Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-27 Spoiler

Tony says, "If there were any significant opposition to removal of unnecessary spoiler tags, the one or two people regularly doing removals would not be able to keep up with it. That there is no significant opposition suggests extremely strongly that there is consensus for this guideline. In time I expect the spoiler tag to become a thing of the past, as it already is for most fiction projects." I've just spent an hour re-adding the same spoiler tags I added last night, and justifying their inclusion, and I fully expect my edits to be reverted within the hour. I don't have all day to spend whipping the river. It is not as easy as Tony claims to keep up with the spoiler patrol. (It's also observably more than "one or two people", since three or four people have been reverting my edits.) --Jere7my 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jere7my, dear, what you have been doing is edit warring with several other editors. Consensus is not with you.  Please stop being a silly sausage. --Tony Sidaway 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Gosh — and here I was thinking it was your spoiler patrol that was edit warring. Collaborating to get around the three-revert rule, making wholesale changes without justification on talk pages to further your own agenda — these are acceptable tactics for you? --Jere7my 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, I've had it. Since you're now accusing other editors of 'collaborating' in a master plot to destroy spoilers, I would ask that you just... stop... talking. You're actually saying that everyone's talking over IRC, mails et al so that they can get around the 3RR? That's ludicrous, frankly. Tony is right. The current guideline was achieved by consensus, and you're just trying to buck it. David Fuchs 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that, at present, I do not intend to participate in this mediation. I've been finding discussion on individual talk pages of articles almost without exception fruitful, and I intend to continue in that vein. At this point, the discussion at Spoiler has degenerated into ridiculous accusations, and I've little investment left in it - I'll just work in the article space, as always without any mechanical assistance, and come to consensus there, as I have on a number of articles already. Phil Sandifer 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll participate in the discussion here. As I think it would prejudice the chance of resolution, I'll stop all spoiler-related edits.  --Tony Sidaway 00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy's point of view

 * Note: This discussion was moved here from the case page, in an effort to keep that page clean.


 * The pro-spoiler crowd appear to be forum-shopping. They also appear to be unwilling to justify inclusion of spoiler tags on an article-by-article basis, as they have been repeatedly invited to do.  The onus is always on the editor seeking to include content to justify its inclusion, and we do not, as an encyclopaedia, routinely include essentially self-referential templates; we include them only where they are plainly justified.  Three Little Pigs is not one such place, neither is the Book of Ruth or any of the other farcical examples discussed at length.  The simple fact is, people were adding these tags indiscriminately, and got carried away.  Tony and David boldly fixed that, and the encyclopaedia has not suffered at all as a result.  Indeed, we have stopped ourselves from looking completely ridiculous in many articles.  By common consent the vast majority of spoiler tags were redundant or unjustified, the usual guesstimate being of the order of 99%; no credible reason has been proposed why the encyclopaedia would be better off with them back in, there is also no evidence that the involved parties intend to remove them again (since they are gone) so no future problem to solve.  All the pro-spoiler crowd need to do is wander off to the articles they think need spoiler tags, and write a justification on talk.  Simple.  Guy (Help!) 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments, Guy, but I've been doing exactly that for the last hour and a half and getting my spoiler tags removed wholesale. To say "there is also no evidence that the involved parties intend to remove them again" is blatantly false — the same few people have been re-removing spoiler tags left and right, even after several different people reinstated them. (It is also, of course, much harder to reinstate spoiler tags and justify them than it is to remove them without justification, particularly since some members of the spoiler patrol have been using scripts.) --Jere7my 17:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right. The recent discussion at Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved is a perfect example. JimmyBlackwing 18:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The pro-spoilerist would perhaps discuss this article-by-article, but remember, it was the anti-spoilerists who drafted and started enforcing the current spoiler warning guideline. Samohyl Jan 18:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I would like to see 45,000 justifications in the Talk sections of the articles which had their tags deleted. --Jere7my 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Jere7my is being reverted, not only by editors listed here, but by third parties, too . It really isn't just some odd chaps going around removing spoiler tags.  All the evidence points to spoiler tags being generally unwelcome.  --Tony Sidaway 19:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Woah, dude, how is this not a personal attack? Sounds a lot like "ignore this guy's comments, he's being a troublemaker elsewhere." Let Jere7my have his say without personalized annotation. David Spalding ( ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. To be fair to Tony, I've been getting hot under the collar myself. I'm going to try to back out of this argument, since I'm not sure I can be fairminded at the moment. --Jere7my 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "All the evidence points to" is a weasel phrase. You are again trying to manhandle consensus into existence where none exists. I am, essentially, the sole author on the page you linked to; the page hadn't been significantly edited since my last revision months ago.  But now, by coincidence, spoiler tags are being removed by people who've never read the books? Are you really claiming the spoiler tags are not being removed by partisans in this debate — that those edits are all being made by Gene Wolfe fans who are good judges of what is and isn't a significant spoiler? --Jere7my 19:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I find there are all kinds of arguments used against reinstatement of spoilers on individual cases, including circular logic (e.g. there's a clear consensus, only because there wasn't a massive reaction by volunteer editors to a massive edit performed with automated tools) and (ugh) user-education issue. Oh, you mean that lacking any other reasons to respect the opposing point of view, it's the point of view of an idiot who doesn't know how to wiki-edit? Balderdash. ... I've seen instances where a regular editor of a page made compelling and reasoned arguments to reinstate a spoiler, and has been "shouted down" by other editors who hadn't made contributions to the page prior to tag-blitzing. So even when "reasoned discussion" is said to be occurring on reinstatement, I'm just seeing a lot of bullying and exercise of "I'm more Wiki than you" antagonism. The long-term result of this editor warring and bullying is that good editors will give up and leave, and the WP community will be tainted by tolerance of this gross violation of wikiquette. What would I change? Frankly, I'd ask Tony and others who have so aggressively pursued this issue to cease and desist from acting on it, and let the enertia, discussion, and case-by-case activities sort themselves out. Damage has been done, a movement launched, now let go and see what happens. You might get your way more effectively through ahimsa than by shield-chewing. BTW, before someone claims I'm violating WP:NPA, I have to point out that those who make themselve into public figures are expected to tolerate being discussed. Nothing personal about it all. David Spalding ( ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as an aside, I find there are so many wikiquette suggestions being ignored frequently in this Spoiler War. A handful include:
 * Treat others as you would have them treat you – even if they are new. (emphasis added)
 * Work toward agreement.
 * Be civil.
 * Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
 * If you're arguing, take a break. (This is a big one. Some of the more vocal proponents are just wasting energy thinking that "more vocal" means "more compelling." Sit back and read a book for a change, eh?)
 * Take it slowly. If you're angry, take time out instead of posting or editing.
 * Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism.
 * Remind yourself that these are people you're dealing with. They are individuals with feelings and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to treat others with dignity.
 * "treat others as you want them to treat you."
 * David Spalding ( ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * David, Jere7my, I think you both need to relax a bit. Posturing will not serve you here. To enter mediation, we all have to be able to communicate honestly with one another.  David, I've found you entering discussions on article talk pages and trying to poison the well with personal attacks.  Jere7my you barely squeaked by without a block because you promptly reverted at least one of your two 3RR violations today.  Let's act to cool things down.  I will stop all spoiler-tag related editing.  This should help a little. The rest is up to you. We're here to discuss and fix the rift, not broaden it. --Tony Sidaway 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right about relaxing. Thank-you for the gesture of stopping editing. It goes a long way. Perhaps you can convince Phil to participate in the mediation? I really think it would be for the best. -Kieran 02:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "David, I've found you entering discussions on article talk pages and trying to poison the well with personal attacks." Woah, REALLY? No one's called my attention to this on my Talk page. Can you provide quoted examples of my attacking or slandering an individual? I generally take a moment to ensure against a personal argument, and so would be very interested to see what statements you think were. TIA. -- David Spalding (  ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 20:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you forgot this, one of the most appalling personal attacks I've ever seen on a talk page. --Tony Sidaway 07:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I was pretty hot under the collar when I posted that. I've seen worse. I've read numerous comments by you in the past in which you referred ot readers/editors who want spoilers with adjectives like "silly and perverse," "stupid," needing to work out " [personal] problems." Anyway. I don't think it's fair to draw a conclusion that I'm acting in bad faith in general ("entering discussions on article talk pages and trying to poison the well") based on one ill-conceived comment, particularly when I can point to many posts by yourself which also display lapses in diplomacy. We both need to chill out. David Spalding (  ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 13:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this would be the boiling point here.
We now have two pointless Wikidramas. Both are really annoying, neither can be avoided, and both wouldn't happen if people would stop using IAR as a sword. Seriously, it does not matter if there is consensus to remove 44976 spoiler warnings. There may well be. But there are rules that say AWB can not be used to do those 44976 removals. The rule is there because it is not possible to have a meaningful discussion when one opinion has an automated (no, clicking almost mindlessly does not make it less automated) tool to enforce it. Either you people are going to have to majorly reevaluate your opinion of "I'll ignore this rule because I feel like it and it won't change the result!", or something really bad is going to happen. By the way, could someone please AWB all the infoboxes away? I don't like them because they're redundant. -Amarkov moo! 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of possible compromise #1

