Additional Information[edit]

Since the village pump archives are only temporary, I've made a copy of the relevant discussion at User:Kizor/Gavin.Collins, to prevent it from being lost while the issue is still open. If I'm mistaken and it will be retrievable here indefinitely, feel free to nuke my subpage. --Kizor 10:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome[edit]

Isn't the desired outcome that Gavin.Collins stop making AfD's and tagging articles inaccurately? I thought about editing that section to clarify the desired outcome, but though I would ask here first. Another possible desired outcome is to ask that Gavin.Collins have his editing privileges suspended for a period of time with a warning that he'll be suspended for a longer time and possibly permanently if his behavior continues. Rray 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree fully. Sorry, got swamped at work and the RFC is insanely long. Turlo Lomon 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the requested outcome to make that clearer. SamBC(talk) 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome still isn't clear and it needs to be completely rewritten. The desired outcome isn't that Gavin.Collins *be asked* to stop making bad faith edits (AfD's and tags) and disrupting the Wikipedia; the desired outcome is that Gavin.Collins actually stop making bad faith edits and disrupting the Wikipedia. Having a warning from an admin or having his editing privileges blocked would both be steps toward that outcome, but the outcome should be very clear and should be the 1st thing in that section.Rray 02:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. It was populated by another editor while I was filling out the form. It now reflects my opinion on what action should be taken. Turlo Lomon 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the desired outcome for this RfC and so cannot endorse. What is this bit about an admin telling him not to do something? I mean, I'm an admin. I could certainly do that, but that's not what RfCs are about. This is an opportunity for the community to express to the user how we would like him to change his behavior. In this case, more thoroughly researching a topic before bringing to AfD, not using AfD and other deletion procedures as a way to force clean-up, etc. It's supposed to be a process by which the user receives input from the community and, hopefully, changes their own behavior, not to call in admins to block and whatnot. If that's what you want, you need to start an arbitration. -Chunky Rice 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChunkyRice is correct. That was the point I was trying to make too, but I didn't do a very good job of it. I'd edit that section of the page myself, but I don't think it would be appropriate. Rray 02:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I have ever dealt with a RfC, and I was really not sure how to proceed in the first place. The RfC was suggested by the project I am working on. Is that something that I can clarify, correct, etc. ? Turlo Lomon 03:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite crossing swords with Gavin on more than one Afd it seems draconian to wish to strip him of editing rights, sometimes dissenting voices are needed to stop a majority running blindly over cliffs. A desirable outcome would be for him to slow down learn to use the misused tags properly and realise that there is no prize for most Afd's started in one day or being the editor who gets the most articles deleted. The only prize any of us get on Wikipedia is the sense that we are contributing to an encyclopedia. Probably the best way forward is if we can convince Gavin that the easiest way for him to achieve his goals is to work with the community, actually try and learn something about the topic, and not to behave in such a way that leaves him painted in a corner feeling victimised. (would it be a copy vio to start handing out No-Prizes to editors behaving obsessively on self imposed crusades.) KTo288 10:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clarify the desired response into more RfC-appropriate language and tone. I don't think it's really changes substantively otherwise. SamBC(talk) 10:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is beautiful, Sambc. Turlo Lomon 00:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody told Gavin?[edit]

I mean, is he aware this page exists?--Donovan Ravenhull 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a notice was placed on his Talk page. Web Warlock 10:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see it because there was already another couple of comments on his actions after it... oy... --Donovan Ravenhull 11:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Gavin.collins's response[edit]

Gavin's response raises several interesting points. Presently, I desire to address just one. The personal attack against Gavin is not supported by me and, I feel, by most or all of the signers and endorsers of this Rfc, some of which pointed out about the inappropriateness of the attack when it arose. That editor was warned not to resort to incivility, personal attacks, or trying to make a point.

More to the point, that attack has nothing to do with this Rfc:

  1. the Rfc was discussed elsewhere, before and after the attack;
  2. the attacker did not take part in the debate about the Rfc;
  3. as of now (09:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)) the attacker did not sign or endorse this Rfc.

So it might seem out of place for Gavin to appeal to a regrettable event which has nothing to do with the present exchange of views. --Goochelaar 09:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some points of response to Gavin's response

  1. If the guidelines have been followed in good faith, than they have been misunderstood; various other editors, including members of the RPG wikiproject, have attempted to explain this and clarify the explanation of the policies and guidelines, which Gavin seems to have actively ignored.
  2. This is encouraging. However, These responses seem to deny the mistakes that are of concern.
  3. This is in some ways true. The point seems unclear, although I assume that it is used to support later points.
  4. There are several points to respond to here.
    • Wikiproject RPG members, and those endorsing this RfC, have supported a number of deletions and mergers.
    • Annoyance has largely been due to inappropriate tagging and nomination, rather than at the results. I do no know of any specific case where the result has met with general disapproval from the wikiproject.
    • Yes, I imagine we do hold affection for RPGs, but this does not mean that we desire inappropriate articles on them on WP.
    • Is this a suggestion that we wish to deliberate ignore or sidestep the policies and guidelines?
  5. (added 15:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC) as Gavin added a point into the middle of his list). I don't feel that those diffs are truly representative - they come across as a little bit cherry-picked to me. Like any discussion, that one had voices on all sides. On a specific point, Gavin's continued use of the term "fancruft", despite the pejorative nature of the term (as pointed out in that essay, as I have, I believe, pointed out to him) does not speak goodwill towards those who feel that it's not exceptional for a roleplaying game to be notable, by wikipedia standards. After all, there's plenty of science and maths articles with no notability relevant to the man-in-the-street; why should RPGs be different? I could make a better argument than that, but it would be substantially longer and would seem unnecessary.
  6. It is a reasonably accepted fact that unreasonable or inappropriate behaviour does, sometimes, lead to desirable results. Yes, quality control would be good. However, the lack of guidelines does not mean that the articles should be subject to stricter control than other articles are generally.
  7. Given that the accusation of dismissal was direct at me, I will address this very directly. That post was part of a discussion, which carried on. Gavin pointed out in a reply that there is a (small) section that is slightly relevant. You will notice that, in the response Gavin cites, I said that similar guidelines may be of use to the wikiproject.
  8. This seems to be a very serious accusation - this RFC has been started as a reaction to being "irritated", rather than as a good-faith attempt to help Gavin see his mistakes and understand what we've been trying to tell him. I reject this accusation most strongly.
  9. Gavin had the nature of gaming awards (Origins, Ennies, etc) explained, and persisted in insisting that games and supplements that had received these awards were not notable.
  10. This has been addressed by Goochelaar above; I will just add that I am aware of no consensus that the attack was warranted.

Hope this helps other editors to put Gavin's responses in perspective, just as his responses may help put the basis of the RfC in perspective. SamBC(talk) 10:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that the attack against Gavin wasn't appropriate. This personal attack was from a self-acknowledged "noob", and hasn't been supported by any other user as far as I can tell (at least the vitriol that was included in it). I have also acknowledged that some good has come out of this fracas[1] but also believe that things could have been handled in a better way I think. Percy Snoodle has also acknowledged that some good has resulted as well[2] and also showed good judgment in his response as well[3]. Outside of the single personal attack, I don't really know of anything in particular that was directed against Gavin in such a personal manner. On one occasion I did refer to his actions as a "slash and burn" approach, which might be inappropriate, and for which I apologize. I believe that the main points of concern have been addressed in the RfC, mainly the apparent resistance to receive community input. As I've said before, and will reiterate again, whatever the outcome here, our energies will be better devoted to improving the RPG articles on the whole, specifically in locating reliable references/sources for them. As has been suggested, and discussed to some extent, establishing (or clarifying) guidelines for notability, article content, etc, will be helpful. Despite the claim, I don't believe the RPG Project as a whole has been resistant to do this, merely that our time has been otherwise occupied to begin a good effort in this direction. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to his point three, I've generally been peripherally involved with the project to this point, most of my recent editing has been an effort to find and locate references for various articles (as well as removing some POV when I've found it), which after all, I thought was the desired result of tags being added in the first place. As to what this point might be raising is the appearance that some editors might be acting as if they "own" the RPG articles. I shall leave this to the judgment of others outside of the hoo-hah to make. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree the attack against him was unwarrented. Gavin, despite our differences, has always kept a civil tone with us and despite my frustation with him, I have tried to do the same with him. SamBC has once again show his eliquence with words. On point 3, I think the keyword Gavin is missing is verifiable which is different from verified. Yes, the articles need work. I don't think any of us disagree with that. That is why we all are helping rpgProject to do this. However, trying to clean dirty china with a sledge hammer means we have no more china left. Ideally, I would like us to have a section where Gavin can post any article he has concerns with (in our domain), after tagging them with the appropriate prod tags, be it authors, systems, books, etc. I think we have shown that at least some of us have an outside perspective, and can recommend a delete/redirect when appropriate ourselves. Turlo Lomon 10:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As another regular nominator of articles for deletion, I hope that I can help find some middle ground. If you look at my AfD history, I tend to nominate articles that aren't interesting within universe. I tend to leave character articles alone even if they don't have citations, because the character usually took the work of the writer(s), actor and makeup artists, etc to create. It is a habit of fans of books, TV shows, games and so on to fill in all the details of well-constructed fictional universes. In my view, some of this information belongs on Wikipedia. But most doesn't. How to decide? I argued for the retention of List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series because I felt that it was important to our understanding of billionaire author J. K. Rowling. But why do we need an article on The Weird Sisters (Harry Potter)? If they had not appeared in the books, what would that have changed? Basically nothing. Certain articles have got to go. SolidPlaid 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just mention your 'vote' with the comment 'Kizor sent me here' gives the false impression that Kizor was canvassing for this RfC. In the case of Gavin, the problem is not that he is nominating things for deletion, but the manner in which he does so as covered in the numerous cited problems. I would be glad if you could find some middle ground on this issue, but as the citations show, at least 5 different editors have tried to find that middle ground with Gavin, and when that failed they moved to an RfC. Edward321 04:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I think: this Gavin Collins guy likes to nominate articles for deletion. He looks for articles that fail various Wikipedia policies, and nominates them. He rubs people the wrong way, by (possibly correctly) saying they might have a COI. I personally think the COI policy is flawed, and never use it myself, but that should be argued at the COI policy page. (I mean really; who's going to write an article on something they are not involved with?) He has made enemies. But muzzling him is antithetical to Wikipedia's core values, and won't work anyway. All he need do is create another identity, and having learned how to work AfDs, be even better at getting articles deleted in the future. And then there are other users, like me, who also nominate deserving articles for deletion all the time. If you all have a problem with the policies, work on getting the policies updated. SolidPlaid 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin made accusations of COI with no evidence besides the fact that people didn't agree with him. Under the COI guidelines, it's not a COI to write about RPGs when you play them, nor to write about computer games when you play them. Gavin explicitly accused people of working for publishers without evidence, and I can only hope that I missed his apology, as I don't recall one. SamBC(talk) 06:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I disagree with COI as a policy. SolidPlaid 05:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment regarding some of Gavin's specifics in his response

Gavin wrote: "This RFC was initiated after a personal attack was made against me [77]. If the “consensus” is that the attack was appropriate or justified, or even supported by the wider WP community, then I this would give me reason to believe that this RFC was not brought for good reason, other than to subdue my efforts to improve article quality; I suspect this RFC was primarily created so that my contributions to AfD debates can be discredited"

Just because one event happened after another doesn't mean that a cause and effect relationship exists. An RFC would have been initiated at some point anyway because Gavin is using the AfD process to force a speedy cleanup of articles he doesn't understand. When someone points out that his edits display an atrocious ignorance of the subject matter, Gavin has a standard response that a PhD in RPG's shouldn't be necessary to edit these articles, which isn't helpful to a reasonable discussion. That's an inappropriate use of the process, and Gavin's attempt to change the subject is unfortunate. The RFC was initiated because of Gaving's inappropriate edits, not because of a personal attack.

