Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC).

---

• Gavin.collins (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

• That Gavin.collins would learn to work in a positive manner with those editors with whom he disagrees, which includes assuming good faith, engaging in calm discussion, not being dismissive of the opinions of people with whom he disagrees, and learning to understand why people feel they way they do about the issues they may have with his opinions and conduct. If he desires to continue reviewing the appropriateness of Dungeons & Dragons, role-playing game, and other related articles and criticizing their structure and support, as is welcome by Wikipedia principle, it would help if he took the time to understand the material and why some people regard it as important and worthwhile. Gavin would work better with others if he were to understand the spirit of editing Wikipedia through collaboration, rather than through the narrow focus of observing the strict interpretation of its most restrictive policies and guidelines. He should learn that Wikipedia works through consensus at every level, regardless of how "local" the consensus is, or whether he agrees with any consensus that has been reached.

Gavin's aggressiveness and combativeness, judgmental and sarcastic tone, edit warring over cleanup templates, accusations of vandalism and conflict of interest based on circumstantial evidence, and general assumptions of bad faith regarding other users' motivations amounts to disruptive editing, creating a long-lasting unfriendly environment which is bad for the entire Wikipedia project and the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject in particular. He ignores consensus when it goes against him, argues that every tag he places is valid unless it can be proven that the tag is clearly not applicable, dodges direct questions about his tagging or statements when he cannot conveniently quote a Wikipedia policy or guideline to defend his position (examples: [1], [2], [3]), and has even recently characterized other users' comments as doublethinking. He often appears to misuse certain policies and guidelines to defend his point of view, and ignore those policies and guidelines that prove inconvenient to him. He appears to thrive on the conflict that results from his actions.

On 23 August 2007, Gavin.collins began editing role-playing game articles by proposing dozens of GURPS articles for deletion through WP:PROD and WP:AFD. On 28 August he began adding other cleanup templates to articles regarding various RPGs in addition to deletion proposals. By 4 October 2007, a group of editors disputing the high volume of his deletion nominations filed his first Request for Comment, primarily focusing on the deletion aspect of his activities, especially when the deletion nominations were seen as retaliation for disagreements. The challenging editors also mentioned his use of cleanup templates for which they disputed the appropriateness, his accusations of conflict of interest against other editors (suggesting that the editors were employees of the game companies), and accused him of ignoring consensus, using Wikipedia functions to try to prove a point, and other forms of incivility.

Gavin's nominations for deletions slowed down significantly after his first RFC, but the other behavioral issues and questions over the appropriateness of tags remained. In time, Gavin narrowed his focus from role-playing game articles in general to mainly Dungeons & Dragons articles. In addition to many deletion nominations, Gavin would apply multiple cleanup tags to numerous articles almost daily, often adding the same set of tags to each article. He has been challenged numerous times about the appropriateness of certain tags, including challenges that he does not follow the correct guidelines and policies regarding when certain templates should be used; he has rarely changed his mind about a tag's appropriateness after discussion. It has been speculated that the repetitive tag placement and the amount of articles affected in a small amount of time indicates that Gavin does not actually read the articles or check them for notability before tagging them, but he responds that he simply reads several articles over time and then tags them all at once. The vast majority of Gavin's mainspace edits involve the above-described activities on D&D and RPG-themed articles. Generally, Gavin does not help to fix any of the issues for which he tags these articles, leaving the harder cleanup work up to others. There have only ever been a few active members of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject at any time, and the sheer volume of Gavin's tagging places an excessive burden on these few editors, who cannot hope to fix these articles at that same speed with which he tags them. Gavin admits that he has little knowledge of role-playing games (which he blames on the "bad quality" of Wikipedia RPG articles [4]), so the reason for his focusing on them remains unclear; some editors have speculated that he has a strong bias against the genre although he denies this. Many D&D article talk pages, Gavin's talk page archives, and the D&D Wikiproject talk page archives are filled with largely unproductive discussions on whether given sources are reliable secondary sources, and whether uncited content is original research or simply unsourced; these discussions often result in no conclusion, compromise, or consensus, as Gavin seems to be resistant to any view but his own.

After several months of this activity with tags placed on hundreds of RPG articles, and many increasingly unfriendly exchanges, members of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject agreed almost unanimously to enter into mediation with Gavin, to attempt to settle conduct disputes which had content disputes at their heart. The Request for Mediation was filed 25 April 2008, focusing primarily on perceived issues with the Kender article (per lengthy discussion on the talk page), as a test for D&D articles in general. During this time, at Gavin's request, the involved parties agreed not to place or remove templates on D&D articles. Gavin did honor this, and made few if any edits at all to D&D articles, and had little or no interaction with D&D project members outside of the RFM. Instead, aside from his involvement in the RFM, Gavin became heavily involved in working on the Notability guidelines, particularly Notability (fiction), as well as some involvement in other policies and guidelines. His work and discussion on these guidelines seems to center on changing them to fit his viewpoint on notability and inclusion. Much work was done on the Kender article initially as part of the RFM, although eventually the mediation case was closed as stale on 7 November 2008 after all involved parties had ceased active involvement in the mediation. With the RFM closed, Gavin immediately began to return to his previous activities on D&D and RPG-related articles, beginning with Dan Willis on 8 November 2008, bringing the same old disputes back to life.

