Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/Archive 13: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:46, 20 June 2007

Discussion on this guideline has been taking place on an RFC.

Disputed

Will someone at least put a disputed tag on this? I'm not sure which tag to use. Ken Arromdee 15:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute with policy itself, but rather massive removal of spoiler warnings from Wikipedia by a small clique of editors. But I believe, since this is a bad move and a people's encyclopedia, that this will eventually be uphill and useless battle on side of those who decided on this policy (I believe most users actually want the spoiler warnings). Samohyl Jan 17:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If they wanted them, they'd insert the spoiler tags when they were removed. This only happened in a tiny number of cases. --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone else please field this. Ken? Nydas? Just now I'm far too weary. --Kizor 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Few people have the fanatical mindset to make hundreds of edits an hour to repair the damage inflicted by the anti-spoiler squad. With a substantial number of admins in the squad, they can presumably block anyone that tries to use the AWB.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony DOES have a point though. If people aren't reverting them then either 1) They aren't watching the page anymore/never did or 2) Don't care to put them back. Granted, one assumes that a lot of pages will have a small number watching them, but if there was really that few that had them readded, then I think it's a good possibility that either they DON'T care, or at least accept that the guideline has changed and feel it's not worth it to change it back. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally have 2 pages about fiction on my Watchlist (one is article I started). Both of them had templates removed in the last 2 days, and seeing fanatical people here, I don't really feel like arguing with them. But if someone will add the SWs back in the upcoming months, I will support it. I believe the general public (and casual editors) will react much slower to this. It'll be like Iraq war - ultimately tiring and bothersome to the victors. Samohyl Jan 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of watching pages so I didn't know there was a wholesale removal in progress of all spoiler flags. (I occasionally write a new article, but mostly I just correct blatant misspellings and fix broken links, where I can). After reading the high-handed & sarcastic reasons that people have been giving for removing spoilers (e.g., "they mess up our articles", "they annoy me", "this is an encyclopedia and you might learn something new"), I will happily start being bold and put them back where I think they belong. Aelfgifu 12:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I too came here when tags were mass-removed from one article I started. I put them back, and they were removed by another editor so hastily that he removed some of his own edits — had to partly revert himself. Not the sort of behavior that suggests a talk page discussion will be useful. (He also lacked knowledge of the article subject.)

Unfortunately, former visionaries can become fanatics, though some may just remain seriously illusioned as the future becomes the unrecognized past. Still others are just saluting and enforcing the clique-led coup; majoritarian enforcers are difficult for average editors to oppose.

But if a valid hypothesis, why the fanaticism or illusioning? I suggest three of several possible explanations are:

(1) a widespread contempt for fiction-reading adults as being "children" (further parseable into contempt for both non-reality and children);

(2) a Hollywood dramatic exaggeration that spoiler tags are "warnings", when in fact they are just a "caution" or even a mere "notice";

(3) a persistent illusion that the shattered dream of Wikipedia being like Britannica in credibility, is still attainable (cue zombie parade with forward-stretched arms: 'obliterate ... non ... Britannica ... feature'.) Milo 08:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Melodia- Sethie agrees- the lack of putting them back could very well show support for the policy..... and Sethie has a few questions: -How often were they put back and then removed again? (That behavior brought Sethie to this disucssion) -How many people read the edit summary and just assumed that the editor was in the know? "removed as redundant per WP:SPOILER." It does sound pretty official. -How many people missed what was happening, because David Gerard undid all of the spoiler tags as "minor" edits (and we are talking about 10,000+ edits here!)?Sethie 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I just put one back, hence showing my lack of support for this. Tony, how does not immediately putting all these masses of spoiler tags back count as "consensus"?Tomgreeny 02:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You need a diagram? From the first paragraph of our Consensus policy:

The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.

