Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:22, 26 August 2008

Wikipedia: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.[1] 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)[reply]

Delete. 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)[reply]
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. [2]) Yilloslime (t) 05:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and the two deletes above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and both comments above mine. --John (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. --El on ka 06:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep per Elonka. D.M.N. (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- I especially endorse Geogre's delete comment below this. Verbal chat 12:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. --Ludwigs2 21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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. --Ludwigs2 22:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete. Well intentioned, but will do more harm than good. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Userfy' and Delete Divisive, WP:BEANS, and as per Jayjg. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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... --Ludwigs2 06:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ESSAYS. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 :*'''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 [[Wikipedia: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. [[User:Wobble|Alun]] ([[User talk:Wobble|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. --[[User:Fat Cigar|<font color="brown">'''Fat Cigar'''</font>]] 06:11, 26 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... --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 06:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' per [[WP:ESSAYS]].  --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 06:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)