The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
- Template:Spoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache| TfD#1 | TfD#2 | TfD#3)
Abruptly deleted by JzG, a strident opponent of spoiler warnings, despite being a clear example of no consensus. The arguments used in the closing bear no relation to the balance of the discussion, and are simply the viewpoint of the anti-spoiler admins taken as holy writ. The use of spoiler warnings on talk pages is ignored. Should at the very least have been closed by an uninvolved admin. Nydas(Talk) 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. This template has been effectively deprecated for six months. In those six months, its deprecation has been forum-shopped to every location imaginable, and, in every case, no consensus could be found to return it to any significant use. The latest proposal seems to be to try to gather support for spoiler tags via a sitenotice on people's watchlists. (I will resign my admin bit the moment this happens, and ride off to the frozen realms of hell on the back of a flying pig, but no matter.) Six months is enough. This debate needs to end, as nothing remotely productive has happened in it in months. The only way to end it, ultimately, is decisively - via the deletion of the long-deprecated template. Good for JzG for taking the initiative and doing it. Sorry he's about to suffer a barrage of grief for it. Phil Sandifer 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the arguments for deletion bear "little relation to the discussion" it's probably because most of the discussion bore little relationship to the issue of the template and its use. We have a better template, {{current fiction}}, which is objectively quantifiable as a concept in a way that "this might spoil your pleasure" is not. It's not clear which of the two (count 'em) articles on which this tag was in use at close demands the use of a tag distinct from {{current fiction}}, or perhaps a minor variant for the CVG genre. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong undelete clearly biased closure, and the deletion argument ("virtually unused") is based on lies and dishonesty of anti-spoiler clique, who removed this template from thousands of articles despite strong opposition. Grue 23:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong undelete a clear no consensus result, and an inapprooriate close by someone who has been strident in condemning the use of that template in the past. ViridaeTalk 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly endorse close per Phil Sandifer. --John 23:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously the debate should have been closed by a pro-spoiler administrator! I don't care much about the template, but it saddens me to see the language used above by long-term members of the community. Surely it's possible to indicate disagreement with a closure in measured tones? Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It saddens me that some "long-term members of the community" still haven't learned to determine consensus from no-consensus. Or learned that reiterating TFD arguments is completely irrelevant for deletion review. Or the fact that former arbitrator can't see the difference between "uninvolved" and "pro-spoiler". In fact, it more than saddens me; it makes me absolutely mad. Grue 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I'm not a former arbitrator yet. You'll have to wait another month. Second of all, just because you think other people are badly behaved doesn't give you license to do it. Third, I'm not singling you out, I'm simply sick of this entire mess, and the wanton accusations of bad faith--on both sides. Your warmth and kindness towards other users is, as always, greatly appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may wish to read my other comment below. Or not. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. JzG's closure was perfectly sound. --krimpet⟲ 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. This is almost a bad faith nomination. At any rate, the template is deprecated, there's no need to have it anymore. Seems like a reasonable closure to me. --Coredesat 23:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering this is the only template deletion debate Guy has touched in recent days and he has been a vocal critic of the template in the past, I would say the close is bad faith, not the DRV. ViridaeTalk 23:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems deeply unfair. Whether Guy's close was based in part on his personal opinions of spoilers or not, do you seriously doubt he made the close in anything other than what he saw as the best interests of the project? Has this travesty of a debate actually gotten so acrimonious that you doubt that? Jesus. Phil Sandifer 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but what Guy believes is the best thing may not actually be the best thing (and in my opinion, surprisingly frequently isnt - see recent discussion on his talk page from GRBerry) That he closed a contentious debate in which he had a strong opinion rather than let another admin who was neutral on the matter do it is bad faith, especially when he appears to have sought out this debate to close, given that he has not closed any similar debates in the days before. If you have a strong opinion on the matter (which Guy has demonstrated he does) you shouldn't be closing the deletion debate. ViridaeTalk 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling someone's actions "bad faith" is a very Bad Idea. Besides being unprovable, it's never helpful. The topic of this discussion isn't Guy's personal motivations, but his action in closing a deletion discussion. Talking about his good or bad faith is a non-productive distraction, which tends to erode the collegial and cooperative atmosphere that we try to maintain here. It's just as easy, and less harmful to assume that someone is acting with bad judgment than to believe that they're acting in bad faith. Thank you for understanding. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I normally do not use any kind of judgments on a persons behaviour, be that calling them a troll, or calling their motives bad faith (at least on wiki). But Phil questioned the faith of the nom several responses up, and Coredesat questioned it in this thread so the term having been used, it seemed fair to use it about the deleter too. Possibly not the best reason, but it comes down to this: Guy hadnt closed any TfDs for at least several days before he closed this one (it could be weeks - I only checked a few days) and then steps in and closes this debate, in which he had been heavily involved in the past and made his views abundantly clear. How you can get anything BUT bad faith from that I don't know. Someone once commented about admins holding off from commenting on a contentious discussion so they could (paraphrasing) "apply new and ever more creative close measures". What that comes down to is this: if you have an opinion on the matter, then express it in the debate not force it through on the close. So at worse, I see bad faith, Guy seeking out and closing the discussion on something he had expressed a strong opinion about in the past, in line with the views he had previously expressed. At best that is a misuse of admin powers, hence being at DRV. ViridaeTalk 05:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The way you "can get anything BUT bad faith" is this: you don't raise the question, and if it's raised, you refuse to address it. It's not part of our problem-solving strategy to make conclusions about people's faith, because it's utterly irrelevant. Should the template be deleted or restored?: that's the question. If you want to talk about Guy's behavior, open an RfC. This is not the place to talk about each other's motivations; at best doing so sets a bad example, that such is the way to pursue a content dispute. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The motivation is perfectly open to question, as this a deomonstration of misconduct; closing a debate in which he has previously been heavily involved. That misconduct is 50% of the reason for my overturn. ViridaeTalk 07:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suit yourself. I think DRV is a place for decisions about articles, not about users' motivations. The question is whether the closure was improper, not whether it was improper because of "bad faith". It should be overturned equally if it was deleted in bad faith or simply as a result of bad judgment. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't deprecated. As of yesterday, WP:SPOILER recommended using {{spoiler}} in some circumstances. — PyTom (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn This might be surprising to some people, but, I do actually think this didn't have consensus -- the TEMPLATE that is -- to be deleted, based on the comments. If I were the closing admin, I would have kept it (as 'no consensus', which defaults to keep), again, based on the comments. As I said, it was used on talk pages a lot, which is why perhaps its deletion shouldn't have been so hasty. But I don't want to bring up the issues beyond that HERE any more than that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - it may or may not have been interpreted correctly, but the years of debate have gone nowhere - 2 or so years have not resulted in any consensus, much less a stable discussion. Accusations are being thrown in all directions from both sides; people merely giving their view of the debate are attacked; from what I've heard a so-called "spoiler police" deletes spoiler tags wherever they are found (I've even heard rumours of them using bots for this purpose) . . . it's simply gone too far. The only way we'll hear the end of this is if we take the source of the debate out of the equation. If this keeps going, then it'll only be a matter of time before someone, perhaps the Foundation or even ArbCom, steps in to settle this. I'm sorry, but I think the deletion was for the best. L337 kybldmstr 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it appears that the debate was closed about six hours early, which seems to be inappropriate in such a controversial case. I don't know much about the closer's history WRT spoiler warnings, but if (as mentioned) he had been active in removing them then someone else should have done the close. — PyTom (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion – The template was virtually unused in the article namespace, and there was no reasonable prospect of it ever returning to regular use. Despite six months of debate (dominated by a hard-core few), this template has not returned to any significant level of use, and probably never would. Marc Shepherd 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it dead as a dead thing or redirect to {{Current fiction}} - this template has been literally all but useless for the last six months - 132.185.240.120 23:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a tiresome irrelevance. If the template isn't transcluded in the main namespace (setting aside, for the moment, why that might be), then there's no point in it existing. To wit: the warring spolier parties should not be using the mediums of TfD and DRV to settle a policy question. Getting back to the main idea, JzG probably rises to the level of an involved party, so on procedural grounds overturning the deletion makes sense. However, whether it is kept or not does not fundamentally alter the central issue: that when it went up for deletion, it had barely any article-space transclusions at all. This debate will not change that. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good riddance, this is an encyclopedia, not Usenet, and the only spoiler warning we need is already carried in the general disclaimer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The close reasoning show a clear, thoughtful weighing of all issues raised and reflects the developed consensus. However, I think the statement "the Great Spoiler War is over and the encyclopaedia won" might be premature. There still are a few spoiler templates, some spoiler projects, a few images, and a category. -- Jreferee t/c 00:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The template had all but fallen into desuetude and is contrary to emerging consensus that articles should not give spoiler warnings. TfD is not a vote and the close was in line with the substantive issues discussed in the debate. Sam Blacketer 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. Spoiler warnings are really no different from any other type of content disclaimer, and this issue was never satisfactorily addressed in the discussion. Of course there are minor differences, and they were noted in the TFD, but the underlying justification is the same for all. Also, a lot of the arguments to keep presented in the TFD pointed to the fact that film, game, and book reviews frequently use spoilers; this ignores the fact that Wikipedia is not a review site. It is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction requires a brief summary of the work's plot. It is unavoidable that this summary contains spoilers. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse No adult looking up a plot in an encyclopedia needs a warning. No child does either--the first time will teach him. DGG (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am redirecting the template and all redirects to it to Template:Current fiction for now. Feel free to revert this if the template is restored. L337 kybldmstr 00:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per the above. Eusebeus 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, sometimes templates outlive their "use by" date. I see that somebody has recreated the template as a redirect to {{Current fiction}}. This is reasonable, though I suggest that cold turkey might be more appropriate. I endorse this deletion. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- edit history should be restored, then blanked, and then protected Given the long history and controversy around this template, I believe we should keep it for historical reasons, but make it unusable. -- Ned Scott 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. This is a dead parrot. LondonStatto 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Keep deleted, keep the current redirect. KTC 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong overturn - there was anything but a consensus in this CfD. Template:current fiction is explicitly for recent works of fiction, which ignores the other half of works in which Template:spoiler is used. We could create a similar tag for fiction in general, but then we'd essentially be recreating the Template:Spoiler tag, except that it would clutter the tops of articles and couldn't be used on talk pages. The general disclaimer is completely irrelevant since Template:Spoiler doesn't exist for any legal purpose, but as a courtesy to readers. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Black Falcon and DGG nicely sum up my views on this discussion. Horologium t-c 05:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, strongly reject this effort to re-ignite the Spoiler War. This is an encyclopedia. We do not have spoiler warnings. End of story. --Stormie 05:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong overturn - JzG/Guy with COI wrongly ignored two wikiguides to declare delete:
- • First, this delete decision was made in an improper venue:
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion: "If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately,..."
- • Second, the debate closer, JzG/Guy, was a highly opinionated anti-spoiler-notice participant – in the earlier stages of the spoiler notice mass-removals debate beginning May 2007 – yet he closed anyway while having an unmistakable conflict of interest, which is not permitted by admin wikiguide:
Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."
- Since two wikiguide process abuses occurred in a no-consensus debate, I call for reversal of the conflict of interest deletion close. Milo 05:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion to end this silly war now so people can get back to editing the encyclopedia. Mr.Z-man 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The closing admin has a clear conflict of interest. On May 16, 2007, the closing admin voted to delete the template. Later in May 2007, the closing admin removed the spoiler template from 194 articles using AWB with the edit summary "Removing overused template. Spoiler warnings are generally redundant and often silly, especially in classic fiction. using AWB)" while the spoiler guideline read this. After removing 194 templates, the closing admin added the following to the spoiler guideline:
== Where spoilers may be inappropriate==
Spoiler warnings are generally redundant in sections covering plot summaries or synopses; it is expected that such sections will include details of the plot.
They are also generally inappropriate in respect of factual works, classic works of fiction (including films), or subjects where plot twists have been the subject of considerable external debate.