Apply an edit to 45,000 pages, most of which are being watched and edited regularly, and you have a huge number of people looking at an edit and deciding to leave it. And that's how we know we have consensus for removing spoiler tags. --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a simplistic analysis that does not prove consensus. As has now emerged in a number of samples, editors who want to put the spoiler tag back are deterred by other editors who claim violation of WP:Spoiler. Since you are claiming WP:Spoiler guide consensus based on lack of tag restorations, it's circular reasoning. Therefore your analysis is a manufactured consensus claim. Milo 05:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain the error in your reasoning. We (mainly David Gerard I believe) performed tens of thousands of edits. Nearly every single one of those edits prevails. Now either there are many, many people going around removing tags when they're replaced, or there are only a small number of replacements every day compared to the tens of thousands of articles originally edited. I can assure you we don't have a robot scooting around and removing tags as they appear. It's all being done by humans, as it should be. And not solely by a small, tight group. The decisions are being made organically. You can see this rather graphically on articles about recently released films such as the Silver Surfer and Oceans 13. Different people add and remove tags. There is very little mention of any spoiler guideline. People just use their common sense. And, extraordinarily, their common sense feelings seem to favor removing the spoiler tag even from articles, such as those two recently released films, where I myself would be happy to permit them if the decision were up to me alone.

Each of these articles is still out there, with its edit history and its absence of spoiler tags. At any one moment there may be hundreds or even thousands of people reading one or those articles. For recently released movies the figure is going to be very high, and popular movies and TV shows such as Oceans 13, Doctor Who and the like will have more than a dozen editors in attendance. And yet the spoiler tags aren't coming back and sticking. In the relatively small proportion of articles where tags have been put back, no consensus is emerging to keep them. In the vast majority of cases, no attempt is made to restore them. That's consensus for removal, according to our very own Consensus policy. --Tony Sidaway 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your group has been reverting hundreds of people every day for the past few weeks, sometimes with just an edit summary of 'no'. Anyone can examine the contribution and edit histories to establish this for themselves.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What is my group? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you mean every single editor who has ever supported the removal of spoiler tags on this page. Let's see, that's:

Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kusma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vassyana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TheFarix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oh and this fellow whom I've seen around and about:

CBM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Now let's see what they're actually doing. I'll take Monday as an example day. I omit names of people who performed no tag removals:

User:Tony Sidaway 26
User:CBM 4

So that's a total of about 30. Maybe I've forgotten some fellow who is performing hundreds of tag removals. If so, perhaps you could name him. Or maybe you're out by an order of magnitude. Or maybe there was a huge amount of reverting at some point but now it's died down.

But if it's as it appears, with just 30 tags restored (and then reverted almost single-handedly) in the course of a whole Monday, then when you consider that there were formerly 45,000 or more articles with tags, it does appear to me that there is a very substantial consensus. When people read these many thousands of articles articles, as they must do every day, they don't suddenly think "this article needs a spoiler tag." --Tony Sidaway 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you take the Monday before last, it's:

That's about 166 removals, presumably what you meant when you said 'that's only happened in a tiny number of cases' two days earlier. Since anybody who was willing to reverse the removals on a significant scale was threatened, and the numbers and time periods used for judging 'significant resistance' are arbitary, it's no surprise that a 'consensus' has been reached.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, only 166 out of 45,000? I thought it was more. In any case we would have seen many, many hundreds more than that had there been any serious problem.

You say "anybody who was willing to reverse the removals on a significant scale was threatened", but I think what you're referring to is the warnings, and sometimes blocks, given to those very, very few editors who edited disruptively. It isn't allowed, you know.

Did you mean to count David Gerard twice, or did you mistype the username of another involved user? --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

166 in one day is a lot. If we generously assume two reverts per user, that's eighty people overruled by four admins. The 'very, very few editors' who mass-restored tags are about the same in number (probably slightly more) as the six or so admins systematically removing tags. One group is disruptive, the other is bold.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The disruptive editing was, I seem to recall, singleton editors edit warring against multiple editors, and involved egregious and undeniable breaches of Wikipedia policy (such as the three revert rule). This is why those editors were blocked.

