Wikipedia talk:Tag team/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment

The statement "an admin's ability to declare consensus" could possibly be clarified - outside of deletion discussions, when do admins declare consensus? PhilKnight (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

They don't. Any editor can assess consensus on a talk page discussion. The key to whether the editor has judged consensus is whether the consensus sticks. If an admin decides they need to enforce a consensus, then something has gone wrong somewhere. Ideally, rational and calm arguments will be made at every stage, without kicking and screaming and reverting and blocking. It is only when the latter happens, that admins are needed. The consensus should be reached by the editors, not imposed or judged by an admin. WP:3O can sometimes be helpful if no consensus can be reached. Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:3O is definitely a valid part of the dispute resolution process, but is generally only for cases where it's only two editors that are in dispute. For situations with more editors, an RfC is better, or requesting opinions via WikiProjects or noticeboards.

As for when admins declare consensus, they may formally close discussions and declare the consensus in a variety of situations. Aside from the various flavors of xfDs, admins routinely make decisions for page moves, and sometimes for merges as well. In a few situations, admins may also formally review the results of a longrunning and contentious RfC, to "close" it with a decision that settles the matter for a period of time. That's fairly rare though, and is usually only seen in extreme situations that have become disruptive to the project, or perhaps involve an article or editors that are within the scope of the discretionary sanctions of an ArbCom case. I do agree though, that it is definitely preferable for the involved editors to reach their own consensus, without requiring an admin's intervention. --Elonka 15:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I wish there were a workable, effective way for someone in "authority" to assume a referee role and make binding decisions on fractious content disputes. I've seen more than one case where a content dispute simply couldn't be resolved, even after 3O's, escalation of the discussion to the project level, or RfC's, because one or more of the original participants simply wasn't willing to give ground. I've also seen at least one case where a consensus was eventually reached after a lengthy RfC process, only for that consensus to get blown out of the water by some newcomer "boldly" rewriting the carefully hammered-out wording and curtly dismissing the earlier consensus on the grounds that it had violated their understanding of WP policies and was thus invalid to begin with. And since ArbCom won't touch content disputes, we're usually helpless when this sort of thing happens, unless one or more participants should happen to clearly cross the line on conduct issues. I sometimes think this may be a bigger long-term challenge to Wikipedia than tag-teaming or other misbehaviours. Richwales (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Rich, I don't think we need some admin to 'declare consensus'. what I think WP needs is some way to give teeth to the consensus process. for instance, I think it would be an interesting policy to give some admins the right and ability to to move the content of a badly disputed article off mainspace (leaving a fully protected stub in its place), and then tell all participants that no content is going back into mainspace until some consensus is reached. that removes most of the incentive to edit war (since no one is going to see the article until it goes back to main), and since everyone wants to get their particular point across that would give all a reason to work together a bit. only two kinds of editors on wikipedia - those who want to provide information and those who want to get a perspective across, and the line between them is thin - but they both want to be seen and heard. make it so they can't be seen or heard unless they cooperate. --Ludwigs2 05:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the phrase "declare consensus" is misleading. Every editor can, indeed should, assess and recognise consensus and act accordingly. There are more things an admin can do when a consensus is reached, and some of those things are encapsulated in processes. The word declare suggests some operative capability, as if the declaration caused the consensus to come into existence: that, of course, isn't how things work. If an editor is correct in recognising that consensus is reached, things will go well. If an editor is wrong, they will soon find out: there will be dismay, distress, discord, dissension, disputes, and many other "dis-"es. If consensus cannot be reached, there is dispute resolution. Declaring a "consensus" by decree, when it does not exist in fact, can only be sustained by force: that is not Wikipedia policy, it would be obnoxious, and it would not be workable. Richard Pinch (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Working Group report

Some elements of this page came from the Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report. --Elonka 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

potential change

I would like to remove this sentence: They tend to work in the same topic area, suddenly appearing at disputes where one of their teammembers may be engaged, even if they have never edited that article, and have not been visibly notified or invited. This implies that if you suddenly appear uninvited at a dispute you must be doing so with poor motives. Many, many editors watchlist the talk pages of other editors who are interested in similar subjects. I watchlist the talk pages of several users at WP:WikiProject Texas A&M, and I've learned of disputes on Aggie-related articles from messages left on their talk pages. If I then go to see for myself what is going on with the article, and if I happen to agree with the other Aggie (because we have access to the same sources, for example), does that mean I am tag teaming? This sentence appears to imply that I am. Karanacs (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I also watchlist a great many articles I have never edited. Many of them fall into broad topic areas. I may very well see a dispute on my watchlist and go see what is happening. And possibly another person who is also interested in those topics (and whom I have likely worked with before, because we share an interest) is involved in the dispute. Does participating in the discussion then make me a tag-teamer? The sentence appears to apply that I am. Karanacs (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that any one behavior on this page should label someone as a "tag teamer". Instead, these teams are generally defined by a pattern of behavior, that is tied to disruption. Tag-teamers usually leave a wake behind them of antagonized editors and other complaints. But just offering an opinion isn't going to be a problem, as long as it is done in a civil and good faith way. --Elonka 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any objections to removing this sentence? Simply appearing at a dispute apparently uninvited is not a sign that someone is (or is intending to be) disruptive. If you want to focus on behaviors that are inappropriate, do so, but contributing to a discussion without being invited is not disruption. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked the section a bit. See if you like the wording better? Feel free to keep tweaking.  :) --Elonka 19:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In the eye of the beholder

This definition of tag-teaming is based on perception, and could easily be applied to the actions of many, many good faith editors working independently but sharing the same opinion on sources, only to be thwarted by other good faith editors who have a different opinion on what should be in the article. In fact, I have seen as much editing that fits this description from longtime editors and admins as I have from SPAs.

Imagine you are an editor working on a contentious article, and your editing position is more closely aligned with one side than the other. Now imagine that you are linked to this essay as an explanation of what you are doing wrong—only to see what you think is a description of the activities of the editors who disagree with you. They've called you names ("SPA!") and discredited your motivation for editing. They've said your perspective is "fringe" and told you that your references are no good, despite them coming from well known sources. They've taken turns reverting your edits, and have refused to discuss on the talk page "because we've already talked about this dozens of times before you showed up." They've discounted your references to the work of one scholarly expert in favour of those from a scholarly expert who agrees with their position. They've insisted that other content in the article is "common knowledge" and doesn't need a reference source. They may have even edited policies in such a way as to give the appearance of permitting sources or edits that support their own position.

All of these things happen on a daily basis, and they are often done by good faith editors and admins, on one or both sides of a contentious article. Calling editors who agree with each other a "tag team" is insulting—the only other place I have seen that term used is in professional wrestling. It does not address the actual issue—that there is a content dispute involving the article, and that sometimes uninvolved help is needed to reach consensus. I've looked at several of the articles that led to the development of the task group, and what I see are often well-qualified, knowledgeable editors who just plain disagree with what should be in articles. Yes, they tend to fall into a few groups, depending on where they were educated and where they live (which affects what reference sources they have available), but that does not make them a "gang" (as someone thought would be appropriate to use as the shortcut to this essay).