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. Accusations and suggestions of Conflicts of Interest: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
2. Hostile tone in repetitive message left on the talk pages of editors removing the notability template in good faith: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]
3. Disparaging remarks about other editors: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]
4. Edit warring over tags and templates: ([32] and [33] and [34]), ([35] and [36]), ([37] and [38] and [39]), ([40] and [41] and [42])
5. Incorrect accusation of Vandalism: [43], [44]
6. Rather offensive naming of articles as fancruft: [45], [46]
7. Ignoring or discounting consensus: [47], [48], [49],
8. Misinterpretation of how to use certain templates, policies, and guidelines: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]
9. Uses "obscurity" or a similar term to indicate that a topic lacks notability: [56], [57]
10. Awarded a barnstar sarcastically: [58] with additional rudeness in the AFD: [59]
11. Misplaced tags:

1. Adding {{notability}} to an article which already has {{importance}}: [60], [61], [62].
2. Adding {{notability}} and/or {{unreferenced}} to articles that already contain Reliable Secondary Sources: [63], [64], [65], [66]
3. Adding both {{plot}} and {{in-universe}} to the same article: [67]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:Disruptive editing
2. WP:Consensus
3. WP:Assume good faith
4. WP:Civility
5. WP:Etiquette
6. WP:Conflict of interest
7. WP:Reliable sources
8. WP:Verifiability
9. WP:Notability
10. WP:Notability (fiction)
11. I don't like it
12. WP:Gaming the system
13. WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

1. WP:Tag bombing
2. WP:OVERTAGGING
3. WP:Responsible tagging

(provide diffs and links)

1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins [68]
2. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-11 Requests for comment/Gavin.collins [69] (closed because it wasn't a content dispute).
3. Discussion on Gavin's talk page over the accuracy of templates: [70], [71]
4. Article Requests for Comment: [72], [73]
5. Wikipedia:Third opinion [74]
6. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender [75]
7. Attempts on Gavin's talk page to resolve dispute: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]
8. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [81] (Closed with no administrator response)

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

1. Failure to resolve dispute after posting on talk page:[82], [83], [84], [85], [86]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Drilnoth (talk)
2. BOZ (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. shadzar-talk 22:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Web Warlock (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Bilby (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC) I will note that for the most recent spate (as well as of this signing) I have had limited Internet access, so I did not have an opportunity to try and resolve the dispute with Gavin.[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. MASEM 22:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC) - It should be noted (as stated in summary above) that Gavin has become very active in the various policy/guideline pages that relate to fiction (WP:NOT, Notability, and WP:FICT), an area I've been trying to work with others to assert some type of middle ground, including a recent RFC on WP:N to try to figure out how to treat fiction, but Gavin seems to even stick to his guns and not attempting compromise with the more inclusionists. Having one's opinion is fine, but his methods of discussion on policy/guidelines tend to become repetitive and block out potential compromises.[reply]
4. Hooper (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. I haven't interacted with Gavin or the D&D Wikiproject in several months, but his behavior has not changed at all since I have. McJeff (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Edward321 (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. All in all, Wikipedia needs more discussion and less steamrollerlike edits. Agamemnon2 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. I confess, I have found Gavin substantially less than pleasant to work with, and tend to find that he works by offering "compromises" that are in no way middle grounds or moderations. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. As I do not work at the D&D project, I'm mainly aware of him from work on the guidelines. I agree with MASEM, that he has consistently been one of the main obstacles to achieving compromise--all compromises, even ones close but not identical to his position. I'd say just the same if he were an uncompromising inclusionist. DGG (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC) The D&D articles have been improved in spite of Gavin's interference, not because of it.[reply]
11. This user seems too fanatical. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Kairos (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. I was extremely active in the D&D and Greyhawk wikiprojects before Gavin came along. His relentless tagging and unwillingness to compromise is the main reason I decided to concentrate my efforts at other wikis, rather than at Wikipedia.--Robbstrd (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. I agree as well based on the evidence presented above and in the earlier Rfc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. This user definatly seems to be attempting to chip away at any reason for D&D articles to be able to stay on Wikipedia. On his talk page he made this claim: 'Dragonlance Nexus is a fansite, with lower editorial standards than Wikipedia, and cannot be classed as reliable secondary source.' A quick look at the Dragonlance Nexus homepage reveals that it was the winner of the 2007 Ennie Award for best fansite (this notice was up there before Gavin made his decision that Dragonlance Nexus isn't good enough to be a citation source). A bit of research would have revealed (to Gavin) that Dragonlance Nexus was once given 'official Dragonlance fansite status' by Wizards of the Coast (the owners of the Dragonlance IP). Further research would have revealed that Trampus Whiteman (who runs Dragonlance Nexus) is mentioned in the credits of most of the 3rd edition Dragonlance RPG books (either as a 'thankyou' or an contributor to the product). I would say that 99.9 percent of people who know anything about Dragonlance wouldn't dream for a second of accusing this website of being unreliable. This makes it look like Gavin either knows nothing about Dragonlance or doesn't care about doing any sort of research to check that his viewpoints are actually correct. If Gavin wants to improve D&D related articles he should be doing enough research to find out this sort of thing himself. He should even know which of the D&D fan communities have their own encyclopedias. Dragonlance Lexicon (run by Dragonance Nexus) is one of the better rechearched secondary sources available to anyone doing D&D research, and people who want to improve Wikipedia should be attempting to gain support from its staff. However, rather than research D&D (in order to correct bad Wikipedia articles) Gavin seems to care more about tagging articles and preventing other wiki-editors from using D&D sources as 'valid citation sources'. If this chipping away of valid sources is built into policy, and Gavin continues to tag articles then it is inevitable that Wikipedia would end up deleting all of its D&D based information. While I believe that a lot of cleanup is needed, Gavin seems to be a lot more interested in deltionism than taking part in any of the improvement work himself. Gavin isn't the only person doing this sort of thing, but he certainly seems to do nothing positive to the D&D articles he tinkers with. I feel very similar to Robbstrd about the relentless tagging and also have moved away from Wikipedia to concentrate on wiki editing elsewhere. Big Mac (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
17.   Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   03:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC): In the manner of Robbstrd's comment, I am also more active on other wikis now instead of Wikipedia, but my edits are primarily concerned with Exalted. There used to be a lot more on Wikipedia about the game system, and while I will admit that some of what was written could have been merged with other articles or cleaned up, it is just as valid as articles related to other RPG systems.[reply]
18. Agreed. Irritation into action is not beneficial in the grand scheme of things. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Stubbornly demands people to do work for him, but does none of the cleanup which he expects of others. See also my observation below on whether his demands are truly reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Itub (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. I hold little hope that this RFC will be any more successful than any other attempt to reason with him has been. But I agree with every complaint regarding his behavior above. Rray (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. From contact with Gavin partially on D&D articles and partially on general notability discussions, I'd have to say that characterizing his pattern of editing and discourse as "uncooperative" and "inflexible" would be charitable understatement. There is no question that a great many fiction-based articles need a great deal of work. However, Gavin's approach to this is to use tag-bombing to exhort others to do the work on an unrealistically wide number of articles, without himself ever lifting a solitary digit to pitch in and do the work he's so keen on everyone else doing. I think the general feeling towards him would be different if he spent any of his time or considerable energies improving the articles instead of designating them for improvement by others. And again I think the sentiment would be different if he did not have a more or less monomaniacal fixation on articles of a certain subject range, if he didn't seem to be "picking on" a particular subject. Gavin claims he is not a gamer and has little experience or knowledge of the subject, and I would submit that that means he's made a rather infelicitous choice of Wiki-speciality. Ford MF (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Pixelface (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. From day one, Gavin has shown no desire to improve the wiki; just to scrawl all over it with tags like a dog marking his territory, and to game the system to keep going for as long as possible. I would say, "Hopefully that time is up", but I don't really hold that hope. For as long as the community tries to reach a compromise, Gavin can try to avoid one. For as long as he can edit the wiki, he'll [uncivility deleted] on it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. From the edit diffs above, it appears as if this editor is gets some empty, twisted pleasure in bullying other editors. travb (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Gavin's wholesale notes for deletion of so many articles that I had worked on are the reason that I left Wikipedia over a year ago. I'd like to be a part of the RPG Project and work with my fellow editors, not fight continuously against them. Seanr451 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Since the end of mediation relating to the article Kender, I can say that the desired outcome has already been reached. For readers who are not familiar with the article, it was very much in need of improvement when I first added various cleanup templates back in February 2008; the article cited few citations, provided no evidence of notability of its subject matter, contained plot summary that was either original research or was a synthesis of various primary sources, and was almost wholly written from an in universe perspective. In the months that followed, the cleanup tags were repeatedly removed by members of the D&D Wikiproject without cleanup being effected, and the talk page was filled with unsubstantiated assertions that the cleanup templates were not required, and that my intervention was disruptive and unwarranted.

