Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AFigureOfBlue (talk | contribs) at 13:20, 8 December 2008 (→Response to Colonel Warden). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please remember in all discussion: *Be Civil *Assume Good Faith *No Personal Attacks We want to reach a solution for all involved parties, not further heighten the dispute.

Approved

Since a minimum of two (2) users have shown that they tried to resolve the dispute with User:Gavin.collins and failed, this page is now an Approved RFC/U, rather than a Candidate RFC/U. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions to editors

Please remember not to be encumbered by the process or by the appearance of process. The RFC/U gives some guidance on how diffs may be presented and how "views" and "evidence" should be offered. Some of these are here so that no one party can completely overhaul the framework of the RFC. Some are there so that people can get a consistent picture. But remember that these are means to an end. The end is that we get a fair and complete look at the community consensus about this editor. Insofar as what you edit achieves this end and improves the RFC, don't let the formatting stop you from contributing. An RFC is not a court of law. There are no motions, there are no convictions. Adopting the manner of a court won't add gravity to the process. Also, remember that the talk page of the RfC is as important to determining consensus as the RfC itself. Please talk about summaries, evidence and views at length here. Take disputes here rather than making dueling summaries. Hash out compromises (as that will be a big part of this). Thanks and remember to remain civil! These are just suggestions for future actions, not comments on past or present edits to the RfC Protonk (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Those are certainly important things to remember during this process. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to Thumperward/Chris Cunningham's view

You say that, "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." If Gavin hadn't started his disruptive editing, then, those discussions would have continued because we'd have had more time to focus on actually improving articles than working on things like this RFC. Should D&D deity articles be consolidated? Yes. I've already consolidated some (see Elf deities and Dwarf deities for examples). I think that more would have gotten done by now except for Gavin's actions.

You also mention that "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." In some cases this is certainly true; articles like Races of Stone and Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons) only got sourced after Gavin had added his tags, and it probably would have taken a long time for them to be sourced if he hadn't been around. One thing to remember, though, is that this RFC/U isn't about the tags themselves... it's more about Gavin's behavior towards other editors. In many cases the tags are justified; although I may disagree on specifics, and think that he should try cleaning up the articles himself before just tagging them, many of the articles do deserve to have the {{primarysources}} tag or the {{importance}} tag. I have more trouble with his hostile tone, unwillingness to work with other editors, accusations of COI, etc., than with the tags. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• For the first paragraph, I think if we try to assign causality either way to some change in editing by members of the project we will fail. We don't actually know that editing is slower, faster, better or worse after Gavin's tagging. IF we did know we couldn't reliably claim that Gavin's tagging caused it or that the project caused it (what chris is saying). The same basic statement applies to the second paragraph. I think that we should probably avoid discussion of the "end-state" of the project or the value of tagging in general, that will lead us down a split based on wikistance more than anything else. Just my thoughts. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• I still don't know what I am doing on the project page here, so will comment here on this "In short, I do not believe that Gavin's actions have negatively impacted the quality of Misplaced Pages's Dungeons & Dragons coverage." I disagree with this as the attitude and behavior has caused myself and other editors to no longer be a part of or even participate in the D&D WikiProject. This in fact does negatively impact upon the coverage, sourcing, and factual accuracies within the articles themselves when about half of the few people working on the over 1000 article contained within the D&D WikiProject have left, let alone other areas where the behavior has disrupted entire processes or has grinded them to a halt where coverage on anything was slowed for months and nearly halted prior to Drilnoth breathing life back into the project during the time of the Kender RfM where Gavin was working participating in it rather than going through other fiction based articles with a microscope and fine toothed comb.shadzar-talk 09:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to this I can only point out that I don't see putting a notability tag on an article which doesn't establish notability as being something which disrupts the project. It's not a death sentence. : Nor am I confident that the work which has been done to restructure the project's articles around real-world impact and the addition of sources to assert notability would have been carried out had it not been for the disputed tags.