This essay is just one more way in which behaviour is treated as if it is more important than encyclopedic content. I never thought I would see the day where it was considered acceptable to blatantly call each other names on Wikipedia, but now I find it encouraged by (one or more members of) a task group established by the Arbitration Committee to improve editing conditions on contentious articles, in such a way that it could be applied to hundreds of long-term, well-respected, good-faith editors and administrators. There's something wrong with this picture. Risker (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a very constructive comment, Risker, and I welcome your bringing your sane priorities to this discussion. Since people hee do talk about tag teaming it is reasonable to have essays on how to recognize and deal with it but nothing written ought to compromise the integrity of the project i.e. content of article. I hope you will keep this on your watchlist and be vigilent in ensuring that no edits produce the scre-up you are concerned about! Thanks for your help! Slrubenstein | Talk 03:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, great comments from Risker. The essay does not distinguish tag-teaming from simple commonality of interests, or indeed from adherence to the prevailing views on a given topic. Imagine a tag team of editors who repeatedly insist that HIV causes AIDS, that organisms change through mutation and natural selection, or that the mean temperature of the earth has risen because of increasing concentrations of trace gases. Well, we don't have to imagine -- in each of these cases, editors have been accused of tag teaming. And this wretched essay would give aid and comfort to the accusers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry, tag-team editing is not about content, it's about behavior. wikipedia is supposed to be a consensus system, so it doesn't matter whether it's the truth that you're trying to shove down someone's throat - the fact that you're trying to shove it down their throat is objectionable. --Ludwigs2 07:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That does not seem to be correct. Tag-teaming is a coordinated attempt to put questionable unencyclopedic content on wikipedia. Members of a tag-team could be "polite trolls" for example, whose on-wiki behaviour was beyond reproach. It is absolutely essential to take content into account. Mathsci (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

from wp:NPOV:

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.

the problem with your statement is that 'questionable' is in the eye of the beholder. when editors work together to impose a particular viewpoint on an article or articles, their intentions might be good faith even while their behavior constitutes bad faith. I've had a pro-science editor tell me straight to my face that he often aggressively stonewalls editors whose views he thinks are 'questionable' (and I know he calls on friends to help him in that task), on the assumption that the other editors will get frustrated and go away - he told me it's too much trouble to reason with them and reach consensus. whether or not I agree with his content position is irrelevant; his behavior is objectionable and anti-consensual.

article content will take care of itself if consensus works; if consensus doesn't work, then article content will always be biased. you can't have it both ways. --Ludwigs2 23:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about alternative medicine. As in many cases, the view presented in the published literature of mainstream science has to be that represented by this encyclopedia. If it is not backed by mainstream science it is "questionable". If serious doubts have been cast on the scientific methodology of people like Myron Evans or Richard Lynn in mainstream scientific journals, that can be reported on WP. Similarly the Royal Society published a report on homeopathy. I don't think there can be any doubt that the claims of fringe science are without exception "questionable". Mathsci (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting threads...

"Starting threads on noticeboards to attempt to overturn admin action" probably needs some expansion, minimally contrasting this behavior to acceptable behavior toward the same goal. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The entire essay should probably be gone over with this in mind, contrasting tag-team behavior with acceptable behavior. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The actual essay should be less about Elonka's problems and more about so-called "Tag Teaming". Unfortunately the way it is written is basically a system whereby Elonka could lable an editor who dares to disagree with her a "tag-teamer" regardless if the person is actually acting as a team of one. The essay should be rewritten as in it's current form it's open to open to abuses. Shot info (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I was definitely the one that did the summarizing, and ported this report over from the Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars wiki, it would not be correct to say that I wrote the Tag Team essay because of "my" problems. Check the endorsements at the bottom of the 2008 report. This was a group effort, not just my personal thoughts. --Elonka 16:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Generalizing content to all editors

I've taken what I think is a sensible step of generalizing statements dealing with admins, to editors in general. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

relations with admins

I have removed this to talk because it does not square with my esperience of tag teams:

Tag-teamers may also use intimidation tactics towards editors, as a means to defend each other against editor actions, especially administrator actions. For example, when one team member is blocked, other members may immediately attack the credibility of the blocking admin, and/or start threads at administrator boards to challenge the block. Even if the community backs up the admin's action, tag team members may continue to forum shop, challenging each of the admin's future actions. Other tactics include:

• Unreasonably challenging other editors as being biased, especially an admin's uninvolved status, for example asking the admin to apply sanctions against other editors, and then arguing the admin should be considered an involved party, sometimes because of article edits dating from several years in the past, or because of the sanctions they had applied.
• Moving the article away from the Neutral Point of View, with the justification of 'there isn't a consensus'
• Claiming a policy or guideline justifies disruptive editing, for example a sterile revert away from a compromise accepted by most editors is characterized as being bold.
• Starting threads on noticeboards to attempt to overturn admin action

Does this realy happen with tag teams? Cany anyone cite an actual time this occured? Also, I am concerned that this give free reign to abuses of administrator power. I would like to invite others to discuss and work on this to improve this section so that it more accurately reflects actual problems at Wikipedia, and does not encourage agministrator abuse, before returning it to the essy. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein - I've had had the first three happen to me (excluding the administrator comments, which don't apply to me) on several occasions, and I've seen the first and last used on Elonka and other admins. do you want me to post diffs? If I do it on my own, I'll be accused of incivility almost immediately, so I ned you to ask for the information. --Ludwigs2 05:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A problem is that User:Elonka has done the first 3 bullet points. I don't want to believe that she and some of her supporters form a tag team, but I doubt it would be a helpful essay if that conclusion were to be reached. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Slrubenstein) - yes they happen, the first was a common technique in the Israel-Palestine articles, the second and third have been widely used in pseudoscience articles, especially homeopathy. The fourth is perhaps misleading, and would require clarification, but I think it has been used in an attempt to wear down specific administrators. However, they could perhaps be included in WP:GAME, or in a new essay - some sort of guide to enforcing ArbCom restrictions. Anyway, I don't object to their removal from this essay. PhilKnight (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GAME seems more relevant. The question is: is this kind of behavior exclusive to tag-teaming, and is it always found with tag teams? If the answer to either questions is unquestionably "yes" I could see adding these points here. But tag-teaming is not the only problem admins have to deal with and if these are diagnostics of a different kind of problem, they belong in an essay or guidelines for that problem. We do not need to lump all vices into one category. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Characterisation

I would say that what is characteristic of a tag team is a collective effort to damage or disrupt Wikipedia: that is

• To damage the content by
  • Pushing a non-mainstream POV (often a tiny-minority or a fringe POV), in disregard of the Neutral point of view policy
  • Pushing a particular cultural, political or religious agenda
  • Excluding a notable point of view from an article
• To disrupt the editing process by working together
  • Claiming ownership of an article
  • Exclude appropriate sourced and proportionate information in an article

Tag team activities include all those activities associated with disruptive editing by a single individual, amplified by their numbers, together with group actions to

• Manufacture consensus, or block a community consensus, by weight of numbers in discussions
• Mutually supporting false or misleading assertions
• Skew processes (such as deletion) by similar tactics
• Disrupt administrative procedures

Activities by individuals or groups which are unacceptable in themselves and often carried out in pursuit of an agenda include:

• Harassment and intimidation tactics
• Baiting techniques that attempt to provoke opponents into uncivil behaviours or other rash actions
• Tendentious editing.
• Diversion of attention.
• Accusations of bias against others
• Misuse of policy to justify disruption
• Abuse of dispute procedures to divert attention, intimidate others or damage consensus

Signs that an individual my have an ulterior aim to disrupt or damage Wikipedia include: //all that stuff that got deleted//

This is far from a finished product, but it's a framework for how I would go about one of the things this article wishes to do, namely, list distinguishing features of tag teams. Richard Pinch (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Very nice... Do some editing.... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Is the term "tag team" intended to apply to people who are deliberately trying to make the encyclopedia worse, or it is intended to apply to people who are using methods of trying to improve the encyclopedia which give their point of view an unfair advantage? Maybe sometimes both sides of a dispute are tag teams. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Then what ...

The article as it stands aims to characterise tag teams: that is, to identify their distinguishing features. It does not provide any guidance as to what, if anything, editors and admins should do if they believe themselves to be confronted by one. Here's my suggestion: it's very much motherhood-and-apple-pie.