There has been no consensus that the attack was appropriate or justified, and Gavin is again trying to change the subject away from his behavior as an editor and point attention toward something that is frankly irrelevant to this discussion. This is a request for comments about Gavin's conduct, not the person who attacked him. Most of the people who endorsed this RFC stated on the talk page in question that they disagreed with the personal attack from the other editor.

Gavin is supposed to assume good faith. No one is trying to subdue his efforts of improving article quality. From what I've seen of Gavin's edits, he has done nothing to actually improve article quality in a direct fashion. Everything he has done has been indirect, and even when a reasonable editor or group of editors explains to Gavin that he's incorrect, Gavin ignores consensus and applies labels and nominates articles for deletion anyway. Assuming that an RFC was created so that Gavin's contributions to AfD debates can be discredited is another example of Gavin assuming bad faith. A more constructive approach for Gavin would be to try to learn from this situation, but it looks as though this might not happen. He seems to be sticking his head in the sand and assuming that the multiple editors who have repeatedly asked Gavin to stop using inappropriate AfD's and tags have some kind of mysterious, sinister agenda. Rray 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective[edit]

Well, I'm not sure I want to endorse the summary of the problem, but I think there is one, as it seems to me there's been an ongoing pattern of less than desirable nominations....which started with what I'd consider to be a very poor choice to mass-nominate some pages. That sort of mistake can color people's perceptions for quite a while. Now I've certainly seen quite a few examples of large groups of pages that are a problem, in fact, I've even tried to get them removed myself at times. But sometimes it is best to just back away. In this case, I don't know that I've seen any examples of gross incivility or hostility, but I do think that with all due respect, Gavin.collins just doesn't have that much to really contribute to the situation, and that some of his actions and statements, while not rising to the level of abusive or even problematic enough to require corrective action, have come to meet with people's disapproval. Now certainly, there can be a negative reaction to folks who make others do the important and even necessary work that is needed, but I'm not sure that in this case it's been beneficial. Maybe it never is. Maybe it sometimes is by sheer chance. Who knows? Not I. However, I do want to say, this has remained pretty civil, so let's be happy with that. For the rest, perhaps Gavin does need to look more at the subject itself, if as seems to be the case, he doesn't know the field/industry that well. FrozenPurpleCube 04:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think you need a "PhD in RPGs" but I think it's fair for the community to expect you to put forth a good faith effort to research any article that you put up for AfD and also to stop using AfD as a tool to force clean-up of articles. That is explicitly not what AfD is for. -Chunky Rice 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think your statement about Ph.D's is fair at all, but rather an exercise in rhetoric. There is a wide gap between say, a hindering level of ignorance, and I suppose the equivalent of a Ph.D. in this subject. You could develop enough of a perspective to understand what you're talking about more accurately without throwing yourself into the subject and developing the information level of a doctorate. So far as it goes, I am only taking your own prior statements where you demonstrated your ignorance, and not making any relationship to being a fan. It might help with familiarity, but it's not essential. It might even be possible to improve your actions just by learning where to search, and what to look for instead. I personally agree that people who insist on liking a subject before you comment on the articles may well be territorial and not seeing the problems. However, I don't feel this is primarily the case here. You don't need any such thing to see some problems. But sometimes you do to know what to do. However, your attempting to excuse yourself through that doesn't make you less ignorant, it creates the impression that you're actually unwilling to correct your ignorance. That's not a good thing. Frankly, if you don't understand how there can be poorly written articles on Wikipedia, then you may be somewhat ignorant of the principle fault in the system of letting anyone edit. That means anybody can make a page, and they don't always do a good job. Happens. Thus I don't see it as a meaningful objection. There has to be a more substantial problem than that. Conceptwise, I do see several of the articles I'd remove, but I just don't think you know enough to tell the difference. In addition, I find your claim that you haven't made any COI accusations to be a bit hard to swallow. If you really didn't know that's what you were saying, then I'd have to wonder exactly what impression you thought you were giving. I think you'd be better off just acknowledging them for the mistakes they were. FrozenPurpleCube 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "shouldn't need a PhD in RPG's" line is nothing but rhetoric and an excuse to ignore consensus and not work well with other editors. I've seen Gavin nominate articles for deletion after multiple editors have asked him not to because an article was clearly notable but just hadn't been cleaned up yet. That's not how the process is supposed to work, and "having a PhD in RPG's has nothing to do with anything related to this discussion. Rray 15:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

In my opinion, very little of the evidence actually demonstrates what it sets out to demonstrate. I suggest that outsiders actually look at it and make up their own minds. My conclusion is that Gavin.collins is operating in good faith, and I predict he will not be blocked by Wikipedia. SolidPlaid 04:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is the opinion of a user banned for sockpuppetry, and perhaps can be discounted. McJeff (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
while i think he/she may have actual interest in helping the whole of wikipedia, it seems this person has either a hidden agenda (possible, but not the main reason i would hope), doesn't understand the templates, or just doesn't understand wikipedia. more often i see tag additions to pages fromt he user, rather than actual contributions. be it AfD, notability, etc tags; none the less they are not really adding to the articles or fixing problems within them. where much talk has gone on AFTER the addition of tags, like "so-and-so tag was removed from this article please stop removing it" as the tag is replaced, i see no other real talk on the article pages from Gavin about anything relating to the article. i think a few questions and answers on the talk pages of articles would yeild better results at getting things done, and unneeded articles removed or merged with other articles, as well as cleanup. for whatever reason, in this day and age unless you are from a relegion that abolishes, or an area that doesn't get mass media, you have heard of D&D even if you don't know ALL the supplemental books. the notability of many things on wikipedia could be contested for the same reasons Gavin contests those related with gaming. Just because i know the major campaign settings as a fan, doesn't mean Gavin does, but it also doesn't mean Gavin (or ANY single wikipedian) is the whole of the world. in the interest of building good articles i think a few less tags and a use of article talk pages would greatly fix all problems, be they article related, or user understanding of wikipedia in general. i jsut hope this whole thing is over and done with soon so that articles can be fixed as needed by users, rather than so much time be devoted to this page and the mass tagging. shadzar|Talk|contribs 07:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a body of work[edit]

By the way, anybody coming across this debate should take a look at Gavin.collins' contribution list. He is finding large numbers of absolutely worthless articles to tag and eventually nominate for deletion. He may have nominated some that shouldn't have been deleted, but I have too. When I hit a rich vein of fan writing, I have accidentally gotten carried away and nominated an article that was encyclopedic. How did I find out it was an article that was worth saving? It got saved from deletion.

He seems to be showing restraint; I would have nominated Wizardholme of Urnst for deletion the second I saw it. SolidPlaid 04:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greyhawk series of articles is an entirely different thing all together. I firmly believe a great deal of the stubs could be consolidated into an overview of the major geographical areas of the world. I read a few of them over and the amount of detail given to them, in my opinion, does not belong in Wikipedia, but more like a "Greyhawk Wiki" of some sorts. Turlo Lomon 06:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the dispute[edit]

I find this part of the statement of dispute to be a misrepresentation: He has repeatedly made accusations of WP:COI and WP:OR.

I think a lot of people get accused a lot of things on WP, but I can't remember making a statement that contained an explicit charge of wrongdoing or implied some sort of guilt or blame. For instance, my idea of an really good accusation would be something along the lines of:

These are't very good examples of flaming, but I would have thought this sort of thing would be the subject of an RFC. People coming here for a real pie fight will be disappointed.--Gavin Collins 15:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A statement doesn't have to be phrased nastily or aggressively to be an accusation; I think that a strong implication would also be accepted as a de facto accusation. Users have felt that you made such accusations. A number have signed up to endorse the statement of dispute. SamBC(talk) 15:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing WP:COI and WP:OR with WP:NPA. Just because you haven't vioalted the latter doesn't mean that your actions regarding the former have been approrpiate. They have not been, in my opinion. -Chunky Rice 16:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response The point I am making is that an accusation must contain explicit charge of wrongdoing or implied some sort of guilt or blame against an editor. I have looked through the evidence provided in RFC, and until I stand corrected, I don't seen a single instance of actually accusing an editor to task for convravening COI or OR, or even taking an editor to task for doing so.--Gavin Collins 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply please read the seperate header. There is specific evidence regarding COI statements. Turlo Lomon 07:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Following on from the point made by Sambc that I have made accusations, I think I need to discuss the issue of WP:COI to clear the decks, where I feel there may be some lingering bad feeling.

The closest example I can think of actually making an accusation of COI against an editor is during the AfD debate for GURPS Monsters[4], but in my view I stopped short of making an accusation per se.

Correct me here if I am wrong, but I understand that J Hunter Johnson was both the designer of that game, contributed to that article [5] as well as the debate in the GURPS Monsters AfD. I stopped short of accusing him of contravening the guidelines, and an actual accusation (J'accuse) was not made.

