Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 5

Ironic rationales
This entire debate seems pretty silly. Spoiler warnings seem like one of those "what does it hurt?" things. It does nothing to detract from an article except for those who have issues bordering on the obsessive about such things while on the other hand it's a nice "heads-up" that the work of the artists involved is not damaged. Something I think most don't take into consideration, that beyond a readers "enjoyment" is the fact that these articles discuss works of art and their creators' rights should be respected.

But past that is the hysterical (to me at least) notion that people are arguing what is encyclopedic over articles that would NEVER find their way into most. And to top the entire thing off with an ironic cherry on top, is the notion that if you really want to split hairs most encylopedias are not written and edited by folks hiding behind handles or strings of IP addresses. If wikipedia can be an encylopedia written by the masses, then it can also be the one that loosens it's tie enough to say "Hey, it might not be according to Hoyle correct, but we don't get our shorts in a bunch if you want to give someone the heads up that they might not want to know that it was Maggie who shot Mr. Burns" (sorry if you haven't seen that Simpsons episode yet, but you will notice there is a spoiler warning on this entry...)" RoyBatty42 22:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not yet read much into this debate, but so far I have only seen one person defending the removal of the spoiler template. I think that those of us who feel that it is a good thing should work together to get its removal reversed. Twilight Realm 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there are a handful of admins with the means and mentality to make hundreds of edits an hour to enforce their point of view. Since they've taken to using the 'lack of opposition' as 'consensus', they'll just keep overriding thousands of ordinary wikipedians.-- Nydas (Talk) 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

'Now I really have to laugh - to be cute and avoid charges of being a hypocrite, I placed a spoiler warning on my thoughts above because, yes, the Simpsons'' tidbit was a spoiler. And some anal-retentative actually removed it. Fucking priceless!''' RoyBatty42 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Policy Change
Sethie proposes we remove "Spoiler warnings are redundant when used in "Plot", "Character history", "Synopsis", or other sections that are self-evidently going to discuss a plot or similar."

On a commonsense level Sethie proposes we remove this sentence because plot and spoilers are two different things. Plot is the plot or synopsis are... plots and synposis, overviews of the subject. Spoilers are introcate details and "surprises" with movies, books, etc. which are left out of synopsis and plot summaries.

Sethie proposes it be removed because it is not redundant. People may see plot and expect to see a broad overview of the movie/book, etc., the kind of thing you would read on the inside cover of a book or the back of a video, and not be expecting the intricate amount of detail that wikipedia provides. Sethie 22:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, a Wikipedia overview of a story will and must still reveal major spoilers. We're not an advertisement service, so we don't just give readers a "taste" of the first chapter. &mdash; Deckiller 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True. No other general-level encyclopedia has the resources or the manpower to cover the details of works of fiction much beyond Shakespearean levels of fame. In addition, spoiler-free plot descriptions, character overviews, episode lists and the like are entirely feasible if they better suit their particular articles, and are on Wikipedia in considerable numbers. The sentence Sethie quotes seems to say that removing spoiler tags doesn't limit the information available to a spoiler-avoiding reader - but it does, since he then has to automatically assume that such sections have spoilers. --Kizor 00:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In a lot of fiction articles, we only give a readers a version of the information on the back cover. The only way to tell for sure is with a spoiler warning. I suppose that the anti-spoiler crew will insist we should be making guesses based on the amount of text.-- Nydas (Talk) 07:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd need to see a very, very strong rationale to support a return to the routine use of warning tags. Here Sethie describes spoilers as "intimate" details.  Such intimate details should not normally appear in the encyclopedia at all, but I don't think those are what people mean when they use the term spoilers. They're major plot points which are revealed in the course of reading the book.  And in some cases, they're points external to the original work (because we don't discuss a work in isolation).   An example of the former is that, in The Sixth Sense, the ghosts don't know they're dead.  An example of the latter is that Gollum's ring in the Hobbit, which Bilbo steals, turns out to be the most important magical object in Middle Earth.  --Tony Sidaway 10:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The rationale would be the lack of consensus to remove them. The 'redundancy' was barely discussed at all amid the endless nonsense about the Crying Game and nursery rhymes, yet it was the only motive used when the mass edits began mere hours into the debate.-- Nydas (Talk) 11:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In a lot of fiction articles, we only give a readers a version of the information on the back cover.  --- such cases should be expanded then, not used as a rational for "I don't know which type it will be!". WP is supposed to have comprehensive coverage, without getting overly detailed. A short summery is not comprehensive. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's impossible for works of fiction that haven't been released. With differences in release dates in different regions, it may not be obvious to the reader. Then again, the anti-spoiler brigade probably think people are obligated to scan for release information before reading a plot summary.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Such intimate details should not normally appear in the encyclopedia at all" well.... they do. If you wish to change that Sethie proposes you head over to a policy which deals more with content. This is a policy for dealing with the fact that initimate details and VERY comphrehensive tellings of the stories do appear in wikipedia. Sethie 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposed policy change. There's a difference between plot and spoilers.  I'd also like to propose, instead of or in addition to 'In grey areas, editors placing spoiler templates should use the article's talk page to discuss the matter.', "Editors wishing to remove existing spoiler templates on an article should use the article talk page to discuss the matter," as there seem to be a number of cases where a few people who have no connection to the particular articles they're editing are systematically removing spoilers without even bothering to look if there's been justification or suggested justification."  I'd like to see just as much onus put on them as the other side.Wandering Ghost 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * a few people who have no connection to the particular articles they're editing are systematically removing spoilers without even bothering to look if there's been justification or suggested justification.
 * That's definitely happening .I have seen one mass remover of spoiler warnings remove them from articles that met Tony Sidaway's conditions for a  2 year limit and speed on   --Garda40 19:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I propose we do nothing of the sort. If the ==Plot summary== fails to contain spoilers, it is arguably deficient - David Gerard 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that not all spoilers are plot spoilers. Sometimes it turns out that character X is really character Y, which is a huge spoiler typically revealed in the title of the article or in the lead. Examples (WARNING, spoilers): Tia Dalma is really the goddess Calypso (I put it back under Tia Dalma because she's called that for 2/3 of the movies and it is a valid name for her), the ending to The Usual Suspects, et cetera. EDIT: forgot to sign. Kuronue 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this really qualify as a guideline?
A lack of consensus regarding spoiler use is self-apparent and noted by many people. Considering the lack of consensus, this guideline should be deprecrated. Guidelines are supposed to be supported by the consensus of the community. If the community cannot form a consensus allowing spoilers an exemption to WP:NDT, then this page should be marked historical. Vassyana 19:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * From my own observations, there doesn't seem to be any real consensus on the matter. All but a handful of mainspace transclusions of spoiler templates have been removed, but in situations where editors want to use spoiler warnings, this "guideline" does absolutely no good. This guideline does absolutely jack shit in terms of outlining when to use spoilerwarnings. --- RockMFR 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there seems to be a consensus that the guideline should be here. The problem is the meat of the text, not its existence. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if there is consensus a guideline should exist, there is no consensus for this guideline. A number of failed policy and guideline proposals were attempts to fill a niche recognized by the community as existing, but they failed to generate consensus. If someone wished to create an appropriate guideline they believe would generate consensus, they are welcome to do so., WP:VPP and Category:Wikipedia proposals all exist for that purpose. Consensus that a niche exists and there is community desire for an established guideline is not the same as the community endorsing a specific solution to that need. Vassyana 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are more ways to process than process for making process. In fact, that's arguably the worst way - David Gerard 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * About four weeks ago, there were about 45,000 articles with spoiler tags. Now I think there are about five articles left on the wiki with spoiler tags, and one of those is Oceans 13.  This guideline has overwhelming consensus. --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean this guideline has overwhelming bot support! Sethie looked at David Gerard's edit history.... This user removed 10,000 spoiler tags in about 5 days time, with maybe more, Sethie just got bored at looking. Oh, and all of the edits were marked as "minor."


 * Bots do not equal consensus. People not checking in on minor edits does not equal concensus. Sethie 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. (The other four of those are so badly written the spoiler tag doesn't noticeably make a bad article worse.) Leave it to cook for a while and see if there's substantial disagreement in practice. The previous situation, where people put spoilers on Anagram, kiss and fairy tales, was utterly unacceptable; if spoilers are not kept on a firm leash, you know we'll get back there - David Gerard 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That a few people used admin bots to remove every spoiler they could find is supposed to suggest some sort of actual consensus was reached on this subject is your argument? I mean, seriously?? Well, fuck me, let me and some other like-minded folks use bots to remove every instance of word "peanut butter" from wikipedia because apparently that will prove that some sort of consensus was reached to bar its use in Wikipedia.
 * BTW - this is exactly why many people have thrown up their hands and decided to stop dealing with Wikipedia. You just get so tired of some folks thinking that "to edit" is to argue minor points to death. I keep coming across far too many user pages from people who used to be happily active that have notes that say in some form or other "Life is too short to deal with this shit and those that sling it." RoyBatty42 22:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't wild about the mass spoiler tag removal being so automated, but I would like to point out that we don't have things like "admin bots". No admin access or tool was used in the process, so the user being an admin or not was not a factor. Back to your point, like I said, I generally agree, it is a bit heavy handed in appearance. However, only a few times did I actually disagree with the removal of the warning tags. The majority of spoiler tag use seems to be there because people thought they were supposed to add it, rather than coming to the conclusion that it was really needed. It's hard for me to be upset about something that was removed without much thought, when it was added without much thought. -- Ned Scott 23:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I said it a number of times -- I'm positive a LOT of the warnings in place are there not because people thought the page needed the warning, but because they thought that was the correct thing to do stylistically on WP. Which is why it'll be interesting to see what happens now. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you underestimate the editors here. Maybe they saw spoiler tags in other articles, and thought it is a good idea? In fact, you cannot really tell, which is the case. Samohyl Jan 06:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I was told that spoiler tags are no longer being used, therefore deleted the ones that I added to a recent article that seemed to need them. I think that might be why there are no more spoiler tags- if you tell enough people who are unaware of the debate not to use them, and go around removing them, and then try to claim that clearly the no-tag policy is consensus.... As far as I can tell, there's a no consensus ATM, and there needs to be a tag on the guideline page stating that. Kuronue


 * Hnmmm A group of editors running around with bots removing all the spoiler tags shows that .. "This guideline has overwhelming consensus." looks like WP:CON needs some work as well! Sethie 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A definition of 'substantial disagreement in practice' would be handy. Otherwise it's just another vague rule of thumb from the anti-spoiler admins.-- Nydas (Talk) 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Substantial disagreement in practice" would be pretty obvious if one removed 45,000 templates that were felt to be necessary. Hardly any of them were put back.  That's consensus. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly any of them were put back
 * That might have something to do with this  and I didn't even go looking for that example .I stumbled across it when I went to that Users page to check something else .Garda40 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As might this []. Here is a case where it was taken out, and put back, and the same user, using a bot (do you even have to sit at your computer to do this?) went through and removed it again. [ Sethie 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC) ] ''


 * Yes, it is true that edit warring has been used in attempts to restore spoilers. But in very few isolated cases. The guideline provides for consensual decisions to place spoiler tags, on the basis of compelling reasons. --Tony Sidaway 23:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence that is the case? Since I doubt you're checking page histories or talk pages in your mass-removal sprees, it would probably be very easy to miss a few thousand ones where the spoilers had been replaced. If one could find a thousand instances of it being replaced, would that count as 'substantial disagreement in practice'?-- Nydas (Talk) 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would. But they have not. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's about fifty in your recent contribution history. And your efforts pale compared to David Gerard's. Please, stop pretending that your 'consensus' is anything of the sort.-- Nydas (Talk) 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the cleaner-uppers. As such I not only perform manual removals, I am also on of those who pick up what piddling few restorations there have been.  The small number I've had to deal with, and incidentally editing manually because I don't use scripts, is testament to the overwhelming success of this new guideline.  The number of people who have cooperated with us in reverting tag restorations has enabled us to overwhelm those few people who have engaged in kneejerk restoration. --Tony Sidaway 06:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since it is not possible to determine whether a spoiler tag is a 'restoration' without inspecting the page history or talk page, there is no reason for you designate yourself a 'cleaner-upper' as opposed to David Gerard's mass edits. One only needs to look at the contribution histories to see it is very likely that thousands of wikipedians have had their edits undone by a handful of fanatics. Vague claims about 'small numbers' and 'piddling few' mean nothing, since we have no idea what you mean by them. Just like 'substantial disagreement in practice' and 'compelling reason'.-- Nydas (Talk) 08:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It might also have something to do with this or this (search for 'stop or be stopped'). Not only do spoiler adders lack anything close to the tools spoiler removers use, but using what they do have in an effective manner is punishable. --Kizor 04:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this seems to be one of the problems. The other is that it's much easier to use bots and the like to completely remove a spoiler space than to properly insert it.  As such, a determined, small group of anti-spoiler editors has a significant advantage whether or not consensus exists.  To me, it seems that what the determined anti-spoiler crowd (who, to be fair, probably have a fair chunk of the population who support them, even if it seems like only a handful are doing all the work) did was remove spoilers on masse, pointing to this guideline as though it was already consensus, to claim the spoiler warnings they deleted were against policy to convince people not to change them back.  If people did try to change them back, they reverted them again, using bots.  Then, in the argument about what the spoiler policy should be, they used the fact that most of the removals haven't been reverted as evidence that there's consensus on the issue.  This strikes me as deeply unfair, almost circular reasoning.
 * How about the following compromise. Until we do actually have consensus, the anti-spoiler brigade only remove spoilers on articles they already routinely edit or read.  No patrolling the whole site for spoilers to remove.  No pointing to this guideline to prove to people their edits were wrong - if there's a disagreement, hash it out on the talk page like anyone else.  Bots should not be used to advance a particular philosophy on wiki.  Let editors, not bots, decide whether they feel spoiler warnings are appropriate for their articles, and maybe they can decide the issue for us.  That is, after all, part of what consensus is, isn't it?Wandering Ghost 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The allegation of using bots in edit wars is incorrect. As is also the charge of sing "admin bots", whatever those might be.  The reasoning is hardly circular. Consensus was apparent early on when our first few thousand removals did not occasion substantial numbers of reverts.  From then on it was plain sailing.  Those few who have restored spoiler tags have found themselves overwhelmed, not by bots, but by the sheer number of people who removed them again. One fellow edit warred against two editors on one article, three on another, four on another, five on another, and a total of six on another.  And all these who opposed him established editors, administrators for the most part.  He had to concede that he was acting against consensus. --Tony Sidaway 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify that when I say 'bots' I don't mean 'admin bots' (nor did I ever say that), but rather 'automated tools which make removing of spoiler tags extremely easy for people not otherwise involved in that article', things like AWB. I apologize for my unclarity.  Still, when people use a tool that essentially lets them monitor solely the articles that have spoilers, which hey then go in and remove with the click of a button or two, while the other side has to manually go through articles that they may feel need spoiler space and add them, then it's _expected_ that a significant disparity should exist between the edits created and the edits reverted.  It's part of the system.  I don't think you can claim consensus based on it, any more than you can claim consensus on the fact that everybody must love the current political system of their country, and thus there is no need to change campaign finance reform, because if they didn't, it would changed.  When the deck's stacked on one side, you need more than the absence of things suddenly changing to claim people are okay with it.  As to your 'one person restoring spoilers vs 3-5 established editors', I'll have no choice but to take you at your word.  I'm sure in some cases it's true.  I'm not completely against revisind the spoiler policy with an eye to reducing the number of spoiler tags, my qualm is with the way it's done.  And _if_ that 'one person restorying spoilers vs established editors' is actually a case of 'one person restoring spoilers on an article he contributes to vs 3-5 editors who do systematically remove them from all articles but aren't involved in the regular page' (which I grant may not be the case, but it seems to be in my case), then that's not consensus, that's a just a gang-up.  In my perspective, if you're so sure you've got consensus, you'll let the market take care of itself so to speak, and no longer go on a tear looking for spoilers to edit - if you happen to see one in your normal editing and happen to want to remove it, fine, but don't make a crusade out of it - you've got better weapons than the other side, so it's not a fair fight.  Wandering Ghost 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

People continue to forget that Spoiler has always had a clear consensus. Other elements, such as spoiler warnings shouldn't effect page layout, or NPOV, etc, also have a clear consensus. Personally, I think there is a consensus for the whole thing, but even if you disagree with that, tagging the whole thing as historical would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. -- Ned Scott 22:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The existing guideline does permit the use of spoiler tags on recent and upcoming films and the like. This is sensible, so yes, let's keep it. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree, though personally I don't support the current flashy form of spoilers. The keeping also makes sense in terms of Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF) and Ignore all rules (WP:IAR). --Brand спойт 22:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) I wholeheartedly agree with RoyBatty42 when he says that "this is exactly why many people have thrown up their hands and decided to stop dealing with Wikipedia." Having to compose a rationale to be able to get a slight chance to keep a spoiler warning where it belongs is an absurd notion.
 * (2) On the topic of "clear consensus", please see Wikipedia_talk:Consensus.
 * (3) A case in point is Tomorrow (novel), especially if you look at that page's edit history and of course its talk page.
 * (4) We shouldn't forget that spoiler warnings have a long history outside Wikipedia, that they are not our creation. I believe it was Billy Wilder who, during the credits of Witness for the Prosecution at the end of the film, asks the audience not to tell potential cinemagoers about the surprise ending of the film. A classic example of where a spoiler warning in a Wikipedia article makes a lot of sense, but nevertheless David Gerard removed it as "redundant".
 * (5) The root of the problem seems to be editors dealing with books they have not read&mdash;another absurd notion but quite common here at Wikipedia, as if the actual authors of an article could not be trusted. &lt;KF&gt; 04:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying what I referenced as a "clear consensus" is not a clear consensus? For over a year I've been an active part of this guideline and the discussions around it, and I can tell you with a reasonable degree of certainly, there is a strong consensus for Spoiler, and a strong consensus for spoiler warnings to not interfere with things like NPOV and even page structure (we wanted the tags to be flexible, so that people could put the spoiler where it made sense, then place a tag around it, instead of having to plan around spoiler tags). Do you even understand that I was not commenting on things like, should they be removed from articles, or how many tags there should be, or if they should be in plot sections or not? I specifically did not comment on those issues, to point out that there is non-controversial content in this guideline. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yours is one of the replies I do not quite understand. As far as I know, I was not referring to you at all. I just wanted to point out that elsewhere, i e on the appropriate policy page Consensus, no one has given me an answer yet as to what constitutes a "clear" (or, as you put it now, "strong") consensus. (The example given there is the now deleted List of people by name.)
 * The things mentioned under Spoiler indeed seem unacceptable to me, but that's not what my comment is about. It is about the mass removal of spoiler warnings no matter whether the actual authors of individual articles object or not. And, by implication, it is about our common practice of five years or so of adding spoiler warnings which suddenly, it seems, is all wrong. &lt;KF&gt; 06:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright.. I guess it was just some confusion. It did seem you were referring to my comment, though, since only two people have said "clear consensus" on the talk page prior to your message (at this time, that is), one of them being the unindented message just above these ones. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that this page reflects how Wikipedia actually uses (or doesn't use) spoiler templates, rather than how some people would like Wikipedia to handle that. There has recently been an effort to remove superfluous spoiler templates under certain circumstances; this should be mentioned here. I think it'd be useful to indeed have a guideline on spoilers, because the issue comes up often.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And a guideline to reform due-process fairness. Milo 08:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler is easily covered by No disclaimers in articles. In the absence of consensus regarding the inclusion of spoiler tags, should we really provide the loophole to that guideline? Vassyana 08:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because those are about bone fide warnings, and spoiler "warnings" are only a Hollywood illusion — a dramatic exaggeration of a caution or even mere table-of-contents-like notice. Milo 08:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. No disclaimers in articles explicitly includes spoilers. Vassyana 10:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It explicitly includes spoilers as an exception to itself - and, it bears mentioning, did so much more forcefully until the anti-spoiler side of this discussion decided that it wins, and therefore gets to rewrite that. --Kizor 10:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the irregularities in the discussion, I would not say there is a consensus for any of this. For example, the MfD was cited as a basis for 'consensus', despite being closed after two days.-- Nydas (Talk) 08:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If we remove it as a guideline, however, we are basically doing what the most radical of the anti-spoiler crowd is suggesting: remove it completely. You can't just delete a problem and make it disappear. I'm sorry if this comment is completely out of place; I can't read this whole discussion at the moment. But it seems like an inadequate solution to say, "well, we can't agree on whether or not to get rid of this, so we might as well get rid of it so there's no more problem." Twilight Realm 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah but that's the rub, isn't it? By your logic, it's ALSO inadequate to KEEP it, if there's no consensus. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

'Spoiler is a neologism'
I've re-removed this paragraph of unmitigated gobbledegook. Ken Arromdee puts it well:

"It was added again without the word 'neologism', which doesn't really help, so I've deleted it again. It still included the dubious claim that it's unusual for "scholarly reference works of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be" to include spoilers. What Wikipedia aspires to be is not given anywhere in enough detail to know whether Wikipedia aspires to be something with or without spoilers. (And spoiler opponents taking out spoiler warnings and spoiler policies and then making claims about Wikipedia aspirations based on the absence of the material they took out is, well, circular.)"

Twilight Realm:

"It's been added back again. Aside from the points that I have already made, which I do not think need repeating, I'd also like to comment that citing one "scholarly" source to prove what they all do is absolutely ridiculous."