 * This discussion was moved here from the case page


 * That's completely bureaucratic and against WP:CREEP. If nobody responded after a notice being placed on the talk page, the editor should be allowed to add the warning, rather than jumping through a series of legalistic hoops. If somebody then wanted to challenge it after the fact, they could do so on the talk page. --tjstrf talk 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I would say further, that several of these elements are already in place, and they haven't worked yet. A "consensus" cannot be feasibly reached unless there is a firm guideline in place to agree on. Right now, all we have is "compelling reason", which is completely subjective, and it causes needless disputes over what, exactly, "compelling" is. If something more substantial was put into practice, the rest might fall into place. JimmyBlackwing 04:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So, what you propose is - correct me if I am wrong - to change the guideline back as it was before the whole debate started (for example to - last version in April 2007) and forget about mass removals of many spoiler warnings. The addition of any spoiler warning would be discussed on the articles' talk page, as appropriate. I think this is an acceptable proposal,  though I still find the process to add the warning quite complex (there are no such processes for other tags, as far as I know). Samohyl Jan 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would cautiously suggest that, if I've understood it correctly, the proposed solution is too broad in scope--it involves creating a new bureaucratic process to be followed by people not party to this dispute. Perhaps we should focus on the alleged conduct issues.  I don't think I can agree to be party to a mediated negotiation of Wikipedia policy which is effectively closed to all except a very limited subset of Wikipedians: to wit, the parties to this informal mediation. --Tony Sidaway 04:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several spoiler warnings that have been discussed on the associated talk pages and have drawn consensus to remain for various lengths of time. These have been left on the articles for a few days now and are not the subject of dispute to my knowledge. Removing them would be less than ideal. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 06:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tony: there is no need for a new process, it's just editorial judgement. If people think a spoiler tag is justified in an article, all they need to do is justify it on Talk.  Adding a self-referential tag without any justification is, of course, likely to be reverted, but it should not be too hard to write a justification if the plot device or whatever is genuinely considered a spoiler by independent authorities, and if the work is sufficiently new that people might reasonably be expected not to know it.  I haven't seen any informed dissent from the view that stating the plot sections may contain plot details is pretty silly, and most of the uses of the spoiler tag were redundant or plain silly, so I am not actually persuaded that there is a problem here to solve (other than an apparent lack of willingness to justify tagging individual articles. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay then looking at the above comment, all that needs to be done is people justifying why the spoiler tags should be in the article on the talk page. If there are any objections then it can be discussed on the talk page and removed if there is consensus to do so. Fun  Pika  10:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is substantively what we have now, but adding an additional step that hampers those who want to add a spoiler tag by requiring them to justify it on the talk page. This was rejected as overly bureaucratic during early discussion of the guideline.  I don't see why they shouldn't just add a tag where it seems to them to be appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 11:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically that means spoiler warnings are just like any content: if there is a dispute, the editor wishing to include the warnings should justify it on the talk page, and see if there is consensus for the inclusion. If normal editing rules are sufficient, there is no need for extra bureaucracy. While a rule that says spoiler warnings should never be used would be a simpler solution, there does not seem to be consensus for that at the current moment. Kusma (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is seriously imbalanced. The spoiler warnings can be removed with no discussion, but they require discussion to be added.  Unsurprisingly, the result of this is that all the warnings get removed.
 * These spoiler warnings already existed. Removing 45000 of them is a change in the status quo.  I think it goes against at *least* the spirit of the rules to remove them and then require individual justifications for each one to add them back.  "If there is a dispute, the editor wishing to include should justify it" is sensible for a normal content dispute, but is not sensible when people object to a mass removal.
 * Moreover, when I actually tried to justify one of these on the talk page (Talk:Sakura_Wars), the arguments made against my justification were that controversial parts of the spoiler guideline were really established rules. The person deleting spoiler warnings would not be convinced that the controversial parts are bad ideas, or even that they are disputed.  The result is that any attempt to argue over a spoiler warning results in no agreement, so the spoiler warning stays deleted.  Saying that each warning must be justified isn't a compromise, since the spoiler warning will stay deleted every time as long as the anti-spoiler crowd doesn't agree--and of course, they'll never agree in more than a few dozen cases out of 45000.
 * It's also circular reasoning. We were told that the fact that nobody put the warnings back *proves* consensus for the spoiler policy.  Now the policy is being used to *justify* not putting the warnings back. Ken Arromdee 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Removal should probably have some sort of discussion as well. Fun  Pika  14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, and good luck getting it done. We all know that 45000 removals will not be accompanied by 45000 discussions. Ken Arromdee 14:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've already indicated, I've stopped adding or removing spoiler tags for now, but if I were to resume I wouldn't find it at all onerous to accompany all removals by a note on the talk page explaining the removal (in addition to the edit summary which, while usually explanatory, not everybody will see). --Tony Sidaway 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I should, I think, also remark that when David Gerard removed some 20,000 spoiler tags, he accompanied each removal by an edit summary which in each case explained why he was removing that particular tag from that particular article . So it wasn't as robotic as Ken has often represented it. --Tony Sidaway 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Those edit summaries are not discussions; he's not going to have 20000 discussions. A generic explanation like "(rm per WP:SPOILER (redundant with section title)" not only isn't a discussion, it seeks to *prevent* discussing of the issues by implying that "spoiler warnings shouldn't be redundant with section titles" is accepted policy.  One of the biggest problems with this spoiler guideline is that its proponents refuse to recognize that parts of it are controversial.  Edit summaries which elevate controversy into unassailable truth are part of what's wrong.  Ken Arromdee 15:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... 'redundant with section title' is a valid reason for removal, as you'll see from WP:SPOILER. It was established that spoiler tags should not be put in sections labeled 'plot', etc. David Fuchs 20:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. That's one of my other points.  This idea isn't established, and it's not consensus.  But it's being treated by spoiler warning deletionists as consensus, has been forced into the policy page, and has been used as a convenient excuse to delete spoilers.  One of the big problems is that spoiler warning opponents treat controversial ideas as established policyd.  Treating "no spoilers in plot sections" as established policy is a prime example of that problem. Ken Arromdee 19:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The wording would be tricky, but can we put in something about it being bad to do nothing but go to established articles with a bunch of friends for the sole purpose of outnumbering the regular editors and thus proving 'consensus' - either for adding OR removing. If your only interest in article after article is spoiler tags, there're so many more useful things you could be doing rather than starting edit war after edit war... Kuronue 14:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, and I'll say it here again. I think that any serious compromise has to include some rule of 'no going on crusades', otherwise it's prone to abuse by the fanatical.  This is both for people who want to remove spoilers, and people who want to add them, because this is a controversial issue, and anyone who is doing that is clearly biased in one way or the other, and in some senses are attempting to WP:OWN the 'spoiler debate'.
 * I know WP:OWN mostly refers to articles, but the principles behind it seem to apply here, as what many of the pro-warning people are particularly objecting to is that a small number of anti-warning editors (and it really, really doesn't matter if they're cooperating or just have independant similar goals and ideals) who use the search tools to find instances of spoilers, jump into debates, and generally speaking, call for the removal of the warning. In effect, they're claiming for themselves the right to judge all spoiler debates.  The effect of this is that a small number of determined editors can outnumber a much larger number of individual editors who aren't on a crusade.  (However, to be even-handed, the rules would prevent both directions of crusaders, even though it's much harder for spoiler-adders to go on such crusades, no matter how much they might want).
 * I don't know exactly _how_ to prevent such crusades, whether it might be a good idea to limit the number of spoiler warnings removed or added per day per person, (at least in edits that seem solely designed to do one or the other, rather than general improvement that also happens to include that), or just a general agreement that if you're doing this, your vote simply doesn't count as you're operating against the guideline, or maybe some modification of the same style agreement about British vs. American spellings of words as Nydas once suggested, but I truly believe we can't get anywhere in this debate without it, or without arbitration from on high. With a no-crusading rule in place, we can get a much more accurate idea of what the actual consensus is on the issue, and could all more easily focus on altering the guideline itself to match.   Wandering Ghost 15:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see if I can advance things by acknowledging the concerns expressed here:
 * JimmyBlackwing expresses concern at the wording of the guideline: "compelling reason", which is completely subjective, and it causes needless disputes over what, exactly, "compelling" is.
 * Ken Arromdee has numerous concerns:
 * The spoiler warnings can be removed with no discussion, but they require discussion to be added.
 * "If there is a dispute, the editor wishing to include should justify it" is sensible for a normal content dispute, but is not sensible when people object to a mass removal.
 * When I actually tried to justify one of these on the talk page (Talk:Sakura_Wars), the arguments made against my justification were that controversial parts of the spoiler guideline were really established rules
 * It's also circular reasoning. We were told that the fact that nobody put the warnings back *proves* consensus for the spoiler policy. Now the policy is being used to *justify* not putting the warnings back
 * A generic explanation like "(rm per WP:SPOILER (redundant with section title)" not only isn't a discussion, it seeks to *prevent* discussing of the issues by implying that "spoiler warnings shouldn't be redundant with section titles" is accepted policy
 * Kuronue would like an agreement about it being bad to do nothing but go to established articles with a bunch of friends for the sole purpose of outnumbering the regular editors and thus proving 'consensus' - either for adding OR removing.
 * Wandering Ghost emphatically agrees with Kuronue: any serious compromise has to include some rule of 'no going on crusades', otherwise it's prone to abuse by the fanatical. And in effect, they're claiming for themselves the right to judge all spoiler debates.
 * Jere7my is concerned about regarding the mass removals as a fait accompli: I would like to see the tens of thousands of tags reinstated, or, if that's technically impossible, to see some sanctions against that nutty overreach.   I might also suggest a period of amnesty for those who wish to reinstate spoiler tags en masse without requiring a justification, to counteract the script abuse (which I hope we can all agree was unjustifiable).


