Wikipedia talk:Tag team/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

How about

How about a section called "How to tell if you are dealing with a tag team or just editing against consensus" or "What a tag team is not"? Having read the essay, I don't see it drawing a useful distinction between being on the receiving end of a tag team's shenanigans and just being on the "wrong side" of a consensus that's been reached in good faith. This is an important distinction to define, since if you're in the minority, and your edits are being reverted, it may look to you like there's a group of editors working in concert to circumvent 3RR. But how do you know whether you're really being tag teamed or that consensus simply gone against your edits? This page doesn't help one figure that out. Yilloslime (t) 17:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank that is the biggest problem with this essay. Hindsight is the best way to figure out if there is a tag team or a normal consensus. There is no smoking gun. Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, Karanacs and Yilloslime. The essay is not only pointless, it is a dangerous tool for those who edit war in contentious articles to use against each other. I am considering proposing it for deletion on the theory that it does more harm than good to have such a nasty, unscientific essay masquerading as policy. It was bad at the start and has progressively become worse. Risker (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd second the MfD on this. This essay is one loose, loaded cannon.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what the process is for deleting essays - I have contributed to this but would not object to its deletion if there is a consensus. I do think that Wikipedia policy needs to be clear about the difference between tag-teams and consensus-building. Do we have any doubts about the way policy is currently written? If so, this essay could be a valuable space for elaborating needed ideas ... if we have no doubtgs about the way policy is currently formulated, I'd agree this essay has no point. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It recently occurred to me that this essay is looking like a "how-to" guide for disrupting WP. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, see WP:BEANS. Case in point.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above in Wikipedia_talk:Tag_team#Starting_threads..., "The entire essay should probably be gone over with this in mind, contrasting tag-team behavior with acceptable behavior." Additionally, this essay seems to be a way to skirt around the difficulty of making meatpuppet accusations, and generally giving excuses for ignoring WP:AGF and encouraging bad faith assumptions of others. --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

or it's trying to deal with an actual, current, and difficult problem. --Ludwigs2 00:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be trying to, but that problem is so poorly defined that the essay in it's current state is useless. Which is why, if it's going to stick around, I think it needs to do good, careful job delineating tag teaming from consensus based editing. Yilloslime (t) 00:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) there's really no problem distinguishing tag-team behavior from consensus-based editing, and I'm really not sure why people think there is. noting that this only occurs on contested pages, the two look like this. first is the initial contesting, which looks pretty much teh same in both cases

• initial contesting:
  • a "new" editor (or occasionally two, or more) object to an edit, or to some content in an article, or makes an edit to fix something s/he objects to.
  • some "regular" editor on the article dislikes the change and reverts it (or large portions of it), usually with an edit summary explanation.
  • the "new" editor will try to reinstate his edit, and this may cycle back and forth a few times, with other editors (possibly) getting involved in the process. this might or might not devolve to an edit war

Here's where you see the divergence between consensus-based editing and tag-team editing.

• consensus-based
  • editors go to the talk page for discussion.
  • there is a committed effort to draw out the reasons for the disagreement, and to accommodate all perspectives as possible within wikipedia policy.
  • if some editor is particularly difficult to deal with, it may have to go to wikiquette or ANI, or some other forum where it's appropriate to discuss the editor's behavior, where he will be allowed to explain his reasons (right or wrong) for acting the way he did
  • if the dispute is simply difficult to resolve, it will get opened up to RfC or 3rd opinion, in the hopes that a broader persepctive from the community will help resolve the problem
• tag-team
  • editors resist going to the talk page, arguing as much as possible in edit summaries. if possible, they will use the weight of numbers to win the dispute without presenting any reasons at all (by out-reverting other editors).
  • on the talk page, there is a committed effort to silence any perspective other than their own, usually involving name-calling, insults, or offensive phrasing in concert. this may involve actual removal or premature archiving of arguments they don't want to discuss.
  • if it goes to wikiquette or ANI, there will be a protracted effort on the part of several editors to hijack the thread prevent the discussion from progressing (by any of a number of means...). the same thing will happen with RfC or 3rd opinion.

In short, consensus-based editing tries to find the reasons for a dispute and resolve the dispute by removing whatever caused it. tag-team editing is a 'strength in numbers' approach that avoids resolving disputes rationally. all you have to do to see the difference is to look at the diffs and see if there was any intellectual movement at all, or just a juggernaut of edits designed to stymie discussion. --Ludwigs2 02:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen any number of consensus-based discussions that could fall under your definition of tag teaming. It is not always wrong to say that the other editor has a conflict of interest or is POV-pushing, but that falls under the name calling/insulting. Sometimes editors who have no policy basis for their edits will drag the issue to ANI or wikiquette, where uninvolved people then post that this is stupid and useless (hijacking the thread). There are often multiple people who watch an article, know a lot about the subject, and share the same opinion on what should be in the article who might revert information they think is flawed, and perhaps they each just use edit summaries. However, those people are not colluding - they just share editing patterns. Under your definition, however, these people are a tag team. In real life, it's not one at all. Karanacs (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, if you have not already can you add the useful points you raise here into the essay? They seem constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Karancs - it seems to me like you're saying that it is OK to assume bad faith about editors in certain situations, and that once you've righteously assumed bad faith you can toss standard rules about civility to the wind. in a word, bull.

