Usuário:Rjclaudio/Tag team

 Nota: "WP:CIRCUS" redireciona para esta página. Para the WikiProject, veja Wikipedia:WikiProject Circus.

Ver também: Wikipedia:Cabals, Wikipedia:Assume bad faith, Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing e Wikipedia:Words of Wisdom

Tag teaming (as vezes também chamado de "Travelling Circus") é uma forma controversa de meat puppet na qual editores coordenam suas ações para contornar o processo normal de consenso. Assim como meat puppets, editores podem ser acusados de coordenar suas ações para contornar políticas e recomendações (como WP:R3R e WP:NPOV). Ao contrário de meat puppet, a frase pode ser aplicada a editores legítimos. A frase vem do wrestling profissional "tag teams", em que times de duas pessoas se revezam no ringue, e um deles pode trazer o seu parceiro ao "tagging him".

A Wikipédia encoraja e depende da edição cooperativa para melhorar os artigos, e a maioria dos editores que trabalham juntos não são um tag team. Assuma a boa fé, e mantenha em mente que para quase todos os casos é melhor se dirigir a argumentação dos outros editores que acusá-los de estarem em um time.

Acusações de tag team sem base não respeitam nossas normas de conduta. Deve-se tomar cuidado ao fazer acusações do modo apropriado, citando evidências nos locais apropriados, e seguindo os processos de resolução de disputas.

Tag team x edição baseada no consenso

Em um processo de edição baseado no consenso, uma quantidade de editores, as vezes com diferentes pontos de vista, trabalham em conjunto para produzir um artigo que cumpre com as políticas de conteúdo da Wikipédia, como neutralidade (WP:NPOV), nada de pesquisa inédita (WP:NOR) e verificabilidade (WP:V). Editores podem reverter edições que violem as políticas de conteúdo da Wikipédia; isso não é um tag-team. Um tag-team é formado quando dois ou mais editores coordenam suas ações de um modo que é disruptivo para o artigo ou para o projeto.

Características

Sinais que podem apontar para um tag-team incluem:

• Trabalhar em conjunto para contornar a regra de três reversões

• WP:NINJA editing – terse comments, little talk page justification
• Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article. Tag team members will often revert changes, even if they are made based on talkpage consensus, and instead insist that consensus isn't clear yet, and more talking needs to happen on the talk page. This plays into a tag team's tendentious, disruptive editing style and preserves a preferred version of an article. When discussion is attempted, tag team members will often respond with circular argumentation and a continual ignoring of points made by those they oppose. Even if voices from the wider community come in to show a differing community consensus, tag-teamers may refuse to "let the matter drop" at article talkpages. When the community's attention has been diverted to other matters, tag teams may continue to bring up the same matters again and again, to try and create the appearance of a new consensus.
  • Entretanto: Simple refusal to compromise is not necessarily evidence of tag teaming, especially where Wikipedia's core policies are involved. If the apparent consensus favors content that obviously violates Wikipedia policies, such as those applying to biographical material on living persons, then the information should nonetheless be removed.
• Reluctance to incorporate new sourced perspectives in an article. Tag teamers will often attempt to get an article the way they want it, and then insist that nothing new should be added from then on, because it "violates consensus."
  • Entretanto: Not all sources are created equally, and editors may resist the addition of information from sources that violate the reliable sources guideline. Furthermore, edits that violate the neutrality policy, for example by giving undue weight to a minority opinion, will often be reverted.
• Reluctance to work towards compromise, or to follow Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. Tag teams are usually reluctant to request opinions from the wider community, as that would upset the appearance of consensus that they are attempting to portray on a particular article.
  • Entretanto: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Repeatedly bringing the same (or superficially different) circumstances into dispute resolution forums can be unhelpful, and may be considered abuse of process.
• Meatpuppetry. Tag team members will often write affirmations of support for other tag team members in order to make it appear that a community consensus exists. This often manifests as disparate users, who do not normally participate in that topic area, showing up to parrot support or opposition for a particular proposal made by the tag team. The goal is to make it appear that consensus has happened when in fact it has not. Then, if/when other users notice the proposal and take sides opposed to the tag team, the tag team members may respond by claiming an extant consensus.
  • 'Entretanto: Many editors watch certain pages without participating in the discussions or editing the associated articles. When those editors see an issue arising, they may begin participating in the discussion; this does not make those editors meatpuppets.
• Harassment and intimidation tactics. Members of a tag team may resort to ad hominem arguments against dissenting editors, or even against the authors of reliable sources.
  • Entretanto: Consensus-based editors who are acting in good faith are only human – they may lash out when provoked. Simple incivility is not proof of tag-teaming.

