User:TheNautilus

This achived version better expresses my experience with tag teams.

Wikipeida:Tag team
Tag team is a term used to describe editors who work together as a group in a way that is disruptive to an article or project, usually in order to promote a particular agenda or point of view. Editors working as a tag team may attempt to circumvent the normal process of consensus, by organizing their edits so that they can manipulate policies and guidelines (such as 3rr and civility) that editors are required to follow, or by marshaling support artificially, in order to blockade, obfuscate, or overwhelm discussions. Tag teaming is considered a pernicious form of meatpuppetry.

Only a fraction of the cooperative behavior seen on Wikipedia can be considered tag-teaming. Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, so not all editors who share the same point of view are working as a team: Remember to assume good faith.

Tag-team versus consensus-based editing
A Tag team is a term used to describe a group of editors that has been working together in a way that is disruptive to an article or project, usually to try and breach our neutrality (WP:NPOV), no original research (WP:NOR) and verifiability (WP:V) policies. As such, discussions attacked by tag teams may superficially appear to be a consensus, but the end result has the opposite effect of consensus-based editing. Key to understanding tag-teaming is the distinction between tag-teaming and consensus-based editing.

In consensus-based editing, a number of editors, often with differing viewpoints, work together to craft an article that is fully compliant with Wikipedia's core content policies, WP:NPOV. WP:V and WP:NOR. Tag teams tend to disrupt this process. Thus, compliance with Wikipedia's core content policies is a key element in distinguishing between a tag team and legitimate consensus seeking editors.

It should be pointed out that if there are two (or more) groups of editors supporting specific versions of an article or group of articles, either, or both may be acting as a "tag team". A group of editors opposing a tag team is not necessarily consensus-based.

Tag team characteristics
Tag-teamers may make an unusually large number of edit reverts to an article, and edits that assist their teammates in edit-warring. They may use a good deal of wikilawyering language. The tag team may jump from dispute to dispute on different articles in the same topic area, engaging in similar behavior.

Tag teams are typically characterized by aggressive tactics, which may include one or many of the following:


 * They work in concert to circumvent the three revert rule.
 * Consensus-blocking. Tag-teamers are usually reluctant to compromise, follow Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, or consider sourced perspectives or arguments with which they disagree on principle, and resistant to requesting opinions from the wider community. They may refuse to "let the matter drop" at article talkpages, and instead continue to bring up the same matters again and again, usually agreeing with each other, in an attempt to create an illusion of consensus. They may attempt to get a dissenting editor blocked or banned, which if successful, furthers the illusion of consensus. Ad hominem arguments against dissenting editors or the authors of reliable sources may be used by tag-teamers to further their goals. Tag-teamers may attempt to and succeed in hijacking the consensus of Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms.
 * Harassment and intimidation tactics. Tag-teamers may make coordinated attacks at "dissenting" editors, not just on the talkpage of an article in dispute, but also at the user's talkpage, and sometimes at other unrelated articles where the targeted editor may be working, in an attempt to distract them from another dispute. They may badger dissenting editors for breaches of Wikipedia policies or protocols while not complying with the protocols themselves; for example, they may provoke dissenting editors into incivility and then rebuke them for being uncivil while ignoring incivility by their fellow tag-teamers. They may also repeatedly accuse dissenting editors of policy violations without providing proof. A dissenting editor may be targeted for harassment on the basis of their personal beliefs and be falsely accused of POV-pushing whenever they just happen to make an edit that supports their beliefs. Discussion of dispute resolution by a dissenting editor may be met with accusations of tendentious editing, forum shopping, asking the other parent, or a refusal to get the point. Dissenting editors may be wiki-stalked and new editors bitten by tag-teamers. Tag-teamers may refer to each other as great editors while the dissenting editor's contributions to Wikipedia are belittled. A dissenting editor may be unfairly called a SPA.
 * Filibustering progress on articles by engaging in endless debates and other disruptive tactics on talkpages.
 * Behaving as if they own an article.
 * Overreaction to criticism. They may repeatedly rebuke an editor who criticized a tag-teamer or tag-teamers in a way that attempts to make a mountain out of a molehill. The editor continues to be rebuked for the criticism for a substantially longer period of time than would be considered normal.
 * Attempt to discredit uninvolved editors who intervene in article disputes and do not side with the tag-teamers.

Potential goals of tag teams are many, but may include:


 * Pushing a POV or agenda in disregard of the neutral point of view policy.
 * Excluding notable points of view from an article.
 * Coordinating activities to exclude appropriately sourced and proportionate information in an article construed as contradictory to or critical of their point of view. Tag-teamers may try to discredit reliable sources (WP:RS) or the authors of reliable sources. Tag-teamers may also use their preferred sources without attribution while demanding that sources they disagree with be attributed repeatedly.
 * Block evasion, such as when one member is blocked for violating policies, other members of the team may continue with the same disruptive behavior, "carrying the torch" for the blocked member. An example of this might be when one editor is blocked for edit-warring, and then suddenly another editor appears to make the exact same edit, even if they had never before participated at that article or talkpage.
 * Diluting the information that they find distasteful in an article by removing as much as possible or by attempting to delete or merge the article.

Remedies
In most cases tag-teams are involved in content disputes with other groups of editors. Under these circumstances following dispute resolution remains the best solution, but tag team behavior may compromise dispute resolution processes up to a point, by undermining the consensus process. Strict application of core content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR give the best hope. Accordingly, a reviewer must be able to discern mainstream, notable, and fringe points of view, and reliable and unreliable sources; this often requires that the reviewer be familiar with the subject matter of the article. It is particularly important to maintain a cool, calm attitude, since tag teams often try to generate emotional reactions to confuse the issue at hand.

Concerns about editors' personal behavior can be addressed in requests for comments, WP:AN/I and other such boards. In cases where this is not applicable or does not resolve the problem, article probation could be sought by a community discussion.