We'll have to agree to differ on whether 166 is "a lot". It's certainl not compatible with your claim, made just a few hours ago, of our "reverting hundreds of people every day for the past few weeks". Now this Monday was down to 30. Consensus. The stragglers are slowly learning, by example and not edit warring, that they don't have to insert those spoiler tags. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The numbers creep up the further back you go. It's taken a full month to bludgeon through the 'consensus' your faction has been claiming existed since day two of the debate. The current situation doesn't prove anything, aside from the gross power disparity between a tiny group of admins and a small group of normal editors. One is bold, the other is disruptive. Breaches of policy have been made by both sides, but no-one is going to enforce 'don't use the AWB for controversial edits' or WP:POINT against a bunch of senior admins.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to this use of the term "bludgeon". Editing articles in full compliance with all of Wikipedia's policies is not bludgeoning. I'm unsure of what you mean by "the 'consensus' your faction has been claiming existed since day two of the debate."

You say "One is bold, the other is disruptive." No. Only the disruptive editors, as defined by Wikipedia's policies and three revert rule in particular, have been described as disruptive.

You say "Breaches of policy have been made by both sides." Well you haven't demonstrated this. "You have made edits I disagree with" is not a credible allegation of breach of policy.

You say "no-one is going to enforce 'don't use the AWB for controversial edits' or WP:POINT". Please read WP:POINT. Please explain how the 45,000 edits were controversial. They were hardly noticed. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The anti-spoiler admins have insisted since the beginning of the mass removal campaign that there was a consensus for their actions. It began by using the arbitarily closed MfD, but the 'lack of significant resistance' line was started not long after. Neither was grounds for consensus. 'They were hardly noticed' is a variation on the 'lack of significant resistance' line. It's unsupported by facts and cocooned in vague and arbitary measures. Since there wasn't a consensus, policy was not followed.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I've already said quoting from Wikipedia:Consensus, absence of opposition is usually taken as a sign of consensus. I have to say that I think I've probably been editing articles to remove spoiler tags for over a month now, and with the exception of some early disruption by edit warriors I've had virtually no opposition, and where I have encountered disagreements I've had no problems discussing and reaching consensus on talk pages. It's been some of the easiest, most trouble-free editing I've been involved in since I first edited (under the username User:Minority Report) in November, 2004.

This is a very, very small part of what I'm doing on Wikipedia at the moment. I feel that I'm paying far more attention to educating a few people on this talk page than to other, more important things. If you're unhappy about what we've done, if you think we've done anything at all wrong, please pursue dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

All you are saying is 'it wasn't bludgeoning, because I think it wasn't bludgeoning'. It is obvious that this situation would not have come about were it not for the gross power disparity between a miniscule number of admins and a small number of normal editors.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What's more, I decided to go look. It's not just that, this Monday, Tony reverted 26 articles. He reverted the edits of almost 20 separate _people_ all presumably acting in good faith. If he did that on one article, he'd be accused of going against consensus. Or, of WP:OWNing the article. Which is what I suggest the anti-spoiler people are doing. They are in violation of the spirit of WP:OWN, by declaring that they have the right to decide what spoiler warnings should and should not exist, and others are not qualified. Of course, it's not one article, it's several.

But let's scale it upwards. Let's say there are 10 editors out there who are on 'spoiler patrol'... whether or not they're in cahoots or acting singly, it doesn't _really_ matter. Each of them seeks out pretty well any spoiler, and reverts them. Let's say they all revert about the same amount in a day. It's a hypothetical leap, but let's go with it - Nydas has shown that there were times when the numbers were pretty high. By these numbers, that's about 200 people. But that's being too generous to my side. Let's say about half are completely unjustified. So we're down to 10 people overruling 100. Oh, okay, and let's say again that there probably will be some duplication. So let's say that about half are accounted for by people doing the spoiler thing on multiple articles which have to be removed by different people (I'd think that's being extremely generous, considering the previously described severe inbalance in speed and ease of removing spoiler tags compared to adding them). So, 50 different people overruled completely. By 10. Lovely consensus there.

But maybe my numbers are wrong. I after all, haven't been the one to claim that it's easy to see the amount of opposition. So, I ask again. Will anybody who claims to be able to monitor the level of opposition please answer me 1) how many different editors have removed spoiler tags in the last month, and 2) how many different editors have added spoiler tags in the last month. Or if nobody can, please admit that you're not monitoring the amount of opposition, only the amount of spoiler tags themselves.

