Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 5

Dan Willis
Does anyone know if any articles have been written on Dan Willis or any of his books in Dragon or Dungeon? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or any other magazines, for that matter. (^_^) ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This has confused me to no end every time I scroll past it so I must ask: You are asking if anyone has written and article on Dan Willis but in the same sentence you link to the article in question? So I guess, yes, an article on him does exist.  Not sure about his work though, may check that page. Hooper (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe he's asking for references about Mr. Willis (which could then be used to help the wiki article). --Rindis (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep - articles about him from outside Wikipedia to help the article we have here. :) BOZ (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, it looks like the third opinion that someone requested agreed that the notability requirement was met, even if just barely. BOZ (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's always good to have more references. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh no, I can't disagree with that. :) BOZ (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Preping for 4.0
I thought that when 4.0 hits people might get more curious as to different versions and older books and such, so I went thru the 3.0/3.5 (Template:D&D Books) book nav template page and alphabatized it all to try to make it easier to wade thru. If anyone has a better way to break it down to make it easier please feel free. If no one objects then eventually I'll move on to the older versions if they even have a nav, which they should. Also, should third-party books be listed on this nav menu? That might get quite large, maybe just a link to a "list of third party books" or something. Thoughts? Hooper (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * if you check the tempalte talk page i have long sicne tried to remove bias from it since i was unable to find the same for older editions. the problem i think people have is most boks are repeat titles. this causes a problem when you try to look for historical information on the material as the template only shows 3rd edition. the individual articles would need some sort of informaiton to distinguish via picutes, but i have not found a reasonable way to get that to work on wikipedia. it seems the newest image is all that is allowed, even thought he newest book for say 2nd edition would have nothing to do with the exisitng 3rd edition book, likewise 4th edition will have little to nothing to do with the 3rd edition books. all the D&D articles based on the game itself are riddled with bias towards the latest edition, but maybe that sort of thing can be handled once the other current issues are resolved, and we get something done with 4th edition to include its existance. shadzar-talk 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're misguided for POV reasons on it being bias. In an encyclopedic context, Previous versions of this game would be historical and the current edition would be the main blood of the article.  The best thing to do would be to add more parts to that template so that 1.0, 2.0, and soon, 4.0 are all represented.  If we do that, it should go in an order were 4.0 would be at the top, followed in order down (i.e. 3.5/3.0, AD&D, 1.0).  That way the current edition and the one most important to the meat of the article would be first.  This would ease the research and encylopedic value of it.  There is absolutely no bias in it.  If anyone ever wanted to add the other editions, they can.  It seems you are knowledgable enough to do so.  Go for it. Hooper (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ok then i agree with Gavin and all articles on D&D should be removed form wikipedia entirely, if all they are is advertisements for the newest edition, just because previous ediitons are no longer "in print". shadzar-talk 03:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not what I'm saying. Let us look at it from an example.  The game monopoly will ALWAYS be Monopoly.  When you mention Monopoly, you will always refer to this one.  However, many "editions" of Monopoly exist.  These are special ones that you would call by their sub name (i.e. Star Wars Monopoly, 21st Century Monopoly, etc.).  The basic Monopoly never changes. D&D is not like this.  It is a evolving game in a real world so when most people say Dungeons & Dragons they mean the game as it stands today.  That will include the historical fact that previous editions existed (which is why I agree we should do whatever we can to include them) but will spend most time on how it is today.  I understand there is a rift between pre-3.0 players and 3.0+ players for some reason but with both sides POVs to the side, this game is a revolving game that should be treated as such. Hooper (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the proper way to include information in D&D articles is edition-by-edition. Making the current edition paramount is an example of recentism and is to be avoided. Many D&D articles currently have a 3E-heavy bias and should be edited to reflect how the content has appeared throughout the editions. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about the articles, just the D&D Books template for navigation. Yes, the main D&D article should discuss all editions with another main article that goes into more detail on each edition.  