I would say his involvement in the debate did suprise me and in my view warranted some leading questions. If anyone was offended by this, I apologise now.--Gavin Collins 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per the WP:COI guidelines, people with a potential conflict of interest aren't specifically barred from editing articles for which they may have a COI. It was likely unwise to participate in the AfD, but looking at his edits to that article, they seem noncontroversial (I think a person would have the right to correct his name, after all), especially since most them just amounted to adding wikilinks to other previously existing articles. --Craw-daddy | T | 11:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be unwise for me to participate in the AfD, when my comments were confined to the "wikifacts"? The COI guidelines also allow "participating ... in discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest". -- JHunterJ 13:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you'll look at the RfC, several instances were pointed out with diffs. [6] [7][8][9]. It is my perception that these insuations are made in an effort to invalidate the opinion of the person being accused (without basis). This sort of behavior is inappropriate. -Chunky Rice 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin, you may not have come out and said the exact words "I accuse you of having a conflict of interest", but you certainly have done it -- see the diffs provided above by Chunky Rice for several examples. Some of those came before you learned that JHunterJ was J. Hunter Johnson (who doesn't appear to have been hiding that fact, in any case, as there was a link from his user page that made it clear), and were directed at people whom you had no reason to suspect of having a COI. In one of the diffs above, you even said "Incidently, are you or have you every [sic] worked for the publisher, Steve Jackson Games?", which is an awfully accusatory (and creepy, since you didn't seem to be making a joke, but maybe that's not obvious to non-Americans) way to phrase it. You've been (baselessly, as far as I can tell) assuming there's some sort of COI since your first nominations in the gaming area -- your nominations in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of GURPS books, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Middle Ages I (second nomination) all attempt to use WP:SPAM as part of their deletion rationale, even though there was nothing particularly promotional about the articles. Accusing editors of creating spam when none is apparent indicates to me either a bad-faith approach to working with others or a complete lack of knowledge of the subject. No, you certainly don't need to be an expert on a subject to discuss its suitability for an article, but you should have spent enough time actually reading the articles in question and doing some very basic research that you don't simply think "I haven't heard of that and so anyone writing about it must be selling something." Pinball22 19:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. You seem to have believed at first that no one but the publisher could possibly be interested in RPG products, and therefore anyone with any real interest in editing them had to be in their employ in some fashion. This is flatly nonsensical on the face of it, as the entire point is for other people to be interested in the product, so that they will buy it, and keep the company in business. The first three diffs (the fourth doesn't belong) are disregarding the assumption of good faith way too early in the conversation to be justified. --Rindis 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was offended. What you stated to me was the equivalent of saying engineers shouldn't work on engineering articles, historians shouldn't work on history articles, and accountants shouldn't work on accounting articles. I am a gamer. I work on gaming articles. I would like Gavin's response to those links supplied above, and to have him actually understand what he has done wrong, before I can consider accepting a blanket apology. Turlo Lomon 07:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making an implicit accusation but stopping short of an explicit accusation may be a meaningful distinction in a court of law, but is just dodgy here. If Gavin.collins would like to apologize for it, I'd recommend using the affronted editors' talk pages (skipping mine), since not all of them are necessarily participating here. -- JHunterJ 13:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My take[edit]

I'm still not comfortable with endorsing the RfC as written. I'm not involved in the RPG wikiproject, but I'm don't really think i have an outside view, as I have butted heads with Gavin.collins over the GURPs and other articles. But I still want to weigh in, so here's my opinion of the situation. Gavin, you can take it or leave it, but I hope you'll consider that this RfC is not entirely fueled by vindictiveness and that many of your actions have been inappropriate. -Chunky Rice 17:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of undisputed facts

(if anybody disputes these, I'd be happy to move them to dipsuted, but I think that they should be pretty straightforward) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunky Rice (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Potentially disputed facts (my take)


My desired result

Reply by Turlo Lomon

I read your statement and agree with it fully. As originater of the AfD, please excuse any errors made on it, because this is the first time I have ever encountered an issue that I felt warrented it. Your interpretation of Gavin's actions matches mine - AfD != Cleanup on demand, but that appears to be what it is used for. I hope we can come to a mutual decision. Every article that Gavin has tagged I do agree needed cleanup. I even supported some of the deletion nominations, but it is crazy to expect a small group of editors to keep up with the requirements he has set to us. Turlo Lomon 05:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Rindis

Agree in general with Chunky Rice and Turlo. My personal take is that Gavin is kicking off some much-needed cleanup in the RPG section. I (contrary to other user's comments in various places) do not mind the mass tagging of articles as opposed to more regular edits on the articles per se. However, his mis-tagging of articles (stemming from improper/poor understanding of OR, what constitutes 'in-universe', unwillingness to look into a subject before passing judgment on worth/notability, etc.) is threatening to leave the RPG Project with a mess to clean up that is nearly as big as the one Gavin is attempting to have cleaned up. In the end, proper cleanup is starting on the strength of Wikipedia procedure and some very dedicated people, rather than the strength of Gavin's edits. If both were strong, there would be no need for this RfC. --Rindis 06:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by SolidPlaid

I think that a clear distinction exists between tagging an article "in-universe", "notability", "unsourced", "primarysources", "nofootnotes", etc., and db-ing, prodding and AfDing them. If his tags are wrong, little harm is done. One the other hand, a wrongly deleted article is harder to recover from. Perhaps Gavin.collins could commit to a one or two month wait between tagging an article and nominating it for deletion? SolidPlaid 05:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal[edit]

I had a look at a few other RFC pages, and although I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, it does not appear to be standard procedure to have a rebuttal section[10] on my RFC page as it looks a little like overkill. Don't you think you should only be able to hang a man once? I suggest moving it to the discussion page, and then we can all answer it. --Gavin Collins 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I think that Gavin's wording is in fairly poor judgement here, he is, in essence, correct. Responses to what others have said, aside from the subject's response to the statement of dispute, go on the talk page. SamBC(talk) 21:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, unfamiliar with this exact process. Turlo Lomon 00:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to User:Gavin.collins by User:Turlo Lomon

I would like to address your points, and have some questions you may be able to answer so I can understand your thought process and hopefully come to a mutual understanding. I look forward to reading Gavin's replies.

  1. We have several subsections of this one, which requires seperate responses.
    1. I agree that you have never been involved in an edit war. I don't think that needs to be commented on further, because it is not part of any concern I have. I also want to add you have been mostly civil in all discussions. More so then a few other editors involved in the related projects. I hope we continue down this path. I hope you feel the same way about me.
    2. Question Quality of article content, and style of the articles, is also something I am concerned about. Are there any concerns with the way I (specifically me) am cleaning up these articles? If so, please go into detail. I would like to find out what exactly your expectations are, and to see if we can come to a mutual compromise.
    3. Verifiable sources is a part we disagree. Every source I have added can be verified. I try to complete the templates completely. Is there a problem with templates I am using, or I am missing specific information you are looking for? Perhaps you mean verifiable secondary sources? I so, I'll discuss that below. I also agree the articles are notorius for missing intext footnotes. I do try to rectify that when I can.
    4. Notability. Now here is where we disagree on. Lack of secondary sources is the only valid reason for deletion you have proposed on AfDs. With you being a non-gamer, I agree that there should be something for you look at. They needed to be added. With regards to what is considered a "quality" secondary source, read below on my comments on guidelines.
  2. We shall see. I think we have to figure out who is in the wrong first.
  3. Not arguing here. That is how it came to our attention. We are part of WP:RPG, and are trying our best to clean up the mess that is out there. I'd rather we work together instead of warring like this.
  4. Actually, every single AfD that I am aware of ended exactly how I supported it. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we didn't. Do I hold an affection for RPG articles? Darn tootin' I do. That is why I am a member of WP:RPG in the first place. The difference is, I am working on fixing them rather then destroying them.
  5. Now this is where you became slightly uncivil. Read the policy you linked. "use of this term (Fancruft)... can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith". The problem escalates from there in your post.
  6. This is also where we clash. You cite WP:FICTION and WP:PLOT when the article is about a book's publishing history. You cite WP:OR and WP:POV when the article is about non-fictional statements. You also started throwing in in universe when there is nothing fictional about the article. Based on the templates you are posting, you are not taking the time to even read the article, which shows bad faith.
    1. I don't feel threatened. I feel the project is threatened. If 100% of the articles you nominated got deleted, there would be no project. But, as I stated above, every AfD went 100% the way I supported.
    2. It has already been shown that several people blindly support deletions based on the reasoning of the AfD but without reviewing the article to see if the reasons are correct. Your AfDs are being reviewed under false pretense in some (not all) situations.
    3. Quality has always been an issue, which is why I joined the project - to fix the issue, not get rid of the issue.
    4. Notability (a valid reason) is the only reason these articles should be AfDed.
  7. Actually, you are taking that statement out of context. You brought up style guidelines in a dicussion about notability. It would be nice to work on the guidelines for style, but we (the active project editors) have been a bit busy lately cleaning house. I would be VERY interested in establishing some guidelines for style. This goes back to my request for input on my editing style.
  8. -10 The rest is just restating what you already stated. Turlo Lomon 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Questions

  1. How do you justify a request for sources and a AfD for lack of sources 12 mins apart?
  2. How do you propose we resolve the issue with improper templates being used?

Turlo Lomon 07:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more instance of doubtful AfD[edit]

In a recent exchange of views between Gavin and another editor about Eidolon (Farscape) (see here), Gavin shows once more his view of AfDs as a way to force things: after having prodded the article, having been asked by an editor to wait ("I'll deal with it when I get the chance. There's no timetable to work to here, and since pretty much all of Wikipedia's Farscape-related content is equally problematic, we're obviously looking at a mammoth cleanup task that isn't going to get done overnight" etc.; see above), he AfDed the article without any more ado. I believe this is precisely the attitude some of us consider not terribly helpful. --Goochelaar 10:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC) :Arguments like "we need more time" can be countered by "userfy it and work on it off the mainspace" until notability can be established. Besides, I can't find any good citations for Eidelon and I'm looking pretty intently. SolidPlaid 00:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just making this up? Where have you got this idea that articles should be userfied until notability can be established? Certainly not from WP:USERFY (i.e. "Not a substitute for regular deletion processes"). There is no deadline to "finish" articles. We all contribute on our own time, and there is no timetable to work to. And most certainly, AfD is not a place for demanding cleanup. PC78 02:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::No, I couldn't find one single internet citation showing notability. I look at all 228 ghits. Farscape-1 has a blank page for it, that tells me it is not notable. SolidPlaid 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stay on topic, please - the Eidelon AfD has its own page. Why don't you answer my question? Where have you got this idea about userfying articles from? PC78 03:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::::I'm sorry, I think I am staying on topic. I'm unclear on what the source of the misunderstanding is. I got the idea about userfying articles because I saw it done on previous AfDs. From my reading of WP:USERFY, it does say userfying is "Not a substitute for regular deletion processes" but now that I look at it it, I think it means "don't do it yourself because it deletes the article". Am I wrong? SolidPlaid 05:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing Behaviour[edit]

I watch the Afd's closely and would have talked to Gavin myself about his Afd's had I not seen this RfC first and stopped his current bad faith nominations. I monitored his contribs and found out that his tagging methods are roughly in minute intervals. This gives me the reason to believe that he does not research the notability of articles at all or even try to work with other editors. I believe this is not simply a case of deleting cruft but deleting an entire genre. As an editor that deals with tagged articles, I know that it is very easy to tag but it is very hard to remove it. With Gavin's tagging spree, I will not be surprised if the RPG wikiproject is overwhelmed.

I also looked at his methods of dealing with other editors. Had the editors not comply with his wishes, he simply Afd the article and labels it as fancruft, which is not a civil comment. He also utilize the Afd's to force editors to do his bidding.

I also point to you this example Telecommunications Tower, which he nominated as non notable. Had he talked with WP:URUGUAY first, he could have avoided systemic bias and have them edit the article in good faith. This has me worrying since now he thinks that WP is not a real estate guide, making articles on buildings his next target for his tagging spree.

I am not a member of the RPG wikiproject, that as Gavin claims, out to hang him. My membership lies with WP:SPI, WP:PINOY, and WP:UNCAT. My contribs are open for your analysis. Any edits on games might be due to my affiliation with the WP:UNCAT community or a random article edit. I have no prior contact with the WP RPG community should that would be used by Gavin as "defense". I also looked at his defense which claims that he is the one being harassed by irritated editors. I believe he thinks that the RPG Wikiproject should be disciplined via these AfDs so that they will fix their notability criterion, again such actions can be best done by working with the Project rather than disrupting them.