Keeping in mind again that before about a month ago, when the guideline was more spoiler-warning friendly, nobody has reported to me that there was a wide-scale revolt to remove spoiler tags (since they remained in large numbers), which suggests, by Tony's logic, that there must have been consensus.

Maybe the 'consensus' from the lack of so many wide scale reverts is to 'follow the guideline whatever it is'. That does not equal consensus for the guideline as it stands, especially since the guideline as it stands is pretty disputed on this page, for the guideline. So let's change the guideline to get consensus. Wandering Ghost 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting a lot of statements here. Of course we don't see every tag insertion and removal. All we see is the result: that at any given moment there aren't a lot of articles with spoiler tags. If somebody we don't know about is adding them at a great rate, it follows that somebody else we don't know about is removing them at an equally great rate. On balance I'd say that either seems implausible because if it were happening there would be big fluctuations owing to one chap working while the other one is offline. I think we've probably accounted for the main methodical removals, which are a few dozen. Less evidence of a massive campaign to subvert consensus, more evidence of a few stragglers who haven't yet heard that they don't need to insert spoiler tags.

You reason that the former guideline had consensus "by Tony's logic." Clearly it did not. 45,000 tags were removed without pain. --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd have put spoiler tags back on a dozen pages by now, but instead of trying to brute-force my way to consensus, I'm sitting here talking about it trying to REACH a consensus to be enforced. If we reach a consensus that spoiler tags are OK in some instances, I'll go add them to the articles I watch. However, what's the point adding them when someone on spoiler patrol will just remove them? It'd violate WP:POINT. I suspect others feel the same, hence the lack of mass addition. Consider: User X notices the lack of spoiler tag on Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, for instance. User X remembers there being a tag here, checks edit summary, finds that apparently spoilers are no longer kosher and are being removed. User X then goes to edit several other articles with tags being removed and does not bother to add them again, having seen for himself that there are people activly removing all spoiler tags on wikipedia, so it'd be pointless to add them. Thus, User X gets discouraged and gives up on spoiler tags altogether. This is consensus, the Tony way: people are intimidated by numbers like 45,000 tags, and thus figure, well, there must be consensus on a page I'm not aware of. Kuronue 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if you don't agree that your edits would have consensus, I suppose it is at least logical that you don't perform the edits. But the guideline doesn't stop you putting spoiler tags where you think they're needed, indeed I've inserted a few myself over the past few days, though they seem not to take. The guideline has gone "viral", in other words.

I don't understand your reference to Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT). Performing an edit that you think directly improves Wikipedia isn't covered by that guideline at all.

I don't think the "intimidated by numbers" or "finds that apparently spoilers are no longer kosher and are being removed" are plausible, really. Maybe one or two of our more timid editors might think like that, but it's hardly likely to work in great numbers. No I think editors are simply unlearning a bad habit.

You refer to someone thinking "there must be consensus on a page I'm not aware of". Firstly the guideline is often, though not always, referred to by link in the edit summary. Secondly an edit that is considered unsuitable can be reverted and discussion can arrive at consensus as to the suitability of the edit. The guideline (like all good guidelines) recognises this and explicitly allows for it. If we're not seeing spoiler tags emerging in any great numbers, it's because hardly anybody seems to be interested enough to argue for their use on any given article. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If it didn't have consensus, the week _before_ the deletion spree happened, by your logic, a significant number of editors would have removed spoiler warnings. Since it didn't happen, a week before the deletion spree, there was consensus to keep spoilers, up until the deletion spree happened. There was no groundswell of support to delete them, and as David Gerard demonstrated, it would have been easy to do so in an automated way. Let's go back two months. Same situation? Now keeping spoilers have a month of "consensus" over the current policy. So you must admit by then, if there's consensus to keep the warnings out now based on the lack of them, that there was broad consensus to keep the warnings only a month ago. What changed, pray tell, in so short a time?