-- Nydas (Talk) 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Touche. If anything ever suffers from the delusion that wikipedia is ONLY a scholarly source, please see []. That does not mean to say that wikipedia isn't "scholarly" but the truth is, wikipedia delves into levels of detail that scholarly sources don't, and hence the need for spoiler tags. Sethie 20:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The paragraph, which I have restored, does not describe "spoiler" as a neologism. --Tony Sidaway 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It does, however, contain the problems identified by Ken Arromdee.-- Nydas (Talk) 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ken might like to find a number of scholarly sources that use the term spoiler. Then we might discuss the accuracy or otherwise of the claim that "it is unusual for scholarly reference works (of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be) to warn for spoilers when discussing fictional works."  Sethie also mistakes "aspires to be" for "is". --Tony Sidaway 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Touche, sort of. That's partially why Sethie said "is ONLY" :) Sethie 21:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The big problems with that section is not the definition of "spoiler" (so the use of scholarly sources with the term isn't really relevant), but the claim about what Wikipedia aspires to be. No official Wikipedia statement says "Wikipedia aspires to be the kind of work that doesn't contain spoilers".  The closest you can find are some general statements, such as statements comparing Wikipedia to a print encyclopedia--but those statements don't mean "Wikipedia aspires to be like one in all ways". Ken Arromdee 15:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to return to Constructivity
Okay, I've gone over my objections to the way things have been done a number of times, and frankly, I'm getting a little irritated. So, to circumvent that, I'm going to try to be constructive this time around.

I think there are, regardless of how the overall spoiler debate turns out, a few changes are needed to the proposed guidelines as they stand. First, "Spoiler warnings are redundant when used in "Plot", "Character history", "Synopsis", or other sections that are self-evidently going to discuss a plot or similar."

This strikes me as far too vague. What counts as "other sections that are self-evidently going to discuss a plot or similar"? I don't think it's self-evident at all. I recently had a problem with the removal of a spoiler tag on Runaways (comics). The warning was not in the 'plot outline' section, 'Synopsis', or 'Character History'. It was in a simple listing of characters. The character listing did contain major spoilers about some of the major mysteries of series, so I objected. Tony Sideway and David Gerard (neither of whom, to my knowledge, are aware of the subject of the page, as I didn't see either of them in the edit history prior to the spoiler debate) reverted me. But is a character listing "self-evidently going to discuss a plot or similar"? I think the disagreement itself suggests that it's _not_ self-evident in some cases. If one goes to a movie page or a book page, under 'cast of characters' would one expect to see (I'm making my examples up because I dislike the "using a real spoiler to prove a point" mentality), "Bob Johnson as Joe-Bob, who is revealed at the end of the movie to be the Devil." One might argue it'd be better to remove the spoiler entirely, but in some cases that can't be done easily while maintaining the tone of the article. Or let's say in "Critical Reception", an article said something to the effect of "the violent death of Beth at the end at the hands of E. Ville at the end caused a huge amount of controversy, and sparked a successful campaign to have the character returned to life in a sequel." The critical reception might be after the plot section. But shouldn't it receive a spoiler warning? Someone might have skipped over the plot part just to find out how well people liked it. Likewise, a person might read a character listing expecting to get an idea of what kind of themes are being explored, but not necessarily expect to see major plot details. I think we should tighten up this section, and list specifically what sections should be assumed to contain spoilers, and by default, permit warnings for spoilers that are in other sections, without an automatic presumption of removal.

Secondly, what constitutes compelling reasons and who gets to decide? I think we should have a guideline on this, because as it stands, someone can insert a spoiler warning, Tony and David (or others with their views, but who aren't necessarily well versed in the particular topic) can jump into the debate on it, and claim the reasons aren't compelling enough, and both revert, overruling a particular person who is familiar. It's wholely a judgement call, so I'd suggest that the people doing the judging have some knowledge of the topic.

Some level of definition for 'classic' wouldn't be out of place either.

Onto the whole 'neologism' paragraph (whether it contains the word or not). I think it might be fair to say, at present, something along the lines of "Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning. However, it is unusual for scholarly reference works (of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be) to warn for spoilers when discussing fictional works. The following guidelines are an attempt to reflect consensus on the issue, which is that spoiler warnings do have a place on some Wikipedia articles, but should not be used as indiscriminately as they are in less scholarly article, and should be avoided where unnecessary or redundant."

Going beyond what I think needs to be done to improve the article as it is, and towards my own views on what it should be, I'm not fond of the blanket 'articles on fictional places and things should be assumed to have spoilers, always'. When you're looking on wiki, sometimes you don't know the context of the search. If you hear a name being referenced, and you don't know what it is, you might look it up, only to find a major spoiler about that. I still have no problem with spoiler warnings being redundant on 'Character biography' or 'Location History' for fictional characters on locations, but if the rest of the article contains spoilers, I'd feel they might require a warning. Since the 'Character biography' is an element that would be covered in the point immediately above it, I'd suggest this point be removed.

Finally, a pointer to WP:POINT might be appropriate to suggest that it is not okay to use automated tools to bulk remove spoiler tags, because it's much easier to remove a spoiler tag than it is to properly place one. As such, while editors are welcome to remove specific spoilers they don't think are appropriate, they should not be doing so systematically without regard to the reasons they may have. Wandering Ghost 22:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Spoiler tags should still go on "Character Biography" and "Location History" and similar sections when needed. It's the same argument as the one about spoiler warnings not going on plot sections:
 * 1) that type of section does *not* always contain spoilers. A spoiler isn't the same thing as a plot element, and if a character biography contains only non-surprising events, it might not necessarily contain spoilers.
 * 2) spoiler warnings can be placed in the middle of the section if the spoiler occurs in the middle; even if all such sections contain spoiler warnings, they don't all contain them in the same place, and their placement provides useful information to the reader.
 * 3) omitting the warning just because the user can deduce the existence of a spoiler without it is bad user interface design.
 * Ken Arromdee 15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, believe me, I agree entirely on this. I'm mostly talking about ways to try and improve the article and make it more agreeable as it stands, while the fuller debate over spoileryness continues.  I completely agree.  IMHO Spoiler warnings are information.  Information a reader may wish to know.  Wikipedia, in its policy of providing all significant information, should likewise include information on what sections of the article are spoilers, as that is significant to many people reading fictional articles.Wandering Ghost 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why can't be put warnings for pics of naked people, swear words, and other things that might offend? The reader may "want to know" THAT too. People accept that such warnings should be off WP, but not spoiler warnings. Why? I've yet to see a good reason for that. Most of the time it's either "yeah they should be there too" or "people can't forget a spoiler" -- which is silly, because a disturbing picture can do far more damage than a spoiled plot twist. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "such warnings should be off WP" They are not warnings — they are just dramatically named that way. They are a Hollywood/fan exaggeration of table-of-contents-like information. Spoilers disappoint, not offend, since one desires to learn them in due course. Did you read the 'hidden warning tag test' thought experiment that I constructed just for you? Milo 03:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a discussion about hidden warning is relevent to anything when we're discussing visible warnings. The idea of hidden ones as a default is pretty much universally considered unacceptable on WP, from what I've seen. And "Spoilers disappoint, not offend"? Shouldn't that mean that all the more so the warnings are less importent? You make it sound like offending people is ok, but disappointing them is a horrible thing. Does this sound backwards to anyone else? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * • "I don't see how a discussion about hidden warning is relevant to anything when we're discussing visible warnings." The thought experiment demonstrates that if the spoiler tags are hidden, it becomes obvious that spoilers tags, hidden or visible, are not bone fide warnings.
 * • "People accept that such warnings should be off WP, but not spoiler warnings. Why?" Because "spoiler warnings" aren't actually warnings. Warnings are an advance notice of danger, and there is none, as demonstrated by the thought experiment.
 * • "hidden ones as a default is pretty much universally considered unacceptable on WP," That perception is about hiding the spoilers themselves. The proposal on the table is to hide spoiler tags.
 * • "And "Spoilers disappoint, not offend"? Shouldn't that mean that all the more so the warnings are less important?" Spoiler tags fit into a middle category - they are neither important nor unimportant. If the subject is notable, then its spoilers are also notable enough that a large minority of readers want table-of-contents-like information (tags) that spoilers lie just ahead.
 * • The compromise proposal on the table is to hide the tags so no one can claim format offense, yet all would have the option to avoid spoiler disappointments. Does this sound progressive to anyone else? Milo 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not involved in the debate on whether other warnings should be there. However, considering spoilers are explicitly exempted in certain cases under WP:NDT, that suggests that there's consensus that there is a difference between the two, even if people can't quite articulate what that difference is.  But, just to give it the old college try, perhaps part of it's this: Generally, you don't expect anybody to reasonably be looking for nude pics on wikipedia.  And you don't expect people to be looking for nude pics specifically related to another topic.  Someone might deliberately search for that, but generally speaking, it's easier to find such things elsewhere.  Similarly with coarse language, or 'offensive content' warnings.  However, you can very easily conceive of someone looking for spoilers about something.  I certainly do it.  The tag, properly used, is then information - the main spoilers are here.  On the other hand, I _believe_ typically pages which would have nudity warnings and offensive content warnings are usually going to be 'top of the page' warnings, because you can't exactly say 'Warning: Nude pictures coming right up here', followed by the pic, and in articles where potentially offensive content might be, it usually covers more or less the whole article.  But spoilers are generally targetted, and many people want to look at a page and learn things about the topic except the spoilers, and this is feasible, by targetting spoiler warnings properly.  Not a perfect comparison as some types of offensive content are textual and could likewise be targetted.  Also, generally speaking, all works of fiction have a spoilery and non-spoilery component.  You could, conceivably, do a project in which every single fictional book, character, place, etc, on Wikipedia, create two separate articles, one of which deals with non-spoilery aspects, and one which deals with spoilery aspects, and probably nearly every single article would have an article for  both sides of the issue.  Of course, nobody would, but it's useful as a thought experiment.  With non-fictional subjects, only a tiny minority of articles would have a 'nude pics version' and a 'non nude pics version', or an 'offensive content version' and a 'non offensive content' version (and those that do, especially ones dealing with religious aspect, would likely have many _different_ versions of both).   This suggests, to me, that where there are spoilers is key information in fictional topics as a whole, but where there is nude pics is not key information in reality topics as a whole. But as I said, I'm mostly thinking off the top of my head, so this might all be full of crap. ;) Wandering Ghost 03:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not disputed
A show of hands, how many people came here to dispute the guideline, or how many people are just pissed at one of the guys doing mass tag removals? My point being, take it up with the guys doing the automated tag removal. I've always supported this guideline, but the tag removal seemed too heavy handed. I don't downright disagree with the removals, since I know a mass of tags have been added over the years without much thought, but when I saw it I knew people would be pissed. This guideline is not encouraging mass tag removal in this way. The guideline encourages individual cases me taken to the talk page when the need for a warning is disputed.

Like I said, I'm not going to say people are wrong to do the mass removals, but don't lump their actions with this guideline when the connection is simply their interpretation. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the massive spoiler removal, though I also dispute with forbidding spoilers under headings such as "plot" or similar, because it may not be obvious to non-native english speaking people (which are probably a majority here), to automated computer tools (which could in principle show/hide spoiler warning depending on user setting, as some people suggested), in special cases (such as "method" for magic or "solution" for famous puzzles and problems). Also, it's a bit sneaky way how to get rid of spoilers completely, because you can then argue: if they are not needed in the general case (if there is such heading), then they also are not needed in any special case. In my opinion, user experience is the key for Wikipedia, and having spoiler warnings generally improves it. Samohyl Jan 06:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot is being said here at Wikipedia about "process", especially in connexion with requests for deletion and the "consensus" necessary for it, but also here. The underlying problem has been addressed in detail by Milo (see above), but, alas, subsequently largely ignored ("The rest of your comment scarcely deserves a response, I fear, for it paints a completely absurd picture of despotism on a wiki with an open editing model.") "Scarcely deserves a response"? Is this the GDR back in the 1970s?


 * Applying double standards by only referring to guidelines when, and if, they come in handy (eg the "three revert rule") and crushing opposition using phrases that could be interpreted as threats ("You've had your chance") and declaring afterwards there is no, and has never been any, opposition are not helpful to achieve a fair process. &lt;K  F&gt;  08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little of both. Really, I mainly got into the debate because of the mass removal.  If everything was the result of a wide variety of editors applying a new, widely agreed on policy, I might not have fought at all.  But when I noticed that it seemed to be only one person doing all the edits (at least the ones on my watchlist), and maybe 2 or 3 doing reverts, I looked into the matter.  Then (although, admittedly, under the wiki model of discussion it is a little difficult to follow discussions like this through all the iterations on different pages), what I saw was a shocking lack of consensus on the policy itself, and the people who were removing the spoilers seemingly using their removal to justify the policy (that nobody's reverting it proves there's consensus!) and the policy to justify the removal and re-removal, and generally not playing fair.  So, I got into the debate.  As to my feelings on spoilers in general, I'm generally pro-warning.  I'd like to see them everywhere appropriate.  I agree with unacceptable alternatives, and that in many cases if a spoiler's in an unrelated article it can be removed, and the idea of not writing articles around spoilers, but want to include spoiler warnings.  Mostly, in the policy as it stands, I disagree with two areas: 1) that spoilers are redundant in plot and character history and sections about fictional characters, because they should be assumed, and 2) that editors need to put _compelling reasons_ to add spoilers warnings.  Those were the focus of my 'attempt to be constructive' and reach a compromise, because as of right now, they're seemingly badly abused by the anti-spoiler crowd.  I could 'live with' (though I'd still prefer otherwise) a ban on spoilers on sections clearly labelled Plot Outline or Synopsis, so long as I can be convinced it actually does reflect a wide consensus, and so long the rules are better defined. Wandering Ghost 11:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Both, as those above, though I got here before the mass removal started. I understand your wish to keep the policy out of this, but I don't think it's unlinked. Not when the removals are justified by policy and the policy is justified by the removals. --Kizor 11:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dispute current spoiler guideline, due process abuses, mass tag removals, premature or circular claim of consensus, and majoritarian failure to negotiate consensus compromise with a large (40%+) minority. Milo 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't remember how I got into this debate; I think I must have seen it on someone's contribution history. Even then, it was obvious that there was something wrong, with the fanatical admin group policing the very debate they were taking part in. As for the guideline itself, I have problems with the 'compelling arguments' gibberish, the nonsensical paragraph about why Wikipedia can't have spoilers and the so-called 'redundancy'. The claim that a consensus exists is absolutely without foundation, as shown above, with no evidenced counter-arguments yet provided. -- Nydas (Talk) 15:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been in this almost from the start trying to oppose the anti-spoiler crowd. They've consistently refused to listen to arguments (I must have rebutted "it's a Plot section, the readers already know it contains spoilers" several times (most recently in the middle of Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler), yet they refuse to listen.  The fact that they then made 45000 changes and claim consensus because not all of the 45000 are restored only makes it worse. Ken Arromdee 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A few things. I can't stress enough that Tony, David, whoever, are not some kind of official representatives of the guideline. They are two users who are applying the guideline in a way they feel it applies. They can be right or wrong, but the issue then is with them. I know all that jazz about no personal attacks, but to be blunt, Tony can be really condescending and disrespectful, and does say stuff like "you had your chance". Well, stop listening to Tony, or whoever else is saying junk like that. Now we have people that are needlessly in conflict mode, and now we have a "dispute" when people really just take issue with the actions of a few.

I'd like to think that I'm a bit in the middle ground. I don't want to see the tags removed completely, but I do agree that they often get out of control. I've argued for the existence of spoiler tags for over a year now, including the last year's RFC which generated a massive 1 MB chuck of discussion. I've seen all the "new" arguments from the current RFC, and all the stuff being talked about here. I can tell you guys this, trying to take the guideline hostage only makes you look stupid and hurts your own argument. It totally misses the point, and even if you find a mass of people who say "I disagree with X" you have to present a reason why that's a bad thing. We're not a democracy, and we don't do things on numbers alone.

I totally agree that the task of removing spoilers doesn't show a consensus about something, and that all guidelines are subject to ever-changing consensus and new discussion. But damn guys, it's so obvious that you're just taking your anger out on the wrong place and for the wrong reasons. You have to realize, we won't have spoiler warnings back in the numbers we once had them, and for good reason. Second, it was never a big deal, and never a necessity. The spoiler warnings have always been nothing more than a courtesy for the reader, so remember that before you fight for this thing tooth and nail. -- Ned Scott 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can tell you guys this, trying to take the guideline hostage only makes you look stupid and hurts your own argument.


 * The anti-spoiler admins began rewriting this guideline mere hours into the discussion, implementing the 'spoilers are redundant' section and granting themselves veto power with the 'compelling argument' bit. I am not aware of any 'compelling argument' that has succeeded. That is because it is not meant to. If anyone has taken this guideline hostage, it is them.


 * Ordinary users can no more oppose the AWB juggernaut than a toddler can tackle a grizzly bear. The only option is to slow them down is at the source. You know as well as anyone that they won't accept any changes here either, like when I tried to insert concrete examples instead of 'compelling reasons'. All we get are Tony Sidaway's baseless claims about 'no significant opposition', 'less than we expected' and other such stuff.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll add my endorsement to Ned Scott's plea. I apologise if my style appears condescending and unhelpful; to a large extent I tend to be unaware of that while writing and I should make more effort to check my words before hitting submit.


 * On this stuff about an "AWB juggernaut", I think you have to realise that it was just one guy (or two guys perhaps, I seem to recall that it wasn't all David) going through a list of all articles containing the spoiler tag and removing them. The rate at which David worked using AWB is perfectly attainable by any other editor using a normal multiple-tabbed browser.  It seems that he peaked at around 3 or 4 article edits per minute, which given the simplicity of the edits isn't a big deal. Had there been any significant opposition to his edits, we would not have been able to achieve this excellent and necessary work of removing the clutter from articles.  AWB is just a browser with some built-in search-and-replace functions, as far as I'm aware.  The editor still has to check the edit and press submit.


 * The new guideline sets out reasonable standards for putting spoiler tags into articles. All we have to do now is decide which of the articles now on Wikipedia requires them.  This should be done on the talk page of each article, according to circumstances pertaining to information in the article and the requirements of maintaining balance, neutral point of view, readability and other elements of article quality. --Tony Sidaway 20:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If this doesn't really matter, why people fight so much (using AWB) to remove them, now, after at least 3 years? You say they have been courtesy to the reader, and that they are gone for a good reason. To provide a courtesy for readers is certainly a good reason, but I fail to see what good reason there is in removing them? Samohyl Jan 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I speak from personal experience when I say that no manual editor can hope to match the speed of AWB. Certainly not when he's trying to undo the damage. With AWB, it appears to be "open article, mark as minor, submit, open article, mark as minor, submit." With a tabbed prowser and proficiency in its use, it's "open article history, look for the removal, look for all other removals of other surviving tags, compare all of them to the previous revisions to find the typo-fixes and other things that AWB did on the side, open undo on all of them, find the places of the typo-fixes and other things and meticulously add them in, mark all as minor, submit all, open article." This is not counting what happens if the edits involved can't be undone, nor the loading times or mouse movements or tab-switches. Neither does it take into account that the AWB-using remover gets an easy way to find all possible targets, the manual restorer has to find them as well first. Not possible. --Kizor 21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As for coming across as condescending and disrespectful, that is a completely accurate description. --Kizor 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well... I don't think Tony is personally disrespectful. His Wikipedia career has been significantly involved with controversies, but I actually admire his public efforts to improve how he personally interacts with other editors. Milo 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Point. He tries. Just being all bitter and crabby, I suppose. --Kizor 03:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On this stuff about an "AWB juggernaut", I think you have to realise that it was just one guy (or two guys perhaps, I seem to recall that it wasn't all David) going through a list of all articles containing the spoiler tag and removing them. The rate at which David worked using AWB is perfectly attainable by any other editor using a normal multiple-tabbed browser.


 * It is not attainable by any other normal editors because normal editors simply do not edit that fast. It is is especially not attainable when you threaten anyone that tries.


 * Had there been any significant opposition to his edits, we would not have been able to achieve this excellent and necessary work of removing the clutter from articles.


 * Until you explain what it means, the phrase 'significant opposition' will have to filed along with 'substantial disagreement in practice' as too vague to be understood. Putting aside the fact the anti-spoiler squad is still reverting hundreds of edits daily (presumably not 'significant opposition') you still haven't explained to how you measured resistance to your edits. Looking at the contribution histories, fiction articles with multiple removals of spoiler warnings are fairly common, contradicting your claims. Of those that don't, many have traffic lower than one edit a month, so can hardly be cited as evidence of a 'consensus'. You said earlier that it was possible to gauge resistance with common Wiki tools 'in an instant', I would still like to know how this is done.


 * The new guideline sets out reasonable standards for putting spoiler tags into articles. All we have to do now is decide which of the articles now on Wikipedia requires them.


 * Is there a single example anywhere on Wikipedia of one of the anti-spoiler admins accepting a 'compelling argument', as the guideline suggests can happen? If not, it's basically a veto, and should be removed in the name of intellectual honesty and offering false hope to pro-spoiler people.-- Nydas (Talk) 22:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See List of fictional occurrences of broadcast signal intrusion. I think the argument given there is compelling and I did not oppose the installation of a spoiler tag.


