in a neutral forum such as a
49:
508:
to get an outside look at the content of the page instead of focussing on the behaviour of individual editors. Encourage others who may have an interest in the topic to add the article to their watchlists and offer their own input. Don't edit war as an army of one, but don't assume that two or three
961:
Controversial as there is no consensus regarding the merits of this essay in namespace. Editors have voiced concern that the "characteristics" of tag teams can easily be applied to editors who share a common practice of editing in accordance with policy, and that the essay can be used as a weapon
289:
made by those they oppose. Even if voices from the wider community come in to show a differing community consensus, tag-teamers may refuse to "let the matter drop" at article talk pages. When the community's attention has been diverted to other matters, tag teams may continue to bring up the same
802:
Check to see if policies are being enforced fairly. If a group of editors is insisting that the rules need to be enforced only on "opposing" editors, and not on editors on "their side", then this may be tag-teaming behavior. Thoroughly examine the history of the dispute to verify such claims and
599:
if they're on your side – point it out to them, and ask for calm. This can be an excellent way to de-escalate the dispute, as the "friendly" editor may be more likely to listen to you if they see you as an ally, and the "opponent" editor may calm down if they see that policies are being enforced
702:
Note that if there are two, or more, groups of editors supporting specific versions of an article or group of articles, or even a group of editors claiming to be fighting a tag team, none, any, or all of these groups may end up acting as a disruptive tag team, so be cautious. A group of editors
488:
is normally extended by administrators to users who have made valid contributions in the past, often little is done initially when two or three users act to chase a new contributor away from modifying "their" article. A small group thereby could succeed, largely unnoticed, in intimidating a new
713:
Finally, consider the possibility that you may be mistaken. While it can be frustrating when one's edits are repeatedly resisted, what looks to you like a tag team may instead be editors who are more knowledgeable about the topic at hand, more familiar with the nuances of content policies, or
358:
support or opposition for a particular proposal made by the tag team. The goal is to make it appear that consensus has happened when in fact it has not. Then, if/when other users notice the proposal and take sides opposed to the tag team, the tag team members may respond by claiming an extant
613:
It is often not possible to determine whether users are acting as a tag team or are truly engaged in consensus-based editing. However, it is particularly important to maintain a cool, calm attitude, since tag teams – and those who accuse others of behaving as a tag team – may
552:
It is often difficult to tell the difference between tag teaming and consensus-based editing. Consequently, some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team".
600:
equally. This goes not just for incivility, but other policies as well. For example, if the "opponent" editor is being chastised for adding information without sources, then it's essential that all other editors are also held to the same standard of using sources.
509:
people asserting ownership of one obscure topic speak for all
Wikipedians. An outside editor might be able to propose an entirely different alternative which would serve as a compromise while advancing the primary goal, which is to build an encyclopaedia.
437:
Support of a team member. Tag team members may support anything that another member does, without question. Some team members may have no knowledge of the actual topic being discussed, but are just interested in supporting their friend against perceived
354:. Tag team members will often write affirmations of support for other tag team members in order to make it appear that a community consensus exists. This often manifests as disparate users, who do not normally participate in that topic area, showing up
703:
opposing a tag team must be careful to stay within policy, and must make genuine good-faith efforts to build consensus and to seek outside opinions. The methods of tag teaming should never be used to combat perceived tag teaming; Knowledge is not a
296:
Simple refusal to compromise is not necessarily evidence of tag teaming, especially where
Knowledge's core policies are involved. If the apparent consensus favors content that obviously violates Knowledge policies, such as those applying to
276:
an article. Tag team members will often revert changes, even if they are made based on talkpage consensus, and instead insist that consensus isn't clear yet, and more talking needs to happen on the talk page. This plays into a tag team's
365:
Many editors watch certain pages without participating in the discussions or editing the associated articles. When those editors see an issue arising, they may begin participating in the discussion; this does not make those editors
769:
Sometimes the best way to deal with a tag team is to obtain the attention of an administrator. If an affected article is placed on probation or closer admin supervision, it will be more difficult for a tag team to be effective.
604:
Ultimately, don't let false charges intimidate you. Just stay calm and civil, abide carefully by all policies, and treat everyone fairly. In an ideal world, the truth of the matter should be apparent to outside observers.