I'm just stating that instead of being mad about a perceived bias on the current template, those knowledgable should just add the content, as no one is stopping or disagreeing with it being there. But for users who come to wikipedia to learn about it, it would be easier for naviagation reasons to have the current edition on the nav menu be accessed easily.  That is all. Hooper (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking it should be equally easy to find and access material from each edition - everyone's got their favorite(s), after all. Should be and is are two entirely different things, of course. BOZ (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) The easiest way to get around this issue would be to have separate articles for each edition's Monster Manual and such, with the main title being a disambiguation page. It will be slightly more difficult to find sources discussing the olders ones, of course. (If not split, it should be the earliest editions cover that we include in the infobox- the book infobox prefers first edition covers if possible, but that's not relevent right now.) J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is recentism at its most blatant. Wikipedia is not a gamer's guide; this is a general reference work. We should go in historical order. Just as Richard I of England comes before Richard II, etc. in templates and lists of Kings of England, so the 1st edition should come before the 2nd, etc. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (historian who used to write for Dragon)


 * I disagree for the exact same reason: that this isn't a gamer's guide. Those researching the Queen of England will find an article on that royal title and one of the first things they will learn is who that current queen is.  Then they'll be seperate articles and links for previous queens.  I think that Nostalgia and Recentism need to work together here.  We very well can't find a perfect way to show all sides, but we shouldn't let personal feelings towards which game we indivudally prefer get in the way either. Hooper (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional Note: I missed it the first time, but J Milburn has the right idea. Though being able to constitute the notability of each seperate page could be a hassle.  But thats off topic.  Here are our choices with the (Template:D&D Books) (this has been what this discussion is about, not all articles, for those that didn't catch that and might have replied not noticing it).


 * A) add each edition after voting in which order the should go, i.e. newest to oldest, oldest to newest. Either way, this as one whole navigation would be huge and really kind of kill the idea of an easily navigatable menu
 * B) make a seperate nav template for each edition and rename this one 3.0/3.5. This would allow us to place each nav menu on the book pages so a person could click 'show' for the one they were interested in without popping down quite as huge of a monstrocity.  Still need a vote on order of nav menus.
 * C) We need to decide if by ABC title is the best way to do it, or if there is a more sensible way to categorize them
 * D) Do we only do TSR/WotC books? If so, should we atleast add a link to a list of 3rd party books?

Maybe this will get us back on topic so that people aren't just talking about which version they like. We just want to solve our template problem so that any average wiki user can use it to their advantage about the game as a whole as it stands today. Hooper (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "as a whole as it stands today" 4th edition does not physically exist. it is an unreleased product. 3rd edition is cancelled. No new material to be published by WotC. form that standpoint it would sem D&D is dead considering WP is not a crystal ball. so therefore cannot guess that 4th edition will truely be released in June 2008. anything could happen between now and then to prevent it. OGL stills exists, but that material is not D&D. STL material has until the end of the year, i think, for 3rd parties to produce "D&D compatible" material. Again that is not D&D. so for all account until June and the actual sales of 4th edition, D&D is no longer a product. the preview books Races and Monsters, and the other one may have something about 4th edition in it, but again the product could end up not making it to existance so "not a crystal ball" says nothing about it should be included. so let's look at it from another standpoint "as a whole as it stands today", people play all editions of the game still. not just the latest edition created by the current license holders. so in order to remove bias from not only the template, but all articles, you must remove all edition poking, or include all editions. otherwised it is biased towards the included editions for whatever reason. the fact that i do not like 3rd edition, has no bearing on the fact that it is called "D&D" as a product. but including it and only it is bias, thus adding other materials or such will remove that bias. Thus why i say only including the latest edition is advertising. NOTADVERTISING. i do not like that 3rd edition ever existed, but to have articles on wikipedia unbiased, it needs to be included as well as older, and potential future editions when they become reality. shadzar-talk 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We can complain about how the template exists but that doesn't help fix it. I put up some ideas to help fix it.  That is the input I'm looking for, not more complaints.  