 * The mediator has attempted to address Ken's first concern, and I've acknowledged that accompanying removal by an edit on the discussion page would not be onerous. The other concerns remain as yet unaddressed.


 * I think that's about it. Does everybody agree that these are the main concerns? --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It would not be onerous now, because tens of thousands of tags were removed without discussion. If things stood where they stood a month ago, with a merry mix of spoilered and unspoilered articles, the "discuss before removing or adding" guideline would have my full support.  As it is now, you're asking the pro-spoiler people to start building on scorched earth; you've already achieved your major victory.  I would like to see the tens of thousands of tags reinstated, or, if that's technically impossible, to see some sanctions against that nutty overreach.  I might also suggest a period of amnesty for those who wish to reinstate spoiler tags en masse without requiring a justification, to counteract the script abuse (which I hope we can all agree was unjustifiable). --Jere7my 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added your concern to the list. Any more? --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved this discussion here, since it didn't really belong in the "mediator's response" section. The list of concerns is good, though: I've copied that into the case page. -Kieran 20:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the summary, Tony, that's one of the best, most cogent encapsulations of the issues so far that I've heard. And thank you FunPika for your efforts in mediating this mess. // I'm in support of the compromise, but do not encourage a restoration of the 45,000 (or so) spoilers ... as I know that many that I've seen were simply part of Plot sections by default, and don't need restoration. I do agree that a Plot section with no significant surprise-tidbits doesn't "spoil" the enjoyment any more than just ... reading the synopsis. That said, I am very concerned that when editors restore the warnings, and do it for reasons they can elucidate (compelling or otherwise), there is a frantic discussion against it. Frankly, if a regular editor of a page restores the warning, and gives a reason other than just "because it's the plot section," that's sufficient. Perhaps the guideline can be amended to that effect. If a reason is given why a particular plot point is a surprise to the new viewer, (and the Talk page is a superb place to do so, as it's not buried in the past like edit summaries are) the warning is justified. I know that some people who hate the spoiler warning won't like that, but it's better than having spoilers present as nothing more than formatting. I think that's a reasonable compromise between both camps. Hope that helps.... David Spalding ( ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this. With a specific criterion like that in place, there would be very few disputes. JimmyBlackwing 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I could get on board with David's compromise as well. I don't really expect 45,000 tags to be reinstated (though I would like to see some general acknowledgement that using scripts to delete them wholesale was a really bad idea), and would be happy enough if WP:SPOILER gave local editors more latitude. --Jere7my 23:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All edits on Wikipedia, if challenged, must stand up to reason and consensus. I think the problem with this proposed compromise is that it's an attempt to pre-empt consensus.  if a regular editor of a page restores the warning, and gives a reason other than just "because it's the plot section," that's sufficient.  Firstly it refers to "regular editors", which brings problems with our ownership guideline.  Secondly it refers to a very loose criterion of the form "a reason other than just X", which leaves out the crucial question of whether there is consensus that the reason applies and outweighs other questions such as article quality, neutral point of view, and so on.  Even if I thought this would be worth agreeing to, Wikipedia policy would stand in the way of this proposed compromise. --Tony Sidaway 07:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony's comments on concerns expressed
These are my comments on the concerns expressed:


 * 1) JimmyBlackwing expresses concern at the wording of the guideline: "compelling reason", which is completely subjective, and it causes needless disputes over what, exactly, "compelling" is.
 * 2) * This is a reasonable objection. I've suggested "persuasive" as an alternative.  Whatever word we use, it means that most reasonable people will agree that something unexpected comes along and a warning is needed.
 * 3) Ken Arromdee has numerous concerns:
 * 4) The spoiler warnings can be removed with no discussion, but they require discussion to be added.
 * 5) * The mediator has suggested, and I've accepted, the idea that removals should be accompanied by a comment on the talk page.
 * 6) "If there is a dispute, the editor wishing to include should justify it" is sensible for a normal content dispute, but is not sensible when people object to a mass removal.
 * 7) * This needs more work. What would be a suitable compromise here?
 * 8) When I actually tried to justify one of these on the talk page (Talk:Sakura_Wars), the arguments made against my justification were that controversial parts of the spoiler guideline were really established rules
 * 9) * Ken's memory is incorrect. The reason I gave for removing the spoiler, which I gave in my edit summary and later echoed on the talk page, was "Clearly marked "Setting" section".  Ken repeatedly said I was relying on "established rules" but it doesn't appear to me that I did.  I adopted the commonsense notion that a "Setting" section in an article about a computer game will describe the setting of the computer game.
 * 10) *My memory is fine, and is perfectly consistent with what you just wrote. You stated as an established rule that a "setting" section should not contain a spoiler warning.  This is a controversial issue--essentially the same issue as spoiler warnings on plot sections--and not an established rule.  In other words, you argued that a controversial part of the spoiler guideline could not be disputed and must be followed because it's an established rule.  That's what I said. Ken Arromdee 05:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) It's also circular reasoning. We were told that the fact that nobody put the warnings back *proves* consensus for the spoiler policy. Now the policy is being used to *justify* not putting the warnings back
 * 12) * Not quite. Where warnings are put back in placed that seem inappropriate, they are removed or theirreplacement is challenged on the talk page until consensus is gained for replacement or removal.  This is normal Wikipedia editing protocol.  The guideline's function is simply to describe, not to prescribe, what happens.
 * 13) *But you still can't have it both ways. If you're going to justify the guideline by saying "the fact that spoiler warnings are not restored proves consensus", you can't then invoke the guideline to not *let* people restore the spoiler warnings.  You're invoking the guideline to force people to act in ways that you are then using to justify the guideline.  That's circular reasoning. Ken Arromdee 05:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) A generic explanation like "(rm per WP:SPOILER (redundant with section title)" not only isn't a discussion, it seeks to *prevent* discussing of the issues by implying that "spoiler warnings shouldn't be redundant with section titles" is accepted policy
 * 15) * Accepted policy or no, this notion has very widespread agreement.
 * 16) Kuronue would like an agreement about it being bad to do nothing but go to established articles with a bunch of friends for the sole purpose of outnumbering the regular editors and thus proving 'consensus' - either for adding OR removing.
 * 17) * Good faith editing and discussion on talk pages should never be discouraged.
 * 18) Wandering Ghost emphatically agrees with Kuronue: any serious compromise has to include some rule of 'no going on crusades', otherwise it's prone to abuse by the fanatical. And in effect, they're claiming for themselves the right to judge all spoiler debates.
 * 19) * See above. Fanatical crusades on either side will tend to peter out as tedium takes hold.
 * 20) Jere7my is concerned about regarding the mass removals as a fait accompli: I would like to see the tens of thousands of tags reinstated, or, if that's technically impossible, to see some sanctions against that nutty overreach.    I might also suggest a period of amnesty for those who wish to reinstate spoiler tags en masse without requiring a justification, to counteract the script abuse (which I hope we can all agree was unjustifiable).
 * 21) * This needs more work. I can't think of a good compromise here yet, but I definitely oppose a return to the situation where articles on fairy tales, the end of the universe, Roger Bacon and the like had spoiler tags.  I also oppose the notion that editors should ever be excused from the obligation to justify their edits on an edit-by-edit basis, where challenged.

I hope that clarifies where we all stand. While I speak purely for myself, I think that most reasonable editors will subscribe to my views. --Tony Sidaway 21:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ken's point of view/response to Tony's desired outcomes

 * "That there is no significant opposition suggests extremely strongly that there is consensus for this guideline"

No, that isn't true. Here's what I wrote at the RFA (which will probably go on hold for now because of this case): As a way of establishing consensus, deleting 45000 warnings is inappropriate for several reasons:
 * Deleting a spoiler warning is much easier and faster than adding one. Adding one requires carefully reading the article and deciding on where to put the warning; deletion requires no such consideration.  Moreover, spoiler warnings to be deleted are easily found with the "what links here" feature, but spoiler warnings to be restored can't be found in the same way.  This makes the procedure imbalanced towards deletion (particularly with AWB assistance); restoring the warnings means facing a nearly impassable logistical barrier.
 * Spoiler warnings have been deleted with comments such as "(rm per WP:SPOILER (redundant with section title))", which would imply to most users that the deletion was done according to a settled policy/guideline. Users not intimately familiar with Wikipedia processes won't think of reading the spoiler guideline talk page to determine if the guideline has really been settled.
 * And it is part of the guideline. I quote "Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used in "Plot", "Synopsis"..." et al. And for the last time, the guideline was hammered out by consensus! You can quibble about the "compelling reason" crap, but point is Wikipedians decided on it. Just because some people are still protesting it doesn't mean the community hasn't spoken. David Fuchs 20:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And now the community is speaking again, which is why there's a disputed tag on the guideline. I think you, perhaps, achieved a local consensus, but now that word is getting out we're going to have to find an expanded consensus. --Jere7my 21:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a local consensus. Did you ever see the RfC? It was hundreds of pages long, and it wasn't the same ten people arguing with each other. Consensus *was* reached. David Fuchs 21:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We're arguing terminology here. Of course it was a local consensus, since (obviously) not every Wikipedia editor weighed in.  Many (like myself) didn't even know it was going on.  Local consensus is always the best you can do, but then you run the risk of people from the wider world joining the discussion, at which point you no longer have consensus. Yes? --Jere7my 22:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Once a user does restore a spoiler warning, it will get deleted again (almost always with no discussion). It's impossible to keep a spoiler warning without edit-warring.  Under these circumstances, claiming that the policy has consensus because the spoiler warnings don't stay restored is absurd.
 * Using the lack of reversions to prove that the guideline has consensus, but also invoking the guideline to *prevent* reversions, is circular reasoning.
 * Part of the controversy is over editing the spoiler warning template itself. The current template  doesn't include the words "spoiler" or "warning".  This discourages users from restoring spoiler warnings by making spoiler warnings themselves vague and almost useless.

