Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

OK, it took almost a month, but I'm finally done with everything I wanted to do (as far as I can figure) with these lists, and I'm taking a break for now. Unless something goes wrong, I plan to move these lists into mainspace some time tonight (otherwise I can do it tomorrow morning) so that whoever would like to can add to them and edit them. :)

As far as redirecting goes, rather than mass-redirect a bunch of articles, I will place merge tags on everything that I feel is a good merge candidate for these lists soon after I make the list articles live. I will be primarily targetting smaller stubby articles, though I may select some larger ones on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, I will be skipping iconic D&D stuff (beholder, illithid, dragons, etc), as well as anything which already got a solid Keep at AFD (slaad, death knight), and anything else that is particularly well-developed. I'll give people 5 days to dispute it, and anything uncontrovertial will be unceremoniously merged and redirected. ;) Anything that gets discussion on the talk page will be allowed to take whatever course it may, since people will have different feelings about different subjects.

If you want to nominate anything monster-related for a merge, please let me get first crack - I think I've earned it with all the work I put into these tables so far. :) I should be done with that by the end of April at the latest, and then go for it. Obviously, anything that has already been redirected because of a previous AFD should be re-redirected to the lists once they are up. BOZ (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fantastic. Drop a line here when you've moved them into the article space- I want to add them all to my watchlist, and will have a mess around with them. As soon as they go live, I think the main priority will be to get links to the articles all over the place- the merge tags will help attract editors, but we need to get readers here too- templates will be good to utilise, but some inline links (on key articles) will also be nice. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The fortitude of you and the others who have worked on the new lists is commendable. :) I wouldn't have the patience for such an undertaking. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite draining and time-consuming. I'm letting others take over for now. :) J Milburn, if you put my sandbox pages on your watchlist, they should carry over when I move the pages (at least, this has been my experience). Regardless, I will say something here when the process is done. Got to do a little cleanup on those pages before they are ready, but from start to finish I can't see it taking more than an hour. Look for this to happen roughly 4-5 hours from now. BOZ (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is done - I am tired now. :) I've redirected some of the AFD'ed articles into the lists, in case anything useful therein can be gleaned. I've started merge discussions on a dozen or so monster articles. Even that is time consuming, so we'll work on the 1974-1977 stuff first, and then move on from there. Oy, thanks for your patience everyone. :) BOZ (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

should the __TOC__ be included to easier navigate to the books on each page? shadzar-talk 03:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Any method of making the pages easier to navigate without removing any information would be ideal. :) BOZ (talk)

ok since you probably are able to find all these quickly i will leave out the links to most of them... Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition (1989-1999) on the list has 3 links to the specific books. MC1, MC1, and MM. The page itself has no quick way to mavigate to the specific book. what i was suggesting was add the above code to the top of those pages that have the list tables to include a Table of Contents, so going from the page directly with the lists you can see what books are there, and quickly get to one of them. I added to the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters as an example. shadzar-talk 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely better, yeah. :) It seems that any page with more than three sections will automatically get a TOC, but forcing it works even better. BOZ (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, just completed the first round of redirects. None were contested, so all went over: Wraith (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Spectre (Dungeons & Dragons), Gorgon (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Manticore (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Hydra (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Wyvern (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Gargoyle (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Purple worm‎, Nixie (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, ‎Pixie (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, ‎Hippogriff (Dungeons & Dragons), Roc (Dungeons & Dragons), ‎Will-o'-Wisp (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Harpy (Dungeons & Dragons), Shadow (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Hell hound (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Phase spider‎, Morkoth‎, and Su-monster‎. Naturally, since they all went undiscussed and therefore no real consensus was formed on any of them, I'd welcome further discussion from interested editors; until that happens it would probably be better if they remain the way they are. It breaks my heart a little to do it, since I wrote a number of them, but it seems redirecting is the best thing to do at the moment. Time to begin a new round of merge discussions - I think I'll make it much smaller this time, because I'm tired. :) BOZ (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just merge everything that doesn't have some third party refs. Rip the band aid off, so to speak. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, all in due time - though I'd rather not be that drastic. I bet some things do have some independent refs; we've found them before and I doubt we've found them all! BOZ (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember the cute picture of the Aztec goddess Tlazolteotl from 1981's D&DG getting a mention in Freaks and Geeks...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs

20:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC): Would it not be productive to include in any "common" monsters to the Dungeons and Dragons environment references to mythological and/or fictional sources? "Goblins", for example, aren't inherent to the Dungeons and Dragons environment and while Dungeons and Dragons might have their particular "flavor" to the goblin etymology, this might help establish either notability or importance given that this is a content-specific development of an already established mythological creature. Does this concept have merit to content contributors of Role-Playing Game articles?