By getting the template set up for all teh current editions it will be ready and have a reliable base to add 4.0 to it when it comes out.  So lets stop complaining and start discussing how to fix it. Hooper (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That discussion has been open and existed on the template's talk page for quite a while now. Template talk:D&D Books some ideas already exist there. shadzar-talk 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats what I'm asking. Do we have a community consensus with what the last editor in that discussion brought up, or should we vote.  Because if we have consensus, I'm going to do it. Hooper (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For an example of what that would look like, see User:HooperBandP/Sandbox Hooper (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * that is a big problem. considering WotC classifies ALL the 4th edition books are going to be core, then how would we objectively do it? there has been much discussion of the meaning of "core" on the WotC forums, and the verdict is split there as well. even for 3rd edition their website lists everything non-campaign specific to be core amterial. i do not know what step to take form an excyclopedic value look towards defining core. that and not all editions had those 3 core books as presented (and i agree) in your proposed template example. older edition never had them in such a manner. that is why i abandoned my version of it linked form my user page, and went looking for other things in D&D articles to fix. whenconsensus can be reached about article content in general then i think the template will jsut fall in line with that. sadly that may mean waiting until June to see what kind of mess 4th edition will make of everything D&D related on wikipedia. :( shadzar-talk 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you're getting at. But it is my understanding that the general consensus is that the core books are the MM, PHB, and DMG.  This may not be stated by wizards, but it does state in the each of those books that you need those three to play, and in all other books it states that you need those three to use them.  I'd say thats enough to go off of, but thats just me. Hooper (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * that is one problem i have with a template in general. it may be great to have one include all officially published books form the copyright holders (not so sure all 3rd party materials should be included), but as you can see with the list of monsters generously created by BOZ these things would be massive! i agree the only core books are the PHB, DMG, and MM, but there may be a conflict with information that may lead to confuse unknowing readers when wikipedia says one thing and WotC says another.... i don't blame editors here, but the marketing department at WotC for pusporfully making the information misleading in order to make a quick buck off unsuspecting consumers. so if we were to be able to identify the core books as those 3, then how would we include the other mountains worth of books for each edition? repeat the core books in each template for each edition? this is why i gave up, because i just didn't know, and no one else was interested in working on it at the time, while "other things" came up. i just want all editions to be represented equally. that would seem to work best for encyclopedic content. so do we just go off our own concensus here, or public consensus like places such as WotC? shadzar-talk 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A "core books of each edition" template would be 20-30 books or so, and not all that massive. BOZ (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration with Gavin.collins?
Given many of the statements made above in the request for mediation discussion (particularly the last segment), it seems there is a strong sentiment to skip past the Request for Mediation and move straight to a Request for Arbitration. Jéské has offered to file a case if there is consensus here. Please share your thoughts. You can be involved directly with the arbitration if you feel that strongly about it, or just support the arbitration effort. You can oppose the arbitration on the grounds that you feel we should continue with our mediation effort first, or oppose the motion for arbitration altogether (and state why) or just be neutral and watch how it goes. :) BOZ (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, just a note for anyone who wishes to be an involved party: I need to double check on this, but I do believe that anyone involved in the dispute will be looked at just as closely as Gavin, so if you don't want to fall under scrutiny you may not want to set yourself up for a fall. BOZ (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved in the Arbitration case

 * 1) Web Warlock (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) SamBC(talk) 11:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Padillah (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Arbitration

 * 1) Hooper (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Rray (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC) --> Arbcom I do not think Gavin Collins thinks he has done anything wrong and am intrigued as how mediation would proceed (I hope I am wrong though).
 * 4) Edward321 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Normally, I would vote mediation first, but based on this edit  it appears Gavin has no desire to participate in mediation, which he characterizes as a 'lynching party'.
