Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was No Consensus - The essay appears to comply with relevant policies and describe actual observed practice and the policies cited in favor of deletion are not clearly on point; however, the fairly strong community dislike for the essay is important. After reveiwing the essay, which I had never seen before I was somewhat baffled by the opposition. Still, this is an example of how there can be a clear lack of consensus. I would caution the editors here from resorting to accusing "the other side" of the same practice discussed in the underlying essay and further remind them that saying the same thing over and over again and arguing ad nauseum points already made is not at all helpful and such comments were effectively disregarded. Although I note that comments were continuing to come in shortly before closing, they were not strongly one way or the other and there was no hope of a consensus developing, such that this is in fact a SNOW No Consensus. Although userfication was considered, there was no real consensus for that either, even though the deletes were all considered as comments in favor of userfication; furthermore the essay appears to reflect the thoughts of several editors. Some of the arguments show a distinct misunderstanding of Consensus and were disregarded. Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag team
This essay is based on the definition of a "tag team" developed by the working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars, and this proposal for deletion is not intended to be a comment on the work of that group. Its report is a document I think the community feels should be left intact without edits from those who were not directly involved in its development. This essay, however, has been heavily edited already, with 206 edits in its 13 days of existence. Many editors have identified that the "characteristics" of tag teams can easily be applied to editors who share a common practice of editing in accordance with policy and thus make similar edits; and that the essay can be used as a weapon against editors who are acting in accordance with Wikipedia's editing policies to cast aspersions on their good work. In other words, the net result of the essay is to give a weapon to the very editors it intends to describe. I had delayed bringing this to a deletion discussion, hoping that vigilance and the restraining hand of the community would keep the excesses in check; however, just a few hours ago, I note that the working group's definition of a tag team, which is less extreme than the one currently expounded in this essay, was being pointed to in a discussion on WP:AE. I believe that this essay was posted with good intentions; however, while it may have some value to those unfamiliar with non-consensus POV editing, it is mostly a very useful checklist for POV warriors (singly or in groups) to use when attacking their opponents. Let's not hand them this weapon. I will not object to Elonka userfying her original version of the essay, if she wishes, but I remain concerned about its use as an aide−mémoire for the very editors it is intended to describe. Risker (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete from mainspace. I have identical concerns to Risker. I'm afraid that this essay can easily be used against good faith conscientious editors with similar interests who support each other because they consult the same reliable sources. Alun (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom, per WP:BEANS, per the essay failing to instruct readers on how to tell if you are dealing with a tag team or just editing against consensus, and per it already getting cited in bad faith.(e.g. ) Yilloslime (t) 05:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Having read through the arguments presented below, I feel compelled to add that I'm not denying that tag-teaming sometimes occurs, nor am I saying that it's a problem but one that's too hard to solve, so we should just let it go. I'm just saying that this essay won't help—in fact it's likely to do more harm than good. Yes, it's just an essay, but it doesn't do the project any good to have a short hand way of expressing a bad idea that lacks community support. Maybe it can still be saved, and I'm all for giving it time to be worked on and tweaked, but it would be best for that happened somewhere other than wikipedia-space. (So, yes, I would also support a move to Userfy.) Yilloslime (t) 02:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator and the two deletes above. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and both comments above mine. --John (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tag teams are a recognized phenomenon on Wikipedia, referred to both in conversation, and as part of multiple ArbCom cases. We spent some time talking about tag teams in the Wikipedia:Working group on cultural and ethnic edit wars, and came up with a definition as part of our 2008 report. This page was an outgrowth of that report.  It got quite a bit of attention after it was created, but I see that as a good thing, as it helps the definition to better reflect actual community consensus.  The page is only two weeks old and is still heavily in flux, so I think it's a bit premature to decide whether or not to get rid of it.  Also, if the decision is to just move it into userspace, I can't see as that will make much of a difference on how it's used, as people are still going to link to it, no matter which namespace it's in. --Elonka 06:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Elonka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughgr (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. If we deleted every policy that has ever been cited in bad faith...  Well, you know how that'd go.  Further, if you believe the essay can be improved (such as to help editors distinguish between tag teaming and consensus), then propose it on the essay's talk page or write it in.  I don't think this essay is being used as a widespread "tool" for evildoers: isolated incidents of it being cited to advance tag teaming are just that: isolated.  On the other hand, as it continues to evolve and engender strong participation from the community, its promise as a "tool" for good continues to grow.  Give it a chance.    user:j    (aka justen)   06:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Elonka. D.M.N. (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per other delete comments. Whatever the intentions, this is going to be abused. The definition of "tag team" and far too subjective for us to comment on. We already have "meatpuppetry" rules, and content of articles should be decided by consensus according to established wikipedia policy, such as NPOV, OWN, etc etc. Accusations of tag teaming will just cause escalation of the dispute, and people should use established dispute resolution procedures. Verbal   chat  08:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I especially endorse Geogre's delete comment below this. Verbal   chat  12:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see a problem with having an essay of this sort. And don't go quoting BEANS, which is also an essay. Bstone (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: The essay's contribution is nil.  Its title is useful only to insult people and antagonize communities.  Although the essay bemoans people who don't work with people with other points of view, the point of the essay is to label such people, marginalize them, and to refuse to work with them.  The authors can't define their terms in a way that shows any distinction with difference, and so they end up repeating "disruption is bad" and "purpose accounts are bad."  We don't need another essay to label contributors for that.  So, with zero contribution, with imbedded hypocrisy, and with a rhetorical purpose that is not worthwhile, the essay should be deleted.  This is, incidentally, in addition to the origin of the essay in the "Culture" wars.  Geogre (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy as I've already seen the essay cited in bad faith too, as it is obviously in a tug of war to try to make it apply to situations involving good-faith editors merely trying to enforce core policies in having them described as tag teams, and as per WP:BEANS. Overall, this essay does more harm than good.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Bad faith abuse citing essays as a basis for doing something, seen it before, and given this one's name and its shortcut, it will occur.  