118:
510:. 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
38:
497:
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
950:
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
278:
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
791:
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
588:
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
691:
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
477:
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
702:
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
347:
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
602:
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
541:
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".
589:
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.
498:
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.
692:
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 (XXG) is not a
426:
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
343:. 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
285:
Simple refusal to compromise is not necessarily evidence of tag teaming, especially where
Knowledge (XXG)'s core policies are involved. If the apparent consensus favors content that obviously violates Knowledge (XXG) policies, such as those applying to
265:
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
354:
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
758:
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.
593:
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.
576:. A common problem on Knowledge (XXG) 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
814:
470:
418:
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
658:, 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.
930:
225:
There is no
Knowledge (XXG) 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
326:
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.
462:
299:
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".
403:
policy either by giving too little or too much exposure to a specific viewpoint as determined by applicable
Knowledge (XXG) policies, or by imposing or blocking edits that advance or suppress
206:-based editing, a number of editors, sometimes with differing viewpoints, work together to craft an article that is fully compliant with Knowledge (XXG)'s core content policies, such as
952:
729:
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
414:
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
662:
466:
274:
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
699:
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.
335:. Repeatedly bringing the same (or superficially different) circumstances into dispute resolution forums can be unhelpful, and may be considered abuse of process.
584:
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
407:. This may involve editing in concert to whitewash an article by excluding all criticisms, giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint, or excluding everything
451:
743:
Tag-team editors can sometimes be identified because they spend very little time actually editing articles, and instead simply jump from dispute to dispute.
485:. 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
446:. In theory, no one editor or group of editors owns an individual Knowledge (XXG) article. In practice, an article on an obscure topic will often be on the
287:
655:
994:
661:
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
614:
Engage in good-faith discussion to determine whether or not participants are communicating fairly and effectively. Assume good faith, try to build
874:
506:
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
117:
886:
693:
332:
183:, 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.
53:
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
179:
Knowledge (XXG) encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team.
54:
610:
No sure method can be recommended for identifying or dealing with a suspected tag team, but the following strategies have been proposed:
918:
651:
400:
314:
310:
207:
161:
771:
730:
684:
604:
443:
437:
378:
262:
211:
951:
against editors who are acting in accordance with
Knowledge (XXG)'s editing policies to cast aspersions on their good work. See
766:
Check to see if any of the editors or affected articles are within the scope of an increased supervision area, via the lists at
564:
267:
23:"WP:FACTION" redirects here. For Knowledge (XXG)'s policy against creating factions to disrupt its decision-making process, see
172:, 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
912:
844:
777:
553:
522:
511:
323:
275:
271:
226:
191:
17:
868:
850:
832:
767:
680:
549:
that attempts to provoke you into reacting in an uncivil or otherwise undesirable way. Therefore, it is important that you:
526:
474:
250:
218:(WP:V). Editors may revert article changes that violate Knowledge (XXG)'s core content policies; this is not tag teaming. A
156:. As with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as
898:
856:
306:
296:
989:
924:
908:
785:
222:
is formed when two or more editors coordinate their edits in a way that is disruptive to an article or to the project.
24:
305:
Not all sources are created equally, and editors may resist the addition of information from sources that violate the
904:
781:
404:
190:. Care should be taken to frame assertions appropriately, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our
826:
490:
215:
776:
If admins observe any editors who have a history of making false accusations, those editors should be treated as
892:
763:
Administrators should follow the suggestions for third parties above, especially in terms of analyzing evidence.
737:
458:
396:
340:
157:
149:
718:
Examine accusations that are being made. It is particularly important that any accusations be accompanied with
673:
494:
469:, threaten them with blocks or bans, or bluntly tell them (sometimes even in the edit summary of a revert) to
121:
Tag teams are an important part of professional wrestling shows. But in
Knowledge (XXG), "tag teaming" using
164:). Unlike "meatpuppetry", the phrase may be applied to otherwise legitimate editors. The phrase comes from "
838:
486:
415:
360:
255:
230:
169:
820:
615:
518:
203:
153:
126:
58:
802:
880:
644:
558:
507:
68:
187:
173:
931:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Eastern
European disputes § Externally coordinated editing
815:
Knowledge (XXG):Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report § Definition of tag team
862:
478:
editor into avoiding one specific encyclopaedic subject or into leaving
Knowledge (XXG) entirely.