Editors judging the merits of a dispute should focus on both content and behaviour. The fundamental of good editing is to build Wikipedia with neutral well-sourced articles. Editors attempting to do this should be supported. Vital to the building process is constructive behaviour and editors who do not display this should be challenged. (Having said this it is important to note that good product and good behaviour are not always correlated.) In any assessment editors should look at the fundamentals and be aware that appearances may be deceptive, especially in the presence of a coordinated attempt to disrupt. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it's getting the support that's hard. Once a tag team is in place, most NPOV editors avoid the article like the plague. Set up a noticeboard for it or something. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

tag teaming is not incivility

I am concerned about attempts to identify tag-teaming with incivility. We have personal behavior policies against incivil behavior already; incivility is wrong because it violates that policy. An essay on tag-teaming should provide us insight into something not clearly covered by existing policies. In fact, the whole problem with tag temas is that they can scrupioulously comply with all behavior policies. That is what makes tag teams dangerous - a tag team may comply with 3RR and CIV etc. What we need to do is explore the dynamics of tag temas that are not covered by existing policies and essays. I have cut material I think takes the essay off on a tangent, and am really trying to focus on how tag teams operate and why. Also, I think it is essential to distinguish between tag teams and consensus building if we are to operationalize the term. Consensus building can occur when the vast majority of editors (say, 80%) agree; tag-teaming occurs when editors on a page are more evenly divided. Also, consensus-building occurs when people rely on notable views from reliable sources and accept research on rnotable views by reliable sources from others; tag-teaming occurs when people disregard notable views and reliable sources. I think these are the elements we need to foreground and develop fo make this essay useful to others. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Some good ideas, but on civility- not at all: tag teams are of different sorts, and sometimes use incivility as an intimidation tactic. Alternately, they can use civil goading instead. But it's both. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just reverted

I just reverted. The reason is that the changes were really extreme, and we need to do some sort of consensus building first. I can't stay around, but I propose that the main problem to watch out for is the attempt to make this about mainstream views versus fringe views. It is not. It's about tag team editing. That can come from all sorts of POVs, and is in great effect on political, religious etc. articles, many of which are very mainstream. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Martin, please give people some time to mull over my changes. I do not view them as extreme. I think I stuck to the spirit, removed some overwrought and unnecessarily wordy prose, and added important points raised on the talk page. I am being bold. I expect other people to keep working on this, but please, can't you avoid wholesale reversions? i assure you all my additions and subtractions were made thoughtfully. I just ask that other editors think about what I added and think about it before cutting or rewriting it, and think about what I deleted and give it some thought before restoring anything I deleted (and perhaps doing some rewriting). I am sure that over some time we can reach some consensus about a good essay. The end result probably will not be the version i just edited.

I am happy to open up a discussion on fringe versus mainstream view. I appreciate your bringing this up. All I can say for now is that in all cases of tag-teaming I have seen, pushing a fringe POV was a big element. By the way, other people writing on this talk page have made this point.

I have my own concern: that tag teaming is not the same as incivility. I think this is as valid a concern as yours.

And let me add that despite what I deleted, I KEPT a discussion of incivility and how to deal with it.

Moreover, you deleted material I added that was not about what you seem to object to (fringe vs. mainstream).

So I do not see my edit as extrreme as you claim and I also see grounds for working together towards a better essay. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll let others see what they think. But what you've done is make it all about FRINGE, even linking there. "they work in concert to circumvent WP:3RR" was a major thing which is good to put in there. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Martin, I appreciate the good will. Also, thanks about the 3RR thing,k it seems like the most obvious and one of the most iportant things to call attention to! Slrubenstein | Talk 07:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What a tag team isn't

This isn't so much a suggestion for the article as musing on a point. It doesn't matter much whether one has the correct list of characteristics if you don't do anything with it (hence my previous comment about "what next"). On the other hand it's possible that somebody may actually authorise somebody else to take some kind of action on the basis of an identification -- or mis-identification -- based on this article.

So, a tag team isn't

• A group of people formally coordinating their editing activities
  • These are called Projects
• A group of people with a common interest in a group of articles
  • These are called communities
• A group of people with a particular belief
  • These are called people

Examples of things that aren't tag teaming

• Editor A edits Moon to say that it is made of green cheese. Editor B reverts with edit summary "This is lunacy". Editor C,D weighs in on the article talk page with comments like "Who is this moron". Editors E,F ,G post on A's talk page "Please don't disrupt Wikipedia", G saying "People who do that get banned".
  • B made a bad joke (lunar-cy, get it?), the others are those of the dozens people interested in Moon with a slightly lower threshold of irritation than the others, G slightly misunderstands the process for dealing with disruption
• Editor P edits Cancer to say that egg-nog is more effective than all other cancer treatments. Editor Q reverts without saying why. Editor R states on the talk page that this statement is tantamount to wanting people to die. Editors S and T point out that the Journal of Egg-nog Studies is not a peer-reviewed reliable source. Editor P repeats and R reverts the edit with the summary "Murderer". T emails an admin he knows and asks her to "ban P forever".
  • R, who is a doctor, feels strongly because he is correct about the effects (if not the motivation) of encouraging people to abandon their treatment. S is also a doctor and T, who is a librarian, has an interest in cancer because his cat died of it, but has an exaggerated view about what admins do.
• The river Sludge is the common frontier of Syldavia and Borduria. Historically the two nations differ about fishing rights. In Syldavian it is spelled Sluj and in Bordurian Slug. Editors of Syldavian extraction think that the article should be Sluj with a redirect from Slug, because that's how they've always seen it: those of Bordurian extraction think the opposite. A huge range of behaviours is displayed, from polite, polite-but-venomous, curt, hostile, vulgar abuse and threats: reflecting the range of personalities involved. Unfortunately there are hundreds of editors who come from that part of the world.
• Editor M, as a joke, inserts a comment in the article on the St Louis Cardinals that well-known admin N will be guest pitcher at their next season opening game, sourcing it to a non-existent local newspaper. 47 editors are fans of the Cardinals and have that article on their watchlist for news of their favourite team, even though only 5 of them have ever edited it. They all react in a variety of ways.
• Editor X in his first article, on waffle theory in mathematics, writes that every left-invariant baffle is also a waffle. The three other editors who know what that means point out, correctly, that actually this is only true for finite rank baffles: they are polite but blunt about it. Editor X is so upset at making such an elementary mistake in public on his first edit that he leaves Wikipedia for ever.

So what's the point of all that? Simply that if this article is to be used as the basis of actions directed at one or more editors, or articles, we need a characterisation that distinguishes all of those cases from tag teaming. Faulty logic (tag teams do X, you do X, therefore you're a tag team) cannot be allowed. Tag teaming is disruption: disruption is what we must detect and, as far as possible, prevent. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is just my own view, but I think that we should not go into detail about what a tag team isn't for two reasons. First, I think good essays are clear about what they are and going into detail about what they aren't (a virtually infinite terrain) can make them too long and hard to follow. Secondl, and more to the point, I think the most important thing tag-team is not is the proper consensus-based way of editing that is actually a WP policy. That is why I deleted some of the stuff on what tag teaming isn't, and added the mention of consensus with a link to the policy. If people reallly want to understand what is not tag teaming, they can't do better than to read that policy.

I was also afraid that people adding more and more detail into what tag-teaming is and is not was mostly the result of different editors having conflicting views of what tag teaming is. What we need to do is discuss these conflicts here on the talk page and reach a resolution. But I got the sense that editors were just taking turns adding mroe and more details about what tag teaming is and is not just as a way of making sure their own (inconsistent) views were included in the essay. My fear is that this would be so confusing to newbiews it was turning a potentially very important essay into something Newbies couldn't follow.

So frankly I am niot sure I disagree with anything you wrote, and I certainly respect your intentions, I just think that adding all this just leads to an ineffectively written essay.

I do see some value to providing examples, and along these lines I have a very serious and concrete proposal, and it is based on my view that hypotheticals are bad because (1) they are not real and vulnerable to conflicts over whether they are good examples and (2) real examples are much more efective. My suggestion is go through the ArbCom files (or ask ArbCom members to help) and look for cases where a group of editors were accused of tag-teaming and ArbCom found that they were not tag-teaming ... these would be real examples, more clearly representative of the kinds of things that actually do happen at Wikipedia, and actual precedent for future ArbCom cases. I recommend that we provide links to archived ArbCom decisions where people were found guilty or innocent of tag-teaming. I think this picks up on what is valuable in your suggestion, but in a much more effective way. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the examples I gave on this talk page were intended to leaven the discussion, not as wording for the article. But whatever definition of tag teaming emerges must be capable of distinguishing it from the scenarios I describe, that is, assuming we agree that they aren't intended to be covered by the definition. As for real cases: well they're vulnerable too (in particular, to criticism of raking up accusations and allegations against specific editors which they might have had reason to suppose were forgotten or resolved). But carefully selected examples, real or ficitious, would be good. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do agree with you in principle. Maybe you or others have ideas about how to craft a more elgant section on this. I didn't mean to disparage your efforts which i think are worthy. I just wouldn't want the essay to get too long or overly-complicated and risk confusing readers. With ArbCommaybe there is a way to summmarize actual cases without naming names? Slrubenstein | Talk 07:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Richard Pinch. I think your examples are a good contribution to this discussion, and I had a good laugh over the example with the "left-invariant baffles". (You didn't mention that baffles with a rank of zero are a special case.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This essay isn't really needed

I spent the better part of last evening working quietly away to try to improve this essay to the point of usefulness - eliminating what could as easily apply to editors working in good faith while clarifying what was unique to tag teams. At the end of it, this is what was left:

A Tag team is a group of editors who work in a co-ordinated and planned way toward a particular editorial objective in a manner that is harmful to the development of an article or group of articles. The harm is due to the group consistently editing outside of the bounds of core content policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research) while also violating behavioural norms by edit warring, attempting to own articles, and/or derailing consensus-seeking efforts. Members of the tag team may also exhibit a wide range of other negative behaviours or editing practices, either individually or as a group.