MBisanz  talk 11:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep at least until it has stabilised. It's obviously still very much a work in progress and some important issues are being hammered out here which need to be addressed somewhere.  So many things are quoted in bad faith, what makes this one special?  Richard Pinch (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alun. I have made significant contributions to tis essay, so I do this with some ambivaalence, but Alun i right ... and I do not think there will ever be a stable version of this essay given what Alun says.  I think we just need to have more faith in current policies. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with those above that this essay merely provides a cover for those who wish to call names.   The essay encourages assumptions of bad faith; the vast majority of the characteristics cited can also occur in good faith, consensus-building editing, but the essay basically instructs people to use the bad-faith assumption.  I think it likely that the essay will become a tool for the very activities it is trying to prevent - name-calling, refusal to listen to or attempt to reach consensus, and disruption.  Karanacs (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I have watched this being edited back and forth and what I have seen in the differences is that we have policy to enforce this. Let's just use the policies as given with WP:MEAT, WP:SOCK and any others.  Why add to the confusions?  I say lets keep it simple, if this term needs to be defined better, then put the changes in the policies given.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, merge acceptable portions with WP:MEAT or WP:Cabals, or tag as rejected. I have not seen a version of the characterization which attempts to distinguish a "tag team" from a group of serious editors, with a common orientation, attempting to arrive at consensus against edit warriors, tag team or not.  The working group's copy is plausible, but still seriously flawed.  The working group's copy might be "userfied" (without giving it a shortcut) until such time as community consensus is established.  Otherwise, ArbComm would be delegating resolution of content disputes, which is not (at least according to them), in their jurisdiction, to a committee of their making.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an essay! If it is being actively worked on, and it is, it isn't "Rejected." If it contains Bad Stuff, remove that stuff! The problem of tag-teaming is real, and that it is difficult to distinguish between tag-teaming (as something offensive, contrary to seeking true consensus) and normal editorial consensus, i.e, a majority position (which can enforce itself through tag-teaming or without necessarily any collusion or intention to avoid broader consensus), doesn't mean that we shouldn't face the issue, and this essay is a place to do it. The key difference between tag-teaming and normal majority position is that tag-teaming typically assumes (or pretends) that there is a consensus already, and so there is no need to negotiate with interlopers, who are simply reverted without serious discussion, which can then provoke incivility. My understanding is that we don't delete these essays or projects when they have as much participation as this has, unless it has become positively harmful. There seem to be enough editors who want to work on it to justify it being in WP space. --Abd (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there has been a lot of activity on this essay but I don't see that as a reason to keep. My activitiy, and that of several others, has been a constant effort to try to get the essay to differentiate between consensus-based editing and behaviors WP doesn't support.  After quite a bit of effort, several of us have apparently come to the conclusion that it isn't possible to do.  Karanacs (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Tag teaming assumes that there is a consensus aleady"? But what if there is a consensus already?  If that's the primary characteristic, then this essay is harmful to WP:CONSENSUS.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a misunderstanding of consensus. Real consensus isn't a fixed thing, it remains open to change. Sure, with time, specific issues become resolved, in ways that enjoy wide support, and successful (and proper) challenges to it become rarer, but the problem with fixed consensus is that it excludes those who did not participate in the formation of that consensus. It is always possible that new facts or new argument, if openly considered, would change the consensus, making it deeper and wider. Considering consensus as fixed gives superiority to the earlier generations of editors, as if they were more knowledgeable or wiser than later generations. (Those who know Islamic history will recognize this as a very old problem.) It sets up a "we," i.e., those of us who were here when the consensus was formed, or who have attached ourselves to it, vs. "them," the great unwashed, whom we define as rejecting consensus.) Now, there is a limit to how much we can do to both educate newcomers as to existing consensus and to remain open to modifications, but, nevertheless, if we don't find ways to do it, if we shut off change, we become rigid and unadaptable, with, I predict, a shrinking population of "true believers" try to stave off hordes of "vandals and POV pushers." That's what happens when you exclude people. They don't like it! In any case, I wrote that "tag teaming assumes there is a consensus already." It's the assumption that is the problem, not the consensus. Too often, as well, we are content with "rough consensus," not real consensus. Real consensus becomes difficult to obtain in large groups, but it's not as hard as we often think, it merely takes patience, and too quickly, sometimes, we conclude that a new editor is just going to argue tendentiously, and is wasting our time, and that therefore the best thing is to get that editor warned and blocked, quickly. You don't find true consensus by warning and punishing, you merely shove disagreements under the carpet, which gets lumpier and lumpier. We are of a size that we will always have a certain level of challenge from true vandals and dedicated POV pushers who don't give a fig about consensus, but, far too easily, we confuse those who sincerely disagree with our "established consensus" with the vandals and spinners, and thus we amplify what we dislike, some of these will become vandals and spinners, to protect the world from us. --Abd (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That also reads as a reason for not labelling editors as "tag-teaming" and discounting their edits, etc. Why can't this be dealt with in Meat or Sock? This essay gives us no new tools to combat disruptive behaviour or to reinforce consensus, but gives fringe and minority editors opposed to consensus a tool instead. Verbal   chat  20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a different problem than Meat or Sock, that's why. And, frankly, I'm worried about this whole concept of "fringe and minority editors opposed to consensus." If an editor looks at the situation that way, no wonder we have such problems. That is exactly the view that will encourage tag-teaming, the identification of editors as being "opposed to consensus" because they have a "fringe or minority" view. Those minority views are POVs. And the majority views are also POVs. True NPOV, if properly attained -- which requires a civil and respectful environment -- will be accepted by nearly everyone, including those with "fringe and minority views." I've seen it happen many times, both on and off-wiki. What happens when we fall into this "majority" trap, mistaking majority for consensus, is that we reject the POVs necessary for a full and truly neutral text. Yes, yes, there is WP:DUE. But most holders of minority views recognize that the views are minority views (sometimes they are even proud of it, i.e., being one of the few who truly understand the truth.) and, if they are treated with civility and respect, they will not object to due weight, as long as they aren't totally shut out. If these "fringe and minority views" are other than truly tiny minorities, there will usually be a place for them. As an example before my attention recently, skepticism about global warming is (presently, apparently) a minority view, and some of it is truly fringe, perhaps, but it's notable, clearly, and balanced presentation of it is essential to NPOV. And we need the participation of editors from these POVs in order to be able to find true consensus. Otherwise we are likely to end up with straw man arguments for that side, something I've seen when "majority" editors seriously control an article.