Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2

Archives

Possible way forward by Casliber

I'm not sure what the suggested way forward is supposed to accomplish.

There doesn't seem to be a clear understanding of the problem.
The solution doesn't do a good job of addressing the problem.
The solution goes above and beyond the requested outcome from User:Drilnoth.

Let's start with #1. Limiting the remedy to D&D shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. Is the problem the D&D content? Do we want Gavin to stop looking at D&D for a while? Because I guarantee you, after the collaborative resistance by the D&D WikiProject, he was probably going to give up anyway. You've accomplished virtually nothing.

Onto #2. I thought this was a behavioral problem. Instead, you've treated it as a mere content dispute over the sourcing of D&D articles. It's this kind of thinking that will just lead to repeating the same behavior with different content. The behavior will just shift to Warhammer 40k, Politics of Bosnia, or Islam, or whatever kind of content won't see as much resistance to tagging.

Which brings me to #3. After my first two criticisms, the temptation would be to just carpet bomb the whole situation, and bar Gavin from any kind of tagging on any article at all. And I know that would be attractive to many people here, because many feel wronged by tagging itself -- even if there (hypothetically) had been no inaccurate tags, no edit wars, and no personal attacks. But it's this kind of remedy that would be unduly harsh. Rather than targeting the disruptive behavior, it would come across as a vindictive measure against anyone who is concerned about appropriate referencing on Wikipedia. Even a "local" ban on tagging misses the mark: tagging is helpful when it is accurate.

The problem is reckless tagging, edit warring, and personal attacks. I can't say that the proposed way forward is too harsh or even too generous. It misses the target altogether. Randomran (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say you're wrong, but do you have a better idea? Protonk said he was coming up with a solution, so maybe we should have a look at his ideas as well. (Oh, and I find it highly unlikely that Gavin would give up no matter how much organized resistance he faces - it hasn't stopped him before; in fact, it almost seems to encourage him.) BOZ (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to target the behavior. Edit warring, incivility / assuming good faith, and reckless tagging. Focusing on *all* tagging really ignores two out of three, and is needlessly harsh on the third. (He stopped now, hasn't he?) Randomran (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He stopped tagging for today, but there's always tomorrow. You're 100% right - I completely forgot momentarily that the whole focus for this RFC was the behavioral issues in the first place. :) I'm sure that Protonk and everyone who's responded to this RFC (except maybe Chris and those who endorsed his summary) would agree that working on the behavioral issues should be the goal of a method for working out a resolution. Yes, a moratorium on just tagging D&D articles will lead to another TTN situation. While some form of that could be a part of the resolution, it shouldn't be the main focus but more of a side focus. Of course, now that I think about it, during the RFM Gavin promised not to tag any D&D articles and this led to virtually no interaction with D&D project members (outside of what we did in the RFM), and these other behavioral issues towards the D&D project members therefore also disappeared along with the tagging, so Casliber may not be totally off the mark either. (I dare you to find anything from May-October!) BOZ (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fair point -- all the problems have stopped for the time being when the tagging stopped. But there is no lesson learned. Again, the remedy being sought is for Gavin to "work in a positive manner with those editors with whom he disagrees" and "to understand the spirit of editing Wikipedia through collaboration". Telling him to abandon his goal completely means *no* collaboration. It means he hasn't learned to work in a positive manner. It just means we've stopped him from working with people he disagrees with. All that does is kick the problem down the road, and it might even validate Gavin's feeling that this is just a WP:coatrack of miscellaneous complaints from people who disagree with him. Although I guess it does give the D&D project some peace, I don't think it really solves anything in the long run. Randomran (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, again. Having Gavin not tagging articles also (more or less) means an end to conflict with him, which makes things more peaceful for us so we can get things done. It gets him out of our hair so to speak, but then the problem just gets foisted on someone else (as with the TTN example). Solving the problem would mean exactly what you said, as I wrote in the desired outcome, working in a positive manner in the spirit of collaboration, to summarize and paraphrase. But that seems like such a large task, so how do we accomplish it? Well, more discussion like Talk:Land of Black Ice#Merge might be a step in the right direction, for one thing? BOZ (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the outcome of this method is not truly going to be helpful, as the time frame for one will just end back up at square one with one of the behavioral problems in that again we are looking at tax time in the USA for people to be bombarded with instant massive amounts of work with the tags and arguments due to the behavior at least not working within consensus that will bring things to a halt as people have no time. We have seen this behavior before not only once, and it is outside of the D&D project as well. The tags were just used to illustrate the behavior problem and aggressiveness and sense of entitlement/ownership of the articles that tries to force editors of any article/policy involved to agree with Gavin or otherwise be harrassed with abusive tones and temper tantrums. Focusing just on D&D articles will not solve the problem, and there must be something better as D&D is not the only RPG involved, or even wikiproject involved with this, but it spans the whole of wikipedia that Gavin wishes to visit including policy pages. I wouldn't mind a permanent moratorium on Gavin from editing D&D articles ever again, but that only helps me as I don't do much elsewhere outside of D&D related articles, and others will still be effected by the behavior issues of Gavin. It is a step in the correct mindset, but just not fully entailed. Like only curing the cough of someone with the flu, but ignoring the fever; if you pardon my bad analogy skills. So D&D articles are not the only ones involved here, but the D&D project itself had enough participants left to get involved where other projects may have just given up the project due to behavior from persons like, but not solely, Gavin in editing patterns. Well I am broke now, but that is my two bits on the matter, and look forward to any other ideas that may produce more global affects to the behavior problem for all of wikipedia. shadzar-talk 05:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're misdiagnosing the problem (argh, medical analogies; I've watched too much House today). The root of the problem, the thing which everything else is on top of, is the abundance of unsourced articles on marginal fictional content.

Let's liken the situation to a plague. One way of preventing a plague from spreading through a town is by burning down the houses of anyone infected. It's effective, but isn't likely to make one many friends. This RfC is like a town hall meeting to discuss this ongoing problem. One group of people in this town hall feels that the big problem that has to be addressed is not the plague but the fires, and that it's probably possible to cure many of the infected if only they weren't roasted alive. But supposing that not everyone can be saved, and that the threat of being burned to the ground is hurrying a cure along, I think the situation is quite a bit more complicated than just running all the arsonists out of town. (Bear in mind that I'm very much in the "burn the village to save it" camp on this one.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(House would probably diagnose all of us with a terminal case of too much internet and not enough sex, and recommend we all torch ourselves. But I suppose that's besides the point.) ;) BOZ (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting analogy, as far as it goes, but I'd modify it to say that you're in favor of burning down the houses of anyone who hasn't been inoculated. Gavin's behavior targets notable and non-notable alike, on the presumption that any article that hasn't been thoroughly sourced is both non-notable and non-important. Setting fire to someone's house in order to make them go get their shots - even if the plague hasn't spread to their side of town yet - is bound to raise a few eyebrows, and it's wasting valuable cure-finding time on putting out fires. Snuppy 14:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think we're getting caught up in the content issues over the conduct issues. Just because one agrees with someone's goal, does not mean automatically agreeing with their methods. "By any means necessary"? Even if I were to agree that Gavin were right that anything not clearly meeting the notability guidelines should be removed, his style is confrontational rather than collaberative, combative rather than constructive, threatening rather than gracious, hostile rather than friendly, and demanding rather than compromising. Wikipedia is not a battleground, this is not supposed to be a war, and there are not supposed to be winners and losers. Even if one side is "right" about one thing and the other side is "wrong" about that thing, does not make one fully right and the other fully wrong. If Gavin wants to work on anything on Wikipedia, I feel it is in his best interests to learn to do as outlined in the "Desired Outcome" rather than thinking he can impose his will on whomever he wants just because he has his interpretation of the rules on his side. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Even admins don't do that without consensus, and when they do lay down the law one would hope they do it sparingly. BOZ (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that endorsing the goal should not mean endorsing the methods. Conversely, bad behavior should not invalidate the goal. That's why a blanket ban on tagging is bad. It invalidates a good goal, and really fails to target the bad method. Randomran (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I just endorsed the possible way forward, although I agree that it isn't an ideal solution. I think that Gavin should be allowed to tag articles when it is appropriate. I've added tags to D&D articles because they do need cleanup; the problem that I see with Gavin is the talk page disputes, his refusal to reach a consensus, defense of tags once they are no longer needed, accusals of COI, etc. Some editors have even left the WikiProject because of this.

Personally, I would love to see Gavin start working constructively with the project. Instead of just tagging articles, he could help work on rewriting and improving them. If another editor thinks that a tag is no longer appropriate, let it be removed. Consensus should take precedence over a personal view of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and where and how they should be used (something important for everyone to remember). The ideal result, in my opinion, is not what Casliber proposed but a way to come to a better solution. Unfortunately, I don't quite know what that solution would be. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to put something together. We ought to collaborate on building an appropriate solution. But maybe I can offer a starting point. Randomran (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please? That would be what we need the most right now. Since you're outside the conflict, you can probably see the issues more clearly than I can right now. BOZ (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin.collins back in charge

In one of his endorsements, Gavin.collins opined:

Agreed, but this is no way an endorsement of this RFC. Note this does not provide a "green light" for the removal of cleanup templates without reasonable justification; during the moratorium, I will create a record of all articles from which cleanup templates have been removed or substituted without good reason with a view to reviewing their appropriateness and their restoration if justified.