 * The very few instances of repeated replacement of spoiler tags without proper discussion were disruptive editors who firstly found themselves overwhelmed by numbers and secondly were blocked for edit warring. There is of course still a small dribble of new spoiler tags and replaced spoiler tags placed by people who are unaware of the change in guideline.  This absolutely isn't a problem.  Where their replacement conforms to the guideline it will prevail.  Where it does not, it probably won't. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And what happened in the cases of very many instances of repeated removal of spoiler tags without proper discussion, then? You really show there was a double measure here. Samohyl Jan 22:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's compelling, the spoilers on other lists of fictional things haven't been spared, why should this one? Your comment 'There may be people who come here not expecting to see a particular TV show, which is still running, to be discussed' applies to many of them. Your characterisation of thousands of reverts as 'very few' or hundreds of spoiler tags as 'a small dribble' is questionable. I am still awaiting your explanation of how to use common Wiki tools to gauge resistance to thousands of edits 'in an instant'.-- Nydas (Talk) 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think in this case the argument for leaving the spoiler in is quite compelling. All that it shows is that in this case, common sense prevailed, whereas in many other equally compelling cases, it's being squashed.  You should also take note - David Gerard's edits removed the spoiler again AFTER the compelling case was made.  He didn't respond, or even look at the talk page.  He just reverted.  I think to improve this policy we REALLY need a blanket 'existing spoiler warnings should not be removed without prior discussion on a talk page'.  The default position should not be REMOVE ALL SPOILERS, AND IF NOT, PROVE IT SHOULD BE THERE.  It should be 'assume good faith (hey, anyone remember that guideline) that an editor who puts a spoiler warning in feels there is a compelling reason, leave it in, and then discuss it on the talk page until there is a wide consensus'.  A wide consensus does not mean 'two people jump in, claim it's not a compelling reason, each reverting at the time'.) Only this can level the playing field between the semi-automated removals and people who have to manually put them back in..Wandering Ghost 23:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we've got much choice left but to open an RfA here. Sideaway and the rest should at least have their bot access suspended as an injunctive measure so we can at least stem the damage they're doing to the encyclopaedia. Further action can be taken after that by the higher-ups, so long as we present the full and complete list of their vandalisms and attempts to change policy by sheer robotic force. Kargath64 06:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute catch 22

 * Above (#Not dispute) Ned Scott asked "how many people came here to dispute the guideline, or how many people are just pissed at one of the guys doing mass tag removals?". Six of the seven responses included both issues, and six mentioned a guideline dispute.
 * Ned then removed the article disputed tag declaring (19:01 13 June 2007) "and you guys proved my point. you have an issue with Tony and the others far more than you have an issue with the guideline, which was a compromise to prevent total removal)". 1/7 more is not "far more", and certainly doesn't invalid the existence of a dispute (and thus a dispute tag) declared by six editors (as well as other disputing editors not polled).
 * Admin Heimstern suddenly appeared (19:05 13 June 2007), declared an "extensive edit warring" (I disagree; it was just routine edits and reverts) and protected the article with a tag which says "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved."
 * Now how is that suppose to work? The dispute is about whether there is a dispute. Sethie already called that one (22:04 12 June 2007): "the fact that there is a dispute about whether there is a dispute kinda proves there [is] ..... *drum roll******* A DISPUTE!)"
 * The dispute tag isn't a content issue. Heimstern or some other admin should simply declare the obvious: yes, there is a dispute, leave the article dispute-tagged until the underlying content issues are resolved. Milo 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OTT guideline intro
I came at this by chance having noticed comments about spoilers being removed. My general view is that they have been ridiculously over-used and that using them in such a way makes them completely pointless. However, I do see a place for them where particular plot elements may be considered critical. But my reason for creating this section here was reading the actual guideline after looking at some of the debate. One of the very best ways I see to avoid the need for a spoiler is to structure the article so that a reader can see ahead that something they may read will have more detail than they would wish. I absoluetly disagree with the notion that wiki, as an encyclopedia, should force knowledge upon people, whether they wish it or not. I am certain that very many people will happen upon a wiki page without understanding wiki conventions, or what is likely to be shown there. The structure of a page should inherently allow people to first get a broad grasp of a subject without being exposed to too much detail. I see this as an important aspect of writing any kind of article...it should have a more general introductory section.

The guideline (at this moment, anyway) says:''Concerns about spoilers should play no role in decisions about the structure or content of an article, including the article's lead section. When adding a spoiler in the lead section, remember that Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective; what is exciting in the context of a fictional universe is almost certainly a standard plot device in literary construction.'' Cobblers, mate. That is an absurd statement to make. No role? Come off it. The primary goal of an encyclopedia is to convey that information which the reader wants to know. It is not appropriate to presume that wiki is an elitist institution intended to be read solely by academics. It is beneficial to any article to bear in mind the needs and wants of people reading it. This includes taking into account whether they may be upset by discovering the ending, rather than the general overview they were seeking. I do not see that there is any excuse for placing a gross spoiler in the introduction of any article where the issue might be relevant, and this should most definitely be taken into account when structuring such an article. Such a statement is utterly the opposite of having too many spoiler warnings, and is equally unacceptable.

The structure of the entire article should bear in mind the desireability of not including unexpected spoilers. Note, not that spoiler information should be excluded, but people should most certainly think about its potential impact when they decide how to present it. Sandpiper 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying that the article structure should be tailored to fit the expectations of someone who has come to read about a subject but specifically doesn't want to know all about it. I have to say, this doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me.  An encyclopedia is supposed to tell you everything significant about a subject.  That's what it's for.  The reader may not know this at first, but I can't imagine him being surprised to find that encyclopedias do that.  It seems unreasonable to me to tailor for those few readers who come looking for information they don't actually want. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But likewise it's important to structure the information so that you would find what you *want* to know easily. Having spoiler warnings obviously doesn't contradict to not telling everything in the article (they don't censor in any way). It's not important what structure is encyclopedic or not (by any definition), but what structure the users actually want. And I tried to do a poll, and about a half of people participating actually uses spoiler warnings sometimes, so it isn't just a few people. Samohyl Jan 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No. The structure should be encyclopedic. If the users expect something else then we have other problems, like that we don't explain what we are sufficiently. Phil Sandifer 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But what is encyclopedic? Britannica doesn't have (for example) article history, so does this feature make Wikipedia unencyclopedic? The best definition of encyclopedic I can think of (with regards to presentation, not content) is what is actually useful for the reader. What definition do you, Phil or Tony, use then? Samohyl Jan 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's take a real world case. The Romeo and Juliet article says this in the lead: "Romeo and Juliet is a world-renowned tragedy by William Shakespeare concerning two young "star-cross'd lovers" and the role played by their tragic suicides in ending a long-running family feud." So there in the first sentence we give away the ending.  Should we "restructure" the article by removing that from the lead? --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know. That's what the Talk:Romeo and Juliet is for. There will always be border cases. But that doesn't justify the general policy of removing all spoiler warnings (without a warning!). Samohyl Jan 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The guideline allows for the introduction of spoiler tags where a compelling reason exists for doing so. The default position is that we're an encyclopedia and our articles about fictional subjects can be expected to contain all significant information about those subjects. --Tony Sidaway 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm unhappy with Romeo and Juliet as a real word case. Romeo and Juliet is a Shakespearean work, hundreds of years old, a cornerstone of English literature, a random person on the street can be expected to know the basics of its plot. It represents very little indeed other than itself, and it definitely doesn't represent one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths over classical encyclopedias - comprehensive coverage of recent and lesser-known fiction. I'd rather ask about Rogue Moon or Heroes (TV series). --Kizor 21:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're not happy with Romeo and Juliet, how about The Crying Game (1992)? Just fifteen years old.  Second paragraph, first sentence: "The film was notable for its dramatic plot twist, in which it is revealed that a seemingly female main character has a penis, and for a sympathetic portrayal of characters from often-reviled subcultures, presented here as complex and likable human beings."  Should we restructure the article to remove one of the most significant facts about the film from the article lead? --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what, I object to one extreme case and you jump to another? Or do you claim that the majority of articles that until very recently used spoilers were such cases? How about the two I just mentioned? --Kizor 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's funny, it has been just changed by somebody to read: "The film was notable for its dramatic plot twist, and for a sympathetic portrayal of characters from often-reviled subcultures, presented here as complex and likable human beings." This version isn't much of a spoiler (because the what the actual plot twist is not revealed), and spoilers aside, I think it actually is better. But I still agree with Kizor, these are really borderline cases. Samohyl Jan 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This brings us, at long last, to my point: removing significant information from the lead brings the article into conflict with the Lead section guideline (WP:LEAD). --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it really that important information that main character (and not some other) has penis? I am not sure. But here's an idea: Why don't you look to what reviews of this movie said at the time? As was previously noted, film reviews usually do not contain spoilers, but I find it unbelievable they wouldn't contain mention that the film is about transgender issues. Samohyl Jan 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a significant part of the film's fame and, if you like to use the word, "notability". Reviews of current films, as you correctly state, sometimes do not reveal plot twists.  We're not a review website.  --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The intro then states that it's notable for dealing with transgender issues, not for that main character is revealed to have penis (if is it the first movie ever that uses this plot device, this looks more like trivia to me). If the former is the case, you simply don't need to know that main character has penis (in the intro). Look - I don't know the movie and don't care. The point is, this is really a special case, that should be discussed on the talk page. In general, I object to not having spoilers in sections marked "Plot" and so on, and for the double standard applied to existing articles (spoilers removed without discussion, but putting them back requires discussion). Samohyl Jan 06:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a special case at all. Many books, films, plays and other narrative works are famous for their plot tricks.  The lead section of an article should discuss these adequately, where important, without permitting article quality to be compromised by concessions to traditions imported from Usenet, blogs, forums and other new media. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is where our opinions differ. I don't think this compromises article quality at all. I agree that article should discuss everything. But if avoiding spoilers (or having spoiler warnings) is useful for some people, why not have them? This like saying that all articles should expect certain familiarity with the topic, because otherwise it compromises article quality. There will always be such compromises, because there are many different users of a particular article; but that doesn't mean that the quality of article is any worse if such a compromise has been made (since the target group has changed). Samohyl Jan 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, an article lead that omits something because some segment of the people reading the article might not want to know something seems perverse. An encyclopedia doesn't exist for the purpose of concealing information. Every single page of Wikipedia is headed with the words describing it as a free encyclopedia. If the reader stumbles upon a Wikipedia page falsely believing it to be some obscure area of Usenet, Blogs or web forums, he'll only make the mistake once.  Subsequently he'll expect to find an encyclopedia article underneath those words.  So the ugly, intrusive and, frankly, insulting warning is unnecessary.  And so we have found. --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you feel that spoiler warnings should be removed because you personally find them ugly and intrusive, and you personally are offended by them. Man, if that's the standard wiki operates on, we've gone pretty far from the guidelines as I remember them.  Speaking of guidelines, WP: Spoiler is now marked as disputed, and has been for several days.  Yet judging by your recent contribution history, you seem to be continuing to bulk remove spoilers, using WP: Spoiler as a justification?  If you really feel you must, then perhaps continue to remove spoilers, but don't you think it's a wee bit dishonest to appeal to the authority of a guideline currently in dispute when you remove spoilers?  Why not stop removing them and discuss them on the talk page with the editors, or hell, why not invite them to join the discussion to help form consensus?  But to remove them 'per WP: SPOILER' is misleading and could wrongly convince people that their spoiler warning is in violation of an agreed upon wikipedia guideline or procedure.  Just a thought. Wandering Ghost 01:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, your doing it again: arguing for exactly the same fault as in this guideline. You are arguing that no account can be made of spoiler issues, and that is ridiculous. The debate above illustrates that it is possible to soften what is revealed in the intro without leaving out vital information. This is still not a good example, because it seems this issue is the most famous part of that film. If it is in reality only a side issue, the debate above is misleading anyway, and mentioning it could be left until later. What is unacceptable is the assertion that no account can be taken of spoiler issues, which is a logically untenable position and frankly would make for a worse encyclopedia, not a better one. I do not argue that articles must be written primarily to avoid spoilers. I argue that anyone with the teeniest bit of sense would think about whether this might be an issue for some readers, and would take what steps he could to reorganise the article to minimise this. It is one consideration, not the overriding one. The current guideline argues that it may not be considered at all, and therefore has to be changed. Sandpiper 10:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aragorn has an introduction that fails to mention that he becomes King of Gondor and Arnor. From the point of view of encyclopedic knowledge about this fictional character, this is a very poor lead section. The only reason I can assume for this is that the author tried to avoid spoilers, and I don't see how this has helped make the article better. In fact, WP:LEAD says "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article." (Albus Dumbledore avoids spoilers by teasing, in violation of the guideline). How does this spoiler avoidance make a better encyclopedia if it makes it impossible to write good lead sections? Kusma (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Failing' to mention in the lead that Aragorn becomes the King of Gondor makes sense because he is a fictional character. His out-of-universe importance is tied to his appearances as a Ranger and Gondor's heir in a series of books and films. That he eventually became king is relatively unimportant. The Luke Skywalker article has the sort of thing you want in the lead. It's also a big ball of in-universe cruft.-- Nydas (Talk) 12:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about timing of plot entries
The policy states Concerns about spoilers should play no role in decisions about the structure or content of an article. The next thought regarding this is: when *should* the full plot for a future movie/book/etc be posted? Obviously, information shouldn't be added without proper citations ("someone on the set told me this was the plot" isn't valid but the plot might become available months in advance through other legitimate means in other media). Advance film press screenings are done with the caveat that the press attendees can't talk about the film ahead of specific dates (a projectionist in Memphis, for example, was fired last week for discussing Fantastic Four on Aint It Cool News). Some of us do have access to advance or inside information, but wait until a "proper" time to add that info to WP as a courtesy to the creators. Others may not have the same restraint, deciding to post information regardless of whether they have the correct info or citations available (despite repeated warnings about not treating WP as a fan site). What is a good general consensus to go on? SpikeJones 12:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Verifiability is the key policy here. "Insider" information has no place on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that general matters of plot cannot be discussed early on. For instance Steven Spielberg has a project, announced but perhaps never to reach fruition, to produce a Lincoln movie.  IMDB says it's on hold until the new Indiana Jones movie is under way, and gives as the synopsis "The sixteenth President of the United States guides the North to victory during the Civil War". The writers cited are Doris Kearns Goodwin (biography) and Tony Kushner (screenplay).  See  Team of Rivals: the Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (2005) ISBN 0-684-82490-6.


 * Our article on Lincoln (film) errs on the conservative side (which is good for an encyclopedia) by refraining from plot discussion (there isn't a published script to work from) but it could include references to Kushner's earlier work and to the Goodwin biography thus enabling the reader to glean perspective on the likely plot. We don't need to (and probably shouldn't) cite imdb, because it isn't really a reliable source. But its information leads us to reliable sources such as this Dreamworks/Amblin press release. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing
Sethie has noticed that this page doesn't have enough issues, so here's one more.....

Sehtie has noticed that this policy is in many ways just not feasible. It says that: "Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editors proposing them have compelling arguments for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work."

The way the policy is written spoiler need their own equivolent of a citation tag, i.e. they need a justification to be there, and remain, or they may be removed at any time. So, concensus is reached on a talk page about including spoilers....then that discussion needs to somehow remain forever? What happens when the page is archived and that decision is vanished?

On the plus side, the AWB Team can't go do another spoiler removal purge six months from now... without violating this policy. They will need to look at each talk page before removing it.

Regardless, the way the policy is written feels like a bind to both sides. Sethie 16:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sethie talks about himself in the third person?


 * More seriously, if the discussion scrolls off the talk page, fine - this is the sort of thing where consensus can and will change, and pressing needs may pass. For instance right now there's a spoiler tag on the most recent episode of Doctor Who, and that's totally appropriate. It will be less so in a week or two. Phil Sandifer 04:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sethie does. If it helps him write coherent, intelligent arguments, he can write standing on his head for all I care. --Kizor 07:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Right now there's a spoiler tag on the most recent episode of Doctor Who, and that's totally appropriate. It will be less so in a week or two."
 * That's a very self-centred notion as that particular episode will be aired in other parts of the world much later than "in a week or two".
 * Generally, spoiler tags, whether they concern articles on films or books, should never get the chance of becoming redundant as time goes by. There should be, and in fact there are, other criteria which are not ephemeral according to which spoiler warnings should be used or not used.
 * Has anyone ever considered the fact that up to recently contributors were actually encouraged to use them? I had my reasons not to use a spoiler warning when I wrote The Act of Roger Murgatroyd, but as soon as I had finished editing someone else came along and in a misguided attempt at uniformity changed the layout of the text by inserting "Plot summary" and added a spoiler warning. It was me who removed it again simply because there is no spoiler in the article.
 * Once again, the root of the problem is that people who have not read the book or have not seen the film feel they have to edit the article on that book/film and add (now: remove) a spoiler warning. Editing an article whose content you know nothing about is a course of action generally frowned upon at Wikipedia the moment the edit exceeds correcting spelling or punctuation, but for some strange reason people believe this doesn't apply here. I believe it does. &lt;K  F&gt;  15:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturing consensus
(ref. "Manufacturing Consensus" (Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, 1988; New York: Pantheon.) (Copied from #Does this really qualify as a guideline?)

"Substantial disagreement in practice" would be pretty obvious if one removed 45,000 templates that were felt to be necessary''. Hardly any of them were put back. That's consensus. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)''
 * "Hardly any of them were put back" ...
 * ... As might this []. Here is a case where it was taken out, and put back, and the same user, using a bot (do you even have to sit at your computer to do this?) went through and removed it again. [ Sethie 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC) ] 


 * Memories of Matsuko history
 * 20:00, 10 June 2007 David Gerard m (5,155 bytes) (Removing redundant per Wikipedia:Spoiler - using AWB)
 * 15:30, 4 June 2007 Sethie       m (5,166 bytes) (Synopsis - added spoiler tag)
 * 21:05, 31 May 2007 David Gerard m (5,155 bytes) (Removing redundant per Wikipedia:Spoiler - using AWB)


 * Now if you were an average editor and this above happened to you, would you find out who David Gerard is? Would you decide he's an admin honcho, and back off from again re-adding spoiler tags? Especially seeing that he's in control of a tool (AWB), that is impossible to oppose? Smart money says average editors will kowtow. That's "manufactured consensus".
 * So, Tony Sidaway, having uncovered an overwhelmingly artificial source of your "incredibly little opposition", where's the bone fide spoiler-tag removal consensus? I'd say you have seen massive braking force, followed by halted inertia of a large system, and assumed it was consensus.
 * Though a majority paraded through the straw polls opposing spoiler tags in theory but not actual use, the way the decision process was conducted was suspicious and persistently railroaded. For the latest example, in the poll "Should spoiler warnings be placed on articles about historical and classical works of fiction?" When the poll gap began to close, Farix both lost a debate point and denigrated another user, due to lack of knowledge of the global success of Harry Potter, overwhelmingly proclaimed a global "classic" already. But he not only refused to apologize, he even more suspiciously closed the poll to inclusively cut off debate of his embarrassing mistakes. Now that we know the tags have been artificially suppressed, I call for that poll to reopen. No, 2-1/2 weeks isn't enough when there has been process tampering including successively moving the debate to three, four, or maybe five locations with little or no notice to the articles.
 * And I don't agree with David Gerard's remarks denigrating meta-process (creation of processes, like amending a constitution). I know despotic history, so I don't want to repeat it.
 * What I see is a few Britannica-Don-Quixotes with too many weak anti-tag arguments, leading a majoritarian crowd of the ill-informed (spoiler tags are somehow censorship), the prejudiced (contempt for fiction consumers), the compromise-is-weakness POV warriors, and the inevitable oppositional-defiant "aginers" of every idea. The only really good argument was Phil Sandifer's writing standards — ok, they are in the compromise on the table. Hiding the spoiler tags is not strictly necessary, but ok, compromise; it should satisfy the reasonable Britannica-clone illusionists.
 * Will the clique even discuss the compromise? Not so far. Why should they? They control so-called "consensus". "Consensus" is what they say it is. This debate is the best evidence I've ever seen. If they like the majoritarian position, then that's consensus. If they like the official "quality debate answer", then that's consensus. They decide what they like first and manufacture consensus to get it. Milo 08:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. The List of people by name (see Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_23 and Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive250) is another good example I suppose. &lt;KF&gt; 11:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Milo, could you explain what it is about an edit made using AWB that renders it "impossible to oppose?" I'm really puzzled by this.  The rest of your comment scarcely deserves a response, I fear, for it paints a completely absurd picture of despotism on a wiki with an open editing model. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ken relieves your 'AWB is impossible to oppose' puzzlement below.
 * An "open editing model" as an antidote to despotism-by-clique doesn't rank up there with Let them eat cake, but it did cross my mind. I'd consider innocently posting your answer at one of the Wikipedia critic sites, but I don't want to endure the abject humiliation that would be sure to follow. Milo 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While "impossible" may have been too strong of a word, it is certainly difficult for human editors to "oppose" a bot that will automatically revert one's edits almost as soon as they are made. If you deny this then you are being disingenuous.  Regardless, I am going through your contribution page and reverting all of the edits made by AWB or otherwise, thereby invalidating your point.  You asked for it. Killer Poet 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't use absolutes lightly. I wrote "impossible" once I realized there was a repeated AWB run to make certain opposition was impossible. Milo 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the presumption, Milo. Recent experience suggests to me that it is rather quixotic to challenge the AWB squadron. Killer Poet 14:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One edit is not impossible to oppose, for an experienced Wikipedia editor (assuming it doesn't keep getting bot-reverted).
 * 10000 edits *are* impossible to oppose. I'm surprised you need to ask why.  The logistics of manually restoring 10000 edits are ridiculous.
 * And besides, not everyone is experienced. Someone who hasn't been following this will probably see a comment that AWB was used and assume that the policy has already been changed.  The idea that by not reverting he's helping form "consensus" for the policy, rather than that the policy is a done deal already, won't occur to him. Ken Arromdee 15:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. Also, even if counter-use of AWB were possible, note at WP:AWB, an admin must approve use registration, only for users with over 500 mainspace edits, requires significant local computing resources, and oh yes, "Don't do anything controversial with it". (Unless you are a member of the clique.) Milo 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This "10000 edits are impossible to oppose" argument seems to be beside the point. 45,000 articles have been edited.  A tiny proportion of those have been reverted, ever.  This is extremely strong evidence that the guideline has consensus. If there were substantial numbers of article editors who thought the spoiler tags were essential, we would have seen a massive wave of reverts by many otherwise-unconnected editors.  We saw nothing like that.  Indeed, those of us who were anticipating some response and were ready to go in and reinforce and explain found that we had very, very little work to do.   --Tony Sidaway 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We only have your word that a 'tiny proportion' were reverted. It's not clear what you even mean by 'tiny proportion' - if it's anything like 'substantial opposition in practice', 'piddling few' and 'compelling reason', there's no hope of getting a straight answer.