I strongly advise the admins that Gavin should be banned counseled for disrupting Wikipedia and harassing other editors to do his bidding. --Lenticel (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we tone it down a bit? Let's try to remember that the objective here is to get Gavin to consider changing his behavior, based on these comments. Calls for banning him, aside from being entirely beyond the scope of an RfC, do not help with that goal. To be sure, that appears like it might already be a lost cause (given his recent comments about how this RfC is nothing more than an attack and attempt to discredit him), let's not make it any worse than it already is. -Chunky Rice 00:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I was getting overzealous. But yes, I believe he is a lost cause as the RfC did not even hamper his spree. --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to try whatever you can, as swiftly as possible (me, I've got an 8-page essay due Friday), but when he's already dismissed the RfC - when it was signed by over a dozen editors - as a ploy to silence him, I don't know who we could get to counsel him that he wouldn't refuse to believe. --Kizor 00:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has changed his behaviour. He now tags articles for a while, and has begun repeating my recommendation that pages be userfied. He has nominated very few articles today. SolidPlaid 00:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But he hasn't. He has nominated close to 60 articles today (10/10/2007) and listed a few more for AfD. Web Warlock 03:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully WP:AGF but exmining his last days contributions, I'm not sure i'd support that assesment. How has anything changed? We have at least 3 AFD's on this days log and a bunch of other tags? Can you explain how today's behavior is different then what's detailed in the RFC?--Cube lurker 04:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep breath everybody and back away from the keyboard. With all respect to every party involved, I'd suggest taking a breather for a day or two as this is really getting too personal. I myself am going to continue my attempts at locating sources for one or more of the articles that have been already been tagged. Cheers. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damnded if I do, Damned if I don't[edit]

A reoccuring theme of this RFC seems to run as follows:

I need to point out to you if an aricle has no content and is lacking reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability, any editor justifiably challenge an articles existence at any time, in any number of ways, regardless of whether they do so on an article by article basis, or in groups. --Gavin Collins 08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered reading the policies you are misquoting above? WP:V has nothing to do with secondary sources, but rather verifiability, which most of the articles do have links to. Here is another one you should read: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. That link is mostly to your response on the RfC claiming this was to discredit you. Well, since your sarcasm is showing this is obviously not making a difference in your opinion, we need to go to the next step. Turlo Lomon 09:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this page.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. Preloaded case page

The title of this subsection doesn't make any sense, nor do your comments above. I've not seen a single discussion with you where someone referred to an article as "my" article. I've not seen a single person say that no RPG articles should be deleted. In fact, some of the people who endorsed this RFC supported certain deletions. The only person who has said anything about having a PhD in RPG's is you - more rhetoric. No one said you were acting in bad faith because you tagged an article. People have pointed out that you have mis-tagged articles after someone has explained to you that such a tag would be inaccurate though, and that is clearly bad faith. You've also accused multiple editors of COI. That's bad faith too, because you're assuming bad faith on the part of someone else. You've also accused multiple people of trying to start an edit war with you before they've even reverted an edit. That's bullying behavior, bad faith, and rude.
Please do try to tone the rhetoric, Gavin, and try to understand that if 15 people have a problem with your behavior, maybe it's because you're doing something wrong. Rray 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to 20 now, by the way. Turlo Lomon 12:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you can accuse me of accusing others (which I have not done), but when it come to accussing me you pile it on with a trowel:
  • "You're creating needless work by being careless and inaccurate[13]"
  • "You should figure out what's really going on and make intelligent, educated decisions with your edits[14]"
  • "Your understanding of whether it's notable or not after reading the article has nothing to do with it[15]."
  • "You've completely ignored several requests to stop doing this".
I am responding to your requests and have always done so, but have not accused anyone like you are accusing me now: carelesness, inaccuracy, lack of education and intelligence, misunderstanding and ignorance as well! We have had many discussions on this page, but I suggest to you that this RFC has now become a platform to revisit to old disagreements with a view to getting even. It is starting to look like a NIGYSOB from Games people play. --Gavin Collins 15:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have your facts straight. I haven't contributed to "many" Greyhawk articles. (I haven't even contributed to "many" RPG articles, although I've contributed to some.) I'm also not interested in "getting even". My only interest in this RFC is in convincing you to stop disrupting the project with your behavior. Your refusal to acknowledge that you've made mistakes makes me think that this is an unlikely outcome though. I'm ignorant of the contents of the book you referenced, and I don't know what NIGYSOB refers to, so I can't speak to that.
I stand by all of the quotes above, but I disagree with your summary of their content. Many of your edits have been careless and inaccurate, and you have displayed ignorance of many of the subjects you've decided to edit. I have never said anything about your "lack of education or intelligence" though, so please don't put words in my mouth. My comments have been directed at your behavior.
Communicating directly is my style. Please don't take that personally.
Perhaps you should note that no one has requested an RFC about my behavior; people have requested an RFC about your behavior. Rray 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Pick a single article that is in the batch that Gavin.collins just nominated, and fix it up with citations demonstrating outside notability. Then say on the AfD discussion that if you can do it for one, you could do it for all, if only you had more time. That will show that the AfD process is going too quickly, and back up your claim of needing more time. SolidPlaid 21:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done already. See Mutants and Masterminds, for example, an article that was put up for AfD. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in general with deleting entire games. The batch I'm referring to is in AfD right now. SolidPlaid 21:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, see Isle of Dread, a module. Frankly, the latest batch probably isn't notable, but I don't know enough about that to determine it myself. <shrug> --Craw-daddy | T | 21:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That current batch is not a strong group of articles. They should at least be merged. Nobody said that all of Gavin's AfDs are wrong. In fact, we've said the exact opposite. All that I, personally, am asking is that he engage in a little good faith research before nominating an article for deletion or tagging it. -Chunky Rice 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. Perhaps the project should draw up a list of articles they think should be merged, and begin merging them. If you make a mistake and merge one that could support its own article, it can always be revived. SolidPlaid 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Gavin would be willing to help do this? He's obviously interested in the issue, and it might be a more constructive step in the direction of cleaning up the articles that Gavin has an issue with? I'm of the opinion that something like this might provide a little more satisfaction than just nominating a bunch of stuff for deletion. Rray 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, inclusionists and deletionists requires balance and removing a tag (after working on the article) is more rewarding as far as my experience goes --Lenticel (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If you read the very page you posted, we didn't ignore your suggestion of merger, but rather focused on the problem with inappropriate tags being placed on all the articles which slows down the cleanup process. Are you even reading these pages? Turlo Lomon 07:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is part of the problem. Your sense of time seems skewed. You say that like September was ages ago, but it hasn't even been two weeks. You say that this RfC was made to bring up "revisit to old disagreements with a view to getting even" but this entire dispute only goes back to August 24 (the attempted mass GURPS deletion) which was only a month and a half ago. You seem to think that everything needs to get done right now and that just isn't the case. -Chunky Rice 12:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. This is why I'm stopping your Afd's the moment you created it, to prevent you from overwhelming them. The Wikiproject is a volunteer-based organization. They have a life outside Wikipedia and don't edit 24-7 and cannot comply with right now orders. Wikipedia is not a job. --Lenticel (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Correct tagging is an integral part of the cleanup process. Do you even know what ((inuniverse)) means? That is the only tag that was removed as it was not appropriate. The other tags were left because they were appropriate. Turlo Lomon 10:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation Discussion isn't really necessary when deleting a tag that is inaccurate. In fact, if everyone discussed every edit before they made it, very little would get accomplished at all. Rray 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You admit you sometimes make mistakes when you edit. (I make mistakes too.) If someone sees a mistake you've made, prior discussion isn't necessary to correct it. Then if you disagree about whether or not the tag was incorrectly reverted, you can take it to the talk page to present your viewpoint. I don't think anyone is saying that you "don't know when to use tags" (and it might be helpful if you didn't put words in people's mouths like that), but you have mistakenly tagged a number of articles, especially with the in-universe tag. And no one is saying that discussion isn't warranted sometimes; it's just not warranted every single time someone wants to revert one of your tags. Rray 14:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem I've seen lately is that your tagging seems extremely indiscriminate... in the course of only a minute on Monday you tagged almost every article about a D&D deity starting with B with all the same tags, including a notability tag. That doesn't make it seem like you've put in any effort at all at deciding what needs to be fixed about the articles or done even a minimal amount of research to try to see which ones are more notable. Sure, plenty of those articles need some sort of cleanup, and tags are a good way to bring that to peoples' attention, but no one's going to listen if you just put every tag on every article whether it's appropriate or not. Try reading each article carefully, looking at the references that are there, and doing a little Googling. Then, once you've done that, decide exactly what needs to be improved and either do so or place a limited number of appropriate tags on the article, ideally with some comment on the article's talk page as to your specific concerns. If you do that, people will be happy to work with you to fix problems. I think one of the big reasons that you're seeing a lot of opposition is that you don't appear to be putting in any effort to improve articles: you don't search for evidence of notability outside what's currently in the article and you don't appear to read the articles carefully enough to understand exactly what types of problems they may have (or even, in several cases, exactly what type of thing the article is about -- quite a few of your AfD nominations have described what the subject is incorrectly, even though it was made clear in the articles). If instead of just running through the Wikipedia with a rubber stamp of disapproval you slowed down and helped work on a few articles at a time, your concerns could be addressed much more efficiently and much less divisively. Pinball22 15:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think these are constructive comments and describe the situation in a dead-on way. Rray 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur! --Orange Mike 15:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinball has finally said what I've been trying to figure out how to say for a while. Also, I think his edit comment, "You've got to stop and smell the articles." expresses it pretty well. I don't object to the tagging of articles. I object to the indiscriminate tagging of them. Some of your tags are wildly off base. Some of them are dead on. Most of them I stare at wondering if there was a particular point that you had, that I'm missing, or if it doesn't really belong and should be removed. There are articles that should be deleted. I admit that my view on what coverage should be included is not the only one, and not necessarily the right one. However, when an AfD goes up with gross inaccuracies in the description, inaccuracies that a read-through of the article should clear up, one wonders just what's going on, and frankly, it damages the credibility your own AfD. --Rindis 16:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could certainly make one, though I think you may be missing the point. -Chunky Rice 21:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Gavin.collins, you do not seem to heed the advice given you. Yes, all editors make mistakes, but when yours are pointed out, you deflect them with "have you ever worked for a game company" or "do we need another tag for badly written articles". No, we don't need another tag. You need to stop using the existing tags indiscriminately. -- JHunterJ 13:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, Gavin needs to stop being a dick.--Robbstrd 13:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying to keep things civil here.--Donovan Ravenhull 17:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing uncivil about pointing it out when it's justified. I have been meaning to bring it up too. In fact, it's really the only thing he's guilty of. He's a good contributor, he's acting in good faith, and in some cases he's right. But he's being a dick. If he realized that, I don't think he'd have this RFC. --UsaSatsui 21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Articles[edit]

Gavin, you're so terribly missing the point. I don't want you to invent a new tag, I want you to use the existing ones in a logical and thoughtful manner. Yesterday you tagged another whole stack of D&D deities with multiple identical tags over the course of just a minute or two. That doesn't indicate that you've taken any time to think about what's appropriate for each one, and the fact that they all got notability tags, even Lolth, makes me assume that you didn't bother doing any research at all -- at least take the time to Google the things you're tagging and get a feel for whether they're probably notable or not. The Wikipedia isn't something that you can fix every problem with overnight... like I said before, instead of marking everything in sight as fast as you can, why not consider just a few articles at a time, take the time to read them carefully, check out the references, do some Googling, and then tag for the most important issues and put comments on the talk pages? I think that's much more likely to result in real problems being fixed than your current approach, which seems to take immediatism to a whole new level. Pinball22 17:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, if these articles are not tagged, how do you know there is a problem? I put it to you that the tags are highly pertinant to the articles concerned, and I challenge you to give me a specific reason why, in each instance, they are not relevant. I refute your generalisation that tagging is unwarranted, as the lack of content in these articles is glaring obvious. It is suprising that a member of the RPG project has not taken the initiative to add these tags, although I would hope I am incorrect in this regard.