1. if you think an editor is POV-pushing or has a conflict of interest it is useless and incendiary to say that to his face; take it to ANI or wikiquette, or better just try to draw him out so you can expose his POV. calling him names is never justified, and numerous editors calling him names is tag-team behavior.
2. if an editor unjustly draws someone to ANI or wikiquette, then the fact that there is no policy basis for it will become rapidly evident and the whole thing will disappear. uninvolved editors who show up to say 'this is stupid and useless' have no real value to add (established editors on wikipedia shouldn't need character references), and only serve to confuse, confound and disrupt the process. I can imagine one or two editors firing something like that in a fit of pique (happens to the best of us) but when it begins to dominate the thread it clearly is tag-team behavior designed to disrupt things
3. if a bunch of editors want to use edit-summary semaphore among themselves, that's fine. but when they start doing it in a conflict with some editor who is not part of their little clique , then they 'are colluding. if they don't have the common courtesy to sit down with an outsider editor and discuss things so that the outsider editor has a chance to explain his position, then they are exhibiting tag-team behavior.

please... --Ludwigs2 22:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from my first 3 or 4 years of Wikipedia contributions (I'm user #188), I've had considerable trouble trying to make articles neutral by including the reasons for some viewpoints which (1) were held by a small minority or (2) ran counter to the "scientific mainstream".

Based on your definitions above, it seems that the users who suppressed the mentions of minority POV were tag teams - not consensus editors.

Has the definition of NPOV changed since the early days? Or does the policy still require articles to present all significant points of view and avoid endorsing any one of them?

If there was a change, when did it occur? And where is it documented? For example, where does NPOV say that when a "consensus" of mainstream scientists support a certain theory, it violates NPOV to explain why a published author, think tank, advocacy group or proportion of the general public disagree with the mainstream? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand... I don't object to excluding tiny minority opinions as per NPOV, and I certainly couldn't speak to any changes to policy. however, if you are going to exclude a view that someone is advocating as an act of consensus, that means that: (a) you have to explain to that editor why the view is being excluded, (b) you have to find out why that editor thinks that viewpoint is important to include, and (c) you have to work with that editor to make sure that s/he too can understand and accept the exclusion as part of the consensus (which may involve redirecting him to edit pages where his viewpoint is important, rewording things so that he doesn't feel like his viewpoint is explicitly attacked, or other adjustments that will allow him to accept the article without his inclusions).

by contrast, telling him he's a stupid POV-pusher whose viewpoint is worthless, and then using group tactics to block him from making changes to the article (by any means necessary, and without explanation) only inflames the situation, destroys consensus editing, and leads to further trouble down the line (because any other editor who feels the same way as the first is going to enter the page primed for battle).

it's right there in your own words, man - if you see yourself as suppressing the mention of a point of view, you're off to a very bad start, and if you're doing it collectively you're tag-teaming. you may not see yourself that way (which is understandable), but that's what you're doing. views should not be suppressed, views should be excluded on policy grounds after proper discussion. can you see that distinction? --Ludwigs2 01:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig, you are assuming that the other party is attempting to follow all of WP's policies and does not have a hidden agenda, too. For an extreme example, just today on ANI an editor was banned for repeatedly inserting extremely POV Holocaust denial information into multiple articles. In this type of case, there were probably lots of editors who reverted without much discussion, probably several editors who pointed out that the dissenting editor was pushing a POV, and probably not a huge amount of policy discussion. It was that clear cut. From what you are saying, however, these editors were tag teaming and should be admonished. I strongly disagree with you that editors who are not colluding and are not being disruptive are "tag teaming". If that is the impression that this essay gives, then I may be the one who nominates it for deletion. Karanacs (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, yes. I am assuming good faith to the extent that I recognize that even someone whose opinion strikes me as bizarre and offensive might have something meaningful to contribute to the encyclopedia. If that editor is in fact acting in bad faith, it will come out in time, and we have administrative means of dealing with that. until that point, though, there is simply no reason to treat them badly.

now I can't speak to 'probably' this or 'probably' that (one can advocate any point one wants with enough speculation). it is easy enough to argue against the holocaust deniers' position that I can't imagine no one ever tried, but if no one did try, then that would indeed be suspect behavior. If the discussion happened, but got nowhere (which is also easy to imagine, knowing the way HC deniers argue), then I don't think anyone could be blamed for more aggressive behavior, but at that point consensus was tried, and failed. that makes a huge difference in intent.

allow me to be blunt. the argument you're making requires you to prejudge some editors as acting in bad faith, and that prejudgment is the problem. tag teams arise (at least in part) because a group prejudges an entire class of editors as useless irritants and works together to suppress them, and that is just plain wrong. --Ludwigs2 19:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Several years ago, when I was still considered an authority on NPOV policy and respected as always following it scrupulously, I dealt with the Holocaust denial issue. I inserted a phrase like, "Most Western historians accept ..." the reality/authenticity of the Holocaust. Also, of course, noting the significance of the minority view, I recommended that we retain an article explaining who holds the POV that the Holocaust never occurred, what evidence they give for that POV, and so on.

The article on the Holocaust (last time I checked) made a clear and obvious reference to the viewpoint of the deniers, but then leaves the issue aside. The rest of the article simply assumes the "mainstream view" that it occured.

However, in the article expressing the minority view (one I find repugnant, obnoxious and disgusting in the extreme in case you're wondering), no attempt was made to prove that they are wrong. We as writers of Wikipedia articles (despite being in the mainstream) labored painstakingly to research and present all the arguments of the deniers; to give them a fair hearing (or at least a full airing); and to leave it completely up to our readers as to whether that minority is right or full of s***. (You can pronounce that last word as sand if you like, but I have another word in mind. ;-)

The main point here, as in all neutrality issues, is that:

1. Wikipedia recognizes the existence of a controversy or dispute, that went on in the real world (i.e., outside of this web project).
2. Wikipedia scrupulously refrains from endorsing or condemning any side in the dispute.

