[WikiEN-l] Reflections on the end of the spoiler wars

[Anthony]

On Nov 14, 2007 6:48 PM, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Six months later, the spoiler debate is still carrying on with the
> same half-dozen or so people vehemently opposing their removal. These
> arguments have been presented in every forum imagineable - arbcom
> twice, an RfC, several deletion debates, the mailing list, etc. The
> number of remaining forums is growing so slim that people were, in all
> seriousness, suggesting advertising the discussion on the watchlist
> sitenotice alongside the arbcom elections. This is, obviously, beyond
> the pale. Hopefully, the debate is now in its final throws as JzG has
> deleted the spoiler template following a TfD. Obviously it's on DRV at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_14
>   (with a breathtakingly bad-faith assuming nomination), but God
> willing it will stay deleted and this discussion will finally end.
>
> What interests me, though, is the question of how we can prevent this.

Need to have an editor-in-chief, or at least a committee, that is
willing and able to make decisions about such things.  Arb com won't
do it.  Jimbo usually won't do it.  True consensus is generally
impossible to reach.

Whether or not "preventing this" is important enough to give up on
consensus is debatable; but I'd say the fact that some sort of
authority is required to "prevent this" is not.

Voting on issues like this is also a possibility, but there would
still need to be an authority to determine whether or not the vote
passed.

> What is surprising in all of these cases is that it has seemed, to me,
> at least, that consensus formed for a position quite quickly - spoiler
> tags were stupid, sourcing guidelines needed to have enough
> flexibility to not break articles, and the 2004 election controversy
> articles are abominations.

What do you consider a consensus?  If unbanned users disagree with a
position and are willing to fight over its implementation, you don't
have a true consensus.  Are all the people fighting against these
positions banned users?  Or by "consensus" do you just mean
"significant majority"?