Keeping discussions on the discussion page
In order to avoid having the case page go the way of the spoiler talk page, and the previous RfCs, I've been bold in moving discussion to the discussion page. I've tried hard to keep everything linked back to the case page. Personally I don't want to end up with MBs of discussion text and no conclusions, so I think we should keep the case page for the mediator, and for agree-upon summaries of the discussions, that fit within the section headings defined there. Please discuss this here if you can think of a better way of doing this. -Kieran 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Facts on the 45k removals?
Is anyone able to scrape together what actually happened here? At the moment we're taking this as fact, but it would be good if someone, probably an admin/someone with access to AWB, could find out:


 * 1) Who the main editors were/whether it was a spontaneous case of hundreds of editors working in tandem.
 * 2) If AWB were used, who used it, and for how many articles.
 * 3) The exact (at least day-by-day) timeline of what happened.

It really would help the discussion if we had all the facts. If someone can get hold of these, please put a summary on the case page. -Kieran 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know User:David Gerard did a lot of the AWB removals. I'm not sure if I saw anyone else specifically using AWB, but I wasn't paying too much attention at the time since by that point I'd already removed most of them from the articles I worked on. --tjstrf talk 21:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that User:Kusma used AWB on Ghost Dog. --Jere7my 22:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kusma did a whole heap of them as did David Gerard .  I don't know anybody else who did mass removals.  It was, overall, carried out very efficiently, and I'm extremely pleased with the results. --Tony Sidaway 08:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in
I've been asked to weigh in on this mediation. It is not my intention to involve myself at length here, but I think it important to note the degree to which this discussion has become, to my mind, irredeemably poisoned. The best example I can see is one given on the mediation page as an example of what has been (quite rudely) referred to as the "anti-spoiler brigade" being unreasonable and difficult to deal with. This comes on the talk page of Halo: Combat Evolved. There's only one problem with this - the account given, that the people opposing the spoiler tag were bullying, unreasonable, or relying on numeric advantage is simply untrue. Look at the discussion:. It was in progress, vibrant, and attentive. Arguments for anda gainst were being weighed. It was a good discussion, right up until people showed up and began proclaiming "Don't waste time trying to appease the whims of the anti-spoiler brigade. Compelling reason means whatever they want it to" and "I see that once again the same old anti-spoiler hooligans have shown up again to blast the spoiler tags, and then berate the editors who have tracked and contributed to the article. "

That was the end of that discussion.

And that is, over the last few days, how discussions on articles have gone. This is a notable change from discussions that these parties have not weighed in on - discussions that have come to a consensus, both in favor of spoilers (Talk:List of Matoran, Talk:Sōsuke Aizen, Talk:Utopia (Doctor Who)) and against.

I am told this mediation is going differently, but I don't see it - looking at the mediation page, I see the same ad-hominem attacks, demands for sanctions, etc.

What is so maddening here is that a good, functional model was in place. Spoiler tags were being added to articles where they did noticeable good, and had consensus. An out of control process had been curbed back and was in a position where it could grow naturally and with actual care. And then this consensus was, in the last few days, actively and deliberately broken by a campaign of incivility.

Convention seems to dictate that I ought express what I want out of this mediation.

I want the mediation to stop. I want everyone involved to go back to writing an encyclopedia. I want local consensuses on article talk pages for the use of spoiler tags, and I want those consensuses to reflect actual thought about the article as opposed to robotically checking a guideline or deciding "I'm allowed to have a spoiler tag so I will." I want people to act like editors of an encyclopedia and to make thoughtful judgments. I want to move on, having now spent most of my time on Wikipedia for the last month on this issue.

The last, it turns out, can be achieved without mediation, and so I will be doing it. I'll check back at this issue in a week or two, trusting that those involved can come to a useful conclusion. If they don't, I'll wade back into it then. But at this point, I think everything I have to say on the subject of spoilers has been said several times, and that a trawl through the talk pages, the MfD, the mailing list, the talk pages of individual articles, and the histories of the articles that had their spoiler tags removed gives a very, very good sense of how widely that view is shared on Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 03:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You say, "I want those consensuses to reflect actual thought about the article as opposed to robotically checking a guideline." Does that apply equally to those who deleted thousands of spoiler tags using AWB? (I'm not trying to be snarky here — that's a legitimate question.  I would like to think that everyone agrees that that was an unfortunate overreach. It is certainly what I would consider the first major uncivil action in this business.) --Jere7my 04:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, you seem to be misrepresenting what went on in the Halo edits, though it's probably an oversight. JimmyBlackwing, on June 27, said "I've given specific reasons. It isn't my fault I'm getting ganged up on by the anti-spoiler patrol who insist that none of them are valid." This was one day before Nydas and David Spalding "showed up" and added anything to the comments.  JimmyBlackwing was a major local editor of the Halo article, and was part of the discussion from the beginning; clearly, he felt ganged up on by what he called the "anti-spoiler patrol". That hardly seems like an issue with drive-by troublemakers poisoning a discussion, which seems to be your take on it. --Jere7my 04:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It actually goes a step further than that--I requested their opinions on their talk pages, as anyone who looks there can see. I didn't ask for support, but instead the opinion of a third-party involved in the overall spoiler debate. When editors--who had never made edits on the article in question before that--appear at random to argue that a spoiler tag should be removed, I tend to get suspicious... particularly when my reasoning is completely ignored in a seeming attempt to force consensus. Clearly, other editors shared my suspicions, as their comments showed.. JimmyBlackwing 06:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimmy, one thing puzzles me about the above. Are you saying that you don't value the opinion of someone who hasn't edited the article before? --Tony Sidaway 07:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly not, or I wouldn't have requested the opinion of outside editors. My concern lies in "drive-by editing" and possibly "drive-by consensus-reaching", where several editors--normally uninterested in editing the article--force their way over a single one. I've noticed this tactic being used by anti-spoiler editors (possibly pro-spoiler editors as well, but I haven't seen it) over the last few weeks, and I heavily resent it. Just in case, I asked a few unrelated editors to weigh in on the issue at Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved, but I hadn't anticipated that they would respond like that--I was half expecting that they would agree on no spoiler tag being necessary, in fact. JimmyBlackwing 07:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Drive-by editing" refers to ill-informed, poorly thought out editing without follow-up on the talk page if the edit is queried. "Drive-by consensus reaching" is a meaningless term.  I echo Phil's appalled reaction to the personal attacks that were made on the talk page concerned, and one of my aims in this mediation is to lead the editors who made those attacks to recognise that this kind of behavior is not acceptable on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 07:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Drive-by consensus reaching" describes the practice of drive-by editors dropping by a talk page in overwhelming numbers, agreeing with each other, and claiming that's consensus. I can't say whether that's happened here, but I can see your confusion, as the practice has nothing at all to do with consensus. --Jere7my 12:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents
The other day I looked up an article I had started last year about a 1933 film called I'm No Angel. I was rather surprised while I scanned it that the spoiler warning was gone, but didn't really give it much thought at the time - especially since David Gerard had cited WP:SPOILER when removing it. Fictional films generally are an excellent place for spoiler warnings: we cannot expect that every visitor to Wikipedia understands the nuanced difference between an encyclopedic plot summary and another site's film review. What we can expect is that a percentage of readers who read the whole plot section will learn more than they want to know and - true to the term - have their hoped-for amusement spoiled. This whole battle looks like an excellent candidate for WP:LAME to me because the common sense approach is so simple: leave the spoiler warning in the sorts of fictional works where visitors would reasonably expect such warnings. Primarily that's films and novels. Work out the margins of that practice in some reasonable way and move on to more important things. Durova Charge! 07:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If they would 'reasonably expect' a warning, why wouldn't they 'reasonably expect' one on other types of pages (profanity, sexual, religious, etc) where the pretty much universal consensus is to have no warning? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This is one of the most baffling parts of spoiler warnings - we had 45,000 spoiler warnings, and no warning whatsoever on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy prior to the image of the cartoons. 45,000 instances of warning someone that we might discuss the plot of something. No warnings whatsoever for the content that people rioted and murdered over.