In tag team editing, however, "players" pretend to do just what I describe but then game the system by pretending that NPOV and 'undue weight' permit us to eliminate any mention of arguments which "advance the POV" of the minority. Ironically, they claim to be following the requirements of policy when they do so, but the arbcom has ruled (see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions) that:

• It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
• Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

There are a few cherished POVs (associated with materialism and/or liberal politics) which tag teams have consistently kept non-neutral (i.e., biased). These teams are clever, well-organized, and sufficiently large to crush the opposition. What makes it so confusing is that they always say they are upholding NPOV when they exclude the minority point of view; how they can get away with this in light of the 2 bullet points above astonishes and dismays me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I've seen this. interestingly, though, those 'cherished POV' groups really aren't that different - liberalism always was an effort at political materialism - and they share the same weakness, which is a general misunderstanding of scientific reasoning. it's a fad; it will pass...

I'm curious, though - where is that holocaust deniers' article that has no counterpoint? that strikes me as wrong, and if its still there I'd like to edit it. --Ludwigs2 19:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that the Holocaust (as history) and Holocaust denial have no counterpoint. Rather I meant to hold up Wikipedia's treatment of the dispute as a shining example of NPOV in action; see also Criticism of Holocaust denial. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

I have nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Tag_team. Rather than press my opinion on the matter on this page, I urge all interested editors to participate in the deletion discussion. Risker (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Article focus

I am not sure why a tag team is portrayed as the opposite of consensus-based editing. It seems that tag-teaming could be just a group of editors working in concert on an article in a disruptive manner, whether or not their editing is consensus-based. They can be disruptive for example by violating WP:Civil, WP:NPA, or WP:Harassment as a group while still complying with consensus-based editing. --Fat Cigar 04:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not

The User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing is a userspace essay which would never survive outside userspace. It should not be linked here, as it is simply in a completely different arena from an essay which anyone can edit, and which therefore represents more of a consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Project space essays do not necessarily represent consensus; moreover "anyone can edit" a user-space essay as well. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

One can, if one is willing to live with unlimited reverts from the author. I think that this essay would not survive in its current form outside userspace, and would be quite happy to put it there, and find out. Then we could link to that version, ok? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is relevent and have added it to see also. We could give it a "userspace" heading? Although this essay should be in userspace anyway. Verbal chat 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I support putting Raul1654's essay into mainspace, personally I think it has far more merit that this essay about so called "tag teams" and it would provide balance for this "tag team" essay that promotes pov-pushing and avoiding consensus building. Alun (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent- you want to just be bold and do it? I hate to do it myself, as I have some negative history with Raul. I'll do it if need be, but would prefer if you did. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs editing before it can be put into mainspace. There's a lot of discussion of Raul's opinion and it deals only with civil pov-pushing. Ideally I'd like to take some content from Ed Poor's essay and Raul's essay and create a general pov-pushing essay that covers the subject fairly. Raul's general points about civil pov-pushing could then be incorporated into this new essay. My own opinion is that it would be constructive to have a mainspace pov-pushing essay that would compliment this essay. When I get time I may try to create such an essay, possibly initially in my own namespace. I hope this is a way to move forward and have a counterbalancing essay that shows that so called "tag teaming" is not a meant to give arguments in favour of pov-pushing, which should always be considered disruptive. What do you think? Alun (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see your comment till just now. I copied it to WP space Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. It looks like you have a rather detailed plan for it, and I hope I didn't mess it up in any way. Anyway, it's out of userspace, and can be more freely edited. It is certainly a legit subject for an essay, even though it does need cleanup. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

First things first: What is "tag teaming?"

Much of the debate on this topic, and at the current MfD, relates to what to do about tag teaming, accusations of tag teaming when what is being done is to enforce consensus, and the like. Yet I don't see that we have a consensus description of what tag teaming is, as distinct from meat puppetry, POV pushing, etc. We should focus on that, and attempt to come up with a definition that distinguishes tag teaming from the mere operation of consensus. And I believe that there is, indeed, such a definition.

While deliberate and actually coordinated tag teaming would simply be a form of edit warring, what we need a word for is what happens informally. By thinking only of, say, fringe groups using tag teaming, which is practically suicidal and not really a problem, once the community is aware of it, we have missed the point.

The harmful tag teaming that leads me to conclude that we need the term and we need a good definition of it, takes place when a POV is held by a majority which mistakes a majority view for NPOV, beyond what would be required by WP:UNDUE. The key phenomenon is that a minority view is excluded, when it appears, because it is "against consensus." This is where our gloss on consensus as meaning "rough consensus" is a bit harmful. True consensus, when a group is large, is sometimes an impossible goal, but it should remain one, i.e., article creation and maintenance should always be aiming for a totally inclusive consensus. That there are exceptions (such as true vandalism) doesn't change this. A new editor appearing in an article should never be excluded, as if that editor has no right to participate equally in the maintenance of consensus, which is never a fixed thing, established for all time.

What I've called tag teaming has been a phenomenon marked by consistent edit warring, but with the edits spread out among a number of editors, often the same editors, who support what is probably the majority view on the subject. A minority editor is faced with an impenetrable wall, and their edits will be reverted, even if properly sourced, based on being "against consensus," "fringe," "POV-pushing," which are all consensus killers as reasons. Consensus is an inclusive process. The majority view may remain the majority view, articles shouldn't be allowed to become propaganda pieces for fringe POV, but to the extent that fringe POV exists in reliable sources, it should be fairly represented. And a new editor should always be invited into the consensus process.