--Abd (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually Wikipedia itself looks at content issues in terms of consensus, fringe and minority povs. If you're worried about editors viewing content disputes in this way, then you are actually worried about the way Wikipedia policies tell Wikipedians how to think about these issues. The problem here is pov-pushing, it's always the problem on Wikipedia, and it's more about certain editors insisting on including The Truth. You portray consensus as if it means majority ("we fall into this "majority" trap), but a consensus is not a "majority", a consensus is when an overwhelming number of editors agree on content (a supermajority), and a small number disagree. The problem here is really tendentious editing. Sometimes content really doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia, and sometimes we have to accept that. Wikipedia does not exist to promote any and all of opinions of it's editors, and it has a well defined and comprehensive set of policies regarding content. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote ideas or ideologies and we're not here to massage the egos of a few editors promoting their favourite "theory" (see What Wikipedia is not). I may be misunderstanding your comment above, but to me you seem to be saying, "let's dispence with verifyability, neutrality and no original research, let's not encourage debate and consensus forming, let's just include any and all points of view equally, and label those who demand standards of attribution as "tag teams" because they are stopping me from telling The Truth". Now I may have completely misunderstood what you are saying, but that's how it seems to me. Alun (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Richard Pinch and Abd. This is an essay, not a policy or guideline.  While I myself have some issues with the content, I think essays such as this have a value in that they provide a convenient way for people to make a point, by citing the essay, rather than having to write 5 paragraphs in the middle of a discussion.  Someone else can write a competing essay if they wish; there are already several matched sets of opposing essays on Wikipedia (see, e.g., WP:PNSD and WP:VINE.)  6SJ7 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per wp:notcensored. I understand that this essay offends certain editors who would rather not (for the reasons noted above, and elsewhere) have the topic discussed publicly.  however, the essay merely describes a current, persistent, and substantive concern in the community.  there is nothing in this essay which will impede any editor acting in good faith, and it describes nothing that is not already used by editors acting in bad faith.  In fact, the main purpose of this essay is to clarify the problem so that other editors are informed - removing the essay will do nothing to solve the problem, but only add fuel to the perception that the essay is in fact true.  Best to have the discussion out in the open in an essay, rather than let it spread through the rumor mill.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Essay is purely an attempt to overrideWP:CONSENSUS and ensure the minority POV is pushed because the majority is a "tag-team". Shot info (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Shot - you are entitled to oppose, but please keep the rhetoric within the bounds of reason. your first point is simply untrue, and your second point (while likely a valid issue to be considered) is hyperbolic and inflammatory as given. let's not turn this into a shouting match.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your permission in letting me post my opinion for deletion. I recomments you give this thing called "good faith" a go.  If you don't want to turn it into a shouting match, try not getting the last word in...it really is that simple.  Shot info (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * you're welcome, though as far as I know you don't really need my permission. and don't get me wrong: I honestly do believe that your intentions are good and that you have the best interests of wikipedia in mind (even if you and I might disagree about what those best interests are, I can't fault you for your dedication). I just get tired of having to wade through oceans of bombastic prose to get to relatively simple and undramatic points.
 * oh, and thank you for your other advice; I'll keep that in mind..
 * The irony...it is missed by some... Shot info (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * this is very true...


 * Keep Per Abd. We don't avoid complex or nuanced or vague issues -or we shouldn't-, and anything can be abused by an abusive editor. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This essay was designed to make fringe promotion easier and to label good faith editors who uphold NPOV and UNDUE as meatpuppets.  Skinwalker (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Well intentioned, but will do more harm than good. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Intentional or not, appears to be justification to ignore WP:AGF in the case of suspected meatpuppetry and similar concerns. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy and Delete' Divisive, WP:BEANS, and as per Jayjg. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (or move to userspace) I don't think it adds anything that isn't already present in better documents. Additionally, it seems to be open to abuse, with people on the losing end of any consensus claiming that it's not a real consensus, it's just a tag team.  See here, here, here -- and the page has only existed for how many days?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. 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. -- Fat Cigar 04:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. In that case you're directly claiming that a consensus can be "tag-teaming", which just supports the contention above by Shot info. It therefore allows any minority pov-pushing to claim "tag-teaming" by the editors forming the consensus. It leads to claims of "tag-teaming" against editors who are merely trying to revert non-consensus edits. In this case it really depends what you mean by "disruptive editing", clearly those promoting the consensus version of an article are not being disruptive if they revert pov-pushing edits and they are not being disruptive if they are promoting a consensus version of the article. So I dn't see how one could contend that editors who represent a consensus can be considered disruptive. The Disruptive editing guideline states that a disruptive editor: "creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view." This can't possibly apply to consensus editing. Your comment exemplifies why this essay is so divisive. Alun (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because something is not in "Wikipedia:Disruptive editing" doesn't make it non-disruptive. They can be disruptive for example by violating WP:Civil, WP:NPA, and WP:Harassment as a group while still complying with consensus-based editing. -- Fat Cigar 06:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Any editor violating such policies should be warned and ultimately blocked. These are behavioural policies, they have nothing to do with content and their enforcement is not pertinent to the discussion regarding "tag teams", which deals with content. The fact that we have these enforceable behavioural policies is direct evidence that we already have a way to deal with civility issues. Alun (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not your right to decide unilaterally what does and does not belong in the Tag Team essay. If the community decides that the essay will cover issues other than content then so be it. The truth of the matter is that a group of editors working in concert on an article can each be individually borderline civil and therefore avoid being blocked but together as a group, adding together all their borderline behaviors, they can be a bunch of uncivil bastards. The Tag Team essay discusses poor group behavior. -- Fat Cigar 04:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim it was my "right to decide unilaterally what does and does not belong in the Tag Team essay." Where did I claim this? I outlined how I see the essay, that is my prerogative. It's about content because it's always about content on Wikipedia, or else why are we here? Behavioural guidelines exist because they help produce good content. If it's not ultimately about content then it shouldn't be a Wikipedia policy in the first place. Alun (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment(edit conflict). and so does your comment, Wobble. your claim that some editors somehow know what the consensus on an article is and can therefore label all editors who disagree as 'minority POV-pushers' and revert their edits without discussion is bizarrely paradoxical at best.  