That's it. That is all that needs to be said. The rest of the points involve behaviour exhibited under a wide range of circumstances, most of which have nothing to do with tag team editing; they are behaviours seen on a daily basis throughout the encyclopedia, more commonly carried out by single editors but often with the same result. To link them specifically to tag team editing suggests that they "don't count" if carried out by individual editors, which is patently not the case. I am particularly concerned about the point relating to "diversion of attention". Disputes are supposed to go through various dispute resolution processes (q.v. WP:DE and WP:DR), and we have about a dozen different noticeboards to assist with identifying reliable sources, BLP issues, wikiquette, etc. It should be no surprise that if several editors were involved in the initial concern, they are likely to keep commenting on it regardless of where it moves.

I propose that the above italicised paragraph be added to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and that a shortcut ("TAGTEAM") be created to link to it. Risker (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see what is different between this essay and our policy about meatpuppets. Your summary is spot on. I get the impression this essay could be used to justify the blocking of any group of consensus editors from an article on the whim of an admin. It's a device to give "power" to admins who are applying a "police action" to an article. This essay hurts attempts to build consensus because any disgruntled editor can claim that any consensus against them is due to "tag-teaming". I think it's dangerous. Alun (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I really like this proposal. A slight modification:

A Tag team is a group of editors who work in a co-ordinated way toward a particular editorial objective in a manner that is harmful to the development of an article or group of articles. The harm is due to the group consistently editing outside of the bounds of core content policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); evading procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule by working as a group; violating behavioural norms by edit warring, attempting to own articles, and/or derailing consensus-seeking efforts. Members of the tag team may also exhibit a wide range of other negative behaviours or editing practices, either individually or as a group.

Richard Pinch (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

while I rather like what's been written above, I have to say that I think this is a useful essay. too little focus is given to organized POV-pushing, and too much focus is placed on the behavior of individuals. if nothing else this essay raises some consciousness about the social environment here. --Ludwigs2 08:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is differentiating between "organised pov-pushing" and consensus. This is fundamentally about what constitutes a fringe or tiny minority pov. For example a group of editors pushing a mainstream pov is not violating Wikipedia core policies. Indeed a group of editors pushing a mainstream pov or an academic consensus on a group of related articles may appear to be a tag team when in fact they are simply a group of editors who are simply interested in the same related set of articles, who are also interested in the articles presenting a neutral point of view. I don't really know how much organised pov-pushing there is, in my experience not very much. In my experience the "tag-team" epithet has been used far more against long standing editors who are trying to be neutral and in favour of a small number of editors or a single editor who is pushing a fringe or unsupported pov from a WP:SPA, and that compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. I think this essay is only useful for pushers of tiny minority povs who can claim that the consensus against them is due to so called "tag-teaming", rather than reliable sources being against them. It's a mandate to overturn consensus. Alun (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

first off, only long-standing editors are going to have developed the kind of network that would even allow them to do organized pov-pushing, so that's not much of a point.

more to the point, though, I think you forget that the 'mainstream' point of view is still only a point of view, and that it needs to be balanced along with the other points of view on the topic. I've seen too many editors on wikipedia who seem to confuse the 'mainstream' point of view with the 'correct' point of view, and want to write off every other point of view as a tiny minority fringe opinion, and those few editors who organize along that party line are just obnoxious as hell. it's painful to work with them, and they do not allow good articles to emerge because they are so adamant about crushing every point of they think is incorrect. individual editors and single purpose accounts are easily handled by normal wikipedia policies; they are not a tenth of the threat to consensus that organized zealots are. --Ludwigs2 23:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Phenomena and Epiphenomena

I do not want to take too much time, but there are several core and peripheral misunderstandings demonstrated on this talk page. I will be very brief about those and a little more expansive about the mistakes in the impulse and execution of the essay itself.

1. One generally should not write directly into name space.
   1. In the past, some of our most contentious and vexatious pages have come from people wanting the power to create policy without the usual drag of obtaining consensus first, and these have been people who have written directly into name space and announced that they had achieved "semi-policy" (the term is Phil Sandifer's, but the meaning is common).
   2. No, there isn't a rule or law that says that writing to name space is evil, but there is similarly no protection for such an essay. It has no rights to be there, and therefore, it is prone to any passing editor writing anything she or he wishes on it. If it had consensus first, then it would have force.
   3. Essays are, by default, one dude's opinion ("dude" used amorphously). Even when they sound a note that resonates, they are nothing but some dude's opinion until there is a valid metric for assessing consensus (including some notion of quorum).
2. We lie to ourselves when we treat essays in name space as if they are received wisdom or eternal truths.
3. It is a commonplace for people to urge the common feeling that an essay reports as a common understanding. The feelings may be universal, but that doesn't make policy or guidelines. (E.g. the flat tax proposals in the United States hit a chord of common feeling, but as soon as anyone looks at the actual notions, they have virtually no support.)
4. Therefore, until consensus for the understanding is demonstrated, no one should make the mistake of treating this essay as if its existence were protected or its notions were valid.

I'm sorry if that sounds pedantic, and I'm sure folks will either say "duh" or want to drown the general observations beneath some particular quibble. It's the Wikipedia way to kill statements by arguments over a letter in a word or a Britishe vs. Amurikan spelling.

As for the essay itself, it, I think, is one of those that has support because of the feeling it hits, but absolutely not because it has a sustainable sense to it.

The feeling

The feeling is that editors are coordinating outside and invisibly to Wikipedia. Somewhere, there is a website for Calling All Patriots, and it is urging people to go to Wikipedia and to fight for X proposition. We at Wikipedia who know Wikipedia's rules about NPOV are therefore having to fight off an infinite hydra, and we don't have a chance to even know, much less participate in, the discussion that is launching all of these POV missiles at us.

We have long established practices of trying to bat away such coordination at AfD and using protection to avoid slashdotting on in-the-news subjects. Therefore, it seems like the practice of people who seem to be connected only by a point of view should face sanction. It seems like people who edit little but have a similar point of view on one article must be coordinating via some third, invisible party.

The wrongness of sentiment

1. First, we have to realize that we have sanctions against outside spamming and the like because (and I remember when we developed them, and so I can actually tell you why) the people who came in did not know our rules. Therefore, a sanction is only possible if the coordinated editing is from people who do not know the rules and who are violating them knowingly. You therefore cannot even make the allegation that the coordinated editing is bad, much less that it is worth sanction, unless you can demonstrate that the edits are against our policies. Otherwise, we throw up our hands and shout "Hallelujah!" at the new contributors we're getting. I'm serious.
2. "Coordination via some invisible method" is precisely what IRC is. When people go onto one of the IRC channels and ask for help in defending an article or even in writing an article, those persons are going off Wikipedia and onto a medium that cannot be ported onto Wikipedia and arguing and gathering a point of view there. Imagine a person who has never heard of IRC and what it must look like to her when six administrators who have never edited an article show up at the same time, or within five minutes, to revert, warn, argue, block, unblock, and warn the user. That user might wonder where that "tag team" came from. Or, if you don't want to use your imagination, I can tell you point blank that I was irritated as hell when talk:William Melmoth suddenly got an influx of people in the dustiest, least attractive biography on the site, because I thought one young admin's rating system was insane. Being old and crotchety, I knew where the coordination was taking place.
3. "Coordination via some invisible method" is even what the Projects do, sometimes.
4. The most dangerous and corrosive "tag team" editing, I am convinced, takes place when users and administrators on Wikipedia develop e-mail lists. I will not mention names or rehash the hash we've already gone through, but we have had more than a few users at Wikipedia develop vast mailing lists for salubrious purposes that have, nevertheless, turned into mysteriously coordinated editing with a destructive effect. Because those reasonings were in e-mails, they were not on Wikipedia.
5. Similar interests and points of view is another word for "consensus." Let's be honest: there is a consensus in one country that another was a villain and guilty of massacres and genocide (for example, "Armenian genocide"), while there is a consensus in another country that no such thing was the case. Therefore, it is rational and entirely fitting that similar edits would appear from multiple persons. It is the very nature of Wikipedia to demand consensus, and it is the very nature of consensus to have multiple persons in agreement.