However, I stuck to my principles and welcomed the mediation on the subject of article cleanup. During a long and complex rewrite of the article as evidenced by the mediation talk page, myself and the other participants replaced the uncited material written from an in universe perspective with real-world non-trival sources which resulted in the creation of what I think to be reasonable quality article. The point I wish to make here is that the cleanup tags were justified, and the disagreements which members of the D&D had with them were resolved to my satisfaction by through the cleanup process.

A similar dispute about cleanup templates has arisen over the article Dan Willis between myself and Drilnoth, who has instigated this RFC. Despite the fact that he has invited and received expert opinion about the sources cited in the article from editors who are independent of the dispute, he has continued to make unsubstantiated claims that the article demonstrates notability on the basis that the trivial or unreliable sources cited in the article constitute evidence of notability on the article talk page.

My view is that it is that it is members of the D&D Wikiproject that need learn to work in a positive manner with those editors with whom they disagree, such as me. I understand why they don't like cleanup templates, but I disagree with such views [87] as they are an integral part of the cleanup process and could of benefit. Removing the template or substituting them with alternatives for spurious reasons[88] without effecting any improvements to the articles is self-defeating for the Wikiproject in the long run, as it delays the cleanup process. The resistance to improving D&D articles that I have experienced creates the impression that D&D articles stand inside "an editorial walled garden" in which the contributions of independent editors who are interested in the article improvement are not welcome; one editor described put this across in the statement "I don't assume bad faith. I think that you mean to do good; I just don't think you are[89]".

I view the Description section as a coatrack for a generalised attack on me personally.

I see no evidence of any abusive behaviour in any of the instances given; rather I do see discussion, requests for information and disagreement, but no abuse per se.

The "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" are actually ongoing discussions about article content. The fact that discussions about the articles in question did not end in the removal of cleanup templates that were perfectly justified it not evidence of dispute resolution at all.

My overall view is that is will be hard to reach a compromise; from the tone of the Description section, I can see that nothing but a grovelling admission that I am the cause of the D&D Wikiproject's problems will be satisfactory. However, the major problem underpinning this dispute is still the hundreds of poor quality articles that fall within the domain of this project which are coming up for deletion on a regular basis, and what cleanup templates I choose to add makes no difference, as other editors will gradually do the same if these articles are not improved. I think the D&D Wikiproject should stand back from their walled garden, which is in great need of rationalisation, and focus on those articles which can be written from a real-world perspective and sourced properly, rather than pretending all of them can.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I've been through a similar situation before, as an active editor of articles related to Warhammer 40,000. While I count myself as an aficionado of the game, with significant experience of the subject, I nevertheless understand that within the realm of fantasy gaming there are subjects for which significant coverage by third parties is either rare or non-existent, even where there may be an active fan community. The precipitous drop-off between coverage by fans and coverage by sources WP considers reliable leads to a very sharp contrast where WP:N is concerned.