Last time I checked, no definition of consensus anywhere includes the wholesale suppression of divergent viewpoints.  or are you saying that consensus on wikipedia means that we all have to agree with what a few adamant editors have decided is correct?  and if so, should we be expecting the selection of a WikiPope sometime soon?  I mean seriously, dude... -- Ludwigs 2  06:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I don't understand your point, so does my comment what? A consensus is clear when there are numerous editors who agree, have reliable sources to support their position. A pov-pusher tries to remove or downplay a reliable source, or tries to include unverified, poorly verified material or gives undue weight to fringe material. I haven't claimed anywhere that we should encourage the "wholesale suppression of divergent viewpoints" and I'm somewhat baffled as to why you would accuse me of supporting such a move. I encourage the inclusion of all relevant notable points of view that can be verified by reliable sources and always have. You seem to be very angry with me for some reason, and I am bemused as to why. Alun (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Alun, I'm not angry at all, with you or anyone. I may be a bit frustrated at what I see as a consistent misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the issue.  so let me try to be clear about this one more time.  yes, there are cases where some individual comes to a page and puts a lot of effort into pushing a particular point of view.  this is unfortunate, and needs to be dealt with, but it is not the problem we're talking about.  the problem we are talking about is the reverse: when an essentially reasonable editor goes to edit a page in good faith and suddenly finds him/herself irrationally assaulted by a number of editors. and by assaulted I mean finding edits reverted by multiple editors so that it is impossible to make any progress; finding talk pages comments refactored or archived almost immediately, without discussion; being smacked repeatedly with accusation of sock puppetry, pov-pushing, conflict of interest, and hit with any number of insults - even administratively blocked; and then to find that attempts at getting outside assistance (through wikiquette, ANI, RfC, etc.) get swamped by pretty much the same editors dishing out pretty much the same insults and accusations.  I've experienced this myself (you want diffs, I'll give them to you), and I've seen it happen to others, and heard about it happening to still others.  Now I don't know why those editors decided it is necessary to dish out that crap, and I don't really care. The point is that even if I (and the others I've talked to) were Pov-pushing idiots it would be an offensive and uncivil way of dealing with the problem; that fact that we're not Pov-pushing idiots and get treated that way anyway speaks to a much larger and more pervasive problem.  Now you tell me, which is worse for wikipedia: a few well-meaning editors getting accused of being a tag-team by some obvious pov-pusher, or a few well-meaning editors getting assaulted by a tag-team that's decided it owns an article?  the wikipedia world is more complex than that simplistic 'good editor/pov-pusher' dichotomy you presented; up to you whether or not you want to see it.  -- Ludwigs 2  08:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (interjecting) Ludwigs2, I think that that is the best summary of the problem that I've ever seen, well done. :) The only thing I'd add is the case where the "non-idiots" get baited, lose their cool, and then as soon as they resort to incivility, the other editors just increase their attacks since now they have "proof" that the non-idiot is a troll/vandal/evildoer.  Especially when the non-idiot is a new editor, it is very difficult to withstand the kind of assault that can be leveled at them, and these new editors will often take their cue from the way they're being treated.  In other words, if they're called names, they'll respond with name-calling, and then some of the unfortunate hypocrisy of Wikipedia can take over, as the new editor who engages in name-calling is blocked, while the established editors who engaged in name-calling are given barnstars for "protecting the project". All of which just reinforces the bad behavior towards future newbie editors who may wander into the crossfire. :/ --Elonka 16:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * absolutely true - actually, this is a prominent argument in social theory, where expectations of self-regulation and self-monitoring become tools of disempowerment. fascinating, really, but it's almost too much a part of human nature to be called hypocrisy.  part of being a 'cool' kid means being a jerk to 'uncool' kids, but not letting the 'uncool' kids be jerks back.  you'd think that people interested in editing wikipedia might be a little more high-functioning than that, but...    -- Ludwigs 2  01:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2: You say you are willing to provide diffs. Could you please post them here?  I've been watching this page but am unaware of the details of apparent backstory.  If something funny is going on, I'd like to know.  And if I end up disagreeing with your interpretation, that's still communication.  Thanks.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can do, give me a couple of days to dig them up. plus, I'd prefer to leave them on your talk page, if you don't mind.  the last time I posted diffs like this I ended up getting blocked for a day for being disruptive.  apparently pointing out people's bad behavior is worse than actually engaging in bad behavior in the first place - lol. -- Ludwigs 2  03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can certainly leave them on my talk page, or email them to me off-wiki (via my user page). I'd prefer to address everything openly, but I don't insist on it at this stage.  Thank you.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * oh, I prefer to keep things like this on-wiki; I may even write it up in my own space and post you a link. having it in userspace, though, helps keep the wolves at bay.  If I've learned one thing from my experiences on Wikipedia it's that you should always assume good faith, but wear a bullet-proof vest anyway.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of guidelines and policies to deal with the behavioural problems you describe, see Fat Cigar's comment above, we have WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS and even WP:BITE. If these do not suffice, then I would suggest engaging in discussion about tightening up these policies. Personally I think "Tag team" encourages people to assume bad faith and to label supporters of pov's they disagree with as "tag teaming". It can be a problem dealing with editors who think they know the "truth" and want to include only the "truth" as they see it. I think that WP:TRUTH is a better essay for describing this problem though, and it does it with humour. As long as an editor has reliable sources and wants to include a non-fringe point of view, then editors on any page should welcome that editor's contributions. When they don't it can be a problem, I agree. But "Tag team" does not really address this problem, it's almost impossible to define fairly a "tag team", as the problems with the essay demonstrate. I've certainly included points of view that I personally disagree with into articles, because I understand and support the idea of neutrality. I'm sorry that you've had these problems, but I fundamentally disagree with you about the utility of this essay. Let's just agree to differ, we clearly see this very different, but I do respect your right to support this essay and to comment in favour of it. It's the utility of the essay we disagree with and not the behaviour of some groups of editors on some articles. Cheers. Alun (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alun, you're just not getting it. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are rarely applied to established editors, and when they are they have very little bite.  they are almost exclusively used to threaten newcomers (I've even had editors tell me not to use them on established editors when I've tried, with the threat that I might get blocked if I do).  