The source of the feeling

The source of the feeling is that, yes, there is way too much damn secrecy going on. I deplore the IRC consensus, the mailing list secret action items, and the outside websites launching editors at Wikipedia alike. However, we can't stick out our tongues and point our fingers and say, "Ours is for the good of the world, but theirs is evil." That, though, is not the real source of the feelings people have over contentious articles.

The real problem is that we are dealing with issues that have multiple consensus groups, and we're asking to prefer one over another. There is no way around that fact. We are, indeed, for real, no doubt, actually trying to say that one consensus is greater than another, and yet we have not developed the tools to determine which one to employ. Elonka was supposed to be part of finding this method, but I see, by this essay, that she has left it at the moment of emotional outcry, rather than analyzing the problem.

I predict, with no expertise of my own, that the only solution will be, unfortunately, to have to insist upon a national or language preference in consensus. That's not going to get the truth, though.

(Forgot to sign.) Geogre (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice diatribe, but it's founded on a simple (and common) mistake. "multiple consensus groups" is little more than a euphemism for "multiple prejudice groups"; it is not an example of consensus working correctly, but rather an example of consensus falling apart. the very idea of consensus rests on the thought that participants can weigh and balance various factors to reach mutually acceptable compromises, but 'consensus groups' are notoriously resistant to compromise of any sort, and notoriously reactive towards perceived opponents.

and I'll add that you're missing the point when you put this down to mere 'feelings'. the second week I was editing on wikipedia I filed a wikiquette report against an editor whom I thought was being a real ass. now wikiquette is not even a formal part of the system here, and I expected that it would give me the opportunity to talk out the problem and get some resolution (either way - I don't mind learning if I'm the one who made the mistake). instead, I came back a couple of hours later to find that 10 or 12 editors I'd never even heard of had popped up to tell me the other editor was a great guy, an established user, and (literally) that I wasn't going to get anywhere with wikiquette so I should just give it up; and then they closed the case as resolved before any other comments could be made. personally, I don't give a crap whether they planned that out, or whether they all just saw it in their watchlists and decided to jump in, or whatever - any way you cut it it was the most blatant, arrogant, tag-team ploy I've ever seen. there's no 'feeling' there, son; I got screwed, royally and purposefully.

in short, while I understand what you're saying, it's far to pollyanna for me to swallow. --Ludwigs2 22:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this anecdote actually supports what some of the people on this page have been saying. Any action that has consensus can be seen as tag-teaming by someone who disagrees with that action. Without knowing the details of your situation, that could easily have been a situation of a good-faith newbie who didn't understand the appropriate rules, and good-faith other editors who did and tried to explain them (wikiquettes are useless). Once we start throwing around the label "tag-team", we've suddenly lost our good faith. Karanacs (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, that almost sounds like you're suggesting that I deserved that treatment? tell me, what could I have done that would have deserved having my own complaint summarily closed, without even being given a chance to make response on it? if nothing else, that strips "don't bite the newbies" of any meaning whatsoever. you're welcome to maintain whatever comfortable level of ignorance you require, my friend, but don't look me in the eye and tell me I deserve to be treated like shit. --Ludwigs2 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

a simple (and common) mistake. "multiple consensus groups" is little more than a euphemism for "multiple prejudice groups";. This one is a quote for the ages. Shot info (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks!  :-) --Ludwigs2 23:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Consensus" is a misleading word and so-called consensus can be easily manipulated by one of the "multiple consensus groups" (multiple prejudice groups) to get its way. Secrecy is one way to go, but often an editor has observed enough to be able recognize the "usual suspects" leap in. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's so nice that you respond to my analysis with more name calling. "We are right, and they are prejudiced" -- I can't imagine why there is no progress. Let me drop analysis and get down to shouting, since that seems to be the preferred medium: Wikipedia is not about the truth. Wikipedia is about reporting according to the greatest consensus. Therefore, any of you on a missionary kick to "set the record straight" or "silence the lies" or any other messianic principle need to go back to the fox holes and abandon Wikipedia, because Wikipedia cannot see the truth, cannot analyze the truth, and cannot report the truth. It is a tertiary source of information, so please don't weary yourselves shouting about how you're right and the other guys are prejudiced. You're all prejudiced. You're simply a consensus point of view up against other consensus points of view, and, instead of even considering a way forward, you crouch back down in the muck and begin throwing rocks. Genius. Geogre (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, but now we can ignore the consenus as they are just a WP:GANG. QED. Just as well this is an essay and can be ignored. Shot info (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about reporting according to the greatest consensus Really? I thought that Wikipedia is about reporting verifiable information which represent significant viewpoints within a context of neutrality... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but it also has to avoid giving undue weight to non-majoritarian viewpoints, which is where Geogre is presumably coming from. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What I want is to let folks realize that there are many rhetorical communities and many community consensuses regarding facts. We do not have a method for determining the greatest consensus yet. All of the personalized, regionalistic accusations of good and bad truth are making things impossible. We can't say, without a method that doesn't involve some rigor, "Well, this group of people are just a gang, and that group is the defenders of truth." All of the political fight articles come into this. Sometimes, we get lucky, and one group's method of writing is POV, and we can revert, but we're now at the point where dozens of editors reporting verifiable sources from within their communities are up against others. Calling one or both "WP:GANG" or implying that there is some vicious (trolling) attack is to reiterate the battle of nationalities, not to move forward on a method for determining which of the various communities should "win" or be marginalized. Geogre (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And, Jossi, the greatest consensus will be reported in a neutral fashion, and it will be reported by means that can be verified, and, as I predicted, the great relish for denying an argument by quibble is here. You mix attribute for material. We don't have truth. We have the greatest consensus. "NPOV" and the vastly inflated and misunderstood "verifiability" have to do with writing and reporting. Sorry to not get confused. Geogre (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said, jossi! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironic

I'm finding it difficult to reconcile the idea that an editor well known for using tag teaming efforts herself (as expressed in the recent RFC concerning her behavior, using IRC and email to coordinate edits of a group of meatpuppets, single use accounts showing up to vote on her request for admin and RFC, etc.) is the one who writes an essay allegedly against the practice. Of course her original version of the essay seems explicitly designed to give her ammunition in her wikilawyering to assume bad faith in any editor who opposes her, etc. She's just so predictable that way. DreamGuy (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to cast aspersions, but I also noted, above, that "tag team" editing occurs via IRC and list servers, too, and the central crime of any of them, whether pro- or anti-Elonka's preferred vision, is that they are staging and launching from off-wiki onto the wiki. If she is mortified by people at some nationalist website coming in, then she should be as mortified by people getting "consensus" with IRC or mailing lists. It's either a rationale that people can examine and which is in the context of our policies, or it isn't. There is no "good when I do it" that can be supported. Geogre (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

These politics are unavoidable, as WP:IRL ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Just as there is no "world" consensus (even about date formatting), there is no "grand" consensus on Wikipedia. Even the MoS cannot reach "consensus" enough to be relatively stable. That is why there are multiple consensus groups, each with their own agenda, even without off-site interference. One "consensus" group or another dominates at a particular time on a particular issue. Even ArbCom apparently cannot reach "consensus". —Mattisse (Talk) 20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Elonka would mind having this applied to her as long as it was applied evenly and universally to everyone. that's part of the problem with tag-teams: they want to make sure the rules apply to other people, while they themselves skirt by them. you can make as many ironic comments as you like, but that won't make me think less of the idea; true consensus is filled with ironies. --Ludwigs2 22:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia Review it has been claimed for some time that Elonka has a tag team consisting of Shell Kinney and WjBscribe. These two people were the people who materialised out of the blue on my talk page when Elonka came unstuck on her mishandling of Koalorka's disruption. Was this just a coincidence or are these two administrators her personal "admin buddies"? Mathsci (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

the answer to this question would lie in whether they were simply cooperating to cope with (what they mutually saw as) a particular problem, or whether they were cooperating with the goal of circumventing wikipedia policy to achieve some goal they couldn't accomplish within policy. I'd have to see diffs to be sure, but my own experiences with Elonka have given me no indication that she ever tries to subvert the system. why don't you show me some diffs, and I'll happily give an informed opinion. --Ludwigs2 01:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't speak for DreamGuy, but I'm fairly well known as being against outside reasoning leading to on-wiki action in any form. I don't want IRC hit squads coming to "fix" people. I don't want and haven't wanted off-wiki discussions of how to tell when a person is evil. Even when I believe the stakes justify secrecy, I do not like secrecy off-wiki. We can eliminate some of the hypocrisy of this essay by simply taking a stand against off-wiki coordination in any form. The fact that it will go on anyway is irrelevant. If there are not on-wiki and intra-wiki explanations for what you're doing, you're doing something with no authority.