And I'm glad you're finally admitting you're not monitoring the amount of opposition, but rather the amount of spoiler tags at any given time. Now, let's keep on that logic train. Do you acknowledge that it's _much_ easier for a person to delete a _lot_ of spoiler tags, than it is for anyone to add a _lot_ of spoiler tags? Do you from that acknowledge that a small number of editors who decide to remove virtually all spoiler warnings to overrule a much larger number of editors who decide to add spoiler warnings where they feel them appropriate? Please tell me where in the train of statements this fails for you. I'll even throw you a bone. You can continue to believe, even after accepting all of this, that the guideline has broad consensus. It just becomes much harder to prove it. 74.121.182.101 01:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC) This was me - didn't noticed I'd been logged out. Wandering Ghost 01:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at in your first paragraph. The degree of consensus is apparent, though we didn't realise until we tried it. Consensus results from action, observation and consideration. Here the consideration seems to have played an overwhelmingly important role once we became bold enough to perform the requisite action.

I also have problems with your statement that I'm "admitting I'm not monitoring the amount of opposition." As I obviously am monitoring very closely, and am still astonished at the lack of it, I cannot agree to your statement. I've indicated clearly why I think it's extremely unlikely that there is a hidden opposition out there placing tags with an equally strong and opposing group removing them at the same rate so as to cancel them out and remain undetected by me. Even if they were running in lockstep for hours at a time, one of them would have to sleep at some point and I'd notice.

I strongly agree that it's easier to remove inappropriate spoiler tags than it is to decide where they are appropriate. I'm still rather astonished that so few people seem motivated to place them. --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're dodging the issue. There doesn't _have_ to be "a hidden opposition out there placing tags with an equally strong and opposing group removing them at the same rate so as to cancel them out and remain undetected by me." When did Wikipedia become a warzone, where in order for one side to hold a policy stalemate they had to be comparable in weapons and fanaticism? Consensus is determined by people. If there are people out there who creatively use various tools to overwhelm the majority and are so determined to remove spoiler tags that they push for removal in nearly every case, they shouldn't _win_ just because it's easy and they've got the drive. If the other side is significantly larger but they are _unable_ to add spoiler tags at the same rate (hey, in the spirit of open debate and finding the truth why not be fair and suggest ways for an individual person to add spoiler tags at the same rate as an individual person can remove them?), and are forced by circumstances to only add one page at a time where they see fit, that doesn't mean they're not still larger and not still consensus. If you can't tell me how many different people are removing spoiler warnings and how many people are adding them, you're not monitoring opposition. You're monitoring the number of spoiler tags. And that number can be kept down by superior firepower. If the anti-warning crowd and pro-warning crowd were exactly equal in numbers, the anti-warning crowd could still keep spoilers down to a minimum, so long as the pro-warning crowd wasn't organized enough to get together and fight battles together on each page. Wandering Ghost 11:37, 20 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 [[1]]. 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) [2] ]

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 Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_23 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive250#List_of_people_by_name) is another good example I suppose. <K F> 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—Tony and David are going to shoot up by 100 places during the next WP:1000 update :) — Deckill er 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

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[3], 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)—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—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. <K F> 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, <K F> 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 [4], 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#Spoilers. 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)

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? <K F> 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 {{spoiler}} 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. Wikipedia: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)

"Wikipedia: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.

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

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 (UTC)

Hmm, taking your points in turn:

What violation of "WP:POINT"? The full name of that guideline is Wikipedia: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)

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)

" * {{AWBUser|David Gerard}}

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. </sarcasm> --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)

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)

Wikipedia Farm

Note: An Animal Farm ending spoiler follows

(Quotes from #Bionicle)

"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"

"We're all equal." (background laughter) Lessee, where have I heard that concept previously deconstructed? Ah, yes, George Orwell's Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Milo 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"... 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"

Not every anti-consensus reaction will be a pro-userbox-like revolt. A disappointment reaction may well be long and slow like rising tides, rather than great crashing waves. Sometimes the response can be subtle, as follows.