Where plot details genuinely are not widely known, take especial care that including them does not violate policy against original research.
- The closing admin then removed the spoiler template from 28 more articles using AWB. The debate should have been closed by an admin who is an uninvolved party of the "Great Spoiler War" as the closing admin put it. --Pixelface 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It would be a good idea if an univolved admin placed an indefinite block on the Milomedes single-purpose troll account as part of this process. --Gene_poole 09:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the horse is dead now. Endorse. Kusma (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For shame Kusma, you're an admin, and now you're endorsing COI rule-breaking? I had thought better of you than to put POV politics above the rules. I notice Mackensen supported the rules even though he shares your POV. Milo 11:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- JzG didn't quite follow standard procedures, but this is not a standard case. Following the rules and arguing over them didn't get us anywhere in the last 6 months. I would have preferred to see a closure by a completely uninvolved admin (are there any left?) but welcome to see an END to this discussion instead of postponing it by declaring "no consensus". Of course this has nothing to do with Wikipedia's COI rules, which were written for a different purpose. If you want to wikilawyer, JzG might actually have followed the letter of the Deletion guidelines for administrators, though. Kusma (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "JzG might actually have followed the letter of the Deletion guidelines for administrators" ?? I don't see how - he directly violated rule 3. '"As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in."' Milo 12:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Following the rules and arguing over them didn't get us anywhere in the last 6 months." You may want to reword this, Kusma, because to me this reads as "we tried playing fair and couldn't win, so we decided not to play fair." Even if we suppose that you are on the correct side of this, ends don't justify the means. So I have to assume that's not what you meant. Wanting to see an end to this conversation is all well and good, but remember: most situations are not urgent. The discussion is as important as the outcome. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Behold, the Wikipedia of the Future: JzG didn't quite follow standard procedures, but this is not a standard case. Following the rules and arguing over them didn't get us anywhere in the last 6 months. When following the rules doesn't get a clear consensus for your side in a quick enough time, break the rules to get your way. Wandering Ghost (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Our rules are principles, not rigidly-interpreted laws. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 09:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Avoiding even the appearance of conflict of interest is a bedrock principle in maintaining public trust of judges. No — and I mean no — good judge will ignore it. Milo 11:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - Common-sense decision made to end this mess. Let it die. FCYTravis 09:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as the right thing to do. Even if WP:IAR wasn't cited in the close, its spirit is certainly applicable here: we have wasted too much (precious otherwise) time on this silly debate. Let the dead horse rest in peace. Duja► 10:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per Phil Sandifer, DGG and others, and let this poor dead horse rest in peace. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 10:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and undelete, no consensus result defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong undelete. Clear conflict of interest, and no consensus, the default should have been keep. WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE THAT SPOILER WARNINGS SHOULD BE THERE, you should not support abuse of process, because that threatens Wikipedia as a whole. You guys are seriously undermining my confidence in Wiki as a whole, because if stuff this obvious gets past, what hope for the rest of the project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandering Ghost (talk • contribs) 13:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It appears that WP:COI is the new WP:POINT - that is to say, invoked with no real regard for its applicability. May I please remind everybody that our COI guidelines come nowhere close to covering this situation, and that we have not historically treated months-old comments as sufficiently prejudicial to constitute "prior involvement." I can't find any record of JzG participating in the TfD, and he made exactly one !vote in a six month old MfD. He participated, 5-6 months ago, in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, where he was mostly a moderate voice. The degree of harping over his unsuitability to close this TfD is unfortunate, and the accusations of bad faith and deliberate abuse are simply beyond the pale. Phil Sandifer 13:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't discuss a template so an admin can come in and replace consensus with their own opinion. If an admin is going to completely ignore a discussion, there should not even be AFDs or TFDs. The closing admin "retired" from Wikipedia on October 18, 2007 and he just so happened to close a TFD (7 hours early I might add) for a template that he removed at least 222 instances of with AWB. He has a close connection with the subject and his motivations and conclusions are suspect. If I had a personal bias against a template and I was an admin, I would not be closing a debate. I would leave it up to an uninvolved admin. Assuming good faith is one thing. Blind faith is quite another. --Pixelface 05:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly moderate? He banned people for adding them.