Hence what Raul654 has called "civil POV-pushing," as a concept, displays a radical misunderstanding of what NPOV is. We all have our POVs, and none of us own NPOV. Consensus process involves each editor presenting arguments they think relevant, and evidence they think relevant, and listening to others who do the same, and seeking consensus, i.e., agreement; in our case, agreement on article text. If the process is open, it is often possible to find text that will satisfy all sides. As to the same arguments being debated over and over, I can understand a reluctance to allow that, but there is a solution better than tag-teaming, which is to actively welcome the editor, and point the new editor to previous discussions, preferably refactored into a kind of essay about the article's issues, itself a consensus, i.e., the common fringe POV editors have signed off on it, yes, these are the arguments we considered. Then the new editor is invited to correct anything missing from that essay, because if the evidence and arguments haven't changed, it's unlikely that the consensus will change. And then the group of experienced editors, who know how to fairly present varying POVs in a single essay, work with this new editor, cooperatively and civilly.

And civility is the key to consensus, really, hence "civil POV-pushing" is exactly what we need, not something to be rejected.

Tag teaming occurs when a majority has abandoned the maintenance of maximized consensus, and simply enforces its POV though spreading out the reverts. It is distributed edit warring, and whenever an editor is blocked for 3RR violation, there should be a look over the history to see if tag-teaming is going on. What happens then is something that would get us ahead of ourselves. First, what is tag-teaming, specifically, what distinguishes it from the normal operation of consensus? --Abd (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, I disagree with most of what you're saying. True consensus editing isn't and cannot be tag-teaming. However, what I have seen happen in real Wikipedia life, are new editors who come in, make a change to an article which is identified by an established user as going against policy, and get reverted. Most of the time, the edit summary is accompanied by a reason for the revert and an invitation to discuss the revert on the talk page (at least, that's what I always try to do when reverting another editor). Either of two things can happen: the new editor can take the issue to the talk page, where it is identified (has the issue been raised and and resolved before? If so, give the reasoning or point the editor to the pertinent part of talk which will contain the previous discussion), or the new editor will stubbornly reintroduce his edit. If the second case happens, we are not dealing with tag-teaming, but with an editor apparently unwilling to use the talk page to explain his POV.

I will however agree with you that, should a new editor either make an edit which is found unsuitable by other editors, or come to the talk page to raise what he thinks is a point which hasn't been raised before, there should always be a presumption of good faith, and efforts should be made by the established editors to open a dialogue. However, if after some time, the consensus finds that the point has already been dealt with, or that a status quo is warranted, the dissident editor shouldn't be allowed to turn around and make accusations of tag-teaming against the consensus. The dissident editor should, as much as possible be explained the reasons for rejecting his suggestions (be it in whole or in part). My point is, consensus certainly can and should be challenged, but fairly. If after considering the arguments, the consensus of editors decides to reject them, consensus should still be respected. It is as unbecoming at this point to start calling the consensus a "tag team" as it would be for the dissenting editor(s) to start recruiting other editors to force their viewpoint upon the article -- that would indeed be tag teaming.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of it either. As far as I can see this is saying that we should abandon content guidelines and consensus editing and resort to allowing any old opinion, synthesis or pov into Wikipedia, and that we should assume bad faith on the part of the "majority". Some stuff doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia (WP:NOT), we shouldn't allow information to be included that is irrelevant, poorly sourced or just plain wrong. The biggest problem on Wikipedia is pov-pushing by people peddling The Truth, it is not those majority who are trying to prevent the peddling of dogma as "fact". We don't deal with "truth", or "fact": The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (WP:V), we need to stick to our core content policies. Alun (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with Ramdrake and Alun. But here is my main concern. Fact: there is a "Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars." Fact: they or some or one member of this group has issued an official "Definition of tag team." In fact, I am deeply concerned about any select group of people to make policy, and I have serious doubts about their definition of tag-teaming. But it now exists and is on the record. We can delete this essay, we could merge it with something else, but that working roup definition will stand. So I think this essay is in fact an important space for the community to discuss what tag teams really are or are not. This is one place where the community can take back the process of defining the terms for debate at Wikipedia. So people here are going to sling accusations of tag-teaming. We need to make sure that this never happens in a way that subverts real consensus or sidesteps sincere efforts by editors to comply with core policies like NPOV, V and NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

actually, I like what Abd said - it's eminently sensible. I don't actually disagree with Ramdrake and Alun, mind you - they are simply talking about a different issue, which doesn't apply here. the fact is that where there is a disagreement everyone (dissident and conformist editors alike) have a responsibility to resolve it through discussion on the talk page; tag teaming is just a way for a conformists to use their numerical advantage to avoid or disrupt that kind of discussion. My feeling is that having a tag team essay like this will merely serve to keep editors on their toes - they will make special efforts to discuss matters clearly and fairly, so that if they are accused of tag-teaming, it will be perfectly clear from the diffs that they are not. I see no downside to that; it can only improve things. --Ludwigs2 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The essay at the moment reads like a cautionary tale. The twice repeated comment that it is highly uncivil to throw around accusations about tag teams seems extremely pertinent. I haven't been following the main page too closely, but if this statement has the approval of Elonka, I salute her epiphany. Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the uncivil references back in after they were watered down and removed without discussion. Verbal chat 07:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

well, I suggest you take them out again, for the following reasons:

1. it is not always uncivil to make an accusation of tag-teaming, anymore than it is always uncivil to accuse someone of POV-pushing, and as long as the second is generally accepted practice then the first is perfectly allowable.
2. these added phrases are pure hyperbole, and read like a threat (as though anyone who tries to use this essay will immediately be sanctioned). this is both untrue and offensively aggressive.
3. these changes (considering the above) add nothing useful to the page, and simply serve to undermine its meaning.