In this case, while I think that Gavin's repeated use of tagging and the deletion system may be an indication of using the WP:N guidelines as a bright line which shouldn't be crossed (rarely evident in WP except for blatant vandalism and BLP), Gavin does not appear to have gamed the system or otherwise engaged in bad faith except for the belief that his detractors' understanding of our notability policies is significantly different to the community's as a whole. As a result, he chose to engage the community at large (via engaging in direct policy edits) rather than concentrating on turning editors involved in the articles in question.

Through close engagement of WP:DND of late, I also feel that Gavin has been used as a very obvious scapegoat for the problems with the project. Issues such as the consolidation of the DND deities articles (proposed months ago) have fallen to the wayside (in whole or in part) while discussion of Gavin's conduct has been a constant topic.

In short, I do not believe that Gavin's actions have negatively impacted the quality of Wikipedia's Dungeons & Dragons coverage. I do believe that the scapegoating of Gavin for such in lieu of article improvement has done so. And in actual fact, I believe that the increased emphasis on WP:N that Gavin's participation in D&D projects has caused has improved the project.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

1. --EEMIV (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Jack Merridew 14:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While some of the DnD articles targeted by Gavin are in fact in need of cleanup, Gavin's relentlessly hostile approach results in disruption rather than improvement. There is a small cadre of conscientious editors working on cleanup, consolidation and improvement of these articles. Gavin is, in effect, putting sand in the gears by forcing these editors to postpone their cleanup drive and take part instead in pointless and repetitious discussions with a heckler. Having witnessed and participated in some of these discussions, I cannot but form the impression that Gavin's overriding motive is hostility to the DnD venue, rather than a constructive desire to improve Wikipedia.

I recognize the need to improve and weed out these articles. I am willing and eager to see cruft cleaned up, with an axe if need be. However, I am not willing to put up with gun-to-the-head tactics of Gavin, especially in view of the fact that he is not doing any improvement work himself. Improving these articles takes time and loving effort from many conscientious editors. It should not be done under this sort of aggressive pressure.

What makes things even worse is that Gavin is apparently gaming the Wikipedia rules; he repeatedly uses the same tags on all articles, even if the tags or the boilerplate rationale he provides are clearly irrelevant to the article in question. This approach has led many editors to suspect that Gavin does not actually read the articles he tags; he certainly never does any editing of them, other than tagging and submitting AfD requests. His recent attempts to reshape the Notability guidelines to fit his needs are a particularly pernicious way of gaming the system, as it could have widespread consequences outside his area of "interest". In view of that, I cannot disagree more strongly with Chris Cunnigham's preposterous assertion that "Gavin's repeated use of tagging and the deletion system may be an indication of using the WP:N guidelines as a bright line which shouldn't be crossed". He is attempting to manipulate the very guideline in question. And does disruptive behavior become a virtue when it is repeated in a wholesale manner? I see no bright line here; rather a tangled string of intrigue, as Gavin attempts to reshape Wikipedia to fit his convictions.

As for Chris's statement that "Gavin's participation in D&D projects has caused has improved the project" [sic], I must answer that it is the editors who have improved these articles--Gavin has done no improving whatsoever; his only action has been terrorizing the bona-fide editors. Yes, some improvement has been going on under the onslaught--but was it due to Gavin's indiscriminate tagging? I don't think so, and I believe that the editors would have done more, and better, work if not forced to engage in pointless and unedifying sparring with Gavin instead.

Gavin is unremittingly antagonistic, and his numerous assembly-line-style contributions are restricted to tagging and criticism, often ill-informed to boot. If he starts doing constructive work on improving these articles, rather than just shooting them down wholesale, I'll be happy to work with him. As things are, I cannot see him otherwise than as a pest.

Freederick (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

1. Drilnoth (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Web Warlock (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC) as one of those terroized editors in question I fully endorse this summary. Gavin has improved nothing.[reply]
3. I couldn't agree more. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC) I've spent far too much time dealing with Gavin's disruptions -- time that could be better spent merging, improving, and re-writing articles. How can this possibly good for Wikipedia?[reply]
5. Free hits it at the head here. I've tried negotiating with Gavin; I might as well have been trying to heal a Sentry in TF2 as a Medic. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 11:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Ditto!--Robbstrd (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. I agree as this summary is consistent with the evidence presented. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Hooper (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. BOZ (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Well said.[reply]
10.   Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   03:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC): I agree with this summary.[reply]
11. I agree wholeheartedly. Something needs to be done. I will point out that I've largely stopped editing on wikipedia because it has become a nightmare dealing with Gavin's tagging, and his general attitude. It's not a pleasant environment to contribute in or to feel your contributions valued rather than questioned and belittled in, and in my case, Gavin is largely responsible for me giving up till that environment improves dramatically. Shemeska (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Edward321 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Endorse. Gavin is not the first person I've seen use these tactics, but he is certainly the most tenacious in pursuing it. Needless to say, those tactics don't promote a good working atmosphere. It promotes frustration, anger and resentment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Itub (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. The atmosphere Gavin promotes is described better by you than me. And yes, the crux, or one of them, is that Gavin performs no constructive work whatsoever. Ford MF (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't link too many discussions here. If you need or want to me to add a specific link to an action or conversation ask me on my talk page and I'll do it.

I was asked to give some input on this dispute before it came to AN/I above after I asked an editor to not revert Gavin's contributions as vandalism. I expressed concern on the DnD project talk page that the tagging (which could reasonably be viewed as disruptive) was being viewed as vandalism. I suggested that a post be made at AN/I or that a RFC/U be started, hoping that some community input on all parties would be a good thing. Preferably this will produce such a view.