Yeah, go for it - it may not settle any notability issues, but it couldn't hurt. :) Just try to avoid speculating; if something has the same name as a creature from myth/legend then it's fine to mention, but otherwise try to avoid unsourced logical conclusions. BOZ (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Next round is done - redirected Aranea (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Draeden‎, Lupin (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, Nightshade (Dungeons & Dragons)‎, and Rakasta‎ to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977-1999), from whence they originally came. I'll be starting on the next round later this evening. BOZ (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yawn - just slapped tags on a ton of articles... that took for-damn-ever. :) I'll be taking a break for now... BOZ (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Magazine - Kenders

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi.:) I seem to recall that some members have back issues of Dragon, and was wondering if anyone can check issue 224 for me. Apprantly Harold Johnson wrote something called "First Quest" where he describes how he came up with the idea of the Kender. My source is The Kencyclopedia, but I'd rather confirm it with the original source, and, if possible, confirm the usual referencing details (page, author, title, etc). - Bilby (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

the First Quest article details the CD introductory adventure game. I think it was Roger Moore who created to concept of Kender, but i will look through the DMA and check with the Kencyclopeida to see what is being talked about here. Will take a bit of time to search the PDFs as I do not have the program installed currently that has them indexed and searchable. shadzar-talk 18:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ok so i remembered wrong. Dragon Magazine, Issue 214, Vol. XIX, No. 9, February 1995, page 70, First Quest Column starting on page 8 and continued on page 70. "by Harold “Wisconsin” Johnson" Kencyclopedia contains the last 5 paragraphs of that article. that enough info for you? shadzar-talk 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely perfect - thankyou! I wanted to add an origins section, but that was the only hint I could find as to where they came from, and the secondary source wasn't sufficiently reliable. Thanks again. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I installed the search program for DMA again to check any other references needed for issues 1-250 shadzar-talk 00:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, further research shows that you were right, too. :) Johnson created the first Kender, so I guess the concept belongs to him (as is probably the name, but that is unclear), but Moore did most of the development, and Hickman added their kleptomania. If you get a chance, and I'm sorry to impose on you again, could you confirm the details for Dragon 101, in regards to the All About Kender article by Moore - again, The Kencyclopedia seems to have reprinted it, and I'm sure that it is accurate, but as a policy I can't trust the source. At this rate we should be able to throw together a nice "Conception" section along with some referencing for the rest. - Bilby (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

not imposing at all. in all this 3rd/4th edition stuff im glad i can dust off this thing i paid $60 for and get some use out of it. it will take me a bit of time to read over since this is a larger article, so may be later today that i can get to it. but i will start a new section for it on the Kender talk page when i get to it. shadzar-talk 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation with Gavin.collins?

Latest comment: 16 years ago87 comments32 people in discussion

I brought this up at Jéské Couriano's talk page and I might as well extend it here as well. Conflicts with Gavin continue basically unabated, as they have for over six months now, and I'd like to see what can be done about that other than letting him have free reign or waiting until he gives up and goes away. :) Jeske said he would willingly do mediation with Gavin. What about the rest of you? You can be involved directly with the mediation, or just support the mediation effort, or oppose the motion (and state why) or just be neutral and watch how it goes. :) BOZ (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved in the Mediation case

As BOZ has brought up, I'm willing to do mediation with Gavin. I take issue laregely due to his aggressive cluelessness with regards not just to D&D, but to RPG's in general. While some of what he has tagged is good, a lot of it just makes little sense. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yo. SamBC(talk) 22:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Mediation