Once we get to the combat between consensus groups, I don't know a way forward that will satisfy all sides. I know that the first thing we should be doing is attempting to report the controversy without endorsing it. Suppose we are talking about the Armenian genocide. Instead of "Turkish response," it would be fair to say that, "While several authorities reject both the facts and characterization of the events, the Armenian genocide is a term that refers to the alleged campaign of Turkish forces against an Armenian population in..." and then always modulating. POV forks are already disallowed by policy (i.e. if someone is unhappy and goes to create "Armenian invasion of Turkey"). If we are at a place where even NPOV and reporting on the matter rather than stipulating the matter won't work, if we're at the point of "our sources say the troops were there, and your sources say they were planting daisies in Danzig," then the only thing we will be able to do is go with something like "majority of the points of view in Anglophone sources, and .en Wikipedia is serving such a community, and therefore, even though it might not be true, it is true to its audience." No one will agree with me, of course. Geogre (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

to my mind, the problem is not barring off-site communication (which would be impossible to prevent, regardless, and would lead to a whole new set of baiting tactics where you send someone an email and then get them blocked if they so much as respond). the problem is using collective action to subvert good-faith editing. when person A makes a good faith edit, and then persons B, C , D and F come and revert it without any attempt at communication, compromise, or other constructive editing efforts (and typically - in my experience - with a number of insults and veiled threats), it destroys the working environment, raises a hell of a lot of frustrations, and makes it impossible to achieve a neutral article. consensus is supposed to be determined through discussion and reliable sourcing, not through brute force reversions. if you want to take a stand against something, take a stand against that. frankly, I don't care if editors work together, as long as they are willing to explain themselves and work with editors they disagree with. don't punish editors for working together; punish them for trying to shut other editors out of the editing process. --Ludwigs2 18:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

End paragraph

Ludwigs2 changed the original end paragraph:

In most cases tag-teams are involved in content disputes with other groups of editors. Under these circumstances following dispute resolution is the best solution. In content-based disputes the most important policies are not personal behavior policies but core content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Therefore, when disputes are over content, it is important that any reviewer be familiar, or become familiar, with the subject matter of the article to the extent that the reviewer can identify mainstream, notable, and fringe points of view, and reliable and unreliable sources.

Into this:

There is at present no effective remedy for tag team behavior. In most cases tag-teams are involved in content disputes with other groups of editors, and under those circumstances following dispute resolution, and applying core content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR would be the correct approach. However, tag team behavior is designed to circumvent core policy and render conventional dispute resolution practices meaningless. requests for comments and WP:AN/I and other such boards are occasionally effective, since uninvolved administrators may notice and take action on their own, though this will inevitably result in an protracted assault on that administrator. Dogged persistence and clear, careful sourcing will occasionally prove effective, but even then tag team members will take turns reverting and removing verifiable sources in the hopes that the peopl ewho use them will get blocked by wp:3rr policy as they try to restore them.

I find the rewrite of little help, since it takes (among other things) an unduly cynical view of DR processes: There is at present no effective remedy for tag team behavior..render conventional dispute resolution practices meaningless..though this will inevitably result in an protracted assault on that administrator

Also, the words: Dogged persistence could be taken as an endorsement of various forms of edit-warring and talk page argumentation (talk page argumentation is fine, but "dogged persistence" in upholding one's point is precisely what leads to these situations).

I would dare calling it a nice application of WP:BEANS. Wider input is requested.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is not an improvement, I think it is fine to add mention of AN/I and RfC but the edit mixes up apples and oranges: the original text suggested what an outsider would ave to do to help resolve the conflict; the new edit replaces this with mentin of two venues where one may find outsiders who could be involved. These are two different issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

LAlso, the new text is moe about why resolution will fail, which is not constructive. pehaps thee is a place in the article for discussion of why the dispute can be entrenched, but this section is about how to go about fixing it, not how one cannot fix it! Slrubenstein | Talk 05:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no reason to discuss the various ways of 'fixing' the problem when in fact the problem cannot readily be fixed. a well-organized tag team can disrupt any process short of an ArbCom debate, and they don't do half bad with ArbCom either. I really don't care if you think the position is cynical (in fact, that leads me to think that your position is naïve). but I don't think it's appropriate to suggest to some newbie that he can find some remedy in a wikiquette or an ANI, so that he can go and get whipped like a dog. --Ludwigs2 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if you think so, but if you do make your case on the talk page that the "remedy" will not work i.e. is not a remedy and should be removed. The "remedy" section should be for remedies; if something is not a remedy it shouldn't be there but it just makes no sense to write a paragraph that x is a remedy but x is not a remedy. Instead of adding material that is contradictory and confusing because you disagree with others, why not try to seek an agreement on the talk page and then edit the article in a sensible way? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

well, when I removed the remedy section so that we could discuss the matter, someone put it right back in. I seriously do not want to give the idea that there is an effective remedy for this problem, because there isn't. now can we please find some workable compromise statement? I can argue this point effectively, and I will continue to insist on its inclusion; what do I need to do to convince you? --Ludwigs2 20:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You have every right to your opinion, but in the end, you cannot overrule consensus if consensus decides not to adopt your viewpoint.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I always find it odd when people use 'consensus' this way. consensus means that we sit down and work out a mutually acceptable version (which reasonable adults such as ourselves should always be able to do). there are times when it's necessary to overrule someone - when they are not capable of being reasonable, or when there is a difference of opinion that is so dramatic that no agreement is possible - but when that happens it is not consensus; it's an unfortunate recourse to authority. but pardon the tangent; it's all good.  :-) --Ludwigs2 22:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

remedies, or lack thereof

Ramdrake, stop reverting, and revise - you're attitude is distressing. the very purpose of tag team tactics is to circumvent the dispute resolution process, or any other policy which might get in the way of their particular agenda. I'm not making a mockery of the process, they are. now, I am happy for you that you've never been on the receiving end of this behavior, but I have, and believe me, it's not pleasant.

there is no remedy for this behavior at present. I am not suggesting it happens often, or that it's something that most editors need to worry about, but when it happens wikipedia has no way of dealing with it, and I don't think this article should suggest that people rely on the standard DR procedures to help, because they can't.if you want to take this as a call for new procedures, then fine. but I'm not going to let you sit there and say that the procedures work, so that other people can wander off to get eaten alive. --Ludwigs2 03:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I totally accept that your edit wasn't intentionnally meant to make a mockery of the process, and I apologize for the unnecessaril harsh words. However, please take time to listen to additional input above which explains why this edit isn't really appropriate.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if people want to edit and moderate it, but I dislike getting reverted this way. I don't think that the remedies suggested work, and I would like the section to reflect that. --Ludwigs2 18:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I reverted as per WP:BRD. You were bold in your edit, I reverted you because as a whole I found your edit unacceptable; from this point on, things should go to the talk page for discussion. Please accept that being reverted is sometimes part of the normal editing process here. Special sanctions do not apply here ;) .--Ramdrake (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to being reverted per se - however, you are bordering on a violation of WP:PRESERVE. the fact that you don't like the concept does not mean that it's wrong, and your decision to revert rather then rewrite (just because you disagree) is irritating, and not particularly good faith. criticism with no offense intended; we each have our prejudices here, and they should be balanced. --Ludwigs2 20:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think many editors pointed out that your changes (pointing out that you think there's no remedy) isn't relevant to a Remedies section. I also pointed several other inaccuracies and issues with your edit, so WP:PRESERVE is in exception territory here. Please try not to get overly legalistic here. Please consider that people get reverted every day in good faith at Wikipedia over similar matters. Also. calling a revert "not particularly good faith" out of the blue isn't very civil. You raised the matter, I disagreed. We brought it to the talk page. Let's see what consensus the community can make around it.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

agreed. apologies, this is a touchy issue for me. --Ludwigs2 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

reviewers and remedies

the following passage keeps popping up in the remedies section

Therefore, when disputes are over content, it is important that any reviewer be familiar, or become familiar, with the subject matter of the article to the extent that the reviewer can identify mainstream, notable, and fringe points of view, and reliable and unreliable sources.