587:. A common problem on Knowledge is when editors point out policy infractions from opposing editors, but ignore or condone the same infractions from editors on "their side". This kind of behavior, rooted in a common
429:
that editor's contributions or user pages to annoy them, to try to undermine their credibility, or to keep them distracted from the tag team's sphere of control. If an editor is fending off attacks on their prized
825:
669:, 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.
481:
337:
processes. Tag teams are usually reluctant to request opinions from the wider community, as that would upset the appearance of consensus that they are attempting to portray on a particular article.
941:
310:
perspectives in an article. Tag-teamers will often attempt to get an article the way they want it, and then insist that nothing new should be added from then on, because it "violates consensus".
236:
There is no
Knowledge policy or guideline regarding tag teaming. Tag teaming that clearly falls under the narrow definition in this essay generally violates other guidelines and policies such as
414:
policy either by giving too little or too much exposure to a specific viewpoint as determined by applicable
Knowledge policies, or by imposing or blocking edits that advance or suppress
473:
217:-based editing, a number of editors, sometimes with differing viewpoints, work together to craft an article that is fully compliant with Knowledge's core content policies, such as
740:
may not give sufficient context to understand the editing environment that led to the accusations. A superficial view of the situation may also play into the hands of those who
963:
425:
Revenge or personal vendetta, driven by a real or imagined grievance can be a powerful motivation. Once an editor or administrator is identified as an enemy, tag-teamers might
285:
editing style and preserves a preferred version of an article. When discussion is attempted, tag team members will often respond with circular argumentation and a continual
710:
Accusations of tag teaming do not give any extra rights or privileges to revert, or to otherwise act outside of policy, when dealing with those editors or their edits.
673:
477:
346:. Repeatedly bringing the same (or superficially different) circumstances into dispute resolution forums can be unhelpful, and may be considered abuse of process.
595:
of being a tag team, ensure that policies and guidelines are being adhered to equally. If you see someone being uncivil even if they're on your side – make that
418:. This may involve editing in concert to whitewash an article by excluding all criticisms, giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint, or excluding everything
754:
Tag-team editors can sometimes be identified because they spend very little time actually editing articles, and instead simply jump from dispute to dispute.
496:. Check the edit history for others who had proposed changes to the same or similar topics, perhaps only to be reverted, and ask for their input (but avoid
462:
457:. In theory, no one editor or group of editors owns an individual Knowledge article. In practice, an article on an obscure topic will often be on the
672:
Don't go after the team as a whole, but focus on specific policy violations by individual editors. Concerns about user conduct can be addressed at
625:
Engage in good-faith discussion to determine whether or not participants are communicating fairly and effectively. Assume good faith, try to build
298:
666:
517:
It is always better to comment on content rather than on contributors, so calling someone a member of a "tag team" should be avoided as it is
128:
1005:
194:, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team.
621:
No sure method can be recommended for identifying or dealing with a suspected tag team, but the following strategies have been proposed:
885:
897:
64:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
190:
Knowledge encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team.
65:
929:
777:
Check to see if any of the editors or affected articles are within the scope of an increased supervision area, via the lists at
704:
662:
411:
343:
325:
321:
218:
183:, in which teams of two or more wrestlers take turns in the ring – one brings in a teammate as relief/backup when in danger of
172:
782:
741:
695:
615:
454:
448:
389:
273:
222:
560:
that attempts to provoke you into reacting in an uncivil or otherwise undesirable way. Therefore, it is important that you:
962:
against editors who are acting in accordance with
Knowledge's editing policies to cast aspersions on their good work. See
575:
278:
167:. As with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as
34:"WP:FACTION" redirects here. For Knowledge's policy against creating factions to disrupt its decision-making process, see
923:
855:
788:
564:
533:
522:
334:
286:
282:
237:
202:
28:
233:
is formed when two or more editors coordinate their edits in a way that is disruptive to an article or to the project.
879:
861:
843:
778:
691:
537:
485:
316:
Not all sources are created equally, and editors may resist the addition of information from sources that violate the
261:
229:(WP:V). Editors may revert article changes that violate Knowledge's core content policies; this is not tag teaming. A
415:
909:
867:
317:
307:
201:. Care should be taken to frame assertions appropriately, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our
1000:
935:
919:
796:
787:
If admins observe any editors who have a history of making false accusations, those editors should be treated as
35:
774:
Administrators should follow the suggestions for third parties above, especially in terms of analyzing evidence.