I support mediation for the reasons cited above. Rray (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I support mediation for the reasons given. I'd rather edit than have to fight every edit any day. Web Warlock (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I will also show support for mediation... far better to act civilized. Baron (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
i support this. don't know what good i could add, but at some point if there is anything i could add, i would be willing to become invloved shadzar-talk 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I also support this. --Robbstrd (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I support this per basically what every other user has said. McJeff (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Something needs to give, so sure dialogue is much preferable to revert wars. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to support this - it's a good idea. - Bilby (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support mediation for the above reasons, especially so given recent conflicts and associated discussion on various article talk pages.Shemeska (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur due to experience in AfDs and the request for comment. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I also support this. Edward321 (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I support mediation for the reasons cited above.Kairos (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I support this wholeheartedly, if not optimistically. I'd be willing to get involved if that would help, though I'm not sure what I could do that hasn't already been tried. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. He has been spamming tags blindly and without regard for whether he's already had a crack at the article. Snuppy 11:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. My impression is that Gavin Collins is on a power trip: he pastes tags en masse and gets a kick out of watching honest editors scramble. This is not unlike ruining an anthill for the pleasure of watching the ants run about in panic. This disruptive pattern needs to be stopped. Some of you say that there were occasional good results. The truth is the good results have never been brought about by Gavin--he does no constructive editing at all. Any benefits are solely due to the editors who responded to his attacks. Freederick (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. I'm always in favor of mediation over disputation. (Hey, I'm a Quaker and a veteran of union contract negotiations.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Strike this through if I should not comment because I am not actually affiliated with the D&D wikiproject. My impression is that Gavin Collins is attempting to clean up of our coverage of a field that he explicitly knows nothing about by forcing editors who do to clean it, and he does so in a manner that has resulted in frequent complaints of incivility and hostility. It is true that he does no constructive editing in D&D at all, and even without assuming a power trip, the effect on other editors looks like the above. The situation needs to change. An actual effective dialogue would be a nice if unrealistic outcome. --Kiz o r 13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. I've had several dead-end conversations with Gavin and I think his approach needs to be addressed conclusively. Padillah (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. I wholeheartedly agree with the users Freederick and Kiz, as well as the stated reasons for the Mediation. Gavin.collins does not contribute any actual content to Wikipedia and primarily seems to "patrol" science-fiction/fantasy articles with the intent to apply various tags which may or may not be relevant, applicable or appropriate. I have read repeated requests for Gavin.collins to familiarize himself with related materials, which seems not to have occurred, and I have also read repeated requests for Gavin.collins to make any attempt to personally improve an article before tagging it, which I'll admit I may have missed, but to the best of my knowledge has also not occurred. The user responds to repeated attempts at civil discussion by quoting Wikipolicies that may or may not apply or be relevant in a manner consistent with users who attempt to use guidelines (not rules) to enforce their point of view. This user also recommends quite a number of articles for deletion without an apparent regard for good-faith editing or contribution, or in some cases (notably earlier ones) any attempts at improving the quality of articles. - Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs 17:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Support. seems like both sides need mediation. harlock_jds (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Support - there seems to be an element of "my way or the highway" from this user.Asgardian (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Support! His editting "style" is to be as rude as possible.Kairos (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Support for the above cited reasons. Ukulele (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Mediation

Opposed i've only interacted with Gavin on one article (Car Wars) and honestly his actions lead to an improvement on the article. I have been following his editing since the problems on Car Wars and while i think he could be a bit more civil (and more realistic with the criteria he uses to judge articles) i think the most of the issues have been from others attacking him than with his edits. harlock_jds (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be moot now, however, as his pages are move-protected to keep his stalker away and semi'd to keep off 4chan mass spam. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

changing my vote harlock_jds (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral toward Mediation

Neutral. I'm somewhat torn on this one. The only interaction (I can remember, anyway) has been at Dan Willis. He was (in my opinion) picking nits on whether Willis is notable, and refused to give an inch until another editor came along indicating they thought the article met the minimum notability requirements. I can understand wanting to make sure article meet the basic requirements, but I think he may get overzealous at times. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Neutral. I have only really interacted with Gavin.collins once, and that was about the use of the term "vandal" (which I wrote in the RFC.) Mediation might work here, because I don't think Gavin is out here because he wants to cause grief, but I'm not sure if I can be called as part of any "party" since I don't consider myself a D&D editor, (I consider chess to be a superior game in every possible way :-P) even though I have read several novels in the D&D campaign setting Dragonlance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Mediation

I'll be glad to take charge on this one, but if someone with a better head on their shoulders would like to step in, I'd be all too happy to let them do it. :) BOZ (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A related concern is how well (or poorly) the Wikipedia standards for notability apply to RPG subject matter. It often proves excedingly difficult to find suitable sources for some of these pages, despite their apparent notibility inside the gaming communities. So I have to wonder whether some of this material is at all appropriate for wikipedia, or if we need different notability standards for certain entertainment topics? If we had different standards, this whole issue might just go away.—RJH (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In case you don't know, there are proposed notability guidelines for RPGs at WP:RPG/N. However, there's a more inclusive proposed guideline at WP:TOYS which seems to fit the bill and Percy Snoodle has tweaked those guidelines somewhat to include RPGs (and board games, card games, etc). I think the idea is to abandon the separate notability proposal at WP:RPG/N in favor of the larger, more inclusive one at WP:TOYS. Keep in mind that it's only a proposed guideline, and I have no idea how one goes about getting it to a "real" guideline nor how long that process takes. Unless there's substantial effort at changing the general WP notability guidelines, it will prove difficult to argue that everything that is "notable inside the gaming community" is notable according to WP standards.