--Nydas(Talk) 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commnet: JzG banned people for 3RR violations regarding the spoiler tag. Nothing more, nothing less. It just so happened that the editors violating WP:3RR were the spoiler tag supporters. --Farix (Talk) 00:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal: Incorrect. He also blocked at least one user, an occasional editor and WikiProject member, for single reverts under the pretence that the user was a "single purpose account." This despite other edits by the member having nothing to do with spoilers. Blocking users who reinstate spoiler tags and then claiming that there is a consensus against spoiler warnings is rather circular, if I do say so myself. Postmodern Beatnik 04:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and closure per spoiler police ➥the Epopt 14:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - dead horse. Stop beating it. Will (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn-undelete Clearly no consensus for deletion. Closing admin has a strong opinion about spoiler templates. In fact, his close statement makes that apparent when he says that "the Great Spoiler War is over and the encyclopaedia won" - he has a prior bias about these templates being unencyclopedic. His claim that there is a consensus not to use these templates is not grounded. Systematic removal by a small clique is not evidence that the templates are not wanted. Gothnic 19:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion it's pure procedure or WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY to have a re-do because of how it was done when the correct decision was ultimately applied (per Phil Sandifer's cogent discussion way up above). Don't we have a wet fish to slap someone with? Carlossuarez46 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Undelete - I have been largely neutral in the spoiler debate wars, entering only to expose the rampant logical fallacies being used in the arguments. My purpose here is the same, though I have also taken advantage of the opportunity to vote. Much has been made of the fact that few pages currently use the spoiler template, but what has been overlooked is that this debate exploded following a mass bot removal of the tags. The pro-spoiler warning campaigners have (typically) been kind enough to try and settle the debate before reinstating the tags, while the anti-spoiler warning campaigners have (typically) continued their deletions in the face of opposition and a lack of consensus. Given that, the current lack of tags fails to be a relevant factor in this deletion debate. Postmodern Beatnik 04:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the vast majoprity of these comments amount to a rehash of tfd arguemnts, whithout adressing at all wether the deletion was valid or not given guys obvious bias (hell he revealed that bias in the closure - if that doesnt tell you its an invalid close, nothing does) and the obvious no consensus outcome of the debate. ViridaeTalk 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn As viridae says, all the endorsers here who are still making arguments saying template is bad ("it is depricated" etc.) should be ignored, this is deletion review, it is about the proccess. As Milo says: the closing admin was already heavily involved on one side of the issue,
Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."
In anycase the debate was CLEARLY either no-consensus or a not-delete (if it was allowed to be a vote then it would have resulted in not-delete). For these reasons the deletion should be overturned. -- Tomgreeny (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Proof, please. Where is the proof that the closing admin was either "a strident opponent of spoiler warnings" or otherwise significantly involved in the spoiler debate? These allegations have been repeated several times, but I have yet to see a single diff in support of them. JzG did not participate in the TFD in question, so the repeated quotes from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators are largely irrelevant to the issue. Moreover, of more than 7700 edits made to Template talk:Spoiler, Wikipedia:Spoiler, and Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, only 13 (i.e. 0.16%) were made by JzG, mostly in May and early June of this year. For an admin as active as he, that is negligible. Also, I read a few of his comments at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and he is most definitely not a strident opponent of spoiler warnings. In fact, his comments suggest that he - at the time - supported their use in situations where there was consensus to do so. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Black Falcon, you may be interested in looking at this page for evidence of a conflict of interest. --Pixelface (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See here. JzG even created an anti-spoiler tag userbox. Keep in mind that the anti-spoiler admins mean 'unanimity' when they say 'consensus', effectively granting themselves a veto over all spoiler tags. It sounds moderate, but it's not.