 * 5) *I will add that what you point out was his initial reaction, but he later said this instead. BOZ (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Shemeska (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)I would have greatly preferred mediation first, but I'm moving to support arbitration instead after three things: First there was his initially stated refusal to take part in such mediation, which appears to have changed only after the spectre of this RfA was raised. Secondly Gavin today insinuated that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dragonlance (or its editors) were a lost cause during a dispute over on the talk page for Kender, and within the past week he opened an RfC over a notability tag on the Githyanki article, and based it on an openly (and demonstrably) false claim that I believed that FAQs were reliable secondary sources. Of the 3 sources I'd added before removing the tag, none of them were FAQs, and Gavin has yet to respond to two requests to correct his statement. I think that while Gavin may honestly feel that he's acting in the best interests of wikipedia, his tone and actions have become increasingly rude towards editors who disagree with his POV or editorial stance. Attempts to find compromise with him are often met with either complete silence or a logjam of arguments and cut & pasted wikipedia acronyms.Shemeska (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) *For the record I support Shemeska claims. Gavin's tone has become increasingly more hostile. I am unsure if I am ready to change my vote back to ArbCom yet. Web Warlock (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) *I also agree with this to some extent&hellip; basically, I could go either way. Both make sense, and mediation seems likely to be declined. I'm happy to go straight to arbitration, but I can see the merit in trying mediation first. SamBC(talk) 23:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) *I think the issues are primarily conduct related rather than content related. Today's snide comments are just more of the same from Gavin. If mediation is for content disputes, and arbcom is for conduct issues, then I think mediation is unnecessary. Web Warlock's observation about Gavin's comments becoming more and more hostile is spot on. Rray (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Snuppy Unfortunately, most of the issues at hand are conduct, rather than content. Some of the content issues he has raised have been valid, and the RPG articles DO require cleanup. However, Gavin has aggressively refused to educate himself on the basics of the genre and the industry, and seems to prefer demanding that others immediately fix issues he raises than providing any constructive editing himself. Snuppy 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) *I agree that many (if not most) of the content issues that Gavin raises are valid concerns. The problem is that his hostile and domineering approach distracts people from actually working on an encyclopedia. And his behavior discourages collaboration. Rray 00:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) *I also agree with the above. --Raistlin (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) David Shepheard (talk) -- I'm very sad to say that deletionists are making it very difficult for people to clean up badly written D&D related articles. Wikipedians are unpaid volunteers and must be given time to clean articles up. AFDing bad articles does not help the long term success of Wikipedia. D&D is an important part of our culture and needs to be documented in quite a lot of detail. In 100 years people who have met Gary Gygax and other important D&D figures, will not be alive. It is vital that all this information is compiled in our generation, so that future generations can have the option to find out about the roots of this hobby. Delitionism (especially deletionism-under-the-guise-of-notability-claims) undermines encyclopedic documentation of things that are still in copyright. Wikipedia policy needs to take copyright restrictions into account when claims of notability of fiction come into play. I realise that Wikipedia needs bad articles to be fixed, but delitionists usually do nothing to support the effort to fix articles and just cause stress to the people who are trying to fix things. People who really want to help fix bad articles should either edit those articles (and add in missing sources) or report those articles to an appropriate Wiki-project. If this Wikipedian is unwilling to work with others and if he is unwilling to go to mediation then I suggest that you take this straight to arbritation. I'm sorry if he feels that this is a lynch mob, but with deletionists waving a flag of 'Wikipedia notablility policy' and AFDing things faster than other people can fix them, it is inevitable that one of them is going to have to be involved in a test case. I just hope the arbritration is kept civil as deletionists often think they are doing the right thing for Wikipedia. We should be assuming good faith...and so should he. —Preceding comment was added at 11:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) *In the interests of fairness, I must point out that, as far as I am aware, Gavin accepted criticism of his (for want of a better term) campaign of AfDs, and no longer puts these articles up for deletion, tagging them instead. The tagging has been taken as somewhat aggressive, which is the problem now. SamBC(talk) 12:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support arbitration only in the circumstance that Gavin refuses to participate in mediation, which appears to be the case. If he reconsiders and decides that he would participate in any mediation brought forth, I think that is a more appropriate venue right now.  Ford MF (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation First

 * 1) Gavin Collins (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC) on the condition that I have at least some input into the "Issues to be mediated", and that a mediatior is independent of RPG articles. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *Are you asking for an independent mediator or a mediator who has no knowledge of D&D. I think that asking for a mediator who hasn't been involved in any arguments with you is a reasonable one. However, asking for a mediator with no interest in D&D is unreasonable. A mediator needs to be a neutral person who understands the situation. Someone with D&D knowledge can work out what is notable and what isn't notable. But if they understand D&D they are more likely to have made some edits in articles. So your condition would seem to exclude people who have enough knowledge to know if you are in the wrong.Big Mac (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Orangemike - I'm always willing to support mediation, but am not sure what Gavin means by some input into the "Issues to be mediated"! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I have been involved in a few ArbCom cases and it is a real drain on your time and effort. After going through it, you will have gained five negative levels, and be permanently drained of 10 points of constitution. (Did I get the D&D rules right?) Try to avoid it, and use it only as a last resort. Note that I am not a D&D editor.