This again shows an lack of understanding of consensus on Wikipedia. It is not up to Gavin.collins to determine the appropriateness of a tag or of its removal or to determine if their restoration is justified. If he boldly added a tag and its addition was reverted, restoration is not the next step, no matter how much one editor reviews or justifies it. Discussion is the next step (see WP:BRD). If Gavin.collins cannot get consensus for the restoration of the tag, then the tag is not restored. It would be exactly the same if another editor decided to review all articles that Gavin.collins tagged and then ignored consensus to remove tags where the consensus is to keep the tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, of course, is that this doesn't handle the situation where tags are reflexively removed from articles just because a) someone doesn't like tags / b) Gavin put it there / c) the removing editor has a significantly lower notability threshold than the project as a whole. BRD is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is not one's duty to revert every edit made to an article until it is justified. Playing games like this - which is really all that removing or replacing a notability tag on an article composed of nothing but fictional material is - doesn't help anyone, and hiding behind BRD in the hope that the original tagger does not take the time to explain WP:N on every individual talk page in question just wastes editors' time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I have agreed to the solution as the first point of light in an otherwise hostile working experience (I have quit jobs less hassling than this and I worked for the State of Illinois for a while) as someone with a Ph.D. in Psychology I'd like to know WHY Gavin has such animosity towards the members of the Project and to the D&D articles in particular. Until we can see the cause of his behavior we are not effecting a proper cure for it. Web Warlock (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I think it is necessary to review, not for any behavior or anything enforceable, Gavin's contributions outside of D&D space, to understand how he approaches discussions and consensus-building and to see how that applies to the same to D&D. My take, which is not unbiased, is that Gavin makes a mark on the ground where he thinks things should be, and expects consensus to move towards him, despite overwhelming consensus to move away from that point; his "compromises" generally have him move that mark an inch when consensus agrees to move a foot towards him - that is, its very difficult to get any compromise out of him at all, and that might be part of what the RFC needs to correct. Again, nothing that policy or guidelines state is wrong or anything, but it is becoming a deterrent to at least the D&D project and needs to be addressed. --MASEM 15:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that removing accurate and useful tags is unhelpful. But then, everybody here knows that edit warring over the tags is the wrong way to handle it. Randomran (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; removing accurate tags is unhelpful. However, when there is consensus to remove a tag, then it should be removed. I've spent far too much of my time on Wikipedia working with stuff on this RFC or having fruitless discussions about individual tags when I could have been improving the articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And on a separate note, thumperward, please do not cast the use of guidelines that do not happen to suit your argument as "hiding behind" them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possible way forward, take 2

(Let's start with the RFC itself. Part of the problem is that outsiders have piled on and taken this off topic.)

Goals:

"learn to work in a positive manner with those editors with whom he disagrees ... includes assuming good faith"
"reviewing the appropriateness of ... articles ... is welcome by Wikipedia principle"
"understand the spirit of editing Wikipedia through collaboration"
No more hostility, accusations, disparaging remarks
Avoid misplaced or misinterpreted tags and policies
No more edit warring

From here we can brainstorm solutions. Again, just a brainstorm.

Solutions (point by point):

WP:AGF; discuss calmly
Gavin is permitted to tag.
Gavin must actually engage with the D&D Wikiproject and work with them in some way... for example, Gavin must find some references for at least two D&D articles. (You guys might have better ideas, since there may have been times in the dispute where you had a few ideas of what he should do instead, and hopefully he'd have the legitimate skills to do.)
No more hostility, accusations disparaging remarks. Be WP:CIVIL, and use WP:ETIQUETTE.
Be more cautious with tagging. Tag only where it truly applies. In cases where a tag's applicability isn't plainly obvious, start a discussion.
If a tag is reverted by the community, instead of edit warring, Gavin should discuss. If the discussion results in no consensus, the parties should ... (we need an idea here. Perhaps by looking at WP:DR.)
... plus some kind of enforcement mechanism, should the problem repeat itself or escalate.

We ought to be very specific, instead of clumsy bans or limits. Again, we're trying to get someone to work collaboratively, not just buzz off for a few months and come back completely unchanged. Randomran (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I like this. It certainly needs work, but I think that it's moving in the right direction. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We should definitely include as many Dispute Resolution bits as possible in there. Both sides, for too long, have preferred to argue or edit war or ignore each other or namecall or whatever when they disagree rather than doing things the proper way. BOZ (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is closer to what I was going to propose (see far above) this week. I don't endorse Cas's way forward, though I understand it is well meaning. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like it. There are a few blanks to fill in (see #3, #6, #7). But we should work together on that. Randomran (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For point #3, maybe instead of "finding references for at least two D&D articles," which could easily be done and then ignored thereafter, maybe "When Gavin tags a D&D article, he should first try to clean up the problems that he tags it for. Other users may mention that no cleanup seems to have been attempted when the tag was added, and then Gavin would either need to work to improve that article or allow the tags to be removed by other users without getting into long discussions about it." It probably wouldn't work, I know. I'm just brainstorming. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)For #3, I think looking for sources for 2 articles is too arbitrary and will help very little. How about, instead, he looks for sources for every article that he would put {{notability}}, {{primarysources}}, or {{unreferenced}} on? That's not too much to ask at all. If he finds nothing, say so on the talk page, but he should include near-misses ("I found something that seems to discuss this topic, but..."). #5 may be interpreted very broadly by Gavin, so I'm not sure how that one helps. #6 could be Third Opinion or RFC as applies - we have done that before, and should do it more. #7 I have no idea, but should it apply differently for different "infractions"? I.e., edit warring, failure to use talk page, etc. BOZ (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One point that I was going to focus on was the requirement to discuss. There are some tags, like {{Notability}} which require no discussion, presuming they are applied correctly. Other tags, like {{In universe}} or {{POV}} require a post on the talk page detailing the concerns of the tagger. Period. This serves two purposes. One, it slows the tagger down without resorting to artificial rate limits. Two, it provides a way forward for editors of the article to fix real problems. I do not think that a requirement to research or do the cleanup himself will bear any fruit. That seems much more onerous than necessary. We should be able to come out of this and say "we think that you need to offer some reasoning for XYZ kind of tags when you apply them". That's a sound recommendation, in my view. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had been telling him exactly that recently, and there has been some cooperation. I agree it should be used more. BOZ (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Just want to codify it here. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~undent~ WP:RESPTAG#About_irresponsible_tagging ending and the whole of the WP:RESPTAG should be a goal for this issue.

Timed mass harrassment
With this technique, an irresponsible tagger waits for a time recent change patrollers are unlikely to be logged on to bombard several dozen pages pertaining to a particular topic with the same tag.
Tag slamming
A responsible tagger would read each page before applying any tags, and then leave on the talk page a message that shows that he indeed read the page, honestly believes it applies, and is not acting under a whim or worse, in a sinister plot to wear down those who disagree with him. The tag slammer, by contrast, does not read a page before applying tags and he certainly does not read what the many tags say that he applied.

This is where I feel the whole issue stems from. Mass tagging, with no research, and no discussion about the tags. No intent to work with other in any way, and discussion must be coerced and most times only appears on the user's talk page, and never is started by the tagger on an articles talkpage. This must be fixed.

How about say one possible outcome that Gavin may only tag an article with a single tag, and must include discussion on an articles talkpage immediately after placing the tag; in addition to trying to do some cleanup work himself, AND not adding a tag back while discussion is going on on an articles talkpage about a tag placed and/or removed until consensus is reached by other editors on whether the tag belongs or not, and to give time during the discussion for cleanup to be effected. This would mean placing a tag such as {{notability}} or any other tag does not get edit warred, and even a time of say a month before Gavin can add that tag to an article again to give editors time to work on the article as THEY have time, rather than as Gavin feels the time the editors should have been able to do it considering real life comes before wikipedia such as jobs, kids, everything else. This is the one BIG thing I have been trying this whole time to get achieved is discussion on the talk pages, rather than being overlorded by Gavin that the tag must remain through his cease-and-desist orders via talk pages in regards to removing tags. The tagging is behavioral, and an understanding of responsible tagging, could greatly help with behavior because it would teach/illustrate how to work with consensus, and the Gavin does not WP:OWN any article, like no other editor does, and we MUST work together to get anything done, rather than anyone of us all be the kid in school that gets "does not work well with others" on their report cards. So collaboration is the main goal of wikipedia to create it and all materials presented own it, and Gavin must learn that you must work with others, rather than against them or in some manner that causes everything to grind to a halt without collaboration and discussion. shadzar-talk 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be realistic, Gavin isn't really an expert on D&D and won't be able to seek out sources with too much strength. Plus, I think it would be a little too easy for him to say "yeah, I looked, but didn't find anything." I actually think shadzar and Protonk have a better idea in terms of forcing Gavin to justify every single tag on the article's talk page, at least for a while. That would speak to #5, and it would speak to #3 too. But would it be enough in terms of #3, or would we need something else to help build a spirit of collaboration? Randomran (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this. Gavin places a tag, which he would then discuss on the article's talk page. He describes the nature of the problem, and we work together to fix it. He cannot place another tag on the same article until we have successfully fixed that item. This would make him think twice about saying "this whole article is unsourced OR" or "this whole article is in-universe plot summary", since that would be unproductive and no one would try to fix it. He'd have to pick and chose things which could actually be reasonably fixed. Third opinion and article RFC should be utilized in cases of disagreement.