 * How did you plan to track this 'massive wave of reverts' which you think would be so obvious? Your watchlist? Someone making machine gun edits with the AWB certainly isn't going to notice if they hit the same page two or three times. You've done fifty reverts today by yourself - I would not call that 'very, very little work to do'.-- Nydas (Talk) 17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * AGF, I'm willing to take Tony's word for it that the opposition appeared tiny.
 * Anyway, now that we know how AWB was misused, how could there have been any more than tiny opposition? Milo 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, those of us who were anticipating some response and were ready to go in and reinforce and explain found that we had very, very little work to do.


 * This sentence bears repeating. Could you share some more details about this plan?-- Nydas (Talk) 17:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no plan. We simply watched David's edits and expected that we might see significance resistance.  We didn't. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet again you fall back onto meaningless phrases like 'significant resistance'. You said earlier that a thousand reverts would constitute 'substantial disagreement in practice'. At least a thousand (probably tens of thousands) did take place, just look at the contribution histories. In addition, how you 'watched' all these articles remains a mystery.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how he watched the articles, either. But I do know that when I tried to mount resistance to his deletions, I was temporarily blocked.  And there we have it: manufactured consensus. Killer Poet 14:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it does not really provide strong evidence there is consensus. This has been pointed out time and time again. It could mean that a large proportion of editors are people who don't want to make waves against what they see as a top-down change in policy, whether they agree with it or not (this is somewhat the case for myself, before I actually looked into the issue and saw what seems to me a startling lack of consensus on the issue and people who seem to be unfairly enforcing their view anyway, which turned me even more pro-spoiler-warning). It could mean that they've witnessed people who've tried to revert it get beaten down by a few aggressive anti-spoiler editors, threatened (even so politely as you did to me) that continuing to try to add spoilers was potentially grounds for blocking, that they felt they didn't want to try it themselves. It could mean there are many fictional articles that are not monitored by very many people. It could even demonstrate consensus for a smaller subset of the policy. Like, say, if people generally agree that usually 'Character History' or 'Detailed Plot Synopsis' should be considered to have spoilers by default, but don't believe they should be absent from everywhere else. (This is also somewhat the case in many of the edits I watch but decided not to oppose, because I agreed that in that case the spoiler was probably not necessary). And again, those removing the spoilers have a technical advantage in that it's much easier to remove them with various automated tools. Spoiler warnings can be removed systematically. They cannot properly be added systematically, and a systematic process is a huge advantage. Even if an article has been edited in the meantime, you can just delete the spoiler warning, while those attempting to replace it would have to do it manually or lose intermediate edits. The whole event is full of ambiguity, because any one or any combination of the factors might be at play here and thus show nothing about consensus. You can't use the lack of reverts to prove there is consensus on the policy as a whole. And you especially can't claim the consensus shows that your removals are right and should be enforced, at the same time you use the fact that they haven't been reverted to prove consensus.


 * Let me put it this way. Before the recent big purge, by your argument, you'd have to say there was a clear consensus to PUT spoiler warnings in many articles. If not, they would have been removed. (And yes, you can make the same arguments about this side... maybe people only added spoilers in the first part because they thought they were necessary. That's my point, that the status quo proves nothing.) Sure, consensus can change, but I find it hard to believe your mass deletion spree changed all that many minds on the issue. So either this recent campaign has been startlingly effective at shaping public opinion on a mass scale, there was secretly a vast majority of people hating spoiler warnings for quite some time who were cowed before the awesome technical superiority of those who add them when they dare try to remove them, or there is no consensus on this issue. Or, possibly, that the anti-spoiler-warning crowd is actually a minority but browbeating their way to victory through mass edits and ganging up on people who try to revert. I'm charitable, though, so I'll only assume that the lack of consensus is the most likely option.


 * Once again, if you are so sure that this new policy has overwhelming consensus, then why don't you, David Gerard, and the other editors who do this agree to stop going patrolling for spoiler warnings to remove. Let the pages take care of themselves. If the consensus truly is overwhelming, the local editors will make sure to keep them out. You can help by editing pages you frequent, but not going beyond that to do so automatically on all the pages out there. I'll likewise give my personal guarantee I'll only edit spoilers into articles I already read and which I feel deserve it, but abide by consensus decisions for those articles. If you truly believe your consensus is overwhelming, you have no reason not to agree to do the same. If there is consensus, you've already won. I'm willing to abide by the decision of actual consensus, rather than a few people who've made it their mission in wikilife to cleanse spoiler warnings. It's only if you don't believe you have consensus but want your way anyway that there's any reason to go spoiler-stomping. At present, I can assume good faith that you actually believe you have consensus, but if you continue on a crusade to wipe them out whenever someone tries to add them, I'll be unable to do so for much longer. Wandering Ghost 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;Tony and David are going to shoot up by 100 places during the next WP:1000 update :) &mdash; Deckiller 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's just be clear here, Sethie looked at David Gerard contributions for 4 days and counted 10,000 spoiler removals, and then Sethie stopped counting! He has no idea how many more were actually taken out by David Gerard's computer.Sethie 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"extremely strong evidence that the guideline has consensus"; "we would have seen a massive wave of reverts" How could there be any more than tiny technical opposition to the automated AWB tool being used and reused as a weapon of mass destruction? (See "Memories of Matsuko history" above) And with lack of notice plus numerous other process abuses, how could many editors even complain? And if they somehow figured out how to complain, how many would oppose a power clique over spoiler tags? By analogy, Tony seems to be convinced that the quiet following strafing runs over a city, is indistinguishable from consensus supporting the coup government. Bottom line is that, considering the outright process abuses and other clique-tamperings still unfolding, neither Tony nor anyone else can be certain what consensus is until time has passed. Even after time, given how large the apparent spoiler-tag-supporting minority is, there may be no consensus. In which case, nothing should have done — 'keep' by due process. But within the real Wikipedia, due process is a mere inconvenience to cliques who control the "open editing model". Milo 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed (started June 12)
There is an overwhelming amount of disagreement above regarding what should be in this guideline and when to use spoiler tags. We've pretty much gotten absolutely nowhere in coming to an agreement on anything spoiler-related. I've tagged this as disputed. --- RockMFR 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a clear and overwhelming consensus for this guideline. A few people on this talk page who have a few complaints about what is massively accepted as current practice doesn't constitute a dispute, otherwise we'd have to pop a "disputed" tag on No original research, surprisingly one of our more controversial policies. If some elements of the guideline are disputed, by convention this doesn't mean the guideline as a whole is disputed. While there may be a few who have problems with the idea of limiting the use of spoiler tags, there cannot be any sensible people left who would wish to go back to the free-for-all that resulted in our having spoiler tags on articles about quantum physics, philosophers, football teams and the like. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus whatsoever for this guideline. Tony Sidaway has been claiming that there has been 'no significant resistance' for weeks, but anyone can look at the contribution histories to see that is manifestly not the case.-- Nydas (Talk) 21:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There definatley is a clear and overwhelming concesus for this guideline somewhere, however, this talk page is not that place.


 * Isn't the talk page of a policy the only real place to determine concensus, not off in- "we did this, and they didn't do that, so we have concensus"-land? Sethie 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the community is the determinant. There is overwhelming consensus, and no significant resistance.  This page is simply there to document the guideline which has been followed with overwhelming success by Wikipedia editors over the past month or so.   --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You still haven't explained how you managed to watch tens of thousands of pages to determine whether there was 'significant resistance'. You still haven't explained what 'significant resistance' is, aside from claiming that it is 'obvious'. You still haven't dealt with the fact that anyone looking at the contribution histories can see that thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of wikipedians have had their edits reverted by a tiny number of anti-spoiler editors. All you do is repeat the same baseless claims you have been making since day one.-- Nydas (Talk) 22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your basis for the claim that tens of thousands of Wikipedians have had their edits reverted? I don't think we have so many editors in the fiction articles. There was really surprisingly little resistance to the removal of spoiler tags from articles after people got the idea that "we've used them in the past" isn't a good reason to continue doing so. Kusma (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the contribution histories (including your own) you will see plenty of reverts and trampling of local consensus. It is a simple inference that such incidents must number in the thousands.-- Nydas (Talk) 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the complacency of the wider wikipedia population has lots more to do with discussions like this basically laying the smackdown on anyone who disagrees, and not due to any real consensus. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The bizarre thing about that last comment is that I've never heard of these editors, Lemi4, Masem and Goldfritter. If they were part of some little minority laying down the law, or "laying the smackdown on" anyone who disagrees, surely I as one of the small band of wild-eyed fanatics would have heard of them? --Tony Sidaway 22:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nydas says: You still haven't explained how you managed to watch tens of thousands of pages to determine whether there was 'significant resistance'. 


 * That is a very odd statement. The normal Wikipedia site tools, available to all editors simply by clicking the usual links, can tell me this in an instant.  A significant amount of resistance might be, for instance, hundreds of editors restoring tags.  We did, after all, remove tags from 45,000 articles, so if there had been more than a handful we would have noticed.  --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be very valid IF you actually kept track of how many pages were spoiler removed two or three times. One page I watch had the spoiler tag removed, by a bot, replaced by a user, removed by a bot, replaced by a user, and now personally removed by you. As I have said before the first two bot removals were marked as "minor" edits.


 * Since you are spinning hypotheticals how about this: a lot of the spoiler tag removals went unoticed because of David Gerard removing them as "minor" edits.


 * Here's another: a significant amount of resistance did occur and was either bot or personally removed sometimes 2 or 3 times.


 * Oh yeah, that scenario isn't hypothetical... it's what happened on Memories of Matsuko. Sethie 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well 45,000 articles had their spoiler tags removed, and the number of articles with spoiler tags (for the moment) can be counted on the fingers of one somewhat maimed hand. There could be two dozen or two hundred tomorrow and it wouldn't make any difference to my point, which is that we got here, overwhelmingly, by unopposed removals.  A very, very few tag removals have been reverted--in fact by far the largest tranche of work I've taken part in during this entire exercise was a manual search on the word "spoiler", when we finally had nearly all the spoiler tags out, to locate those "ad hoc" spoiler warnings that people had written into articles over the years


 * Yes, David's edits are marked minor. This is because they do not affect article content.  I don't understand why you say that they would go unnoticed because of this.  The default history, watchlist and recent changes displays all show minor edits, and all of his removals (that I've seen) were clearly labelled as such, typically "Removing redundant per Wikipedia:Spoiler - using AWB)".


 * In the Memories of Matsuko article you edit warred against three different editors. Those aren't bots, you know.  They're real people who disagree with you.  And moreover such opposition was quite exceptional.  There's no way we could have removed 45,000 spoiler tags against any serious opposition.  Just one editor on one article had the three of us tied up. --Tony Sidaway 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

''That is a very odd statement. The normal Wikipedia site tools, available to all editors simply by clicking the usual links, can tell me this in an instant. A significant amount of resistance might be, for instance, hundreds of editors restoring tags. We did, after all, remove tags from 45,000 articles, so if there had been more than a handful we would have noticed.''


 * The normal Wikipedia site tools do not tell you this in an instant (or if they do, you choose not to explain how). Inspecting the contribution histories in detail will show that hundreds of editors have been restoring tags. I have bolded this for your benefit, but I do not expect a response. This is a fact that any concerned editor can confirm for themselves.


 * For example, looking at Kusma's contribution history, between 10th June 18:55 and 11th June 13:00, there are 50 edits. Out of these, 46 are spoiler warning removals. Of these, 27 are removals where the spoiler tags had previously been removed and then restored later. Some of these were restored by Kizor, but the vast majority were restored by others. If just one low-ranking member of the anti-spoiler brigade can overrule around twenty people in just eighteen hours, then imagine what has been happening over the last three weeks.


 * When Tony Sidaway or another member of the anti-spoiler group says there was 'no significant opposition', this has no relationship whatsoever with the truth. Perhaps they didn't know - it's not obvious to someone making machine gun edits if they've hit the same article more than once. Perhaps they chose not to know.


 * From the botched discussion, to the mass edits, to the threats, to the idiosyncratic 'policy' of WP:NOSIGNIFICANTOPPOSITION, it is clear that this is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Today it was spoiler warnings, tomorrow it could be British spellings or Wiktionary templates.-- Nydas (Talk) 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The function of Kusma's edits in that pass was to pick up the handful of reverts.  Out of the 45,000 articles edited, a tiny number, just as I said.  It's simply false to say that my statements on this are untrue.  I think I'd know if I'd been run off my feet doing spoiler reverts for the past month or so.     Rather, we've taken it nice and easy.


 * To say that it isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to work is also grossly incorrect.  In fact, a large-scale edits with a minimum of disruption as in this case is regarded as an ideal to strive for, rather than something easily achievable.  This was in every way a copy book exercise.  --Tony Sidaway 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If just one member of your campaign overrules twenty people a day three weeks after the campaign began, that means you are reverting hundreds of people daily. You have provided no reason to believe your claims that 'you'd know'. You have not explained how you would go about gaining this knowledge of tens of thousands of articles, aside for vague statements suggesting that anyone can do it. If it's so easy, please tell us how to do it. Then we can see for ourselves. At the moment, it is clear to anyone who wishes to examine the contribution histories that thousands of spoiler tags were restored. That you didn't notice is not surprising, the driver of steamroller is unlikely to notice a few thousand ants.-- Nydas (Talk) 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I'm getting rather weary with these bits of false arithmetic and assumptions of bad faith. I've explained how I can see that the spoiler tags aren't being added back in any great numbers.  You have simply denied it and played dumb whenever I've told you. --Tony Sidaway 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

'Compelling arguments'
As of yet, no consistent definition of a 'compelling argument' has been offered. There is currently one article where a compelling reason has been accepted, because in Tony's words:

There may be people who come here not expecting to see a particular TV show, which is still running, to be discussed

This justification applies to any list of plot developments. Although I suspect efforts to bring other such articles into line with this one would be fiercely opposed by the anti-spoiler admins. Earlier Tony said that:

''The thing about a compelling reason is that nearly everybody will agree with it. This is how you know that it's compelling.''

This is in effect a declaration that any anti-spoiler admin can veto any spoiler in Wikipedia, regardless of opposition. It only takes one of them to disagree, at which point the reason magically ceases to be compelling.

I sugges that we replace 'compelling arguments' with actual cases where spoilers may be used, starting with lists of plot developments. Either that, or remove it altogether, since it gives false hope to pro-spoiler editors, encouraging them to waste their time trying to accomodate the whims of the anti-spoiler brigade.-- Nydas (Talk) 11:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You might be right. My OED (Concise edition) defines "compelling" as powerfully evoking attention or admiration. Compel can mean "(1) force or oblige to do something." The statement from the current guideline, "...that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work..." works for me in the case of The Third Man, The Crying Game, Zardoz, The Other, The Prestige (which I just watched), etc. Even though someone can (and probably will) retort, "But the guideline says they're redundant in Synopsis sections," I'd say that a reader getting the secret of The Prestige before seeing it will have not just denouement surprise spoiled for them, but the entire movie's set-up. I concur that the word compelling is misleading, since the argument in support of the Spoiler tag may not oblige all editors to agree, but may clearly evoke the condition of use that I mention above. Thoughts? -- David Spalding (  ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Persuasive" would be an adequate, and perhaps better, term to use here. Individual cases should be argued on the talk pages.  The reason no other articles have spoiler tags is that few people seem to be putting them back, and hardly anybody is arguing for their restoration on the talk pages.  And it isn't as if I wasn't watching. --Tony Sidaway 16:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. There's no way for me to find out, but lots of people must have had exactly the same experience: They have a few books and/or films on their watchlist, see that someone who's never been working on a particular article (the root of the problem) has removed the spoiler warning, add it again, and their edit is immediately reverted. Obviously I didn't use the word "compelling," but I tried to argue my case in the edit summary of the very first edit of Tomorrow (novel) and also on the talk page of I, the Jury (where I even put red dots around the message)&mdash;both to no avail. Do you really expect any of the hoi polloi to start a fight? (Also, there may well be cases where they actually agree that the spoiler warning is superfluous&mdash;again, no way to find out.) They have no alternative to giving up the spoiler fight. The only alternative left to them is either to carry on editing elsewhere (more or less half-heartedly, due to a certain degree of addiction) or to leave Wikipedia for good. That this lack of resistance is still, after all those endless debates, being used as post factum justification for the mass removal of the spoiler warnings is unbelievable. &lt;K  F&gt;  18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, Wikipedia editing tends to run on consensus. People discuss edits, and if there's consensus then the edit stays.  If not, it's modified.   I don't understand why anyone would feel that they had to go edit some other article just because they found someone who didn't agree with them.  That isn't how we edit Wikipedia at all.  We don't own the articles and we should always be prepared to discuss our reasons for performing our edits. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this borders on doublespeak. Why are you lecturing me on how to edit Wikipedia articles? Who said they owned articles? Why are you sidetracking the issue? Best wishes, &lt;K  F&gt;  19:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Except, isn't that what's just been done? Do you not go edit some other article because you found someone who doesn't agree with you?  Is that not what jumping in for spoilers is?  Nobody discussed the removal of all those spoilers on the talk page.  Why shouldn't all of David Gerard's auto-edits be reverted, just on the principle that he didn't discuss the edit on the talk page.
 * Since you seem to be the one 'monitoring' the situation, and are sure there is no significant opposition, perhaps you can answer these questions: 1) How many different people, in numbers, are going around removing spoilers, in these 45,000 removals? 2) How many different people, in numbers, are attempting to re-add spoiler warnings?  3) How many of the pages that were not reverted have had edits to them in the past month before the spoiler warning was removed?  4) Of the ones that have been reverted, how many of them have you personally gone in to remove the spoiler warning again, whether after discussion or not?  5) How many of the 45,000 removed spoiler edits were rewritten under the new policy not to add spoiler warnings, but to remove spoilers themselves?  This, incidentally, is one of the things that will be really hard to measure, I imagine, so I won't really expect an answer to this question, but it's something to think about.  I've already seen it happen at least once.  The anti-spoiler crowd claim that consideration of spoilers should not alter article content.  However, it's easy to monitor when someone adds a spoiler warning.  It's hard to spot when someone makes an edit aimed at preserving a surprise because there IS not spoiler warning.  I feel that lack of spoiler warnings will actually lower article quality.
 * In any event, if you can't answer most of the above questions, I don't think you have any call to suggest that the fact that 'most' of the spoiler warnings have been removed shows anything. For that matter, I'm still waiting for an answer on whether the fact that, before this deletion spree, the fact that there _were_ so many spoiler warnings showed that there was consensus to have them.  Wandering Ghost 22:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't own the articles and we should always be prepared to discuss our reasons for performing our edits.


 * But you do not discuss. You repeat the same claims about there being little resistance, even after they were shown to be false. You intersperse these with platitudes like 'Wikipedia editing tends to run on consensus' or 'The new guideline sets out reasonable standards for putting spoiler tags into articles'.


 * Your suggestion to change the wording from 'compelling' to 'persuasive' is typical; it sounds like you are making a compromise, but it will not change anything, since the words mean practically the same thing. You have claimed elsewhere to not understand how this grants you a veto power over all spoiler tags, yet the only 'permitted' spoiler tag on Wikipedia is the only one with your blessing.


 * This guideline will only be worthwhile when it is possible to establish a consensus for spoiler tags on an article which you do not agree with. No more "Having read the discussion, reverting per WP:SPOILER" edits.


 * I am still waiting for your explanation of how you were able to determine resistance to the mass spoiler removal with common wiki tools 'in an instant'. This is the third time I have asked.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nydas, I must warn you now against making personal attacks. Not because I'm offended by them, but because they're not going to get us anywhere.


 * Now you've repeatedly stated that I've made false statements concerning the lack of opposition, and you even purport to have shown that I have done so. I in my turn have rebutted those claims. We're still disagreed, and I maintain that the strongest evidence of the continued lack of any serious opposition to the guideline is in the editing histories of those 45,000 articles.


 * Neither "compelling" nor "persuasive" gives anyone a veto. This is a wiki with an open editing model and decisions are made by consensus. Neither I nor any other editor has magical powers to make an edit and have it stick unless there's consensus for it.  Every single edit is subject to discussion and consensus. Those aren't platitudes by the way, they're how Wikipedia works. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your only rebuttal was to suggest that 27 restorations reverted by Kusma in eighteen hours was a 'handful', and the repeat your longstanding claim that you would have 'noticed hundreds of editors restoring tags'. You have said that it was within your power, using ordinary wiki tools, to inspect these 45,000 articles for spoiler tags being restored, 'in an instant'. If you could give a brief explanation of how this was achieved, I would be very grateful.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty good rebuttal. Your persistent and wearisome requests for an explanation of how I know that there are very few spoiler tags in the articles are unhelpful. Please cease this pointless browbeating. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not ask how you knew there are few spoiler tags in use, that can be easily established by the 'what links here' link on the spoiler template. I am asking how you established that the number of spoiler tags being restored was sufficiently low to not constitute 'significant opposition'.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I don't understand your question. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The question seems quite clear to me. If you can't answer the question(s) without saying, I don't get it, or claiming personal attack, perhaps you should take a step back and let others continue the discussion ... and not make arbitrary edits to remove spoiler tags. ;) David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I said: You still haven't explained how you managed to watch tens of thousands of pages to determine whether there was 'significant resistance'.