 * 5) --Craw-daddy | T | 14:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Mediation first. Try this for structured dialogue using uninvolved editors first ("uninvolved" meaning previously uninvoved in the issues to be mediated).  I view ArbCom as one of the "measures of last resort" when other means fail.  (Note: I might be classified also as one of the "involved" parties, I don't know.)
 * 6) I would suggest that mediation is at least attempted before an arbitration request is made. I have not been following the above discussion closely but my input was requested. Catchpole (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Mediation first, where Gavin can add to the list of items needing mediation, since I believe there he has issues to raise other than "how can we get Gavin to agree with us or at least shut up". (Neither a direct or indirect quote.) In my opinion, there are assumptions of bad faith and bullheaded ignorance and stubbornness on both sides, and mutally agreeable mediation is a necessary step towards resolution of the issues. Mediation should be approached as a tool for gaining consensus, not as a weapon. Arbitration is a difficult and exhausting process (Sjakkalle, you got the D&D rules right as far as I can remember, but I'd add in the loss of 5 points charisma -- even the "winners" come out of Arbitration looking worse than they entered), and, anyway, it's unlikely to be accepted by the Arbitration committee unless a strong effort at mediation is tried first.
 * 8) harlock_jds (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Since he is open for mediation (and has his own issues) that seems to be the best action. Seems like both sides are frustrated here so good may come out of it.
 * 9) Freederick (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I was initially going to sign under "Involved", but since Gavin Collins himself is declaring that he will submit to mediation, it is only fair to begin here.
 * 10) Bilby (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Given that Gavin is willing to engage in mediation, I see no reason not to give it a shot. And I have no hassles with his involvement in determining issues to be mediated - mediation should go both ways.
 * 11) Indeed, if Gavin is now happy with mediation then that's fine; I'm not sure what the conditions he places mean, as mediation will, per necessity, involve conduct issues, and criticism of conduct could be taken as flaming. If Gavin is saying no-one can criticise his conduct, then mediation won't work. If Gavin assures us that such criticism is fine as long as its civil, then great. I certainly have no problem with Gavin criticising my conduct, or anyone else's, as long as it's civil. The other we'll have all have to avoid doing is repeating ourselves, as that's a problem that's been happening on both sides. SamBC(talk) 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) It won't hurt to try mediation. I'll admit that I'm not optimistic, but if there's a chance, we should at least give it a shot. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) I do have concerns that the issues that people will want to end up focusing on are 'out of scope' for RfM, however, I really do think Mediation is the proper step. --Rindis (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Agree. Gavin now says that he is prepared to take part in a mediation, so it's time to get that started. AndyJones (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Agamemnon2 - I support the use of an uninvolved mediator, and urge that we find the means of presenting our grievances to said mediator as legibly as possible, in that our beef with the user in question is related to a wider issue of how to apply notability and notable-sources criteria on this field, an issue from whence, I understand, the crux of the current fracas is derived.
 * 16) *And the meaning of OR and Synthesis, and a few other issues of policy interpretation... SamBC(talk) 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Gavin is a tough case, or at least he was when I was involved with him. Sometimes his actions are a bold and needed move, other times the same action can be outright vandalism when applied to a different article. I think the issue is one of judgment and of working with other people, and mediation may help with that if all parties go into it with good faith...but I really don't think arbitration will at all.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Web Warlock (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Mediation is preferable to Arbitration. I will admit to not being optimistic given Gavin,collin’s reluctance to date to work with the various editors. One thing I feel must be addressed, and stopped, is his continue harassment of other editors with his “cease and desist” posts to their userpages. It is a bulling tactic to force the outcome he wants by quelling their desire to continue to work on Wikipedia. Gavin is not an admin and he has no say in what others can and cannot do. We will work with consensus, if the consensus says something is so, then Gavin (and any other editor) needs to know to walk away and leave it. Web Warlock (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) McJeff (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I think mediation is preferable to arbitration, and the major reason for Arbitration was Gavin's reluctance to participate in mediation - with his agreement to this, there's no need for Arbitration at this time. McJeff (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|16px]]   B o d h i s a t t v a s p a t h  *  T a l k  *  C o n t r i b s   [[Image:Flag of Maryland.svg|16px]] 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC): I believe that mediation is an appropriate next-step.  However, it may only be a stepping stone to a Request for Arbitration.  If the extant issues can be resolved via mediation, then this is only a positive.  If the extant issues cannot be resolved via mediation, then arbitration becomes necessary and/or appropriate given the nature of Gavin.collins' tone and contributions to the articles in question.  With regard to the caveat about "Issues to be mediated", there has already been a whole lot of Wikilawyering and a distinct lack of civility and assumption of good faith.  I am hopeful that the Request for Mediation does not degenerate into additional Wikilawyering; if it does, the process comes to a standstill and the mediation fails in its objective.  It is obvious that Gavin.collins feels very strongly with regard to his point of view regarding science-fiction/fantasy articles, and while it has been said that some of his edits have been bold and necessary, there is clear evidence to support the idea that many of his edits are not necessary - which leads to the supposition of vandalism.  If the Request for Mediation fails, certain other issues will almost certainly arise from his conduct on Wikipedia and will reflect negatively upon him, particularly his initial refusal to engage in the Request for Mediation.  Essentially, I am leery of the effectiveness of this stage of conflict resolution, but ultimately feel that it is a necessary step and very hopeful of a positive outcome.