The thing is, you can't force someone to want to collaborate; they have to see the value in doing so and see why the spirit of Wikipedia demands collaboration and cooperation if it demands anything at all. The best we can do is come up with something and give it a try and hope it works. BOZ (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it and think that will help reduce misplaced tags. But being close to the dispute, does that satisfy you that it will help Gavin become more collaborative, or at least less of a one-man crusade? Randomran (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like both of BOZ's suggestions. I also want to mention that if Gavin can't find article sources (as would be needed by the BOZ's first idea) because he doesn't know enough about what he's working on, why should he be working on it? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything can satisfy me as far as helping Gavin become more collaborative, or at least less of a one-man crusade, unless he wants to make such a change. However, if you can show me that it works I will happily concede that viewpoint. :) Like I said, we can only try and hope it works. Insisting on collaboration has got to be better than choosing between getting steamrolled or fighting forever. If anyone else has something to add to your ideas, I'd like to hear it. Do you have maybe a revision we can look at? BOZ (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he even working on RPG related articles or ones that a 45 year old accounting expert has little to no knowledge about is what has been asked of him for over a year, with no response. Likewise why he doesn't work with the D&D or any other project to reach consensus through collaboration has not received an answer either. shadzar-talk 22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can use google scholar and google books and even lexisnexis. I just think that expecting him to actually *turn up* sources is tough: maybe he honestly couldn't find them, maybe they don't exist, or maybe he's being dishonest. We'll never know. Randomran (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Shadzar: It's his business apparently, since he's not sharing. Neither being 45 nor an accounting expert precludes a person from being interested in D&D as far as I've experienced, but he has indicated before that most of his knowledge of the subject comes from what he has read here. As for why he hasn't tried collaborating on the articles himself, he has responded before that he feels we would simply revert any edit he'd try to make. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~undent~ By all means anyone should edit the pages, but it just dumbfounds me why someone wanting to learn more about the subject would turn only to wikipedia, and then in turn try to have articles removed when said person doesn't know what they are about in the first place. If he was collaborating and went with consensus rather than against it, there is a higher chance that edits would not be reverted, but that does not seem a likely outcome or one where he will engage in discussion willingly. It seems it is only wasting everyones time for someone to work on something they don't really have any interest in where such efforts could go elsewhere to make other things better, or in the very least work with the people who do have knowledge of the subject matter and strive to reach an understanding and agreement of each other rather than for lack of a better term, cyber-bullying, people into trying to conform to one mans ideas. I will not give a D&D stereotype for the way things seem to be if Gavin was a player, but I am sure anyone playing an RPG or any other game knows exactly what type of player I am thinking about, and the usual course taken to handle such a player if they refuse to work with others after a years time. But such course to be dealt with for a player doesn't really need to be that strong here on wikipedia. All in all wikipedia is like a huge RPG in that each person must work together for the same goal and someone always working against everyone else does not help but only hinders reaching that goal. :( shadzar-talk 23:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you any insight into the "why", because I am equally dumbfounded. :) Yes, I understand he feels there are issues that should be cleaned up, which makes enough sense, but I don't understand why he focuses on these particular articles when there are so many, many articles on many, many different topics with the same exact issues. We've asked, he doesn't answer, and so there probably isn't any point in asking anymore unless someone wants to pose the question to him directly. As far as that RPG term you're looking for, maybe it's rules lawyer - takes all the fun out of the game in the name of making sure the rules are followed. :) BOZ (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quick update to where we're at:

WP:AGF. Do not bring other peoples' motives into a discussion about content.
Gavin is permitted to tag. But he must add a comment explaining the rationale for the tag at the article talk page, at least for the next 2 months.
Gavin must actually engage with ~~the D&D Wikiproject~~ 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.)
No more hostility, accusations, or disparaging remarks. Be WP:CIVIL, and use WP:ETIQUETTE.
Be more cautious with tagging. Tag only where it truly applies. If he has a good faith belief that the tag applies and it isn't obvious, he should explain how it applies on the article's talk page.
If a tag is reverted by the community, instead of edit warring, Gavin should discuss. If the discussion results in no consensus, the parties should try to get a third-opinion, or solicit discussion at (another relevant forum). (Any ideas? Usually I'd say "discuss it at the WikiProject", but that might not make sense here.)
~~Plus some kind of enforcement mechanism, should the problem repeat itself or escalate. (Do we need to use the b-word?)~~ If Gavin ignores the requests at this RFC, further action may be taken.

What does everyone think? Randomran (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right, Randomran. Do we need to use the B-word? I don't think that that's needed at this point in time. I think that common sense could work as an enforcement mechanism. If Gavin steps too far, we can let him know and hope that he realizes the error and avoids it in the future. If he continually repeats the behavior, a temporary B might be in order. I don't want anyone to be blocked, but it is something that does need to be discussed. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Item #4 could be folded into #1, leaving that as the top item. Gavin's interpretation of these items will likely be vastly different than ours (see his response, "no evidence of any abusive behaviour in any of the instances given") so be as descriptive as possible. I'm not sure that there should be an expiration date on discussing the tags, at least the ones that require a discussion on the talk page, unless I missed somthing above in what Protonk said. This might need to be as descriptive as possible as well. Mention the one-tag-per-article-at-a-time concept, to prevent mass tagging. Say "reverting" rather than "edit warring"; I don't think he believes he has edit warred, so that will affect his interpretation of such a claim. I think a focus on DR with 3O and article RFC is an absolute must to mention, because I can't see disagreement ending on its own and we need to do something other than argue. Discussing at the Wikiproject page doesn't seem to make sense, I agree. In general, be as explicit as possible, to cut down on possible misinterpretation. Yes, we need an enforcement mechanism, but I don't think that we can proscribe anything like the b-word. :) What we need is something similar to ArbCom enforcement; you know, if there is incivility or failure to discuss a tag, we need somewhere to go to report it and point to this RFC and its resolution so that an uninvolved admin can review it. Obviously, it's not the same as breaking an ArbCom ruling, so any warning or action to be taken would be at the admin's discretion. I'm not sure that AN/I would be the proper venue for this, but it may be. BOZ (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think taking away his right to revert would be too onerous, and allow people to walk all over him. We want to take away his sword, not his shield. We'll know an edit war when we see it, even if he tries to play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the warning. ... I also think the discussion requirement will drastically slow down the mass tagging. Randomran (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Other than merging #4 into #1 as a general Civility/AGF statement (or at least moving #4 up to the #2 spot for emphasis?) and any other concerns I bring up in the above post, there's nothing else I really have to add. If you propose this, I'll strikethrough my endorsement on Casliber's proposal and endorse yours (can't very well be attempting two methods at once). BOZ (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what other people think. I'm pretty satisfied with it too, as is. Randomran (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think #3 is too loose, and only help in regards to D&D, but not other areas Gavin may travel to such as RPGs in general, or any other article on wikipedia. It should not be directed that this action to resolve a behavior problem only focus on one area of wikipedia, but be made to resolve the issue for all of wikipedia so that no other editor has to deal with it. I think that is a key thing some many be forgetting as we go, is that the D&D wikiproject just brought this forth, but it is not solely the D&D articles that are the only ones affected by the problematic behavior. Like Masem said in response to the policy changes be Gavin, he is working both ends of an angle to get something done that seems to go against other people's opinions and consensus, but must adhere to his ideas rather than to work in a collaborative manner, and this collaboration of editors is what brings about good articles on wikipedia that are helpful to people, and not just D&D related articles. shadzar-talk 22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded #3 to all tags. (As for policy, Gavin hasn't tried to change any policy or guidelines from their current status. Not yet, anyway.) Randomran (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot of time to clean it up. But I made a few quick changes based on what I skimmed. Do we still need to make further changes? Randomran (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drilnoth's variation

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.
Accurate tagging: Be more cautious with tagging. Tag only where it truly applies. Preferably, Gavin should try to fix the article that he tags before tagging it. If Gavin has a good faith belief that the tag applies and it isn't obvious, he should clarify that at the article's talk page when he tags it.
Discuss every tag: Gavin is permitted to tag, but he must add a comment explaining the rationale every tag at the respective article's talk page or the tag may be removed without further discussion. If a tag is removed by the community, instead of edit warring, Gavin should discuss it. 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).
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.) Tags need to be used properly; if a tag is placed in an article or section where it does belong according to the template's documentation, it should be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tag.
Accountability: If Gavin ignores the 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.

Any thoughts? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is pretty fair. There's no blanket ban on what he's allowed to do, but he has to take affirmative steps to make the situation better. (I like your idea of using those noticeboards.) I just made a few small tweaks for organization and clarity. Randomran (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's beautiful. wipes tears away Seriously, it is mostly a reorganization of Randomran's original, so that's good. I have to assume that #2 only applies to new tags, and not the many hundreds which are currently on D&D articles? Although I like your addition to #3, "Tags need to be used properly; if a tag is placed in an article or section where it does belong according to the template's documentation, it should be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tag;" I think at first it would lead to a lot of arguments, but then that's why we're insisting on discussion, noticeboards, and the DR process right? Your addition to #4, "Preferably, Gavin should try to fix the article that he tags before tagging it," is good, because it says "preferably" rather than insisting that he fixes an article. I like what you came up with for #5 as well, because that spells it all out. BOZ (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it targets the real problem. Let's give it a day or so, and then I'll post it on the mainpage for endorsement. Thanks a lot for being so cooperative, guys. Randomran (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! My real aim was just to consolidate some of Randomran's points, as discussed, and add in a few more ideas and clarifications; I'm happy you think it's good. I think that giving it a few days is a good idea, then we can think about it and make sure that there's nothing wrong.