--Nydas(Talk) 21:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The userbox seems to be directed mostly against the manner in which the tags are used, as well as being a frustrated response to the userbox expressing the other extreme. And if, as suggested here and here, spoiler tags were added to articles about Greek, Latin, and Biblical works, and to sections titled "Plot", then it's quite fitting to say that this type of use "varies between the redundant and the absurd". To me, his comments on the subject reveal more of an apathy toward the issue (as in: it's not worth spending this much time over the issue) than a vehement opposition to it, especially in light of his support for the use of spoiler tags when there is consensus on an article's talk page. If he felt so strongly about the issue, we would have seen many more of his comments at those talk pages. Honestly, a few comments made five months ago doesn't seem like much involvement. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so it's been revealed (to you) that making an infobox which says "This user believes that spoiler tags are a waste of space, a waste of the community's time and the foundation's server resources, and that their use generally varies between the redundant and the absurd" shows apathy. What about the block of User:Killer_Poet? Feeling strongly about spoiler warnings does not entail taking a heavy role in the discussion; David Gerard sightings were few and far between.--Nydas(Talk) 00:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it was divine revelation... :) Anyway, substitute "reveal" with "suggest" for a clear statement. To reiterate, I think "his comments on the subject" reveal an .... irritation(?) with the amount of time and effort expended on the issue, rather than a deep opposition to spoiler warnings themselves. The userbox itself, while certainly failing to convey apathy, seems to have mostly been a reaction based in frustration. As for the block of Killer Poet ... the indef-block was blatantly excessive, but Killer Poet was basically asking for a warning of some sort: [4] [5]. He may or may not have had a valid point, but his approach to proving it (especially the nature and content of the comments) was disruptive. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on! Can you honestly think that that userbox fails to convey a "deep opposition to spoiler warnings"? You've got the proof you asked for. Tomgreeny (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really ... What we have is one userbox created 37 minutes after the block of Killer Poet, in all likelihood out of irritation and frustration (anyone truly worried about server space wouldn't have created a separate page for the userbox), a few comments that express support for the use of spoiler warnings on articles where there is a consensus to do so, and a general trend of expressing the sentiment that too much is being made (both by those in support of and opposition to spoiler notices) of a minor issue. While all of this may be reason for some pause, it should be taken in context of the fact that the grand total of his involvement in the issue ended 4-5 months ago. Incidentally, David Gerard (whose name was brought up above) has a total of 123 edits to Template talk:Spoiler, Wikipedia:Spoiler, and Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, in comparison to JzG's 13. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think that's the right metric to use. —Cryptic 05:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, to recap, creating an anti-spoiler userbox, unapologetically perma-banning someone for restoring spoiler tags and removing hundreds of them with a bad-tempered edit summary is evidence of 'irritation and frustration', not a conflict of interest. What would a conflict of interest look like in this case? Would you have to create multiple userboxes and a Wikiproject, perma-ban dozens of volunteers and remove thousands of spoiler tags, all the while swearing like a trooper? --Nydas(Talk) 13:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also worth noting that Killer Poet (whose block I reference in my rebuttal to Farix above) stopped his edits shortly after being warned (we can't expect him to see the warning immediately), but was still blocked. By explaining his actions on the project talk page, he was no more "asking for it" than a rape victim "asks for it" by wearing a short skirt. He called them on their logic and they used the bully pulpit to send Galileo to the gallows. To block those who revert the deletion of spoiler tags and then argue that the lack of reverts is evidence of consensus is clearly fallacious reasoning. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite sure what you mean by "we can't expect him to see the warning immediately", as any time you refresh a page, it shows you have new messages. If you don't see the messages immediately, that's your fault. Granted one, MAYBE two edits after a warning, but anything more is blatenly ignoring (I don't know the history here, just your comment strikes me as 'oh well maybe he didn't KNOW'...when he should have.)
- I meant that there might have been one other edit in between Tony's warning and Killer Poet seeing it. As it turns out, however, there are no spoiler tag replacements following Tony's warning. Killer Poet stopped immediately, and was still blocked. Regardless, the point remains: blocking those who revert spoiler tag deletions and then arguing consensus on the basis of no reverts is fallacious reasoning. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ←Comment "all likelihood out of irritation and frustration" Exactly. You have highlighted JzG/Guy's heavy emotional involvement in anti-spoiler-tagging POV, no matter the modest number or how early he made posts to the discussion. Some editors who were highly biased one way or the other, simply couldn't take the grind of a six month debate. That doesn't mean they weren't still emotionally charged six months later – many people remain peeved about things that happened in primary school. JzG/Guy displayed substantial evidence of retaining and then fulminating that charge.