 * That's the central problem with spoiler warnings. They're silly. That is not to say that they don't matter to people. Clearly they do. But, frankly, anybody who looks at the myriad of issues facing Wikipedia and thinks adding more spoiler tags is a serious one has some serious issues of perspective. Heck, even if you think spoiler warnings are the biggest issue facing Wikipedia's fiction articles, I question your judgment. Phil Sandifer 15:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My viewpoint has always been utilitarian — people seem to expect, by and large, that pages about offensive things will contain offensive material, so a warning isn't usually necessary. People don't seem to expect, by and large, that pages about fictional works will contain unmarked spoilers in unexpected places, so warning them is courteous.  This is the sense I get from casual Wikipedia users (not editors) I've spoken to; I don't have data to support it. --Jere7my 17:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said, Jere7my. I really don't see how this correlates to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.  This is a simple courtesy.  No larger principle is involved.  Durova Charge! 06:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I expect an encyclopedia article about any topic to contain all the relevant information about the topic, without further warnings. It is simple courtesy to avoid insulting the reader's intelligence by assuming he isn't able to figure out that the plot section might contain the plot. Kusma (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of talk pages, personal attacks, poisoning the well
I've added this to "What would you like to change about that?" This activity if carried out on other talk pages by those involved (they know who they are) will severely damage the atmosphere of collegiate discussion on those articles, and ruin the chance of achieving consensus. I regard this as one of the most serious cases of abusive activity to come out of this case, perhaps more serious than the edit warring (for which the parties involved have already been blocked or warned). --Tony Sidaway 08:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How it is poisoning the well to object to discussions taking place under the utterly meaningless 'compelling reasons' umbrella? 'Compelling reasons' is the most disputed part of the entire guideline, due to the massive power it hands the anti-spoiler brigade. That people should complain about its usage in practice is no surprise. -- Nydas (Talk) 09:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's poisoning the well to make personal attacks on other editors acting in good faith .  Always, and without exception, this is utterly and absolutely against Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a stretch to interpret my comments as a "personal" attack. Jimmy invited me to look into the controversy on that page, and join the discussion if I felt so inclined. I did. I reviewed the History list of the last 500 edits to the page (reaching editing activity prior to the spoiler controversy). I saw that one or more editors who've made numerous edits to the page wanted to reinstate the warning. Those arguing AGAINST the tag, and removing it, were newcomers to the page, apparently editing the page for the first time, and only to contest the spoiler tag. I don't consider it "poisoning the well" to join in the conversation and offer my appraisal of the situation on that page, which is what I did. My view differed from yours -- live with it. My reference to the "anti-spoiler brigade" is apropos IMHO as I've seen editors barging into pages with no interest beyond removing the tag. My idea of spoiling the well: visiting pages which one has no other interest in, and no other editing contributions to, other than removing the tag, and arguing (not discussing, but arguing) about the (new) guidelines and how the editors aren't understanding/following these, to the extent that the "local editor" gives up in exasperation ... that is poisoning the well. ... Really, considering the recommendation I made on that page (I didn't edit the article, just offer my view), I think "poison the well" is hyperbole. If it's "poisoning the well" to share one's view in a discussion, then this community is doomed. David Spalding (  ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 12:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with my comments? They're tame compared to some of the stuff you've said about people who like spoiler warnings.-- Nydas (Talk) 10:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember that we're here to acknowledge one another's grievances and seek a solution. If you have diffs for personal attacks I have made in the course of discussion (or edit summaries) on spoilers or in spoiler-related discussions or edits, please add them to the main page so we can get them out in the open, acknowledge, apologise and whatever. --Tony Sidaway 11:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, what does that have to do with my comments? If you believe I have made personal attacks, then say so. A selection of your rude comments about people who like spoiler warnings can be found on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/Archive 3. One example:


 * How much are we willing to bend our primary objective in order to pander to the stupid and the perverse?


 * -- Nydas (Talk) 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another one, Tony: "It may 'spoil' the article for people whose enjoyment of literary works inexplicably demands complete ignorance and surprise at every scene. They must find a way to live with their problems." How respectful of others' views you are! --Jere7my 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am reluctant to bother with this
Given that requests like adding back all 45,000 deleted spoiler tags are being made seriously. That shows a disconnection it's hard to reason with.

This "mediation" looks like frantic venue-shopping (RFC, WT:SPOIL, wikien-l, AWB checklist, RFAr), searching for someone who's actually interested in taking up the cause of spoiler tags. If anyone cared, I'd have been taken out and shot by now. They observably don't - it's a few spoiler advocates looking for someone who cares.

On the assertion the spoiler removal was a violation of AWB policy: well, it appears no-one involved in AWB actually thinks so, and those in favour of spoilers couldn't raise interest there either. So please stop asserting this as if it's a fact.

I ask again: What is so hard about even attempting to discuss the spoilers on a case by case basis? Ken's been asked this many times by many people and has yet to state what makes him unable to hit "edit" and add a justification to a talk page - David Gerard 10:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good God, man, you make tens of thousands of auto-edits and then ask that? Do you have a special sack for carrying your balls around in? --Jere7my 10:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * David makes a good point, and one that I've made more than once in the past. There simply has been no significant fuss across the wiki about the removals.  They were quite in order and, indeed, absolutely necessary. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhhh ... I think there has been significant fuss over the removals and the issue. This page is but one indication of that. David Spalding ( ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 12:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Check out what I wrote below. It needs to be put into perpective just how much the 'fuss' reletive to how many people would actually chime into the issue in the first place is. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You have sidestepped my point. David asks (again), "What is so hard about even attempting to discuss the spoilers on a case by case basis?" He obviously did not discuss 10-20,000 spoilers "on a case by case basis". That looks like a double standard to me. --Jere7my 11:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm asking per the guideline as it stood when I did the edits and stands now: they were removed as redundant per guideline, and case-by-case justification is as per guideline. You don't like the guideline, so don't like it being implemented by anyone in any way, but that doesn't mean the people implementing it are doing something that's actually wrong - David Gerard 11:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry; I'm not familiar with Wikipedia lingo, so I didn't know a cut-and-pasted five-word edit summary counted as "discussion". Thanks for the correction! --Jere7my 11:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * More seriously: you can see the problem with this approach, yes? Mass editing that can't as easily be undone is ripe for abuse. You can imagine someone achieving consensus (or claiming it) in a style guideline, then pressing a button to instantly change thousands of articles to match the new consensus — a lot of damage could be done, in principle, yes?  For those of us who think the spoiler guidelines are still in flux, you can see why we might think you've done damage that can't easily be undone? --Jere7my 12:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess my question boils down to this: did you carefully examine each talk page to see if the editors had justified the spoiler tags there, or did you delete them rapidly without checking for justification? (I don't actually know the answer to this, so I'm asking.)  WP:SPOILER never said "All spoiler tags are bad"; it has always allowed room for editors to justify some of them.  If you encountered some spoiler tags and left them in place, I might understand your argument here; if you deleted every tag you came across and left none standing, without even checking for justification, then it seems to me you were enforcing "I don't like spoiler tags" rather than WP:SPOILER. Make sense? --Jere7my 17:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Could I suggest that you focus more on what you want to achieve from the informal mediation process? Our role is limited to helping editors find a workable compromise, instead of sanctioning editors who were too bold or possibly lacking in etiquette. Addhoc 18:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. --Jere7my 18:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

jere7my's point of view
Everyone else seems to have one of these, so I suppose I should organize my thoughts. Here are my major concerns:


 * WP:SPOILER should be neutral in tone. As it now stands, the guideline comes across as punitive. There's a banner at the top telling us it's only a guideline, but it's pretty dictatory — it reads as "This is only a suggestion...but, really, do it this way. Really."


 * WP:SPOILER should be balanced in content. At the moment, there are multiple enumerated rules for removing spoiler tags, and only a very vague and limited guideline for adding them. This is unbalanced, creating inflexibility for some editors and granting exceptional latitude to others.  I think local editors should have the leeway.  Many of those who oppose spoilers believe that there is widespread consensus with their point of view; if that is the case, then a more balanced guideline (even something silly like "Add or remove spoiler tags freely!") would still tend to decrease the number of spoilers, as individuals make their individual decisions.  Yes?  We should trust the system to work, and trust local editors to make the right choices. Here's my rough attempt at a partial draft of more balanced guidelines:


 * Plot summaries are expected to contain spoilers, so it is not generally necessary to mark an entire PLOT section with spoiler tags. The section header should reflect this — "PLOT SUMMARY" is more helpful in this regard than "PLOT", for instance.
 * You may want to use spoiler tags when they arise in unexpected places, such as a CHARACTER section or lede paragraph.
 * (The guidelines about non-fictional subjects and classical works are pretty much fine as is, I think, except maybe for tone.)
 * You may choose to add spoiler tags to a subsection of a PLOT section, if you feel that the spoiler is particularly significant — the villain of a mystery "whodunit", for instance.
 * Older works are less likely to need spoiler tags than recent works. Movies currently in first release, TV shows that haven't aired in all major markets, and books that have only been released in hardcover are more likely candidates for spoiler tags than a film from 1935, though exceptions may exist on either side.
 * You should always be prepared to justify each addition or removal of a spoiler tag on the article's TALK page.
 * Use common sense! Remember that these are only guidelines; different people will come to different conclusions about spoiler tags. Since Wikipedia is a user-edited encyclopedia, there are no assurances that any spoiler will ever be marked as such. Caveat browsor.


 * The mass deletions were handled badly. I continue to maintain that nobody should be making tens of thousands of automated edits for any reason, barring correction of massive vandalism. I don't know if it violated any rules, but it seems like an affront to Wikipedia's egalitarian principles. I can't believe that Jimmy Wales intended for some people to have spoons and others to have steam shovels. I would like to see a general consensus that the automated edits were a bad idea, and that they won't happen again. That was, I feel, the first major bad faith move, and it was that AWB editing that created resentment and set the unfortunate tone for the subsequent debate.

--Jere7my 10:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Trusting local editors" got us into the mess we were in a month or so ago, with spoiler tags on fairy tales. Wikipedia doesn't grant editors a little fiefdom in an article where they get to play and fend off "outsiders".  All articles must be of reasonable standard, have as little self-referential clutter as possible, and so on.