Objetivos

Os objetivos de um tag-team podem ser:

• Forçar um POV em desrespeito com a política de ponto de vista neutro ao dar mais ou menos exposição a um ponto de vista específico como determinado pela política, ou por impor ou bloquear edições que inserem ou suprimem pontos de vista particulares. Isso pode envolver editar o artigo para excluir todas as críticas, dar um peso indevido ao ponto de vista de uma minoria, ou excluindo tudo exceto exceto informações positivas ou negativas.
• Vingança, vinda de um ressentimento real ou imaginado pode ser uma poderosa motivação. Uma vez que um usuário ou administrador é identificado como um inimigo, tag-teamers podem perseguir as contribuições ou a PDU desse edições, seja para irritá-los, para tentar minar a sua credibilidade, ou para mante-lo distraído da esfera de controle do tag team. Se um editor está desfazendo ataques no seu precioso artigo destacado, ele terá menos tempo para dedicar a um artigo bem guardado do tag team.
• Dar suporte a um membro do time: Membros do tag team podem dar suporte a qualquer coisa que um outro membro faça, sem fazer perguntas. Alguns membros podem não ter absolutamente nenhum conhecimento no tópico em questão, eles apenas estão interessados em dar suporte a seu amigo contra as adversidades.

Acusações de tag-teamimg

É sempre melhor comentar sobre o conteúdo ao invés dos usuários, então dizer que alguém é membro de um tag team deve ser evitado pois isso é incivilidade. O uso do termo nas páginas de discussão dos artigos deve ser apenas descritivo. For example, it might be acceptable to offer an opinion that proper development of the article seems to be being impeded by multiple editors working in tandem. This frames concerns in terms of a general trend in editing activity, rather than as accusations against specific editors. It is generally not necessary to use the term "tag teaming" in order to deal with a dispute, though it can be an effective shorthand when describing the situation in a neutral forum such as a dispute resolution noticeboard.

Suspected tag teaming should be dealt with by sticking to consensus and other relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and by going through the normal dispute resolution processes. Where at all possible, assume good faith and start from the assumption that there is not a tag team.

Falsas acusações de tag-teamimg

É normalmente difícil dizer a diferença entre tag team e edições baseadas em consenso. Consequentemente, alguns editores que falham em conseguir consenso para as alterações que deseja podem inapropriadamente ecusar todos os usuários que se opõem a mudança de serem parte de um tag team.

O que você deve fazer se for acusado de fazer parte de um tag team? A acusação pode ser uma forma de isca provocando-o a reagir de maneira incivil ou de algum modo inapropriado. Por isso é importante que você:

• Stay calm
• Stay civil
• Avoid personal attacks
• Keep discussions based on the content of the article, and not on the contributors.
• Stay fair. A common problem on Wikipedia is when editors point out policy infractions from opposing editors, but ignore or condone the same infractions from editors on "their side". This kind of behavior, rooted in a common cognitive bias, may be regarded as "tag-teamish", even if it isn't a specific tag team. So to avoid even a perception of being a tag team, ensure that policies and guidelines are being adhered to equally. If you see someone being uncivil even if they're on your side—make that especially if they're on your side—point it out to them, and ask for calm. This can be an excellent way to de-escalate the dispute, as the "friendly" editor may be more likely to listen to you if they see you as an ally, and the "opponent" editor may calm down if they see that policies are being enforced equally. This goes not just for incivility, but other policies as well. For example, if the "opponent" editor is being chastised for adding information without sources, then it's essential that all other editors are also held to the same standard of using sources.

Ultimately, don't let false charges intimidate you. Just stay calm and civil, abide carefully by all policies, and treat everyone fairly. In an ideal world the truth of the matter should be apparent to outside observers.