WP:HARASS is about individual harassment - there's no language in there about group harassment - and WP:BITE is universally ignored, particularly once a newcomer is labelled as a POV-pusher (which happens early and stridently in these cases).  And sorry, but I don't feel like joking about this issue, so WP:TRUTH won't do.  Now, I would be MORE than happy to go work on these policy pages to strengthen them, but how far do you think I'm going to get on that when there is this much bloody-handed opposition to a mere essay that tries to deal with the issue.  all of which adds up to one big 'Harrumph!'; I swear, you and Neville Chamberlain would have gotten along swimmingly. We don't need to 'agree to disagree', Alun; we do disagree, and (unfortunately) it isn't a difference that can be politely ignored.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with what you say, I don't think it's an accurate portrayal of the way Wikipedia editors usually interact. Obviously I can't speak to your personal experience, but suffice to say that in most articles and in most cases editors are usually civil to each other and encourage the inclusion of all relevant points of view as long as they meet Wikipedia's content policies. This essay does not address any of the problems you outline, it won't change any of the behaviour you are complaining about, it's an essay, it carries no weight or authority, all it serves is to allow editors to claim that other editors, with who they disagree, are a "tag team" with a link to this essay. As for the opposition to this essay, well this is how Wikipedia works, we have open and frank discussion, editors are entitled to oppose this essay, you seem to think that editors have no right to disagree with you, and when they do you characterise this opposition with insults ("bloody-handed", "you and Neville Chamberlain would have gotten along swimmingly" etc,), I don't think this sort of comment is at all constructive. I urge you to stick to substantive points and refrain from ad hominem comments. The "tag team" essay allows editors to avoid discussion on talk pages and immediately resort to hurling insults. I think that's contrary to the spirit and several policies on Wikipedia. It's what I think, I'm entitled to that view, and insulting me is not a going to convince me I'm wrong. Now you can accept that I disagree with you, or you can carry on insulting me, but I don't think that insulting me is a very appropriate and it really doesn't strengthen your cause, indeed it just emphasises my point, Wikipedia is not about The Truth. I have been polite and civil to you, you have twice assumed bad faith on my part, and resorted to insulting me, thanks very much. Clearly we can disagree in good faith, and if you can't "politely ignore" the fact that I disagree with you, then that's your problem and not mine, I'm happy to accept that the world is a big and diverse place and that other people can and do have views I disagree with, and that they are entitled to those views. Wikipedia works because we do all agree to politely disagree when we edit articles, if we don't agree to do this then we would never achieve anything. Alun (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * well, I actually agree with your first point - this is not an accurate portrayal of the way most wikipedians interact. it was never intended to be: it was intended to describe a small but important set of aberrant, dysfunctional cases.  you may not think this essay accomplishes anything, but to my mind this essay will (after it's fully developed) explain and describe the situation, which is a necessary precursor to resolving it.  Further, I don't see where I've ever accused you of bad faith; at worst you're being an ostrich by doing your best not to face the problem. which is your business - I'd never tell you to do otherwise - but I see no reason for you to demand that the rest of us have to stick our heads in the sand as well.  If you don't like the essay, ignore it - it says that right on the top of the essay page. all this huff and bother about deleting it is pointless. -- Ludwigs 2  00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all I didn't say you had "accused" me of bad faith, I said that you had "assumed bad faith" on my part. Indeed your posts are littered with personal comments about me, a person who you have never met and know nothing substantive about, and statements about my posts that are incorrect: "your claim that some editors somehow know what the consensus on an article is and can therefore label all editors who disagree as 'minority POV-pushers' and revert their edits without discussion is bizarrely paradoxical. (a claim I have never made, indeed this whole post is very personal), "when there is this much bloody-handed opposition"  (an assumption of bad faith, opponents can be acting in good faith you know), "all of which adds up to one big 'Harrumph!'", "I swear, you and Neville Chamberlain would have gotten along swimmingly."  (ad hominem), "it isn't a difference that can be politely ignored."  (well I've been polite to you), "you're being an ostrich by doing your best not to face the problem"  (personal comment), "I see no reason for you to demand that the rest of us have to stick our heads in the sand as well"  (I have made no "demands"). Several times you have referred to my "demands" and "claims", I have not made any "demands" and the "claims" you say I have made cannot be found in my posts. I have no authority here, and I know I don't have the right to make demands. But you have portrayed me as if I am giving "orders" or "pronouncements." You've mischaracterised my comments and position, that's and assumption of bad faith. All I have done is give my opinion and argued my case. Something I am entitled to do here. Furthermore you've made personal comments about me as an individual, how am I supposed to take that? I asked you yesterday to make substantive points and not to attack me, and you respond by calling me an "ostrich". I can only describe your posts here as assuming bad faith because of the way you have labelled me and mischaracterised my posts, aggressively and with name calling. Below Elonka rightly clls into question Geogre's civility, I'm reminding you to be more civil also. Thanks. BTW I do not accept that this essay has the right to go into Wikipedia mainspace unless it has consensus support, as per Wikipedia essays. I know you disagree with Wikipedia's policy on consensus but you still have to accept it. We all have to accept things we don't like sometimes on Wikipedia. Alun (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alun, I don't know what to tell you. you seem to think that it is uncivil of me to use any words that are stronger than tapioca.  would you have preferred me to say 'no holds barred' rather than 'bloody-handed'? the fact of the matter is that you are presenting a particular perspective of this issue (to whit: "those promoting the consensus version of an article are not being disruptive if they revert pov-pushing edits and they are not being disruptive if they are promoting a consensus version of the article") as though it were both factual and relevant, and I have been trying to point out to you that that is (a) not what the issue is about, and (b) at best an over-simplification of the problem.  That isn't a personal attack; that's what we're here to talk about. defend your point of view, accept mine, or drop the issue as unresolvable; but don't get mad at me because I called you out on your reasoning.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ESSAYS. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. From Wikipedia essays: "Essays that are in the Wikipedia project space (prefixed by "Wikipedia:" or "WP:") should ideally represent a consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors. Those that reflect the beliefs of a limited number of editors should be edited to present a view more representative of the community; those that are poor candidates for broadening should be relocated to a subpage of the user that authored them. Would you support the removal of this essay to a user sub-page? Alun (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it could stay in the Wikipedia space with no problem. Or be transwikied to Meta.  Or go to User space.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're neutral? Or still keep/keep in some form? Verbal   chat  14:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I still support keeping it. I just think it could reasonably be kept in any of those three places.