On a somewhat related note, if anybody is interested in slogging through 60+ pages of talk, there's lots of discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) about the concept of notability for "spinoff" articles. This all has somewhat to do with other guidelines such as WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. (A few of you may have encountered these alphabet soups in the recent past.) I haven't followed all the details at the fiction notability talk pages (and don't have the fortitude to follow through the fine minutiae necessary to implement policy changes). In my opinion I think the simple fact of the matter, for better or worse (and your opinion may vary as to mine), is that people should focus on bringing the articles up to standards so that people outside of the RPG world can find them useful to read about, and need not have a detailed understanding of D&D (or whatever RPG the article is about) in order to appreciate an article. This may very well mean that some articles are unsalvageable, at least until appropriate sources can be located, but this is the way of things. I heartily applaud BOZ's (and others!) efforts on the new lists for D&D monsters and is a definite step in the right direction for dealing with a lot of the "problem" monster articles via redirects. Time could be well spent first on upgrading articles on the various books/modules/supplements/campaign guides/etc as there should be many reviews and such for making them better and adding in that desired real-world context and commentary into the articles. Of course, in this respect I'm generally speaking as an outsider as my interest is limited when it comes to dealing with the D&D articles, and I typically spend my time with other game/RPG articles.

In any event, I can try to help out with this discussion, throw around ideas, etc, etc. I generally spend my time editing the board game, card game, RPG articles, with an occasional pass at other things. Keep in mind that if the RfM is to proceed, at some point the "official" mechanism described at WP:RFM must be enacted, and all parties must agree to it.

Okay, I'll shut up now. :) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a page that describes the dispute or whatever? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean an actual RfM page? Not yet. BOZ (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there an article talk page that is typical for what this RfM is about? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance, Talk:Githyanki, Talk:Paladine (Dragonlance), Talk:Kender, Talk:Lolth, Talk:Dan Willis (author), Talk:Empire of Iuz, probably others, and some user talk pages. Maybe some other folks can point out some better examples. BOZ (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an extreme example: Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons). As can be seen, Gavin added so many templates that it renders the article out of sight below the templates. While I haven't attempted to argue the article's notability, he simply added every single tag that he could get away with, including weasel words. He also stocked the text of the article full of various kinds of citation needed inserts, which would actually be quite helpful if it weren't done so indiscriminately. He did the same to Lady of Pain, although I removed several templates from that one. This in my view is clear abuse of templates. McJeff (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the earlier Request for comment should also give a good idea of the dispute as it stood some months ago. --Rindis (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. BOZ (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What does mediation involve? What outcomes are possible? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Despite the initial discussions here, it might be fruitless as it appears Gavin may not be interested in mediation. See Jéské's talk page. Measure any response you make carefully. (Indeed, the same goes for any interactions you have with other editors.) Mediation only works if all parties involved agree to it. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If Gavin is not interested in mediation, perhaps we should pursue an RfC again. I will not deny that his style has led to cleanup on a number of articles; however, his attitude and his insistence on remaining completely ignorant about the game industry require serious adjustment if he is to work with rather than against the other editors here. I noted above that he has been spamming tags blindly; by way of evidence I submit:

Snuppy 11:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir - I'll have to look at the RfM guideline to see how and what sort of evidence is to be presented, but yes you can help out by saving me some time looking through those thousands of edits. :) And Craw-daddy is absolutely right, everyone please be civil to Gavin, as we would like him to change his mind and participate in this process. And is there any point in pursuing a second RfC - can it even be done? Believe me I considered that, but when someone explained to me how the dispute resolution process worked, I realized that RfM was the next logical step. BOZ (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If Gavin refuses to participate in the RfM, the next step up would be Request for Arbitration. RfC has already taken place and while it caused Gavin to cut down on the number of AfD's and PRODs, it didn't solve the civility issues, and it hasn't kept him from abusing AfD, as seen in the article Atach, which he AfD'd when it got un-merged a few times (the un mergers citing a lack of consensus to merge). McJeff (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

However, I noticed that no one has yet told Gavin that there is an RfM in the process, so maybe someone ought to do that? McJeff (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He is aware of it - see Jeske's talk page. Let's take this one thing at a time - I will not discuss an RfA until and unless the RfM is finished and has proven unsuccessful. I am in full agreement that the RfC did not address the civility issues, but then at the time perhaps those issues were not as prevalent. BOZ (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