915:
792:
729:
Examine accusations that are being made. It is particularly important that any accusations be accompanied with
480:, threaten them with blocks or bans, or bluntly tell them (sometimes even in the edit summary of a revert) to
837:
501:
226:
175:). Unlike "meatpuppetry", the phrase may be applied to otherwise legitimate editors. The phrase comes from "
903:
748:
469:
407:
351:
180:
168:
160:
813:
684:
505:
132:
Tag teams are an important part of professional wrestling shows. But in
Knowledge, "tag teaming" using
849:
497:
426:
371:
266:
241:
831:
626:
529:
214:
164:
137:
69:
891:
655:
569:
518:
79:
979:
556:
What should you do if accused of being a member of a tag team? The accusation may be a form of
723:
Determine to what extent additional subject knowledge may be necessary to resolve the dispute.
198:
184:
942:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Eastern
European disputes § Externally coordinated editing
826:
Knowledge:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report § Definition of tag team
591:, may be regarded as "tag-teamish", even if it isn't a specific tag team. So to avoid even a
985:
873:
489:
editor into avoiding one specific encyclopaedic subject or into leaving
Knowledge entirely.
248:
guidelines). A group of editors acting in unison does NOT in itself constitute tag teaming.
57:
736:
Examine the situation in detail so as to build a complete picture. Just looking at a few
690:
Check if the article is in an increased supervision area, by reviewing the categories at
819:
737:
730:
677:
637:
588:
557:
458:
382:
arguments against dissenting editors, or even against the authors of reliable sources.
133:
636:
In the case of a content dispute, strict application of core content policies such as
532:
and other relevant
Knowledge policies and guidelines, and by going through the normal
434:, they will have less time to spend on one of the tag team's closely guarded articles.
994:
649:
191:
272:
Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they
72:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
683:
Request the attention of third parties, perhaps by posting at the most appropriate
641:
630:
431:
580:
Keep discussions based on the content of the article, and not on the contributors.
136:
to coordinate the actions of multiple editors to circumvent the normal process of
658:
is an essential part of the Knowledge code of behaviour and should be maintained.
468:
If the newcomer persists in editing the page, group members might accuse them of
645:
461:
of only a small handful of editors who revert on sight any changes proposed by
388:
Consensus-based editors who are acting in good faith are only human – they may
377:
290:
matters again and again, to try and create the appearance of a new consensus.
163:
in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of
17:
747:
Check contribution histories, to see if any of the potential tag-teamers are
665:, and ask for additional outside opinions at relevant noticeboards, such as
355:
694:. Look also to see if any of the editors are under specific sanctions, at
230:
176:
465:
while insisting quite forcefully that their version is "consensus".
127:
616:
try to generate emotional reactions to confuse the issue at hand
733:. Review the diffs to ensure that they back up the accusations.
374:
and intimidation tactics. Members of a tag team may resort to
333:
Reluctance to work towards compromise, or to follow Knowledge
43:
726:
Identify the key participants in an article or topic area.
528:
Suspected tag teaming should be dealt with by sticking to
449:
Knowledge:Ownership of content § Multiple-editor ownership
115:
108:
101:
94:
87:
422:
uniformly positive or uniformly negative information.
301:, then the information should nonetheless be removed.
27:"WP:CIRCUS" redirects here. For the WikiProject, see
964:
Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team
760:
Determine whether administrator action is required.
803:counter-claims. Policies must be enforced evenly.
714:otherwise working within the goals of Knowledge.
392:. Simple incivility is not proof of tag teaming.
269:– terse comments, little talk page justification
674:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
197:Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are
328:to a minority opinion, will often be reverted.