I have two issues with this:

1. I'm not sure it's strictly true (though I suspect that it is probably useful - I've edited the main article to reflect that)
2. it seems like an odd shift to go from talking about remedies to talking about the behavior of people involved in the remedies.

it may be that the section needs some expansion, so that we talk about the review process, and then talk about the difficulties reviewers have in dealing with tag teams in the review process, but as it stands the phrase seems out of place. plus (since we all know the history here) it seems a little pointed for a general essay... how can we fix this? --Ludwigs2 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is worth discussing. I think ou raise at least three points. I do think that since the essay is about a problem, we should try to come up with useful suggestions about how to deal with the problem. I do not think the suggestions need be perfect, and of course nothing is compulsory as this is just an essay - it doesn't even rise to a guideline. That said, I do think that any suggestions ought to be useful or constructive; if they aren't there is no point in making them. So I think usefulness is a good criteria for inclusion (I think this is one point you raise). I take your comment about shifting from remedies to the behavior of possible mediators to raise a second point: organization. Maybe this should be in a different (new?) section, or a subsection (that is, if we agree the advice is useful). Finally, I agree fully about the value of expansion (what I take to be a third point). I think that this specific bit of advice is useful IF we draw a distinction between trolls and tag-teams. I realize it is possible that a tag-team could just be a collection of trolls. My own view, for what it is worth, is that if this is the case all the guidelines on dealing with trolls apply. But we may need additional guidelines if we are sure the tag team is a collection of trolls. That said, I think in many cases tag teams are not trolls but people insistent on giving a certain amount of weight to a certain view, when there is no consensus. I view this as a content conflict in which content policies are more salient than behavior policies, and constructive advice to mediators should be about how to help build consensus when editors are divided into opposing groups. This may be a restricted set of conditions but in these conditions I do think the suggestions you single out are indeed useful. Maybe we need expansion to distinguish between different kinds of conflicts underlying tag-teams, and make clearer what suggestions are useful under some conditions but not others? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... maybe it would be worth the time to distinguish this behavior from other similar behaviors. what distinguishes tag teams (in my mind, at least, and I think this is what you mean as well) is that tag teams often have good intentions from their own perspective - they disrupt the consensus process with the intent of protecting or improving the encyclopedia, not realizing (or not believing) that their acts actually damage the encyclopedia. that's what makes them so much more difficult to deal with than simple trolls - if they were playing fair there would be no problem. in that way it's like any other political issue: each party thinks its own actions and intentions are good and the other party's actions and intentions are bad, but it works out alright until one party or another starts to abuse the system itself to get their ends (e.g., you can do a lot of things to get people to vote for your side, but you can't steal people's votes outright). that's why I think it's not exactly a content issue - content has become secondary to winning the game, when it's not supposed to be a win/lose situation in the first place.

let me consider a more complex structure for a couple of days... --Ludwigs2 01:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph simply does not represent accurately the current practice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Essays should be informed by current practie but, bing non-binding, can advocte for new approaches (thus, essays can play a progressive role here). I' like to use essays o thin outside the box. As for Ludwig's thoughts I am glad we ay be moving towads some kind of compromise and collaborative improvemet. I add only that we ay need to say more about mechanismso tag-teaming e.g. IRC. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

SLR, the biggest problem occurs when the tag team group is large enough to represent a consensus of Wikipedians, as in the evolution-creationism dispute. It's easy for them to violate arbcom decisions, even openly. Many times I've seen my additions to an article reverted with the edit comment, "This makes X's viewpoint seem reasonable".

In other words, they tag team wants to ensure that readers are unaware of the arguments for a POV which the team wants to condemn. Ironically, this is defended on the grounds that it's only a minority POV and that it would (supposedly) violate undue weight to let readers know why the minority puts forth that view.

However, in email exchanges with Jimbo, I'm convinced that such reasoning is simply a violation of NPOV. Every viewpoint should be described fairly, so using "undue weight" as an excuse to suppress the reasoning which supports a minority view is a subtle form of POV pushing.

For example, our readers want to know why anyone ever believed in a flat earth or phlogiston chemistry or spontaneous generation. Better yet, the theory behind a system like homeopathy can have as long a passage as necessary to explain it. It then only requires a short mention of the reason why the AMA condemns it: things like, "cannot be demonstrated to have more than a placebo effect" suffice. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ed, the way you present things seems like you're advocating that all viewpoints be given equalimportance. Now, you're familiar enough with NPOV to know that this is a direct violation of this policy. Viewpoints should be presented in proportion to their importance in the "real world".--Ramdrake (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if I was unclear. I don't mean that minority views should be given equal emphasis or that any article should assert that the minority view is equally as important as the majority. In particular, when polls or the like are available, we should inform our readers about how many people espouse them. This is especially interesting when "experts" and the general public are at odds.

For example, on evolution, if the experts are scientists, then around 95% of the experts accept the naturalistic "theory of evolution". If we narrow the field of experts to biologists, then the preponderance increases to (arguably) 99.8 percent. Meanwhile the general public in the United States disgaree with evolution by anywhere from 40% to 85% (depending on which of the various meanings of evolution we're talking about).

In any case, it should be clear which is the mainstream view and which is the minority. But the reasoning advanced by the minority in support of their viewpoints should not be suppressed. We don't want an article which "explains why the mainstream is correct" while giving no coverage of "why the minority believe the way they do". --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If explaining at length all the reasons why a tiny-minority group hold a certain viewpoint gives the viewpoint more weight in the article than it has in "real life", we're still in violation of WP:UNDUE. Otherwise, for example, the article on Creation Myth "should" have a lengthy section on why the Raelians think as they do, because, the explanation is complex and lengthy. Sorry, but WP:NPOV just doesn't work that way. I strongly disagree.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. To use your example, I agree that we should not have a lengthy section on the Raelians; in fact, a simple link would be the most I would even think of in that context.

However, in the Raelians article, we can take as much space as needed to explain why the Raelians think as they do. Likewise, in an article about a biologist who opposes the mainstream on evolution (e.g., William Dembski) it's not a violation to explain his views.

What NPOV really specifies is not the amount of coverage, but rather the principle that Wikipedia must not endorse or oppose any viewpoint. We don't say that UFOs are real extraterrestial spaceships, and we don't say that they're fakes either. That's for the reader to decide. Agreed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 23:10 17 August 2008

Very well put. Remember to sign. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, I think you're underestimating the depth this misunderstanding gets to. Ramdrake's position (and excuse me ramdrake if I misrepresent you - this is how that position has been explained to me by others) holds that 'weight' is a universal rather than relative quality. e.g. something like the Raelians (whomever they are) are not a tiny minority opinion with respect to something, but rather are a tiny minority opinion universally. Therefore even within an article about Raelians, the Raelian perspective should not be presented because of undue weight. the logic behind that is so alien to me that I don't even know where to begin addressing it; perhaps you have a better idea than I. but still, that's what I've been told. --Ludwigs2 23:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm.... if this an encyclopedia that strives to present all human knowledge, we should be able to include all viewpoints, including these that may be strange, weird, minority or otherwise, well presented in the encyclopedia ... in the articlesa about these strange, weird, minority viewpoints. So, we would not present Raelian theories on the Theory of evolution article, but surely we will in the Raelians article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Right.... and Ludwigs2 is also right in general about what some people have argued on fringe views. I haven't heard it put quite so extremely though: they say usually that in an article on a fringe veiw, you can present the fringe view, but that the "majority" view has weight, even in that article. You can't just put the "majority" position, and explain it fully, but you've got to give it most of the weight. And then they count the history of the idea etc as part of the weight of the fringe idea. The real problem with this argument is that it's really an argument about the primacy of science. Because applying their argument fully, you would have to weight the evolution article heavily toward Creationism, since that is what most people believe. This argument is used by those who argue for WP:SPOV, that the scientific mainstream always has the greatest weight. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In any science-related article, NPOV demands that the scientific mainstream view be given priority. In an article on popular beliefs, if more people believe creationism, then it should be expounded more. However, the large number of people believing in Creationism is pretty much a US thing, and isn't really reflective of reality in other countries.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"In any science-related article, NPOV demands that the scientific mainstream view be given priority." what does this mean, exactly? technically speaking, every article on wikipedia is a 'science-related' article (to the extent that some academic, somewhere, has studied something that can be applied to the article topic); should scientific studies of primate sexuality be given priority on articles that deal with romantic love? so far as I can see, WP:NPOV only 'demands' that all views on an topic be presented in proportion to their prominence. For a fringe-science article, it seems to me that the most prominent views on the subject would come from fringe science authors and proponents; the scientific viewpoint would only enter into it as as a rebuttal argument, clarifying that the fringe science doesn't and never did actually work. mainstream science would never be 'primary' or central to the discussion of the fringe material, almost by definition. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