 * 21) Kairos (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Yeah, I'd prefer an attempt at mediation first. Though I do not hold out much hope.
 * 22) BOZ (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC) - just stepping in to say that you can add your support here if you like, but we've already submitted the Request for Mediation so it's immaterial other than to reinforce the idea that we're doing the right thing. :)

Neutral toward Arbitration

 * 1) As I stated before, I've only had the one interaction with Gavin, and while he was very dismissive of anything I presented, I think he is doing what he believes to be good for Wikipedia. I could be completely wrong in that view, but that's how I see it. I also don't think mediation is appropriate as this is more of a conduct issue than an actual content dispute. Any mediation request will likely be rejected because of that. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I have had no contact to speak of with Gavin, but from a purely theoretical perspective would support taking things slowly and carefully.  If it is in the will of the majority to mediate prior to seeking arbitration, so be it.  If arbitration moves forward, I caution the group to be civil and choose wording carefully so as to be precise in meaning. Baron (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I was invited to comment here because I commented a long time ago in an RfC about Gavin's many AfD nominations. However, I haven't seen more AfD's from him in a long while (mostly because I don't look at AfD as often as I used to) and haven't had any other interaction with him. Therefore, I will abstain from participating in this mediation/arbitration because I don't have any recent information to add. --Itub (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Arbitration

 * I'm a recent entrant into this whole mess with Gavin, but so far I've been subjected to numerous personal attacks (false accusations of violating 3RR, accusations of POV pushing, and a statement that I was a vandal and deserving of a ban). My opinion on skipping the RfM is only because Gavin refuses to participate.  However, I think that's the biggest problem we are dealing with - Gavin believes he is exclusively right and anyone who disagrees with him isn't worthy of consideration, therefore, he refuses to work collaboratively.  I support a RfArb, and would be happy to help with gathering evidence. McJeff (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * oh heavens to betsy! i know less about this than i do about the RfM. but i will help in whatever way i need to, if i can ever provide help at anytime. i will not object to this, as i really do not know what it all is. but knowing so little about it and the RfM even i do not know if even my support would help. maybe i can just hide fixing assessment templates until someone calls me as a witness. whatever it takes to help solve the problems so we can get back to editing articles i am all for, just tell me when to stick my nose into it and what is needed from me and i will do what i can. confused shadzar-talk 03:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to point out; anyone who feels that they have been personally wronged by Gavin is an "involved", while those who've witnessed it and agree that arbitration is needed are in "support", generally speaking. I gather this is likely to be somewhat akin to a class-action suit. SamBC(talk) 10:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added a comment regarding this above. BOZ (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * i couldn't care much about being banned form here or not, i try to help where i can, with a very short temper IRL. for me it may be just the point of i do not need the other frustration right now. of this sort of thing. even with collaboration and consensus, there should be some administrative level that steps in and says what needs to be done when something is out of hand. some sort of "complaint department" type thing. everyone trying to work it out since Oct 2006 has gotten us little to no where so far. so i don't see that doing any more will do much good, unless someone actaully makes a decision and does it. its enough work to sort through all the tags for the tens of thousands of pages of D&D material to see what goes where this just delays all of that on a massive level, and i would rather just make decent articles than be involved in some playground fight. not saying editors are acting like a bunch of kids, but.... some administrative level personnel should have stepped in long ago in my opinion. so as i said, IF my input is needed for anything in this formal or informal process, then ask and i will help in anyway i can, otherwise my contributions log stands for itself. this fight has just exhausted me. shadzar-talk 20:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment I will state that I am unsure which way to go at this point, and will observe discussion above in deciding. Please do note that Gavin is apparently not as closed to the idea of mediation as some people have speculated (see above), so we may indeed go with that as the next step. BOZ (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to persue all your objectives, just keep me in the loop by letting me know what is happening on the my talk page. One thing I found really annoying about the current mediation proposal and the previous RFC was