I see this as very much analogous to the TTN issue. TTN was restricted by ArbComm after months and months of disputes over fictional content. Specifically, he edit warred to maintain redirects and mergers of episode or character articles to their main fictional work. He did so methodically and expansively (as there are a lot of fiction articles out there). And (as evidence by the months of dispute) he did this over the vociferous objections of individual projects. Projects which were interested in keeping content that TTN viewed as parochial. This dispute was incredibly difficult to resolve because it laid along a fault line in the community between those who felt that WP:N described well what should be in an encyclopedia and those who did not. Those who agreed with WP:N tended to (perhaps even without noticing it) determined that TTN's actions were just and that his persecution was groundless. Those who disagreed with WP:N tended to view TTN's actions as the height of disruption and tendentiousness. Some attempted to overcome their biases and decouple his actions from the underlying content dispute, but most were not that successful. In the end, Arbcomm cut the Gordian knot and declared that his (TTN's) edit warring was unacceptable and that he should seek community consensus about mergers, redirects and deletion. He was banned from any such activity for six months. At the end of that ban, TTN began methodically and expansively nominating articles for deletion and redirecting articles per WP:BRD. This has created a recent flurry of opposition but no real traction (as he has assiduously avoided edit warring).

I view that arc as a failure of action on the part of the community. An editor (TTN) is subject to some arbitrary restrictions (See E&C 2) while the outcome on content is practically the same as it was before the dispute started (articles are basically turned into redirects, merged, or deleted at the same rate). What we got was months of hard feelings, vitriol and complaints. Arguably, the chain could have been broken at any point. TTN could have come around and changed his ways. The various wikiprojects could have accepted that they were producing and protecting articles far outside of content guidelines. Arbcomm could have considered a different set of restrictions. My point is that the whole exercise has basically been rendered moot over time. We should study that dispute and ensure that we aren't basically repeating errors made there.

Aside from that general admonition, I have some specific comments about Gavin's behavior or the response to it.

• Gavin does appear to be relatively abrupt or non-responsive with questions asked anywhere outside his talk page. Questions asked on his talk page sometimes receive a perfunctory or standard reply which does not address the question itself (I am excluding templated message here, the merits of which can be debated elsewhere, but I don't feel they deserve full and detailed replies necessarily) but rather re-asserts his view about the content tagged. This unwillingness to communicate--or more accurately, this desire to communicate only on specific terms--makes his repeated tagging in the face of reversion more frustrating for others. However, Gavin does appear to be responsive to specific questions asked on his talk page about tagging. This may be (I don't know) due to the fact that most of the articles are similar to him and that repeating each conversation about each article in the 1700 articles of the DnD project would be overwhelming. I'll leave that for Gavin to say.
• Under "Evidence of disputed behavior" above, the entire section 11 is trivial in my mind. There are differences between {{notability}} and {{importance}} and differences between {{plot}} and {{in-universe}}. Notability tags appear to be clearer and 'bolder' than importance tags and I also know that more than a few DnD project members prefer the articles to be tagged with "importance" rather than "notability" as the latter (to them) starts a "ticking clock for deletion". The fact that the project prefers one tag over Gavin is not a matter for community input. Likewise points 8 and 9 represent the same qualms. How is this statement evidence that community input is needed? Ditto this. This RfC needs to focus on cases where the community feels Gavin is messing up, not on where his questions or views may upset members of the DnD project. Point 6 is also unrelated to the current problem, trivial and has been rejected before. It is not grounds for community intervention to call an article fancruft.
• Edit warring (even where 3rr isn't breached) is a big problem. Demanding that changes happen before templates are removed is a problem. Reporting IPs that remove the templates to AIV is a problem. Bold, revert, discuss (which literally applies to content changes though can be applied broadly to tags, template changes and so forth) gives some inherent advantage to the original state of the article (in other words, if I change something, and you revert it, I can't revert you and then demand you discuss it and still be in the spirit of BRD). But this does not imply that tagging is an action that can always be filibustered or rejected. Projects or groups of editors do not own the right to control the tags on their articles. They aren't barred from doing anything about it, but they shouldn't have the final say all the time. Also, tags provide multiple functions: they categorize articles for cleanup (attracting drive-by copyeditors sometimes). They inform the reader that the material can and should be improved. And yes, like it or not, they provide some idea at AfD as to how much has gone into improving an article.
• The basic "Description" provided for is neither accurate nor fair. I agree with most of the claims in the "Evidence of disputed behavior" (with my exceptions noted), but the description is unfair and unduly accusatory. Sentences like "Instead, aside from his involvement in the RFM, Gavin became heavily involved in working on the Notability guidelines, particularly Notability (fiction), as well as some involvement in other policies and guidelines. His work and discussion on these guidelines seems to center on changing them to fit his viewpoint on notability and inclusion." do not belong in this RfC about tagging DnD articles. Neither does "Gavin admits that he has little knowledge of role-playing games (which he blames on the "bad quality" of Wikipedia RPG articles [4]), so the reason for his focusing on them remains unclear; some editors have speculated that he has a strong bias against the genre although he denies this." I mean, come on. You wouldn't write that in a Wikipedia article, what is it doing in this RfC? "some editors think"^[who?]. Or "dodges direct questions about his tagging or statements when he cannot conveniently quote a Wikipedia policy or guideline to defend his position (examples: [1], [2], [3])", where the linked diffs only show areas where Drinoth is in an argument or discussion with Gavin. These kinds of sentences poison the well for readers of the RfC and give Gavin an incentive to respond not with exculpatory evidence but with attacks in kind.