Remédios

It is often not possible to determine whether users are acting as a tag team or are truly engaged in consensus-based editing. However, it is particularly important to maintain a cool, calm attitude, since tag teams – and those who accuse others of behaving as a tag team – may try to generate emotional reactions to confuse the issue at hand.

No sure method can be recommended for identifying or dealing with a suspected tag team, but the following strategies have been proposed:

• Engage in good faith discussion to determine whether or not participants are communicating fairly and effectively. Assume good faith, try to build consensus, and work through the normal dispute resolution process.
• In the case of a content dispute, strict application of core content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR is of paramount importance.
• Civility is an essential part of the Wikipedia code of behaviour and should be maintained.
• File a Request for comment, and ask for additional outside opinions at relevant noticeboards, such as the reliable sources noticeboard, to determine a wider consensus. Ideally, you will be able to attract the opinions of reviewers who are familiar with the subject matter, and will be able to discern mainstream, notable, and fringe points of view.
• Don't go after the team as a whole, but focus on specific policy violations by individual editors. Concerns about user conduct can be addressed in requests for comments, WP:AN/I and other such boards.
• Request the attention of third parties, perhaps by posting at the administrators' noticeboard.
• Check if the article is in an increased supervision area, by reviewing the categories at Wikipedia:General sanctions. Look also to see if any of the editors are under specific sanctions, at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

Note that if there are two, or more, groups of editors supporting specific versions of an article or group of articles, or even a group of editors claiming to be fighting a tag team, none, any or all of these groups may end up acting as a disruptive tag team, so be cautious. A group of editors opposing a tag team must be careful to stay within policy, and must make genuine good faith efforts to build consensus, and to seek outside opinions. The methods of tag teaming should never be used to combat perceived tag teaming; Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Accusations of tag teaming do not give any extra rights or privileges to revert, or to otherwise act outside of policy, when dealing with those editors or their edits.

Finally, consider the possibility that you may be mistaken. While it can be frustrating when one's edits are repeatedly resisted, what looks to you like a tag team may instead be editors who are more knowledgeable about the topic at hand, more familiar with the nuances of content policies, or otherwise working within the goals of Wikipedia.

Sugestões para terceiros

• Determine to what extent additional subject knowledge may be necessary to resolve the dispute.
• Identify the key participants in an article or topic area.
• Examine accusations that are being made. It is particularly important that any accusations be accompanied with evidence. Review the diffs to ensure that they back up the accusations.
• Examine the situation in detail so as to build a complete picture. Just looking at a few diffs may not give sufficient context to understand the editing environment that led to the accusations. A superficial view of the situation may also play into the hands of those who bait others into lashing out.
• Check contribution histories, to see if any of the potential tag-teamers are sockpuppets or throwaway accounts.
• Tag-team editors can sometimes be identified because they spend very little time actually editing articles, and instead simply jump from dispute to dispute.
• Check block logs.
• Determine whether administrator action is required.

Sugestões para administradores

As vezes o melhor modo de ligar com um tag team é obter a atenção de um administrador. Se um artigo afetado por colocado em observação por um administrador, será mais difícil para o tag team ser efetivo.

• Administradores devem seguir as sugestões para terceiros na seção acima, especialmente em termos de analisar as evidências.
• Check to see if any of the editors or affected articles are within the scope of an increased supervision area, via the lists at Wikipedia:General sanctions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions
• If admins observe any editors who have a history of making false accusations, those editors should be treated as disruptive, and warned, banned, or blocked as necessary.
• Check to see if policies are being enforced fairly. If a group of editors is insisting that the rules need to be enforced only on "opposing" editors, and not on editors on "their side", then this may be tag-teaming behavior. Thoroughly examine the history of the dispute to verify such claims and counter-claims. Policies must be enforced evenly.

Ver também

• en:Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report#Definition of tag team
• en:Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• en:Wikipedia:Canvassing
• Wikipedia:Consenso
• en:Wikipedia:Gaming the system
• en:Wikipedia:Griefing
• en:Wikipedia:Cabals
• Wikipédia:Troll
• Wikipedia:Conta de propósito único
• Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets
• Wikipedia:Assumir a boa fé
• en:Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing
• en:Wikipedia:Describing points of view
• en:Leaderless resistance

Ligações externas

• Meatball:DefendEachOther