- JzG/Guy is a textbook example among those who should not be judging an extraordinarily difficult, controversial deletion close, and most certainly not in direct violation of WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators #Deciding whether to delete rule 3 "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."
- (1) JzG/Guy "retired" on Oct 18, and the retirement banner remains in place. User talk:JzG says: "This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia. • I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases." Oh? Who asked him to close the Template for deletion:Spoiler ? Presumably no one, so, that flags a compelling personal motivation to reinvolve himself, after he had telegraphed his emotional wikistress with Wikipedia in general. From October 18 to the present, JzG did not qualify for a well-balanced frame-of-mind barnstar, according to his own "tired" testimony.
- (2) JzG/Guy suddenly comes roaring back on Nov 14, and jumps the seven-day closing time by 8 hours, 33 minutes – giving an appearance of making certain that he would be the one to close, thus making sure the close ended as he decided it should. Remember: the appearance of COI erodes public trust as much as the fact of COI harm; therefore, appeals for proof of COI harm are classically deemed irrelevant.
- (3) In his guide-heedless haste JzG/Guy didn't even post a regular {{Closing}} template, so that with hours apparently available to hone closing arguments, Samohyl Jan and I (Milo) had edit windows open and inadvertently saved after the close (there was no edit conflict warning).
- I'm perfectly willing to assume JzG/Guy either didn't notice or didn't properly consider any of this rule-breaking, precisely because he appears to have been so hot under the collar to 'get' those pro-spoiler-taggers. That's what emotional bias does to a person, and that's inclusively why there are private institutional rules, judicial canons of ethics, and strict laws near-universally prohibiting conflict of interest entanglements.
- Now let's deconstruct the appeals to WP:IAR and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY
- To use WP:IAR, one is supposed to supply a good reason to ignore the rule. What's the reason for ignoring a COI rule against bias or the appearance of it? Answer: none – there's no known reason for ignoring this rule in a virtual space without life-threatening emergencies..
- WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY is intended to uphold principles over principle-defeating wikilawyerable rulesets. What COI principle might be defeated by rule 3? Answer: none – avoiding COI in fact or appearance is a bedrock ethical principle of good judgment, good leadership, and good governance.
- WP:IAR and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY never justifiably override COI-avoidance, because it is the real world's implementation of Neutral Point of View. Beware the shallow judgment skills of anyone who claims otherwise.
- Following a 1,850,000 byte debate, contentious over previous process abuses, both evidenced and suspected, no one who was involved in any way should have done this close, much less someone who created an anti-spoiler-tag userbox. Claims of that userbox as humor are transparently apologist, and in any case subject to Freud's analysis of typical humor as a veil for aggression.
- Emotional involvement is the most intellectually irresistible of biases, clouding both judgment and memory. Does JzG say he wasn't biased? I believe he believes that, because most people believe that, but one learns from law and psychology studies that most people believe that wrongly. I'll AGF that JzG is a well-intentioned 'guy', but, he too was wrong to jump into a controversial close, tired and metaphorically muddy, where only a refreshed Mr. Clean was unquestionably qualified. Milo (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn closure and relist. This was a contentious discussion and I applaud JzG for attempting it but I don't see a clear consensus on the topic yet. Rossami (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To prevent any further conflict of interest, I think that any admin who has been involved in any TFDs and MFDs related to spoiler warnings (or this very Deletion Review) should not close this discussion. You know who you are. But to remind everyone here, these admins are the ones I am referring to. Let someone else close the discussion. I may have missed some names, but there are plenty of other uninvolved admins that can do it. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, any admins who have commented at WP:SPOILER or related pages should not close this discussion. If you're an admin and you've forgotten if you've commented at WP:SPOILER (or related pages), here's a reminder. We need a neutral, previously uninvolved admin to review this. --Pixelface (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your work, Pixelface. Assuming its accuracy, you've done impressive reference compilations. I recommend you to some future employer.