46:
968:
545:
What should you do if accused of being a member of a tag team? The accusation may be a form of
712:
Determine to what extent additional subject knowledge may be necessary to resolve the dispute.
726:
719:
666:
626:
580:, may be regarded as "tag-teamish", even if it isn't a specific tag team. So to avoid even a
546:
122:
974:
521:
and other relevant
Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines, and by going through the normal
237:
guidelines). A group of editors acting in unison does NOT in itself constitute tag teaming.
638:
180:
725:
Examine the situation in detail so as to build a complete picture. Just looking at a few
679:
Check if the article is in an increased supervision area, by reviewing the categories at
630:
619:
420:
808:
647:
is an essential part of the Knowledge (XXG) code of behaviour and should be maintained.
577:
447:
371:
arguments against dissenting editors, or even against the authors of reliable sources.
634:
625:
In the case of a content dispute, strict application of core content policies such as
423:, they will have less time to spend on one of the tag team's closely guarded articles.
983:
261:
Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they
61:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
672:
Request the attention of third parties, perhaps by posting at the most appropriate
569:
Keep discussions based on the content of the article, and not on the contributors.
125:
to coordinate the actions of multiple editors to circumvent the normal process of
457:
If the newcomer persists in editing the page, group members might accuse them of
450:
of only a small handful of editors who revert on sight any changes proposed by
377:
Consensus-based editors who are acting in good faith are only human – they may
366:
279:
matters again and again, to try and create the appearance of a new consensus.
152:
in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of
736:
Check contribution histories, to see if any of the potential tag-teamers are
654:, and ask for additional outside opinions at relevant noticeboards, such as
344:
683:. Look also to see if any of the editors are under specific sanctions, at
219:
165:
454:
while insisting quite forcefully that their version is "consensus".
322:
Reluctance to work towards compromise, or to follow Knowledge (XXG)
116:
605:
try to generate emotional reactions to confuse the issue at hand
438:
Knowledge (XXG):Ownership of content § Multiple-editor ownership
722:. Review the diffs to ensure that they back up the accusations.
363:
and intimidation tactics. Members of a tag team may resort to
32:
953:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team
715:
Identify the key participants in an article or topic area.
517:
Suspected tag teaming should be dealt with by sticking to
703:
otherwise working within the goals of Knowledge (XXG).
104:
97:
90:
83:
76:
663:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
411:
uniformly positive or uniformly negative information.
290:, then the information should nonetheless be removed.
16:"WP:CIRCUS" redirects here. For the WikiProject, see
749:
Determine whether administrator action is required.
792:counter-claims. Policies must be enforced evenly.
463:disrupting Knowledge (XXG) to illustrate a point
381:. Simple incivility is not proof of tag teaming.
258:– terse comments, little talk page justification
186:Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are
317:to a minority opinion, will often be reverted.
245:Signs that may point to tag teaming include:
8:
827:Knowledge (XXG):Sock puppetry § Meatpuppetry
529:and start from the assumption that there is
364:
465:, target them with spurious complaints to
392:Potential goals of tag teams may include:
875:Knowledge (XXG):Describing points of view
887:Knowledge (XXG):No soliciting of cliques
55:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
943:
493:from an outside or neutral source, get
288:biographical material on living persons
198:Tag-team versus consensus-based editing
919:Knowledge (XXG):Single-purpose account
481:The best defence in these cases is to
309:. Furthermore, edits that violate the
7:
772:Knowledge (XXG):Editing restrictions
685:Knowledge (XXG):Editing restrictions
333:Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy
249:Working together to circumvent the
995:Knowledge (XXG) dispute resolution
913:Knowledge (XXG):Wrongful consensus
845:Knowledge (XXG):Disruptive editing
59:thoroughly vetted by the community
18:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Circus
14:
869:Knowledge (XXG):Civil POV pushing
851:Knowledge (XXG):Gaming the system
833:Knowledge (XXG):Assume good faith
768:Knowledge (XXG):General sanctions
681:Knowledge (XXG):General sanctions
899:Knowledge (XXG):One against many
857:Knowledge (XXG):Assume bad faith
656:the reliable sources noticeboard
537:False accusations of tag teaming
36:
30:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
925:Knowledge (XXG):Words of Wisdom
909:Knowledge (XXG):False consensus
397:Pushing a certain point of view
905:Knowledge (XXG):Sham consensus
754:Suggestions for administrators
618:, and work through the normal
512:dispute resolution noticeboard
295:Reluctance to incorporate new
1:
707:Suggestions for third parties
307:guideline on reliable sources
148:) is a controversial form of
893:Knowledge (XXG):POV railroad
523:dispute resolution processes
641:is of paramount importance.