His response on Jeske's talk page was extremely discouraging. McJeff (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that as a reason not to continue. He may change his mind once the request is put up, and he did not say that he will not participate, only that he does not think he wants to. We'll carry on - you never know until you try. :) Besides, it shows a good faith effort on our part to at least start a mediation attempt. If I'm wrong, someone correct me before I waste my time. :) BOZ (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Fait accompli here: "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change" That would seem to describe Gavin's behaviour perfectly. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He is only tagging articles, not making redirects (as was the case in E&C2), and as such the fait accompli isn't really helpful here, as ArbCom cases apply only to the controversy they were asked to resolve. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The principle is the same. He's making large numbers of similar edits; he's been apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed; he's using volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli and to exhaust their ability to contest the change. His behaviour is as bad as the behaviour that the ArbCom case had to rule on last time. I suspect, since RfMs are voluntary, that Gavin will turn down the request and it'll have to go to ArbCom again; and they'll see this the same way. If he wants to avoid ArbCom, then pointing their opinion out to him may compel him to accept the RfM. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Proceeding onward

OK, first of all, anyone participating in any way should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. In reading that page, a request for mediation must be about content disputes, not conduct disputes. While I agree we have plenty of each, we must do our best to sort out the conduct disputes ("he called me a name!" "he said I was wrong!" "he kicked dirt in my eye!") from the content disputes ("the wrong template was added/removed", "this is a reliable source", etc). I don't think it's unfair to mention that conduct issues have arisen because of the content disputes, but for the RfM process we must focus on how the content is debated first.

We must provide evidence of prior dispute resolution attempts. I think in this case it would be fair to include the RfC on Gavin, as that explicitly discusses content disputes that editors have had with him. Other good things to include would be article talk pages and user talk pages where users have attempted in good faith to negotiate with Gavin (and vice versa) regarding the content of various articles. Of particular note should be any case where a RfC was filed on a particular article, or a third opinion request. Note that if you have not already done so on a current case, it should be OK for you to attempt that now, and the results of which can be added to the RfM case. The way I see it, the more attempts at dispute resolution we can display, so much the better.

On a going-forward basis, I'm going to have to ask that everyone who put their name in the "Support" column above would show the same courtesy, respect, and civility to Gavin that you would expect from him. If you truly do want this mediation to succeed, you will do so; if you do not do so, it is more likely that this will fail.

This is not an attempt to "get Gavin in trouble", because that is not what mediation is for. In fact, the mediation committee cannot get anyone into trouble unless they attempt to abuse the process somehow. It is a voluntary process that all parties will agree on in their approach to further editing. It is not binding, but it does reflect poorly on any parties who agrees to the resolution and then acts contrary to the agreement. It is intended to help provide a reasonable compromise on the issues at hand.

It is unnecessary for our initial request to outline the full history of the dispute until the mediation has been accepted and a mediator has taken the case. Thus, we have some time to think and review on how we are to handle this process. It is not a chance to pull up pages and pages of edits to look for to show diffs as evidence of wrongdoing at this time; I don't know if that is even part of the mediation process. The process is described as "slow", so taking our time is preferable here.

What we do need to find is any article which was disputed and where mediation of some sort would be or would have been helpful. This could be as many as it needs to be, and again I say the more the better. We must clearly identify in each case which issues needed to be mediated (Ex: not just "edit war over templates" but "edit war over templates which I believe were applied incorrectly and I explained why I felt this way on the talk page") by providing a summary.

I do not know if all disputes presented must involve myself and/or Jeske (or anyone else who may decide to become an "Involved" editor) with Gavin. This may be the case, and we may have to limit this to content disputes where one of the Involved editors took part. I don't know if we'll be able to extend this request for mediation towards Gavin's involvement with "other" editors. It seems that in the mediation request there is an "additional issues to be mediated" section for other editors to list any issues they wish to include in the mediation?

We will file the case as soon as the steps outlined above (identifying disputed articles and the issues to be mediated, and identifying all attempts at dispute resolution). In the meantime, continued discussion is encouraged. Anyone who has experience with this process is encouraged to share anything they know about it which we have apparently not yet considered. BOZ (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the above Episodes thing involving Fait accompli...and think similar is one of the most important things of this "dispute". Mass tagging of articles without understanding of either the tags, or the articles. Also not wanting to work with other editors, or help to actually improve the articles themselves for lack of knowledge of the subject matter. I think for myslef at least, and maybe other, this is the big dispute in a nutshell. Whether some other reasons are behind it or whatnot, makes no difference so long as in the end we are all working together for the sake of making good articles, rather than appearing on a leash from one or more editors to fix articles within their prescribed or preferred timeframe. Don't know if this helps any, but those are in a nutshell my problems with the editing choices made by Gavin. Civility issues aside. Are these the correct things you mean that should be discussed in the RfM? I see lots of ways around there ever being problems, and possible solutions, but do not know if they are the correct approach to resolution, and would offer any of those ideas, if they are needed or any part of the process. shadzar-talk 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably mention a lot of that, but the description has to be pretty nutshell - they don't want a long description before someone takes the case. The intro will be something to the effect of "Longstanding content dispute between Gavin and various editors of RPG articles on notability and content-related tags, resulting in edit-warring, numerous WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations." Then I would need to discuss a few cases as examples of the problem, and I'm looking at Githyanki and Kender as being good recent examples of the conflict which will be near the top of the list. I'll try to spend some time tonight looking over various talk pages and article edit histories to find useful examples, and work in things that people have mentioned here since I started this discussion. Anything that anyone else can point my way would be a big help. I'll come up with a mock writeup and post here so that people can comment. BOZ (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Writing the request