As for members of the project leaving, this happened on the 40k project too. They apparently went en masse to the external wikis which allow unfettered in-universe content - I consider this to be a positive step, because if editors want to work on in-universe material then they're far better doing it on other sites which allow for such content than fighting against our content rules here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't the tags that was the problem. The problem was the damage that the unyielding adding of tags has done to the community involved. You're probably right, and the articles may not have been improved without tagging. But at the same time, a less combative attitude, that allowed for compromise, would also have encouraged the same results without driving away editors and creating disruption and conflict within the community. (And did, when that approach was taken). Part of the problem was that articles which may well belong in Misplaced Pages, and are very likely to be notable, have been treated in the same boilerplate fashion as those which are far less likely to fit. The result is that editors feel they have to fight the process, rather than tackling the issues. A better approach, which allows for compromise, respects the opinions of others involved, and highlights articles with significant (and possibly unresolvable) problems would have been far more effective and far less disruptive. I have a lot of good things to say about Gavin, and in other environments his unwavering belief in his arguments would be a strength, but when working within a community we need to operate in a way that supports the community, as well as helping to reach the goals. - Bilby (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a level-headed assessment. Hopefully we'll get a positive outcome from this RfC anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Bilby's statement. Two examples of the "articles which may well belong in Misplaced Pages, and are very likely to be notable, have been treated in the same boilerplate fashion as those which are far less likely to fit." statement are the two which I mentioned above: Races of Stone and Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons). Said articles were tagged for notability, but they notability was established. The fact that Gavin doesn't even look for sources before tagging the articles is another part of the issue, since he sees them all as being the same "Cruft," both the notable ones and the non-notable ones. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Bilby's assessment; tagging is not the problem. His tags are appropriate most of the time. But it's the volume, accuracy, and unyielding defense of some of the inaccurate tags that are the main problem. It's also quite frustrating to see Gavin spending a few hours of good, productive work editing and adding references to an article about a astronomical object, a literary term, or a disambiguation page in-between hundreds of tags and edits of discussion pages. He is capable of working on an article, and he does so, provided the content has no relation to role-playing games. He seems to be making the point that RPG articles are not worthy of any constructive edits. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me, ColorOfSuffering. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Bilby. Sometimes I feel like a lone voice crying out for sanity, and it feels good to hear that maybe I am not alone. Bilby is one of the most reasonable people I have encountered on Misplaced Pages, and it was truly a pleasure having his involvement in the RFM and now here.

Yes, of the 1700 or so articles we currently have, maybe half of them will, during the next month and through 2009, be merged, redirected, and perhaps in some cases deleted. At one time, maybe two years ago, I saw absolutely no problem in having an article on every monster, god, character location, and any other fictional element within the game that seemed interesting enough to write about. My time since then has taught me that the majority of them will not be tolerated, so the best thing to do with them is to fold them up, condense them, source them where possible, and reduce them into lists or some other form. I accept this, even if I don't particularly like it.

I think it was in September, when the 0.7 release version was annoucned, that I first got a really good look at what articles were at that time part of the project (or at least, in June or so when the last data dump had been done). I said to myself, "oh god, what have we wrought." ;) The vast majority of articles were clearly intangible fictional elements, rather than real world elements. Even Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, and Dragonlance, for example, were somehow not under the auspices of the project. I went about starting to add the project template to articles on tangible elements such as designers and artists, books and products, video games and other adaptations, etc, and I think I got a lot of help with that. Thus, the article count grew significantly over the course of the last few months. The majority of our articles are probably still mostly fictional elements, but like I say we will be and have been condensing that (I don't know if redirects are currently counted in that article total, but this would seriously overinflate the number).

Our point of contention with Gavin has been that, while we do this, it hasn't been helping to have him point as if to laugh and say, "haha, you've got some problems don't you!" We understand the perceived problem, even if we may grudgingly owe him in large part for forcing us to come to this understanding. Does it help for him to continue pointing out what we already know? Will making sure that every single article has the notability template help us work any faster or better? We now have a public watchlist that shows us every single article under our umbrella, so we can look ourselves and see what needs work. Does he think that if he doesn't keep after us that we'll say ah, never mind, we'll leave it all as it is.

