Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleTemplate:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Spoiler
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyUnknown
Parties involvedUser:Tony Sidaway (withdrew [1]), User:David Gerard, User:Phil Sandifer, User:Kusma, User:TheFarix, User:JzG, User:CBM, User:David Fuchs, User:Ned Scott, User:Vassyana, User:Pmanderson, User:Ken Arromdee, User:Nydas, User:Samohyl Jan, User:Kizor, User:Milomedes, User:Kuronue, User:Jere7my, User:Wandering Ghost, User:JimmyBlackwing, User:Davidbspalding
Mediator(s)FunPika (talk · contribs) Addhoc (talk · contribs)

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Template:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Spoiler]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Template:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Spoiler]]

Request Information

This is a request for mediation on the Wikipedia:Spoiler policy for use of the spoiler template. There is ongoing and heated debate on the policy, and there have been recent mass-edits (45000+) of Wikipedia by a group of editors, some of them admins.

Who are the involved parties?

Editors carrying out or actively reinforcing mass-removal of templates:

Possibly also involved:

Editors opposed to mass-removal of templates:

Just looking at the talk page, there are probably at least twenty or so people involved. Interested parties should put their names here?

What's going on?

Pro-spoiler point of view
Use of AWB
Disregard of consensus and general violation of wikiquette
Concerns summarised, by user, and responses
  1. JimmyBlackwing expresses concern at the wording of the guideline: "compelling reason", which is completely subjective, and it causes needless disputes over what, exactly, "compelling" is.
    • This is a reasonable objection. I've suggested "persuasive" as an alternative. Whatever word we use, it means that most reasonable people will agree that something unexpected comes along and a warning is needed.
  2. Ken Arromdee has numerous concerns:
    1. The spoiler warnings can be removed with no discussion, but they require discussion to be added.
      • The mediator has suggested, and I've accepted, the idea that removals should be accompanied by a comment on the talk page.
    2. "If there is a dispute, the editor wishing to include should justify it" is sensible for a normal content dispute, but is not sensible when people object to a mass removal.
      • This needs more work. What would be a suitable compromise here?
    3. When I actually tried to justify one of these on the talk page (Talk:Sakura_Wars), the arguments made against my justification were that controversial parts of the spoiler guideline were really established rules
      • Ken's memory is incorrect. The reason I gave for removing the spoiler, which I gave in my edit summary and later echoed on the talk page, was "Clearly marked "Setting" section". Ken repeatedly said I was relying on "established rules" but it doesn't appear to me that I did. I adopted the commonsense notion that a "Setting" section in an article about a computer game will describe the setting of the computer game.
    4. It's also circular reasoning. We were told that the fact that nobody put the warnings back *proves* consensus for the spoiler policy. Now the policy is being used to *justify* not putting the warnings back
      • Not quite. Where warnings are put back in places that seem inappropriate, they are removed or theirreplacement is challenged on the talk page until consensus is gained for replacement or removal. This is normal Wikipedia editing protocol. The guideline's function is simply to describe, not to prescribe, what happens.
    5. A generic explanation like "(rm per WP:SPOILER (redundant with section title)" not only isn't a discussion, it seeks to *prevent* discussing of the issues by implying that "spoiler warnings shouldn't be redundant with section titles" is accepted policy
      • Accepted policy or no, this notion has very widespread agreement. If there is a place reason to place a spoiler tag than "the article discusses the plot in the plot section", someone expressing the opinion that this is an inadequate justification doesn't stop the better justification being advanced.
  3. Kuronue would like an agreement about it being bad to do nothing but go to established articles with a bunch of friends for the sole purpose of outnumbering the regular editors and thus proving 'consensus' - either for adding OR removing.
    • Good faith editing and discussion on talk pages should never be discouraged.
    • I'm not TALKING about good faith editing! If an editor thinks on one page a spoiler tag is inappropriate and discusses, that's the process in action. What I'm talking about is similar to forum-shopping: going to every single debate just to overwhelm the pro-spoiler comments with dozens of anti-spoiler comments, and for no other purpose. If you want to make an article better, improve it, don't just show up for the purposes of spoiler tags and then vanish when you get your way. Kuronue 23:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wandering Ghost emphatically agrees with Kuronue: any serious compromise has to include some rule of 'no going on crusades', otherwise it's prone to abuse by the fanatical. And in effect, they're claiming for themselves the right to judge all spoiler debates.
    • See above. Fanatical crusades on either side will tend to peter out as tedium takes hold.
  5. Jere7my is concerned about regarding the mass removals as a fait accompli: I would like to see the tens of thousands of tags reinstated, or, if that's technically impossible, to see some sanctions against that nutty overreach. I might also suggest a period of amnesty for those who wish to reinstate spoiler tags en masse without requiring a justification, to counteract the script abuse (which I hope we can all agree was unjustifiable).
    • This needs more work. I can't think of a good compromise here yet, but I definitely oppose a return to the situation where articles on fairy tales, the end of the universe, Roger Bacon and the like had spoiler tags. I also oppose the notion that editors should ever be excused from the obligation to justify their edits on an edit-by-edit basis, where challenged.
  6. Tony Sidaway: I'm concerned that most of the complaints, where based on fact, are not well founded in policy. There is frequent appeal to notions of article ownership, there are complaints about editors involving themselves in good faith discussions on article talk pages, as if this were wrong. I'm also very worried that some editors involved have let their disagreements with the spoiler tag guideline persuade them that it's acceptable to launch virulent personal attacks on editors involved in discussions. This is absolutely unacceptable.