You said: ''That is a very odd statement. The normal Wikipedia site tools, available to all editors simply by clicking the usual links, can tell me this in an instant. A significant amount of resistance might be, for instance, hundreds of editors restoring tags. We did, after all, remove tags from 45,000 articles, so if there had been more than a handful we would have noticed.''

What usual links did you click on to determine the amount of resistance on 45,000 articles?-- Nydas (Talk) 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't help feeling that there may be some other motive for your request other than to be told that, like you, I can press the buttons. Forgive me.  I use the same tools you do.  Could you explain what this is all about? --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What buttons did you press to tell you in an instant that hundreds of editors were not restoring tags? I simply wish to view the consensus with my own eyes.-- Nydas (Talk) 23:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it goes without saying that many editors will add the tags out of habit until they realise they don't have to. That those who do so are quite happy to negotiate on the talk page, whether under the terms of this guideline or simply by reasoned discussion, is my experience.  Thus there appears to be consensus for the guideline, which is intended for the purpose and fills it admirably.  It has successfully killed the assumption that spoiler tags are, in some way or other, part of Wikipedia policy. They can be placed where there is a persuasive reason to do so.


 * That there isn't a huge upswelling of revolt is so painfully obvious that I'm surprised you haven't noticed it yourself. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, you seem to be seriously dodging Nydas' valid technical question. I too was curious as to how you managed to watch tens of thousands of pages by using "The normal Wikipedia site tools, available to all editors simply by clicking the usual links, can tell me this in an instant."
 * I'm willing to assume that any editor really can do this, but that it requires the use of a procedure that is closely held by clique insiders like yourself. Perhaps you accidentally let the cat out of the bag, and now can't admit that this closely held technical procedure exists.
 * So why don't you just retract the statement, and the debate can continue without the presumption of "if there had been more than a handful we would have noticed". Milo 01:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't dodge anything. I have a watchlist, and I can check the links to a page. A comment on a talk page will show up in the watchlist.  It's sort of puzzling to see that Nydas is making so much of this.  I have said nothing that is not readily apparent to any competent Wikipedian. --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How can your watchlist and 'what links here' enable the inspection of 45,000 articles for 'hundreds of editors restoring tags'?-- Nydas (Talk) 07:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just curious here, have you ever actually looked at your watchlist? Because that question seems rather odd to me as well.  The watchlist gives article name, username and edit summary, and can be expanded in the url to show up to 5,000 entries at a time.  What else would you need?  Guy (Help!) 11:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A 5000 item watchlist is not going to tell you anything about spoiler tag restorations for several reasons. The first is that it will be extremely difficult and time-consuming to read (i.e. not 'in an instant'). The second is that spoiler tag restorations will be lost amid the 'chatter' of unrelated edits. The third is that not all spoiler tag restorations will have edit summaries saying so. The fourth is that it implies placing all 45,000 articles on your watchlist, a difficult task in itself, and one that would naturally be combined with removing the tags. In that case, David Gerard, not Tony, is the one who could tell us if this is what he did.-- Nydas (Talk) 11:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It will very quickly reveal if any meaningful number of the spoiler tags are being reinserted by any meaningful number of editors. Which they aren't.  Right now there are only a dozen or so instances of spoiler in main space, one of which I noted was in The Maltese Falcon, in the Plot section.  Which is patently absurd, since the plot section is pretty much guaranteed to contain, you know, plot details, and it's now over three quarters of a century since it was published - it's unlikely that new readers will be completely ignorant of the plot or have their pleasure spoiled by finding it in the Plot section of an article on the book.  It's this kind of example which has led several of us to conclude that no significant critical judgement was exercised by those adding the spoiler tags, and why it has been emphasised that a justification on the Talk page is what is needed.  Guy (Help!) 14:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We've already been through this. Unless you can be more specific than 'meaningful number', it'll have to be filed alongside 'significant resistance', 'compelling reason' and all the rest of them. We'll never know what they mean, and you won't tell us, except in a circular fashion, i.e. a meaningful number would be obvious. I don't think the watchlist will tell you 'very quickly' for the reasons I have stated above. The additional problem with the watchlist is that ordinary editors can't scrutinise it, leaving us back with the 'consensus is what the admins say it is' argument. The attitude I get from the anti-spoiler admins is that if the spoilers were not restored instantly, then it counts as 'consensus'. A day, a week later? Doesn't matter.-- Nydas (Talk) 15:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is so readily easy to judge the amount of opposition that has taken place, then perhaps you, or Tony, or any of the others, can answer me these 2 simple questions. 1) How many different editors have removed spoiler tags in the past month?  2) How many different editors have added in spoiler tags in the past month?  Wandering Ghost 00:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, gentlemen, for your amusing demands for proof of a negative. Back in the real world, nobody cares. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this asking you to prove a negative? It's a very simple question.  You claim that you're able to monitor the amount of opposition quite easily.  If so, it should be easy for you to answer how many editors (even a ballpark figure would be fine) are removing spoilers, and how many editors are adding spoilers.  If not, then please admit that you're not measuring the amount of opposition, you're only measuring the amount of spoiler tags presently used, and that that measurement can have many different interpretations.  I'll even freely admit that my question, in and of itself, might not prove my case, but I think it's useful information. Wandering Ghost 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This appears to be no more than dumb intransigence. Endlessly browbeating on a question, the answer to which you clearly already know (having mentioned whatlinkshere at least once) and nitpicking about watchlists.  Looking at whatlinkshere for the spoiler tag it appears to me now that there are half a dozen.  Occasionally a half a dozen new ones will appear, will be reverted by someone (often myself, Kusma, or David Gerard, but sometimes someone else).  A dicussion may take place, and a decision will be made. There has been absolutely no disruption here and no problems,  The guideline is operating as expected, enabling reasonable decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis.  And yet the appalling and baseless accusations, and assumptions of bad faith continue here. --Tony Sidaway 21:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * often myself, Kusma, or David Gerard,
 * If there is so much consensus why aren't editors who work on those articles doing the revert  .Garda40 21:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Often they do. Often they don't realise yet that they don't have to include the spoiler tags.  Changes in guidelines propagate through practice.  Just as repeated placing of unnecessary spoiler tags "taught" many editors that this was  expected, the good practice of discussing whether spoiler tags are necessary in a particular article is learned through example. --Tony Sidaway 21:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * often myself, Kusma, or David Gerard,   and  Often they do
 * So which one is it ?


 * If you read the original statement, it was "often myself, Kusma, or David Gerard, but sometimes someone else". Please stop this ridiculous and offensive assumption of bad faith. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange that you assume bad faith on my part when I can honestly say and swear that I didn't on your part.I pointed out that you used "often" for 2 different set of editors that can't be the same editors and asked you to explain  .Garda40 22:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Endlessly browbeating on a question, the answer to which you clearly already know (having mentioned whatlinkshere at least once) and nitpicking about watchlists. Looking at whatlinkshere for the spoiler tag it appears to me now that there are half a dozen.


 * All 'what links here' tells you that the anti-spoiler admins have been removing tags faster than people can replace them. That is not surprising, given the automated tools used and the threats directed at anyone who replaces them.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What automated tools are being used? Apart from warnings given to editors who have already exceeded the three revert rule, what "threats" have been made?  It's this never-ending series of bizarrely false accusations that I find extraordinary about your behavior. --Tony Sidaway 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The automated tool being used is the AWB. Here's one example where you threatened Ed Fitzgerald for restoring tags: User talk:Ed Fitzgerald. He didn't break the three-revert rule and his reasoning that discussion was ongoing was totally appropriate.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bionicle
Wait... Some people actually want spoilers back in? There's really only a small group of people removing these? I clearly should pay more attention to what goes on in the Wikipedia community. I hope I'm not butting in, and that my lack of knowledge on this subject doesn't bother anybody, but upon seeing this, I must put in something. A great deal of the spoilers in the Bionicle-related articles have been recently removed (I don't know if it was by the original commentor in this section and his "allies" or not, though). Despite our attempts to keep them, and even providing reasons, they were still all removed. Heck, some still are now. I just replaced one before making this comment. Anywho... Yeah, so there really was no overral agreement on the removal of all of those spoiler tags, right? That's what I gathered from this, anyways... So would I still be "punished" if I went and added them back in now, only for them to be removed, re-added, etc.? ElectricTurahk 02:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're seriously contemplating edit warring to keep spoilers on Lego articles? Phil Sandifer 02:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes articles about Legos any less important to wikipedia than articles about movies or books? And see, it's things like this that make me question where consensus actually lies. What I see on the talk page here and on the RfC is a small number of people claiming to have consensus as editor after editor argues with them, and that doesn't sit well with me. How do we determine true consensus? Clearly I should go read up on policy, since I was under the impression that "consensus" was going by the dictionary term, meaning, just about everyone can agree ("agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole"). Clearly, a majority and a minority, no matter which side is which, that are diametrically opposed, are not consensus in that manner, and wikipedia is not ruled by voting, so... if we did policy changes the way we did AfDs, it'd be closed with a no consensus by now. Kuronue 04:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked it up. What you're claiming is not true consensus but a supermajority; have you a poll to back this up? Or just your own word for it? Kuronue 05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus model also assumes that everybody involved is going to listen to and follow good reasons, where "good reasons" are evaluated in adherence with the basic goals, values, and principles that underlie the project. Thus the statement that there must be a compelling reason for a spoiler tag is barely a statement at all - there should, after all, be a compelling reason for everything in an article. To this end - what is the compelling reason for the spoiler tags in Lego articles? Because if you don't have one you can present, your opinion carries very little weight in the formulation of consensus. Phil Sandifer 05:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Compelling reasons are usually explained on guideline/policy pages, like web sites that have won major awards being notable. This guideline provides nothing of the sort. Instead we have to hope that our reasons will 'compelling' enough to satisfy the whims of whichever anti-spoiler admin is on patrol.-- Nydas (Talk) 06:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We have a prime example of that here List_of_fictional_occurrences_of_broadcast_signal_intrusion where Tony Sidaway said Yes to a writer on the article who asked and then an admin comes along and removes it .Garda40 14:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And then you have a discussion, and maybe put the tag back. Nobody, to my knowledge, is threatening bans, blocks, or other sanctions for people who make considered individual reverts to spoiler tag removals... Phil Sandifer 15:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What's bans, blocks, or other sanctions have to do with that case or indeed similar cases? And are you really saying that after every edit to remove the warning by whoever wanders along that discussion starts ago from scratch to justify it with I presume the editors using  ( in the case of that article that it is recent ) every time and someone agreeing that it is okay in that case and then it removed and the cycle begins ago .Garda40 16:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. But I still don't see why this is meaningfully different from any other aspect of articles. Somebody comes up with a good reason to include the tag. Two months later, someone removes it. They are reverted with an edit summary to the effect of "per past consensus." If the remover cares, a new discussion ensues. That discussion has a result. This is how we write every other aspect of the encyclopedia - why should spoiler tags be so different? Phil Sandifer 17:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well in the case of that article the good reason lasted all of four days with the editor ,JzG, who removed it even visiting a day after it was placed ,doing other edits . and then coming back three days later and removing a tag that was apparently acceptable even to them three days earlier .Maybe they missed it on the first visit, ,though I can't figure how they did , but actions like that make it look like a whim  . Garda40 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, what article is this on? Phil Sandifer 18:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * it's this article here .Garda40 19:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I checked: Bionicle has a ==Story==, making Lego articles equivalent to other fiction articles. Now, you're likely to claim there's no "compelling reason" in these particular cases, but I'm just saying there's no justification for marginalizing Lego articles as a class. As though editors who hypothetically discuss edit warring over Lego articles are somehow culturally inferior to those would might edit war over critically-acclaimed Hollywood movie articles. Milo 06:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It helps that Bionicle isn't limited to blocks. It has several movies, comics and computer games. --Kizor 07:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But again, what's the justification for these articles? Phil Sandifer 15:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But can we keep the tags? That is the question. I see absolutely nothing wrong with letting people know that they are about to read something that is not common knowledge yet. We have had no end of arguing over the Bionicle pages lately, and all because some people think they know the rules better than others. I would just like to know whether or not keeping the tags on the Lego Bionicle pages would be a policy violation of some kind. -- -- Gravitan 11:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The guideline doesn't forbid the use of spoiler tags. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then tell me why the spoiler tags continue to be removed where needed. BIONICLE isn't just a LEGO toy line.  It has it's own books, comics, and movies.  It has a story.  And when things just happen in the recently released comics or books, they are regarded as spoilers, no?  So why are the tags being removed for such content?  This doesn't just apply to the BIONICLE articles, of course.  They are being removed everywhere.  Why have them (the spoiler tags) if these nazi wannabe's are just going to remove them? They won't listen to anything.  And in the rare case one person agrees, another comes along to remove it.  There's no order here.  ElectricTurahk 16:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps those removing the tags don't believe they're needed. I seem to recall that someone decided to use some kind of future tag (which in my opinion makes a lot more sense in an encyclopedic context) instead of a spoiler tag. --Tony Sidaway 17:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and where the future tags were used, they are fine. But what I am struggling with right now is keeping the spoiler tag for something that happened in a book that was just released.  The only arguments those removing supplied are "It's fuckin LEGO" and "It's an encyclopedia, those not wanting spoilers shouldn't read them."  But those aren't all to compelling, now are they?  And up until the point of the tag's inclusion, the information had just been a brief overview of the character.  Then it gets to the part where the spoilers occur, so a tag is needed there.  But nobody will listen to me.  (Now I seem to be getting a tad off subject, for this particular discussion would probably be better taken to the article's talk page, but it does serve as a good example in my eyes). ElectricTurahk 17:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My argument is more along these lines: "It sure seems, on the face of it, weird to have spoiler tags on articles about Legos. I recognize that there are movies and narratives here, but still - this seems something of interest primarily to a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts, most of whom, if they're on any article past Bioncile, are probably already devotees of the subject. What's the persuasive justification for spoiler tags in this instance that I'm missing?" To date, this argument has not been answered for me. Phil Sandifer 17:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you not say the exact same things for fans of anime, such as Naruto or Bleach? (Using those examples because I myself am fans of those.) There's an ongoing story, so any new developments should be regarded as spoilers.  It should not matter who reads the articles - like I mentioned before, a fan of Naruto is no different than a fan of Bionicle.  Just because Naruto is more popular, does that mean their opinion matters, but the fan of Bionicle's opinion doesn't?  Hell no.  But just because the subject here is Bionicle - which as soon as you hear that, go "It's LEGO, who gives a fuck about it," and that's why Wikipedia is loathed by much of the Bionicle community - you don't want to acknowledge that what we are saying makes sense. ElectricTurahk 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not take me as a Bionicle deletionist. I think it's a fascinating topic. I'd love to see more Lego articles of various kinds on Wikipedia, because the Lego community is damned interesting. But I'm not persuaded that these articles are subjects where a spoiler warning is appropriate. There is still no compelling reason being offered. Again - why these articles? What's the compelling reason? Phil Sandifer 18:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Objectively, it's hard to see much of a difference between Doctor Who and Bionicle. But with the vague 'compelling reason' collary in effect, there's no protection against the biases of the anti-spoiler brigade.-- Nydas (Talk) 18:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand my support for Doctor Who tags - I don't advocate them on episodes as old as the Bionicle material. I advocate one on the latest episode because it's important to reveal spoilerish information in the lead of that article. And so trying to draw a difference between Doctor Who and Bionicle is misleading. The difference is between "happened last night" and "didn't happen last night." Phil Sandifer 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On Doctor Who, who's keeping the spoiler tags off the Doctor Who articles? As far as I'm aware I'm the only member of those whom you have refered to as "the spoiler brigade" who has recently made a spoiler-related edit on the Doctor Who articles.  And that was to put a spoiler tag at the top of the latest episode.  I supported this with argument and by reference to the guideline, and it was accepted.  Why is this regarded as such a difficult thing to do?  --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer is your comment below. Perhaps those who removed the tags didn't agree that the arguments were good enough. See for instance Phil Sandifer's comments above on Bionicle. 99% of the time, the arguments will never be good enough because it's 'something of interest primarily to a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts' or whatever. You don't even have to be consistent. You can magically declare the argument 'uncompelling' for any reason whatsoever.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is the tag I placed on Utopia still there? --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Two reasons. One, you like Doctor Who and this translates into it being more 'worthy' in terms of 'compelling reason-ness'. Two, you need at least one article with spoilers to 'demonstrate' that 'compelling reason' isn't a complete and utter farce, and that it does 'work' from time to time. There's still no obligation to be consistent; you removed the spoiler tags on Ocean's 13, even when it was still a brand new film.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ocean's 13 tag was on the plot section, though, which, as numerous people have pointed out, is a dumb palce for it. The Utopia tag is very different - it's revealing major spoilers in the lead of the article. It's a sensible place for it until, eh, next week or so when the next episode airs and those spoilers are less immediate. Has nothing to do with liking one show more than the other - I'd have supported a spoiler tag for a few days on Made in America (The Sopranos) as well (an article that needs a new lead section badly), for example. Phil Sandifer 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above presupposes that I think that the Bionicle articles should not have spoiler tags. I'm completely indifferent on the matter.  As for why there is only one article currently with spoiler tags, the primary reason seems to be that nobody is especially interested in retaining them when they're removed.  I used the spoiler tag on Utopia because otherwise it would have been more difficult to persuade other editors to accept major spoilers in the lead section.  The spoiler tag will probably be removed quite soon. --Tony Sidaway 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The primary reason is that spoiler tags are removed repeatedly and robotically, 'compelling reason' is useless in practice and you threaten anyone that restores more than one or two.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Spoiler tags seldom need to be removed more than once. If discussion follows we participate and offer our opinions. This is how editing is done on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If using the tags is not against guideline, then why are they being removed in spite of us providing good arguments as to why they should stay? If they are allowed, then we'll add them. This is such a trivial little thing, so why is everyone wrecking up the BIONICLE pages over it? Can somebody here give us something that people will listen to? -- -- Gravitan 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps those who removed the tags didn't agree that the arguments were good enough. See for instance Phil Sandifer's comments above on Bionicle. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see, so now it's up to those who want to put them in to justify themselves to the anti-tag deities who then determine if the article is worthy of these tags, and because it's LEGO, the article has not been deemed worthy? What subjects, pray tell, are worthy of the all-powerful spoiler tag? Clearly not bestsellers or blockbusters, because then "everyone who is looking at the article probably already knows this". Clearly not any form of printed or visual media with a story, because "it's in a plot section, readers expect spoilers". Clearly not character biography pages, because "they expect spoilers or why go to the article?". Clearly not anything out of the mainstream because "it's of interest only to enthusiasts who probably already know". Kuronue 19:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You lost me around about the word "deities". Could you explain simply how you think the current state of affairs differs from normal consensual discussion on content? --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He's trying to show that there is no consensus in the least. What is going on is that you people are deciding yourselves what merits a spoiler without any knowledge of the subject at all.  You ask for a compelling reason, and when one is provided, you toss it aside.  Only for something you yourself find interest in - which is funny, because somebody pointed out that the only ones who care about Bionicle are their fans - will you make exceptions. Please note that I do not speak to you directly, but to everyone who wants the removal of the spoiler tags.  The same can be said for all of the fair use image nazis - We've had the same images on several of the Bionicle articles for over a year, and just now they've been removed.  But that's a different subject. ElectricTurahk 20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All you're doing is repeating and elaborating the "deities" charge. There are no deities here.   We're all equal. --Tony Sidaway 20:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You indicated pretty much the exact opposite on the mailing list.-- Nydas (Talk) 21:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That posting doesn't mean that any one of us has more power than the others. It simply means that some of us know how things work and others remain unacculturated.  Becoming acculturated involves being able to recognise what is and is not consensus on Wikipedia, and a strong recognition that the written rules should seek whenever possible to describe the reality,


 * There are some 45,000 articles that until recently had spoiler tags and now do not. There is clearly no substantial pressure to replace those, or else there'd be great waves of the things, a hundred and more at a time.  That's how it is. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your group has been removing a hundred or more daily for the past couple of weeks. How fast would they have to be replaced to count as significant/meaningful/substantial opposition/resistance/pressure? A hundred an hour? A hundred a minute? With the threats directed at anyone who replaces more than five, literally thousands of editors would be needed to overrule the whims of six admins.