<undent> All articles are science related. However, in articles on sciences such as "Evolution" "Chemistry," "Sociology," or even "herbs," science is most prominent. But science by virtue of being the most reliable way of gaining and verifying knowledge does not get any special treatment. It is merely another POV. Where it has prominence, it is given that prominence, but not by virtue of being itself. In the article on Creationism, for example, scientific mainstream is a notable POV and should be explained, but the subject has weight. This is not really debatable- I hate to cut it off, but there is just nothing in WP that says science is favored above other kinds of sources or understanding. Show me where it is, and we can keep this up. It's been discussed before, ad infinitum, and no one ever showed me where Wikipedia gives preference to science. They did show me where Wikipedia rejected giving preference to science. I advocated that WP might in fact give such preference. But I've never seen it given, and I didn't get anywhere promoting it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cabals and Wikipedia:Tag team

This seems to be an accidental POV fork of Wikipedia:Cabals. Perhaps they could be merged to a single NPOV essay? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, WP:CABALS is more of a jokey handling of the subject. Or a straight handling of a jokey subject, anyway. I don't see any problem with keeping the pages separate.--Father Goose (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As they're both essays, perhaps an {{alternate-essay}} (or some other quasi-{{seealso}}) hat note would be better, as there's no way to distinguish the subjects of the essays, except intent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the merge, personally. I'd add the CABALS essay as a (sort of historical) subsection of the tag team essay, and then rename the whole essay, since neither 'tag team' or 'cabals' strikes me as entirely correct ('pack behavior' is more how I see it, though I don't think everyone would get the wolf/dog reference). --Ludwigs2 21:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You can have two essays on the same subject that don't say the same thing. Two essays that do say the same thing can be folded together. WP:CABALS is a light-hearted look at the problem; WP:GANG addresses the real problems associated with it. They neither overlap nor interfere with each other -- and even essays that are diametrically opposed are still acceptable, such as WP:SPADE and WP:NOSPADE.--Father Goose (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

granted, I was just saying I didn't object. the only thing that would be troubling would be if there were too many versions of the same issue lying around; then there should probably be some mergers to keep things from getting confusing. otherwise I'm good either way. --Ludwigs2 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Father Goose. Also, you can't have POV forks for essays (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to the idea of a merge, and also agree with Father Goose. --Elonka 00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Essays are POV. That's the point of them! Agree with Elonka. Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an odd problem, in that any objective description which points to WP:Tag team also fits WP:Cabals, and pretty much the reverse. I guess the merger is inappropriate, though, and I'll withdraw it, provided that a {{tl:seealso}} hat note appears in the lead, and preferrably above the {{essay}} tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge withdrawn, replaced with modified {{seealso}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag team, as I've used it, refers to any group editing that does, collectively, whether formally organized or not, what would be prohibited for a single editor to do, particularly with regard to edit warring or a determination of rough consensus. The "group" could refer to any collection of editors who function this way with some consistency, but, by definition, not a broad and unbiased sample of editors. I.e., "tag teaming" would never refer to a situation where genuine community consensus is found, but only to some subset of the community that, because of preferential participation, collects around some issue. To a limited degree tag-teaming, can be legitimate, where it is truly defending NPOV. The problem arises when what is being defended isn't NPOV, but a majority opinion, to the exclusion of minority opinion, beyond that which WP:WEIGHT would suggest. What makes tag-teaming different, in practice, from normal expression of consensus, is that the tag team seems to have an agenda, right from the start of an incident. A editor makes an edit that can be seen as promoting a fringe view or removing some majority opinion. With little regard for sourcing, or with wikilawyering to impeach sources, and not seeking consensus, a tag team will revert; the edit summaries may say something like "Revert fringe POV-pusher." No revert should ever consider the identity of the user, unless the user is blocked or banned, and even then it can be problematic. The alleged "POV-pusher" is outraged by the arbitrary removal of his or her edit, and reverts back. Another editor with a history of supporting the same positions as the original reverting editor reverts again. Already we have well-established edit warring, if these reverts have not been well-discussed. A tag team will often assert that there is no need to discuss this, that a decision was already made, which expresses a misunderstanding of what consensus is. Who gets blocked? The new editor is far more likely to be blocked, because this editor may go over 3RR, whereas tag team editors may accomplish their goal, spreading reverts out over many editors, and not only need there be any evidence of collusion, there may not be any such evidence; all that has to happen is that a collection of editors with some established POV watchlist an article. I do have some ideas about what we could do, but first, before it is possible to deal with the problem, it's necessary to come to some consensus that there is a problem. It's clear to me that there is. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. I came across this RfC because I noticed GoRight trying to prevent it from being certified, and it looked like wikilawyering to me. So I intervened and helped point out that, technically, the time for certification had not expired, and, then, once it was actually certified, as I recall, I listed it. Because of this, GoRight apparently thought, at first, that I'd be, more or less, an enemy. However, I'd formed no opinion, and I actually didn't intend to even read the thing. But I did read it anyway, and I smelled a rat, something was wrong. I had no familiarity with the editors involved. The RfC, however, was very poorly written and very slim on actual evidence, heavy on accusations. So I researched it, created an evidence page, and wrote a Comment. Eventually my full comment was moved to its own page as well, leaving only a summary comment, which did attract substantial support. GoRight was, more or less, the interloper I described above. He had made mistakes, possibly, reacting to incivility and edit warring, and joining into it, and had been blocked for them, possibly by an involved administrator. He had been met with immediate incivility and immediate tag-team reversion, as described, and you can see it on my evidence page. Initial participation in the RfC, heavily against him, was heavy with those who had edit warred with him. Later comments in the RfC, from neutral editors, tended strongly to conclude that, yes, GoRight had made mistakes, but in an environment which encouraged them, and that many other editors had likewise made similar mistakes -- or worse. Before the RfC was closed, some of the same faces appeared at AN/I to propose a topic ban, which finessed the RfC, which is a procedural problem: an emergency noticeboard process -- unless there is truly an emergency -- should never do more than create a temporary injunction, it should never trump a more thorough deliberative process. It is very easy to present evidence from one side, in order to create some impression and induce the community to come to some particular conclusion, and tag teams may be able to do this, presenting an appearance of community consensus which then can snowball. Unless editors take the hours it can take to really review a situation, which is largely impossible. That's why we don't expect police to do legal research and major detective work before intervening to stop immediate disruption!

My goal in describing this is only as an example where I think tag-teaming shows in the record. The goal isn't to try to rectify error in the topic ban that resulted, or to impeach involved editors, the ban might be just fine as it is, and it is, and the distinction between participation in edit warring and legitimate editing can be tricky. I'll leave that question to the community, should it ever happen that this is reviewed. But tag teaming exists, and it is a problem. I'll I'm going for, here, is a recognition of that. The solution to the problem is another matter. Let us not refuse to notice problems because we think them impossible to solve. A solution to tag teaming would not involve coercion, I suspect. It wouldn't involve punishing tag team behavior, which too closely resembles simple consensus expression. But it might involve collectively insisting on dispute resolution process, and enforcing WP:CIVIL more rigorously, as well as content policies.--Abd (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Father Goose, above. Also, I think Abd makes some valuable points. Still, I think that this essay has value largely insofar as it can help people distinguish not just between tag-teams (groups) and trolls (individuals), but also between tag-teams (one kind of group process) and consensus-building (another kind of group process). If the essay cannot help clarify this, I question its value ... but I do think this is an important topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)