256:Signs that may point to tag teaming include:
8:
540:and start from the assumption that there is
375:
476:, target them with spurious complaints to
474:disrupting Knowledge to illustrate a point
403:Potential goals of tag teams may include:
954:
504:from an outside or neutral source, get
299:biographical material on living persons
209:Tag-team versus consensus-based editing
838:Knowledge:Sock puppetry § Meatpuppetry
492:The best defence in these cases is to
320:. Furthermore, edits that violate the
7:
886:Knowledge:Describing points of view
260:Working together to circumvent the
898:Knowledge:No soliciting of cliques
70:thoroughly vetted by the community
66:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
25:
930:Knowledge:Single-purpose account
667:the reliable sources noticeboard
548:False accusations of tag teaming
47:
408:Pushing a certain point of view
783:Knowledge:Editing restrictions
765:Suggestions for administrators
696:Knowledge:Editing restrictions
629:, and work through the normal
523:dispute resolution noticeboard
344:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy
306:Reluctance to incorporate new
1:
718:Suggestions for third parties
318:guideline on reliable sources
159:) is a controversial form of
1006:Knowledge dispute resolution
924:Knowledge:Wrongful consensus
856:Knowledge:Disruptive editing
534:dispute resolution processes
29:Knowledge:WikiProject Circus
880:Knowledge:Civil POV pushing
862:Knowledge:Gaming the system
844:Knowledge:Assume good faith
779:Knowledge:General sanctions
692:Knowledge:General sanctions
652:is of paramount importance.
1022:
910:Knowledge:One against many
868:Knowledge:Assume bad faith
513:Accusations of tag teaming
446:
147:(sometimes also called an
77:
41:Essay on editing Knowledge
33:
26:
936:Knowledge:Words of Wisdom
920:Knowledge:False consensus
536:. Where at all possible,
443:Multiple-editor ownership
416:particular points of view
986:Meatball:DefendEachOther
916:Knowledge:Sham consensus
744:others into lashing out.
494:seek a broader consensus
324:, for example by giving
252:Tag team characteristics
904:Knowledge:POV railroad
751:or throwaway accounts.
390:lash out when provoked
376:
181:professional wrestling
149:editorial camp or gang
141:
980:Meta:What is a troll?
814:Leaderless resistance
455:ownership of articles
453:A related problem is
412:neutral point of view
131:
68:, as it has not been
918:(essay, referencing
850:Knowledge:Canvassing
663:request for comments
486:benefit of the doubt
410:in disregard of the
223:no original research
832:Knowledge:Consensus
892:Knowledge:Griefing
631:dispute resolution
399:Goals of tag teams
335:dispute resolution
287:ignoring of points
203:dispute resolution
142:
36:WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
757:Check block logs.
538:assume good faith
322:neutrality policy
262:three-revert rule
192:Assume good faith
157:travelling circus
140:is inappropriate.
126:
125:
16:(Redirected from
1013:
1001:Knowledge essays
967:
959:
874:Knowledge:Cabals
576:personal attacks
432:featured article
381:
118:
111:
104:
97:
90:
51:
50:
44:
21:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1012:
1011:
1010:
991:
990:
976:
971:
970:
960:
956:
951:
810:
767:
720:
611:
550:
515:
451:
445:
401:
267:"Ninja" editing
254:
211:
122:
121:
114:
107:
100:
93:
86:
82:
74:
73:
48:
42:
39:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1019:
1017:
1009:
1008:
1003:
993:
992:
989:
988:
983:
975:
974:External links
972:
969:
968:
953:
952:
950:
947:
946:
945:
939:
933:
927:
913:
907:
901:
895:
889:
883:
877:
871:
865:
859:
853:
847:
841:
835:
829:
823:
820:Vote brigading
817:
809:
806:
805:
804:
800:
791:, and warned,
785:
775:
766:
763:
762:
761:
758:
755:
752:
745:
734:
727:
724:
719:
716:
700:
699:
688:
681:
670:
659:
653:
634:
610:
607:
602:
601:
598:
594:
589:cognitive bias
586:
581:
578:
572:
567:
549:
546:
543:
514:
511:
495:
482:drop the stick
478:administrators
444:
441:
440:
439:
435:
423:
421:
400:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
369:
368:
367:
349:
348:
347:
331:
330:
329:
304:
303:
302:
270:
264:
253:
250:
247:
210:
207:
124:
123:
120:
119:
112:
105:
98:
91:
83:
78:
75:
63:
62:
54:
52:
40:
24:
18:Knowledge:TEAM
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1018:
1007:
1004:
1002:
999:
998:
996:
987:
984:
981:
978:
977:
973:
965:
958:
955:
948:
944:(ArbCom case)
943:
940:
937:
934:
931:
928:
925:
921:
917:
914:
911:
908:
905:
902:
899:
896:
893:
890:
887:
884:
881:
878:
875:
872:
869:
866:
863:
860:
857:
854:
851:
848:
845:
842:
839:
836:
833:
830:
827:
824:
821:
818:
815:
812:
811:
807:
801:
799:as necessary.