 * A simple thought experiment can put paid any notions of 'equality'. If we were the admins, willing to use AWB, ignore the discussion and threaten anyone that opposed us, we could restore spoiler tags within a week.-- Nydas (Talk) 08:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe because SOME people are trying to establish a consensus before any mass-placings or mass-removals, and some other people are doing things the other way around, removing things before the discussion is finished? Should I go add them all back to prove the point like you did removing them? Ludicris. People see that they are being removed "per WP:SPOIL" and assume there is a consensus, and those that are curious about how it was reached end up here, where there IS no consensus, and find that we somehow don't count because tons of other people don't bother to check the guideline and state their opinions on the talk page. I feel as though you're sitting on high preaching to the rest of us about what we really all agree to want, regardless of our actual feelings, hence the "deities" comment. Kuronue 00:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

May I, apropos of nothing, and looking at the Bionicle articles, suggest that the entire area has much bigger problems than spoiler tags? I just tried to look at Bionicle Legends to get a sense of when the most recent Bioncle-related material came out, and found nothing even remotely useful or intelligible in that article. Fearing that perhaps it was just that these were the most recent installments in a complex story I went back and had a look at Bionicle Chronicles and found it similarly unintelligible. The lead on Bionicle is similarly strange, giving no indication that the subject is a narrative work at all. The articles are terrible, and people are fretting over the spoiler tags? Phil Sandifer 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We are "fretting" over the spoilers because we do not share your opinion that the articles are terrible. If you think you can make improvements, then by all means, go right ahead. But I would still like to know whether or not there was any legitimate reason why people started removing the tags in the first place. -- -- Gravitan 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are free not to share my view that the articles are terrible. However, seeing as you are partly responsible for writing such travesties, I find myself disinclined to take your views on what makes for good writing very seriously. Phil Sandifer 02:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The quality of the article in question has nothing to do with it's requiring or not requiring spoiler tags. You're always free to Be Bold and clean it up yourself, you know. Kuronue 02:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying - you have a bunch of articles that in no way comply with WP:WAF, WP:LEAD, WP:MOSDEF, WP:SS, and that take virtually no advice from WP:1SP. And of all of these problems, you're concerned that the spoiler tags are being removed? Phil Sandifer 02:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned because I feel that the spoilers do more good than harm, and that there was no reason to remove them. Now can't we come to an agreement here? Oh, and Phil, I don't write those articles (I'm not a writer), I just mantain them and add the occasional update. And if you know exactly what's wrong with them, then I think it would be a great benefit to us if you could try to improve them, if only just a litte. -- -- Gravitan 10:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed?
Any page that accurately describes some issue will tend to be disputed by people who dislike said issue. However, it is not possible to change a fact by changing the description of that fact.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Clique fix is in: Formal AWB complaint dismissed as "rancor"
No pretense of impartial investigation or decision. Not even buck-passing to AN/I.

(Quote from #Arbitration)


 * "Want to demonstrate how the clique fix is in? Go to Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and leave a summarized and carefully-reasoned message asking for those who deleted the spoiler tags to be removed from AWB registration until an officially recognized decision on future such use has been made. I forecast that it won't happen. Milo 22:35, 15 June 2007"

(Quote from Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage #Requests for revocation)


 * Using AWB to make controversial edits (removing spoiler tags without consensus), edit warring with AWB. --Random832 06:29, 16 June 2007"''
 * Using AWB to make controversial edits (removing spoiler tags without consensus), edit warring with AWB. --Random832 06:29, 16 June 2007"''

(A 15-some post perfectly civil pro-con debate followed.)


 * "04:06, 18 June 2007 Alphachimp (Requests for revocation - this conversation is pointless, vindictive, and irrelevant to this page. archiving. you should know better than to create rancor here.)"diff

Rancor means: "resentment: a feeling of deep and bitter anger and ill-will" Translation: you should know better than to criticized members of the clique.

Subtext message: 'How dare you even ask for justice at Wikipedia AWB'. I checked, Alphachimp is an administrator. Is this ethical admin behavior or what?

But beyond that, no visible enforcement of the AWB guide. Apparently members of the 500+ edit clique can do whatever they please with AWB. Looks like the Wiki-wide metamorphic risk is bigger than I thought. Milo 06:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well we just bunged him a monkey and he dropped the complaint.   --Tony Sidaway 07:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's an admin who thought the use of AWB before a guideline was finalised could be seen as vandalism and which the user Kusma did stop using for a day or so after that was posted .Garda40 23:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
Is there anyone who is willing to help set up a request for arbitration on this? Clearly, when someone is making 45000 deletions, we can't just revert them ourselves; I don't see any other way to resolve this. (And does anyone have a link to show about how many deletions were made by each person involved?) Ken Arromdee 20:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you try other methods of dispute resolution first? You're unlikely to get an arbitration case accepted unless you try and fail to resolve this by discussion. --Tony Sidaway 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm. Depends on why dispute resolution by discussion doesn't seem to get us anywhere. Could it also be because there are still a few questions you haven't answered yet? &lt;K  F&gt;  21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask the questions and we'll see how it goes. --Tony Sidaway 23:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions are really pretty much irrelevant. The problem is that you and your allies have removed over 45000 spoiler warnings while claiming that the fact that they haven't been reverted implies consensus for their removal. This is an utterly ridiculous position. So far, no discussion has convinced people to stop removing or to restore tens of thousands of spoiler warnings, or to admit that there is no consensus for their removal.

We've already tried to resolve this by discussion. The response is "no, I believe removing tens of thousands of warnings is appropriate, and I'm not going to stop." The discussion gets nowhere because your side simply ignores it and continues to repeat the questionable behavior. Ken Arromdee 04:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He's quite right, that the fact warnings were not replaced does not prove very much, particularly if it is accompanied by the impression that a definitive consensus has already been reached, which plainly it has not. On the other hand, I would be inclined to agree that probably most of the tags removed were not very helpfull. But that was the opinion I started with, you havn't proved it. Especially since it would appear that tags have been removed repeatedly despite people putting them back. Taking them out one time, with an explanation, is fair enough and gets everyones attention. But persistently doing it is imposing a view. Have you debated with all those editors who reinserted tags as to why they felt they were needed? Sandpiper 10:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will ask the people removing spoilers: Is there something I could say to convince you not to remove tens of thousands of spoilers before the spoiler issue is resolved? If the answer is "no," or if the answer is "the issue IS resolved already," then discussion has failed and we need to go to arbitration. Ken Arromdee 15:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. The side-stepping rebuttals exhibited above indicate that discussion is failing. Editors have made widespread changes through WP, and then claim that the issue is resolve becuase other editors, using manual tools, haven't made "sufficient" reverts. Ridiculous. In most other issues, this kind of editing would be considered vandalism. Or edit warring (reverting edits that restore the tags without Talk page activity). I don't recall seeing widespread announcements on film article Talk pages along the lines of "I'm preparing to remove the spoiler tags." David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "reverting edits that restore the tags without Talk page activity" I agree. In fairness, the clique has negotiated the guideline at the margins, but is intransigent over the timing, scope, and methods of spoiler tag removal. Only clique members with wheels could have altered 45,000 articles without risk of being blocked, after so many procedural abuses, and now such a flimsy basis for claiming Wiki-wide consensus.
 * At the very least, any ordinary group of editors who did this would have been swiftly removed from the AWB registration list for violating the WP:AWB guides of "Don't do anything controversial with it" and "Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices."
 * Want to demonstrate how the clique fix is in? Go to Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageand leave a summarized and carefully-reasoned message asking for those who deleted the spoiler tags to be removed from AWB registration until an officially recognized decision on future such use has been made. I forecast that it won't happen. Milo 22:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If people cared that much, the spoilers would be back already - David Gerard 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm calling "bullshit." Caring is not enough when a clique removes upwards of 45,000 tags, and then demands that other editors can restore them in a few days. "Oh, you editors didn't restore thousands? Then you don't care." That logic is flawed and prejudiced. This fascist mentality has gotten so ugly, I'm not even paying much attention anymore. Someone reverses my tag based on mob rule, I'll just rvv it as edit warring. Not wikilawyering, just editing. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite. All the rest is wikilawyering. --Tony Sidaway 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "If people cared that much, the spoilers would be back already" As has been repeatedly explained, you can't know that after crushing dissent with multiple AWB runs, combined with the lopsided ease of deleting tags compared with laborious difficulty of restoring them. That you won't even acknowledge the overwhelming nature of the electronic force you used, shows the need for arbitration.
 * A more subtle point is that spoiling disappointment is not among the stronger emotions. A 40+% disappointed minority may take a couple of years to restore the tags that need restoring, if they do so. I've said before that because process to determine consensus was abused so significantly, it may take a year to find out whether people actually care enough to do anything about the underlying tagging issues.
 * "All the rest is wikilawyering" According to WikiLawyering: "4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions". Hmm, sounds to me like that's what your clique stands accused of. Whatever, lack of agreement on who is Wikilawyering further demonstrates the need for arbitration. Milo 22:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've tried to explain, and tried not to labor too much because it's so obvious, there is no crushing dissent. Hardly any dissent at all. Once cannot remove necessary content or formatting from 45,000 articles in the face of even moderate dissent.  Yet they were removed and there is no vast, or even moderate, or even more than piddling, move to restore them. Indeed most of the spoiler-related edits I've performed over the past day or so were removals of hand-made spoiler tags that have existed on Wikipedia for some considerable time, but were obscured by the vast number of    I don't wish to play down the legitimate dissent of the few editors who have come here to complain.  Please do feel free to pursue dispute resolution, the final process of which is Arbitration.  This statement by me in itself constitutes part of that process, but if necessary a RFC on user conduct should be considered.  I can provide advice to anyone willing to undertake this.  Mediation might also be of some use.  I don't think arbitration is likely to be accepted at this stage.  There simply isn't any evidence of disruptive activity or failure to communicate. --Tony Sidaway 01:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We definitely need to go onto the next step, because we've reached past the point that simple discussion can manage. Multiple people have asked many times for Tony and David to answer questions which could demonstrate whether they have consensus.  They've raised numerous valid criticisms of the '45,000 gone, very few restored' argument.  They've attempted compromises on a number of accounts both in terms of their behaviour and in the spoiler policy itself.  None seem to have had the slightest effect.  What's more, even though the policy is marked as 'in dispute', Tony at least continues to remove spoiler warnings with the explanation 'removing per WP Spoiler'.  This is an appeal to authority that does not exist, and serves only to bully people out of reverting the changes.  Because of all of this, I can no longer assume they're arguing in good faith.  In fact, the only reason I can think, given his steadfast refusal to discuss the issues or alter his position, that Tony suggested we continue to 'discuss' is because he feels that the longer we're locked up in discussion, the more weight his 'but very few have been reverted yet!' will carry, all the while they continue to pull all these dirty tricks.  If there is an explanation other than that, please, I beg to be informed, but as you tend to have a history of ignoring valid questions, I can't hold up much hope.  There are still those in the anti-warning crowd that seem to have more rational demeanors, but they don't seem to be around much anymore.   We need to move on to the next step.  In the meantime, I'm doing what I feel is right, which includes replacing spoiler warnings and adding them where I feel appropriate, whether or not they fall under the guidelines of the current, disputed, WP: Spoiler.  I will not, unlike others, try to assert my will and move on, but instead invite other people to join the debate so we can actually figure out what consensus is.   I recommend others do the same. Wandering Ghost 00:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like (browsing policy) that we should attempt a mediation first? The issue I'm having when going to file either request is the "users involved". There're so many names on these talk pages arguing this case... Should I file with a note there saying "please see talk for WP:spoiler and the RFC for the policy" instead of specific names? Kuronue 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it surprising that there are complaints that David and I haven't discussed the issue. We've done so at length. --Tony Sidaway 01:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, with a minor exception or so, that you have discussed most issues enough to make your fixed positions clear. Milo 04:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * from what I can see you've repeated the same statements over and over and then ignored anything that directly attacks those statements, instead preferring to use your axioms to combat new arguments rather than counter the counter-arguments. Kuronue 02:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "I don't like it" is a very old argument and needs no rebuttal. "There is evidence that you're ignoring" is an argument that needs support by evidence.  None has been forthcoming.  Meanwhile those pesky 45,000 spoiler tags remain unrestored. --Tony Sidaway 02:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's obvious nobody wants to leave the country, because if many people did want to leave the country, they would be crossing the border in large numbers. The fact that we have barbed wire fences and armed guards and drag people back who try is besides the point.  Clearly nobody wants to leave our country, and so our prohibitions on leaving our country are for the good of all, because anyone who wants to must be insane. Wandering Ghost 02:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For heaven's sake, do I have to go to your recent edit list and revert every single one before you admit that you're not the deciding say in this matter and that your thousands of edits do not indicate consensus among the whole of wikipedia?! Kuronue 02:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wandering Ghost, you've misrepresented my argument. You claim there isn't consensus for some 45,000 edits.  I say that the wide indifference to those edits, and overwhelming support for those edits in the few cases where those edits are challenged, establishes consensus.


 * Kurunoe, I did not perform those 45,000 edits. I'm absolutely not the deciding voice in this, but I've chosen to argue the case with the rump of editors who aren't yet on board.  --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I say you can't prove that there is consensus based on the fact that edits haven't been reverted. It might be that people feel browbeated when their attempts to revert it were again reverted.  It might be that there's wide acceptance for some of the guidelines, but not for others, and that the majority of the spoiler removals happen to fall under the undisputed parts.  It might be that most articles on fictional subjects aren't actively watched by a whole lot of people.  And, once again, it's so much easier to remove tags automatically than to properly add them.  There are so many factors that you can't make any meaningful judgement based on the fact that the majority of edits haven't been reversed.  What I do know is that the people who made the bulk removals and who continue to remove the attempts to replace them, are doing so in a poor way that is damaging to finding OUT the truth.  If it's widely accepted, it'll be widely enforced.  If a few narrow people are enforcing it on everybody, then it's impossible to tell if it's widely accepted.  Especially notable since before about a month ago, spoilers were common and most people didn't complain about that, either.  Shouldn't that prove that _that_ had consensus?  Wandering Ghost 03:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One month ago, the spoiler tag itself came that close to being deleted. A small group, however dedicated, could not enforce a fake guideline against consensus.   --Tony Sidaway 03:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The TfD was only allowed to run for a few hours before YOU unilaterally closed it. It had a 60% keep. The MfD had a 2:1 in favour of deletion but that was only allowed to run for a short time as well. The closed MfD was prominently displayed on the discussion page for some time, whilst the TfD was buried in an archive immediately. That both deletion debates were policed by admins with a vested interest and closed for arbitary reasons after arbitary amounts of time should be enough to completely discount them. Disturbingly, the prematurely-closed MfD was cited as evidence of a 'consensus'.-- Nydas (Talk) 07:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That word "unilateral" again. In any case as I try not to labor too much, we've got ample evidence of consensus. --Tony Sidaway 08:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Mediation might also be of some use" Because there is such profound disagreement as to interpretation of facts (like whether the inherent nature of your methods do or don't crush dissent), I question whether Wikipedia:Mediation is of significant value. To provide further context on the utility of mediation, it's accepted legal theory that agreements between parties of greatly disparate power are generally unsuccessful. By implication, mediation among parties of disparate power leading to such agreements is not likely to be time well-spent.
 * Wikipedia:RFC on user conduct It's an idea that's reasonable to consider. However, I've previously mentioned a visceral prejudice that many editors seem to bear against consumers of fiction. The problem is that the RFC commenters may well comment the editors' conduct issues based on their view of like/dislike spoiler tagging, rather than whether editors should gain extra firm consensus, and scrupulously follow established processes, before using mass editing tools to irretrievably change 45,000 articles.
 * Arbitration ... "any evidence of disruptive activity or failure to communicate" Disagreement on those points, among others, would be decided by the arbitration case, if accepted.
 * "I don't think arbitration is likely to be accepted at this stage" Perhaps not, but IIRC, the case can be presented even if refused. The presentation by itself might be enough to set policy-making into motion that would at least prevent AWB from being used this way in the future.
 * OTOH, this is no ordinary editors' food fight. I'm not familiar with more than a few arbitration cases, but I have the feeling that only the userbox case has much similarity to this one. Even the userbox case surely didn't have a scope of anything like 45,000 pages. The possibility that other loose-cannon groups of editors might repeat this questionably-consensed behavior, might persuade Arbcom that this is a Wiki-wide metamorphic risk, that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Milo 04:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Per the RFC one: um, you mean because I did the right thing without jumping through sufficient hoops first it's therefore the wrong thing? I believe this is called "process over product" or "proceduralism" and is considered silly. Be bold. - David Gerard 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to bring this to arbitration, go for it. Do be sure to list me as one of the parties. Phil Sandifer 05:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Phil, just to be clear, it wouldn't be me personally opening an arbitration case. I'm just helping to define the issues, since no one will benefit from a messy case. With a clean case, either Arbcom or the policy community is more likely to act on the top-level issue, which is the Wiki-wide metamorphic risk from loose-cannon editors armed with AWB. With that playing field leveled, then the spoiler tag issues are more likely to be resolved in a broad-consensus way, such as the compromise on the table.
 * You seem likely to be an issue winner here, so I'm a bit curious as to your exceptional interest in being an arbitration party. As near as I can guess, you won't need to make any statement, because I'm thinking that your position on article writing standards won't be at issue (or even mentioned). I for one, accept your general position and have incorporated it into the compromise on the table: your writing standards, interpreted by local consensus, with optionally visible spoiler tags — everyone reasonable should be satisfied. Milo 06:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can hardly believe that this is still rumbling on. Spoiler tags went, they were discussed in articles and on the mailing list, few people (very few) seem to lament their passing.  Of course there are a few vociferous hold-outs (waves to those arguing here) but in the end the encyclopaedic purpose of the average spoiler warning is amply served by a section heading of ==Plot== or ==Synopsis==.  We all saw the patently absurd examples of nursery rhymes, classical Greek and Latin works and films like Casblanca and Citizen Kane where there has been so much critical coverage that no surprises remain.  I find myself wondering why people are still arguing here instead of going to the talk pages of articles they think genuinely need spoiler warnings and making a case there.  That is, after all, all that is needed: a case made on an article-by-article basis which demonstrates that reputable independent authorities generally consider a certain fact to be a spoiler, not widely known, and likely to impact on one's enjoyment of the film or book in question. Instead we have all kinds of generalised arm-waving and use of loaded terms like "unilateral" as if any editorial action is ever anything else.  Go to the talk pages, make your cases, and remember that this is an encyclopaedia not a film fansite. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comment about the ML makes me wonder. I remember right before this whole thing started, it was brought up on the ML. Someone linked to it - I don't read the ML as it's too high traffic for me. It seemed pretty much everyone there was in agreement about removing the warnings. What happened there in the past weeks since then? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd never heard that spoiler tags weren't being used anymore until I stuck one in a page and someone told me in the help chat that that was "wrong" now. So I removed it, and went to figure out when and why that changed, only to find that, surprise surprise, some people actually still wanted them. I imagine I'm not the only one. Kuronue 17:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a small number of people want them back in, but have been spectacularly unsuccessful in persuading others of their position, largely I think because they are looking at a blanket "spoiler warnings are OK" assertion, whereas those removing them have cited numerous absurd and sometimes risible examples of their use. I don't believe there will be an issue with spoiler warnings on a few articles, where a rationale is given, but in the majority of cases )"warning, plot details follow" in a plot section) the spoiler tags were pointless. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Small number of people want them back? Do you have some hard data that support this assertion? I actually tried to do a poll if people use spoiler warnings, and half of them said they do. I am myself an example of this - I could try to put them back in the articles I have seen them removed from, but since it would now be against this guideline, what's the point? (The problem here is the circular reasoning - the guideline is used to support the reverts of spoiler warning removal, and small opposition to spoiler warning removal is used to justify the guideline.) I also think this guideline is dishonest - it looks like spoiler warnings are allowed, when in fact, they're effectively forbidden (that they cannot appear in sections called plot etc. blocks 99% of the cases, and the "compelling reason" to justify them doesn't exists, because if they are not needed in 99% of the cases, they're not needed anywhere). So this guideline may look like a compromise, but isn't (I see only two possible compromises - software solution which will optionally hide/show spoiler warnings, or no guideline at all - ie. the situation up until now). But say the guideline is really needed to prevent some misuse of spoiler warning; then it (IMHO) approaches the problem from the wrong angle - it should try to define what is a spoiler and what type of articles deserve such warnings. Samohyl Jan 00:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would be cool if there is a page like Feedback to which ordinary users (ie. not editors and admins - they have other avenues) would be invited (linked to from main page) to provide their opinion about what can be done better in Wikipedia. It could conduct regular informal polls about policies and usage patterns. Samohyl Jan 01:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what puzzles me the most: you yourself admit above that "99% of cases" are due to duplication, such as a spoiler tag following a clearly marked "Plot" or "Synopsis" section heading. That being so, why is removing them problematic?   As for the other cases, I've discussed many such cases.  Some I find moderately persuasive if I squint a bit, but not enough to make me want to put the tag back if someone else doesn't want it.  Why is this different from any other tag?  Why must it be placed, even where it's clearly superfluous? --Tony Sidaway 04:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You misread my statement. I said in 99% cases they are redundant due to this guideline, not my opinion (my opinion is that spoiler warnings improve usability by providing consistent interface, and that they do no harm; also they have an advantage that they can be put in the middle of the plot section). Samohyl Jan 10:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've no idea what "providing a consistent interface" might mean in this context. But obviously we disagree on a fundamental matter. Does it not strike you as odd that, 45,000 articles having had spoiler tags removed, there wasn't a mad rush to restore them?  I found it quite remarkable when even the first 2,000 removals didn't cause a huge kerfuffle.  The silence has been quite extraordinary.  If they were useful at all, we'd see hundreds of editors restoring them and arguing passionately for this.  Instead I'm seeing spoiler tags,some of which I myself placed, being removed even from articles about recent stuff by editors I've never heard of (removal of spoiler tag from latest Doctor Who episode), (removal of spoiler tag from Silver Surfer) (removal of spoiler tag from Ocean's Thirteen) .   This is a very successful guideline.  It's gone viral--which is of course what all good guidelines do. --Tony Sidaway 04:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea that spoiler warnings are useful, even if redundant, has been already discussed before by other people, so don't pretend you don't know the argument. You asked me, if it doesn't strike me odd that people react as they react - I lived as a child in totalitarian regime, and it doesn't surprise me at all. This is like if the totalitarian government would argue, there are no free speech issues in the country, because the opposition is only a very small minority, and is dealt with quickly. Therefore, the laws against free speech have obviously widespread support. I hope you see the absurdity of such an argument. And exactly the same circular argument is used to justify removal of spoiler warnings. On Wikipedia, the stakes are much less (for most people), so this effect occurs even if there is no threat, but still - just an assumption of futility (and misleading statements about existing consensus) is enough to dissuade people from arguing about it. Samohyl Jan 07:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've heard the assertion that they are "useful". Not that anybody has ever come up with anything like a credible expanation of what they are supposed to be useful for, mind.  Your invocation of totalitarian governments is skating on the edges of Godwin's law, and it appears that your commitment to spoiler tags is philosophical and to an extent contrarian, rather than being based on any actual encycloapedic utility.  It has never been clear to me what service we provide to the readers by telling them that the plot section of a Dickens novel contains plot or ending details, or indeed what we are supposed to be spoiling by telling people things which, for the most part, are common knowledge and subject of considerable debate in the critical literature.  I will repeat: there is no problem with a spoiler warning in an article where a credible rationale can be advanced on Talk for the inclusion of the tag, based on reputable independent authorities identifying the information as a spoiler. There seems to be enormous reluctance here to actually go to the articles and make a rationale. What's the problem with that approach? Guy (Help!) 11:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that assertion is backed by polls of users, where about half of people asked consider spoiler warnings to be useful (for reader). This is the main factor for me to consider (usefulness for the users). Of course, I use them too, that's why I also argue for them. But I probably wouldn't care if only 10% minority would consider them useful. There are two such polls - one on the RfC for this and one on xkcd.com forum. I find it strange that nobody wants to actually know what the users think. Because, you see, if they are really useful for some people, they cannot prove that to you, if you disagree. The totalitarian example I gave is to illustrate the problem with your argument that nobody reverts you, then they actually agree with the guideline. If I would put them back to articles where they were (as someone probably put them there before, because he considered them to be useful), you would remove them, because it would be against this guideline. You are in the contradiction. You're acting against people who do things against the guideline (which would be fine, if it had widespread support) by reverting them, but at the same time you say, if you disagree with the guideline, act against it, so we can see how many people will act against it, if it really has the support we think it has. This is silly! You should go out and ask people if they want spoiler warnings, and if they want, then what's the problem? (The classical works etc. are, in my opinion, only an excuse - the guideline as it stands now removes spoiler warnings from 99% of all works, and they have been removed from almost everywhere by now.) Samohyl Jan 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will repeat: there is no problem with a spoiler warning in an article where a credible rationale can be advanced on Talk for the inclusion of the tag, based on reputable independent authorities identifying the information as a spoiler.