I do have to take exception to Chris's statement that he is not "confident that the work which has been done to restructure the project's articles around real-world impact ... had it not been for the disputed tags." I think Chris has been around long enough on the project to see what we've been doing. It's not the tags. What I finally learned during discussions with him at the RFM, and perhaps despite being resistant at first, I realized finally that Gavin was 100% right that we need out-of-universe material in the articles about fictional elements if they are to be kept at all, and that we need to have citations to reliable sources (whether primary or otherwise) because many articles either don't have citations or don't even list any sources whatsoever. So, in July I think, I started adding publication histories to various monster and god articles regarding those which had been around and in frequent use for a few decades, putting them at the top of the articles to emphasize the importance of this. A few months ago, I put the above mentioned Gygax and WotC articles up successfully for GA nom and did most of the work myself to improve them for the 0.7 release. When Drilnoth came around in late October and revitalized the project, we began working together almost immediately to improve things in general in a number of ways, including currently working on an FAC for Ravenloft (D&D module). All of these things we discussed, at length, on the project talk pages. I find giving Gavin undue credit for these positive steps in the right direction, with which he had absolutely no direct involvement, to be extremely insulting and degrading.

In the end, I can only find myself agreeing with Freederick's view that "it is the editors who have improved these articles", and not Gavin. If his only role is to notify us where problems exist and provide the impetus to set us in motion, then I congratulate him on a job well done and wish to inform him that his services are no longer required unless he has something new to tell us for a change. If he does have something new to say or contribute that we have not already heard many times, then I'm all ears. BOZ (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. When I logged in to Misplaced Pages today I had not expected to see such a well thought-out and well-written statement. I agree with you completely BOZ; I think that Gavin did help get the project going in the right direction. Quite frankly, I think that the project has been improved greatly since Gavin arrived, because he did bring the problems to the project's attention. I agree, in many instances, with Gavin's intentions. Most D&D articles monster and deity articles don't deserve to have their own articles, and those that do need more citations and need to be more out-of-universe. That said, I think that Gavin's methods-the sheer amount of tagging, the refusal to actually work on the articles, the accusations of COI, vandalism, etc., and the solid defense of tags, among other things-are not helping. I, personally, have redirected numerous non-notable D&D articles, and think that I have firmly established notability for some of the more major, but still in-universe, ones (like Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons)). I think that Gavin could be a really productive contributer to Misplaced Pages, but at this point the D&D tagging and discussion is unnecessary (there's a project aware of the problem and working on fixing it), wastes time (like with this RFC), and makes people dissatisfied with Misplaced Pages in general. I can certainly say that my Misplaced Pages experience isn't nearly as good now as it was in my first two or so weeks, and that seems to be a common theme based on some of the endorsements in the RFC. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins responds on his talk page

Thought I'd point out this discussion to all involved editors. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone here think that Gavin's going to make a formal response? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, and I'd leave it that way. If he doesn't want to participate, compromise becomes awful difficult, but there isn't a good reason to compel him to. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just concerned because if he doesn't participate, it will be hard if not impossible to reach a compromise, which would take things one step closer towards an ArbCom which nobody wants.

I wonder if he's annoyed because of this. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably specifically because his edit to the draft was removed to his talk page where he wanted to respond to the draft prior to it formally becoming an RfC, and wanted the right to edit a subpage on someone else's account rather than follow the formal process. But that is just my guess and he has stated he declines to take part in the RfC on his own talk page when reminded he has the right to respond to it now that it is "filed". shadzar-talk 20:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

shrug Nothing we can do about that. Like we explained to him, a response from him in the very early stages of the draft (after which point, we changed like 90% of it) wasn't going to be helpful to either him or us. The fact that he declines to respond here, as I explained on his talk page, is regrettable; but you can only lead a horse to water, not make him drink. BOZ (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on User:Protonk' view

I'm a little concerned on the attempt to separate the issues directly related to tagging (e.g. participation in policy pages); I think it is very necessary to understand Gavin's approach to editing as to make this RFC more than just a stop gap measure.

There was a point I looked through Gavin's history of contributions and found it to be enlightening, giving me a better idea of what Gavin's mindset is (not to the point of psychologically analyzing him, but..) After a few months of a few edits and learning the ropes, he started working through Business and Economic Assessments, going alphabetically with articles in the project, making a few things to be cleaned up, some for deletion, and so forth. This was fine until about August 24, 2007, when he got to Technomancy, which seems to make him turn his attention to the general D&D field as he then started to AFD a lot of the GURPS articles (see edit history here). Within a month, his editing happens moved from mostly the business articles to what appears to be a massive one-man cleanup of RPG-related topics (including game systems with weak, but some, notability, and game creatures/book authors). His early september edits; within two months of this the first RFC on Gavin comes up. Now, obviously, there's nothing wrong, from a standpoint of WP policies, with this type of editing behavior - we're volunteers, we work on whatever we like, but I think it is necessary to see that once Gavin saw or two of RPG-related topics to be non-notable, he seemed to make it a quest (pardon the pun) to clean up all of the other articles himself. He has yet shown any apparent knowledge of the field (which is why this is different from TTN - TTN at least knows the fictional works he is trying to clean up and thus has some knowledge to double check what sources might say for cleanup purposes).

Then there is also the issue of what seems to be "running to the other parent" or "I didn't hear that" to try to get the result he desires. There was the recent RFC for WP:N to try to establish some basic points that mostly influence FICT but do apply to all fields in general. One question, regarding the allowance for non-notable lists showed support from the responders (including those opposed who wanted to make sure this was not abused by setting strict alloances). This goes along with most current AFD practices where non-notable characters and episodes and the like are crafted into lists instead of their own articles. Gavin participated in this RFC. However, as this RFC was closing up, Gavin introduced this proposal to WP:NOT that would basically nullify those lists (the idea was shot down). He also had issues with the previous (mostly my version) of WP:FICT that had a section that promoted the use of such lists to avoid separate articles for non-notable aspects, but he continues to see the same problem in the completely rewritten version of WP:FICT. Again, there's nothing here behavior-wise that is actionable, but it is the fact that he takes these approaches and methods, coupled with everything else, that is part of the larger problem.

Or lets put it this way - besides Gavin's involvement in the policy, his only area that he seems to edit in presently is the RPG/D&D area. It is perfectly reasonable to craft this RFC/U around the complaints this project has, but say the RFC/U ends up blocking him from any RPG-related topic, he may very well go pursue another area of fiction works outside any recommendations that may come out of this. The goal here should be to find a solution that works not only for the D&D project that has been struggling under Gavin's editing approaches, but to also make sure this doesn't repeat itself elsewhere. To do that, it is important to see what his work outside the D&D-related articles has been, as to get the big picture on Gavin's general approaches, so that a recommendation is effective for all of WP and not just one subset. --MASEM 14:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Masem. I'd like to mention, however, that the goal of this RFC isn't necessarily to have Gavin stop editing D&D articles; it is for him to stop his disruptive editing (which is inevitably accompanied by his accusations of vandalism, bad faith, COI, etc.) of all articles, which at this time happens to be centered around D&D. I would be perfectly happy if he continued to edit the articles, as long as he did so in a less disruptive and controversial way. Instead of just tagging an article for notability concerns and then retaliating against attempts to fix or remove it, he could try finding some references himself to establish the article's notability, and then tag it if he fails to find such sources.

I wouldn't even mind, too much, if he continued his current state of tagging, if he'd stop the hostile tone and, when another editor thinks that the concern it unwarrented or has been fixed, that he wouldn't defend each and every tag. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I mentioned the policy pages (in the paragraph about the "description", I believe) because the statement "His work and discussion on these guidelines seems to center on changing them to fit his viewpoint on notability and inclusion." shouldn't go unchallenged. First, it needs supporting evidence. Second, we need to show that it is illegitimate to work to change a guideline to fit your viewpoint (assuming you work withing CIVIL, TE and CON). Third, I think it is tangential. I think your history of the events is largely correct. It does look like Gavin was proceeding alphabetically tagging business articles when he stumbled upon GURPS and later DnD. I also strongly suspect that gavin said "Boy, here is a walled garden or nn cruft that needs cleaning up" and went to work. That would explain the focus, the method and most of the stance toward the articles. I just don't think we need to talk about things outside the tagging (and related issues) in order to come to some resolution. Functionally, the resolution I would like to come to would match my summary, but that won't be possible without cooperation on both sides. I think that turning this into a discussion about Gavin generally hurts that process and doesn't lead us to a resolution. Unless we accept the possibility that Gavin is both in the wrong and completely unrepentant, that isn't an acceptable outcome. And even if Gavin is unrepentant and wrong, the likely outcome of an RfC about his behavior couched so generally is just a statement "There are a number of editors who think Gavin is disruptive" and nothing else. We will be back with a RFAR in a month. I don't want that. I want some way forward. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I initially wanted to endorse Protonk's view, but I have to make a few comments first. I agree with 98% or so of what he said. Some of the comments he pointed out were items that I felt had little value in the RfC, but I left in there anyway out of respect for my co-complainants. We have all had a hard time dealing with him over all this time, and his negativity has colored our perceptions. I mostly rewrote the RFC from its initial draft, which took a far harsher tone against Gavin. I knew that a neutral statement was the best way to approach the community was the best method, especially after the way the totally ineffective first RFC was handled. I admit that I left a few bits in there which I didn't think would help, and in retrospect I should have lobbied harder to remove them, and these are the items that Protonk points out. The line 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 was entirely my addition though, perhaps for the fact that for the life of me I still can't wrap my head around what draws him to RPG articles like flies to a bug zapper. But the rest of the items he points out, yeah, while interesting to ponder, I didn't think they were particularly necessary for a community commentary, and if I could do-over, I would have cut them or modified them. As it is, I removed a bunch of similar stuff which was even less helpful. If you can understand that, Protonk, I will endorse your summary. BOZ (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to comment on the focus problem. We aren't going to solve it. No one knows why Gavin does what he does except Gavin. Unless he wants to share his motivation (I think MASEM has a good view on it, tho), we don't gain much by speculating. As for the other comments, they don't need to be removed from the RfC (if they are, changes should be made obvious). I just wanted to point out where I felt the "Description" matched behaviors I have seen and where it didn't. Protonk (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding Protonk, Masem seems to have a good handle on things from dealing with Gavin in a totally different (yet eerily similar) way. Also, regarding Jeske's comments to Protonk's summary, when I looked for Gavin's reversions of templates, I specifically tried to avoid any instances where Grawp socks and IPs were involved (there were a lot) and went for instances where he reverted legitimate project members presmably acting in good faith. I have further comments to make on other things elsewhere, but unfortunately no time to make them at the moment. BOZ (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as Jeske's comments go I stand by my summary that he was edit warring (defined loosely) over tags. I may have to revisit my claim (made in the summary but not the "mini-summary", that his AIV reports were improper. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For the record, I wrote the original draft of the RFC which, as BOZ mentioned, had a much harsher tone. When I was writing it, it had not been my intention for it to turn out sounding harsh, and BOZ was kind enough to do a full rewrite from what I had and made it sound much more neutral and balanced in the process.

Additionally, the sections of the "Evidence of Disputed Behavior" which Prontok points out as being trivial were mostly part of my original draft, there to act more as examples of what caused the current dispute rather than being a part of the dispute, which is more about Gavin's tone and accusations. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not that you guys aren't supposed to be harsh. If Gavin really did unpleasant or objectionable things, you shouldn't be bound by some sense of equanimity from saying so. What I think is problematic is the use of vague or unsourced opinions about that behavior. We have diffs showing gavin being abrupt and rude regarding tagging questions. We have diffs showing accusations of vandalism toward people who removed the tags. It is redundant to introduce general suppositions about his behavior given that evidence works just as well. that's mostly what I was trying to say. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As I noted, there is absolutely nothing actionable from his policy side discussions. He is civil, if not repetitive. That itself is not wrong and should not be a focus here, but what I do think is necessary to consider that Gavin is not only focused on D&D articles, with his policy edits in line with his views on what the D&D projects should be -- and to the aspect that this is not the best way to gain compromise and consensus. --MASEM 22:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the comments about his views and opinions and what we might think his motivations are should have been left out of the equation entirely, because this divides the focus from where we want it to be. This was the problem of the prior RFC, which chose to focus more on his deletions and therefore went nowhere. Now, regarding Gavin (and Jack Merridew) reverting the edits of Grawp socks as Protonk brought up, I don't see anything wrong with that because Grawp is banned and was just trying to remove the templates to aggrivate them (and probably because he disagreed with them, but being banned disallows him from doing anything about that). Reverting on IPs is a little less clear, because while some of them were found out to be Grawp socks later, some may not have been. I hardly went through every single article he has ever edited, so I can't tell you how many instances of edit warring over templates there may have been. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

~undent~ Masem, might I ask where the civility in this hostile dialouge is in regards to Gavin?

It seems a bit of an empty request to ask for feedback and then ignore it. I see this latest proposal as another attempt to steam roll a proposal through without consultation.

I forgot, only positive feedback allowed. Clearly I made a mistake.

OK, negative feedback is allowed, but it will be ignored.

Three strikes and I am out. I have committed the third deadly sin: offering feedback that is "clearly outside the domain of consensus viewpoints on the project". Gosh if I had known that, I guess I should not have made any comment at all.

Like Oedipus Rex, I ought to pluck my eyes out for making these misakes.

Personally, once I hear terms like "consensus", "wider consensus", "community consensus ", and "community's will" and now "consensus at various AFD discussions" being used to dismiss objections, alarm bells start ringing, because I think this is a personal presumption, not a universally held truth which some editors imagine, but only exists in their heads and for which there is no obvious or tangible evidence for

Attacks, hostile tone and combativeness in each and every post made. Just because the use of colorful metaphors and obscene slang was not entirely present does not make the temperament of the messages civil. shadzar-talk 00:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Compared to other users, Gavin's a saint in behavior. I see sarcasm, but nothing that's an attack or the like. Yes, he does have a slightly hostile tone, but it is absolutely nothing that can be actionable, only worth noting as part of the overall issue. --MASEM 01:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Masem that the comments that Shadzar mentioned appear to be sarcastic. However, Gavin's tone in some D&D article discussions, and discussions with or about users involved in the project, may have gone past that point: , , (those are all examples from the RFC; I can find more if wanted). -Drilnoth (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Those are the discussions we are focusing on. My worry is that if we talk too much about Gavin working in project space we run the risk of someone like me seeing Gavin's point of view there as legitimate and grounded in common sense and someone more inclusionist seeing it as idiosyncratic and unyielding. For me, his contributions in the WP:N RfC and the FICT debate don't represent an attempt to impose his view on the guideline, as I share parts of it. but it is easier for someone like DGG (to pick a name, I don't actually mean that he would do this) to say "boy, that is an out there stance and he isn't budging, how disruptive that is". Neither view would require that DGG or I to be actively biased for or against gavin. It would just play on our internal idea of how the wiki should be laid out. What I tried to do in my summary was split that from his behavior. I don't know if I succeeded yet. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you've done well; knowing what little I know of your feelings on subjects like notability, I was a bit worried when I saw your name at first that you'd jump in and say something to the effect of "Gavin's a great fella and you guys are just haters," but I think you've done just fine separating his behavior from his opinions. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dan Willis

The Dan Willis article may be a good place to look for anyone who wants to examine the situation in-depth. There was a small amount of disagreement there, in the edit history and talk page, before the RFM began in April and very little activity after that. It was the first D&D article Gavin edited since the RFM ended, and there has been a near-constant stream of activity on the talk page and edit history since then. BOZ (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to Gavin.collins

I will respond to your various comments in order.

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.

Were the cleanup tags justified? Yes. I agree with you on that point in many cases.

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.

I would like to point out that the Dan Willis discussion involved more than just the two of us. Nihonjoe and others were participating in it before even I was. Additionally, although I may continue to argue that Mr. Willis is notable on the article's talk page, I am not removing the {{notability}} tag from the article. However, we shouldn't get into that conversation any further here since it is primarily a content dispute.

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 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 without effecting any improvements to the articles is self-defeating for the Wikiproject in the long run, as it delays the cleanup process.

I think that most members of the D&D WikiProject want to work with you in a positive manner, although doing so has been difficult for reasons outlined in the RFC.

I'm not proud of my arguments over {{notability}} vs. {{importance}}, and looking back on it that wasn't the right thing to do. My apologies.

Finally, as to why we don't like the cleanup templates:

1. The time could be better spent elsewhere. As mentioned in the response to Chris Cunningham's view, the project is well aware of the issue and is working on cleaning up or redirecting the articles. I think that everyone's time on Misplaced Pages would, at this point, be better used actually improving the articles rather than just tagging them.
2. Some of them are misplaced. Tagging articles such as Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons) and, for example, Cloaker as if they were they were of the same importance doesn't make sense. The former article's notability has now clearly been established, so the {{notability}} tag certainly wasn't appropriate on it, although I think that it makes sense on the latter article.

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".

Regarding the "editorial walled garden." I have heard you say that three times; I have never heard or seen anyone else use or imply it. I don't think that anyone in the D&D project thinks that the project's articles are "exempt" from Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.

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

The description is not intended to be an attack. It is designed to tell other users what the perceived problem is, so that they may more easily comment on it. You are fully allowed to create a similar rebuttal to serve the same purpose, and I would fully encourage you to so that each side's views are more equally represented.

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.

You have never been "abusive," and I don't think anyone's ever said that you have. However, in some of the examples given your comments appear to sound hostile, whether or not that was the intention.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Many of the links in that section lead to things like the RFC, AN/I, and "please stop" discussions on your talk page, and are not about article content.

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.

Just a clarification: The articles are not coming up for deletion "on a regular basis". At this point in time there's only one every few weeks; not too out of the ordinary for a project of this size.

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.

I agree with you here. That being said, I think that your personal standards for what sourcing is needed is a bit high (see Hillsfar and Races of Stone and discussions on your talk page about them). Misplaced Pages is not a print encyclopedia; things should be well-sourced, but not every article needs FA- or even GA-sourcing to establish notability.

-Drilnoth (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said. The "everyone else is wrong and out to get me" response is disappointing, but not unexpected. If the kender RFM really had settled things, then why are we here again? The RFM was never intended to prove that one side was right and the other wrong, although he seems to think it justified everything he does here. I don't recall anyone expecting him to admit that he is "the cause of the D&D Wikiproject's problems", although most of our members (not the project itself) have had an ongoing difficulty with his actions. BOZ (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read it too closely yet, but this appears to be a helpful and well thought out response. I'm going to try and propose some way forward that doesn't talk about content sometime soon. Protonk (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! BOZ (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to Colonel Warden

Each case has its own particular features. What seems interesting about Jack Merridew is that a plausible explanation has been suggested for his behaviour: that he was affronted by the deletion of an article about a person close to him and so responded by rampaging against other articles. I have no idea why User:Gavin.collins goes after D&D in particular and it might be helpful to establish this. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him on at least two different occasions why he specifically went after D&D articles despite an admitted lack of knowledge on the topic/genre. In all cases he refused to directly answer the question, or respond to a followup asking why he was avoiding answering the question.Shemeska (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried that, too (). -Drilnoth (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)