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really look like this essay represents "consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors" though does it? And it doesn't look as if it meets the criteria for Wikipedia essays that you actually cite. Not unless there are a great deal more editors to vote in favour and very few to vote against to come. We need a "broad consensus" to keep it in Wikipedia mainspace and unless things dramatically change here that's not going to happen. Alun (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The essay needs work but it has potential. It is too early to decide to delete it because we have not decided what it is going to say yet. -- Fat Cigar 06:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should also be noted above that User:Fat Cigar, who posted above, appeared out of nowhere as a new editor to support User:Elonka quite aggressively in the RFC, which, when it didn't go Elonka's way, led to the creation of this essay as a response. At the time the Fat Cigar account was labeled as an obvious meat puppet, and certainly the editing history after that supports the original conclusion. It seems especially ironic that Elonka and a brand new editor are tag teaming the RFC and the wording of this essay when the essay is ostensibly against such behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as Wikipedia finally has to acknowledge the fact that there are forms of "cooperation" that have been, and are, very problematic. -- Matthead Discuß   06:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning on keep. I'm not saying anything definite until I've reviewed this thing properly, but based on a cursory look, it doesn't seem too damning. The fact is that Cabals Happen wherever you go, and I don't think WP is immune to those (we've seen them happen, right?), and as far as giving ammunition to cabals... well, if you publish any information on what people should not to do, they probably will abuse that information. (Everything can be BEANS!) I'd rather have social weaknesses documented rather than as "facts that everyone must experience first hand and/or hear from others through word of mouth". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. - I agree with that this essay is in-line with WP:ESSAYS. In addition I also agree with, , , and , who bring up some very good points as well. Cirt (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Geogre above. Despite good intentions this is likely to do harm. Tom Harrison Talk 18:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a work in progress, let it stabilise. And the forms of abuse it describes are extremely widespread, from one end of the Wiki to the other. Black Kite 18:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, with this essay in place I would be scared to edit anything where I agree with the majority of editors on the page in case I'm seen as part of a tag-team, and it would inhibit my editing.--Vannin (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Essay was created by an admin in response to an RFC she wanted deleted and didn't get her way. Existence of this essay is basically an attempt to wikilawyer up a rationalization for her and others to assume bad faith about other editors instead of following WP:AGF and to justify not having to treat their edits as having been done in good faith. It's a massive violation of everything Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. DreamGuy (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ESSAYS. If after editing to adress the concerns raised here by those !voting to delete it still does not represent a consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors. - then it might be relocated to user space. But it is premature at this point. !voting to delete based on speculation as to the motives of the creator are not only irrelevant, but a WP:AGF violation, to boot. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extremely useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an essay, and for goodness sake invoking WP:BEANS is silly: most people who edit Wikipedia with an agenda have a social network before they start editing Wikipedia.  This essay isnt saying anything that people dont already know - it just provides a way for us to collate our ideas on the topic and also to define what it is we are seeing. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs some work, but the principles are sound. A  ni  Mate  04:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. An appropriate essay topic.  The fact that there is controversy is support for having the essay.  If there are problems, fix them.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Per wp:essays an 'essay represents "consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors"'. That disagrees with your assessment above, surely? Verbal   chat  08:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't represents "consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors", it should be fixed, not deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment for all the "it's an essay" arguments: Essays go in user space.  This is an essay in name space.  The nominator suggested user space for this, and that would be appropriate.  However, this went from the contentious admin's mind to name space all at once, without consensus, without approval, without working with others.  This is how terrible problems are born.  Saying "it's an essay" is not only not a "keep it there" argument, it is, in fact, highlighting the problem.  It's an essay, and it's in name space.  It shouldn't be.  I say this as a person who has written some essays himself, some that have gotten a great deal of approval, and yet who keeps them in user space, who lacks the hubris of plastering personal opinions in name space.  Geogre (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment. I agree wholeheartedly. Alun (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Geogre, your statement is uncivil, and incorrect. This essay did not spring unsupported from my mind.  This essay was initially a copy/paste of the section at Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report. If you glance down to the bottom of the page, you will see that this definition was endorsed by a dozen members of the Group.  Since the essay was first created, it has been heavily reworked (not by me).  In some ways I think it is now stronger, in others it is weaker, but it is still heavily in flux.  Your statement about essays being in userspace is also out of step with actual practice.  See Category:Wikipedia essays.  For example, Jehochman just created an essay in Wikipedia namespace, entirely "from his own mind", and no one seemed to have trouble with that. In any case, please stop with the misrepresentations about me and my work.  Thanks, --Elonka 17:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, according to Category:Wikipedia essays and Category:User essays, respectively, there are currently 682 essays in Wikipedia project space, and 570 essays in User space. So to say that essays go in user space is incorrect; less than half of them do.  Some of the essays in project space are fairly well known, e.g. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- not to menton WP:Don't delete the main page.  6SJ7 (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ESSAYS says that essays with broad consensus should go into Mainspace, and those without broad consensus in Userspace. I'd characterize this one as not having broad consensus at this point. Userfying would be a reasonable solution.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Elonka, I highly disagree that Geogre's comments were uncivil. Please be more careful in throwing that accusation around. I would also point out that the initial version of this essay went far beyond what the working group had decided; since you posted the essay a lot of that has been stripped out. Karanacs (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with Geogre's point, it was unnecessary for him to use the term "contentious admin", we can at least keep this civil. But Elonka is right, the aetiology of this essay was not her RfC, the idea, however misconceived, did come out of a "working group", but I certainly don't recognise that a "working group" has any "authority" over the community, so I don't believe that because it's the product of a "working group" it follows that the essay should be in mainspace. Alun (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't the product of that working group, although it originated there. It's the product of the community.  Some, maybe most, of the people who have contributed to editing or discussing it so far had no connexion with that group — clearly some of them disagreed radically with the group's output.  