BOZ, you are correct in the assumption that #2 applies only to new tags, although it would also be nice if Gavin went back and, over time, looked at the previously-tagged articles, I know that that really isn't feasible. For point #3, I agree that that could lead to arguments for a while, in which case we might just need third opinions or posts at appropriate noticeboards. I think that things like {{notability}} vs. {{importance}} (at Talk:Races of Stone, Gavin said that the topic might be notable but the article does not demonstrate it, so he added the {{notability}} tag. According to his own words, then, and not simply a preference by other editors, the {{importance}} tag would be more appropriate per the documentation of {{notability}}), {{in-universe}} vs. {{plot}}, and the use of other individual tags (notably {{Who?}}, {{originalresearch}}, and {{fact}}). I think, however, that once appropriate third-parties have been consulted on a particular issue the problem shouldn't come up again for that specific type of tag. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portions of #2 and #3 are redundant to each other. I also dislike the "...good faith belief that the tag applies and it isn't obvious" clause of #2 since some talk discussions imply that Gavin believes that every tag he places applies and is obvious. On the other hand, most of the time I remove a tag and request comment on talk before re-adding in the edit comment, it does not get re-added. --Rindis (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah #2 is a big problem because all it means it is must be "obvious" to Gavin the tag belongs, and that has been the whole problem all along with not collaborating and working with any consensus. A tag should include discussion, obvious or not to note why the tag was added for other edits to take place to correct any perceived problem with an article by the person who tagged it in the first place. This is where a lot of the behavior problems stem from. What seems obvious to Gavin is not what others believe to be true, and without any discussion the tags are reverted due to lack of collaboration on the article, and when cleanup is done and the tag removed, it may be replaced again the next day because the cleanup does not satisfy Gavin, and he still refuses to place discussion on the articles talk page, but places things like "cease and desist from removing tags" sections on the person's talk page that removed the tag. This is why discussion should, nay must, be present with the tags for consensus to be reached through collaboration of other editors, and where Gavin just have to accept what other editors decide sometimes in order to work on an article in a civil manner by working through consensus. Otherwise it will be constant edit warring over tags, and no cleanup will ever be effected on the articles themselves. Which is what led us to the first RfC, the RfM, and now a second RfC. Gavin's unwillingness to engage in discussion on an articles talk page to specify why the tag was placed, other than to say "see the tag it tells what needs to be done". shadzar-talk 22:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so everyone agrees that #2 and #3 need to be combined, with the result looking more like #3 than #2, right? -Drilnoth (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if we assume that Gavin always feels that his tags truly apply, and has a good faith belief that the reason for the tag is obvious, and we are already stating that he should clarify this at the article's talk page, so all of that can be assumed to be redundant, we have:

Responsible tagging: Gavin is permitted to tag articles with templates, but 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. If a tag is removed by the community, instead of edit warring, Gavin should discuss the tag. 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).

BOZ (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current version

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.
Responsible tagging: Gavin is permitted to tag articles with templates, but 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. If a tag is removed by the community, instead of edit warring, Gavin should discuss the tag. 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).
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.) Tags need to be used properly; if a tag is placed in an article or section where it does belong according to the template's documentation, it should be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tag.
Accountability: If Gavin ignores the 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.

-Drilnoth (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an improvement. It was weird to say "he should discuss every tag" and also say "he should discuss the tag if it isn't obvious" -- I think that's an artifact from sort of building this up one piece at a time. Either way, it's cleaner and clearer now. Randomran (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Whenever you're ready, put any additional spin on it as you see fit and post. Thanks again for all your help - I think you've done an excellent job of getting this RFC on track to where it needs to be! :) BOZ (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help guys. I'm glad we could find a way forward that was still firm, but did a better job addressing the real problem. I think this is not just more effective, but more fair -- kind of a strange combination. Randomran (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should be thanking you. Your input from a position not currently involved in the dispute directly has been an immense help. I'll notify Gavin of the new proposal. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note at Gavin's talk page, and he's responded there if anyone wants to take a look. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to put any faith in the idea that two months will resolve this dispute and not put us right back where we started, but I will try. At least that time period will give us a good look at how things are going to go. More than likely, since Gavin has stated that he will not be subscribing to this proposal, I suspect that he will follow Casliber's three month pause to the letter; after that, who knows. Does it matter at all whether or not he agrees to this proposal, or should we batten down the hatches now and get to merging before he gets to deleting? :) BOZ (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the new info notice I've put on my userpage for my (current) views about working on lower-importance articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've felt that way for awhile now. :) We'll merge later as appropriate, then. I think getting more GA's and FA's is a much more important priority for us. But I'll still do what I can, when I can, for the rest. BOZ (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two months?

I'd endorse Randomran's proposal, except that after two months Gavin is allowed to go back to being Gavin. With that firm expiry date in there, I can't endorse it; I'd much rather see something like "until the community believes his behaviour has permanently changed". I realise this would in practise mean that the sanctions are in place permanently, but that's entirely his fault. Apologies if I'm rehashing ground that you've gone over before. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite punishments should be reserved for someone who repeatedly and blatantly violates our behavioral guidelines. Gavin engaged in some edit warring, personal attacks, and went so far as to award a barnstar as a sarcastic insult. But for all of Gavin's strongheadedness, he hasn't had a history of violating behavioral guidelines. This is an appropriate starting point. Randomran (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually suggesting an indefinite punishment - "Until he reforms" isn't indefinite - just one with a terminating condition that I don't think he'll ever meet. But if he does, I'll be happy to be proved wrong. I don't think, however, that giving us a two-month holiday is an appropriate starting point. He is repeatedly and blatantly violating our behavioral guidelines , and he should stop repeatedly and blatantly violating our behavioral guidelines and never start again, or there's no point in this process. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the two-month restriction is even palatable to me is that it's being sold as a moratorium, not a sanction. The project has two months to start addressing the notability concerns raised in order to demonstrate that it's capable of doing so without someone being constantly on their backs about it. Should that fail to happen, it is imperative that the tagging restarts or it's basically an implicit license for D&D articles to ignore our notability guidelines. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - in that case I think it's sensible for you to press ahead with it, but I won't be endorsing it - I don't see why this attempt to negotiate should succeed when so many previous ones have failed. Call me when you get to the stage of sanctions and you can count on my endorsement then. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I suggested a 3 month 'ceasefire' as the views of Gavin and the D&D'ers are so disparate that it is going to take quite a bit of time before there is improvement sufficient for Gavin to review tagging, so one may as well save everyone some time by suggesting a moratorium. O mean, I hope a collaborative consensus can evolve but I am not holding my breath, and see a moratorium as the best way for folks to stop wasting time reverting each other and hunt sources etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem though Randomran is that this is the SECOND RfC and the first one came to no conclusion as I recall no one other than involved parties stepped in to take part in it. That is why some feel the 2 months for D&Ders only does not really help stop a potential problem, because the Kender RfM only stalled Gavin for 6 months because he was inactive or otherwise working on the RfM or notability guidelines the entire time so that they would support his views rather than those of wikipedia. It has been 2 years now of fighting with Gavin, so those form D&D project alone are a bit tired of the waiting game for something to be done which failed with the first RfC, and then an AN/I recently led to this RfC. but it will leave Gavin to go elsewhere and harras other users/projects, and in the meantime work more on the notability and other guidelines to suit himself, while D&D editors are trying to work on the article only to have Gavin come back with his new ~~ammo~~ policies that D&D project memebers were unable to participate in due to working on actual article to improve wikipedia, and use this new policy to threaten and hang over the heads of the D&D project and any other related RPG or other project for which he has knowledge of the subject matter, or just wants to see it gone from wikipedia, while his little 100 yera old criquet club sits as un-notable as can be with a single obscure source and defeats every AfD, which better D&D articles with a multitude of reliable secondary resources are destroyed and content/context in them lost with better sources and a more notable subject....where is the logic in that? So two months time is just like telling a cancer patient they have two months to live. My cousin would have preferred not knowing herself so she could have more easily enjoyed the time rather than dread the end of the two months.... shadzar-talk 11:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having the two-month timeframe isn't right, and it should be based more on the consensus of editors at an appropriate time. I am concerned that after two months (or three months, with Casliber's suggesstion), Gavin will immediately go back to his old ways, which he already did after the RFM. It's a moot point, in any case, since he has said on his talk page that he won't agree to the newer idea...

I won't be subscribing to the proposal A solution from collaboration, for collaboration, because its wording is very one sided. From it I get the distinct impression that (a) it assumes I am not doing these things already; (b) it fails to recognise that this is a two sided dispute, in which memebers of the D&D Wikiproject may also have also participated; and (c) all of the obligations to "do the right thing" are placed upon me, whilst members D&D Wikiproject are allowed to remove cleanup templates for what ever reason they like.
In my view, I think removing the cleanup templates without reasonable justification is the real issue behind the dispute, an activity which members of the D&D Wikiproject do as if some low quality articles don't need them at all[1]. The statement that Gavin "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" seems to me to be an excuse for removing cleanup templates, even if it is glaringly obvious they are needed. Remember that in the discussions leading Kender RFM, there were many instances of cleanup templates being removed without good reason, or for reasons that turned out to be spurious. As far as I am concerned, it ended only when the issues that the cleanup templates identified were addressed, and their removal justified.
I am happy to subscribe with the proposal Possible way forward by Casliber, as at least it is neutral in tone, it involves both parties to the dipute but implicates neither in any wrong doing, and the obligations which it sets out are fairly evenly distributed and do not provide a free pass for any disfunctional behaviour. -Gavin.collins

However, I think that it is still important to talk about this whole issue. A better way around these disagreements needs to be found, one that works for everyone even if nobody's particularly happy with the resolution, before this dispute escalates much further. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I thought Calisber suggested two months as well. I was just working from there (or from what I thought was there). Either way, we can't hold Gavin responsible for an inconclusive RFC. We can only hold him responsible for what people agreed to here. I know things are slow. But for someone who engages in borderline behavior repeatedly, things DO move slow: there's a bunch of RFCs and ANIs where people say "but he's just sticking to his opinion! This is a vendetta against inclusionists/deletionists!" It's only after a few incidents that the pattern really emerges, and we can tell that their borderline behavior is actually disruptive.

And we have to give people the benefit of the doubt: we've made it clear that edit warring over tags is unacceptable, let alone getting into discussions where he starts attacking people. Give him two months to engage, and learn his lesson. After that, he's still on the hook to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. If he doesn't, then we'll be able to point to this RFC and say "it didn't work". But it's not fair to say "this won't work" before we try it, because it basically assumes that the person won't listen to a warning. We're doing this by the book. Randomran (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We did give him the benefit of the doubt, and we can point to the first RFC and say "it didn't work". Gavin won't listen to a warning. However, that doesn't mean this won't work; it just won't work if it requires his cooperation, which he isn't going to give. But it doesn't have to - if the outcome of this RFC is a sanction that is lifted as and when he reforms rather than after a fixed amount of time, then it will work. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw the first RFC, but it sounds like they weren't even sure there was a problem. It sounds like a lot of people didn't think Gavin was doing anything wrong. Can you link me to the old one? Randomran (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. :) First item here. I only caught the RFC midway through or so, because someone had linked to it, so I wasn't anywhere near as involved as I was this time. The main reason it likely failed, as I explained in the "Description" was that the RFC seemed to be much more focused on "he tries to delete too many things!" with the behavioral problems only as a mere afterthought. Thus, plenty of people stood up and said "he has a right to nominate things for deletion, quit picking on him" and nothing ever came of the RFC. BOZ (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and guideline editing to force editors to subscribe to his views.