(This list was initially gathered by Tony Sidaway). Please add your concerns if they have not yet been expressed by someone else. -Kieran 20:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Tony Sidaway's point of view

(Note: this is a personal point of view, but may be representative of the commmunity at large to some extent)

Note from David Gerard

Restoring all 45,000 spoiler warnings whether they make sense or not? That's ridiculous. They were removed because their spread was actually problematic to the encyclopedia. Now they can be added as justifiable. What's so hard about justifying the spoilers?

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

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

On the assertion the spoiler removal was a violation of AWB policy: well, it appears no-one involved in AWB actually thinks so, and those in favour of spoilers couldn't raise interest there either [3]. So please stop asserting this as if it's a fact.

I ask again: What is so hard about even attempting to discuss the spoilers on a case by case basis? Ken's been asked this many times by many people and has yet to state what makes him unable to hit "edit" and add a justification to a talk page - David Gerard 10:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?

Note: I've been moving discussion of these points to the discussion page. -Kieran 20:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's point of view:

Ken:

Mediator response

Possible compromise #1

Okay from what I have seen, there are 2 sides in this argument, those who want the spoiler warnings removed, and those who do not. This means that there should be a way to make both sides of the argument happy. Here is the first possible compromise I have thought of (and the only one as of yet). This would involve some changes to Wikipedia:Spoiler and a new process.

* All currently remaining spoiler warnings are removed.

:* If there is no one replies to the proposal to add spoiler warnings within a week, then it should be proposed on the pages of related wikiprojects.

  • If there are no related wikiprojects, then the proposal would have to be made on Wikipedia:Spoiler/Warning requests.

FunPika 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To keep this page clean, I've moved discussion on this compromise to the talk page. -Kieran 20:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no need to mediate now, and most of the recent talk page discussion seems better off being on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler or Template talk:Spoiler. I shall close this case. FunPika 19:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you don't think the dispute is gone. I think it's been made clear what the dispute is about, and what issues we cannot reach agreement on. Ken Arromdee 05:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I don't agree that there's no need to mediate, there are still big issues left unresolved that we've repeatedly tried and failed to agree on, and for which there's no significant progress been made. Sure, some of the discussion here will rehash issues of the original spoiler discussions, but that's because there was no agreement. We still have people who've decided that it's appropriate for them to overrule dozens if not more individual editors by jumping into every spoiler tag and, generally, voting to remove. We still have a huge technical power imbalance by which it's far easier for one side of the debate to enforce their will on everybody. These are issues that still need to be resolved in a satisfactory way. If one person withdraws from a mediation process without any intention of changing their stance or behaviour, it doesn't mean that there's nothing to mediate anymore, especially if they're operating from a position of strength. If they're unwilling to agree to mediation, it seems that the only step left is arbitration to get a firm ruling on the issues. Wandering Ghost 12:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that I agree with Ken Arromdee and Wandering Ghost. I didn't notice this issue until yesterday (as I might have done if previous discussion had been advertised on the spoiler tag itself), but I am very concerned that Wikipedia's spoiler tags were removed en masse by a small group of editors, who then proceeded to go around reverting any reintroduction of spoiler tags on the basis of disputed rules and circular logic. Looking through previous discussion including this page, it is clear to me that the debate has reached no consensus and that the current lack of spoiler tags cannot be used as evidence for consensus. Philip Reuben 17:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, however the role of MedCab is merely to help editors find a viable compromse to a content dispute, while editor conduct issues are dealt with in the first instance by a Request for Comment and latterly by arbitration. Addhoc 10:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

More