1011:
839:Knowledge (XXG):Canvassing
502:Accusations of tag teaming
435:
136:(sometimes also called an
66:
22:
15:
821:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
525:. Where at all possible,
432:Multiple-editor ownership
405:particular points of view
975:Meatball:DefendEachOther
881:Knowledge (XXG):Griefing
733:others into lashing out.
483:seek a broader consensus
313:, for example by giving
241:Tag team characteristics
990:Knowledge (XXG) essays
863:Knowledge (XXG):Cabals
740:or throwaway accounts.
379:lash out when provoked
365:
170:professional wrestling
138:editorial camp or gang
130:
969:Meta:What is a troll?
803:Leaderless resistance
444:ownership of articles
442:A related problem is
401:neutral point of view
120:
57:, as it has not been
907:(essay, referencing
652:request for comments
475:benefit of the doubt
399:in disregard of the
212:no original research
620:dispute resolution
388:Goals of tag teams
324:dispute resolution
276:ignoring of points
192:dispute resolution
131:
25:WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
746:Check block logs.
527:assume good faith
311:neutrality policy
251:three-revert rule
181:Assume good faith
146:travelling circus
129:is inappropriate.
115:
114:
1002:
956:
948:
565:personal attacks
421:featured article
370:
107:
100:
93:
86:
79:
40:
39:
33:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1001:
1000:
999:
980:
979:
965:
960:
959:
949:
945:
940:
799:
756:
709:
600:
539:
504:
440:
434:
390:
256:"Ninja" editing
243:
200:
111:
110:
103:
96:
89:
82:
75:
71:
63:
62:
37:
31:
28:
21:
12:
11:
5:
1008:
1006:
998:
997:
992:
982:
981:
978:
977:
972:
964:
963:External links
961:
958:
957:
942:
941:
939:
936:
935:
934:
928:
922:
916:
902:
896:
890:
884:
878:
872:
866:
860:
854:
848:
842:
836:
830:
824:
818:
812:
809:Vote brigading
806:
798:
795:
794:
793:
789:
780:, and warned,
774:
764:
755:
752:
751:
750:
747:
744:
741:
734:
723:
716:
713:
708:
705:
689:
688:
677:
670:
659:
648:
642:
623:
599:
596:
591:
590:
587:
583:
578:cognitive bias
575:
570:
567:
561:
556:
538:
535:
532:
503:
500:
484:
471:drop the stick
467:administrators
433:
430:
429:
428:
424:
412:
410:
389:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
358:
357:
356:
338:
337:
336:
320:
319:
318:
293:
292:
291:
259:
253:
242:
239:
236:
199:
196:
113:
112:
109:
108:
101:
94:
87:
80:
72:
67:
64:
52:
51:
43:
41:
29:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1007:
996:
993:
991:
988:
987:
985:
976:
973:
970:
967:
966:
962:
954:
947:
944:
937:
933:(ArbCom case)
932:
929:
926:
923:
920:
917:
914:
910:
906:
903:
900:
897:
894:
891:
888:
885:
882:
879:
876:
873:
870:
867:
864:
861:
858:
855:
852:
849:
846:
843:
840:
837:
834:
831:
828:
825:
822:
819:
816:
813:
810:
807:
804:
801:
800:
796:
790:
788:as necessary.