I have begun working on the formal request for mediation. Please, post your comments here and I will take them into account. I've tried to take into account all the concerns posted above, as well as concerns from Gavin's RFC, as well as concerns posted by Gavin himself. I've tried to remain intentionally vague about any conduct issues, as the RfM guidelines go out of their way to state that RfM is not an outlet for dealing with conduct issues. However, it seemed to lessen the importance of the mediation to not mention the conduct issues at all, so I've got them in there.

Please read what I've got there. If I'm missing something or if I should remove something, let's talk about it now. If I should add any articles with a strong conflict or remove any with a weaker conflict, or if you can think of any other attempts to mediate conflicts between Gavin and RPG editors, now is the time to speak up. If you would like to take this opportunity to become an Involved editor in this RfM, let me know. Please be advised that the Mediation committee will be looking at all editors, and not just Gavin. BOZ (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of cutting the section about "issues to be mediated" down a bit, to focus less on the behavioral issues and thus more on the content issues. There's a section for "comments from other editors" (other than the one filing the request, which I have presumed to be me), and maybe there Jeske could note some of the conduct issues which have arisen, or anything else I don't specifically mention? And if not, we could just get into those details once/if the case actually opens. BOZ (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of removing the third paragraph entirely; this sort of statement would be best made during the mediation case rather than before it - especially if I'm toning down the conduct part. Save it for later: "What is needed, if possible, is a resolution that will encourage Gavin and the other editors to co-exist in a civil manner, where we can assume good faith with no personal attacks, to better work on the content issues that these articles often do have, in an atmosphere of discussion, collaboration, debate, and consensus, and that when there is a dispute we handle it with the proper dispute resolution process."

Removing the conduct issues from the second paragraph (which as I said can be stated subsequently at any point) will turn this:

"Conflicts over article content commonly occur in a manner as follows. Gavin or another editor will place one or more cleanup tags on one or more articles believed to contain content issues. Another editor will disagree with the template(s) on an article and then remove the template, or the editor will make an attempt to fix the issue and then remove the tag or ask for it to be removed, or will post on the article's talk page to contest the tag(s). Gavin will restore the tag, or insist on the article's talk page that the tag be restored or remain, arguing that the issues remain. One or more other editors will then claim that Gavin is applying the wrong policy to the situation, or will claim that his lack of familiarity with the subject matter led him to place an incorrect template. Sometimes edit-warring over the tags will commence. Often on the talk pages of the articles, or on user talk pages, uncivil conflict between opposing editors will arise, causing disruption. Sometimes Gavin will propose that an RPG article be deleted after such conflict arises over the article's issues."

into this:

"Gavin will place one or more cleanup tags on one or more articles, and sometimes one or more editors will disagree with the template(s), often claiming that Gavin is applying the wrong policy to the situation, or that his lack of familiarity with the subject matter led him to place an incorrect template. Gavin will usually assert that the article issues remain, often even when an editor makes an attempt to fix the issue and removes the tag or asks for it to be removed."