 * Anybody who is reasonably well behaved can run AWB. --Tony Sidaway 11:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But there is widespread consensus that spoiler tags are bad. You said so yourself, several times.  If there is widespread consensus, how will these local editors get away with their fiefdoms? --Jere7my 11:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidently they are not, and evidently most of the editing base has no problem with a lack of spoilers - David Gerard 11:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great! Then a neutral guideline will suffice to keep spoiler tags from cluttering things up. Yes? --Jere7my 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing
It was always a bit unlikely that this mediation would work. I'm worried that the concerns expressed are blatantly unreasonable, the expectations remain ridiculous (such as going back to the status quo ante), and while there is much complaint about reasonable actions, well founded by policy, performed in the course of spoiler removal, the actual policy violations all seem to come from the other side: breaking the three revert rule on articles and making personal attacks on their talk pages. These serious policy issues are being ignored while some personal grievances are pushed to the foreground.

But most of all, I think this is giving the case for spoiler tags rather more credence than it deserves. I have been one of the only editors involved in the removals to contribute to this mediation, and I did so in the hope of educating the other parties. I no longer think it's an appropriate use of my time. Since actual policy violations are involved here, and are being acively condoned by some of the parties, I think it may be better handled by methods other than mediation. --Tony Sidaway 11:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. This is the sixth venue this has been shopped to. What's left? - David Gerard 11:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore: This is a direct call for proceduralism at the direct expense of the product. Restoring 45,000 widely inappropriate spoiler tags to appease noisy malcontents given to edit-warring to the point of 3RR violation would cause direct damage to the actual encyclopedia. They are claiming there must have been a policy violation because they don't like the result, and are even more upset they can't get anyone much to agree with them about this. This does not mean there is an actual problem requiring damage to the encyclopedia to resolve - David Gerard 11:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I mention, without addressing your point, how hateful and dismissive I think you are being when you say we can't get "anyone much" to agree with us? Each of us counts, you know.
 * To address your point, I have said right along that I didn't think restoring 45,000 edits was feasible. I don't know if there was a policy violation or not. But it feels very wrong to me that a single user was able to make tens of thousands of structural edits in the space of a week.  It's contrary to what I thought was the spirit of Wikipedia. If I was wrong about Wikipedia, then I am pretty disappointed.
 * To address your other point, "What's left" is the blogs, which have begun to pick up on the fact that Wikipedia purged its spoiler tags. I don't know if anything will come of it; chances are, you can continue to be smug.
 * I will also continue to work toward a new consensus on the WP:SPOILER page. --Jere7my 11:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the exact problem! We had a consensus- the current guideline was hammered out after countless straw polls, hundreds of pages of discussions, and a widespread RfC. The community has already spoken. This is essentially like an election: the "pro-spoiler" crowd didn't win as many seats as they wanted, so now they want to recycle the same stuff over and over again until they get a favorable result. David Fuchs 13:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There was never any consensus. The anti-spoiler brigade rewrote the guideline two days into the discussion, and immediately began the mass removal of spoiler tags using automated tools. The initial justification was the MfD that was closed after a day, but this quickly moved to the now-familiar 'there is no significant resistance' line. The arbitary definition of 'significant resistance' make it unlikely that resistance would ever be 'significant' enough. In actual fact, thousands of spoiler tags were restored on a small scale basis by local editors - this can be confirmed by examining the edit histories. This was not enough to stop the AWB juggernaut. Someone making thousands of edits an hour isn't going to notice if they do the same page more than once. Nobody could restore the spoiler tags on large scale, since the anti-spoiler admins threaten anyone that tries.-- Nydas (Talk) 15:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, screw this. Nydas &co. are never going to accept what happened, so arguing with them is futile. David Fuchs 16:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Screw this" is not a very helpful attitude. I wasn't part of the initial discussion, and didn't even know it had happened until spoiler tags started disappearing, so saying I'm recycling arguments I never made before seems unhelpful. I really don't think consensus is a permanent thing — you don't establish consensus once on Wikipedia and then never have to revisit it. I don't think it's surprising that mass deletions have drawn new attention to the issue. --Jere7my 17:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said you were recycling arguments... and as for the consensus thing, its not like we argued five years ago about the spoilers. Consensus doesn't change in a month. David Fuchs 17:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group making a decision does so on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. If the community disagrees, the decision was badly founded, or views change, then the updated consensus replaces the old one. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." --Jere7my 06:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and "noisy malcontents" is a personal attack. Incidentally. --Jere7my 11:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, none of you count. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Your arguments count, but when your arguments call for things like 45,000 reversions of changes that were, mostly, uncontested, they don't count for much either. Phil Sandifer 14:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have always said that I did not actually expect the 45,000 tags to be reverted — I don't think it's technically possible, and my comments have said that right along. I think the bulk of them were deleted using inappropriate automated methods, but if we actually went back and looked at each tag on a case-by-case basis I would probably agree with many or most of the individual deletions.  It's a moot point now, but my objection was solely to the method used. --Jere7my 17:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, this mediation has been productive, and believe it or not, I have had my perspective informed and adjusted by yours and others contributions. I really wish you wouldn't declare this mediation dead on the hyperbolic claim that concerns expressed are blatantly unreasonable and expectations remain ridiculous (c'mon, not everyone has recommended restoration of all tags, I agree that many of those tags were little more than formatting fluff). Mediation only gives the case for spoiler tags rather more credence than it deserves if one is unfailingly opposed to the idea of the tags at all. Mediation is about driving towards compromise, not "getting your way." Let's support the mediator in finding a mutually acceptable compromise. David Spalding ( ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 12:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually mediators. User:Addhoc is also mediating this case. Fun  Pika  14:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for volunteering. I no longer think there is anything to mediate.  When I came to enumerate my grievances, I saw that they all constituted moderate to serious violations of Wikipedia policy and could be (and mostly had been) handled in the usual way.  I predict that the arbitration committee will reject the arbitration case on the grounds that, beyond a debate on the wording of guideline which is hardly a matter for mediation or arbitration, there is no dispute that needs to be resolved.  I extend my warm regards to all the other editors involved in this mediation, who like myself are undoubtedly trying their best to make this the best encyclopedia it can be.  --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, all we have to do is justify the individual uses of spoiler warnings, and be prepared to discuss if needed. Frankly, this page is turning into a new Wikipedia talk:Spoiler in my eyes. Mediation does not seem needed at this point. Time to close. Fun  Pika  19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This misses the reason that mediation is needed in the first place. The anti-spoiler people think that just putting "this violates the spoiler policy" in an edit summary or talk page (when it actually violates a controversial addition to the policy, that they refuse to even admit is controversial) is "justifying" and "discussing".
 * Moreover, they've deleted 45000 warnings and rewritten the warning template into uselessness. Saying that we must justify and discuss any changes is only a compromise when done from a neutral starting point, which we are not at after deleting 45000 warnings. It doesn't make sense to give one side everything they want and then call it a compromise to say "you need to discuss any changes to that". Ken Arromdee 05:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A slight problem with the whole issue
This seems like the best place to put this. Here's the thing. I think that part of the problem with the whole debate is simple. I honestly don't know (nor does anyone) what the true percentage of people who want the warnings is vs. people who don't and people who don't care (grouped together), but think about it. How many who don't and especially who don't care, would go out of their way to find the discussion and chime in? Far far less than those who are shocked to see them gone and want them back. So while a number of people maybe seem to want them back in, the truth is that the ratio, at least in my mind, is a lot more favored toward the otherside than comment would have you believe. That's MY theory anyway. I'm sure some of you will shoot it down on the basis that I'm in the 'don't want' camp. But I just thought I'd get this out there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to do a poll on RfC about if people actually use them, but it was soon closed by David Gerard (actually, the negligence about the users is the reason why I became interested in this). From the results, it seems that at least 40% of people do use spoiler warnings. It may take a while before people realize that they are gone, because the guideline is not very honest about it. There is also another poll on forum. Samohyl Jan 12:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that was partly because dozens of people were opening straw polls as a basis to get votes for the "pro-spoiler" thing, but for the sole reason of trying to use it like votes and say that spoilers are good instead of actual consensus. While I didn't notice it, there was probably some of that from the "anti-spoiler" crowd too. David Fuchs 13:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to get votes for anything, I was just genuinely curious at the time how many people use the spoiler warnings. I think the fact that a lot of people (as the polls suggest) use them was not considered when that 'consensus' to delete them all was made. Samohyl Jan 13:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you personally were trying to do any more than get some feedback, but some were essentially trying to canvass. An additional consideration was there were so many flippin' polls: I think most people got tired by straw poll #5 or 6. David Fuchs 14:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings in plot sections
This has been brought up again and again, just about always by people who don't like spoiler warnings and think that "spoiler warnings don't go in plot sections" is established policy, or should be treated as established policy, when it isn't. It's really a bit off-topic, but there are three reasons why spoiler warnings *do* belong in plot sections:

1) The idea "Every plot section contains spoilers already" just *isn't true*. Every plot section contains plot *elements*, but not every plot element is a spoiler.  Sometimes a story may contain nothing surprising in it at all.  More likely is a situation where a story contains something surprising which is a spoiler, but the plot summary has not been written with such a level of detail that the spoiler is mentioned.  (Consider, for instance, a summary of a murder mystery which says at the end "the detective solved the case" without mentioning names or evidence.)

2) Spoiler warnings can be *placed*. Even if every plot section really did contain spoilers, it wouldn't matter.  Every plot section doesn't contain spoilers in the same place.  Many of them will only have the spoiler at the bottom, in which case it makes perfect sense to put a spoiler warning *inside* the section near the bottom.  The spoiler warning will then warn the reader that that particular part of the plot section contains a spoiler.  The warning is not redundant, because even if "plot section" means "spoiler", it doesn't mean "spoiler in the fifth paragraph from the top."