I don't know if it is too late to mention, but this bit [2] to try to kill off "spin-off" articles like Ansalon wherein the main article about it is already large is another problem. It will not only affect D&D articles, but all articles such as Movie, book, TV characters and any other element of a fictional work. Not every article has enough room for the important parts of a fictional work, and only mentioning the name of some thing because of "non-trivial" requirement will give certain editors the feel they have to right to demand something be deleted on the basis that it is trivial to real world, even if non-trivial to the fictional work wherein there is not enough room in the main article about a fictional work to even mention things and their relative importance within the work itself. I think this trying to force consensus as with the later edit that was reverted is another part of the behavior issue, and maybe Gavin would like his own Wiki website to enforce the regulations he prefers rather than work with the community as a whole to thing what is best for the project of wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I don't think everything is notable or needs an article, but the dispute on spin-off articles is one where a line needs to be drawn or an actuall kilobytes article size limit be set to allow for information that is needed within an article, or some editors will see fit to have anything not already known by the mass public removed from the encyclopedia, which will defeat its purpose of researching new things if everyone already knows and has heard about every article within it. But it is a bit late/early and maybe I am lacking sleep to think thoroughly about it, but this this activity will impact things broader than the current issues if it is let to continue in this manner. Watch the Ansalon article soon and you will probably notice the recent change to the policy being used as grounds for its deletion or contention not to include it via the 3-prong test failure as created by the change in the policy in the above edit. shadzar-talk 11:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another reminder to those who want some action to be taken on this user conduct RfC that the most likely way to accomplish this is to concentrate on disagreeable conduct by the user, and not on one's general grievances with policy, notability, the tagging system et cetera. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you consider that Gavin is trying to burn the candle at both ends - tagging articles with weak notability, while at the same time trying to strengthen policy towards the disallowance of articles with only weak notability - there's a conduct issue. Again, it's not trying to bring up what policy should be saying, only that Gavin is actively working two approaches to attempt to rid certain articles from WP. --MASEM 12:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is important to think about Gavin's policy edits, especially since pretty much all of his policy edits relate to WP:FICT, which applies directly to most all of the D&D articles he's been involved in editing. If he was working on a lot of different policies and guidelines I don't think that this would matter as much, but as it appears that he is trying to modify only the specific guideline which would strengthen his position in regards to D&D articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, was there talk page consensus for the edit Shadzar linked to above? It's a pretty significant change, so it should probably be discussed before it's finalized. I'm not planning to get directly involved in the policy discussions there, but I thought I'd mention it. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself agreeing with Chris on this one - which is why I had removed a lot of the "Gavin works on this policy and that policy" stuff from the original draft (oh yeah, there was a lot more). It's not actionable behavior in any way to discuss a policy or even make minor changes to it, because after all it requires consensus to move forward, and if his ideas do somehow gain consensus then good for him; if not, then his viewpoint will gain no traction and/or be reverted. About the only policy thing you could maybe hang on him for that is something he has often (see item #2 for a reminder) accused others of: POV pushing. Now, I don't think it's not useful to discuss what he is doing on those talk pages, as a way to perhaps better understand where he is coming from, or for concerned editors to get involved in those discussions, but at the moment I'm not sure what place it has in discussing his behavior in regards this RFC. BOZ (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Chris and BOZ. The only thing I'd add: there's a difference between trying to tighten guidelines to push a personal point of view, versus preventing them from being diluted. Admittedly, he hasn't been the most cooperative in finding a way to relax the WP:GNG -- which is the discussion at WP:FICT going on now. But I've never seen him push for anything that isn't already in WP:N. (e.g.: the "non-trivial" requirement) Randomran (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I agree with everyone else here. The only problem that I see with Gavin's being involved in WP:FICT would be if he is making significant changes without consensus, which it looks like is sometimes the case. Otherwise, I agree that it isn't really a major point in this discussion. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~undent~ Since the policy edits are working together in what appears to me to game the system, then yes it should be a focus on the behavioral issue. Yes one edit was reverted due to lack of consensus on the policy where Gavin seems to have gone against consensus knowingly. [3] shadzar-talk 23:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what could, or should be done about that, if anything. Edit warring over the actual guideline is a problem, as are any of the potential civility/AGF issues on the talk page; Masem and Randomran have more experience with him there than we do, so maybe that can speak to this more than I could. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masem did speak on it above, "Gavin is trying to burn the candle at both ends". Also Randomran did just a few messages up as well, "he hasn't been the most cooperative". Just to note some key things as parts of what they say above. shadzar-talk 00:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speculating about motivations

[4] Phil Sandifer brings up an excellent point here, that I forgot to mention. I've seen, many times, Gavin speculating about others' motivations for making certain edits or holding certain viewpoints, recasting that individual in a negative way. I'm sure Masem, or a lot of people here really, have been on the other end of that. Is that another WP:AGF violation that we need to focus on, or is that really nothing to worry about? BOZ (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty straight forward. Gavin needs to stop being accusatory. (That said, you didn't use a good example. I don't think there's anything too ridiculous about saying "editors work hard on a lot of articles and don't always want to admit they fail policy". I think that's just being realistic. See WP:LOSE -- people straight up use the "I worked hard on it" argument all the time.) The problem is when he questions someone's motive directly, and changes the topic away from a content debates. Content debates need to remain about content, period. Randomran (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a strong example, but Phil's response made me think of things I've seen in the past. You know, like the "It looks like you are trying to..." sort of thing which really falls far from the mark of what the person is actually saying or doing. BOZ (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wouldn't let the example get in the way of what you're saying. You're right. It just needs to stop, period. And there might need to be a more serious response if it continues. (That said, I have hope that it will stop. Usually just bringing something to RFC has a way of putting someone on better behavior.) Randomran (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's precisely the kind of thing this RfC should focus on. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't think that the example given is ideal, I agree that this is an important point to think about in these discussions which was accidentally left out of the RFC. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not left out per se, just not explicitly covered; the other ideas we presented would cover this as well, so no reason not to include it. BOZ (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we ought to cover it, and I think we have covered it with the discussion up thread. This is a question of personal attacks and assuming good faith. We need to remind him to do it. And we might even need a way to enforce it, if he strays. (Which, again, I'm optimistic he won't now that it's been made clear to him.) Randomran (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though we should make sure that we ourselves assume good faith in him as well. Hooper (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, or collaboration will fail. BOZ (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of examples of accusing editors of COI violations. The Dan Willis one is a recent example. And I know editors who have left due to Gavin's repeated overuse of this attack. Web Warlock (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's not what I was getting at, but that is one thing. What I meant, more specifically, is if he were suggest (to come up with a wild example) that because you kept putting the word "red" into an article that you must be a communist, or that if you kept removing the word "black" from an article you must be a racist. Those aren't things he's ever actually said, but I couldn't think of any actual examples that have happened. :) You know, more along the lines of if you kept trying to suggest one idea that he makes an suggestion about what you really mean. BOZ (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This aspect seems to be endemic (I may have misdiagnosed the condition), and not at all limited to dealing with D&D people, as evidenced by this typically less-than-friendly exchange: [5], [6], [7], [8] BOZ (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's unfortunate that he disagrees with me, I don't think he's doing anything wrong here. He "stuck to his guns", and was blunt that he didn't like my additions. I think we want to keep an eye out for true incivility and accusations of bad faith. But this isn't happening (again) yet. Randomran (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking restoration Gavin.collins changes to Margaret Weis Productions, Ltd article

I'm currently seeking for Margaret Weis Productions, Ltd (a company) to be demerged from Margaret Weis (a person). As Gavin was the person who pushed this through and this RFC is active, I thought I would bring this issue up here.

IMO Gavin's reason for merging the one article into the other ('Margaret Weis Productions, Ltd is probably a closed company, wholly owned & staffed by Margaret Weis herself.') is not a valid one. The merger was disputed by another wiki editor (who attempted to repair the article). But the merger was pushed through anyway.

I would like to see the Margaret Weis Productions, Inc article rolled back to its last good state and once that is done, I would like to see the Sovereign_Press,_Inc article merged into the (restored) Margaret Weis Productions, Inc article.

Both the MWP article and the SP article were/are stubs that need a lot of improvement. But I believe that improvement should focus on merging the dead company into the living company and doing it in a real way (i.e. a section in the MWP article for SP - not just a redirect).

With this RFC against Gavin going on, I'm not quite sure what the correct way to proceed should be. Big Mac (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the restoration, although I'm not sure what kind of merge would work best. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that community agreement should occur before any sort of merger of Soverign Press and Margaret Weis Productions was done. It is possible, that someone who reserches the two company can come up with a good reason why it shouldn't go ahead. I think this part of what I am pushing for should be led by facts, rather than my personal opinion of the two companies. Big Mac (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the edit history of the Margaret Weis Productions, Inc article. Gavin added a notability tag and a merge tag within three minutes and Percy Snoodle merged the article on the same day (within two and a half hours of the merge tag being added). That is definately far too fast for the community to do any sort of fix, so I'm going to go ahead and revert the article, pull the merge tag and change the notable tag to the refimprove tag that another editor put onto the SP article after Gavin tagged that as notable. I've never used refimprove before, so if someone could check my work that would be nice. Big Mac (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I've also fixed a broken link (after someone flagged that up) and pinged two Wikiprojects (and Dragonlance Nexus) to ask for help. Anyway, I'll get off of this disussion page now (as the main reason for posting here was to provide notification of an edited article that was possibly related to the RFC). Big Mac (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what this RFC is not

I just want to be clear on a few things, because I'm starting to see why Gavin felt this was becoming a WP:COATRACK.