With respect to the article Lolth, there is more content, but having read and breathed this article, I can say without for sure that it is all plot summary. There is not even one sentence in the whole article that is not in universe; there is no real world content, context or analysis about there subject matter and are not supported by secondary source that means that. The primary sources are not supported with footnotes, without which this article reads like POV synthesis of the games plot. Again the tagging I have applied does not take more than a minute to add.

I have already proposed that these articles be removed or merged to List of Greyhawk dieties; if you have a better idea, put your case forward, be assertive. I have done all the running so far; I think it is back to you do something tangible with these articles, or else other bolder editors will. Doing nothing or moaning is no longer an option for the RPG project; the time for talk over, the time for action is now. --Gavin Collins 07:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"::I'm quite fine with merging the less-notable articles into an appropriate list and redirecting to it... so why don't you try working on that? Yes, it's true that the Lolth article has too much plot summary, and probably too much content written in an in-universe style. But it's not true that every sentence is in-universe -- certainly the introduction isn't. Yes, the plot summary content needs some drastic trimming and more specific sourcing, but it isn't POV synthesis -- your apparent misunderstanding of these (and other) policies has been one of the biggest problems I've had with your deletion nominations. There's no point of view being advanced by the article; it's not saying "Lolth is the best creepy spider-deity ever because..." or something like that. There's also no synthesis of the kind prohibited by WP:OR, as there isn't some new theory or idea being generated from the sources. And the reason I picked Lolth in particular as my example is that I can't think of a D&D deity that's more notable, yet it got the same lack of notability tag you put on every article. It seems to me that you don't understand that the notability being questioned is that of the subject of the article, not that of the article itself as it is presented. Several times I've noticed in deletion debates that not only do you call for deletion without attempting to determine if the subject is notable, you continue to try to have the article deleted once evidence of notability has been presented. If it has been shown that references indicating the notability of a subject exist, but that notability is not clear in the current article on a subject, the right course of action is to add the material to the article, not to try to get the article deleted because no one has gotten around to doing so yet. You say "Again the tagging I have applied does not take more than a minute to add." The point I'm trying to make is that yes, we're all perfectly aware that it doesn't take long to add a bunch of tags to an article, but tagging articles for cleanup should involve more than just clicking on the articles and sticking templates in them as fast as you can. You say "I have done all the running so far", when you've essentially done nothing at all -- what effort is there in cut-and-pasting identical messages onto hundreds of articles? Why not instead actually improve the encyclopedia by rewriting badly-written sections of articles, talking with other editors about articles (in specific terms beyond "this article is bad"), and, most importantly, doing some research? I find "Doing nothing or moaning is no longer an option for the RPG project; the time for talk over, the time for action is now." to be a very unhelpful, and rather threatening, sentence... when did it become so urgent that everything be fixed right now? This is a ongoing, collaborative, volunteer project, and it's terribly unhelpful to just show up and announce that you don't like anything that's been done and will do your best to get it all destroyed if we don't fix it immediately. Pinball22 18:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Response to Pinball22

I will take up the points raised by you one by one as follows:

1. I'm quite fine with merging the less-notable articles into an appropriate list and redirecting to it... so why don't you try working on that?
Because all my edits get reverted because allegedly I am ignorant, and even if that were not true my "understanding of whether it's notable or not after reading the article has nothing to do with it".
2. It's true that the Lolth article has too much plot summary, and probably too much content written in an in-universe style.
We can agree sometimes but...
3. But it's not true that every sentence is in-universe -- certainly the introduction isn't.
But it is true. I quote the opening sentence as follows: "Lolth (Lloth in the drow dialect)...." For your information, Lolth or Lloth are not a real world dialects; I suspect (as the article does not tell me otherwise) the source material for this is written in ...well it does not say.
4. Yes, the plot summary content needs some drastic trimming and more specific sourcing, but it isn't POV synthesis -- your apparent misunderstanding of these (and other) policies has been one of the biggest problems I've had with your deletion nominations.
The plot summary makes up the rest of the article, so trim that and...you are left with nothing. As regards synthesis, have a look at the references section: there are 8 primary sources, none of which is specifically identified by footnotes. Then there quotes such as "by the end of the War of the Spider Queen series, it is shown that.." indicate this article is strung together from at least 2 or more Greyhawk modules. There seems to me to be overwhealming evidence that this article is made up from the synthesis of more than one source.
5. There's no point of view being advanced by the article; it's not saying "Lolth is the best creepy spider-deity ever because..." or something like that.
No point of view? What about statements such as "Lolth has, through deceit and domination, garnered the ears of the dark elves and eventually established herself as their foremost deity, keeping them under her thumb by creating a society in which only the strong survive and her priestesses are strongest". Whoa there! In Stalin's time, people would have been sent to the salt mines for having strong opinions like that.
6. There's also no synthesis of the kind prohibited by WP:OR, as there isn't some new theory or idea being generated from the sources.
That is part of the problem: there is no assertion of notablility, analysis, context, development history or critism in this article. There might be some contraversy surounding statements like "Lolth was banished to the Abyss by Corellon Larethian, who has forevermore been her enemy", but without any reference to the primary source, we will just have to assume in good faith that this is correct.
7. And the reason I picked Lolth in particular as my example is that I can't think of a D&D deity that's more notable, yet it got the same lack of notability tag you put on every article.
Show me evidence: reliable secondary sources, such as academic papers, newspaper articles or a website ("Lloth.com"). None exist. Kindly explain what evidence you have to show this article is not worthy of a notability tag. In my view, I think you are way off the mark on this one.
8. It seems to me that you don't understand that the notability being questioned is that of the subject of the article, not that of the article itself as it is presented.
For some reason, Lolth does not respond to my prayers for here to make herself present to me; however this article does appear in front of me when I call up the page in my web browser. Therefore, I can only judge Lolth by the article.
9. Several times I've noticed in deletion debates that not only do you call for deletion without attempting to determine if the subject is notable, you continue to try to have the article deleted once evidence of notability has been presented.
Maybe, but this does not apply to this article. You might be able to argue that Queen of the Demonweb Pits is a notable game, but to suggest that Lolth is known outside of the game (or books based on the game) is unfounded. Demonweb might be a popular game, but outside of the game, no evidence of notability sufficient to justify this plot summary exists.
10. If it has been shown that references indicating the notability of a subject exist, but that notability is not clear in the current article on a subject, the right course of action is to add the material to the article, not to try to get the article deleted because no one has gotten around to doing so yet.
None of the reference given are actually about the Lolth per se; she might be important in the primary source, but there are no secondary sources demonstrating notability outside of the game modules.
11. You say "Again the tagging I have applied does not take more than a minute to add."
Tabbed browsing is an improvement, don't you think? Now I can tag with dozens of articles over a period of an hour or even days, but then make it look like it has taken me an instant.
12. The point I'm trying to make is that yes, we're all perfectly aware that it doesn't take long to add a bunch of tags to an article, but tagging articles for cleanup should involve more than just clicking on the articles and sticking templates in them as fast as you can.
. Without the tags, nobody would notice there is a problem, and we would not be discussing the merits of this article now.
14. You say "I have done all the running so far", when you've essentially done nothing at all -- what effort is there in cut-and-pasting identical messages onto hundreds of articles?
If I have done nothing, then I am not sure why you are objecting. I have done what others are doing, and with good justification; this article fails to demonstrate notability for reasons stated in (7) above.
15 Why not instead actually improve the encyclopedia by rewriting badly-written sections of articles, talking with other editors about articles (in specific terms beyond "this article is bad"), and, most importantly, doing some research?
I am doing that as well, but unlike the editors of these articles, I am doing this offline.
16. I find "Doing nothing or moaning is no longer an option for the RPG project; the time for talk over, the time for action is now." to be a very unhelpful, and rather threatening, sentence... when did it become so urgent that everything be fixed right now?
I think the RPG project needs strong notability guidelines, as I have said frequently, as article like Lolth show. Now something is being done, so change is likely to happen in the immediate future. I think the lack of guidelines is why articles like Lolth were written obscures the real value of RPG articles.
17. This is a ongoing, collaborative, volunteer project, and it's terribly unhelpful to just show up and announce that you don't like anything that's been done and will do your best to get it all destroyed if we don't fix it immediately.  :: You have missed the point of my post; you will have to at least start the cleanup process, or a lot of these articles will be lost over time. It will be gradual, imperceptable, but with so many editors out there it will happen unless we can these articles get cleaned up. --Gavin Collins 08:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Robbstrd

Gavin, your respose shows that you have no interest in reading articles before tagging them. You tagged Isle of Dread, claiming that the article was about a "fictional island," when in fact the article was about one of the most widely-distributed modules in RPG history. You tagged Ket (Greyhawk), claiming it was an article about a "fictional race," when in fact it was about a fictional nation. Now, regarding Lolth, you claim "having read and breathed this article, I can say without for sure that it is all plot summary." Either you don't understand what "all" or "plot summary" means, or you're consciously being deceptive about having read the article. See the second paragraph of the article: "Lolth was created by Gary Gygax for the World of Greyhawk campaign setting, later appeared in the Forgotten Realms setting, and is now a member of the default pantheon of D&D gods," also see the entire section on other media.--Robbstrd 20:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again I quote: "having read and breathed this article, I can say without for sure that it is all plot summary" (emphasis mine). If you look up "all" at M-W.com, you'll see the first definition as "the whole amount, quantity, or extent of"[16]. If one sentence (actually, a bit more than that, but I digress) is not "plot summary," then the article is NOT "all" plot summary, but "mostly."--Robbstrd 04:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petard hoisting[edit]

It looks like the backlog in AfD discussions has resulted in a number of Gavin.collins' AfDs being hastily closed by overworked admins. This is an unforseen (but interesting) consequence of too many AfD nominations in too short a time. SolidPlaid 02:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring from commenting for now.[edit]

I feel like I'm getting like Gavin himself while commenting on his Afd's: good reasons but bad timing and too much posting, causing the ire of other editors and I believe I'm choking SolidPlaid as well.

Anyways I'll not be working with anything that has to do with the RfC after this post any developments can be relayed to me via the talkpage.