I have taken it that anyone may contribute to evolving a consensus of an essay in mainspace.  Richard Pinch (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't claim it was the "product" of the working group. I said the same as you, that it's aetiology was the working group. I myself have attempted to edit this essay, but quite frankly I have come to the conclusion that this essay can never be anything other than divisive. That means that I do not believe that this essay can ever fairly distinguish between good faith editors who happen to agree and a so called "tag team". I do not really understand what a "tag team" is supposed to be, it seems either undefinable, unidentifiable or simply meatpuppetry. As such I reserve the right to oppose the inclusion of this essay in Wikipedia mainspace. I also understand that this essay clearly doesn't have a consensus for being in mainspace, a requirement for mainspace essays. I see no reason why this essay cannot be removed to userspace where it can continue to be worked on. Although I have strong feelings against this essay, I am more than happy to accept that if, one day in the future, there is a consensus to have it in mainspace, then that will happen, even if I still disagree with it. That's how Wikipedia works, sometimes we have to accept things we don't like. Alun (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, are you guys so much a WP:GANG (oh, dear! is that uncivil? I wonder where it came from?) that you're going to take an accurate description "contentious admin" and call it "uncivil?" That's nuts.  Someone currently undergoing a hot Rfar, who previously had an extremely hot and full RFC, and who had highly contentious RFA's x3 simply is a contentious admin.  It's not "uncivil" to note that.  "Contentious" is not "evil, stupid, bad, vandal" or anything else.  "Contentious" is "person who creates contention."  When a user is getting extraordinarily tense discussions about bad behavior, the essay tossed into name space is a less wise move than when a user is getting acclamation.  The biggest thing is that the "working group" findings do not have consensus, were muscled into form, and have not gone to the wider community.  In addition to that, Elonka, who has done the muscling, took an extremely self-serving and fractious personal view and threw it into name space.  This is how problems are made.  This is how Rfar's are made.  This is how troubles amplify.  This is unwise and illicit.  To say "it's an essay" is not an excuse.  It is, in fact, a condemnation.  "It's an essay" is an incomplete statement: is it an essay with consensus ahead of time (no).  Is it an essay that has gone through community review (no).  Is it an essay that represents general points of view (not quite yet).  That Elonka would have to attack me to defend her personal essay is a bad sign.  It's bad rhetoric, bad thinking, and bad faith.  Geogre (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, this essay is only of use to name-callers, as Karanacs says above. For them, its authoritative tone makes it a goldmine. See how all those passive forms suggest authority, as if Wikipedia itself holds these opinions of my opponents? ("I" is here used in the sense of the person reading the essay, on the lookout for ammunition.) "Tag teaming is considered a pernicious form of meatpuppetry." Wow, "I" get to call my content opponents a "tag team", and am thereby empowered to refer to them as "pernicious meatpuppets"? Useful! There is no logic, there are no valid distinctions. There is merely the fake distinction that it's "disruptive" editors who are a tag team. Now, "disruptive" ... that's itself one of the vaguest and most abused terms on this site, that daily gets flung at editors one doesn't like. At least get this essay out of Wikipedia space, please. Is it really based on the workgroup report? I haven't run a comparison—no time—but I sincerely hope this isn't what the workgroup has been doing. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Bishonen, for what it's worth, I agree with you that the essay in its current form could use quite a bit of improvement. I encourage you to participate in rewriting it, as I truly think it would benefit from your attention. --Elonka 18:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. In its original form, this was a misconceived essay verging on conspiracy theory. The confusion apparent in the first version of the essay revealed Elonka's own failure to differentiate between scholarly contributors of long-standing and single purpose POV-pushers. For reasons best known to herself, Elonka decided to enshrine her very personal feelings into wikipedia policies. As has already become apparent from her own systematic and over-rigid use of these policies, the result would be chaos, ill-feeling and wikidrama, completely contrary to the scholarly purpose of this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy per WP:ESSAY, Essays that are in the Wikipedia project space (prefixed by "Wikipedia:" or "WP:") should ideally represent a consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors. From the many objections here it is apparent that the essay will not enjoy "a consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors" in anything like its present form. The essay can be returned to project space if consensus is achieved on a later version. Basil &quot;Basil&quot; Fawlty (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please refrain from making ad hominem arguments; it is just smoke and mirrors. -- Fat Cigar 04:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, so now it's ad hominem to say "there is no consensus"??? Shot info (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am wondering how this constitutes an ad hominem argument. Basil doesn't refer to any editor at all, he just gives his opinion that this essay shouldn't be in Wikipedia Mainspace. Alun (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The colon indenting Fat Cigar's comment was added by Shot info. With that indentation it reads as a baffingly irrelevant comment on Basil's userfy.  Without that indentation (which I have just restored to the position the author presumably intended) it reads as a perfectly sensible and helpful comment on the discussion as a whole.  Richard Pinch (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as to say it is helpful. I assumed that it was directed at Mathsci, as I I don't see how it could apply to Basil, but looking at the history there is no reason to think that (I attributed it to Mathsci's comments only because he mentions Elonka). It doesn't really seem helpful unless it is directed at some part of the discussion. I think a clarification would be helpful, and I've asked FC if he'll provide one. Verbal   chat  08:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as helpful either, there are few if any ad hominem comments on this page, comments are generally about the essay and not about editors. There are a few ill chosen comments about users, it's true, but they represent a tiny minority of the comments here. If Fat Cigar really wants to comment on an ad hominem statement then s/he should specifically indicate which statement s/he is referring to. Blanket statements like this are not really helpful in my opinion. Alun (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know who it was directed at ... hence my edit summary on the appropriate edit. FWIW it still reads like a baffingly irrelevant comment on the discussion overall.  Shot info (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For example: I believe it would be most useful for the comments on this page to be about the merits of the essay in question and not the merits of Elonka or why she started the essay. -- Fat Cigar 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, deliberately divisive. The essay(?) even acknowledges accusations of "tag teaming" are uncivil, and then wrongly states "unless other policies have already been broken".  Userfy as a second option, as there's more leeway there I suppose, but this sort of screed really doesn't belong in project space. Neıl    ☄   12:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - "editors who work together as a group in a way that is disruptive to an article or project" can be dealt with through existing processes and remedies. This essay is unnecessary and clearly does not represent consensus. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's an essay. We don't usually delete those no matter how wrong-headed they are. This version isn't perfect but to me it's reasonable and pretty useful. Moreschi (talk)