Alright. This is too long already. Here's my basic, not tl;dr summary:

Gavin Collins has not been working within community norms in tagging articles. Specifically, he has continued to work in the face of known and good faith opposition, edit warred (though no more than others though others have as well) over tag placement, and been unwilling to compromise. However, we do not want to push Gavin away from the negotiating table and to a TTN style outcome (where he just tags articles for deletion and moves along)--that is not the best result for everyone. We also do not want to present the position where a project can jealously guard its articles against outside review, even when that review is not accompanied by "constructive edits". I think both sides should come to some détente whereby the project assists (or does not interfere) with legitimate cleanup tag placement and where Gavin agrees to discuss tag placement more generally. Preferably this would also include some work to actually clean up these articles by either side, but this RfC should not be made into a referendum on article quality or inclusion criteria.

Fix some minor typos Protonk (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Yet more typos and clarify the summary of the summary Protonk (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

1. --EEMIV (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. This kind of level-headedness is precisely what we should be looking for in resolving this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with the shortened version, but I will note that many of the people removing tags were actually Grawp socks (see this CU) and thus he was not edit-warring in those circumstances as JA/G is banned. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 11:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Deor (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. I agree with the summary of the summary in particular, though see my comments regarding the rest. BOZ (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think Protonk has done the best job separating the content issue from the behavioral issue. There are a lot of people who will take one side or another based on their view of these D&D articles. But really, we should condemn the instances of bad behavior (on both sides), and try to help them find a constructive way to debate content amongst themselves. Randomran (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'm with BOZ on this one; I agree with the shortened summary but there are some points in the rest of the view which I disagree with. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Ford MF (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. travb (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gavin.collins' activities seem contrary to our policy WP:BURO in that they seem focussed upon the enforcement of supposed rules rather than the editing of content. His pattern of behaviour seems similar to that of other users such as TTN, Jack Merridew and Pilot Bob who went too far and were sanctioned. A relentlessly negative focus of this sort seems unhealthy in that, while the individual complaints may have merit, their cumulative effect is to generate disruptive conflict such as this RFC. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

1. Bilby (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have proposed in the past that this type of editing be regarded as tendentious. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, but Merridew was sanctioned as a User:Davenbelle sock and for harassment of another user, not because he was attempting to bureaucratize Wikipedia, so his inclusion here is an error. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 11:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agreed. Drilnoth (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. Web Warlock (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. I agree based on evidence and past experiences. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Hooper (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. BOZ (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Well said, although as Jeske points out, Jack (and Pilotbob) got themselves into trouble for abusive socking - however, their activities allowed them to be all that much easier villified beforehand.[reply]
9. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Edward321 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Snuppy 20:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Shemeska (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Itub (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Rindis (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. The net effect is important to consider, since, as I said, lots of these articles do need cleanup. But editing patterns such as these can have a chilling effect on other editors interested in the subject (why would I bother editing D&D articles? Do I really want to deal with this guy on a daily basis?) Ford MF (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. travb (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts as to whether Gavin Collins would be satisfied even if these "independent" and "reliable" sources were provided. On one of his rare forays outside trying to get D&D articles deleted, Collins demonstrated no qualms against deleting the an article whose subject has a separate article in a paper encyclopedia. [90] Unless this was a mistake, I don't think it is possible to appease Gavin in any reasonable way.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Web Warlock (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, a concern I have had with some others as well, i.e. even when sources and even published encyclopedias are presented still dismissing them anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Hooper (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC) This has happened any time the subject of an article has been proven notable -- first Gavin will dismissively try to plant some seed of doubt, but when notability is finally and fully established he will never concede the point that the template was incorrect, and will instead claim a victory; his notability template brought out reliable secondary sources. Meanwhile, members of the project have been forced to focus on notable (yet low-priority) articles like Kender, Hillsfar, Dan Willis, Races of Stone, and The Icewind Dale Trilogy to save them from deletion, while high-priority articles such as Dave Arneson, Dungeon Master, TSR, Inc., and Dungeon (magazine) sit around for far too long. There's only so much time, and so many people working on this project to have to deal with someone who refuses to acknowledge that they may have tagged a notable subject incorrectly, then refuses to acknowledge that any added references actually reliable.[reply]
5. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. travb (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that disruptive and antagonistic behavior is helpful because it provides sufficient irritation to spur project members into action is the wrong way about it, even if true. Wikipedia is a volunteer project at its heart, with volunteers working together to improve areas that matter to them. Gavin.collins has found an area that possibly matters to him (RPG articles or D&D articles), but he appears unwilling to contribute to its improvement, and focuses instead on removing the articles or rendering them less useful to the reader through overtagging.

If you see a bunch of people folding trading cards into a vast Cardhalla for charity, you don't run through them knocking down all the towers because you don't like trading card games or because you think the towers should be built better. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

1. Good analogy. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Web Warlock (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. BOZ (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Good logic. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Well said. McJeff (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hooper (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. I definitely agree. While I applaud that Gavin is wanting to help spur improvement, his methods are not conducive to achieving that result with volunteers. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Itub (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Ford MF (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Rindis (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited to comment here. I've been reluctant to say anything, because I have nothing to do with this conflict, and barely know any of the parties involved. With so many tempers flared up, participating will likely earn me a few enemies. A smarter person would shut up and mind their own business. But I'm not that smart.

I've taken a look at the diffs. There are a few moments that are particularly troubling. There are several points where Gavin stops assuming good faith. There's some edit warring (albeit on both sides, but Gavin Collins is experienced enough to know better). Awarding a barnstar sarcastically is pretty rude. I don't think we should condone this behavior, and we need to draw a clear line and say this is inappropriate. A content dispute should not become this disruptive.

But most of this is just plain old stubbornness. An unwillingness to compromise, and the motivation and free time to push that perspective wherever it counts. Gavin may be stubborn. But there are so many others who are just as stubborn, if not worse, and so he doesn't deserve to be singled out for it. I've butted heads with Gavin myself. (That's why I was invited here.) I survived. There's no rule that he has to make concessions. (If there is, then I can't wait to leverage it.) Otherwise, all I can do with Gavin is the same thing I do with all other stubborn people: engage them, ask them to keep an open mind, and otherwise defer to wider consensus.