if you don't like this essay, fine; I accept that. I don't understand why, but fine. however, stop playing games. --Ludwigs2 09:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs. I'll ignore your personal attack for now, please don't do it again and remain civil. Accusing someone of being a POV pusher is, according to policy, always uncivil. By accusing someone of tag-teaming, we are accusing them of meatpuppetry and POV pushing. See WP:POVPUSH. Anyone who accuses others of being a tag team isn't following the recommendations for dealing with a tag team, and is also making a personal attack - this is never helpful. If you'd like to accuse me of vandalism please do it in the proper forum. You could have opened dialogue here or on my talk page first before making such an accusation. Please strike and apologise at your earliest convenience. Verbal chat 08:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the one snarky comment in my post, but I see no reason to strike any of the rest. please do not confuse a proper caution about overly-aggressive edits with an actual accusation of vandalism. trust me, if you ever engage in vandalism (which I sincerely doubt you would do) I'd report you to that admins; short of that, however, I reserve the right to advise you that your edits are getting out of control. --Ludwigs2 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that accusing users of tag-teaming is always uncivil? Accusing another editor or a group of editors of being a tag team, or of partaking in tag team like behaviour, is always uncivil, in any forum on wikipedia (article talk, user talk, requests for arbitration). In a current Giano-related thread, editors have said that accusing an editor of acting like troll is not uncivil if it is true. Why would use of the term "tag-teaming" be more uncivil than the use of "trolling"? If supported by evidence, it seems like a legitimate complaint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be made clear that "uncivil" doesn't always mean you shouldn't do it. If the interpretation is otherwise, then there is no consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Tag teaming is related to POV-pushing, see WP:POVPUSH for the guide to dealing with this, which states it is always uncivil (this does not mean I necessarily agree). Also, demonstrating tag teaming isn't as clear cut as trolling, where you can just point to the problem posts. Verbal chat 08:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it from "is always uncivil" to "may be viewed as uncivil". Policies, guidelines, and even essays should be descriptive, not proscriptive, and there is evidently no consensus about the use of terms like this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What about a corresponding change to WP:POVPUSH? Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of this article on the matter to match that of WP:POVPUSH. I think it's worth it to spell out that such name-calling is incivil, and that there are other ways to deal with it than to start throwing the accusation.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think that there's a consensus on Wikipedia that saying editors are trolling or tag teaming is always considered uncivil? Have you read over this thread, in which an editor on civility patrol was unblocked because an admin thought that he wasn't uncivil despite having called an editor a troll? WP:AN#Giano blocked for 24 hrs for incivility and personal attacks One admin says "'You are trolling' is harsh, yes, but acceptable commentary in a particularly contentious debate when several others said the same thing in a politer way". Another says "Use of trolling may be a little over the top, but this was not substantially a personal attack, but a valid criticism of bad behaviour." Given that thread and the views expressed in it, how can you assert that there is a consensus on this matter? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there isn't even a consensus about the very existence of this essay [1]. Second, as there seems to be even less of a consensus about what constitutes tag-teaming (some editors contending that tag teaming is a possible behaviour of a consensus of editors), there isn't an consensus definition of what is tag-teaming. Under the circumstances, throwing out accusations of "tag-teaming" when the definition of the behaviour is itself still under contention, amounts to little more than an ad hominem attack. Now, trolling is a different beast, as there is an acknowledged, consensus definition for what constitutes trolling (although marginally troll-like behaviour may be under some dispute). When there is a settled, consensus definition of what is or isn't tag-teaming, I'll be gald to remove my objections.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what objections you're referring to. I'm just talking about whether or not describing behavior as "tag-teaming" is "always" uncivil. If describing behavior as "trolling" isn't uncivil than I don't see how using this term could be considered uncivil, unless you have some evidence to the contrary. Don't get me wrong - I think the use of all of these terms as epithets should be unacceptable - but we're only here to describe, not proscribe. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Let's be clear about something: "Sticks & Stones" applies on wikipedia, if the choice is between using an unpleasant label and allowing an unpleasant behavior to continue unchallenged, I'll opt for using the unpleasant label every time, as the lesser of two evils. if the term gets applied excessively or impertinently, that's a civility question; if it gets applied correctly, that's necessary. adding an 'is always uncivil' line will do nothing except scare some people away from using the term when they rightfully should.

and Ramdrake - the fact that you consistently misconstrue the question does not mean that there's no consensus on the issue. --Ludwigs2 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I don't think I've ever come across you before, so I don't know why you feel able to characterise my actions. You have failed to assume good faith above, and made an uncivil personal attack against me. Please strike it and apologise. POV pushing is "always considered uncivil" - I didn't write that, and nor have I vandalised this essay. Your minor change doesn't make your comment civil, and I'm sorry that you've decided to attack rather than collaborate. Verbal chat 21:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To Ludwigs2: using the tag-teaming epithet to describe someone's behaviour when there isn't even a consensus about what tag-teaming is, is needlessly inflammatory. If you wish to open an RfC on what the definition should be, I'd gladly support that. Currently, all we know is that we're using significantly different definitions of "tag-teaming". I'm not claiming that either one has consensus currently (unlike what your post seems to imply - please demonstrate how I "misconstrue the question"), all I'm saying is that pending a consensus-based definition, it is extremely incivil to accuse someone of something which sounds nasty, but which doesn't have a consensus definition yet. In the current state of affairs, it is little else than an ad hominem. Besides, the version I used, is based on WP:POVPUSH, and this wording has gained acceptance in regards to POV-pushing, which is far better defined than tag teaming.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This latest change: "Making an accusation of tag teaming is often uncivil..." is more in line with actual practice and norms. Thanks for fixing that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Will - that correction strikes me reasonable.

Ramdrake - there is a sufficient sense of the term so that people will get the idea; the details can be hammered out in talk.