There are obviously a lot of people who strongly disagree with Gavin's opinion on notability. I'll freely admit I'm sympathetic to the need for strong guidelines, and that means there will be times when people try to maintain articles in conformity with our overall practices. I support a softening of those guidelines. I know many people here want to scrap notability together. Gavin insists on WP:N exactly as it is right now. That's really his choice. He pretty much supports the our policies and guidelines as they are, and appears to be against virtually any change. That's frustrating, yes. But we'll quickly tear this community apart if we start pointing fingers at people who are "won't compromise". Trust me when I say there are a ton of people more stubborn than Gavin on both sides of the inclusionist/deletionist debate.
There is nothing in the rules that says clean-up, tagging, AFDs, discussing guidelines -- all the metapedian activities -- are bad behaviors. Everyone contributes to Wikipedia in different ways. I see people who only add unverified information. I see people who only clean-up. I see people who only participate in deletion debates, and jump in with sources -- many unreliable or trivial. These highly specialized Wikipedians are very likely to bash their heads together. But hate it or love it, we need all of them, and we need them to work together. There's no rule against any of these behaviors. Until there's a rule against tagging articles accurately, it's unfair to hold Gavin responsible to a special standard that's never been forced on anyone.

We need to be very specific about the problem behavior. There was some edit warring, some personal attacks, and a sarcastic barnstar. This started *because* of tagging, but let's not say the tagging was the problem. It's just what caused the dispute. The problem is that Gavin mishandled the dispute, not that he's not allowed to disagree. So let's show Gavin that he needs be civil in any dispute, and wait to see if he learns his lesson. (If he hasn't, then we have evidence that we need more drastic action.)

I cannot say this clearly enough: if merely frustrating people becomes a WikiCrime, we're going to start a McCarthyist witchunt worse than anything Gavin ever did. I don't want that. I hope people have the good sense to not want that either. Randomran (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. It's just difficult at times because it seems like, if his tagging behavior was to stop, Gavin would probably stop the rest of the edit warring, personal attacks, etc., because even now it is discussion over newly-placed tags which causes these problems to come up. I do not wish Gavin to be denied the ability to disagree; indeed, disagreement is an important part of creating logical solutions to any problem. Nor do I believe that his specific choice of how to edit is a problem... having people that tag articles will (hopefully) help get those articles improved. The way I see it, this dispute has been caused mainly by the personal attacks/COI accusations, edit warring, defensive behavior, and occasional misuse of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and template documentation and not, I repeat not, because of how Gavin contributes to Wikipedia (by tagging articles for cleanup). -Drilnoth (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I agree. It's just that with the mass-tagging and adamantly sticking by the original rationale (rather than the thoughtful discussion insisted upon by your proposal) comes the disputed behavior, and I think it's this that people are afraid of - that the tagging and the disputed behavior are inextricably linked. It's not like it's only a small number of us going around and having the same arguments with him (although that has happened); it's all of the people who have individually had these same problems with him that all started off the same way (often enough, even over minute differences in opinion), and then they realized that they were not alone and that numerous others squared off against him the same way. That, I think, is why some would be content with him not getting involved with the tagging, because without that activity there seems to be no interaction whatsoever between Gavin and RPG editors (witness the near-silence between April-October of this year, outside of the RFM itself). But, as you have pointed out before, an indefinite moratorium on tagging won't solve the problem, it will just shove it under the carpet. BOZ (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that two of the people who were on the other side of this dispute feel the same way. I'm also sympathetic to worries that maybe the behavior won't change, or that it will only change for two months. But consider this probationary. It's a chance for Gavin to learn that (1) if he acts WP:BOLDly and unilaterally, then people have a right to revert, and (2) when people revert, he has a responsibility to discuss with civility, assume good faith, and focus on the content rather than personal attacks. Especially for #2, we'll be able to tell if he hasn't learned his lesson. Randomran (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the two months, that may wind up being inconclusive, simply because Gavin has stated his preference for Casliber's proposal, and will therefore likely stick with the three-month "cease-fire" ending April 1st. If he adds no templates at all during the next two months (as was the case during the previous "cease-fire" during the RFM), then point #2 of your proposal as written will wind up having no bearing at all. I don't know if that's gaming the requests of the RFC (per point #4), but I can't see why points #1, #3, and #4 shouldn't stay in effect without a time limit. As it is, he has edited no D&D articles or article talk pages since he signed the proposal endorsement on December 10th, so I assume he will stick with that until Casliber's proposed time limit runs out. BOZ (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that just staying out would be against any rules. I guess you're right. But it certainly wouldn't reflect well on him if he were to have a relapse. Something to keep in mind if he ever starts edit warring / recklessly tagging inaccurately / personally attacking people who revert him. Randomran (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to construct a set of advice when all is said and done to help us better react to Gavin - it would reflect a lot of the items brought up here, and I'd like your help in putting it together. If things do heat back up again, I'd like to keep it from being our fault. :) BOZ (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to offer my input. Whenever you have something you'd like to run by me, you know how to find me. Randomran (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

So, can we say we have achieved consensus to move on with Randomran's proposal? While support seems shaky because a number of respondants (myself included) feel that the 2-month suggested time period for item #2 won't amount to much, over 20 people have lent their support all the same. While item #2 may be lacking in support, the other items have no end-date and no respondant has questioned their usefulness. If we do have consensus, then what is the next step? BOZ (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can't force Gavin to agree with the proposal. I think that at this point we should just wait and see what happens. Maybe if we can improve the quality of a few more articles, and get a few more GAs and FAs, that would show him that we can get a lot of good work done when we aren't all involved in various disputes. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but does it matter whether he agrees with the proposal? That's the part I'm not clear about; this isn't mediation, it's a request for community comment. Do we have consensus, or is something else required? BOZ (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the consensus in this RFC will impact future disputes, such as mediation and ArbComm, if they are nesseccary. It would indicate the community's general feel about Gavin. However, a request for comment itself, to my knowledge, does not carry any requirement the way like mediation and ArbComm does. Other users are commenting on a dispute and providing their position, which will hopefully be used to help resolve the problem, nothing more. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. I just wasn't sure if there was something else that needed to be done, like ratifying it or making it official, or something like that. :) BOZ (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: regarding specifically the comments from Dec 9 and on (the older stuff was mostly from before this RFC, and in large part led up to the RFC coming into being), did we handle this the right way? If not, how could we better handle that? BOZ (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the RfC should run for 30 days. The best outcome would be to convince Gavin to agree to Random's proposal or to craft a compromise close to Random's. Failing that, if we show overwhelming community consensus for randoms proposal we can still tell gavin that these are basically the expectations. Should the behavior escalate or continue then the next step in DR is Arbcom. Because that is an unpleasant result, my hope is for a tacit (or preferably explicit) agreement from gavin as to the basis of the dispute and the desired outcome. Protonk (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with that approach, is that Gavin has already stated that he believes the basis of the dispute, the desired outcome, and Randomran's proposal are all inherently inaccurate and unfair to him. If we really do need some sort of agreement from Gavin to make this stick, we could see what parts specifically could be changed in Randomran's proposal to be more acceptable to him. If he won't budge very much, then I can't see being able to come up with a proposal that would meet consensus (which seems to feel that the proposal is too lenient on Gavin as it is). What do you suggest? BOZ (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's less a problem with my approach than a limitation of RfCs in general. If gavin refuses to agree to Random's summary (and random is a pretty fair guy), then we have only two (basically) options. We either find at the end of 30 days that Random's view has consensus and that Gavin is operating in defiance of this--therefore DR has been exhausted and we go to arbcom. Or we sit down and find something between Random's suggestion and Gavin's suggestion. This latter solution is harder for you guys because you don't necessarily feel that Random and Gavin occupy two poles of the issue. Random seems to be at the middle and Gavin at a far end. Consequently, "compromise" would result in splitting the difference between the middle and the extreme rather than two extremes. This is probably unacceptable, but if it is acceptable it is the desired route. Protonk (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the RfC should run until the 5th of Jan. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randomran has indeed been fair from the start, and I think most of really appreciated that. Certainly, enough people did agree with the majority of his proposal even when they disagreed with parts of it, and thus it gained consensus. I can live with waiting out the 30 days and a finding of consensus acheived, although I have an issue if that leads to an automatic ArbCom. I think that we could go a little to the left of Random's proposal - but not by removing anything from it, just adding a little to shift the focus a bit. Gavin's main complaint with the proposal seemed to be that it focused too much on him; fine, let's include everyone. I think if we work in a little of this while keeping the rest of the proposal as-is, that will allow us to meet Gavin partway. If you agree, I will craft a slight revision, propose it to Gavin, and ask if he will endorse it publicly. I don't think we'll need to seek consensus on that again (would we?) but I will add it after Randomran's proposal. Let me know what you think. BOZ (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Gavin finds the collaborative proposal unacceptable, we may as well know *why*. Who knows, maybe his objections make sense. But if it's just that he would rather leave that area of content alone for three months and repeat the same behavior somewhere else (or later, at the same place)... then we ought to know that too. Either way, it will inform our next step. Randomran (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was his initial response to the proposal. That does not mean that further discussion may not be worthwhile. BOZ (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I can see where his objections come from. But I think it's implied that the other editors should act in good faith too, and be civil, and assume good faith on Gavin's part (so long as he's abiding by behavioral policies). It's not like the other side should get a free pass to walk all over him, now that we're essentially putting him on parole. Randomran (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

OK, if our aim is to have something for Gavin to agree to, I think item #2 would be about the only place where we can afford a compromise. Does this look like something fair that I should propose to Gavin (what should X be, so we can spell it out?):

Responsible tagging: For any new template placed which requires talk page discussion (which includes X, X, and X) Gavin must add a comment explaining the rationale for the 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 disputed, other editors are encouraged to discuss the tag with Gavin before removing.