that I was not told about them until the last moment. If you are drafting something, give me little chance to respond before or during the drafting process. Let me at least have sight of the draft in when it first appears; its a minor procedural point from your perspective, but from where I stand it looks like I am being ambushed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Naturally. I would have informed you of the RfM by the time we had decided to persue it, but you were already aware of it by then. At the moment, I don't know where we'll be going, but it will follow the consensus of the group. We'll have to wait and see. BOZ (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My observation is that Gavin seems to crusade against gaming articles from a generally hostile standpoint of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The conseuquence is huge amounts of tedious Wikilawyering and I suppose that this will be more of the same.  I doubt that Arbcom will have a simple answer but I suppose that it wouldn't hurt to ask.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I received an email from Davenbelle (i.e. Jack Merridew) with regards to this; he's been watching everything that's going on here and believes that there isn't much controversy. As sits, he's holding off the appeal of his ban and has suggested that, should he return, he'd participate in any ArbCom case involving Gavin. I fired off the current feeling here as well as reasons why arbitration is being considered. -  Jéské   ( v^_^v  Karistaa Usko ) 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I forgot something: Mediation will not look at conduct problems. I was in an RfM (Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-28 Bates method) which was closed after the mediator determined that the problem was behavioral, not editorial. -  Jéské   ( v^_^v  Karistaa Usko ) 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So then, that brings some questions to mind. We know that Gavin is willing to engage in mediation. Because of this, several editors (including one who initially wanted to become involved in an RfArb) support sticking with mediation, making the consensus as I write this more than two-to-one in favor of an RfM as next step. That makes me wonder, do we go ahead with RfM as planned, knowing full well that it may simply be rejected and that our attempt may be nothing more than a formality because of that? Worse case, if we do submit such a case knowing that it has a high probablity of being rejected and then using it as a formality and stepping-stone to go to RfArb, will that reflect badly on us? Should we just try anyway, noting the content issues and stating that conduct issues arise from them, and let the mediators decide if they want to even bother with this case? BOZ (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that making an earnest attempt at taking this to mediation is the right way to go. We will present discuss the content issues, while being honest that conduct issues are involved, to see if the mediators can help the situation. If they decide that the conduct issues are too intervowen with the content issues then they can decide not to take the case. I think we have more than enough to go on to present a mediation case based on content issues, but all editors involved must make an earnest effort to stick to the content issues and to leave the stuff about how much they don't like each other and whose feelings are hurt at the door (and there are plenty who are sore and itching for a fight). I'm willing to do that, because the last thing I want to do is sabotage my own efforts to bring about some peace. BOZ (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think, in the interest of painting this thing by the numbers, that we should have on record that mediation was attempted, or at the very least, have it noted by an external party, i.e. the mediators, that it is not feasible. It will cost time and tedium, but when in doubt, follow procedure. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, edit conflict got in the way of my above paragraph. :) Jeske, if you still want to go with an RfArb now rather than waiting for an RfM I will still help, but I think consensus has shown that my initial feelings are correct and that an RfM is the correct next step - even if it turns out to be ultimately futile. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to note: MedCab may not handle conduct, but will MedCom? (ie, no informal mediation, but maybe formal?). I'm not sure whether mediation would be appropriate; the question can only really be phrased as either conduct or interpretation of policy and guidelines. Maybe someone on the Mediation Committee can advise us? SamBC(talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * MedCom also looks to be unwilling to take on behavioral disputes. From WP:Requests for mediation/Common reasons for rejection:

Requests such as "please stop this editor from making POV edits," "a mediator is needed to convince this editor he is wrong," "you need to mediate this issue before I have to take him before the ArbCom," and others of this nature are not appropriate issues for mediation. Mediators do not issue judgments; they aid the parties in coming to an agreement. If the request does not clearly state one or more issues on which the parties wish to come to an agreement, then the mediation will not be accepted.