Verbal - I am sorry that you are taking my comments personally. not my intention at all... --Ludwigs2 01:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you said the changes I made bordered on pure vandalism. That is uncivil and not AGF. You then go on to say "go do something else for a while until you recover some common sense." This is while talking purely about my edits and activities. If you had a problem with them you could have discussed them without resorting to such first-grade name calling. Have you read WP:POVPUSH?Verbal chat 06:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've struck the statements - not because I think they were inappropriate, but because it's senseless to argue about it further. --Ludwigs2 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should get away from accusations of vandalism here. There are definitely strong opinions, and some unfortunate reverting going on, but that's not vandalism. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. What I recommend is that instead of trying to debate whether the essay should be "one way or the other", that we try to allow everyone's wording. For example, on the "is the term civil" question, let's get away from saying it's "always" uncivil, or "never" uncivil, and try to find a middle-ground. How about, "Some editors feel that the term of Tag Team is always uncivil. Others feel that it is a useful descriptor. It is best to use the term with care, as those who are accused of tag teaming, are unlikely to agree with the definition and will probably treat it as an attack." --Elonka 17:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, that wording makes it sound as if the only people who disagree with the definition are the tag teamers. How about "Some editors feel that the term of Tag Team is always uncivil. Others feel that it is a useful descriptor. Because there is not yet consensus on what the term encompasses, it is best to refrain from using the term." Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I still am of the opinion that we should first gather a clear consensus about what tag teaming is (or isn't) before we decide whether that's an objective description (based on specific criteria) or just another type of name-calling. I say that without a consensus definition, it amounts to little else than name-calling.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Unfortunately this is not just a matter of abstract policy. Elonka seems to have completely missed the point with her own unfortunate recent misuse of the term "tag team". Until she can show even some slight awareness of this misuse, I suggest that she recuse herself from this discussion: she is in absolutely no position to lead the discussion here or lecture other editors. Her use of the term "tag team" in connection with articles related to "Race and intelligence" and "Richard Lynn" was highly offensive and without justification. It has been questioned by numerous administrators of considerably longer standing than Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the "civility problem" is here. Tag teaming is a form of disruption. An allegation of tag teaming is thus an allegation of misconduct, along the same lines as an allegation of vandalism. If made casually, frivolously or maliciously, that's uncivil. If made seriously, soberly and in the course of due process, that unwelcome. Is it necessary to have a different definition of incivility for this phrase as opposed to the others that are so regularly bandied about? Richard Pinch (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but if you take a look at WP:POVPUSH, you will see an almost identical phrasing, and no one has raised any objection so far to accusations of POV-pushing being labeled as incivil. Furthermore, in the absence of consensus about what constitutes tag teaming, I don't see that these accusations can be made in due process at this point, as the factual basis for the definition of such behaviour hasn't been sorted out yet.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that until this eassy stabilises with a workable consensus on the meaning of the term, it would be inappropriate to use it as a basis for accusations of misconduct. However, I think it reasonable to assume at this stage that it will end up[ as a descriptor for some form of disruption. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No objections there. All I'm saying is that we should consider such accusations as incivil until such a time as there is a consensus as to what constitutes tag teaming, along with a clear definition of what it is and isn't. Currently, I see two mutually contradictory trends for attempts at a definition, and no real consensus yet.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I took another look at WP:POVPUSH, and there seems to be a differentiation between saying, "There is some POV-pushing going on at this article," and "You are a POV-pusher". It's one thing to discuss edits, it's another to make a direct attack at another editor. So in terms of tag teams, the difference would be whether it was phrased as, "I think that this article is being targeted by a tag team", or saying, "I think that editors X, Y, Z, and Q are tag-teaming". The former would (usually) not be considered uncivil, whereas the latter might or might not be uncivil, depending on the context and venue. For example, we have the "No Personal Attacks" policy, which means one thing at an article talkpage, where we advise editors to comment on the content and not the contributors. However, in other venues such as an ArbCom case, User Conduct RfC, or Request for Adminship, NPA often goes right out the window, and some really vicious attacks can be leveled at the person under discussion.

The term is still going to be useful, though the exact venues of where it can be used most effectively, still need to be defined. What has become clear via the Working Group research (and to many others who have observed these disputes), is that tag teaming does exist, so trying to argue that it doesn't exist, is just silly. Where we seem to be having some difficulty here at this essay though, is that some people are getting all defensive and assuming that the essay was written specifically to refer to them, so of course they're going to want to water it down as much as possible. Perhaps then we need some fictional example case, to help focus discussions away from defensive reactions? How about if we talk about two (hopefully fictional) religious cults of Abra and Dabra, who are trying to insert their POV into the Abran and Dabran articles on Wikipedia, and intimidate away any other editors or admins who they don't recognize and/or trust? Would that kind of example case make it easier to discuss this, without personal feelings getting in the way? --Elonka 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)why don't we just sidestep the problem entirely and say something like "this term should never be used where it violates wp:civility", which is much shorter, less threat-like, and puts the burden of the decision on the editor's good judgement.

Ramdrake - I am unclear what confusion you are seeing; it seems to me that the definition is a long way towards hashing itself out. perhaps you could clarify the problem? --Ludwigs2 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka - I put forward some hypothetical scenarios in this talk page. However they seem to have been archived ... Richard Pinch (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Tag teaming", like "vandalism", is a term that will, if accepted by the community, have to be used in an unwelcome way -- in dispute resolution, for example. That doesn't in itself violate NPA. Richard Pinch (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To Elonka: Tag teaming needs to be discussed in relation to consensus editing, and to core content policies of Wikipedia. I don't think the issue can be made about arbitrary POVs unrelated to reality, as I don't see that there is much contention there. What I would like to see (ideally) is a firm affirmation that tag teaming cannot be used to describe consensus editing aimed at respecting Wikipedia's core content policies. So far, what I have seen suggests some editors may be pushing for the inclusion of otherwise consensus-driven, core-policy minded behaviour in the definition of tag teaming, while many more (myself included) are very strongly opposed to it. I think this needs to be settled once and for all if we want to get this essay to gather anywhere near something resembling consensus.