3) An important part of user interface design is having consistency. In the case of spoiler warnings, that means that it's better to have spoiler warnings on all spoilers, even if some of them are redundant, rather than to have warnings on only some depending on the circumstances.  It's true that if the warning is redundant, the user already can figure out that there's a spoiler there, but using that as reason to remove the warning is saying that consistency in design and ease of use are pointless.  My usual example is of a calendar--almost every calendar says "Sunday", "Monday", etc.  Yet the word "Monday" is completely redundant; everyone can figure out that the day after Sunday is Monday.  The reason that Monday is there is not because we think the users are idiots who don't know that Monday comes after Sunday.  The reason it's there is that we think it's more convenient for the user to have the "Monday" there than to figure it out, even if figuring it out is a trivial procedure that is obvious to anyone. Ken Arromdee 19:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your calender point is flawed. It you mean the standard grid calander, then each day is shown once. Yes, a person could "figure it out", but that's like saying a calculatror is redundant by allowing '2' to show up when you input '1 + 1'. If you mean the type where you pull off a page, well since those are often looked at throughout the day, they serve as a reminder for that particular day at a glance, not the next one (I know I often don't always remember). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your user interface point really doesn't help the cause of spoilers - since out of the 45,000 removed almost all were superfluous, it would therefore make sense to remove the less than ten remaining altogether rather than put spoiler warnings everywhere. We have a content disclaimer already.


 * And here we see the problem with the pro-spoiler venue shopping - each new venue is taken as an opportunity to try to rehash the entire issue from scratch, rather than deal with the concerns of the venue in question - David Gerard 20:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What you call venue shopping seems to be required by the rules, even if the venue doesn't succeed in dealing with the concerns. Unless I've missed a step the expected procedure is RFC, then Mediation (or something equivalent), then Arbcom? If I'm correct, don't you know this? Didn't you used to serve on Arbcom? Milo 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you are including the prematurely closed MfD and TfD, which is part of the process violations complaint? Tsk, tsk. The spoiler tag talk page is a normal consensus process also required even before RFC. I'm missing one of the six you mentioned above. Milo 05:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A standard grid calendar shows each day of the week once. But if you want to avoid redundancy, you only need to show *one* day of the week once.  If you show Sunday, the user can figure out the other six days of the week.  But we do not say "Monday is there for people too stupid to figure out that an unmarked day coming after Sunday must be Monday". Ken Arromdee 04:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My Thoughts
1. Somehow I'm a "noisy malcontent" whose opinions count for nothing because I didn't know spoiler tags were even being discussed before they were all gone. Somehow I missed the 2-day window between opening discussion about them and them all being gone. Lovely.

2. Restoring 45,000 tags would be absurd and useless. Spoiler tags do not belong on Shakespeare, fairy tales, and the like, and the more we argue for restoration, the more ridiculous the argument seems.

3. Spoiler tags DO belong, in my opinion, on articles where you don't expect spoilers. "Plot of Naruto Shippuden" probably is ok without them, because why would you click it if you didn't want spoilers? "Tia Dalma" maybe not so much. Who would have thought looking up the gypsy lady from the first film who was sort of in like, 3 scenes in the next one would reveal the ending of the third film? It's conceivable to think her role was entirely done by then.

4. I don't want to see Tony, Phil, and friends on every single page involving a spoiler. Do something else productive, and stop cruising for spoiler warnings so you can outnumber the local editors, remove the tag, and then move on. It's bad faith and a crusade.

That's what I want from this. As far as "shopping around", honestly, I suspect a good number of us are feeling overwhelmed. The RfC (still open!) isn't doing anything but dragging more people into the argument, so we needed something with structure. One person went here, one went to the arbitration committee. The whatever-for-deletions seem to have been mostly run by the anti-spoiler crowd before a good number of us even got here. Kuronue 23:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Kuronue 23:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason people are calling for restoring the 45000 deletions is that, as someone else has said, keeping the deletions is like asking people to work on scorched earth. Many Wikipedia procedures are heavily biased towards the status quo.  The 45000 are even worse, for reasons I've stated above; deleting warnings is so much easier than adding them that if you start from a base where the 45000 items are already gone, adding spoiler warnings will be a drawn out, nearly impossible process that produces a false "consensus" merely because nobody *can* put the warnings in (and that doesn't even count the fact that they'll just get deleted anyway by spoiler opponents who feel the warning hasn't been justified enough).
 * Any compromise has to start elsewhere than just deleting 45000 spoiler warnings and then saying "oh, now that they're already gone, we can be fair starting after that point".
 * I'm open to suggestions of how to have a balanced compromise without restoring the 45000 warnings, but I have a hard time thinking of ways; starting from a point where 45000 items have been deleted is fundamentally unbalanced. Ken Arromdee 05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On some of your thoughts, namely #1; the discussion about spoilers went through a very public MfD and RfC for weeks before this. Mid-may, I believe. It wasn't as if some people woke up and said, "Hey man, I hate spoiler warnings." "Tru 'dat man. Lets go nuke some." "Capital." Not that I'm saying it was premeditated, just saying that this has been going on for a much longer time than some seem to be willing to admit. David Fuchs 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The mass removal campaign began two days after the MfD was started.-- Nydas (Talk) 18:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I learned about the RfC from the Signpost, and when an article about it was there it was already over. Samohyl Jan 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again tho, Nydas, there was an MfD before that one. David Fuchs 20:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are referring to. This began with Phil Sandifer's post on the mailing list on 15th May. On the same day, the MfD was started. A day later it was closed and the RfC started. A day after that the mass removals began.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as restoring the deletions, let's not restore all 45,000 of them. Let's just restore the ones that were appropriate (not fairy tales!) and then go from there. Kuronue 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm certainly willing to compromise and not restore spoilers on fairy tales. I think we can limit it to fictional subjects where there's a reasonable chance that someone might want to avoid spoilers.  Just about nobody over the age of 10 reads fairy tales to see the story unfold.  So plot elements mentioned in a fairy tale article wouldn't be spoilers (even in plot sections) and no warning is needed.  Likewise, people have complained about spoiler warnings on the end of the universe or other factual topics.  I'm fine with not restoring those warnings.
 * I can also accept not putting spoiler warnings on some things that are so much a part of popular culture that they are widely known. It would be silly to put a spoiler warning on Dracula before revealing that Dracula is a vampire, even though that would be appropriate if nobody had heard of Dracula.  (I am concerned, however, that this can be overextended.  This should not be stretched to cover "all works older than a year" or even "all Shakespeare plays".)
 * I would like to see, though, as a start:
 * No non-consensus reasons for forcing the deletion of spoiler warnings. "No warnings in plot sections" and "no warnings on movies from 1935" do not have consensus and should not be treated like they do.
 * No circular reasoning. Don't justify the guideline by the lack of restoration, and then justify not allowing restoration by using the guideline.
 * Every deletion (well, and every addition too--let's be fair) should be manually done by someone who has at least read the whole article and preferably is familiar with the topic. We shouldn't have people deleting Bionicle warnings because they aren't aware there are stories as well as a toy line.  No automated or semi-automated procedures.
 * The words "spoiler" and "warning" must once again be made part of the spoiler warning template. This is important, because while we can't restore thousands of articles, we can restore something which *affects* a lot of articles.  Editing that template changes how a spoiler warning is described in every article that uses one.  And it's absurd that a spoiler warning template doesn't say "spoiler" or "warning" in it; it's as if the template was being deliberately obfuscated.  Could you imagine, oh, a "history of Poland" infobox that didn't include the words "history" or "Poland"?  Ken Arromdee 07:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's currently an effort to move the spoiler template so as to make it more difficult for 'naive' users to add. See Template talk:Spoiler.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Venue shopping"
I just want to make a response to this term, which David Gerard has been using extensively over the last few days:

The way this has been handled so far is in accordance with the dispute resolution guidelines.
 * 1) Discussion was attempted on the talk page.
 * 2) That failed to produce a conclusion that everyone agreed upon, so an RfC was opened. During that RfC, surveys were attempted, which largely showed that there was strong support for both sides of the dispute, and no conclusion was agreed upon.
 * 3) Seeing these failures to reach consensus, I called for informal mediation in an attempt to reach consensus. My hope is that neutral third parties can help us all to reach agreement.