Final messages: To Gavin. I know another person that has the same problem as you did. He survived both RfC and Arbcom, He did comply with the comments given to him there. I encountered him one time at WP:PINOY when he nominate a picture (and other in a bunch) that is as dear to us as some people do this and hell, Pinoy wikipedians were on him in an instant. But since he talked calmly with us and was willing to work with, nazi calls stopped and apologized for and references and ideas for fair use came from our side. Sadly, even if his encounter with us was successful, he grow disappointed overtime and is now taking a long Wikibreak. Even if you ignore calls, it will still get you one way or another.

To the RPG wikiproject, I think I have bought you enough time for you to slightly recover. Notify me after this RfC is settled so I can directly help you without the strings attached. I'm good with assessing pages:) (I'll work on the quality part not the importance one).--Lenticel (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article for AfD that fails[edit]

Because an AfD fails is not a reliable indicator that the AfD was misguided or wrong. The AfD can, and often does, fail because of heavy support from a small interest group and not because that the AfD was without any merit. Further, an AfD often results in the improvement of an article because of the attention drawn to it. When an article is being edited by a small group of like-minded editors, its failings are likely to be overlooked and outside appraisals and help can be very valuable. --Mattisse 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that failed AfDs often do end up improving articles, but I don't think using AfD as a cleanup tool or some sort of leverage to force cleanup is appropriate. I totally agree that outside appraisals and help are extremely valuable: they're what makes Wikipedia work, and I'd love to see anyone and everyone help with any of these articles, plenty of which do genuinely need work. The reason this has ended up as an RfC, I think, is that the manner in which Gavin has gone about things isn't seen by many editors as being a constructive attempt to solve the problem. Pinball22 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually looked at the AfDs in question? These are clearly, clearly notable games and there's little support from the community at large for deletion. These aren't no consensus results. They're near universal keeps. And sometimes speedy keeps. That's indicative of a bad nomination, in my opinion.
Gavin seems to think (and perhaps you do) that the fact that these AfDs resulted in improvements of the articles to be evidence that they were appropriate but AFD is not for clean-up. It's a gross misuse of process.
For the record, nobody is asking Gavin to stop working on cleaning up RPG articles. All that is being proposed is that he engage in a little good faith research before nominating for deletion or tagging and that he be more constructive. Suggestions that he has strongly resisted for some reason. -Chunky Rice 18:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC does not make this proposal at all. However, if you are proposing I do research before nomination, I will agree to that. Any other suggestions to resolve this RFC? --Gavin Collins 15:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe I overstepped. I didn't endorse this RfC becuase I didn't like the wording. But I think that most reasonable contributors would agree with me. My primary desire is that before nominating something for AfD, you just do a simple internet search and see if you can find some sources, awards or other indications of notability. Or indications that there are sources, even if they themselves may not be available on the internet. I think that would have prevented the AfDs mentioned above. This is also true for tags. If you can agree to that, I think that would be very helpful.
The other thing I would like you to do is to just be more patient. If you want to suggest a merger or redirect, let it percolate for at least a couple months (many people aren't on Wikipedia every day like you and I are) before trying to force the issue at AfD. I think this would just make relations smoother between you and the editors of these articles. If somebody says that they have non-internet sources that they plan to add, please give them time to do so. DO NOT take the article to AfD to force them to do it on your timet-table. Take them at their word. There are so many articles that are unsalvageable that it seems wasteful to attack those that people are trying to work on. -Chunky Rice 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I can subscribe to those suggestions. In retrospect, the above nominations for AfD may not have happened at all if I had done more research, and for this I am sorry. In my defense, many of the articles had few reliable sources when they were nominated, but on the other hand, if I had done some research, maybe I would not have nominated them in the first place (not a good defence, I know). I feel this is the core of the dispute, and if you could suggest some suitable wording, I will seriously consider endorsing it. --Gavin Collins 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I have a suggestion that I hope you can agree with. When you find a large group of related articles that you think are of dubious notability, don't nominate them all at once or in quick succession! Nominate one, see how it goes, and later, if you find consensus for deleting several articles, you can think about the whole group. Whereas if you go straight to nominating every GURPS-related article you see (for example), you should not be surprised to see a negative reaction and find that at least some of them were notable after all. --Itub 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to further add to Itub's suggestion, and request that Gavin begin with clean-up tags and allow a more reasonable period of time for them to work before nominating for AFD. He has and does indeed use clean-up tags, and I belive them to truly be good-faith contributions. One of the most consistent points being raised in this RFC is his use of AFD to force a time-limit for clean-up, which is improper, and not in the spirit of good faith.-- Ukulele 14:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're saying that you agree with the substance of what I wrote, that's all I need to hear. We don't need any sort of formal endorsement. -Chunky Rice 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree to not doing group AfD's; this facility exists for a reason: it is sometimes more efficient.When I first nominated a GURPS title, it was suggested to me to use group AfD's for this reason. --Gavin Collins 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion[edit]

(Making a new section just to make it clear where whose comments go.)

Gavin, here are my responses to some of what you've said, numbered the same way, with the things I'm quoting of yours in italics.

3. But it is true. I quote the opening sentence as follows: "Lolth (Lloth in the drow dialect)...." For your information, Lolth or Lloth are not a real world dialects; I suspect (as the article does not tell me otherwise) the source material for this is written in ...well it does not say.

The complete sentence says "Lolth (Lloth in the drow dialect), the Demon Queen of Spiders, is the chief goddess of drow elves in the Dungeons and Dragons fantasy role-playing game." I think that's pretty clear about the fictionality of the subject -- it's not fair to just yank a phrase out of a perfectly good sentence and go "hey, this is too in-universe!", unless you want the page to be written like "The fictional Lolth (known as Lloth in the fictional dialect of the fictional drow), the fictional Demon Queen of fictional spiders...".

4. The plot summary makes up the rest of the article, so trim that and...you are left with nothing.

I said trim, not shave. I didn't mean there should be no plot summary at all -- it's not much use having an article about a fictional character without some explanation of what that character does in its fictional context.

...indicate this article is strung together from at least 2 or more Greyhawk modules. There seems to me to be overwhealming evidence that this article is made up from the synthesis of more than one source.

Of course it's made up of the synthesis of more than one source, every article is, else the entire Wikipedia would be nothing but a list of quotations from other things. If you look at WP:SYN, the title of the section is "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", and it explains that what is inappropriate is drawing a new conclusion that is not directly made by any of the sources.

5. Whoa there! In Stalin's time, people would have been sent to the salt mines for having strong opinions like that.

Lolth is a fictional character. She's not going to sue the Wikimedia Foundation for libel. The section you quote would violate WP:NPOV if we actually all lived in the D&D universe, but it's not advancing a viewpoint in the real world.

8. For some reason, Lolth does not respond to my prayers for here to make herself present to me; however this article does appear in front of me when I call up the page in my web browser. Therefore, I can only judge Lolth by the article.

This is completely missing the point... no, you can't make Lolth appear to tell you about herself. Nor can you do that with any other fictional character, dead person, or mythological being. But that doesn't leave you with only Wikipedia articles to learn about those things from... Do research. Use Google. Use Lexis/Nexus. Go to the library. Go to a bookstore. The articles here are by no means the only source of information in the world.

Your response to Chunky Rice in another section when he asked the same thing was "However, if you are proposing I do research before nomination, I will agree to that." That's exactly what I, and everyone else, has been trying to get you to do the whole time, and what your response here seems to imply that you don't think is possible! If you understand, why have you been so resistant to the idea?

9. Your answer to my concern that you don't read the articles before AfDing or tagging them was Maybe, but this does not apply to this article. You might be able to argue that Queen of the Demonweb Pits is a notable game, but to suggest that Lolth is known outside of the game (or books based on the game) is unfounded. Demonweb might be a popular game, but outside of the game, no evidence of notability sufficient to justify this plot summary exists.

Right there in your response you failed again to read the articles. The first line of Queen of the Demonweb Pits says "Queen of the Demonweb Pits (Q1) is an adventure module for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game." Therefore, it's not a game, it's a module. This is the sort of thing that makes people feel like you're not making any effort at all.

I hope this makes some things clearer... I would be happy, and I think everyone else would too, if you would just commit to reading articles carefully, being sure you understand what they're saying, and doing research on sources and notability yourself before tagging an article as being non-notable or prod'ing or AfD'ing it. Pinball22 19:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Gavin's user pages[edit]

Over the last few hours, I've seen a number of vandalistic personal attacks on Gavin on his user and talk pages. Somebody has semi-protected the user page, but the vandalism continues on the talk page. While many of us may disagree with Gavin, none of use should endourse vandalism. So, I ask of you all to help me patrol to keep the twits out of the equation. Thank you for your time.--Donovan Ravenhull 11:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting as fast as I can... there's a request in at WP:RFPP to semi the talk page too, hopefully someone will do it soon. Gavin, I'm really sorry this is happening... frustrated as I've been with you at times, I'd never want anyone to do this to you. Pinball22 13:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protect seems to have gone through. Hopefully it will slow the vandals down. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that I am disgusted at this behaviour, and hope that my contributions to reverting and cleaning have helped. There's no reason but some slim motive issues to believe that any of the parties here have been involved, but I just want to say here and now that if any of you (us) have, then shame on you, this is not the way to deal with any sort of disagreement. SamBC(talk) 14:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, please stop vandalizing Gavin's pages. I'll be monitoring as well. Ukulele 15:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your help! You must have done a good job, as I did not even notice the changes. --Gavin Collins 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this RfC working?[edit]

Is this RfC working? Here are User:Gavin.collins' contributions, today (October 24th):