Yay, or Nay? BOZ (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think I'll nix those two times on his talkpage where I approached him about his civility issues, because I don't think those will help in a content dispute. However, I'll leave up the two times that Percy approached him about his templates because they are very relevant. BOZ (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just so you aren't just talking to yourself.... Your proposed final seems pretty good to me. I have some problems with it because as you say RfM is for content only and it seems that the content and conduct elements here are inextricably linked. I'm worried that if you downplay the conduct too much, the the Mediators may be unhappy that they've gotten stuck with a tarbaby when the rest of it starts coming in. To me, Gavin's real problem is that he is an 'intellectual trollskin'. [Hmm. May not have as much usage as I thought. -From LARPing: A person who refuses to acknowledge any but the most serious blows.] He shows an unwillingness to work with people instead of over them, and shows a marked tendency towards 'any weakness in your argument means I can ignore all of it'. --Rindis (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah, nail on the head and all that; I'm sure most if not all of the complainants here have experienced all of that. :) Of course, it's not my intent to "stick" anyone with an unfixable problem (to continue your euphamism); if it cannot be fixed, then it will simply fail as I understand it. It's better to try and fail than to have never tried at all. I didn't intend to garner all this positve support and then not do anything about it - the trick is to find the best way to do it right. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I do think this should be the next step, as it sounds like he is still generating problematic tags and being unbending in his opinions (haven't directly encountered him in some months). I guess I'm just advising against downplaying the conduct side of the problem too much, so it isn't a 'surprise' when it comes up (as I imagine it will). --Rindis (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be right - I was concerned about that. It's about finding the right balance. Obviously, if there wasn't a conduct issue, I probably wouldn't even be bothering with all this. :) When it comes to content issues, I usually let other people deal with it. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to add canvassing to the report. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - that seems to be strictly a conduct issue, and not really related to the other issues at hand. (Yes, his attempts to change the notability guidelines are indirectly related, but that's another issue entirely and beyond the scope of what we're trying to accomplish with this mediation.) BOZ (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The largest problem I can see is that most of the issues people have with Gavin.collins are behavioral, not editorial (although editorial issues exist, albeit muted nowadays). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the major problem is content-related, it's behavioral. Being uncivil, being unwilling to compromise, asserting ownership of articles, and arguing endlessly with multiple editors who disagree with one tag out of 500 is a behavioral issue rather than a content issue. The insistence that the tags he adds cannot be removed, and the way in which he approaches editors who disagree with him, is nothing more than disruptive trolling. Using exceedingly formal and legal language like "cease and desist" on multiple user talk pages is contrary to a collaborative environment. It drives away good editors who would actually make the effort to improve articles, a behavior which Gavin does not display, in spite of repeated invitations from multiple editors to actually fix article problems instead of arguing about the tiny percentage of templates that he's added. The insistence that these irrelevant, inaccurate, and inappropriate tags be re-added is disruption and trolling. At this point, I think administrative action like warnings and blocks would be appropriate.

And I think Gavin's made it clear that he's not interested in mediation, compromise or collaboration. His attitude seems to be that he's right, everyone else is wrong, and he's going to cause no end of irritation to anyone who dares disagree with him. I don't mean to sound harsh, but assumption of good faith erodes in the face of multiple instances of disruptive edits and trolling. Rray (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gavin himself has a problem with feeding trolls; on one AfD he sent a F-U missile Grawp's way. For those of you unfamiliar with the situation, Gavin.collins has been relentlessly harassed by Grawp on-wiki. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 00:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew was Grawp's favorite target for awhile (even going so far as to create an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry on him, which someone showed me recently), so I guess with him gone Gavin's the lucky inheritor. I may not like a lot of what Gavin does, but damn... I mean, damn. :) BOZ (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got my first "cease & desist" from Gavin, and I'm now getting frankly fed up; apparently, any statement that Gavin disagrees with isn't "reasonable" and will be met with a seemingly random collection of policy abbreviations of dubious applicability. Pointing out the lack of applicability gets a long-winded but ultimately bland "I'm right, you're (all) wrong" statement . I've extended more courtesy and patience (and even support) to Gavin than probably most of those who've run into him on gaming-related articles, but his obstinacy in recent discussions at Talk:Kender and the suddenly revitalised brick-wall-esque disagreement over "generic role-playing games" have left me feeling that Gavin is either unwilling or incapable of actually understanding what people say and/or accepting that his first assessment of a situation is wrong. The slow grind of this disruption, combined with the fact that plenty of Gavin's activity is beneficial to wikipedia, makes it hard to deal with. SamBC(talk) 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Might it be time for an RfArb? There's already an RfC on him; from what I've seen the issues raised there have not abated much, if at all. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that when taken in context, Gavin's cease and desist messages are uncivil. (The use of the phrase "cease and desist" is legal terminology, and the implied threat discourages a collaborative environment. Besides that, it's condescending and rude. I addressed this with him months ago, but he wouldn't hear of it.) I'm of the opinion that his behavior warrants warnings from admins and blocks from editing. I admire your courtesy and patience with Gavin, and I agree that some of what he does is useful. But his disruptive behavior needs to be stopped at this point. RFC didn't seem to work and reasonable discussion doesn't seem to work. Rray (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the next step is RfArb... I don't have time to gather and present evidence, but I can voice support and agreement. If you're pulling stuff together, make sure to include the two-phase debate on "generic", and I'd appreciate the recent disagreement at Kender being mentioned; I might tweak my blurb above as a statement for an RfArb. SamBC(talk) 01:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll file if there's consensus to do so amongst those who have chimed in here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 01:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been wondering that myself. I kind of thought that we almost needed to go through the step of an RfM before moving on to an RfArb. The sentiment here seems to be that an RfM will be ultimately pointless. I've wondered it myself. If we actually can move to an RfArb and the group thinks it would be a better idea, then that's what we'll do instead. Give me a few minutes and I'll put it to the group and try to get a consensus. Kinda busy at the moment. :) BOZ (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Gavin has indicated that he isn't willing to participate in mediation, so that's that, I guess. Gavin hasn't listened to other people, many other people, telling him he is (in any individual case) mistaken, unreasonable, impolite, and so on; maybe he'll listen to ArbCom telling him that. SamBC(talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So It's Come To This: An ArbCom Quip Show