798:
794:
790:
786:
784:
780:
776:
773:
772:
771:
764:
759:
756:
753:
750:
746:
743:
739:
735:
732:
728:
725:
722:
721:
717:
715:
711:
708:
706:
697:
693:
689:
686:
682:
679:
675:
671:
668:
664:
660:
657:
654:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
619:
617:
608:
606:
596:
592:
590:
584:
582:
579:
577:
573:
571:
568:
566:
563:
562:
561:
559:
554:
547:
545:
541:
539:
535:
531:
526:
524:
520:
512:
510:
507:
503:
502:third opinion
499:
493:
490:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
466:
464:
460:
456:
450:
442:
436:
433:
428:
424:
419:
417:
413:
409:
406:
405:
404:
398:
391:
387:
384:
383:
380:
379:
373:
370:
364:
361:
360:
357:
353:
350:
345:
342:
339:
338:
336:
332:
327:
323:
319:
315:
312:
311:
309:
305:
300:
295:
292:
291:
288:
284:
280:
275:
271:
268:
265:
263:
259:
258:
257:
251:
249:
245:
243:
239:
234:
232:
228:
227:verifiability
225:(WP:NOR) and
224:
220:
216:
208:
206:
204:
200:
195:
193:
188:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
139:
135:
130:
117:
113:
110:
106:
103:
99:
96:
92:
89:
85:
84:
81:
76:
71:
67:
61:
59:
53:
46:
45:
37:
30:
19:
957:
768:
712:
709:
705:battleground
701:
620:
612:
603:
555:
551:
544:a tag team.
527:
516:
491:
470:edit warring
467:
452:
438:adversaries.
402:
385:
366:meatpuppets.
362:
352:Meatpuppetry
340:
326:undue weight
313:
293:
255:
235:
212:
196:
189:
161:meatpuppetry
156:
153:factionalism
152:
148:
144:
143:
134:meatpuppetry
55:
864:(guideline)
858:(guideline)
852:(guideline)
846:(guideline)
749:sockpuppets
685:noticeboard
506:peer review
447:Main page:
359:consensus.
279:tendentious
221:(WP:NPOV),
145:Tag teaming
56:This is an
995:Categories
789:disruptive
597:especially
593:perception
570:Stay civil
500:). Seek a
498:canvassing
459:watchlists
378:ad hominem
372:Harassment
283:disruptive
242:canvassing
238:disruption
219:neutrality
95:WP:FACTION
88:WP:TAGTEAM
822:(article)
816:(article)
627:consensus
565:Stay calm
530:consensus
484:. As the
463:newcomers
356:to parrot
215:consensus
205:process.
177:tag teams
165:consensus
138:consensus
116:WP:CIRCUS
80:Shortcuts
840:(policy)
834:(policy)
828:(report)
808:See also
731:evidence
656:Civility
633:process.
609:Remedies
386:However:
363:However:
341:However:
314:However:
294:However:
231:tag team
982:(essay)
938:(essay)
932:(essay)
926:essays)
912:(essay)
906:(essay)
900:(essay)
894:(essay)
888:(essay)
882:(essay)
876:(essay)
870:(essay)
797:blocked
678:WP:AN/I
661:Open a
638:WP:NPOV
558:baiting
519:uncivil
308:sourced
244:(which
199:uncivil
155:, or a
109:WP:CAMP
102:WP:GANG
793:banned
650:WP:NOR
648:, and
574:Avoid
420:except
185:losing
949:Notes
795:, or
738:diffs
642:WP:RS
583:Stay
427:stalk
179:" in
58:essay
922:and
781:and
742:bait
646:WP:V
585:fair
173:NPOV
171:and
542:not
472:or
274:own
246:are
240:or
213:In
169:3RR
997::
707:.
680:).
644:,
640:,
618:.
525:.
281:,
187:.
151:,
966:.
698:.
687:.
676:(
60:.
38:.
31:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