I'm reassured by the level-headed approach of User:Drilnoth. His initial comment doesn't call for banning Gavin, excluding him from D&D discussions, or even preventing him from tagging for notability and research problems. Drilnoth respects Wikipedia's underlying interest in sourcing and cleaning up content with sourcing problems, and just asks for Gavin to respect his underlying interest in D&D as well. That same attitude is seen in Drilnoth's most recent response. His reaction and requests are pretty damn reasonable.

I'm not sure how we fix this. But I think it starts with acknowledging that the dispute escalated to a bad place, and promising not to take it there again. Beyond that, I think the parties should cooperate on clean-up and sourcing wherever possible, and solicit outside opinion whenever they hit a roadblock. (The wider community should brainstorm a few ways to do that.)

Otherwise, I think Protonk has offered a pretty balanced view.

Randomran (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

1. BOZ (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC) - Thank you.[reply]
2. Absolutely. Thanks for dropping by. Protonk (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I agree with this view. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Bilby (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Excellent. I'd like to just point out, for anyone interested, that although I created the RFC page, BOZ wrote most of it (and rewrote most of what I had done) to create what you see. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. People more level-headed than me are frustrating, but I'm glad they're around, making me a better Wikipedian. Ford MF (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree, very sensible. Graymornings_(talk) 03:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Web Warlock (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we have a problem in that there is an underlying lack of consensus on notability, and there will be conflicting interpretations on Gavin's behaviour (directly related to notability) and methods of "cleaning up" articles. The variance of opinion around two issues will undermine any enactment of policy by force (bans, blocks etc) unless one side or the other engages in extreme behaviour (socking, multi-RR, personal attacks, blatant incivility) which are all covered by existing guidelines so it would be highly beneficial to come up with some collaborative way forward, as continuing to revert or check diffs on each other is time-consuming and moral draining.

How about:

• a moratorium of three months (ending April 1) during which time Gavin and like minded people (Jack, you too) leave off tagging or nomming for deletion any D&D related article. (note:I chose 3 months as an arbitary figure) After this time, Gavin is allowed to nominate and tag articles (WP is moving more towards compulsory reffing anyway).

• During this time, all D&D-related editors try as hard as possible to reliably source articles, and possibly merge small groups of weaker ones into more robust ones (eg some series of modules). If Gavin et al. feel progress is slow after 4-6 weeks, they are allowed to note this fact on the D&D wikiproject page.

Users who endorse this summary

1. BOZ (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Perfectly sensible. Changing my endorsement to below proposal after discussion on talk page - BOZ (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Web Warlock (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC) I agree. I would rather work on articles than chasing tags and needing to pull dead-man's sessions on AfDs.[reply]
3. Gavin Collins (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Agreed, but this is no way an endorsement of this RFC. Note this does not provide a "green light" for the removal of cleanup templates without reasonable justification; during the moratorium, I will create a record of all articles from which cleanup templates have been removed or substituted without good reason with a view to reviewing their appropriateness and their restoration if justified.[reply]
4. Sounds excellent; see talk page. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Striking endorsement and endorsing summary below. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seems reasonable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. If Gavin's on-board, this is the route forward. Trust Doc Liber. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a temptation to just block the dispute, and end the dispute. But that doesn't resolve the dispute. Nor does that correct the troubling behavior. The D&D WikiProject wasn't trying to get a free pass on content. They weren't look to just keep Gavin away for 2 months either. Besides, Gavin won't learn anything just by staying away.

The problem is important, but specific. A few D&D members have been very reasonable in trying to describe the problem, which is overtagging (not all tagging) and a negative, take-it-or-leave-it approach to discussion. After some discussion, we have crafted a more targeted way forward:

1. Work positively: Assume good faith, be civil, and use proper etiquette. No more hostility, accusations, or disparaging remarks. Do not bring other peoples' motives into a discussion about content.
2. Responsible tagging: Gavin is permitted to tag articles with templates, but for the next two months he must add a comment explaining the rationale for every tag on the respective article's talk page or the tag may be removed without further discussion. Preferably, Gavin is encouraged to attempt to fix an article before tagging it. Tags need to be used properly; if a tag is placed in an article or section where it doesn't belong according to the template's documentation, it should be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tag. If a tag is removed by the community, instead of edit warring, Gavin should discuss the tag.
3. Collaborate during discussions: Gavin must actually engage with other editors by discussing the tags, working together to replace them with more specific/appropriate tags, and explaining how the issues can be addressed. Gavin should seek middle ground, such as merging, or providing time to find sources, or using "lighter" tags. (This helps everyone, because nobody can revert a talk page: it keeps a public record of how different people feel about an article.) If the discussion results in no consensus, the parties should try to get a third-opinion, or solicit discussion at another relevant forum (such as the reliable sources, fiction, or original research noticeboards).
4. Accountability: If Gavin ignores or tries to WP:GAME the reasonable requests of this RFC, further action may be taken. This action may include: A notice at the administrtive incidents or edit warring noticeboards, a request for outside input at Wikiquette alerts or a third opinion, formal or informal mediation, or (in ongoing, repeated, or drastic instances), a request for arbitration.