- I notice there is still an admin COI problem in other spoiler-related venues. For example, admin Dan100 is not listed. (Dan100 made the process-abusive edit removing notice of RFC from Template:Spoiler after a little over two days, with the smoking edit summary "Get on with your lives" – yet poll #1 remained open for five more days. Others permitted Dan100's edit.)
- Given this vexing string of spoiler topic process abuses, I think it's completely reasonable to request that any admin who has ever made a spoiler or spoiler-tag related edit, or, as Pixelface recommended, ever commented on the subject of spoilers or spoiler warnings/notices, should recuse him/herself, and not close this deletion review or any spoiler-related process that follows.
- Pixelface has listed 78 admins involved in the TFDs or MFDs, and 79 admins in the WP:SPOILER commentary archive. The 78/79 overlap but each is about 8% of the 955 active administrators (as of 2007-11-17). Even if double of 8% have ever commented on or made spoiler-related edits, that leaves 84% of admins who are technically uninvolved, so there are plenty of candidates from whom to chose.
- There is also the traditional COI problem of technically uninvolved admins who might be overly influenced by, their personal acquaintance with, or the reputation of, those who orchestrated the May 2007 spoiler-tag mass-removals, worked as spoiler police, or took positions in the debate.
- Proposal to reform admin COI-entanglements in deletion closes
- There is a two-pronged solution to this problem:
- Prong one is traditional recusal, and
- Prong two is a newly-available technical search of relationship history with those proffered admins who do not recuse.
- In the real world, judges are experienced lawyers who studied impartiality in law school through arguing the laws favoring each side of the same case. Judges are expected to apply the canons of judicial ethics to themselves, and recuse to avoid accepting any COI case for hearing.
- For the recusal prong, admins in this (or any future controversial case) can be asked to make a COI disclosure statement of the degree to which they know anyone involved, whether knowing them will significantly influence their decision, and whether they have any (spoiler-related) opinions which would prevent an impartial closing decision.
- The technical solution is to use a Google test to examine the relationships between proffered closing admins and lists of spoiler-involved users.
- A significant feature of my proposal is that even if proffered admins refuse to make COI disclosure statements, any interested user, including IP anons, can unilaterally make and post the key results of a COI-relationship search.
- This is good for the project, because it will tend to focus admin attention on a neutral point of view toward Articles, etc., for Deletion. On the other hand, if admins continue to make COI-entangled closes, sooner or later the online techie-consumer media, Wired, Slashdot, The Register, etc., are going to tell potential donors about it. Milo 08:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That works for you personally until you find yourself on the wrong side of an unfair close. In a deletion review, whether spoiler templates should or not be used is not at issue - at issue is whether the decision was made fairly under the deletion guides, and whether consensus was achieved.
- My quick, possibly inexact count of the votes was 26 keep and 24 delete. Prior to analyzing the quality reasons, that close a vote flags a possible no-consensus result, default to keep. Note the two sides are polarized; in 50-some votes and 129K of debate, no one changed their vote.
- To overcome this no-consensus vote divide, a strongly persuasive and logically valid quality reason would be needed. That didn't happen, which is obvious from simple inspection of the decisive reason that JzG/Guy cited: "A template, {{current fiction}}, exists; this is more specific and better suited to the purpose for which spoiler was generally used."
- (1) The Wikipedia:Spoiler guide is about spoilers and notice tags for specific spoilers. A {{current fiction}} template is obviously less specific to the Spoiler guide.
- (2) A {{current fiction}} template goes at the top of the article, so it is obviously not as well suited to spoiler-avoidance as a {{spoiler}} tag that should appear immediately prior to the spoiler details.
- This fallaciously inverted reasoning lacks the necessary quality of logic to prevail as consensus over a divided vote count. It's yet another reason to overturn a bad decision. Milo 08:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If "consensus doesn't mean voting," it stands to reason that the vote count isn't relevant. It's the reasons people gave. What is most persuasive is the fact that the template was always removed from any article on which it appeared, and there was no prospect of this situaton changing. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