There is definitely a dispute here. The fact that it has moved through several fora without reaching resolution doesn't make it any less of a dispute. We are here to try to reach agreement, not to be disruptive or spiteful. Please believe that. -Kieran 16:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Case closure
I have closed this case after reading this comment by Tony Sidaway. There no longer appears to be a need for mediation, and keeping this open may cause this talk page to turn into Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. If you feel that mediation is still needed, make a request for formal mediation. Fun Pika  19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is that particular post a reason to close the mediation? I would prefer it you make clear you are not taking Tony and Phil's claims of 'discussion poisoning' as hard facts.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * oh don't bother,apparently there's "no dispute" Kuronue 21:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, look at it this way: the stuff that could be fixed got fixed. We made it so that neither side is biased depending on whether they are removing/adding spoiler warnings; in addition we removed the crap "compelling" and cleaned up the guideline. I don't see what else can be done, aside from the "should we have spoilers or not" discussion which we had weeks ago, and the whole "evil admin cabal" allegations. In short: we've done all we can. Time to move on. David Fuchs 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What about "don't use circular reasoning" (invoking the guideline to prevent people from adding warnings, but also using the lack of warnings to prove consensus for the guideline)? What about "don't call non-consensus parts of the policy consensus"?  What about "spoiler" and "warning" in the spoiler warning template? Ken Arromdee 15:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about 'no crusading for or against spoilers'? I once counted Tony, personally, overruling about 20 separate people on slightly more than 20 separate pages about whether a spoiler warning was needed, in one day.  He, and others, seem to find it a personal mission to go to many spoiler debates to advocate against spoilers in any individual instance (I'm sure there are a couple of people who do the same _for_ spoilers, but it's been pointed out again and again how technically it's much easier to do it pro-removal).  He nobly stopped (or said he did - I took him at his word) for a while while mediation was going on, but then after withdrawing has started up again.  Really, what is the good in this?  If the policy has consensus, it doesn't need a few people enforcing it everywhere.  The majority will enforce it everywhere.  It's only if it doesn't have consensus is there a point to this, and then you're mangling the spirit of Wikipedia to push your own agenda. Wandering Ghost 19:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a brief sabbatical, but then this mediation was brief. I agree, if there's a broad consensus about removing spoiler tags which are redundant in Plot sections, no champions of the cause are needed. But then ... it's a dirty job and someone's gotta do it. As discussed, argue it on the article talk pages as a case by case strategy. - David Spalding ( ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This mediation was never about the guideline itself. That wouldn't be worthy of mediation. It was about a group of people overruling everyone else to demand their way, and the goal was to get them to stop bullying people around. Whether or not the guideline is edited has NO bearing on this case. Kuronue 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When I agreed to mediation, I was under the impression that this was about the guideline, or the role of spoilers on WP, and not about individual user behavior. The mediator's first proposal seemed to deal with the guideline. I don't see how mediation will address past actions more than ordinary discussion would. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 05:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't. but they were still ganging up on individual editors an using the guideline as support when the mediation was opened. Kuronue 05:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, perhaps the mediation should be closed? Discussion at WP:SPOILER is ongoing, and that is the issue this mediation would be able to address. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Using the spoiler talk page to gain consensus seems better then relying on Mediation. Fun  Pika  19:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that people are making massive changes without consensus. How can this problem be solved by trying to gain consensus?  That's why mediation is needed--trying to solve the problem by gaining consensus is counter to the very nature of the problem.  It's like having to use a hotel phone to report a problem to the front desk, which is usually fine--unless the problem you're trying to report is a malfunctioning hotel phone. Ken Arromdee 22:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * People are no longer making massive changes - the removal finished a long time ago. I don't think that mediation is the right place to address past behavior. If the mediation closes and you aren't satisfied, you can pursue other means of dispute resolution. The discussion on the WP:SPOILER talk page seems to be coming along. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly feel that this is the right page to discuss groups of editors hovering over the "what links here" to the spoiler tag page and vetoing any "consensus" on any page about spoilers, regardless of how correct the placement might be. That doesn't have anything to do with the guideline itself, and should not be written into the guideline itself, but discussed here or on RfCs on the individual users doing so. Kuronue 01:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly normal for editors to watch the recent changes feed and revert edits they feel are detrimental, or to go through all instances of a template and remove inappropriate ones. For example I went through a huge number of instances of selfref today and fixed the uses that were inappropriate. What outcome would you like to see about the issues you mentioned? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If no tags are to be used in Wikipedia, then the guideline should say that. Since it does allow for some tags to be in place, I don't want to see people blindly removing all tags, then grabbing a bunch of friends to flood the talk page with "spoilers are unencyclopediac" and then claiming consensus. Allow editors working on the article to reach consensus; not every single tag needs the same 5 or 6 users to be constantly championing its removal. Sometimes tags are ok, so let them BE ok, don't be the be-all end-all of all things spoilers. (if that made no sense, blame the alcohol) Kuronue 03:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In several cases, editors have found consensus, even among the "anti spoiler" people, that a tag should remain. It isn't impossible at all. The vast majority of spoiler tags that get added, however, seem to be in "plot" sections, where they are redundant. The idea that editors should avoid making changes because they have not yet edited a page goes against the way that the wiki works - if someone sees something that they think should be changed, they should change it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is why nothing should be in the guideline about it, because I don't want to say "if you haven't edited the page before you don't get a say". I just want people to be reasonable about their edits. They know if they're doing it just to remove tags because they hate tags, or if they're doing it because they honestly thing it doesn't belong there according to what the actual guideline actually says. Kuronue 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At least when I remove tags, I believe they don't agree with what the guideline says. There have been one or two pages, such as Allspark where the usage does match the guideline and nobody has removed the tag at all since it was placed two days ago. The majority of tags that appear don't meet the guideline, though - they are usually just wrappers around the plot section. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is true, and all the editors referenced in this case are actually behaving like you, then the mediation cabal case should be closed, as the problem has fixed itself. Honestly, I don't recall you being one of the ones I was worried about. Keep up the good work. I just wanted to point out that the guideline itself has nothing to do with the point of this case. Kuronue 13:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the guideline which doesn't have consensus. So just because editors are following the guideline doesn't mean that the problem has fixed itself; rather, it's another manifestation of the same problem. Following a guideline that doesn't have consensus is no better than just not following consensus.

There's also still the circular reasoning used for the guideline: everyone is forced to keep the spoiler warnings out because the guideline says so--yet the fact that the spoiler warnings stay out is used to prove consensus *for* the guideline. I find it amazing that this point has been basically ignored by everyone. You *can't* claim the guideline has consensus when it's justified using circular reasoning. Ken Arromdee 18:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If we were not behaving as Carl, then it's likely that somebody would have removed the spoiler tag from Allspark by now. A hand-made "spoiler alert" was added to the article four days ago, and quickly replaced by a "spoiler" tag.  It has not been removed, although at least Carl and I, and probably many others, have seen it and evaluated its appropriateness.  The movie, to which one section of the article refers, was released in the US on 2 July and will be released in the UK towards the end of the month. Optimus Prime also has a spoiler tag because of the film.  Another spoiler tag added to Jerry Reilly, refers to a very recently broadcast soap opera event.   --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. The overwhelming majority of that 45000 were removed blindly, without looking at them one at a time in any meaningful sense. A single digit number out of 45000 that aren't being removed blindly, *after* all the rest have been removed blindly, hardly changes this much; it just means the people that are doing blind removals have stopped for the moment, not because they changed their mind, but because they haven't left behind enough tags to bother starting up the blind removal again.

As people have pointed out, when the warnings were being removed blindly, hundreds were added back and just got deleted again with no discussion. If those were added again, do you really believe they will *not* be blindly removed again? Ken Arromdee 14:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than responding directly to your comment, I will again say that I don't think this mediation is the place to settle a grievance about how tags were already removed. Moreover, the spoiler guideline seems to be taking shape based on discussions on its talk page. I think this mediation should be closed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The guideline's talk page has been totally useless because warning opponents have ignored consensus, represented controversial ideas as "consensus", used circular reasoning to determine consensus, etc. The whole reason that any sort of intervention is needed is that the consensus-finding system isn't working.  This factor makes it impossible for the talk page to produce any genuine result; the talk page is just a bunch of spoiler warning opponents arguing over whether almost all or almost almost all of the spoiler warnings needed to be deleted, while ignoring anyone who really disagrees with the general concepts behind the deletion.
 * (And there are several issues which this mediation needs to address. How about the circular reasoning one, for a start?  Consensus for the guideline is supposedly proven because the spoiler warnings stay removed, yet anyone who tries to put one back gets told that they must leave it out *because* of the guideline.) 208.240.214.193 17:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest the intervention you are looking for is outside the scope of MedCab, however could be provided by arbitration--Addhoc 10:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tried and rejected. Needless to say, the description above is utter bollocks.  A guideline that reflects current usage will necessarily be of use in summarising reasons for acting on the problems it addresses.  This doesn't mean that the reasoning is circular, though claiming that it is circular makes an easy alternative to explaining why the guideline is so effective. --Tony Sidaway 10:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The description above is accurate, since 'current usage' is determined by a tiny number of anti-spoiler fanatics who will not permit ordinary users to add them. See Talk: Halo: Combat Evolved, where efforts to add them were met with a barrage of threats and abuse.-- Nydas (Talk) 13:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, however what I'm trying to explain is the dispute resolution process is divided into content disputes and user conduct issues. MedCab only deals with content disputes and doesn't attempt to resolve user conduct issues. For example, I personally don't have any powers to sanction editors - I can't block users, stop them running automated tools or remove status. My role is purely to suggest possible compromises in order to establish a viable consensus. The box to the right explains this division of resources. If this dispute is about editor conduct, and from what I can gather it is, then you should select a form of dispute resolution that deals with such complaints. If you are looking for 'intervention', I would recommend making another Requests for arbitration.--Addhoc 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So what happens next?
 * It seems like some of the strategy of the spoiler warning opponents is to drag everything out forever until people get tired of it--and theny they claim that because people stopped arguing, or stopped trying to change things back, they have consensus for their side. Mediation shouldn't turn into consensus-by-exhaustion. Ken Arromdee 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only echo Addhoc's advice. If you seriously believe that there are unresolved conduct issues (Nydas for instance refers above to an alleged "barrage of threats and abuse" on one talk page) then document them and try going back to the arbitration committee.  I personally tend to the view that some proponents of spoiler tags have erred tactically by repeatedly making spurious claims of misconduct against those they disagree with, and that the arbitrators would tend to reject arbitration based on such claims, but I could be wrong.  --Tony Sidaway 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)