Users who endorse this summary

1. I think the responsibility for this proposal is shared. So I feel comfortable endorsing it, as well as proposing it. Randomran (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Drilnoth (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sort of... (qualified in that this should have been happening already, and the gap in perceived boundary of notability is such that it will continue to be messy if a 3-month 'ceasefire' doesn't allow for some tidying first, but I do hope for the best.) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. BOZ (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Changing my endorsement from above proposal after discussion on talk page, although a two-month timeline may be insufficient to resolve this dispute.[reply]
5. These requests are reasonable, and, other than the demand to discuss all tags, perfectly in line with general wikietiquette. Given the long-standing disagreement as to the nature of appropriate tags, thorough discussion is the only probable way that a point of actual collaboration may be reached. Given the result after the end of the cease-fire for editing Kender was reached, I don't see another cease-fire doing much. (Admittedly, Gavin's habit of ignoring/belittling any argument that doesn't agree with him doesn't give a lot of hope here, either.) --Rindis (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. My only concern is the specification that Gavin only needs to leave comments explaining tagging for the next two months. If the reason for the tag is not blatantly obvious (such as tagging an article containing no references with {{unreferenced}}), then the tag should always be explained. Outside of that, I agree with this. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Since I still don't really know what is going on, this approach is the better of the two offered to get all editors to work together to improve articles, rather than fighting that leaves articles needing work where time could be saved working on the articles. shadzar-talk 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Looks very reasonable. I agree with Nihonjoe, though - Gavin should always try to explain his tags, as should all editors. Graymornings_(talk) 03:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. This looks very much like what I had in mind as an appropriate outcome. Protonk (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. I think this way forward gets to the heart of the dispute. Gavin has set forth the requirement that someone "correct" articles he tags to be before they are removed, and the D&D Wikiproject does not want inaccurate tags littering their articles in a de facto criticism of their subject matter. If we can get accurate feedback as to what Gavin requires on articles, remembering that "this article has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this topic" is not a valid justification of the {{notability}} tag, as Wikipedia articles should never be used to assess notability, per WP:INN. In fact, if we can just never hear that justification again, I think it will be for the best going forward. But I digress, this gives us all a chance to work together to improve, merge, redirect, reference, or delete extraneous D&D articles. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. I think this agreement would be exactly what we are looking for. McJeff (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Possibly acceptable, as a partial solution, but the key point is not moderation in tagging: the key points are the willingness to help look for sourcing, and the willingness to accept a compromise solution. There has to be some progress towards resolving what counts as a suitable source, how much sourcing is necessary, and what to do short of deletion when there is not actually adequate sourcing, not just slowing down the pace of conflict. DGG (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. SupportKairos (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support as a begining measure. I would actually like to see Gavin do some work. He claims he is "interested" in the articles but I have yet in 17+ months seen him edit a single bit of text. Web Warlock (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. This looks like a reasonable proposal, but I also share DGG's note that moderation in tagging is not the only concern. In fact, I would not be all that negative to Gavin if he spent half his effort into actively improving articles, indeed any mainspace article (not limited to RPG articles), which would demonstrate that he's working as a peer contributor rather than as a self-proclaimed boss over other contributors. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Supporting, as I see this as the best possible way forward towards a better D&D area on Wikipedia. Hooper (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC) By commenting specifically about each tag, without using broad general messages, we know that Gavin not only read the article - but that he has a genuine problem that needs to be fixed. Once again, commenting on a tag is not just copy/paste a general message. State what specifically is the problem in each article, using quotes from the article's trouble areas if possible. Hooper (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. A solution that encourages better behavior is more likely to have positive effect than one that merely asks Gavin to stop editing and go away. I would also like to echo the comments and concerns above that I would like to see Gavin actually do some work himself for a change. Ford MF (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Looks good. Kudos to Randomran, Drilnoth, and BOZ (and anyone else I missed) for working this out. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Somewhat support. Two months should be expanded; 6 would be better, and 3 should be the bare minimum. Additionally, he already leaves justifications for his tags, but they're cut/pasted and reflect absolutely no understanding of the articles. Snuppy 18:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Lukewarm support. The two-month period should be expanded, though. Based on past behavior, however, I suspect that Gavin will make little effort to actually get his hands dirty and do some real work on the articles he tags. I also suspect that Gavin's work on RPG articles will be scarce during the above-mentioned period, afterward which he will return to his old ways, and then we'll be back to square one.--Robbstrd (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. As someone else pointed out, this is what should have been happening in the first place, on both sides. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. While I have strong misgivings that this will be no more effective than every step that has led to this RfC, this is well thought out and if actually followed should help considerably. Edward321 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. I agree with this with the exception that I recommend that Gavin be permanently required to add a comment to explain every tag that he adds to an article. One of the bigest complaints against him is that he would frequently tag multiple articles within minutes. If he's required to type an explanation for each tag he could still tag as many articles as he wants, but at least it'll slow him down to a reasonable pace. He should also be required to actually start contributing to articles or lose the ability to add tags. He needs to be reminded that he has to work with us as a fellow contributor, and not constantly jump in like a jack-booted stormtrooper trying to force the community to adapt to his PoV. Seanr451 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24.   Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   02:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC): Conditional support.[reply]
    With regard to point #2––Gavin should be required to submit a pertinent and content-specific justification on every tag he adds to a fantasy-related article. But for every article he tags, he should be required to make a positive and significant contribution to another fantasy-related article, either in terms of content or in terms of appropriate wikification. This would eliminate any claims that Gavin has not acted to improve such Wikipedia articles. As Web Warlock claims, with 17+ months of editing, there has yet to be a single edit that was not merely to add a tag without doing anything to improve the articles. This caveat would require that Gavin actively work to improve fantasy-related articles should he wish to continue working on an area he claims he has interest in. If such is the case, I can't see Gavin taking issue with this requirement.
    With regard to point #4––Given the long-standing nature of the dispute between a single Wikipedian and an entire community of Wikipedians, I feel that such accountability measures are another step in a circular direction, in some cases retracing ground that has already been covered with Gavin. I would recommend more direct and definitive action, should action be required.

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.