To Ludwigs2: "this term should never be used where it violates wp:civility" is basically meaningless, because anyone can claim that in their particular case, this accusation doesn't violate civility, and get away with it, as the notion of tag teaming is still poorly defined. As for a clarification of the problem I currently see, please see my comment to Elonka immediately above.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The wording Where we seem to be having some difficulty here at this essay though, is that some people are getting all defensive and assuming that the essay was written specifically to refer to them, so of course they're going to want to water it down as much as possible. is one way of phrasing it: more generous might be "... some people foresee that perfectly reasonable modes of editing may be wrongly labelled as tag teaming and are concerned to make the distinction." Richard Pinch (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Emphatically agreed. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

so in other words, it's not that there's no consensus about what tag-teaming is, it's just that you're worried that it might get over-extended... ok.

honestly though, I still don't see the problem here. look at the possible scenarios:

• the term may be used merely to be uncivil, regardless of what the essay says or doesn't say. nothing to be done about that.
• the term may be used against editors who actually are tag-teaming; it becomes a useful label for identifying the problem.
• the term may be used against editors who are actually doing consensus-based editing. all the editors need to do is point to where they have been trying to work with and communicate with their accuser; the accusation is immediately seen to be false, and dismissed.
• the term may be used in an ambiguous situation, where its not clear whether the group of editors is tag-teaming; it becomes a useful flag to all participants that some miscommunication is happening, that steers the discussion back towards consensus-based editing.

this is not a policy, and so it has no punitive teeth. used correctly, it's just a flag. I'm going to stop now because I feel an analogy to (American) football approaching, and there are some depths I will not sink to. --Ludwigs2 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 write, "the term may be used against editors who are actually doing consensus-based editing." I agree but would go much further - It appears to me that, perhaps in part because the editor base of Wikipedia has grown so much - there are lots of times when someone accuses people engaged in consensus-based editing of tag-teaming. For this reason, I think that a useful essay will make it clear how tag-teaming is not like consensus-based editing (off the cuff, I would say adherance to core content policies, a willingness to explain edits, and a clear interest in why people make other edits are important markers) and how people can tell the difference. More and more newbies come every week and are often told tag-teaming is wrong ... but consensus is right. Essays on both consensus and on tag-teaming should work together to help people see the difference. Also, someone above wrote that tag-teaming is disruptive. I agree, 100%. I add only that accusing people trying to forge a working consensus of tag-teaming is a very common form of disruptive editing and has to be discouraged. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Traveling circus

The tag team concept is very similar to the traveling circus concept identified by editors in this large discussion, which accompanied the work of the official workgroup: User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've added the title to the essay, and also setup an extra shortcut: WP:CIRCUS. --Elonka 23:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent reverting

I attempted to copyedit the essay earlier today, and was immediately reverted wholesale, with an edit summary of, "Too many changes at the same time, and some of them definitely are a departure from consensus so far." Sorry, what consensus? I've read through everything on this talkpage, and mainly I see a lot of disagreements. I'd also like to remind folks that "consensus" does not mean, "We've decided, and no further changes should be allowed." Consensus means trying to find something that everyone can live with. It means trying to incorporate everyone's point of view, instead of saying that the essay has to be one way or the other.

So, I've edited the essay again. If anyone disagrees with what I've done, please feel free to change it, preferably by adding new wording, and we can work back and forth that way, trying to find a good compromise. --Elonka 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD - justify your edits, please. Don't just say I'm doing it again - that leads to edit warring. You've made large changes without establishing consensus for them. Verbal chat 06:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there some inconsistency here? Why yes!. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Martinphi seems to have reverted my modification to Elonka's version. I thought that the sentence I restored in a slightly modified state had been agreed by editors here for some time. It seems to reflect multiple statements concerning the misuse of the term "tag team" made elsewhere by several administrators of long standing, including MastCell and Moreschi. Contrary to what Martinphi's edit summary suggests, nothing which appears on this page is wikipedia policy. This is an essay, which in normal circumstances should never have been posted outside user space. Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this material should be there. I've put it in the new suggestion space, although this could be viewed as weakening it - I'm not adverse to it being promoted again as the consensus was. Verbal chat 10:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone over the essay and reworded some of the stuff I felt was important. If there are still significant disagreements, I might suggest submitting this essay to informal mediation in order to hammer out any necessary compromises. Just a suggestion.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that mediation is premature at this point, but an RfC is an excellent idea, to bring in more opinions. Eventually bringing in a mediator may be a good idea though, especially as a good mediator here would help clarify just what exactly "consensus" means. Some people here seem to be very confused on that point. To be clear: Consensus does not mean "get permission first", does not mean "vote on changes", does not mean "majority rules", and does not mean "the loudest voices win." It means "work in good faith, to incorporate everyone's input". As for how to proceed, I would again recommend to stop with the reverting, and instead try to change things towards a compromise. If you see a change to the essay that you disagree with, don't revert it, add to it. The essay doesn't have to be written as "X" or "Y", but can easily say things like, "Some editors believe X, and some editors believe Y", which will make it stronger. --Elonka 04:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of discussion on this talk page in recent days, and much of the wording in the essay was a result of those discussions. When active discussions are taking place, it is usually considered good etiquette to participate in those discussion when desiring to make a change in that particular area of the article/essay, rather than make the potentially controversial change and ask everyone else to live with it. Consensus does not mean "I added a sentence and now it must stay", it means that editors as a group should try to determine what belongs. WP:BRD clearly allows reversions as part of the normal consensus-based editing process. Karanacs (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:BRD. It is not a policy or even a guideline: It is an essay, a suggestion on a technique which can be used in certain controversial situations, where other methods have not been effective. It does not mean that reverts should be encouraged as a normal part of editing, and if you'll actually read the essay, you'll see that it indicates that BRD is a temporary measure. --Elonka 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that the most important part of the WP:BRD cycle is the one that's most frequently ignored - i.e. discuss. the problem here was not that Martin got reverted; it was that Martin got reverted without discussion. see the difference? --Ludwigs2 05:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec/unindent) Elonka wrote, "If you see a change to the essay that you disagree with, don't revert it, add to it." However, with an edit summary of "copyediting / condensing", without discussion she removed one important sentence which was probably not quite to her liking. In the circumstances it does not seem that great an idea for Elonka to lecture fellow wikipedians on how to edit or reach consensus. Mathsci (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