This removes the unpopular two-month timeline for templates which required no discussion in the first place, but extends it indefinitely for any templates which require discussion in the first place (simply reiterating a requirement which is already in place and has been ignored in large part?) Perhaps more importantly, it removes the free pass to remove his templates, putting some responsibility back onto the removing editor, which is one of the big things he seems concerned about. Also, for item #1, I'll add a note stating more explicitly that it applies to everyone, per my essay. Opinions? BOZ (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does help to give some balance. But I'm worried about the timeline. WP:BOLDly tagging isn't necessarily a bad thing, and in the longer run I don't think we want to create a whole lot of extra bureaucracy where *every* edit has to be discussed/justified on the talk page. We just want Gavin to engage people for a few months to learn his lesson. He should be allowed to go back to WP:BOLD editing eventually, so long as he learns some of the broader lessons of discussing rather than edit warring should his bold edits get reverted. Randomran (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about listing a few specific templates for which the template's documentation requires talk page discussion anyway. Anything without this requirement shouldn't require discussion anyway. I think someone listed them above at some point, but you know, TL:DR. ;) BOZ (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh)...at least Gavin agreed to a ceasefire in my proposal, but I concede mine wasn't very ideological, just practical. The articles are improving in any case :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally. :) BOZ (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel like it's the easy way out. The tagger likes it because he can just take a break and focus his efforts elsewhere, and the enthusiast likes it because it's a free pass for a few months. But ultimately, it doesn't change anything. But I guess that's the best we can get here on Wikipedia: a consensus to fight again later, in more passive aggressive terms to avoid breaking WP:CIVIL. Randomran (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I liked the idea of the break when I first heard it (I feel like we've already been accomplishing a lot in the last couple of weeks, even if it's not the things that Gavin would like us to be accomplishing); that's why I'm glad you came up with an alternative. :) Now, let's focus on the task at hand... how does my revision look, and what templates should we specifically mention as always needing talk page discussion? I could go back and look at them one by one (or just re-read this talk page because I'm sure they're listed), but maybe someone just knows so I won't have to bother. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that it's not which templates, but how the templates are handled once they're added. The proposal that Gavin would have to discuss all templates would force him to reach out, and slow his efforts down considerably. I think Gavin's concern is there's no real constraint on peoples' ability to just revert him, and tell him "forget it, you're wrong, there was an RFC against you, and now you have to leave us alone." I think it would be only fair to require a certain amount of discussion before removing a template, and I think Gavin would appreciate having a balance of power... but then, a lot of other people would find that frustrating. Randomran (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think that BOZ's suggestion is the best yet. I haven't looked through all of the templates, but I know that {{POV}}, {{Original research}}, and {{Synthesis}} require discussion. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again, hoping to more specifically address all concerns:

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. For any new template placed which by definition requires talk page discussion (which includes {{POV}}, {{Original research}}, and {{Synthesis}}), this is an indefinite requirement. 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 disputed, other editors are strongly encouraged to discuss the tag with Gavin before removing.

I think we should also be more clear about when the two months starts and ends. BOZ (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the goal here? The most important holdout in this RFC is Gavin himself. I don't think an indefinite requirement is going to win him over. Randomran (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are already indefinite requirements, as I understand it; I was just trying to spell that out to avoid further questions. If you figure that will be an issue, I can remove it again. BOZ (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As such, on the POV template: "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." On the OR template: "This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given." I'm not seeing that part on the synthesis template though; if it's there, I'm just missing it. If you figure it's not worth stating it again here since the proper use of the templates are clearly explained on their documentation, that's fine, but we will of course be allowed to exercise the "remove if no discussion" rights, and I figured it would be good for Gavin to be clear on that. BOZ (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I definitely don't think it will be an issue -- and I think it's already implied that he'll use templates properly, including following their documentation. But if the goal here is to get a broader consensus, then we need something Gavin will agree to, right? Personally, I think we should just leave it as is, whether Gavin agrees to it or not. If he would rather just stay out for 3 months, that really is his choice, but it will reflect upon him should he cause further problems. But I'm wondering what efforts you're making to reach out to Gavin? So far, I see us tightening up the proposal, but nothing that would let him jump on board. Randomran (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm fine with leaving out the "indefinite" line. the only other thing I changed so far was going from "If a tag is removed by the community, instead of edit warring, Gavin should discuss the tag." to "If a tag is disputed, other editors are strongly encouraged to discuss the tag with Gavin before removing." What else would loosen things up for him without taking away any of our ability to respond? (Is this like negotiating a treaty between Israel and Palestine? If so, that makes you the UN!) BOZ (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting in to mention that {{Synthesis}} mentions the talk-page requirement in the small-size text, "See talk page for details," which I take as being that the person who thinks that there is synthesis needs to specify what the think needs to be fixed. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw the same thing but wasn't sure if that's what you meant. Anyway, moving on, going back to my previous question... BOZ (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I think for the latter question, the best thing to do is to ask Gavin directly. Maybe put it to him in those terms, and see what he thinks. It does seem a little strange to put someone on probation and ask them "would you be okay with that"? But I guess that's how Wikipedia works. For what it's worth, I think what you've written there sounds reasonable. Randomran (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will put it to him directly. One last question. When does two months begin? When/if he endorses it (because if he doesn't endorse it, I suppose the timeline is irrelevant)? BOZ (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of a good question. But I don't think it particularly matters. If we can get him to sign off right away, I don't think it would be unreasonable to have this run from January 1st to March 1st. Randomran (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have written to Gavin on his talk page about may intentions to propose an addendum. I'll wait now for his response. BOZ (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this as a "no". BOZ (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*wince* Geez... I can't say that I'm surprised however.Shemeska (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, got the ol' olive branch smacked out of my hand there. :) BOZ (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalling

This situation is what it is. You tried to reach out. Gavin declined, and that's his right. Can't say it's hard to understand: what person would sign on for their own punishment? So where do we go from here? I base it on what Protonk said further up. Should we hold Gavin to the community proposal anyway, since people overwhelmingly endorse it? It doesn't matter. And here's why it doesn't matter. Technically, abiding by Casliber's proposal and just staying away for three months would abide by the letter of the community proposal, which is to discuss any tags he adds for a few months. And in both proposals, it says that policies like WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL and such are all non-negotiable. When you look at it that way, settling for the other proposal isn't so bad. The benefit of Casliber's proposal is that it really is easier for everyone involved if Gavin just goes away for a while -- no more dispute. The problem with Casliber's proposal is that Gavin might continue the behavior elsewhere, or come back in three months and retread the same disputes. But the good news is that we can always cross that bridge when we get to it -- if we get to it. Let's WP:AGF and see how Gavin's habits improve. Randomran (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Sounds fair. That's why I left that extra bit of Protonk's explanation at his talk page. And yes, we have been dispute free for about two weeks now - this was the situation during the RfM: since Gavin swore off tagging, he did not edit D&D articles at all, and I see no reason to think any differently about the next three months. After that, well, here's hoping. :) BOZ (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the best we can hope for is peace until April 1st, and then hopefully we'll see civil disagreement from that day on. Randomran (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(this'll go a little off-topic, but I haven't found a better place to put it) I still don't think that it is the best solution, but it will be nice to have Gavin gone for a few months; personally, I think that the project has made great strides recently in improving high-importance articles; working around Gavin and trying to improve less-important articles has left some articles, like Dave Arneson and Dungeons & Dragons controversies, behind. The work being done on things like Ravenloft (D&D module), Gary Gygax, and Gen Con really show how much this project can get done when we really get to work on things, something which is, in my opinion, harder to do if we need to work on articles like Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons) and Races of Stone to establish their notability. There is an order of priority; I think that all of the articles will be cleaned up eventually, and there's an importance scale to show what order they should be worked on in. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we're all wrong. ;) BOZ (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...That didn't take long for him to go back to the same old behaviors.Shemeska (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his defense, he's following Casliber's proposal to the letter. I guess this is as good as it's going to get. Randomran (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't complaining; talk page discussion is a good thing. Now, if that gets disruptive, then that's another story. He can complain about how an article didn't get deleted or what he thinks should happen to it all he wants - no one is beholden to his will, and I can ignore that sort of talk all I want. ;) BOZ (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that some of his comments on that page is just repeating the problem that started this RFC. It also reinforces the opinion that he will return to his same editing behaviors once the three months have passed. It is good that he is discussing tags on the talk page more; that will help resolve the dispute to some extent if he continues to do that after the three months are up. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know his attitudes aren't going to change, and I never expected that. I just wanted an end to his lording over the articles, marking his territory and challenging anyone that steps into it. He can talk on the talk pages whatever he wants to say (barring incivility and AGF vios, and such) because that's what they're for. I agree with your last statement, and I can only hope in vain that you're right. ;) BOZ (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that's it? Wow. No wonder Wikipedia just keeps getting vandalized over and over again while its reputation as a reliable source of information drops through the basement. How long is this guy going to be allowed to single-handedly disrupt and antagonize the RPG community here on Wikipedia? Isn't there anyone who has the ability to ban him? Seanr451 (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins have the ability to ban him, but I don't think that that is what is called for here at this time. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's much better that we all come up with a solution that he'll just figure a way to work around. And 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, I think you get the point. So how long does he get to continue to abuse the rules and single-handedly antagonize the entire RPG community here on Wikipedia before someone puts a stop to it? Seanr451 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to assume good faith. Gavin has been warned to stop the personal attacks and edit warring. If he goes back to his old behavior, we'll have this RFC/U to show that more harsh remedies are necessary. But otherwise, we need to assume good faith that he's learned his lesson. Randomran (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is his second RFCU. How many more does he get before we're no longer required to assume good faith? He didn't learn after the first one, he's already causing problems again, which leads me to believe that he hasn't learned from this one. So how many more does he get? Seanr451 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong because I wasn't there for the first one, but I think BOZ or Drilnoth pointed out that the first one had no consensus. You can't expect him to "learn his lesson" if there was no consensus that he was doing anything wrong. This one, we have a consensus that he was doing something wrong, and we have a remedy. Randomran (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The failing of the first RFC/U was that it focused on his deletion first and incivility second. Since his deletion activities were not against the rules per se, it was hard to get consensus that he really was doing something wrong. This time, I did my best to turn it around so that the actual naughty parts were the main focus (even if Gavin refuses to acknowledge that he did indeed do anything wrong; "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") and thus we got support from neutral people not involved in the dispute, such as Randomran and Protonk that something was wrong. (You'll also notice the significant lack of support for Gavin this time, even though I invited everyone that stood up for him last time?) The lesson I learned from the previous RFC/U, and confirmed on this one, is that an RFC/U isn't actually supposed to do anything to the "defendent", because it's not a trial. RFC/U is more of an informal hearing in front of a panel, while ArbCom is more like a trial with "judges" that can actually produce a sentence. The RFC/U isn't supposed to do anything to Gavin, except to put him on notice; the community at large is now aware that there is support that how he has been treating us is not to be tolerated. If we are forced to go to ArbCom at some point because he persists, then this Request for Comment (which is all it really is) will be submitted as evidence. Unfortunately, due to the way Wikipedia is set up, this is all we have available to us. If we had continued the Dispute Resolution process in a more proper and regular way in the first place, it wouldn't have taken this long to get this far. We've got to have faith that Gavin understands that ArbCom will be result of persisting in his negative behaviors, and that he will change his approach as a result; if he fails, that's on him. BOZ (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, but I have a question: What applicable part of the dispute resolution process didn't we use? -Drilnoth (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have used everything now, but there was a very large gap between the RFC/U and the RFM where we basically just bent over and took it. If we had started the RFM right after the first RFC/U failed instead of waiting till, what April, we wouldn't be just getting to this point now. That's what I meant. :) No one can really be blamed for that lapse, since I personally was mostly unaware of what DR channels were available until we started discussing them on the project talk page almost a year ago. Heck, at one point, we were even trying to reopen the old RFC/U thinking that would help, and that got us absolutely nowhere. :) BOZ (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has gone right back to doing what he was doing before. The first RfC didn't slow him down, and neither did this one. I'm currently looking for information on the next step. One which will force him to either stop disrupting Wikipedia to prove whatever point he's trying to make. Perhaps someone more knowledgible would like to assist me? Seanr451 (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Gavin isn't doing anything he's not supposed to per Casliber's proposal; discussion is perfectly acceptable and encouraged, as long as it remains civil (on the part of all participants) and a consensus can be reached between everyone. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically he hasn't really ever broken any of the rules. It's his constant rules-lawyering and gaming of the system in the process of agravating otherwise calm people that is exactly the problem. His most recent comments show that he hasn't learned anything except how to continue to end-run the spirit of the rules while sticking to the letter of them. His history has shown that he's not going to change. Isn't it time something was done to stop him? Seanr451 (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we have probably exhausted the ability to do anything, unless he starts up again. He's not going to change his attitude, and I don't expect his approach to change significantly (which is the worst part from where I stand), but the bullying and incivility is where he can no longer rely on to get his way. If he wants to continue on this path, he's going to have to do it in a much slower, more civil, collaborative way. BOZ (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's officially been over a month now. Is there anything else we need to do? Delist or close the RfC? Do we need to state somewhere that one proposal gained consensus but not agreement while the other got vice versa? Do we just leave the RfC sit as is? Just lookin' for closure. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we're just supposed to close and archive the RFC. I'll look into it tomorrow, if nobody else does. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Whatever the steps are for formally closing it, I agree that it's probably time to pack it in. You summarized it well. Randomran (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Randomran's proposal

I feel obliged to respond further as a matter of courtesy to the proposal "A solution from collaboration, for collaboration which was created by Randomran, even though I have already endorsed another compromise proposal "Possible way forward by Casliber", which I consider to be reasonable compromise in an otherwise uncompromising RFC.

I am not sure why Randomran's proposal was put forward in addition to Calisber's; perhaps Calisber's proposal is thought to be inadequate in some regard, but this has not be explained. My view is that the new proposal has been drawn up because Calisber's proposal asks members of Wikiproject Dungeons & Drangons to continue to add reliable sources to articles and merge weaker ones. At first glance this would appear to be a not unreasonable request, but to some people this could be seen as an admission of weakness, which is why some editors may have withdrawn their support.

As you can read from my response to this RFC, I view the Description section as a coatrack for a generalised attack on me personally. Therefore any judgemental comments like "Gavin won't learn anything just by staying away" are more bitter herbs being added to an already unpleasant tasting stew. As regards the other points, here is my response:

Work positively. I think both BOZ and Bilby will testify that I have worked positively by collaboration on the article Kender, which for the most part reflects their hard work. Kender was the subject of a long and detailed discussion on the RFM mediation talk page, the result of which I think was profitable to everyone who contributed to it. At the outset, I was not sure if there was sufficient content to write a decent article, but we were fortunate enough to find some well written real-world content for the article which meets the requirements of the proposed guideline WP:FICT. However, there is a problem with a lot of other D&D articles that they are not so well sourced. It is easy to work positively where source material is rich and varied, but less so if there is not. The Kender RFM ended positively, but if there had been no sources available, it might have finished on a less friendly note. This is likely to be the problem with many other D&D articles, and this is where I find it difficult to see how we can move forward on a positive basis. For articles like Dan Willis, it is difficult to find a remedy that can be seen as positive to all parties to a dispute, where even the outcome of his RFC has been mediated by independent editors. I don't think I could subscribe to this proposal, what is positive to me may not be judged positive by other editors, and I don't think it will be possible to agree on matters which are the subject of divergent but valid points of view.
Responsible tagging. The {{notability}} cleanup template which was put on many articles with sourcing issues by me has been replaced with the {{importance}} template. In the absence of reliable secondary sources, which one is applicable to a particular topic is a matter of judgement, not fact. In my view, it will be impossible to find non-trivial real-world coverage from reliable secondary sources for many of these articles, so I view {{notability}} template to be appropiate. However, other editors will be of the view that this is an example of irresponsible tagging. Tagging that seems responsible to me or may appear to be irresponsible to other editors, and I don't think it will be possible to agree on matters which are the subject of divergent but valid points of view.
Collaborate during discussions I have responded in detail as much as I am able already. If you were to read all of Talk:Kender/Archive 1 or Talk:Dan Willis (author), you will see I have gone to great pains to explain my views, the evidence, the article content and sourcing, the relevant policies and guidelines in great depth. The same is happening again at Talk:Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons), where there is no acknowledgement there is a problem. Calisber has suggested that D&D-related editors try as hard as possible to reliably source articles, and possibly merge small groups of weaker ones. I see some evidence that this is happening in a general way, but any suggestion by me that an article has a problems seems to me to be met with hositility. From my perspective, the collaboration during discussions seems to be coming from my direction only. It would be too easy to accuse me of failing to "Collaborate during discussions" just because I refuse to give in to bullying or because I do not agree with other editors where my concerns about article cleanup had not been addressed.
Accountability. I think both this and RFC1, as well as AN/I Notice are all examples of thinly veiled coatrack attacks. These complaints were too vague to be either proven or disproven, and were too long for me to be able to respond or defend myself, which makes them too one sided to be judged as being in good faith. I understand that is important to block abusive behaviour, but trying to control or modify my personal viewpoint through the threat of Arbitration is not going to get pass first base. If I have upset anyone personally, I am happy to discuss the matter on my talk page at any time, and I have been quick to apologise even where offence was not intended. Please note also, I am prepared to reach compromise with any editor (or group of editors) provide they too are genuinely desiring of such an outcome.

I hope this comments assist the ongoing dialogue between myself and anyone who is seeking to work collaboratively with me. However, I would prefer not to subscribe to this proposal, if only because (forgive the mixed metaphors) it best not to shoot yourself in the foot by putting your head in a bear trap. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your consideration. For what it's worth, the proposal was put together because I felt Casliber's proposal was inaccurate, and a lot of people agreed. On one end, it was too soft: it focused exclusively on D&D content, when the problem is an overall editing style. On another end, it was too blunt: it used a blanket moratorium when what we really needed was civil and constructive debate. All in all, the hope was to try to encourage civil disagreement, and to remind all sides about how to resolve disputes. (e.g.: not edit warring, not personally attacking each other). I think statements like "Gavin won't learn anything by staying away" should be tempered as "there's no guarantee you'll learn anything just by staying away". But I think we ought to assume good faith. You've been around on Wikipedia for a long time, and you know or behavioral policies. I think you understand the message here, even if the remedy is a little tricky. The most imporant thing here, more than any remedy, is your acknowledgment that you need to try to be more constructive. And yes, while that applies to the other side too, I think it's important to remember that you don't fight fire with fire. If you see the discussion devolving, you need to use other WP:DR mechanisms. Randomran (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be the first to acknowledge that the hostility and lack of WP:AGF has come from both sides (haven't I said that already?), and that I'm personally not perfect myself. The common denominator however, in this case, seems to be Gavin; you don't see a laundry list of editors saying "Man, those guys at the D&D articles sure have been mean to us over and over again!" However, if Gavin is willing to approach us with a cooler head, then I'm sure the same will be returned in kind - even if, especially at first, tempers are merely simmering instead of cooled.[9] Calm, reasoned discussion is always helpful rather than acting on emotion - I mean, look at the kind of trouble that has brought Pixelface! I'm working on myself, personally, and in the end that's all any of us can ever really do. BOZ (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]