13:51, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canonfire!‎ (Comment) (top) 13:39, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gavin.collins‎ (Misuse of the "in-universe" templat) (top) 13:38, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure‎ (Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure) (top) 13:37, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gavin.collins‎ (Response to Harmil re Talk:Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure) 13:35, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure‎ (Removal of Notability template) 12:44, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canonfire!‎ (Comment) 12:32, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Harmil‎ (Removal of tag from Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure) (top) 11:56, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Red Hand of Doom‎ (Add Notability, primary sources & No footnotes templates) 11:48, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) List of Disgaea 3 characters‎ (Add Notability, context, primary sources & No footnotes templates) (top) 11:47, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) List of Disgaea 3 characters‎ (Add Notability, context, primary sources & No footnotes templates) 11:38, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Melesse‎ (Lords of Madness book cover.jpg) 11:37, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Lords of Madness book cover.jpg‎ (Add di-no fair use rationale template) 11:32, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Dungeon Master's Guide II‎ (Add Notability & unreferenced templates) (top) 11:29, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure‎ (Add Notability, primary sources & No footnotes templates) 11:28, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure‎ (Add Notability, primary sources & No footnotes templates) 11:23, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Adventure Path‎ (Add Notability & unreferenced templates) 11:22, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Pathfinder (periodical)‎ (Add Notability & unreferenced templates) 11:20, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) James Jacobs‎ (Add Notability & unreferenced templates) 11:17, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Erik Mona‎ (Add Notability & unreferenced templates) 11:14, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Lisa Stevens‎ (Add db-maintenance template) 11:07, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Paizo Publishing‎ (Add Notability, & primarysources templates) 10:59, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balkoth‎ (Recommend delete) (top) 10:37, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:StargateX1‎ (Stark.jpg) (top) v 10:37, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mistrx75‎ (Ancient Jack.jpg) (top) 10:35, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:StargateX1‎ (Johncrichtonaerynsun2) 10:34, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:StargateX1‎ (CommandantGrayza) 10:33, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:CommandantGrayza.jpg‎ (Add di-no fair use rationale template) (top) 10:31, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Jool‎ (Add who & fact template) 10:30, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Jool‎ (Add Notability, in universe, Unreferenced & No footnotes templates) 10:24, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Johncrichtonaerynsun2.jpg‎ (Add di-no fair use rationale template) (top) 10:24, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Johncrichton2.jpg‎ (Add di-no fair use rationale template) 10:22, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Ancient Jack.jpg‎ (Add di-no fair use rationale template) (top) 10:20, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Stark.jpg‎ (Add di-no fair use rationale template) (top) 10:16, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:StargateX1‎ (Scorpius) 10:15, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Scorpius.jpg‎ (Add di-no fair use rationale template) 07:30, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Star Trek role-playing game (FASA)‎ (Restore templates removed justification: more footnotes & secondary sources required, one link is not really enough) (top) 06:57, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:WikiProject Greyhawk‎ (Articles proposed for deletion) 06:11, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Touv‎ (Add Notability, in universe, primary sources & No footnotes templates) 05:49, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Suloise‎ (Add Notability, in universe, primary sources & No footnotes templates) (top) 05:43, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Robbstrd‎ (Rhennee) (top) 05:42, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:AngelAlive‎ (Rhennee) (top) 05:41, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Rhennee‎ (Add proposed deletion template) (top) 05:38, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) World of Greyhawk Timeline‎ (Add Notability, in universe, primary sources & No footnotes templates) 05:34, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) River of Blood‎ (Add Notability, in universe, primary sources & No footnotes templates) (top) 05:23, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Robbstrd‎ (Olman) 05:22, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Harmil‎ (Olman) 05:19, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game-related‎ (Add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olman) 05:18, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 24‎ (Add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olman) 05:18, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olman‎ (Nominate for AfD) 05:04, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Olman‎ (Add AfD) 04:59, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Oeridians‎ (Add Notability, in universe, primary sources & No footnotes templates) 04:56, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Robbstrd‎ (Able Carter) 04:51, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Iquander‎ (Fortnight's Length) (top) 04:47, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Robbstrd‎ (Kalamanthis) 04:46, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Kalamanthis‎ (Add proposed deletion template) (top) 04:38, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Greyhawk literature‎ (Add Notability, in universe, primary sources & No footnotes templates) (top) 04:38, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Greyhawk literature‎ (Add Notability, in universe, primary sources & No footnotes templates) 04:01, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Harmil‎ (/Canonfire!) 04:01, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fairsing‎ (Canonfire!) (top) 04:01, 24 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Robbstrd‎ (Canonfire!)

AndyJones 17:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin's edits today look appropriate to me. I don't have time to review them all, but I looked over at least a dozen of them, and I didn't see anything I disagreed with. Rray 19:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's just the nature of the PROD system that it's tough to delete anything that any active editor has an interest in. It's deliberately designed that way. I don't know enough about the subject to know if sources are likely (didn't see any at first glance), but my guess is that it would be a fairly open and shut AfD. -Chunky Rice 21:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who checks PRODs regularly (and have run upon some of his), I will say I've never seen Gavin prod something controversial. --UsaSatsui 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optimistically, I believe that Gavin may be indeed considering many of the civil and sincere suggestions about his strong clean-up effort. He has freely admitted making mistakes and agreed to conduct more research in the future. In various talk pages I also have noticed that he readily admits mistakes (who among us does not make them?). RFCs (including this one) can easily degenerate into a convoluted collections of complaints not related to the RFC's original intent, and Gavin has rolled with the punches. I ask all of you to mull how you would feel were any of you the subject of a similar RFC, and consider how you would respond to a barrage of suggestions/complaints/comments.

Many of us may not be wholly satisfied with Gavin's responses, but he has made concessions-- which can be difficult to pick out of close to 19,000 words in this talk page. Expecting him to agree to every suggestion/complaint/comment is unreasonable.

RFCs are not intended to impose a group of contributors' will upon another-- there is a separate more extreme process for this, and I see nothing in this RFC, which suggests that course of action. This RFC is a discussion among peers suggesting that one among us take a bit more care when nominating something for deletion. Give this process a chance to work, and don't expect it to work overnight. - Ukulele 05:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin's comments on a recent AfD [18] [19] [20] still indicate a woeful lack of knowledge of what roleplaying games are. Yet he still feels confident of deciding whether things he does not understand are notable. Edward321 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gavin has shown great improvement. Note that a lot of those linked comments are phrased as questions. Maybe we should try harder to answer them in good faith. I would, but I don't know anything about that specific case, largely due to my personal distaste for D&D ;) give me a real RPG any day ;) SamBC(talk) 20:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can be mistaken, no doubt about it. What if find a bit rich is the groundless generalisation that I have "woeful lack of knowledge". I don't think much of Edward321's knowledge if he thinks[21] this article demonstrates notablity.--Gavin Collins 19:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria (Athletes). Past experience seems to suggest that playing even one game at the professional level makes an athlete notable (or at least I've seen this argued for football players). --Craw-daddy | T | 19:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't know a lot about Australian rules football, but it looks like he played for a fully professional team, which WP:BIO says automatically confers sufficient notability for an article. It's the third one of those diffs that I found confusing, Gavin (I would have said something had that AfD not been closed before I saw that comment)... what you said doesn't make any sense, since the books aren't copying D&D or just using some names, they're actually intended to be taking place in that universe. Pinball22 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I didn't claim Gavin is ignorant in all areas, but as the links I listed show, he is ignorant about roleplaying games. Rather than address my concerns, his response was a smokescreen. Even if I were as ignorant as he claims, that does not make his comments knowledgable. Rather than helping his case, the link he gives shows another of Gavin's problems - notability criteria for athletes clearly support my statement in that AfD, which he should have known if he'd read and understood the link he cited. Nor is this a lone example of Gavin misreading things. Recently, he's referred to a fictional coach company as a fictional bus company [22] , which is like mistaking the Butterfield Overland Mail for Greyhound Lines and putting the latter into Middle Earth. He's refered to a book series as a book [23], which he should have known - it's clearly stated in the first half of the first sentence of the article. Edward321 15:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so

Ok, that's really inappropriate. If you still have concerns after an AfD is closed as kept, either take it to deletion review or, better, discuss with editors who said to keep what can be done to improve the article. Prodding it right after it's been kept at AfD is not the way the deletion process is supposed to go -- clearly it's not uncontroversial to delete it, since it was just kept after five days of discussion. Pinball22 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume good faith and say that he didn't realize that he'd AfDed the article... I think this is the more relevant point: he's AfDing so many articles that even he can't keep them straight. Prodding and AfDing articles simply does not have to proceed at a breakneck pace, and especially not at a pace that precludes doing a good job of sorting out cruft so that other editors can comment on its appropriateness. I think it's time for this user to take a small vacation and think about what his goals are, and where he might contribute most constructively. I'd welcome his improvement to any of dozens of articles that he's unsuccessfully AfDed, but I think he's filled the AfD queue quite enough. -Harmil 14:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harmilis right that I forgot this had been AfD'd before, as usually AfD follows prod. However, the lack of sources, the in universe perspective and no evidience of notability means that I can still claim good faith in having nominated it for deletion. I even checked for secondary sources, but the only ghits were fansites. It is the article that it at fault, not me. --Gavin Collins 17:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I fully believe that your PRODed in good faith, it's still your fault for not checking to see if it had been through AfD. Especially considering that you yourself were the one who brought it to AfD.-Chunky Rice 18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't dispute your good faith with this particular edit either. This goes to the problem of being in a hurry and making careless edits. There's no rush to get any of this stuff done, Gavin. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline for your AfD's and other tags. Rray 20:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harmil interactions[edit]

I'd just like to note my own experience. As an editor who hasn't spent much time on Wikipedia recently, this user's AfDs have been my only focus recently (at lease the AfDs that touched on topic where I had some knowledge) since he posted a flurry of notices on my talk page. I simply cannot keep up. The trivial amount of research and editing required to respond to each AfD is simply too much time to spend, when taken in the whole. I just can't keep up, and that's a problem. I am beginning to notice that many of the AfDs I'm editing have no other input besides mine. We can dispute the fact that this user thinks that notable elements of already well-established notable fictional works are automatically AfD-worthy all we want, but there's a simple mechanical limit on how many AfDs are practical in a span of time I've also noted a few cases on his talk page where insufficient research was done or where his AfD could easily have been replaced by a quick improvement to the article to address his concerns. -Harmil 13:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for context, here's his AfDs: Gavin.collins new articles in Wikipedia namespace. -Harmil 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to slow down, but my suggestions to merge these articles has just fallen on deaf ears. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greyhawk, and you will see than my proposals have not been responded to. It appears to me that I am a one many clean up crew. However, if you have alternative suggestions as to what is to done with the 300-400 Category:Greyhawk stubs, then do let me know. --Gavin Collins 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline. Be patient and try to take a collaborative attitude. Thinking that you're a "one-man cleanup crew" seems to be part of the problem here. The attitude that everyone else has made a mess and that you're the guy to clean it up is probably part of the reason there's been an RFC created about your editing behavior. There are lots of things you can do at the Wikipedia besides nominate articles for deletion. Rray 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to work collaboratively, but as I say above, the traffic is all one way. In addtion, I find that my edits are reverted with out proper explaination, and I am not the only editor who has had this experience. --Gavin Collins 22:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments about being a one man cleanup crew indicate something other than a collaborative mindset. The assumption behind a statement like that is that someone else has made a mess and that you're the only person who wants to clean it up. Maybe other editors don't share your opinion that things are a mess? Or maybe they agree but don't think it's as urgent a mess as you seem to think it is? Just something to think about. BTW, everyone has edits which are reverted without proper explanation. Rray 00:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things are changing: other editors are now alerted to the fact that there are a lot of unsourced plot summary and game guide articles which have no notability. A clean up has started of Warhammer articles, some Forgotten Realms articles are also under review. The wind of change is already blowing through the crufty canon of the Greyhawk universe. --Gavin Collins 09:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those "other editors" may not prove to be so reliable. Cross-posting my comments from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive323#User:Pilotbob (which, to be honest, were more directed at Gavin than PilotBob):
The triple-teaming trio of Pilotbob, GavinCollins, and Mikeblas barely give the rest of us any time to breathe with their loads of AFDs. It would be more than wonderful if they at least slowed down. And yes, especially Gavin and Pilotbob seem to have taken a very adversarial, opinionated stance against the articles they nominate and the people who defend them. When Gavin PRODs an article I wrote instead of AFDing it, I just redirect it, no mess no fuss. It would be nice if Gavin and Pilotbob actually read an article before nominating it, so that we don't see so much of referring to a female character as a "he", stating that characters who were primarily used in novels as "being created to fill a game guide", or making other baseless assertions which clearly show their lack of knowledge of the subject they are trying so hard to get rid of. State the facts - if notability has not been established, then leave it at that; this seems to be an effective enough tactic as it is, and making things up (or just guessing, as the case may be) to make your case look better can backfire on you. BOZ 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A side point: I've never seen these constructive edits that Gavin claims were reverted. The only edits that I've seen by him involved AfD, ((prod)) or adding administrative tags to genre articles. Now that might just be a result of the preponderance of those types of edits (I have not combed his entire edit history for contributions of a positive nature), but the simple fact is that the vast majority if not entirety of this user's contributions has been invoking Wikipedia bureaucracy. -Harmil 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is rich, coming from Harmil. Have a look at the history of the stub Panzuriel; my prod has been reverted by the redirect of BOZ, which you then deemed to be in appropriate on the grounds that "I have no problem with a merge of this page, but no merge appears to have been performed". I think you are missing splitting hairs: this article has no content, real-world context or reliable secodary sources to demonstrate notability. As far as I can see, merger, redirect or delete, the outcome is the same.--Gavin Collins 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New problem[edit]