are you seriously equating the removal of one sentence with a wholesale revert? why don't you tell us what this important sentence is, and we'll discuss it right now. and in the interest of charity let's all studiously ignore your bad faith insinuations. sound like a plan? --Ludwigs2 06:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

When editing this essay there seems no point in differentiating between reverts and partial reverts. However an edit summary of "copyediting / condensing " does not usually imply the removal of entire sentences decided by consensus. I (and later other users) added the sentence back later - look in the recent edit history. My edit summary is quite clear. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ah. so the line you're talking about is this: 'Making an accusation of tag teaming is uncivil, even if the editors have already broken other wikipedia policies such as meat, 3rr, etc., and thus use of the term should be restricted to obvious and extreme situations, if then." all I can say is that your conception of 'consensus' is skewed. this is a line I've deleted and/or modified myself, as have other editors, so the claim that there was some sort of 'consensus' that this line should be included is completely unfounded. I mean, look - basically what this line says is that if all of the worst trolls and sock-puppeteers on wikipedia banded together and started trying to destroy some article, we still shouldn't accuse them of tag teaming. that's absurd, and I can't even see how it made it into the essay in the first place. what possible value do you see in this line? --Ludwigs2 07:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was not that sentence. Here's the diff of my only recent edit. [2] Please try not to over-react. Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci: I asked you what line you were talking about, you said it was clear from the diffs. I looked at the diffs for Elonka's "copyediting/condensing" edit (which is the one you were discussing above) and saw that highly contentious line. don't accuse me of over-reacting when you're the one who didn't take the time to specify

now, in fact I was the one who removed that line, and I did so because it was (a) off-topic for the essay (this isn't about reviewers, this is about tag-teams) (b) unnecessarily strident ('strict application ... is of paramount importance'), and (c) at best partially correct. it is (of course) always important to follow policy, but that will not necessarily have any beneficial effect when dealing with a tag team. I'm open to discussion on these points, but I can't see how you can get around the first or third. --Ludwigs2 08:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not off-topic for the essay. Elonka's serious mistake with banned user Jagz who reappeared here as User:Fat Cigar has caused considerable disruption on wikipedia. This disruption was due to an inappropriate and highly uncivil attempt to identify a non-existent tag team. Instead Elonka chose to back an SPA and POV-pusher now banned from this encyclopedia. The original version of this essay tried to cover up these administrative failings. It is extremely sad that Elonka has been unable to acknowledge these errors, repeated just as disruptively with Zero g and Koalorka. It is precisely this type of highly problematic and disruptive misuse of the term "tag team" that other wikipedians are attempting to correct. Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(edent) It doesn't help other contributors to be coy about this. The question, however phrased, is: is it important in assessing whether a group of editors is tag teaming or not, to have some knowledge of the topic. Mathsci thinks very important, and for what it's worth so do I. Ludwigs2 apparently thinks less important, and Elonka apparently thinks quite unimportant. While there's a difference of opinion on this scale the substantiative issue should be thrashed out here with clear statements of position and arguments -- the debate should not be conducted through the edit summaries in terms of "copyedit" or "revert". Richard Pinch (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

look, I don't want this edit to become an extension of an ongoing grudge match with Elonka. I'll say more in the section that's been opened below. --Ludwigs2 22:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

cross-article agendas

Karanacs,

I'd added that line about cross-article agendas because I thought it was useful. it's different than mere POV-pushing because POV-pushing means trying to establish a point of view on a particular page, whereas cross-article agendas may not care at all about a given article (an example (which I am not accusing of being a tag team, just using as an example of cross-article agendas) is the way some scientistic editors push 'pseudoscience' labels on various articles - they don't really care about the articles, but rather in establishing and expanding the pseudoscience category as leverage in article disputes elsewhere. tag teams would be particularly good at this, because they are set up for distributed action.

I'm not really hung up on the edit, but I thought it was worth mentioning. --Ludwigs2 06:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That type of edit (labelling articles as pseudoscience category) is still POV pushing. The POV pushing explanation does not restrict it to a specific article but instead to a specific point of view. If someone is pushing their point of view across multiple articles, that is still POV pushing. Their "agenda" is to push their POV. Therefore I think that adding agenda separately is confusing. Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Grumble. Perhaps we should remove the pseudoscience category, if the consensus were that placing an article in the category is POV-pushing. I don't see it. But I'm not sure what it has to do with this article. POV-pushing is not, and has never been, restricted to a single article. As an example, consider Carl Hewitt and company, where he and his students (and possibly a few unrelated persons at his institution) were adding his name and views to all articles on asynchronus computing, and some other articles where his views are non-mainstream. If that's not POV-pushing, I don't know what is. (I only mention names because he and friends are subject to ArbCom restrictions.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it useful

Okay, I'm done for now. I'm not attached to the edits at all, so feel free. While I'm skeptical about the underlying idea, enough people think they are victims of tag-teaming that it's probably useful to tell them how to deal with their feelings. "You're a paranoid fool" won't help. Maybe "pretend there is no tag-team; don't let them know you're on to them," will. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

lol - Wikipedia is apparently just full of kind, compassionate souls. I'm impressed. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)