787:
783:
779:
775:
773:
769:
765:
762:
761:
760:
753:
748:
745:
742:
739:
735:
732:
728:
724:
721:
717:
714:
711:
710:
706:
704:
700:
697:
695:
686:
682:
678:
675:
671:
668:
664:
660:
657:
653:
649:
646:
643:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
621:
617:
613:
612:
611:
608:
606:
597:
595:
585:
581:
579:
573:
571:
568:
566:
562:
560:
557:
555:
552:
551:
550:
548:
543:
536:
534:
530:
528:
524:
520:
515:
513:
509:
501:
499:
496:
492:
491:third opinion
488:
482:
479:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
455:
453:
449:
445:
439:
431:
425:
422:
417:
413:
408:
406:
402:
398:
395:
394:
393:
387:
380:
376:
373:
372:
369:
368:
362:
359:
353:
350:
349:
346:
342:
339:
334:
331:
328:
327:
325:
321:
316:
312:
308:
304:
301:
300:
298:
294:
289:
284:
281:
280:
277:
273:
269:
264:
260:
257:
254:
252:
248:
247:
246:
240:
238:
234:
232:
228:
223:
221:
217:
216:verifiability
214:(WP:NOR) and
213:
209:
205:
197:
195:
193:
189:
184:
182:
177:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
128:
124:
119:
106:
102:
99:
95:
92:
88:
85:
81:
78:
74:
73:
70:
65:
60:
56:
50:
48:
42:
35:
34:
26:
19:
946:
757:
701:
698:
694:battleground
690:
609:
601:
592:
544:
540:
533:a tag team.
516:
505:
480:
459:edit warring
456:
441:
427:adversaries.
391:
374:
355:meatpuppets.
351:
341:Meatpuppetry
329:
315:undue weight
302:
282:
244:
224:
201:
185:
178:
150:meatpuppetry
145:
142:factionalism
141:
137:
133:
132:
123:meatpuppetry
44:
853:(guideline)
847:(guideline)
841:(guideline)
835:(guideline)
738:sockpuppets
674:noticeboard
495:peer review
436:Main page:
348:consensus.
268:tendentious
210:(WP:NPOV),
134:Tag teaming
45:This is an
984:Categories
778:disruptive
586:especially
582:perception
559:Stay civil
489:). Seek a
487:canvassing
448:watchlists
367:ad hominem
361:Harassment
272:disruptive
231:canvassing
227:disruption
208:neutrality
84:WP:FACTION
77:WP:TAGTEAM
811:(article)
805:(article)
616:consensus
554:Stay calm
519:consensus
473:. As the
452:newcomers
345:to parrot
204:consensus
194:process.
166:tag teams
154:consensus
127:consensus
105:WP:CIRCUS
69:Shortcuts
829:(policy)
823:(policy)
817:(report)
797:See also
720:evidence
645:Civility
622:process.
598:Remedies
375:However:
352:However:
330:However:
303:However:
283:However:
220:tag team
971:(essay)
927:(essay)
921:(essay)
915:essays)
901:(essay)
895:(essay)
889:(essay)
883:(essay)
877:(essay)
871:(essay)
865:(essay)
859:(essay)
786:blocked
667:WP:AN/I
650:Open a
627:WP:NPOV
547:baiting
508:uncivil
297:sourced
233:(which
188:uncivil
144:, or a
98:WP:CAMP
91:WP:GANG
782:banned
639:WP:NOR
637:, and
563:Avoid
409:except
174:losing
938:Notes
784:, or
727:diffs
631:WP:RS
572:Stay
416:stalk
168:" in
47:essay
911:and
770:and
731:bait
635:WP:V
574:fair
162:NPOV
160:and
531:not
461:or
263:own
235:are
229:or
202:In
158:3RR
986::
696:.
669:).
633:,
629:,
607:.
514:.
270:,
176:.
140:,
955:.
687:.
676:.
665:(
49:.
27:.
20:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