Requests which seek to have a mediator help "prove" that one party is correct will be denied; if one or both of the parties come to mediation with the view that they are right and the other party is wrong, then mediation is not appropriate. All parties must come to mediation with the understanding that both sides will have to compromise to reach an agreement, and that neither side will "win."
 * That help? -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Karistaa Usko ) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, OK... so it's looking more and more like a WP:SNOWBALL case. ;)  What we need to decide is does that mean we should not proceed with an RfM, or that we should just give it the ol' college try just once anyway? I'm still in favor of bringing it up no matter how hopeless it is, because, you never know. If mediation is just completely unsuitable for this case, then I'm willing to do a revote, either after we file an RFM and fail, or if we conclude that filing an RfM would be a bad idea. BOZ (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see a whole lot of assuming good faith above - especially from people who may have some pretty negative feelings about Gavin in general - and to not follow their consensus somehow would doing be a disservice to them as well as Gavin. If an RfM would absolutely fail, is there another alternative that has more teeth than an RfC, but is less severe than an ArbCom case? BOZ (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * None that I know of. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Karistaa Usko ) 21:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, given that... two of the editors who originally stated ther intent to be involved in an RfArb case changed their mind to support RfM first, making it now a more than three-to-one majority in favor of going with RfM as originally proposed. I know you don't feel much of a point in doing that - you're not the only one - but my gut keeps telling me we need to give that a shot first, and support is massively in favor of it. If it's destined to fall apart then it will, and hopefully before too much time and effort has gone into it, but if it has any shot at all of not working then we'd be fools for not trying. BOZ (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's my last word on the matter. Although my conviction behind my position is not strong because I'm torn by valid arguments in favor of going to RfArb which I happen to agree with, I still say going for an RfM is the right thing to do, even if it's not the one that makes the most logical sense. I also don't want to see an RfArb fail because we didn't at least try an RfM first. Regardless, I am more than willing to go either way on this issue, as I suspect are a number of other editors involved in this dispute. I'd like to hear from Jeske what he wants to and I think I'd like to go with that. BOZ (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll agree to mediation first, but as the issues are more conduct than content I don't think mediation will be any help for the reason I quoted above. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Karistaa Usko ) 01:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - it's basically ready to go. :) BOZ (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Jéské. Hiding T 09:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the disagreements are content based, and I think you will find that this is attributable to the strong views all concerned which has given rise to an assumption of bad faith on all sides. I can see why many editors are upset by my robust language if there had not been any content dispute at all. If anyone feels slighted in any way, I am happy to discuss these issues with them on a one to one basis on our respective talk pages. However, it cannot be a one sided discussion like the one on this page, as I been a witness to some editing behaviour which from my perspective appears to to be extremely irregular and disfuntional. So if anyone wishes to discuss their particular gripe with me, I invite you to so in good faith, but I would ask that our discussions are honest and also take into account how your editing behaviours that gave rise to our disagreement appears from my perspective, not just my response to them.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'll answer them, I have several questions which I have asked you before about reasoning behind various edits and a lack of knowledge about a topic that calls certain edits into question, and one particular issue that has yet to be addressed (falsely attributing statements to me when you filed an RfC on template placement on the Githyanki article). In those particular cases you've thus far refused to answer despite being approached about them multiple times. If you're serious about what you wrote above, those need to be addressed and not just ignored. I'll write them out and place them on your talk page, and hopefully you'll take the time to read over and address them all. It would be appreciated.Shemeska (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have specific complaint (like being ignored), take it to my tallk page for a one to one discussion: I will respond honestly.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to note, the only reason discussions here may have been in any way "one sided" (which they haven't; there've been several opinions on the nature of the problem and how to deal with it) would be that you (or anyone who agrees with you on the issues at hand) hasn't spoken up. No-one was kept away, and AIUI you're no stranger to this page. SamBC(talk) 16:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)