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

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

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

Gosh — and here I was thinking it was your spoiler patrol that was edit warring. Collaborating to get around the three-revert rule, making wholesale changes without justification on talk pages to further your own agenda — these are acceptable tactics for you? --Jere7my 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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