 * Spoiler tags are purely a style issue. Sources don't enter into it. You might as well demand sources for 'early life' sections in biography articles, stating that person's early life was their early life.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I don't have the full time right now, but here's a few issues to expand upon before submission:
 * The massive violation of WP:POINT
 * The unilateral replacement of the original policy, without consensus, and claiming it as a 'bold edit' when caught out about it
 * Repeated removal of the Disputed tag when there is a clear dispute
 * The attempts from Sideaway and co to bludgeon Wikipedia into accepting their 'policy' by sheer robotic force
 * The threats directed at those who attempted to stop the robovandalism crusade
 * The refusal of the anti-spoiler crowd to engage in logical discussion
 * We need edit logs and specific links before presenting. The most important is to get a list of those who have been abusing AWB.

In regards to the standard dispute resolution, we've certainly attempted to discuss with the vandals. We don't have the opportunity to wait and 'cool off' etc, because the longer we wait, the more the robofleet damages the encyclopedia. So it's on to arbitration, something with real teeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kargath64 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 June 2007

Hmm, taking your points in turn:
 * What violation of "WP:POINT"? The full name of that guideline is Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.  The important word there is "disrupt".
 * "The unilateral replacement of the original policy, without consensus..." If you look at the history of this policy page, and the discussions that took place on them, you'll see that all were performed to the normal Wikipedia standards of discussion and seeking consensus, until the recent edit war intervened.
 * "The attempts from Sidaway and co to bludgeon Wikipedia into accepting their 'policy' by sheer robotic force." I hope that doesn't refer to use of bots or other automated editing tools.  I certainly have no such automated tools.  I wouldn't have needed them even if I'd wanted to.  David Gerard, it's true, made a very large number of edits.  Those seem to have been utterly uncontroversial. You can't make 45,000 controversial edits and not have hundreds of editors kicking up a fuss.
 * "Repeated removal of the Disputed tag when there is a clear dispute." There were some disruptive editors who edited against consensus to restore the tag when it was removed.  Those people tended to end up blocked.  Where tag removers have encountered clear dispute and no consensus, discussion has taken place.
 * "The threats directed at those who attempted to stop the robovandalism crusade." I think this refers to warnings directed towards those who had already exceeded the three revert rule.
 * "The refusal of the anti-spoiler crowd to engage in logical discussion." Obviously incorrect.  A number of us have very patiently explained our edits on this page and on talk pages.  On talk pages, the results have been favorable. On this page, less so.

But please do make your case, and ensure that you list Phil Sandifer, David Gerard and me as parties. --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This thing, right here, that you are currently participating in? This is a dispute. This is not consensus, this is a dispute. Are you claiming that there is consensus on this page? Clearly there ought to be a "disputed" tag on the policy if there's such a large dispute going on in the talk page. Kuronue 04:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Er yes. I'm quite aware that we're participating in a dispute.  I am not claiming that there is consensus on this page.  Obviously there shouldn't be a "disputed" tag on the page because the guideline is working fine.  You don't get to sabotage something that has wiki-wide consensus, simply because you don't like it. --Tony Sidaway 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Sabotage", Mr. Sidaway? I wasn't aware that alerting people to a dispute happening on a talk page (where disputes normally happen; I wouldn't expect to see a dispute about bicolor cat on the horse talk page, nor would I expect to see a dispute about this guideline held "out there" on some random page that had spoilers for very long before someone came here to discuss) was somehow "sabotaging" the guideline. Kuronue 23:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea that a lack of replacement tags = concensus for this policy is a very creative assumption.


 * What is happeningn with this assertion is: Step #1- appealing to actual evidence, to actual facts ("look there is no replacement going on!") Step #2 Adding spin "It isn't happening.... SO it MEANS" Step 3- Repeat #1 and #2.


 * It is a cheap shot to boot, because it is speaking for those who are silent, pretending that you have their vote in your corner without bothering to ask.


 * The bottom line is the wide-scale removal of the tags is in line with how the policy is written, now. If there is any concensus, that is the concensus! With the pretend mind-reading act "We know people approve of this policy!" you miss the obvious, the wide scale removal was in line with how the policy currently is.


 * So how about if you drop your "un-counted votes" and face actual people, here, now on this page? Sethie 06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Gosh, mustn't depend on actual evidence, must we? I've happily engaged with the editors of this page, thank you.  I couldn't possibly do more of that than I have. --Tony Sidaway 07:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sethie is missing the connection between your reply and what Sethie said. Sethie pointed out that you are basing your entire arguement on your interpreation of actual evidence. Your response was "we are using actual evidence." Your response is a prime example of not addressing the actual concerns of actual people, here, now. Sethie 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * you'll see that all were performed to the normal Wikipedia standards of discussion and seeking consensus


 * Normal Wikipedia standards entail around a week of discussion before doing anything, rather than rewriting the rules two days in and threatening anyone who opposed you. An arbitarily closed MfD wasn't grounds for consensus, either, despite your claims at the time.-- Nydas (Talk) 07:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above seems to be a somewhat creative description of events. --Tony Sidaway 08:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * it's clear from the MFD discussion that consensus no longer exists


 * Anyone can scroll to the top of the page to see you asserting that an underpublicised, arbitarily closed MfD is grounds for overturning consensus.-- Nydas (Talk) 08:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise guideline
Once again trying to be constructive, because while I can honestly believe that (at least some of) the anti-warning people believe they have consensus, I cannot honestly believe that most believe in the circular argument a few are perpetrating to prove it. Frankly, it's depressing me and making me less willing to check or contribute to wiki as a whole. This is not a result of the policy itself, but the result of the way it seems to have been formed and is 'enforced' by a minority. As such, since none have answered any of my questions that might have helped prove consensus, my only solution left is to continue to try and fix things to make it more pleasing to a larger number. To that end, I have come up with my own version of the spoiler guidelines, presented here for comment. Note that this not my "ideal" guideline, which would be more along the lines of "whatever it was two months ago with a few tweaks for obvious problems like fairy tales", but my "ideal compromise solution" because even though I honestly believe my ideal has majority support, there is at least significant disagreement and lack of consensus and so compromise is the most appopriate solution. This guideline is very similar to the current guideline but lays out a few things a little more clearly, and evens out a significant advantage of the anti-warning crowd (while trying to be very careful to make the guideline neutral). It is a _little_ more friendly to spoiler warnings than the current guidelines, but I don't feel it's that much, and what difference there is is mostly in matters where different interpretations of the previous one might assume it's more or less the same. So, here goes...

-

A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists.

Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning. However, it is unusual for scholarly reference works (of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be) to warn for spoilers when discussing fictional works. Most wikipedia editors agree that a compromise is the best solution, wherein spoiler warnings should generally be avoided where they are redundant, but may be placed in other areas where there is good reason.

Concerns about spoilers should play no role in decisions about the structure or content of an article, including the article's lead section. When adding a spoiler in the lead section, remember that Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective; what is exciting in the context of a fictional universe is almost certainly a standard plot device in literary construction.

If a spoiler is added as trivia, and does not contribute to the article in any meaningful way, that information can be removed. However, the rationale is that the information was removed not because it was a spoiler, but because it was trivial or unnecessary.

..Spoiler warnings.. ...When not to use spoiler warnings...
 * Spoiler warnings must not interfere with neutral point of view, completeness, encyclopedic tone, or any other element of article quality.
 * Spoiler warnings are usually inappropriate in articles discussing classical works of literature, poetry, film, theatre, and other fields. Classical works should generally be considered as anything older than 50 years for books, plays, and poetry, anything older than 20 years in television and movies, and anything older than 10 years in comics or video games.  Fairy tales should never have spoiler warnings (unless they're of the modern variety).  In grey areas, editors placing spoiler templates should use the article's talk page to discuss the matter.
 * Spoiler warnings should be avoided in articles on non-fictional subjects. If explicit spoilers are mentioned in non-fiction articles (e.g. articles on authors, real-life locations in which (a) fictional text(s) is set, or literary concepts like climax), consider whether the spoiler improves the encyclopedic quality of the article. It may be better to remove the example.
 * Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used in "Plot", "Synopsis" or (fictional) "History" headings of any sort in articles whose subject is fictional.  To insert a spoiler warning in sections of this kind requires a very compelling reason.  These sections should almost never have blanket spoiler warnings covering the whole heading.
 * Spoiler warnings should not be used when they can be replaced by more accurate heading information.  If a "Themes" heading starts with the plot, the best thing to do is break the plot into a separate heading.  If there are no headings, it is usually better to add them.

...When and where to use spoiler warnings...
 * Spoiler warnings may (but not necessarily should) be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, in sections where one might reasonably believe that a reader would not expect to find a major spoiler, even if that section can be expected to deal with some plot details. For example, a "Themes" section would generally talk about plot details, but a warning may be justified if discussion of the major twists is occuring.  Similarly, a listing of characters with brief descriptions might be a spoiler if major surprises about their identity or fate are included. It may also be more encyclopediac to remove the spoiler information if it is not necessary.
 * Spoiler warnings may be temporarily added for very new media (tv shows aired in the last 3 months, movies released in the past 6 months, or books released in the past year) even in sections where it is normally considered redundant or unnecessary. Make a note on the talk page that the spoiler warning is intended to be temporary.
 * A spoiler warning is a courtesy note to readers, such as those who find articles from search engine results. It is a reminder note, and never guaranteed.
 * Very rarely, a spoiler warning may appear in the article lead. If this can be justified, the warning should be placed at the top of the article. The presumption should be that the article lead should not need to warn about plot spoilers that are significant enough to appear in the lead.

...When and how to remove or add spoiler warnings...
 * Where it is appropriate, a ' tag can be used to mark spoiler sections, with ' to mark the end. Whether one is adding or removing, be sure to do both.  Do not make home-made spoiler warnings using plain text.


 * Adding or removing a warning should never be an automatic process, and generally decisions should be made on a local basis by editors who are familiar with the work. People who add or remove many spoiler warnings in a short period of time can be considered in violation of WP:POINT.  A good rule of thumb is that in any 24 hour period an individual can remove or add 3 spoiler warnings, similar to the three revert rule.  Those who seem to be innocently in violation of the rule should be pointed to these guidelines.  If someone is removing or adding dozens or hundreds of spoiler warnings in a day or over the course of a few days, one should consider it disruptive, and should feel free to revert without discussion.


 * Editors should always check a talk page to see the current status of the consensus and, if a discussion exists, one should argue the issue there rather than simply editing the article. If a talk page discussion on spoiler warnings does not exist, one should add one but may feel free to be bold and edit the warning once one has done so.


 * It has been noted that there is a tendency for people who are vehemently anti- or pro- spoiler warning to show up to spoiler warning tag discussions on talk pages or articles they're uninvolved with, and in numbers which overwhelm the local editors, in an attempt to push their view that spoilers should be rarer or more common. These people should be ignored where there is a strong local consensus one way or the other.

..Unacceptable alternatives.. (remainder unchanged)


 * The biggest problem with this compromise is that it doesn't compromise very much. It uses the bad "plot sections shouldn't contain spoiler warnings because everyone knows they have spoilers anyway" argument.  It does limit deleting the 45000 spoiler warnings, but it's not much help to limit it now after they've been deleted; this limits further damage, but makes them even harder to put back.  I would suggest something that says that you need to read the article and discuss a deletion before deleting it.  (Note that to add a spoiler warning, you pretty much have to read the article, since the proper place to put it depends on the article content.) Ken Arromdee 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you in principle about spoilers in plot sections, I don't think removing that requirement is fair to the, in truth, probably significant number of anti-spoiler people. Once you go past that point, I don't think you get a compromise, you get a victory - things are pretty much the same as they were before.  Similarly, I think without the 'no bulk editing' we get the same, a victory on the side of those who have the advantage in bulk editing- the anti-warning side.  Both, I feel, must be included in the guideline at this point for a compromise that is amenable to most.   This revision addresses some of what I feel are the salient points of both sides - 1) Plot sections should not be 'blanket spoiler-warned'.  2) It does allow them to be used in plot sections with compelling reasons, but with those 'compelling reasons' to be determined by local consensus, rather than by outsiders with an axe to grind on spoilers in general.  In this case, over time, we'll gradually learn what the _real_ consensus is.  If you and I are correct, then local consensus will tend, over time, to put them in.  If the anti-warning crowd is right, then local consensus will tend to keep them out.  I think it's the fairest option I can think of.  3) It carves out specific exceptions both for 'classic works' (which should not require spoiler warnings) and 'recent works' (which probably should, as people might check the articles expecting only to see a brief tv-guide style plot outline to see whether they should get interested, but not full details).  Wandering Ghost 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Some comments on the above, not intended to be comprhensive but the result of a quick first reading:
 * "where one might reasonably believe that a reader would not expect to find a major spoiler, even if that section can be expected to deal with some plot details."
 * All of our articles should contain all major plot spoilers. We don't need to give a warning if this is so, because if the plot isn't interesting it won't be discussed at all, and what there is of the plot will cover every single spoiler.
 * "Spoiler warnings may be temporarily added..."
 * In practice people seem to be happily removing them. I gave examples from two new films and a very recent television program last night. A specific guideline isn't required here because it's covered by "compelling reason" and subject to consensus on the page.
 * "Adding or removing a warning should never be an automatic process, and generally decisions should be made on a local basis by editors who are familiar with the work."
 * Not compatible with Wikipedia's principles. See Ownership of articles (WP:OWN).
 * "People who add or remove many spoiler warnings in a short period of time can be considered in violation of WP:POINT."
 * Please read and try to understand the guideline you're referring to here. Adding or removing spoiler warnings is the same as any other form of editing.
 * "A good rule of thumb is that in any 24 hour period an individual can remove or add 3 spoiler warnings."
 * No. If you create ten articles that need them add ten of them. If you encounter ten articles that don't need them, remove them all.  This is the same as any other tag.  No special rules apply.
 * "If someone is removing or adding dozens or hundreds of spoiler warnings in a day or over the course of a few days, one should consider it disruptive, and should feel free to revert without discussion."
 * Again no special rules apply.
 * "Editors should always check a talk page to see the current status of the consensus and, if a discussion exists, one should argue the issue there rather than simply editing the article."
 * Commonsense advice. I agree with this.  On the other hand one may always choose to be bold. Sometimes amazingly effective.
 * "It has been noted that there is a tendency for people who are vehemently anti- or pro- spoiler warning to show up to spoiler warning tag discussions on talk pages or articles they're uninvolved with, and in numbers which overwhelm the local editors, in an attempt to push their view that spoilers should be rarer or more common. These people should be ignored where there is a strong local consensus one way or the other."
 * Again see Ownership of articles.


 * I hope this will be of use to you in redrafting. --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A comment that articles should, in general, be edited by those who have read them does not contravene WP:OWN. Articles should be edited with intelligence; bots cannot supply this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't an article about general editing, and the measures I've commented on above, "should be made on a local basis", and "These people should be ignored", specifically and unambiguously contravene WP:OWN. They're also couched in rather clumsy and prejudicial language, but that's the least of their problems. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with this proposal is that it won't endure. It's a guideline designed to retroactively make waggy-finger at David and some others for removing the spoiler tags. That's fine if you want to criticize them, but making a guideline prohibiting it after it already happened is silly - it's unlikely to happen again, for one, and for another, coming up with specific guidelines to ban or permit specific things you want to do doesn't work very well. Phil Sandifer 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not designed to do that. Since I designed it, please believe me, even though I do think the bulk deleters have, in general, behaved poorly.  It's meant as the equivalent of a truce while consensus can be determined.  As part of dispute resolution is to 'take a step back', that's what this is an attempt to do for the spoiler warning debate as a whole.  Perhaps something in the guideline itself should say that it's a step back with an eye to eventually determining consensus, but I was worried that that might be taken as a challenge for people to game the system.  The bulk editing is still happening.  I think that's one of the biggest problems with the debate.  I can accept the guideline if I believe a significant majority endorse it.  But when one side has decided on a blanket policy of 'revert pretty well every spoiler there is', and they have the technical means to do that easily, while the other side (or sides, as there's probably a vast middle ground) has to make their edits one at a time (as it's easy to look for which pages have spoilers, and go after them, but impossible to get an at a glance look at which pages, in their own judgement, might need spoilers and to properly place them), the balance of edits will be tipped in the favor of the side with the advantage, and distort any consensus.  In the spirit of WP:IAR, I think it's the best temporary redress while the situation can be truly explored.  Remember, this big change happened basically over the course of a month.  I still wonder how many fiction pages with spoiler warnings removed have people who haven't edited in that long because, as a lot of fiction things are, they're relatively 'niche'.  Wandering Ghost 15:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Viewed as a stepping stone in dispute resolution it's quite good because it shows how close we are--all the meaningful points that don't contravene important policy like WP:OWN, or attempt to redefine disruption and so on, are covered by the existing guideline, which has the advantage that it's been proven to work to the benefit of the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The best compromise would be a variant of WP:ENGVAR, stressing that spoiler warnings are neither good nor bad, with clear indications of exceptions.-- Nydas (Talk) 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting call on WP:ENGVAR, Nydas. Though I confess I'm not sure how to word it to make it work, perhaps someone else should take a crack.  I do believe bulk spoiler warning removals are in violation of, if not WP:POINT than the principles that went into it, because it is the textbook definition of disruptive they use: it takes a large number of nonpartisan editors to revert.  Still, for this guideline it might be a better idea to take the reference to WP Point out, and simply have people who bulk remove spoiler warnings in violation of the spoiler guideline itself.  As to WP:OWN, I've already suggested elsewhere that I believe people who 'spoiler squat' (no matter which side they are), are in violation of the spirit of WP:OWN, by claiming ownership of the spoiler guidelines.  Tony and others seem to do this by following any attempt to put in a spoiler warning and deciding on whether it needs to be there.  As such, allowing local consensus to prevail about whether to put a spoiler warning seems to be in the spirit of WP:IAR because in this case it's being allowed to counter the worse problem in view of the lack of consensus on the issue, and as you pointed, there's some precedent in WP:ENGVAR.  Wandering Ghost 11:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, I am against spoiler warnings. A typical violation of WP:POINT would be if I add spoiler warnings to the Bible, to fairy tales or to the Trojan War, so everybody can see how ridiculous they are. Instead, I argued for the removal of bad spoiler warnings and removed them, concentrating at first on the worst cases of spoiler tag abuse (I went through the categories of fairy tales and classical literature, which was more work than just checking for transclusions of spoiler). In fact, I think I was weakening my case that spoiler should be deleted, since I was (on average) making sure it was used more appropriately. To argue that I did something wrong, please find something else to cite than WP:POINT. Kusma (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Although WP:POINT is, in phrasing geared towards 'ironic' disruptions, I don't think it's meant exclusively to apply to them. I think that indiscriminantly erasing spoiler tags qualifies.  Now, if what you say you did is correct, I don't think you did anything wrong, no.  That seems more in line with good faith editing.  Following all spoiler warnings and erasing them, even in a state where there are relatively few to follow, I believe is against the spirit of the guideline.  You're disrupting the process to make a point.  I go back to my old standby - if there really is consensus on the issue, then the tags will be removed whether people there are people who are watching for every spoiler tag inclusion and then removing them, or whether there are many independant people doing independant edits to remove them where they happen to come across them.  It's in the other case, where there's not consensus, or where the state of consensus is not clear (as in this one - I still try to refrain from claiming I have consensus on the issue and have repeatedly said that I'm open to the idea that consensus might be on the other side... my argument is that it's unclear due the actions of a few), that spoiler-targetting is disruptive, especially where it obscures attempts to detect what consensus is.  Seeing as how wikipedia is run on consensus, things which obscure attempts to detect what consensus is would seem to be the height of disruption.Wandering Ghost 13:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was one of those who originally wrote WP:POINT, and can confidently state you've completely missed its point - David Gerard 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, he isn't the only one. While being one of the clearest guidelines we have, it's also one of the most widely miscited and misunderstood.   Perhaps the sheer weight of the mis-citing has confused many people. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We can confidently state that those accused of disrupting Wikipedia will claim they weren't.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you attempting to WP:OWN WP:POINT? No, don't get offended, that was a shot at humor. Alright, let's see what we have here.

"Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented." Discussion, for those who don't know, is what is going on here. Unilateral action would be something like removing every spoiler tag in existence because you dislike them.

Edits are defined as "disruptive". From the "Disruptive Editing" page: "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors." There's plenty of pro-spoiler opposition going on, yet instead of stepping back to discuss before proceeding, the anti-spoiler editors are continuing to remove them at will. While it's a bit of a stretch, I admit, it's an interesting point to consider. This is in additoin to requiring a vast number of editors to undo.

If you wish to change a guideline, WP:POINT recommends "do set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus".

In conclusion: while it may have been written to combat irony and sarcastic editing, it's still not a good idea to disrupt wikipedia to prove a point, even if your disruption is not of the examples mentioned on the page. Kuronue 01:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
What if Harry dies? According to the anti-spoiler admins, WP:LEAD is sacrosanct, even though it's only a guideline. Are we going to give away the ending in the lead, from the first hour of the release? Will this be a fine opportunity to 'burn' people who just don't get it?-- Nydas (Talk) 14:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect that article will need to be protected for the first couple weeks after its release. The SKD mess wasn't pretty either. Radiant! 14:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Harry Potter's death would obviously have to be in the lead. No sense in keeping it out--if Harry Potter dies it will be on the ten o'clock news in every country. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is extraordinarily doubtful. No news organisation in the world would want to deal with the flak for blowing the ending. Only a small number of readers will have finished the book within a day, and to ruin it would be be unspeakably unprofessional journalism.-- Nydas (Talk) 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Even granting that TV news is not very professional, some people avoid the ten o'clock news because it covers stories like that; others will avoid it until they've read the book. Wikipedia is still not a news source (as Tony keeps pointing out in other contexts); that's Wikinews. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If they avoid even the news, they're bound to avoid searching the internet for the book title, and knowing that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia they're not going to come to our article. Which will contain information about the ending.  And (if he dies) almost certainly should give that information in the lead. But no, if Harry Potter dies this will be world news and will be on all channels. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as special pleading. Please consider taking a break from one or the other of your two causes, and actually editing encyclopedic content, independent of spoilers and BLP. You'll feel better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument that we should suppress information about the content of novels from our encyclopedia because some of our readers may come to the article but not want to know about the book, does seem like special pleading to me. My own points above are simple refutations of the notion that we'd be alone in presenting such information.  Readers are responsible for what they read and if they don't want to know about something they should avoid encyclopedias. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about suppressing information? Obviously various fansites will give away the ending without warning within an hour, and the limited worldview of the anti-spoiler admins means that we'll join them. After all, if the bloggers have blogged about it, then 'everyone will know'. Never mind that most people don't read blogs, or won't read it within a week. Fans deserve spoiler warnings. Real people don't. That's the clear message here.-- Nydas (Talk) 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, spoilers are not "suppressing" information, only highlighting the controversial information for readers to make their own decisions (read, stop reading). Also, I suspect you're using a crystal ball in asserting that "it will be on the news," and as I'm sure you know, OR and crystal balls are discouraged here. Let's stop soapboxing on what we think "absolutely will happen," and instead make WP a usable reference for the widest possible audience. If Harry Potter snuffs it in the last book, certainly, don't spoil the surprise for millions of readers just because we "don't like" the tag. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 14:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that it's not our job to protect people from information they didn't want to learn. Suppose that in book seven Snape kills Dumbledore, that will be all over the internet, way beyond our power of stopping it (remember that hexadecimal string last month? Same idea). In essence, using a spoiler tag for this would be akin to placing a sign "caution: this may be wet" on the Atlantic Ocean.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if the book has plot details that must go in the lead, I, at least, would not be averse to a week or two of a spoiler tag at the very top of the article, at least until we start to see the discussion spilling into national news sources. (Much like the ending of The Sopranos was news about 24 hours after it aired.) Phil Sandifer 15:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And it is not clear that Potter's death must be in the lead, even if he dies. Consider The Old Curiosity Shop; the death of Little Nell is certainly the best known incident in the novel, and it's not in the lead. (I set aside the question of whether Potter may get better, like Gandalf.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. I'd suggest that events that happen at the end of the book should be mentioned at the end of the "plot" section of the article. I doubt that Harry is going to die on page one :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, Radiant has raised an interesting point about nonlinearity. Let me quote: "Russian formalism divides narrative into two parts, the fabula and the sujet. The fabula is the arrangement of the events in a story in chronological order, the sequence in [which] the events occur. In contrast, the sujet is the events of the story in their order of presentation." Hence, a plot summary gives us the fabula, and that's why in a plot summary spoilers can appear already at the very beginning. And if that's the case, that's exactly where we need spoiler warnings. Anyone can imagine the very first sentence of a novel going something like, "The coffin was slowly lowered into the ground, and the mourners dispersed" without the identity of the deceased being revealed for another 300 pages.  &lt;K  F&gt;  23:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article about the novel is not the novel and the techniques of concealment and surprise are not appropriate to an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm saying. &lt;K  F&gt;  23:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because it's not written "in-universe" doesn't mean you cannot (or should not) be sensitive to plot spoilers! Does the article on The Prestige (film) detail the film's central mystery in the lead? I should hope not. Same if Harry dies (I say IF, as i don't know and don't care personally; but millions upon millions of readers DO care). Editors who think that "writing encyclopedia-like" means "insensitive to plot twists" need a course in creative, nonfiction writing. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 14:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd expect any good article about the film version of Christopher Priest's novel, written to Wikipedia standards, to discuss in the lead the chilling plot twist at the end: that Cutter lied to Angier when he said that drowning is a peaceful way to die. Angier's macabre method of disposing of the by-products of his trick must also be discussed.  These are what makes The Prestige such a great film. --Tony Sidaway 20:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone reading the Wikipedia article on the latest Harry Potter book without realising that it is going to say what happens in the book deserves to have it spoilt. An article on a book says what happens in the book, there is no way to avoid it. Our article on the character, however, should have spoiler tags before revealing his death. Someone might, for example, want to read about the character before reading the book to remind themselves what was going on, and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Reading the article on the book before reading the book is just silly. --Tango 15:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is it silly? What if I wanted to know how many copies of the book were sold for example, or some other marginal information? You're underestimating creative ways people can use the articles. Samohyl Jan 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's silly to ask us to put a horrible, ugly, insulting template into an article that tells everybody that they're about to learn something when the very reason they came to the article was to learn something. If there are things they don't want to know about, they should ask a relatively sane, levelheaded friend to search the article and tell them only the things they want to know. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How about a template which says 'fans only, go away non-fan scum' on all our fiction articles?-- Nydas (Talk) 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Occasional users of Wikipedia are certainly not familiar with (ever-changing) Wikipedia policies and may actually expect to be warned. I'm not talking about each and every film or novel here (spoiler warnings after every "Plot summary" subheading are indeed redundant) but about those works where knowing all along about plot twists which are introduced towards the end do spoil the fun. I usually never read what it says on the back cover of newly published novels before I have almost finished reading them, and I don't read reviews either. I used to, with disappointing and frustrating results. I wouldn't read a Wikipedia article on a newly bought book either, but we're dealing with average people here as our target group, not Wikipedia admins. &lt;K  F&gt;  23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I think we're dealing with average people, the kind of person who upon reading the word "plot" will think that what he is about to read is the plot. Moreover, I repeat, it's an encyclopedia, and they know it because the word "encyclopedia" is at the very top of the page.  --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought we were tentatively moving towards compromise, but your recent edit of From Nine to Nine, in which you removed the spoiler tag I had reintroduced only a few hours earlier, has really spoiled a lot. Weren't you the one who claimed there was little or no resistance to the wholesale removal of spoiler warnings because no one was taking the trouble to reinsert them again? Do you even realise that I only reinserted one spoiler warning (in the article on the novel cited above), i e only where I think it really belongs and not in all the novel articles I have so far edited? And aren't you the one who has warned others that they might be blocked for edit warring if they revert your edits?


 * As I said, your edit of From Nine to Nine has spoiled a lot. &lt;K  F&gt;  23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing. I don't believe you have fully understood what I quoted above about sujet and fabula, otherwise you wouldn't have agreed with me. I think what will happen in future is that when people write new articles on novels and films they will leave out the spoilers altogether: No spoiler warnings, no spoilers. That, however, is the exact opposite of your current "encyclopaedic" efforts (and mine as well, by the way). But as you can't have read all the books whose articles you edit, you will not notice that the plot summaries are incomplete. I wonder if that's what you really want. &lt;K  F&gt;  23:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it irrelevant to the Deathly Hallows, which is almost certain to be told in chronological order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:From Nine to Nine. I'm allowed to disagree with you. I think it unlikely that good plot summaries on Wikipedia will fail to discuss all important elements of the plot. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comment at Talk:From Nine to Nine only confirms my fear that you have not understood the relationship between sujet, fabula, and plot summary. Some people will not want to write "good" plot summaries if they are categorically denied the chance to use a spoiler warning. And as no AWB has yet been designed to assist you in spotting faulty summaries you won't be able to do anything about it. KF 00:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you yet appreciate that Wikipedia style guidelines say nothing about sujet and fabula. Write what you will. There is no categorical denial, please obtain consensus on the talk page if your edits are reverted. --Tony Sidaway 00:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How, exactly, is one to obtain consensus? The minute "spoiler" shows up, you insist that it's against this policy to put one at all, and that this policy has consensus. So how would one go about obtaining a consensus that you don't like? To be fair, I'll answer my own question: if I came to the talk page for a policy with objections and most people argued against me, I'd be disgruntled, but I'd begrudgingly accept that consensus is not with me, and leave it alone. If there were an accurate straw poll (one that wasn't closed early) indicating the vast majority of editors are anti-spoiler, I'd sigh about what wiki is coming to but leave it alone. However, it seems to be the case that there are perhaps 3 or 4 editors that are willing to defend the anti-spoiler POV, and more and more people flocking to this page to argue in favor of spoilers; furthermore, the 3 or 4 that are anti-spoiler keep removing spoiler tags, insisting they have consensus because hundreds of silent, unnamed editors agree with them (hey, if I put a picture of a penis on the bicolor cat page, while a few people might revert me, there are millions of editors who don't even notice, so I must have consensus!), which to me seems to be a conspiracy of sorts. So how would one go about proving to you that there is no consensus, or acheiving a consensus you dislike? Kuronue 02:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Spoiler tags are not against policy and I've never said that they were. I've never encountered a case where I had a problem reaching a reasonable working consensus on placing a spoiler tag, and I'm very liberal in what I'll tolerate. Other editors may have a different approach, but I'm not the arbiter of the eventual state of the wiki.  It's all a result of hundreds of interactions across the wiki every day involving edits and discussion. --Tony Sidaway 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion is very interesting. As a casual editor, I visited this page back when the mass edits began, and I even contributed a bit. At the time, I was not strongly for or against spoiler warnings, but simply participated in discussions.


 * At no time did I ever realize that I was part of a "consensus" to remove spoiler tags simply because I didn't put them back into articles when they are removed. So are you really suggesting that several editors here simply start putting them back in as quick as they can, because "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus."? I refrained from reverting their removal because I thought the policy was a work in progress, not because I supported their removal. TK421 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes please do replace them on articles where you think they belong. I don't think anything is gained by simply sitting here and moaning about it. --Tony Sidaway 05:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright one and all, put in spoiler warnings wherever you think they belong. Go for it. TK421 05:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. This is evident to anyone who reads the guideline. --Tony Sidaway 06:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I put one back in an article some time ago because it happened to be on my watchlist anyway. I can't put them back in 45000 articles.  It's just not possible, logistically.  Deleting them is far easier than adding them, because deleting them can be done in a few seconds, and adding them requires reading and understanding the article.  Moreover, I don't have access to the AWB software used to delete them. Ken Arromdee 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides, it's Harry Potter. How complex can a plot aimed at children be? (Okay, maybe I'm being a little sarcastic...) :) &mdash; Deckiller 16:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Paperwork
I've removed this bit from that the 'recent works' section: "Make a note on the talk page that the spoiler warning is intended to be temporary." Users shouldn't have to complete meaningless paperwork to add spoiler tags.-- Nydas (Talk) 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. The tag's currency is easily checked. If nothing appears on the talk page and the film is no longer current, the tag has obviously expired. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Persuasive arguments vs. compelling reasons
I've restored the wording as "compelling reasons" rather than "persuasive arguments." Part of what is communicated here is that spoiler warnings should be needed rather than just wanted. The word "compelling" gives a sense of that - it's not enough to convince a random group of people on the talk page that it would be nice to have a spoiler warning. What is necessary is to offer a reason that would persuade any given person, rather than the group of people that happen to be discussing it. Phil Sandifer 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any reason exists that will persuade every single Wikipedia editor, I don't see why we need to set the bar any higher than "consensus" here. Tomgreeny 22:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Convincing every editor is too high of a bar, but that was likely just a misspoken description. I think the point is that the reason cannot be one that would apply to nearly every plot summary, but must explain why this particular plot detail is so much different than the average plot detail that it deserves a spoiler tag. For example, every plot has an ending, so the reason "it's the ending" isn't by itself sufficient for a spoiler tag. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And in response to Tomgreeny's comment, we're not setting the bar any higher than consensus. But consensus also isn't about the people who happen to show up for a given discussion. It could be compared to the legal concept of what a "reasonable person" would do, think, or believe. The goal is not just to persuade those present, but to persuade an imagined ideal editor, if you will. See also Original position. Phil Sandifer 02:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, so we're deciding based on the opinion of User:Ideal editor? Well, this should be simple enough. See, User:Ideal editor almost perfectly resembles me in his opinions, only without the flaws that I recognize in myself. Shockingly enough, he shares my opinion on spoiler warnings in every situation I encounter. I'm pretty sure your ideal editor is the same way.
 * To be serious, there's a flaw with that idea. Specifically, since there's no single ideal agreed upon position on the morality nor the detriment/benefit of spoiler warnings, there's no single position for User:Ideal editor to take. So while User:Ideal editor probably won't be killing anyone in his real life, or abusing fair use images, or assuming bad faith, and certainly won't break 3RR or make legal threats, his opinion on spoiler warnings is going to be a bit too quantum for our use. I think we need to just use normal consensus here. --tjstrf talk 03:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, see, we have already thought of that: MPOV. The original position (which you should read about) doesn't eliminate debate, or assume universal agreement in empirical practice. It's a theoretical construct. Phil Sandifer 03:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Compelling reason' means whatever the anti-spoiler brigade want it to. There's no requirement to be fair or consistent, so what's good enough for Doctor Who will not be good enough for Bionicle, because of their biases. If you have to start using philosophical concepts like original position to explain it, then it definitely has to be removed. All it does is encourage people to waste their time trying to satisfy the whims of the anti-spoiler brigade.


 * I'm not aware of any other Wikipedia guideline or policy which uses 'compelling reasons' instead of actual guidance. Imagine if WP:WEB, instead of the clear guidance it gives now, had 'editors wishing demonstrate notability to must provide a compelling reason'.-- Nydas (Talk) 08:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dr Who is not the best example; the spoiler tags seem to have been removed a couple days ago and not reinserted, and no Dr Who article currently has one. The difficulty in giving clear guidance is that the fiction spectrum is extremely broad, including movies, tv shows, books, comic books, games, and likely more. In any case, the point is that the justification for including a spoiler tag in a plot section needs to be more than "it contains the ending." &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's another "nobody bothered to restore the spoiler warnings, so obviously there's consensus to leave them out" argument. With tens of thousands of spoiler warnings removed, it's very unlikely that any particular warning or group of warnings is going to be restored.  This proves only that the logistics of restoring that many is impossible. Ken Arromdee 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a particularly good example to use in this context: the Doctor Who articles are very heavily patrolled by the associated WikiProject, and you can be assured that the spoiler warnings will be restored wherever appropriate (assuming obviously that your idea of what is appropriate matches theirs): they certainly seem to be very prompt in dealing with images when being used inappropriately. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Spoiler warnings may be temporarily added for very new media"
I'm a bit confused about the following:
 * Spoiler warnings may be temporarily added for very new media (TV shows aired in the last three months, movies released in the past six months, or books released in the past year).

As this is currently phrased, it doesn't really mean anything. Is is supposed to mean that spoilers should only be used for very new media? Are there supposed to be a special kind of "temporary spoilers" just for very recent releases? So, firstly I think this needs some clarification.

My view of this is that I don't think that restricting spoilers to only recently produced media is sensible: The argument that seems to have been presented is that consumers of the work will read/view/whatever it within a given time frame of its being published. This seems to disregard people who only encounter the work several years afer its release, and want some more background on it without having the plot details given away. Although there seems to be a good reason for certain historical, very widely-known works of fiction to not include spoilers simply out of their fame and pervasiveness, I think this is something that should be left to the editors of individual pages to form consensus on, and not included in the style guideline. -Kieran 13:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an attempt by the anti-spoiler crowd to restrict spoilers as much as possible without actually getting rid of 100% of them, by defining the appropriate circumstances so that almost nothing is appropriate. Of course the limit to recent media isn't sensible.  There's no real consensus for it; it's just about all from one side. Ken Arromdee 13:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You do potentially have a point. Let's see how the discussion develops, and if it is generally agreed that this is unreasonable, then it can be removed. Keep cool, though, you're getting worked up. -Kieran 13:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a silly line to draw - first of all, those windows are, in 95% of cases, too long. They would support still having a spoiler warning on the final episode of The Sopranos, which has been parodied by Presidential candidates. Similarly, the spoiler on Utopia (Doctor Who) was wholly appropriate for the few days it was there, but would be insane to have now, when the central revelation has been revealed on magazine covers. Second of all, and worse, those windows aren't even always too long - one of the few articles with a sensible spoiler warning right now, Sōsuke Aizen, deals with material that aired well outside the three-month window. It just aired in Japan, whereas the vast majority of people who read the article in the English Wikipedia are going to experience the twist in English. Accordingly, it's spoiler warninged, and it should be for a good deal longer than those windows suggest.


 * Which is why white line distinctions are a poor idea here - worse, in fact, than the old version of the guideline. Where that encouraged poor judgment, white line distinctions encourage no judgment whatsoever. Phil Sandifer 13:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, since the sentence as it currently stands doesn't really say anything, I'm going to remove it for now. There hasn't been a lot of discussion yet, though, so if someone can come up a form that everyone agrees on, then please put that in. -Kieran 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I was the one to write that part as part of my 'compromise guideline' attempt, although I'm fine with the section being edited or removed (I was more throwing a draft of the section out there as an attempt to be complete, and, in the wiki spirit, hoped others would bang it into better shape than my initial thoughts), I just want to clarify that my intention was not on the anti-spoiler-warning side. It was more intended to say "spoiler warnings are okay for new media, without debate" rather than "spoiler warnings are okay for new media (and by the lack of clarification, they're not okay for old media)", as an attempt to divide things into 3 categories as some had suggested - things which should require no warning, things for which the need for a warning is debatable and should be reached by local consensus, and things for which warnings should be allowed to stay pretty well no matter what.


 * But of course when some of the changes I suggesed made their way into the guideline, it was done incompletely and sadly in some ways made it even more spoiler-phobic. I still really think there needs to be some form of a 'no spoiler patrol' (in either direction) rule, where if your only interest in editing an article or joining a discussion is to add or remove a spoiler warning, and you're doing that on multiple pages, then you shouldn't do it at all.


 * I'll be happy resting with the policy if there's something like that in there, so the anti-warning crowd doesn't keep removing spoilers or jumping into debates to vote 'no warning' to skew the numbers, and we can actually get an idea of what the consensus is from people who actually use the pages. Likewise, the pro-warning side shouldn't do it either, but it seems the anti-warning side that seems to be the most reluctant to give up that power.  And no wonder, what a power it is, when aided by the ability to seek out spoiler warnings and use things like AWB.  It's simple math: If 10 people do that, then any page with less than 10 people interested in watching the page for reasons other than spoiler patrols, and all the potentially thousands of different editors on those pages, get automatically overruled, _whatever_ their vote, by those first 10 obsessive people.  But wikipedia is not a battlefield, and so there should be no terror of giving up weapons the other side doesn't have.  We're all supposedly trying to reach consensus.


 * Anyway, getting back to my initial point and the topic, if we were going to go that compromise route (where there's "not okay", "okay", and "debatable and resolved by local consensus" categories), it might be better to actually split up the guideline that way, rather than a "when it's okay" and "when it's not okay" that occasionally cross over with each other and it being a little unclear about where the 'debatable' actually comes in. Wandering Ghost 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)