Gavin recently double voted on a AfD [[25]] his edits are on the 7th and the 13th. Edward321 06:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is more than likely just a simple mistake. I've almost done the same thing a few times when I look over a list of deletions. If he was actually trying to vote stack, why would he use the exact same name, making it completely obvious? -- Ned Scott 06:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It probably is a simple mistake. However, it would be best for him to exercise caution in such affairs and make sure he didn't already vote, especially after a few of his compadres got busted for meatpuppeting on AFDs (whether they meant to do it or not), or he'll have other editors crying wolf like above. BOZ 14:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the lack of clarity. If I thought Gavin was trying to vote stack, I'd have said so. My point is that this is yet another example of Gavin not reading things before voting on them. A different kind problematic edit is here [26] where Gavin makes the unsubstantiated claim that article authors have copied the info from somewhere else, especially since the link he lists [27] has no info at all. Edward321 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Gavin has double voted on another AfD, this time only two days apart. [28] For clarity, let me repeat I do not think Gavin is attempting vote stacking, but this level of inattention is worrying. This was not a long involved debate, there were only 6 votes (2 of them Gavin's), it should have been easy for him to see he'd already 'voted'. Edward321 (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPG Prods[edit]

Galvin tagged a large number of modules as non-notable including those which are on the top 30 list. I've removed a fair chunk of those (others beat me to many of them). Can we have some sort of discussion about notability of modules for D&D? Hobit (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you have made a grave mistake. This follows on from my earlier arguments; that there is complete disregard or the notability guidelines amoungst RPG enthusiasts. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..."grave mistake"? Sorry, but how is being honest or bringing new facts to light a mistake if this is supposed to be co-operation instead of a contest, or did I not get something? --Kizor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duhn duhn duuhhhhhn... How ominous! That sounds like a line a cheesy villain would use in a movie. Seriously though, I wonder what he meant. Is it a mistake to discuss what you'd like to change about guidelines? Are the guidelines words from above which are written in stone, and cannot be questioned upon pain of death? BOZ (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. I've heard that before. Many times. From you, mostly. What I am asking is, why is examining the guidelines a "grave mistake"? You can quote the same guideline over and over a hundred times, but that doesn't tell me anything new. Is examining a guideline a mistake because it's not likely to change or fix anything, or because lowly peons don't have the right to question those who make the rules, or because if anything you feel the guidelines should be even stricter, or because it just personally offends you? If those with the power to actually change the guidelines said "you know what, maybe reliable secondary sources aren't that big a deal for notability after all, if we've got decent primary sources" and actually made a policy change on that, would Wikipedia become intolerable to you? What is making you feel threatened by looking at policies this way? BOZ (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on that and have found a few from my dusty old cupboards already. Note that White Dwarf magazine was (is) a British magazine produced by Games Workshop and totally independent from either TSR or WOTC (both American) who produced aforesaid modules. Gavin, if you are familiar with RPG material, then a more constructive approach is to help find sources. If unfamiliar, then maybe edit other areas of Wikipedia where you have a knowledge or positive interest. It is much more fun and less disruptive. There are plenty of things I find an averse feeling towards and if I am not able to contribute constructively then I edit elsewhere. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people might interpret the Delete result on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwellers of the Forbidden City as a sign that most stand-alone RPG articles will eventually be deleted. The dynamic has always been leading in that direction. My suggestion is that rather than spend a great deal of effort fighting for individual articles, the interested editors begin an effort to massively consolidate the weak ones. Another way of saying this is that Gavin Collins' interpretation of policy is absolutely correct, although some may disagree with his methods. In the past, it was possible to hold back Gavin Collins by arguing that more time was needed to improve the articles. But time is not on the RPG articles' side any more. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The debate was closed by someone who was not impartial. I have not found 3rd party sources for that article as I have for several other AD&D modules from the 80s and 90s but I am getting there (my garage is very crowded). Gavin was using the wrong template (books instead of game criteria) pure and simple. Gaming should have more in common with computer games (or any others for that matter). Time is only an issue if folk keep attacking them. Anteaterzot, plenty of vital articles have been in woeful shape for years. If you are so intent on improving wikipedia, they are pages which impact on folk more in the scheme of things rather than gaming pages don't you think? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Impartiality is irrelevant. My opinion is that the coverage of role playing games on Wikipedia needs massive consolidation, beginning now. The view that people are "attacking" these pages is lamentable, since it engenders a belief that fighting back will save the pages, and that there is a chance that all RPG pages will be attacked. The entrenched resistance tactic adopted by many pro-RPG page editors will delay, but not prevent the deletion of unsourced pages. Instead, trust in the goodness of people. Look at AfD; list articles that really don't have much sourcing are habitually kept. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depends where you put the goalposts on RS's really, which is not set in stone by any means. And can we drop the witticisms? I actually find them not particularly conducive to constructive discussion and quite patronising really. And your opinion is just that, an opinion. Discourse and differing opinions is not 'resistance' either. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Gavin.collins, but I promise you, the goal for me is consolidation. My opinion is just an opinion, but many people argue in the exact same way as I do in similar cases, such as TV characters and episodes. I'm trying to offer hope, with a little humor. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) - ok, think about this - your goal (presumably) is to improve wikipedia - why are you prioritising time and effort to these areas rather than,say, articles which have a higher degree of importance and incorrect info may be misleading or harmful rather than Roleplaying stuff? Really. As I have said, there are a great number of core articles begging for reffing and improvement. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnteaterZot, if your goal really is consolidation as you say, why not try merging and redirecting rather than just going for deletion? The way you've started out lately isn't a whole lot different than Gavin's approach. I'm sure the RPG Wikiproject folks would much more appreciate you working with them, rather than against them. BOZ (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing is that all the RPG Wikiproject folks are on board that the articles must be consolidated. I've seen editors go to some trouble to merge articles, only to be reverted. Also, just now an anonymous IP editor mananged to get hisself blocked upside the head rather than acknowledge the non-notability of the articles. At some point the RPG Project must stop fighting and begin consolidating in ernest, and rein in the rogue editors. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question as to why this is a priority though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care about priorities. I suppose that a reason is that it would reduce controversy in the long run. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would count that person as a rogue, clearly. Please don't judge everyone else's sensibilities based on what this person is doing - he got what he was asking for. Try this: do a merge/redirect first (or just a redirect if there's little or nothing to merge), and if that doesn't work, try a PROD, and if that doesn't work, go to AFD. Even the guidelines say to do this (actually, they say discussion is Step 1, if i remember correctly), and it will generate a lot less controversy than going for a PROD or even AFD right off the bat. Yes, some editors will revert a merge, but it is important to not let that discourage you. Every time someone puts a PROD on an article that lacks a clear case for notability, I will redirect it (see Thoqqua, the only one you PRODded that the anon IP didn't revert), and I think it wouldn't be too hard to convince other editors to do the same. If you find this tactic is overwhelmingly unsuccessful, then I guess you will be left with no alternative than to go straight for the delete. *shrug* BOZ (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if I edit RPG articles at all, I'll try that order. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated - when we interact in the future, may it be on better terms. :) BOZ (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that this even seems to satisfy Gavin, for what it's worth. I have suggested this to him more than once, in fact. BOZ (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but your hostility towards me is misplaced. I cannont commend all that AnteaterZot has written to you more strongly; consoldiation is the way to go, and I have said that in AfD discussions. Decimation of RPG articles is not my goal; I just want to see the notability criteria be applied impartially to RPG articles; that is my only agenda. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but doubt your noble intentions. You say that decimnation is not your goal, and yet you bring that along with swift and sudden sureness. BOZ (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PK Gavin - if your goal (presumably) is to improve wikipedia - why are you prioritising time and effort to these areas rather than,say, articles which have a higher degree of importance and incorrect info may be misleading or harmful rather than Roleplaying stuff? Really. As I have said, there are a great number of core articles begging for reffing and improvement. Surely you have exertise in economic articles yet you focus on RPGS (?) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's far easier and usually takes the bare minimum amount of effort to destroy articles on this site, rather than put forth the time and effort to improve upon them. I learned that the hard way, as did many others that fell victim to Gavin's and other deletionists' methods of improving the site.. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin can choose to work on whatever he wants to on Wikipedia, and other editors are expected to reasonably assume good faith. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And it is possible that his methods do more harm than good, or that his abilities or goals would be better suited for work on other topics. Other editors are right to bring it up. --Kizor 12:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by uninvolved Ned Scott

I'd just like to say I strongly disagree with this essay.

Citing this as an example of good behavior is misreading the situation. When putting something up for deletion, the nominator should have at least done a google search to see if the topic is non-notable. He didn't. Tagging the article might have been a reasonable call. But a bogus AfD wastes everyones time. He should be spending a few minutes of his own first. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cited that as an example that he was acting in good faith, which isn't the same as "he was being efficient". It's just to say that he was acting with good intentions, and not the intent to disrupt.
Note how I end my statement: "At the same time, I hope Gavin will proceed with more caution, and listen to some of the concerns brought up here. In the end, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, we just all want to work together, better."
I was not encouraging those kinds of AfDs, and was advising him to listen to the concerns that some where probably taken to AfD too soon. (Though he was right about many other AfDs) So I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

odd comment by GC[edit]

I do not quite understand: "This RFC was initiated after a personal attack was made against me If the 'consensus' is that the attack was appropriate or justified, or even supported by the wider WP community, then I this would give me reason to believe that this RFC was not brought for good reason, other than to subdue my efforts to improve article quality". Sounds like he's sayin he thinks his view of things is right even if the community as whole thinks otherwise: he alone is out to build an encyclopedia, and the rest of us are conspiring against him. DGG (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it sounds more like he was taking more crap than he should have. He was commenting on personal attacks being made on him. -- Ned Scott 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that personal attack (note Gavin's use of the singular) was made by someone who was not involved in this RfC at all. None of the large number of editors who created or endorsed this RfC supported that personal attack on Gavin and many have specifically condemned it. Edward321 (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participants[edit]

I noticed on the main page that now confirmed sock accounts are listed among those endorsing some of the summaries, specifically User:SolidPlaid and User:Jack Merridew. Similarly, there are many comments above from idenfinitely blocked User:AnteaterZot. Should their endorsements and comments be somehow struck out? Perhaps not removed, but struck through? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More