 * Comment/followup. Additional deletion reason is that it, in all its incarnations that I've seen, would violate WP:CONSENSUS if the advice were followed.  Perhaps it would be reasonable if tagged humorous. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - an ongoing problem where numberically superior editors avoid AGF collaboration, V,RS,NOR,BLP policies and critical thinking. It needs to be identified, discussed and dealt with as analytically as possible to avoid WP becoming another steaming pile of (unreliable bias).--TheNautilus (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment. The problem of pov-pushing on Wikipedia is a much bigger one than that of so called "tag teaming", it is a well recognised behaviour and no one would deny that it is a huge problem. We've probably all encountered people who insist on including a dubious pov, or insist on giving the pov they "believe" in much more weight in an article than it should have. Indeed in theory pov-pushers can be blocked for this behaviour, but this rarely hapens. This is because pov-pushers are very difficult for uninvolved admins to identify. Identifying pov-pushing requires a good knowledge of the subject at hand in order to develop an informed opinion, and most admins don't have the time to do this. I've seem someone banned for pov-pushing only a single time, and really it was because they were edit warring. How much more difficult to identify so called "tag teams"? Furthermore although pov-pushing is a well recognised problem (probably he biggest single problem here on Wikipedia), the essay that discusses pov-pushing is situated in userspace and not in mainspace. When one considers that pov-pushing is a more established behaviour and a much more important source of disruption on Wikipedia than so called "tag teaming" it seems odd to me to give this "tag team" essay preferential treatment. It should be in user space just like the POV pushing essay is in Ed Poor's userspace. That is appropriate considering that this essay does not have the support of anything like a consensus. Alun (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention similar commentries here and here. But that's fine, soon the civil povpusher will have the ammunition of the so called "tag team" to add to their armoury.  Shot info (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh, the User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing essay exactly describes User:Jagz. I wish I'd known about this essay before. Thanks for that. Also it's clear that the two essays you link to would probably have a far greater support for mainspace inclusion that the "tag team" essay, and yet they remain in userspace. Alun (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur that Nationalism is a problem. In fact, I'd like to think that I was one of the first people to predict the mess we're in now.  However, Raul's essay is far better, and (gasp!) it's in user space.  Raul is certainly no tiny user, either.  Additionally, Raul is asking for input.  This is 180 degrees in the right direction from the impulse that, in the middle of feeling pressured, puts an essay into name space and creates a redirect designed to be overtly insulting.  The truth is that "verification" isn't going to lead us from the maze, and "reliable sources" isn't, either.  The problem is deeper than that, and its answer may require new thinking.  What it can't be answered with is tagging, slapping, and name calling.  Geogre (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Userfy. Geogre's 10:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC) and 10:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)  statements have my support. — Athaenara  ✉  07:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC) To clarify: whether userfied or deleted, get it out of Wikipedia namespace.  — Athaenara  ✉  20:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per User:Bishonen - and it is ominous that User:Matthead and his two main "opponents" are in favour of it. This is a recipe for namecalling and ... more tag teaming, as coalitions will be formed to call the opposing group a tag team. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I also agree with the other editors who have stated that if not deleted then it should be Userfy. Though I have to say that I have seen this essay used to justify edits and comments to try to show that other editors should be ignore by an editor(s) claiming Tag team as can be seen for an example of just one at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine.  As has been said this essay is already being used for justifications to not pay attention to others in content disputes, which as this talk page will show brings uncivil comments and Bad faith assumptions.  I think this should either be in user space so it doesn't look like an official policy with Wikipedia in the title or it should be delete all together and people can use the official tag team written by the working group (though this too brings problems since it wasn't written by the community and was written by a selected few.)  Just my opinion on this with reading all of what everyone has had so say.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the good arguments above and WP:CREEP. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. And keep on. I beg to all qualified users participating here to make, at least, one alternative proposal in, at least, one of the related pages (pages in which the problem is faced), for example:


 * * WP:WORKINGGROUP talk
 * * WP:WORKINGGROUP 2008 report talk
 * * The Great Debate talk


 * Because this BIG problem needs a BIG solution. Go there and move it. Help to find a solution. On the other hand, if I were labeled inside a "Tag team" and I would be blocked-burned-hanged, I would be extremely happy if this is the solution in order to reach encyclopedic content and a nice workflow (what's Wikipedia??????). I see in this proposal one move (SNAIL move, slowly). You'll see if something is done and any solution is reached. By the way, I thank the team for their effort searching for a solution to this problem (yes, Elonka too), also other people in parallel efforts. Respect their work, and please don't use your mouth as butthole just to let flowing the air. It'd be nice to see other qualified people MOVING instead of only blah-blah (from nil till nihil, being entertained on the long way -_-). --Owdki talk 14:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The solution, if any, involves procedures which can be followed, rather than having the User:Elonka tag team block other tag teams. (No, it's not about the individual admin, and the working group is not the tag team.  It's about the tag-team she belongs to, which, although they apparently have the intention of helping Wikipedia, are violating the principles in the WP:PILLARS.)  It might be appropriate if the admin tag-team in question could also be described in this document.  Otherwise, I see it has harmful to Wikipedia and encouraging violation of the principles.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you prepared to name names in "the tag team she belongs to"? Richard Pinch (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See the RfC. Pontential candidates were named there.  I don't have personal experience with those teams, other than on the RfC and chiming in against her recall. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Anyone who edits on controversial subjects observed such teams in action. Having this article helps to identify the problem. Besides, this is simply an essay. Deleting it would be an act of censorship.Biophys (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Geogre and Risker. The value of this essay is nil.  naerii  12:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on the invitation/demand for alternatives: This essay is not the working group. It is not even directly related to the working group.  If people see a wise solution to that problem, then they might wish to help out the working group or, since that is closed, work with Raul.  However, one does not need to know how to cure brain cancer to know that hitting one's head with a hammer is a bad idea for a cure.  I would love to have an answer for the edit wars that didn't involve self-restraint, but I don't need to solve that Gordian knot in order to know that insulting contributors isn't the way.  Geogre (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Alun, and Dream Guy. Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I find myself more swayed so far after reading this all by the Keep arguments and proponents (and this does happen). rootology ( C )( T ) 15:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.