In a touch of research irony, it turned out that Animal Farm twice had it's spoiler tag placed and removed, without further talk discussion:

13:02, 16 May 2007 Zoney (36,971 bytes) (Synopsis - remove "spoiler warning", change heading to "Synopsis of plot and ending")

02:48, 31 May 2007 Counterstrike69 m (37,027 bytes) (Synopsis of plot and ending -{{spoiler}})

03:06, 31 May 2007 Bongwarrior m (37,015 bytes) (removed spoiler warning, redundant per WP:SPOILER)

At least a section title compromise was put in place. That gave WP:Spoiler's redundant-in-plot guide some meaning that it otherwise objectively lacks. (==Plot== sections may or may not contain spoilers.) Such compromise is more enlightened than the clique's response to "a few editors" guideline objections here.

Note this is a book named by Time 100 Books as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present. The notion that somehow classics can't be spoiled was addressed and explained by a reader in an Animal Farm spoiling complaint that preceded the present controversy.

Elitists who know the classics seem not to care whether the next generation can get full enjoyment from the surprise/plot-twist genius of classics' authors. Do I detect a contempt for youth, to parallel that anti-spoiler contempt for children that I previously mentioned?

(Wow, what a formatting mess) Yeah, I looked at the article at the time of the complain, if the IP's diff was correct. It was a pretty good lead, and the complaint would be akin to complaining if The Fellowship of the Ring mentioned that partway through the book a fellowship is formed. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As that spoiling-complaint discussion suggests, the flip side of readers expecting spoiler tags is readers expecting teasers, because that's the way fiction marketing is universally done.

The position of Wikipedia elitists that 'Britannica doesn't do it that way' is newly irrelevant (March 22, 2007). Readers who don't know or can't afford Britannica, don't care about Britannica. Elite, well-heeled readers who do want Britannica, will consult Britannica, because Wikipedia will never be authoritative like Britannica. Academia has made a harsh judgment:

Wikipedia will never be as Britannica, period.

With the Britannica dream ended, Wikipedia's only remaining choice is to become what web readers want. That certainly includes teasers and spoiler tags, as well as other reasonable expectations of the internet culture that nurtured it. Non-spoiling fiction teasers are easy to accommodate with a click-here hidden box or down-page jump link. All that's needed is for elitists to adjust to the new Wikipedia reality with compromise.

And if the elites fail to adjust? Oh, following Wikipedia:The Great Fork I assume they would eventually be overruled by people in suits who sell advertising. Milo 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are these fellows, Zoney, Counterstrike69 and Bongwarrior? Certainly not known to me. I thought we were supposed to be a small clique! --Tony Sidaway 07:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh....only academic newbies use encyclopedias as sources. They are for background/introduction to a topic and good sources. I am never allowed to use any ancyclopedia as a source. — Deckill er 10:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That encyclopedias are not widely used for academic citation does not mean that they are unacademic. Textbooks aren't generally cited either, but they are clearly academic projects. Phil Sandifer 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica dream ended? When? Phil Sandifer 14:27, 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.^[1] However, it is unusual for scholarly reference works (of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be) to warn for spoilers when discussing fictional works.^[2] 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^[3] 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 {{Spoiler}} tag can be used to mark spoiler sections, with {{Endspoiler}} 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

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. >Radiant< 12:58, 18 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. >Radiant< 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 :) >Radiant< 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." [5] 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. <K F> 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. <K F> 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. <K F> 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. <K F> 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. <K F> 23:52, 19 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)

^ Examples include GameFAQs, Television Without Pity, and TV.com.
^ Macnab, Geoffrey. "BFI - Sight & Sound - The Lives of Others (2006)". Retrieved 2007-05-28.
^ An explicit spoiler mentions the work of fiction concerned.

[1] Examples include GameFAQs, Television Without Pity, and TV.com.

[2] Macnab, Geoffrey. "BFI - Sight & Sound - The Lives of Others (2006)". Retrieved 2007-05-28.

[3] An explicit spoiler mentions the work of fiction concerned.

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 495: / Line 495: @@
 :::::::: 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. [[User:Samohyl Jan|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? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:46, 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:

Revision as of 11:46, 20 June 2007

Archives

Disputed

Manufacturing consensus

Disputed

'Compelling arguments'

Arbitration

Clique fix is in: Formal AWB complaint dismissed as "rancor"

Bionicle

Wikipedia Farm

Wikipedia will never be as Britannica, period.

Archive

Compromise guideline

Disputed?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows