Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 3

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this 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: 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• Gavin.collins (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Description

User:Gavin.collins has become extremely difficult to work with as a participant in Wikipedia policy and guideline discussions due to a very entrenched view on several concepts particularly a strong commitment to notability, to the point where he appears to act as a single-purpose account to achieve this goal. It is understood that editors are expected to hold their own opinions of what they believe WP should be, and we cannot fault Gavin for that. But to be fair participant in such discussions on Wikipedia, one must acknowledge the nature of consensus, and recognize when consensus has rejected proposed ideas and concepts. Gavin does not appear to recognize this aspect, and instead uses several tactics - unintentionally or not - to try to insist his vision of WP is satisfied. This takes the time and energy of editors away from the work to deal with Gavin's protracted discussions.

Desired outcome

The desired outcome of this RFC/U is to avoid further dispute resolution with Gavin (likely at WP:ARBCOM, given this is the 3rd shot at an RFU); it seeks to have Gavin learn to accept and show an understanding of consensus, good faith cooperation and civility.

Specific goals of the discussion here should be to:

• Help Gavin understand the purpose of discussion and consensus which is to work towards a balanced compromised if such is possible, not one that is heavily weighted towards his viewpoint.
• Make Gavin become more aware of how his discussion style and behavior is passive-aggressive, making it difficult to have calm discussions with him on talk pages.
• Help Gavin understand that when his opinion has been snowed over and let a topic rest, to avoid tenacious and prolonged discussions that take time away from others for editing, accept that consensus may not be ready to accept his suggested changes to policy and guidelines, even if he honestly believes they will benefit and improve Wikipedia.

It is presently not desired to see Gavin blocked or banned from Wikipedia. He does bring a practical viewpoint to discussion, and when it is within consensus or towards compromise, is certainly a valuable voice to add to the discussion. Nor, despite the appearance of being an single-purpose account as describedbelow, are his mainspace edits a problem; they generally are removing vandalism or improving the articles he has of interest (in the economics field). However, if he continues to derail more production discussions on Wikipedia-space venues by continuing to assert his own viewpoint as the only solution, it would be prudent to have some type of actions that could be taken (such as a direct admin review of Gavin's actions), short of arriving at Arbcom-related sanctions.

It should be noted that Gavin has clearly stated disagreements with the RFC/U process and considers this a personal attack on him, and thus may be difficult to obtain any participation from him. It is hoped that he will participate to prevent further escalation of these issues to ArbCom, but if such should happen, this case will be used as part of the evidence of the dispute for that case. Edited post-creation to note that, as expected, Gavin has said he will not be participating in this. [1]

Applicable policies and guidelines

Note that these are policies, guidelines, and essays that reflect on Gavin's talk page style, and not on his view of what Wikipedia should be.

• WP:CONSENSUS
• WP:AGF
• WP:TE
• WP:DISRUPT
• WP:SPA
• WP:DEADHORSE

Evidence

General issues

This RFC/U is not on one particular issue but instead reflects on several issues that have been slowly building over time, recently cascading into several problems due to Gavin's participation at several venues. Some of the general points that have been observed about Gavin's behavior include:

Refusal to accept other opinions and good faith assumptions

Gavin has shown a strong adherence to build an encyclopedia that is strongly backed by sources and objective evidence. This is certainly a fair opinion, nor a bad one, and the point of this RFC is not to say this opinion is wrong nor holding this opinion is wrong. However, in holding of this opinion, it is nearly impossible to come to any point of consensus that is less than moderate of his view. He seeks to have policies/guidelines to be highly objective, based on solid evidence, when simply this cannot work in an open wiki environment. Most of the specific issues below are based on this point.

In another example, Gavin is arguing against the existance of bare-bones articles on small settlments due to lack of notability (which should be noted were created by bots long ago based on the size of the tiake). [2] While I actually agree to some aspect of this point, Gavin takes it called out the bot operators against good faith with statements like I think bots are a law unto themselves. Their operators do this sort of crappy stuff, regardless of notability. Statements like this poison a difficult discussion, and make it difficult to move on from that. Comments like this also beg how Gavin views the abilities of other editors to craft the work.

Beating a dead horse / Change by attrition

Gavin's method for discussion, if he is not gaining consensus, unfolds in usually one of two ways; he continues to try to restart his points (in a manner of tendentious editing) trying to keep convincing others that his point is right (but see the further points below as to why this style doesn't work); or will see no further rebuttals to his arguments and, after a week or so, consider this to assume his point is right and make the change to policy or the like, which is quickly reverted and discussion restarts. In other words, it is almost impossible to let a topic drop if the result is against Gavin's opinion.

For example, on WP:FICT, Gavin is attempting to remove language he does not agree with despite my attempts to bring it towards consensus. As this is presently a work in progress (indicated as such on page) it is not imperative that the language be removed immediately and can stay for consensus to be reached (you can't comment on text you can't see). So there's huge discussion that you can see at [3] in the section "Required sources are likely to exist". Discussion goes through April 14, 2010, with Gavin making a final statement with no clear consensus. Then he removes these again after 8 days of no discussion ([4]) after which I have to reinitiate discussion to figure out why he's removing them. This type of behavior effectively means that if Gavin's seeking to change language, and discussion dies down, one has to keep an eye on the page to see if he tries to interpret it as consensus and make undesired changes, which is an inefficient use of time for anyone involved.

Another example occurs here: he opens a discussion (good) on suggestions to WP:Article Titles, though his changes are not all agreed on. He opens an RFC on June 21 (again, good), and lengthly discussin happens over 3-4 days. Yet a week later, on June 28, after discussion hasn't gone anywhere in 3 days, Gavin adds in his changes. This type of pattern of behavior is common for Gavin, and forces people to discuss the issue to great lengths to prevent Gavin from interpreting consensus in his own way.

A further example is through a current/recent RFC on the inclusion of lists. Because of Gavin's manner of fixating on driving the consensus towards his view despite him clearly being in the minority, the conversion has gone on indefinitely, and even though some try to narrow the focus back to specific points that presume the majority consensus already concluded (such as [5] or [6]), Gavin keeps pounding the pavement and forces discussion to continue ([7], [8]).

Personalising issues

While there is no set format to how we use talk pages, Gavin tends to always respond to a person earlier in the thread in the third-person as if that person wasn't in the room at the time. (Eg, conversionations will progress with me saying "I believe that X...", and Gavin will respond "I find that Masem is wrong in believing X..." It is a very off-putting tone that not only feels insulting to the person he is replying, but gives him an air of one-up-manship. If this were his only fault, it would be overlooked, but given the feeling of being empowered through discussion, Gavin's talk page approach only fuels the fires. Comments like this, this, or this which first appearing to be a reasonable step to discussion, are worded in such a way that serve little good in a heated discussion. Repeatedly asking questions like [9] which fall into the "when did you stop beating your wife?" pedantic questioning, are also further not helpful to beneficial discussion.

He furthermore tends to "bend the rules" to suit his personal goals. If Wikipedia policy/guidelines, or even essays suit his goal, he seems to continue to pound that point into his discussions, but as soon as someone suggests, per p/g, an approach that is counter to Gavin, he will refute this. For example, as noted below, Gavin became aware of this RFC/U during its drafting, and has called out the RFC/U process as an "ad hominem attack".[10]. I believe this point very important, because it means we are unlikely to gain any involvement from Gavin on this RFC/U itself, despite him being a repeat visitor here; if Gavin fails to participate, the only step after this is ArbCom. In another situation, during an RFC when I asked if there were any others that supported a viewpoint only Gavin appeared to support, he considered this a personal attack and filed a Wikiquette alert on me Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive91#Masem; others pointed out there was no personal attack to speak of from my comments.

Not understanding consensus

Again, I stress that it is not improper for Gavin to have a viewpoint which he feels is correct and built on what would probably be part of Wikipedia under different circumstances. However, Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines - and improvements and changes to them - are necessitated by what consensus agrees, even if it makes Wikipedia "weaker" in ones view. One case in point in Gavin's stance that notability is an useful objective measure that we should build our encyclopedia, and that anything less than meeting the general notability guideline is failing to show notability, and thus his tendency to dismiss the other sub-notability guidelines (WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO for example) and the difficulties in working forward on WP:FICT; guidelines for material that long-term consensus wants in Wikipedia even if the GNG cannot be met.

Trenchant views

In a case related to the recent discussion on WT:FICT, Gavin continues to assert that fictional elements cannot be shown notable without meeting the WP:GNG; while others attempted to create a series of similar criteria akin to WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC for special cases, we could not get Gavin to see it any other way. To move forward, I wrote a version that met Gavin's view - that is, requiring fictional elements to be GNG-notable, but left the criteria as examples of what types of notability for editors to look for, particularly to help identify real-world notability over in-universe. Gavin still disagrees with this section, and has engaged in a slow edit war along with lines of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to exclude this section, even though I've explained many times I've come to his consensus, he needs to engage the rest of the way. He has removed the section several times ([11], [12], [13]), engaging in slow edit warring, and cites a lack of examples of where it would work despite that several examples have been listed as part of the discussion for the last 2 months (here). This is a common example where Gavin expects the consensus to come to him, not for him to engage in a middle ground, and when he can't push consensus in one place, seek to change it elsewhere that would waterfall down to the original venue.

Forum shopping

The Climate Change example below illustrates a case where Gavin is seeking a sea change but employs many different forums to try to achieve agreement with his point of view lead to at least two other boards where he posts. Another example can be followed from a serious of discussions that started with Crticism of Judaism to Article Titles (and [14]) to History of Wolves in Yellowstone to The OR Noticeboard; he further tags this article title issue onto a completely unrelated ArbCom case which was in its final stages of arbitration. Even something like this case - where a comment about WP:LINKFARM on an RFC related to lists [15] leads him to question and seek a different answer from WP:NOT [16] - begs to question whether Gavin truly is working towards consensus or not, or simply trying to get his way by asking the right people. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior as a Single Purpose Account

Gavin's behavior of late has shifted from being a contributor towards mainspace (primarily in the area of economic and business articles) to being only a contributor towards Wikipedia to debate policy and comment on deletion discussions, with only minor editing in mainspace. Granted, we cannot enforce where editors contribute on a volunteer project, but in considering all the issues above, the fact Gavin only works on specific pet issues in Wikipedia space strongly points to his becoming singularly focused on gaining consensus on his opinions in policy and guideline over actually improving the work; as such, his actions speak more of a single purpose account instead of one that is genuinely interested in improving the project within what consensus allows. Because he does spend his time on WP mostly in the Wikipedia namespace, in addition to his trenchant views, only serves to cause other editors to have to devote time and effort they could be using on main space article improvement to back Gavin down from making policy changes behind their backs. The amount of effort that Gavin puts to WP space pages (easily between 3 or 4 hr daily average as a rough judge of his edit history) would be effort better spent in mainspace improving articles he is an expert on instead of endlessly trying to shift policy against the grain.

Seeing this shift in Gavin's editing pattern, in part, explains his tenacity towards this viewpoint. One can see, for example, while he is systematically going through business and economic articles to assess them, comes across Technomancy which somehow got listed as a business article ([17]) This leads him to start tracking through paper RPG articles (a space he never edited in before) targeting several for deletion, eventually coming to the point of heavily disputing the Kender article (Talk:Kender/Archive 1, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender); this subsequently gets him involved in WP:FICT and from there he started to mostly move into notability and sourcing issues. Now , there's nothing wrong with moving from mostly mainspace to mostly Wikipedia space edits; that's common particularly for admins and long-term editors. But these moves are specifically aimed at trying to get his point ingrained into policy, despite all the resistance these are met with.

Specific incidents

This list by far is not inclusive but represents more visible aspects of Gavin's editing.

Worldcat Book links

In September and October 2009, Gavin sought to question the use of links to external sites that tracked book information from the {{Infobox Book}} template, believing it to be an issue with WP:LINKSPAM, in part of actions of User:CobraBot. ([18], [19]). As with many of these examples, Gavin persisted to try to get editors to take his view, and while there is some good "food for thought" in his concerns, the points were pretty much rejected, yet he persisted in trying to establish what he believed was correct.

The filibustering at WP:FICT

Gavin's involvement in WP:FICT started roughly the same time as the Kender meditation case started (around January 2008, [20]). Early on as this, he was basically seeking to force articles on Fiction to meet the WP:GNG - which, should be clear by now, is an ideal for him due to its objective measure of showing notability. FICT of course has come a long long long way since that point, having at least one major RFC that failed because of naysayers believing it didn't go far enough and that it went too far, but as should be noted from the Episodes and Characters 2 ArbCom case, we've been instructed to find a way to deal with fiction. Now, Gavin is not a listed party on that case, but it should be clear that consensus should be met by anyone involved with the discussion.

However, trying to work with Gavin towards some consensus is nearly impossible, given that he would simply rather see the WP:GNG be policy for everything on WP; if an article isn't notable by secondary sources, it should be deleted. Since there is a large number of editors that would like to see better coverage of fiction on WP, and that fiction is a difficult area to be coverage by secondary sources, there is a discontinuity between his view and what (I believe) is the consensus view. Because of this, we get long and lengthy discussions that are centered around how to satisfy Gavin, as opposed to improving the guideline. Gavin is noted for having over 2000 edits to the guideline despite his little involvement with any mainspace fiction articles, which is a strong indicator of being a SPA.

The RFC on Climate Change

Most of the information on this can be found here [21], but the crux of this issue was that Gavin sought to seek removal or renaming of the article "Scientific opinion on climate change", first stating that the article was a content fork (another of his "pet" areas where he seeks significant change towards his view, see [22]) to stating that the title of article article was not sourced in a reliable source and thus unacceptable. This lead, after the probation action listed above, to further discussions by him towards WP:OR/N [23] and to WP:TITLE under NPOV and Article Titles. I will note on the last part, Gavin did contribute, in part, positively to the discussion specifically on how better to use sources to chose the best title for certain articles, so calling his opinion "extreme" is inappropriate. But again, there was a limit to how far the consensus agreed with him; these discussions show how difficult it is to convince Gavin that consensus has clearly gone against his opinion and to drop the matter.

Lists and NOR

Of late, Gavin has targeted list-style articles that fall against his opinion, that being that the list definition must be externally validated by a source for a list to be valid. While Gavin's brought the topic up before, [24] this discussion at WT:N shows where most of Gavin's thoughts on how these should be handled are given. This is very closely related to the Climate Change issue above in that it is about what type of original research editors can use "behind the scenes" to set up articles. Again, he has a view which is certainly an understandable one, but one that currently appears fails to be of consensus by all the responders there. Note that he tends to try to get the last word and seems to give in to consensus.

This continues through his most recent activities, which has been responding to AFDs on such lists he believes are not sourced. Recent examples include:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Disney references in Enchanted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports calendar November 2006
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports calendar March 2007
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of novels, the action of which takes place within 24 hours
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus transit systems in the United States
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox parishes in Washington D.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy of Kain timeline
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of acronyms used in arts and crafts

Note that some of these, by consensus, appear to be heading (or possibly have been) deleted. But what is more troubling is the fact that each "delete" vote he puts on these is basically the same boilerplate language about lists and original research. This was observed by AFD closer User:Mike Cline who commented at Gavin's talk page to try to avoid the boiler-text and why just saying it was a problem, advice that Gavin appears to have largely ignored. [25]. Judging by Gavin's response there and his current AFD participation, he has not changed his behavior or opinion.

Similarly, there is a current discussion attempting to establish when lists can be included (Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists), and Gavin continues to push this point even when it is pointed out his is the minority position ([26], [27]).

His opinion on online (Internet) sources

One aspect of Gavin's arguments in many of the cases above is to try to invalidate the use of online sources; among arguments for these are that they can be changed at whim by the site, and often lack a name of a person that wrote it thus bringing into question the reliability of the source.([28] for one example, another is within the Climate Change case above regarding Science Daily) Granted, these are some issues that can happen with online sites, but typically the closer they become to self-published works. However, some sites that have been long-considered reliable by other editors, Gavin will try to reject as unreliable. His opinion on online sources as to when they are valid is much stronger than what consensus considers.

Article Titles, Forum Shopping, and Gaming the System

The Article titles debate which was mentioned before is based on Gavin's idea that article titles must be source-able, with so-called "descriptive titles" (such as "Criticism of Judaism") requiring a source. Recently ([29]), the discussion on this point began coming around full circle with most editors rejecting what Gavin's idea was on the debate, while Gavin kept on bringing up the same points over and over again to prolong it. This is a clear example of the type of dead-horse-beating and tenacious editing that Gavin engages in and does not seem to be aware when he has clearly failed to convince consensus. Because of this, User:Erachima opted to close the discussion, [30]. Gavin opts to open a WQA for Erachima [31]; Erachima believing his actions to be correct, opens an WP:ANI review of his actions [32] which as this is written clearly support Erachima was in the right. Gavin complains about this despite the WQA being closed [33]; User:Philip Baird Shearer closes that thread again per the ANI [34], but Gavin later reverts, [35]; PBS reverts again [36] and warns Gavin about re-opening the thread, to which Gavin considers it just "petty edit warring" [37] and opens an ANI complain on PBS over the issue. [38]. This ANI appears to suggest PBS' actions were appropriate, and User:Viriditas attempts to discuss the issue with Gavin on his talk page and suggest an alternate means of trying to establish consensus [39], [40]; to which Gavin appears to soundly reject, even the idea of drafting something in his user space to present as a most coherent and comprehensive proposal later. [41], [42]. Gavin attempts to include this idea of sourced titles in yet another unrelated discussion, this time about titling consistency, yet again. [43] [44] [45]

Furthermore, as a result of myself responding to Erachima who approached me about an RFC/U for Gavin on this same day as the discussion closure, I had let Erachima know of this RFC/U draft that I have been working for some time, and Gavin takes that as a personal front, challenging his uninvolvement at this time as a WQA [46] and then challenging the RFC/U process despite its allowance for this. [47] [48]

These seem like strong examples of forum shopping and gaming the system simply because WP is not giving into Gavin's view on the matter of the topic at hand.

Past attempts at resolution

This is Gavin's 3rd report at WP:RFC/U, the two former cases are:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins, filed approximately Oct 2007, mostly by members of the RPG community for Gavin's actions in tagging articles. This is mostly in response to his mass cleanup tagging and subsequent AFD filings for articles within the RPG community. No strong statement of expected results came out first.
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2, filed approximately Dec 2008, mostly by members of the RPG community following the Kender mediation. As a result, the resulting "solution" was listed out as:
  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.

He was also put under some limited restrictions in relationship to an article on Climate change, [49], after engaging in similar practices. Similarly, both User:Viriditas and User:Mike Cline have attempted to engage Gavin on his talk page to adopt different approaches to his arguments, which Gavin appears to have rejected. [50] [51] [52]

Because Gavin has begun expanding the focus of what articles and areas of policy/guidelines he disagrees with in terms of their existence, it is important to consider how the results of the last RFC/U have been applied. Arguably, shortly after its passage, Gavin seemed to operate in line, but since has reverted to the same points that brought up this previous RFC/U. While the next likely step after that RFC/U would have been to mediation, this is a much wider scope (thus making mediation difficult), well beyond the scope of WP:WQA as beyond his conviction behind his veiews, Gavin is certainly not breaking WP:CIVIL in any eggregious manner, and seems that another RFC/U, possibly with more binding resolutions, as a final step prior to ArbCom is the best solution.

Statement of involvement

I cannot present this RFC/U without being blatantly clear that I have had considerable headbutting with Gavin over several issues that relate to Notability (particularly in Fiction), Lists, and other related aspects in relation to his commitment to a more objectively-determined encyclopedia. I know I am not always right in my view of these related topics nor the only person involved, but I believe that the time I've spent with notability and other factors that I have a good idea of where the middle point of consensus sits that we can target towards without causing a breakout between inclusionists and deletionists. The problem is that Gavin's point of view is nearly always far from that, and while a possible goal to work towards, cannot be taken as fast to that point as he would like it without upsetting a lot of other editors; hence I try to rationalize out to him where things need to stay to keep the current (if unwritten) status quo. Thus, the rational for this RFC/U at this time is due to frustration with trying to work with Gavin, along with others, towards improvements in policy and guidelines, the same behavior Gavin has been noted to do before. It is not the type of case where we have follow each other around; simply that there is a lot of overlap of areas of concern once Gavin moved into notability issues, nor do I think this is necessary a case about myself against Gavin, as by the examples above, there are a lot of other editors that have butted heads with Gavin in the past and present. I also believe that I have not misused normal editing decorum or admin tools in my engagement with Gavin, though as commonly stated in editing disputes, "it takes two to tango", and willfully concede that some may find certain actions taken by myself as fault for Gavin's behavior.

However, this is not just an issue between myself and Gavin. It is clear from several other discussions that many other users are as frustrated with dealing with Gavin as myself, I just probably have a lion's share of it. I further note that I built this off a page [53] that User:Hiding had started before that user retired (which appears to have been unrelated to Gavin and more a result of a questionable Arbcom judgement in this case ([54]); this was after a further confrontation between Gavin and Hiding ([55]), and a suggestion that an WQA was the wrong venue instead of a full RFC/U. Hiding then invited me to look at that page after he created the backbone (this in Dec 2009). Most of these points are the same, but expanding to reflect more recent developments.

Caution for discussion

This discussion should not be about resolving inclusion and content issues that are the core of the disputes that Gavin is involved in elsewhere. This RFC/U is strictly on Gavin's behavior, and if appropriate, his views that may be incompatible with WP's core policies.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 16:45, September 14, 2010

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. Concur with Masem's assessment Examples: [56], [57], [58]--Mike Cline (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Concur The examples have already been given, I agree that Masem has described the tactics accurately, and I consider them disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with this assessment. I have tried to get Gavin collins to alter his approach, but he doesn't listen. Fences&Windows 00:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. I have read what Masem wrote, and find it to be a very accurate and well-thought out description of the situation, based on my experience with Gavin. I have had very little contact with him in the past two years, and it is sad to see that very little has changed in that time. BOZ (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. I have run up against Gavin's intransigence as described in both the Lists debate, and the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change debate. What Masem has written largely reflects my own feelings. I would add that while Gavin relies heavily on Policy or Guidelines, it is often the case that either the cited text does not actually state what he suggests, or is open to an interpretation different to his which he refuses to acknowledge. [[59]] [[60]] ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Concur with Masem's assessment, and with Peregrine's apt description below. My experience with Gavin is primarily in the list criteria RFC mentioned by Masem, and in that RFC I expressly complained about much of the same conduct from Gavin, with no acknowledgment from him that these were problems or any change in his methods. While it is long past clear in that RFC that there is a consensus on many issues and we are now at a point where we are trying to summarize that consensus, Gavin has continued to insist on his opinions and interpretations as abstract fact and to dismiss others through what I believe to be sophistry (such as claiming others are violating set theory[61],[62]). His comments fail to accurately describe those of others so it's not clear that he understood them or bothered to read them carefully, but he nevertheless continues to tendentiously repeat the same opinions. The thread in this section illustrates these problems particularly well, so I think it's worth a read-through, particularly in light of this edit repeating the same opinion weeks later to no constructive end.

   There are others in that RFC with minority opinions but who have acknowledged it and can still discuss constructively.[63] Gavin is the only one who is being disruptive about it and whose continued participation is not constructive.[64],[65],[66] He reverted that third edit, indicating that perhaps he finally realized he has crossed a line.[67] postdlf (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Gavin's behaviour has led to me no longer contributing to Wikipedia, since the fact that such behaviour is allowable and can continue, for me, negates the usefulness of Wikipedia as a project, a source of outlet and a community collaboration. Gavin, through his actions, rejects any shared notion of collaboration. I therefore refuse to share my labour with such a user, or with a project which condones such behaviour, either implicitly or explicitly. Hiding T 09:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Though I don't know about the WP:SPA point, gavin indeed has an "interesting" way of looking at reality. I will never forget when he asserted to me that Kermit the Frog was not a fictional character[68]. - jc37 20:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. I concur. I was not going to get involved, but like others have already mentioned I have pretty much stopped contributing to Wikipedia due to Gavin. I see no point in editing any content if every edit made is badgered by someone with an extreme dogmatic view of "policy". Please check my account activity and status, I was VERY active here and then around the time of Gavin's first RFC I dropped out. Web Warlock (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. I concur. I would like to also add my name to the list of former editors driven away from Wikipedia editing pretty much only by Gavin's annoying and unfriendly conduct, and the inability of the community to put a stop to it or to influence him to change his frustrating ways. I certainly hope this latest effort is a positive step forward in getting him to consider changing his ways, as antics like his certainly make this a less fun and informative community. Iquander (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

1. -- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I've touched on some of the buildup to this, and Masem's summary seems accurate to me. I am particularly concerned by having observed Gavin making changes to core documents, not based on consensus, but apparently based on having chosen some set of first principles and independently reasoned from there that the documented language was logically inconsistent with his chosen axioms, as with [69] (particularly when followed by arguable edit warring on the change, [70]). —chaos5023 (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. GC does not mess around. Ever. He will repeat what he thinks for 3 to 4 years (and counting). It is extremely disruptive. Anything he works on, I take off my watchlist, and let other editors fight with him about it (sorry guys). I did "discuss" things with him for a while, but it was pointless. The best description I've seen is the one directly above. GC deals with policies and guidelines like a mathematical proof, and he decides the axioms to start with, and where they lead. Another editor mentions that what he's saying is actually opinion, and he again "derives" his correctness. Rinse, repeat, a few times a week, over a period of years. Even though he thinks he's helping (I guess), it's incredibly disruptive. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. After every RFC Gavin changes his pattern and finds a new way to abuse the rules to prove his point and game the system. He refuses to drop any dispute until the people who disagree with him finally quit out of frustration. Just like Hiding, Gavin is the reason that I am no longer involved in Wikipedia. He is going to continue to push and bully people until his next RFC, at which time he'll simply change his tactics yet again and continue to find new ways to annoy people and drive them away from Wikipedia. Back in January of 2009 I wrote: "...then he'll continue to distrupt and antagonize the community for another year. Then someone can start a Request_for_comment/Gavin collins_3 page. And then the year afterward a 4 page and the year after..." Well, here we are! Should I just going ahead and start the Request_for_comment/Gavin.collins_4 page now? Wikipedia has already lost several contributors because of Gavin. He needs to be banned from Wikipedia before he drives more people away. Seanr451 (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. I've largely stayed away from the notability discussions lately, since it is extremely tiresome to have those with Gavin contributing his unique interpretations of policies. While I agree with his core position that Wikipedia is way too lax in what it allows as articles (or content in articles), the manner in which he tries to advocate this is not helping us to get towards a consensus. From the evidence presented above, I notice that he is the same in other areas as well. He has the right to a more extreme position than most other editors, and to a different interpretation than others of our existing policies and guidelines, but he shouldn't be going onand on and on and on about it without any attempt at compromise or understanding of why in some cases every other editor disagrees with his understanding. An example from the above gicven evidence is indicative of his behaviour: his position in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of novels, the action of which takes place within 24 hours is reasonable (WP:OR, basically). But to use the nearly exact same rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus transit systems in the United States is ridiculous. But a better illustration of why we are at RfC3, and why perhaps harsher measures are necessary, was for me the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 37#Are English sources required for notability?, where Gavin completely misunderstood policy, and continued to defend his position, which I described as "You are mixing different policies and guidelines and couple them with some very strange or incorrect interpretations to create new requirements which have no basis in our actual policies and guidelines". Fram (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Having interacted with GC on several AfD's and having observed his style in several policy/guideline talk pages, I agree. It's basically impossible to let Gavin understand what policies are meant to be. --Cyclopia^talk 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. I was a first hand observer to the aftermath of the AfD for Criticism of Judaism, and I think that Masem's description is accurate and temperate. In particular, I see the issues of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, dead horse-beating, and forum shopping as being central. I think that the expectation of this process should be either a clear improvement in talk conduct, or arbitration, thus no more RfCs after this one. That said, I would point out that a lot of the discussed conduct took place in areas where there were strong feelings about content and policy, and there were multiple editors who were commenting in heated ways, so Gavin was not unique in this regard, not that that is an excuse. I would also distance myself a bit from some of what is in Personalising issues. As noted by others, the third person talk is really not a big deal. Also, I think that one has to be very careful about asking in talk whether anyone else agrees with the user. I realize that, from Masem's and others' perspective, it felt like Gavin was a disruptive minority of one. But I have personally been in situations where POV pushers have tried to edge me out of discussions using the tactic of repeatedly asking whether anyone agrees with me, while refusing to engage with what I was actually saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worth interrupting my break for. Frankly I'm amazed he's not restricted to main space. His absurd attempts to substitute consensus with his personal opinion and relentless arguing and lawyering despite being told he is wrong by everyone else is the sort of behavior that drives even the most patient editors away from Wikipedia. And who can forget this absurd ban proposal and subsequent refusal to get the point. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Unlike apparently everyone else I've personally had reasonable experiences with him in the last few years, including working on policy wording together. But he has caused me to want to stay out of nearly everything involving fiction and our interactions have been limited for the last year or so. Reading over the issues raised above, I think there is in fact a very significant problem. I certainly miss having Hiding and Web Warlock around. While leaving was their choice a "hostile work environment" can be a good reason to leave work, and I think Gavin has made things that icky for many people. Hobit (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Gavin is not a bad editor. He is generally civil and avoids breaking any hard and fast rules. But he falls far short of our guidelines that outline the goals of this encyclopedia... which would be a small sin except that that he is so persistent and ubiquitous that it drives away other editors. The main thing is that he has a history of exhausting other editors in talk page discussions. I assume good faith that he does not do it on purpose. But there comes a time where voicing dissent crosses over into filibustering and stonewalling. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about expressing your viewpoint over and over and over. It's supposed to be about consensus building. Unfortunately most large disputes that involve Gavin end when Gavin and the two remaining editors with any level of patience say "I guess there's no consensus". That prevents us from resolving problems. I'd hate to see Gavin silenced or removed. But there has to be a way to let Gavin express his viewpoint without him drowning out the other voices that aren't as persistent as he is. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. I will concede that Gavin is acting in good faith. However, even the contact I had with him two years ago left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Even then he displayed selective reading skills, and, not to speak for everyone that's part of that project, but he cheesed off WP:D&D pretty badly because of his demeanor, which led to the Kender RfC. I would have thought he'd have gotten the hint and changed his tune, but the fact this even exists at all and is certified... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 06:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. In addition to the points above, I will mention that Gavin has at least once called for the deletion of a subject covered in a paper encyclopedia [71]; most normal users will not question whether a subject belongs in an encyclopedia when a well-known reliable encyclopedia has already covered it. Continuing to hold such views [72], is a clear indication that Gavin's understanding of current policy is flat out wrong. Moreover, it shows that his views on inclusion policy is off-the-scales at the deletionist end and that it is futile to try and make compromises with him there. He has also argued here that the current WP:NONENG policy requires editors to provide a translation every time they use a non-English source. This does not in any way reflect current practice or policy, then or now, and it would in fact be highly destructive of our coverage of non-anglophone topics if Gavin's interpretation of policy were implemented. Otherwise, I endorse the statements in the description of the dispute. To end on a positive notem, Gavin can edit constructively in mainspace, and when he works on encyclopedic content he does so well. He recently made a series of good edits to a number of astronomy articles. Because of that, I would prefer a solution which does not end with him being expelled from the site. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. My direct experiences with Gavin Collins are pretty much exclusively associated with the "descriptive titles" discussions, primarily on the talk pages for Criticism of Judaism and Article Titles, so my experience is limited, but I do find Masem's evaluation to be accurate and a fair assessment. I concur with Tryptofish's comment that in regard to the talk page for Criticism of Judaism, after the AFD discussions were pretty heated (I would have liked have done a better job myself in those discussions). But Gavin Collins does have a tendency toward extreme tenaciousness which is very tiring, and I was repeatedly surprised to see the same basic arguments brought up by him in a variety of venues, and thus I concur with the assessment that he tends to shop for fora, and my impression is that he's not inclined to work towards consensus, but rather seeks only to bring others to his view point. That being said, I see no evidence that he is not operating in good faith, and I think he has been and can be of value to the community. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Regarding Gavin Collins's value as an editor, I am afraid that I was mistaken--the extensive damage caused by his misunderstanding of copyright issues, his failure to do anything significant to mitigate that damage, and his apparent unwillingness to work towards a better understanding of consensus lead me to the conclusion that he does more harm than good and is unwilling or unable to change his behavior. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:23pm • 10:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. A very apt characterization based on what I've seen in his contributions to notability-related discussions. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. I concur. His conduct is not acceptable. Dream Focus 03:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Perennial misbehavior and recalcitrance. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Noting here that this is apparently the only response Gavin.collins will be making. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Thumperward

I feel that this is a fairly complete characterisation of Gavin's editing habits, albeit not perfectly balanced. In particular, the following parts are troublesome:

• "Refusal to accept other opinions and good faith assumptions": Gavin is very well-acquainted with WP:SPADE. He is not required to completely disavow the notion that editors opposing him are acting towards agendas.
• "Single purpose account": this is an extreme characterisation derived from a very loose interpretation of what an SPA is. In particular, Gavin acts as a foil for editors who seek to lower Wikipedia's overall threshold for notability, and may devote a significant portion of their editing time to that purpose. It would be hypocritical to seek to sanction Gavin for countering an identical attitude in other editors.
• "Not understanding consensus": Gavin places much greater weight on strength of argument than on weight of numbers. Indeed, sometimes he is the only editor in a given discussion who holds a particular position, and considers the consensus to be on his side. But this tends to occur when none of his arguments are rebutted, and as such it is reasonable to conclude that they are valid. Several points were raised suggesting that Gavin acted disruptively in disagreeing with notability as it pertains to fiction, or to standalone lists. However, Gavin is entitled to disagree with the status quo, and has in each case acted to clarify or alter the guidelines in question as well as acting in those interests in articlespace.
• "Personalising issues": In my experience Gavin's use of the third person is either as a tool for clarity (indeed, avoiding the use of the second person helps to avoid treating things personally IMO) or things like this and this which are perfectly valid ways of highlighting the nature of a particular discussion.

I would agree that there are particular patterns of behaviour which are not productive. Blatant edit warring over policy where Gavin is aware of the certainty that he will be reverted, for instance.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Reyk _YO! 08:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. I actually agree with the four modifiers presented by Chris above. I agree with alot of Masem's evidence too. Pity these RfCs have to be so black and white. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. I'm sure I must have had interactions with Gavin before, but I don't remember. I do think, however, the most of the accusations leveled in the RFC against Gavin are ridiculous in that they try to fault him for doing exactly what any serious Wikipedia editor should be doing (having real sources, getting rid of crap trivia articles, etc.). Some of his behavior is problematic, but, frankly, not as problematic as that of the people who brought this RFC. Those people do not seem to get the basic concept of what an encyclopedia is for. If they are frustrated with how Wikipedia works and, say, leave in disgust because they aren't getting their way, well, good. DreamGuy (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse. As an aside, I'd like to see a list of editors "driven away" by Gavin that were actually editing articles that pass WP:N and WP:NOT. A spot check hasn't uncovered any, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.—Kww(talk) 21:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am one. Web Warlock (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add User:Hiding 40K edits + adminship to the list. People don't give a fuck for people driven away out of bitterness because they don't show up at RfA, ArbCom election or AN/I. --KrebMarkt (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Bus stop

"Description" (above) says, "User:Gavin.collins has become extremely difficult to work with as a participant in Wikipedia policy and guideline discussions due to a very entrenched view on several concepts particularly a strong commitment to notability, to the point where he appears to act as a single-purpose account to achieve this goal."

Gavin Collins represents the core Wikipedia principles. He advocates the primacy of presenting sources. That is what core Wikipedia policy calls for—sources above and beyond all else. It is funny that his is being called a single-purpose account. Wikipedia is only supposed to reflect what the world outside of Wikipedia presents. Compilation of sources is our primary role. Others see a more exalted status for themselves. Rather than editors they would like to be activists. To bypass policy requirements for sources they have turned to another Wikipedia concept, but not as important a concept—that of consensus. But consensus has never been seen as a replacement for core policy requirements for sources. WP:NPOV says:

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

Note the final sentence. Consensus does not replace the need for sources. So we are back where we started, and Gavin Collins has defended that position: Wikipedia requires sources. Sources are paramount. Consensus takes a back seat to sourcing requirements.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Reyk _YO! 08:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Insomuch as it doesn't excuse the problematic behaviour, such as edit warring over policy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. I generally agree with Gavin's point of view on policies (I strongly believe that sourcing and inclusion policies/guidelines on WP need to be stronger, not weaker, as appears to be the trend for BLPs), and when I see that Gavin is participating in the discussion I feel less of a need to do so. I honestly don't know how many others do the same, but it may have contributed to the perception that Gavin is being disruptive as the only one who advocates certain interpretations. I've been disturbed in many policy discussions that we seem to be judging consensus by head-counting. It's not a numbers game, but a strength of argument game, and too many times it appears that interested parties are trying to judge the consensus in policy discussions in which they've heavily participated. This may contribute to the perceptions above that Gavin refuses to bow to consensus - if no one uninvolved has/can clearly judge what consensus is, then it is unfair to accuse others of being against consensus when, as an interested party, they intepret it differently than another interested party? For (at least) the appearance of impartiality, consensus really ought to be judged by completely uninvolved individuals (preferably ones who have had experience judging consensus and relying on strength of argument rather than numbers). I do not condone edit-warring in any fashion. Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. DreamGuy (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. While I don't always agree with Gavin's behavior, his position is 100% correct. Every article, every time, must have significant coverage in secondary sources. We always follow the lead of reputable sources unaffiliated with an article subject—and if they take the position that something is not a worthwhile subject of significant study or commentary at all, we follow that lead. Primary, affiliated, and/or sources which mention a subject only trivially or in passing can never be the sole or main basis for an article. A lot of the issue here is caused by an attempt to steamroll past that requirement by effective bloc-voting tactics, rather than observing it even when one would rather not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: a rebuttal of this view can be seen here.

Outside view by Peregrine Fisher

Not sure if this the correct place or way to say this, but despite most of Masem's statement being correct, I think he's wrong on two points. It doesn't excuse Gavin, but I don't think that "Single Purpose Account" or "Personalising issues" apply. It's all about filibustering (aka ignoring consensus).

Users who endorse this summary:

1. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. .I'd agree with this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. ditto ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Cyclopia^talk 11:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'd have to agree here as well. We were guilty of this sort of thing in RFC2 as well, and I regretted it pretty early on. Let's stick to the core issues here. BOZ (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. I pretty much agree, in the spirit that Masem is, on the whole, correct, and these caveats are just fine-tuning. As I said above, I see the main issues as being the filibustering and ignoring consensus, as well as forum shopping. As a quibble, I'd also say that there are definitely problems when editors personalize issues, so I don't want to imply that this is OK. However, it can be an issue that looks different depending on where one sits. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. I endorse this. I know that Masem has had a little bit of bad experience recently with Gavin turning an innocent remark into a Wikiquette complaint, but Gavin had the class to apologize for escalating the issue and respecting the third opinions of editors. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agreed. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Casliber

Discussions on policies other than those of the very simplest and straightforward nature (and even some of those sometimes!) can lead to walls of text as editors and discussions become heated, and folks try ever harder to get the last word or convert others etc. Often positions become polarised, noses get put out of joint and the whole discussion becomes a massive timesink. Notability and fiction as an issue on wikipedia predates Gavin's involvement and will likely continue to be for years to come. Unfortunately Gavin's position on notability and sourcing (more stringent than many editors but by no means all), his strength of conviction (or rigidity) do not mix well with these sort of debates. However, this does not discount his views, and healthy debate and questioning of any guideline is an integral part of fine-tuning the 'pedia as we go. I confess I (as an inclusionist and trivia- and fiction-lover) am at the opposite end of the notability spectrum on what we should be including here to Gavin , however I have shared his concerns on some other matters WRT composite article titles and a discussion on citing sentences which are "obvious"(I need to add the diff here), and in fact was concerned a little that how few editors it seemed agreed with us. I do need to double check this. Although he is strict in his views, to his credit he did agree to a "ceasefire" of sorts to allow the D&D editors to sort out, merge and/or source articles for some months, and this saved alot of time. In essence, I think some of this behaviour renders discussing guidelines exquisitely vulnerable to massive wastage of time and effort and engendering of ill-will. However, I think reinforcing some general administrative principles outlined below might help this (I'll place these below).

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Very fair. His views are reasonable but his rigidity does end with all other editors driven away from the debate. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I can endorse this for the most part. It's concerned me that some in the discussion seem to discount Gavin's views simply because they come from Gavin, but I do acknowledge that his practices can be misguided. Karanacs (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Sjakkalle

A view which has been stated several times here is that it isn't Gavin.collins' views on the policies which is problematic; and that they in fact agree with his inclusion standards. My view is in contrast to that: I feel that Gavin's position on notability, a position which is far out on the deletionist scale, is a huge part of the problem.

The AFD which I feel illustrates the extremity of Gavin's viewpoint best is the AFD on Ellen Hambro, the leader of the Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency, and a prominent spokesperson on environmental issues. She is so notable in fact that a paper encyclopedia, with all its limitations, set aside space for a short biography on her (this has more recently been published online by SNL). I added additional secondary sources to the article to expand our Wikipedia article beyond the content in the short stub like article on SNL.

However, while most people would see coverage in an encyclopedia as prima facie evidence that the topic is indeed encylopedic, Gavin voted to delete the article, managing to cite WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#DIR in his rationale [73], despite the article being neither a news story or a directory. To this day, Gavin continues to insist that Ellen Hambro is a problematic article [74]. To put it bluntly; I have no respect for Gavin's stance on this issue. I feel that his view is ridiculous and an indication that he does not realize what general purpose encyclopedias are supposed to contain. Almost all Wikipedia contributors are amateur encyclopedists. The vote is a declaration that a team of professional encyclopedia editors don't know what they are doing, and I feel that illustrates a serious measure of hubris. Using policies and guidelines to conclude that a topic already covered in a paper encyclopedia is unsuitable for an encyclopedia is analogous to using advanced physics to calculate that a person is in fact older than his or her parents. I find that Bus Stop's statement: "Gavin Collins represents the core Wikipedia principles" couldn't be further from the truth. A core Wikipedia principle, indeed its primary purpose, is being the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world, and deleting topics which can be found in other encyclopedias is therefore a direct violation of these "core Wikipedia principles".

Other views which cause consternation include Gavin's insistence that current policy mandates a translation of non-English sources before they can be considered reliable [75]. He has also said that converting the formatting of material in a reliable source from prose form to a more condensed list form, is a violation of the no original research policy [76]. Neither of Gavin's interpretations in any way reflect an generally accepted interpretation, nor do they reflect current practice.

In short, the problem is not only that Gavin is stubborn in holding on to his views and interpretations, it is that his views and interpretations are frequently unreasonable, and sometimes wrong. I cannot imagine that someone would be facing an RFCU for stubbornly holding onto views and interpretations which most of the community find reasonable.

It is admirable that several people defend Gavin's right to hold and express his views. I agree that he has that right, the mere expression of extreme views is not a sanctionable offense. However, expression of such views will not garner Gavin much respect. What Gavin, or anyone else, does not have the right to do is to filibuster discussion through insistence on those views and forcing other editors to engage with him, lest Gavin interpret his views as being supported by consensus.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Word by word. --Cyclopia^talk 14:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. You can't really assume good faith with someone who knows darn well that he's wrong about his interpretation of consensus but regardless of that continues to argue as if his arguments have never been refuted. That's textbook disruption. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. I've seen other deletion-minded editors give an article a pass from time to time, on a subject they feel may be notable despite having few or no secondary sources. See for example, from the recent Transformers AFDs, Bumblebee, Soundwave, and Jazz. I don't believe I have ever seen Gavin argue to keep anything. BOZ (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. I've seen similar situations as well. - jc37 16:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Concur - Whatever his specific views on anything are, he has failed to put those ideas to the test by creating and improving content and having to defend his contributions to a wider audience. He has only attempted to use his views on policy to restrict content and the ideas of others--Mike Cline (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yup ‒ Jaymax✍ 16:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Ditto.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. This summary I agree with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. I have to agree because we wouldn't be having this conversation if the majority of editors agreed with Gavin and his views actually were the consensus. It's hard to draw the line between the views and the strength of the conviction. He believes in the need for third-party sources, but sometimes even his interpretation of that need is extreme. Or just strong. Or some combination of the two. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Yeah, that's pretty on-point. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. His views aren't merely contrary to consensus. I've found many of his opinions nonsensical, incoherent, and without any discernible practical benefit, in addition to being without support in written policy or guidelines. Which is his right to be wrong, but it's a problem when he repeatedly interjects those opinions in discussions, while ignoring rebuttals or requests for him to clarify or explain. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Edward321 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Yep. Hobit (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Wow, I just learned that Gavin has made more than 1,000 edits to WT:N... and that means 1,000 comments just at one guideline that other editors have had to respond to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. I agree completely with this interpretation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Well said. Dream Focus 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concern by FT2

'mooning the jury'

Noting this thread related to an RFC on inclusion/exclusion criteria for lists (not a hundred miles away from notability of articles). This took place at the same time that the present RFC on gavin.collins was open. A user requests an uninvolved user to close an RFC. Gavin.collins' response seems to be based on considerable bad faith:

"I think what you are seeking is an "offical stamp" for your views on the RFC... I don't see how the administrators can "sign off" your views as being the basis for changes to any policy guideline".

The request does not seem to support this interpretation. It raises a concern that Gavin.collins cannot moderate his approach even when he knows his behavior is under communal scrutiny.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation by Mike Cline

From the perspective of an editor that’s spent nearly 70% of my WP time working on content in the article space, I think a major reason that Gavin’s intransient positions on policy/guideline issues don’t mesh well with current practice is his personal lack of content/article contributions. This is especially true when one reviews his contributions over the last year. Learning, interpreting and applying WP policies and guidelines is not easy. Having mentored many new editors, there are hurdles and helping others overcome those hurdles have made them and me better editors. No one can even begin to guess what motivates Gavin to behave the way he does, regardless of what his policy/guideline views are. But in my opinion, his policy views and by association his behavior is severely influenced by his serious lack of content participation.

Thus, fully knowing that none of these recommendations can be imposed on Gavin by this RFU, he could chose to voluntarily impose them on himself which would go a long way toward resolution of the behavior issues cited in this RFC and demonstrate extremely Good Faith in acknowledging the consensus in this RFC arrayed against him.

1. Until such time as Gavin’s contributions to the article space rise to the level of at least 25% of his total edits, he should not Gavin should voluntarily abstain from participating in any discussion on policy changes for our core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:N and related guidelines on Notability, Lists, etc for a reasonable period of time and redirect his contributions to the article space. This, I think, is particularly important because his almost total lack of diverse content participation severely impacts his credibility limits his prespective in his attempts to change policies and guidelines. He needs to demonstrate he understands community practice through actual content contributions.
2. Gavin may participate in the deletion process as any other editor can, but is restricted to interpreting policy and guidelines as they exist at the time of such participation.
3. Gavin is to be encouraged to contribute content to existing articles and create new articles to improve the content and quality of the encyclopedia in subjects that he is interested in and passionate about.
4. Gavin should use extreme caution when interpreting current policies and guidelines in any given article discussion or related deletion discussion so that there is no appearance that he is attempting to impose interpretations of policies that are his own personal view and not reflective of the wider community consensus and current verbiage of guidelines and policies.
5. Gavin needs to demonstrate, through his collegial interactions with other editors and sysops that he understands WP:CONSENSUS and that he can refrain from WP:TE, WP:DISRUPT and WP:DEADHORSE behavior.

It would be my personal hope that Gavin voluntarily agrees to these behavioral modifications in the near term, actually carries them out and avoids a messy ARBCOM situation.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This recommendation is being discussed here.

Recommendations by Casliber

I'll segment a few of these and see how we go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note on edit warring

Edit warring is edit warring, no matter what time frame it is over. Furthermore, the fractiousness of the revert, and experience of the editor can be taken into account. I'd like to remind folks that our 3RR board was renamed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - presumably with this in mind (??) So, that said, consider that admins are not bots and hence as mature and responsible editors are able to either block difficult behaviour or discuss on the appropriate boards whether a block is warranted. We also have an arbitration committee who review tool use/misuse. I am sure the arbs will be happy to review a succinct and circumscribed request to review any use deemed questionable by one or more parties. I am mentioning this as relevant for the second point below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this recommendation:

1. Absolutely - edit warring is unacceptable. Karanacs (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with comment by Karanacs (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note on admins watching difficult discussions

Just like with arbitration cases, I think many many discussions would benefit with some editors acting in capacity as admins watching over the pages and dealing with situations as they deteriorate and hopefully nipping acrimony in the bud. This would include removing repetitive comments, flogging dead horses and dealing with revert wars, even slow ones. I am not advocating for a change in policy, just getting folks to recognise we have these options available and make more use of them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this recommendation:

1. If the appropriate administrators can be found, then I think this is very useful. I believe also that we need to have independent individuals judging consensus, too, and not the parties in the discussion. That may make it easier for all concerned to accept what current consensus is. Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with comment by Karanacs (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structuring debates

A general reminder that walls of text are a powerful disincentive for others to participate and can be a massive timesink. yes I know wikipedia is not a vote, but really laying out the pages so it can be clear who agrees with what and ensuring proposals are succinct and segmented is often critical to nutting out a way forward. Even having some people acting in a clerking capacity is good here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this recommendation:

1. Organization and structure as emphasized by Casliber (talk · contribs), is a good thing, especially as suggested in this case. -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is important and underrated. Try to discuss the best way to lay it out BEFORE you start the RFC, to avoid them becoming endless threaded discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yeah, agreed. Fewer words are always more effective than more. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Downtime

After a particularly exhausting debate, it might be a good idea for a community discussion on 'downtime' for a particular debate, which could be enforceable by block. This would be to give everyone a rest from arguing and maybe to investigate or research some alternative ideas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this recommendation:

1. Yes, however this would have to be explained in a bit more detail as to what specifically this entails. -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation by Masem

Based on some of the talk page discussion, one of the better solutions (short of Gavin correcting these himself) would be to have Gavin willingly work with an uninvolved admin as a mentor; this admin would let Gavin know when he style and passion for discussion is not helping policy/guideline discussion to proceed forward - effectively watching for signs of dead horse beating, tenuous editing, and the like. At this point, this can only be a voluntary requirement and with no enforceable corrective means should Gavin ignore the mentor's suggestions.

Users who endorce this recommendation:

1. Good idea. -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, I think this is one of a few things that would help. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Originally, I didn't think this would work, because it would depend so much upon Gavin's cooperation, but I support it now that, after the copyvio developments, a plan is developing for Kww to be the mentor. This now looks like the logical next step. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, but with the concerns I detailed on the talk page as a caveat. BOZ (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by Shooterwalker

There are many editors who cling to a viewpoint and slap away any effort to build a consensus. This is not the first time we have had this problem. Everyone should be allowed to advocate for their viewpoint. They should not be allowed to repeat it for 2 weeks straight, until everyone else in the RFC has walked away in frustration. Those two weeks should be used for building consensus, which will necessarily require that dissenters make compromises. The goal of this proposal is to avoid situations where an editor refuses to get the point that everyone else is making.

Gavin is allowed to participate in any RFC as normal. If any editor finds themselves engaged in a prolonged discussion with Gavin (multiple replies over multiple days), then they may can ask him to "test his viewpoint" by putting that viewpoint up for a straw poll. If his viewpoint is the consensus then the discussion is settled. If his viewpoint is that of a minority, then he must moderate his viewpoint and look for common ground if he wishes to continue discussing that issue.

Users who endorse this recommendation:

1. As creator. Feel free to endorse with conditions or amendments to make it more fair and effective. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. It's got promise, but could use some refinement. For example, I would not limit this to RFC's, but any discussion on any user talk page, policy talk page, or article talk page because he can use the same sorts of tactics on any or all of these. BOZ (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Generic approach to a situation that repeats with many editors, where we value what they are doing but they get over-invested in "their view of a matter" and forget that even though Wikipedia aims for a high quality of product, its editorial processes require collaboration and "give and take".

   Sometimes a user's view on some matter is right and best for the project but consensus just doesn't agree. More often the view is one of multiple views and consensus doesn't agree that it's the best view (even though the user believes it is). Merits further consideration, though it should not be invoked lightly but only when the discussion seems to be becoming tendentious. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by WhatamIdoing

The consensus seems to be in favor of proposing a topic ban to the community. Here are several options that could be proposed at WP:AN. (This is a sort of mix-and-match approach, so feel free to provide helpful labels like "first choice".)

Topic ban for just the notability guidelines

"Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing any WP:Notability-related page or talk page, broadly construed, for one year."

Do you support this?

Topic ban for article titles

(Some editors think that Gavin has tried to use restrictions on article titles as a means of doing an end-run around notability standards.)

"Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing any any page or talk page related to WP:Article titles, broadly construed, for one year."

Do you support this?

AfD ban

"Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is prohibited from nominating any article for deletion, editing any page related to deletion policies, or participating in any discussion at WP:Articles for deletion, broadly construed, for one year."

Do you support this?

Sweeping topic ban for notability and deletion

"Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or discussing any page related to Wikipedia's standards for notability, inclusion, exclusion, and deletion, broadly construed, except for comments made on his user talk page, for one year."

Do you support this?

Notability + article titles

"Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or discussing any page related to Wikipedia's standards for notability, inclusion, exclusion, and article titles, broadly construed, except for comments made on his user talk page, for one year. Gavin is permitted to nominate articles for deletion and to participate in discussions about nominated articles at AfD."

Do you support this?

== Draft of

Notability + deletion + article titles

"Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or discussing any page related to Wikipedia's standards for notability, inclusion, exclusion, deletion, and article titles, broadly construed, except for comments made on his user talk page, for one year."

Do you support this?

1. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I think experience shows that nothing less will meet the situation. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC). Better still a full ban for one year. See my comment on the talk page.[reply]
3. Support. User's incorrigibility has been sufficiently demonstrated. Enough. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation by BOZ

This goes hand in hand with my AN proposal:

• 1. Work to maintain a collegial atmosphere of mutual respect: Assume good faith, be civil, and use proper etiquette. Hostility, accusations, disparaging remarks, and sarcasm do not generally contribute to a discussion in a positive way. Instead, find ways to better understand the point of view of the person with whom you are engaging, even if you happen to disagree with that person’s point of view. Wikipedia is supposed to be a project built by community collaboration, not a battleground.
  2. Consensus-building should be the goal of all discussions: Editors should focus on determining where consensus lies on a particular issue through discussion with multiple other editors. An editor has the right to attempt to persuade other editors that one position is more correct than another or search for common ground, thus swaying consensus in favor of that viewpoint; however, attempts to persuade other editors (such as through continued repetition of one's points) can instead become unproductive when a stalemate is reached. Sometimes it is a good idea to simply let a debate end and walk away from it, even if no consensus was reached; however, when opponents leave a debate due to one editor's stonewalling or filibustering, it should not be assumed that this editor has therefore gained consensus. Canvassing and "forum shopping" to find more editors who will support one editor's point of view should be considered inappropriate. However, when consensus becomes difficult to determine, any editor involved in a dispute should be able to approach an uninvolved administrator, neutrally, to judge the situation; if this administrator determines that consensus has been reached, the participants in that discussion should respect this judgment. This applies to any sort of page intended for discussions, including user talk pages, policy talk pages, article talk pages, requests for comment, and always applies to articles for deletion discussions.
  3. Edit-warring is unacceptable and disruptive, and should not be tolerated: A better way to approach a dispute on an article or policy page is through the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle: One editor makes a bold edit, a second editor reverts the change, and the two go on to discuss this situation until they can either determine a proper consensus, or until one concedes to the other. Edit warring begins when discussion is bypassed in favor of another reversion to the original bold edit, or when such happens without reaching consensus first. When one editor continues to revert without discussion, the other editor may report that editor at the noticeboard for edit-warring.

Users who endorse this recommendation:

1. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Closed as it has been open for well over 30 days, and due to the motion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.