The general consensus here is that any requests for mediation on this topic will fail either because (α) Gavin will not agree to mediation, or (β) mediation will not solve the conduct problems. At this point, all we really can do is file an RfArb and provide evidence. As maligned as it is, it is the only thing we can do at this point in time, but we need to be prepared for this to drag out: ArbCom cases generally take about three weeks from start to finish. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

hey, given the scale of the problem (in time), 3 weeks is nothing. I recommend taking time to gather evidence before making the request, though. SamBC(talk) 01:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a mountain of evidence large enough to convict even OJ Simpson to sift through... Maybe we should work in shifts or something? :) BOZ (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

His talk page is a good place to start - I made certain not to delete "good" revisions when he got shitstormed. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 03:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Writing the request, take 2

OK, I was just about ready with the formal request for mediation. Discussing an arbitration case (see below if you haven't already) was worth considering as an alternative, but we won't be exploring that right now.

I have made the changes I outlines in the above section, and also removed User talk:Gavin.collins#NPOV dispute and User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 5#Please be civil to all users, as those pertain more to conduct issues than content. I also felt that Talk:Kender#Synthesis, while it does deal with the content issues, doesn't feel to me to be specifically an attempt at dispute resolution. Maybe I'm wrong though, and it can be put back.

If you can find any more attempts at dispute resolution, specifically RFCs related to article content, third party opinion requests on article content, and any informal mediation on user pages related specifically to content issues, let me know and I'll add them.

Also, if anyone else wishes to be added as an involved editor for the RfM, now would be the time to do so. As SamBC asserts, "Anyone who's had an involved run-in with Gavin and wants to participate in mediation to resolve it" is welcome to sign up, but that's purely voluntary.

Any other articles that have been highly disputed over their content that you want me to add, let me know; otherwise I think we have a fine enough sampling here.

If this request seems to be basically fine, we'll go with it and see what happens; we've spent enough time on this and I think it's pretty much ready.

RfM's usually seem to be named after a single article, but in this case that seems inappropriate; anyone have a title to suggest? :) BOZ (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

At Gavin's request, I have made a few minor edits and removed the line "often claiming that Gavin is applying the wrong policy to the situation, or that his lack of familiarity with the subject matter led him to place an incorrect template" to make the initial request more neutral, which I think is perfectly fair. That part remains the crux of the matter for the RPG editors, and can be brought up at any point, either by Jeske or SamBC in their remarks, or by me when/if the case is taken. The "issues" statement as currently written seems factually correct, now deals solely with the content issues, and is more to the point. If no one has any further issues with this, or anything else to add to it, I can file it today. BOZ (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have filed the request. It seems that I did have to link the request to one specific article, so I chose Kender because that's ongoing and there's a ton of text on the talk page, so why not? ;) You can find the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender. I don't plan to bring regular updates here, so you might want to stick that on your watchlist. BOZ (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation case accepted

The case has been accepted, despite initial concerns by many of us that the conduct issues would disqualify it. At this time, we will be waiting for the Mediation Committe to review the case and for a mediator to volunteer to take it. According to a note placed on the case page, if it is not assigned within two weeks (which would be May 12), we can contact the Committe, which we will do if necessary. BOZ (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S., after some digging, it looks like the actual mediation process happens on the talk page of the Request. It looks like we wait for a brave mediator (very brave, in this case) to take the case and open it, and then Gavin, Jeske, Sam, and myself will each be allowed to make an opening statement. It does not look like uninvolved parties can speak, but I can ask if you are thinking of saying something or if you have changed your mind about being an involved party. I will do my best to address all of the concerns you have raised, as well as any of my own naturally. I will state that there *are* conduct concerns, but since such topics are not a part of the mediation process, I will reiterate that they generally arise over the content issues and how people react to them. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today, the case was accepted by Vassyana. I don't know what the next step is other than to wait for the mediator to begin discussion on the talk page, so wait I shall. :) BOZ (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)