Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 3

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Some comments on Thumperward's statement

Just a few quick comments on Thumperward's statement:

• Yes, some of these are likely filtered through my personal interactions with Gavin, which is why I stuck a big fat disclaimer in there that I'm deeply personally involved. I still feel some of these are fair, but any help to identify the ones that feel more one-sided and personalable will help.
• On the SPA part, I point to the infamous Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 arbcom case, where specifically TTN, in the process of only focusing on the merging and deletion of non-notable episodes and characters, was labeled similarly; obviously, some saw TTN's more damaging to the main space pages, and thus it was probably more in line with the common SPA definition. I agree that Gavin's "SPA"ness is not of the usual ilk for that; furthermore, I acknowledge that if he made all the same editors to Wiki-space and maintained a "reasonable" balance of main space edits on a large time scale, the SPA-ness wouldn't even be an issue. But when you combine months of only wiki-space contributions towards a few specific issues, along-wide other problems cited, that is an issue that needs to be resolved.
• On "Not understanding consensus", its said "But this tends to occur when none of his arguments are rebutted, and as such it is reasonable to conclude that they are valid." The larger picture is that people will rebut Gavin's arguments but Gavin will selectively ignore them. And as noted, if Gavin has the last say in an argument, everyone else either purposely refusing to acknowledge that or long since dropped out of the conversation, Gavin will assume he has silent consensus and make his policy/editing change; it forces editors to keep a conversation circling the drain, long past the point of being useful or productive, with Gavin to remind him he does not have consensus. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

On the second point, I agree with Thumperward that SPA is a major stretch.

On the third point, I totally agree with Masem - attempting to engage Gavin by actually referencing the policy is equally futile. A coherent and logical rebuttal presented as to why his interpretation may be wrong per Guidelines and Policy gets no further than anything else. It is understandable that after a few times pointing out that what he is quoting doesn't actually support his position, editors may be inclined to not bother. It would be a fallacy to then conclude "as such it is reasonable to conclude that [his points] are valid". The suggestion that he is putting weight on 'strength of argument' troubles me, because often his arguments are weak (in the formal sense) but he is convinced they are solid. ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

See [This diff] for a classic case of presumption of agreement, when in fact the consensus is probably opposite. ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to concur with the comments about his argument style: he seems to feel that an argument can be won automatically by persistance, that is he will discount the opinions of everyone who disagrees with him, continue to repeat his points, and when no one will debate with him any further he declares the argument won. That's not winning by strength of argument, that "winning" by attrition. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is textbook WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm a little surprised it's been tolerated as well as it has. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But on the flip side of the coin, I think editors need to be free to have unpopular opinions and tenaciously defend them- no matter how annoying that might be. One motivation for stubbornly continuing to argue loudly might be to win by attrition, but another is unwillingness to be bulldozed into conformity. Another part of the problem is that Gavin strongly adheres to what might be termed a deletionist viewpoint. At the risk of sinking into a WP:NOTTHEM argument, I will say that if he advocated lowering the inclusion bar as strongly and stubbornly we would not be having this discussion. I can name maybe half a dozen inclusionist editors who over the years have been just as strident in support of their viewpoint as Gavin has been in his, but experience shows that they've needed to indulge in sockpuppetry, constant lying, spam-like canvassing or horrible personal attacks before anyone has taken any action. Gavin hasn't done any of these things, and yet here we are. Reyk _YO! 04:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly am not expecting Gavin to give up on his viewpoint. That we shouldn't even expect to change. Nor do I seek blocking Gavin from participation to remind people of his point and suggest changes towards that point, even if it never takes. CCC and all that, one day Gavin's ideas may actually be implemented. No one is asking Gavin to change his mind.

The point though is that when you've said your peace and argued a bit to try to work it and find that no one is taking it, you need the self-awareness to go "this isn't working" and either drop out of the conversation or help towards consensus building, not wait out the war of attrition to make your view the default one (as everyone else has left). Gavin does not appear to have that, or if he does, knows when to restrain himself, and that leads to the primarily behavioral issues this RFC/U is about. As I noted elsewhere here, Gavin hasn't done anything that requires an admin action - yet (the closest being some infrequent editing rerevisions); he just makes it very difficult to discuss any policy discussions that he has a vested interest in changing and bring to a conclusion if the consensus is against his grain. And as I've noted above, it's fair to any editor to seek changes to policies to what they believe works better for WP, its just knowing when consensus is set and not moving in the short term to walk away. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not even about walking away necessarily. It's a question of whether someone is contributing anything by continuing to participate; if they can't, then they should walk away. Reyk said Gavin shouldn't be faulted for continuing to argue, but what he is doing isn't arguing. Arguing requires some kind of meaningful engagement with counterarguments, and some development of one's points. What he does instead is just insist. Over and over and over again. The basic pattern is this: Gavin starts by saying A is true because B. Others respond that they don't think B proves A, and because of C, D, and E, not-A is true. Gavin says they're committing a fallacy of type X, and that A is true because B. The others try to clarify their arguments, ask Gavin to explain why he doesn't think C, D, and E prove not-A, and further say not-A is true because of F and G. Gavin then says they're committing a fallacy of type X, and that A is true because B. The others move on, to discuss whether they agree on what F and G mean, and what they think about H. Gavin then jumps back in, says they're committing a fallacy of type X, and that A is true because B. And repeat... That is not arguing, that is not discussing; that is tendentious and disruptive. postdlf (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

[fecetious]Well, are you guilty of logical fallacy X?[/facetious] ;-P Reyk _YO! 12:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Bus Stop's response

I am worried on Bus Stop's statement for two aspect: First, I've tried to make this clear this is not a means to try to discussion and resolve disputes on content/inclusion policy; RFC/U is absolutely the wrong place for that. This is strictly about Gavin's behavior in knowing that he holds what is probably a minority viewpoint. Second, the claim that this is to silence Gavin, allowing a policy / guideline change to be made against Gavin's stance, is very disingenuous. Gavin has made good contributions to the discussions; for example, I would not be hesitant to call the consensus that has developed at the list RFC that "a list must an aspect of a notable topic" partially resulting from Gavin's notability stance; I know it doesn't reflect his exact vision but it at least a step towards consensus. What we do need is Gavin to know when to back away from the dead horse to allow more fruitful discussion to continue when his viewpoint clearly doesn't have support, even if he believes that viewpoint is the best thing ever for Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop removed their statement,[1], so maybe this section should be blanked as well. Though I agree that the issue isn't whether Gavin's view is better or worse for Wikipedia; it's entirely an issue of how he acts about it. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was a little nonplussed that it opened with blanket character assassination... —chaos5023 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that Bus Stop has been adding and removing his comments since the RFC/U started, I've restored this section - I think it's fair to have discussion on his comments, which should not be stifled due to his waffling. I'll concur with chaos5023 here as well. BOZ (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Assuming that Bus stop keeps this here...) Bus Stop, please be aware that this is not a forum to decide if Gavin's interpretation of policy/guidelines is wrong or right. We are looking at Gavin's behavior in these conversations. We are not attempting to resolve any other policy issues here. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you wrote "Gavin Collins represents the core Wikipedia principles." This is not correct. Wikipedia's actual core principles exclude Gavin's behavior, in word and in spirit. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The WP:Five pillars essay is not "Wikipedia's actual core principles" any more than WP:TRIFECTA, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief, etc. are the "actual core principles". 5P is "just" an essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a novel stand, considering that WP:5P is not marked as an essay, is subtitled "Statement of our principles" in {{Wikipedia principles}}, is frequently spoken of as having a higher standing than policy, describes itself as "The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates", and in that policy is frequently written in a way that implies that policy is subordinate to pillars. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If by "novel", you mean "discussed and affirmed repeatedly on the essay's talk page, WT:POLICY, and elsewhere, including by the editors who originally wrote it", then sure, I can agree to that.

I realize this is a common misconception; that's why I brought up the issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

By "novel" I mean "new to me". This common misconception seems to come about because there's an absolute bombardment of information directly representing it to be the case, which seems utterly ridiculous to me, and a textbook example of Wikipedia meta being a maze of incomprehensibility and outright lies. So that's awesome. What, then are Wikipedia's real, true core principles, since the things actually labeled as core principles aren't? —chaos5023 (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: Nobody knows.

Longer answer: It's hard enough to get people to agree on rather practical things, like "name your sources (if challenged)". As an example, I spent several weeks this year trying to get them to agree that WP:SPS applied to things that were self-published according to the basic dictionary definition. (That policy section apparently doesn't: it apparently only applies to things that are self-published without the benefit of a lawyer. Advertisements written by, printed by, and distributed by the employees of large multinational corporations are supposedly not self-published -- according to Wikipedia. Courts of law and the entire publishing industry take quite the opposite view.)

Trying to get them to agree on a specific number, type, and identification of abstract values and principles is apparently beyond the community. I'm willing to believe that the community has some shared values, but if you asked around, you'd probably find that some people thought there were three, and some five, and some six, and others just one.

And, to be clear, 5P is my personal favorite of the essays on that subject. But it's still "just" an essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wish it were more clearly labeled, because right now it serves the purpose of an in-group shibboleth where the snide insiders point and laugh at the noob who was so stupid as to believe what the documentation said, as with [2]. I.E. what 98% of bloggers think Wikipedia is all about, and I didn't really buy into until today. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a long-standing problem, but it's being addressed (feel free to join those discussions), and I think we're slowly making progress.

The thing is that it's in our (=experienced editors') interest to keep the newbies from focusing too much on its technical status as an essay. If you suggest a newbie go read that page, you don't want to then have a conversation about whether 5P is a majority or minority viewpoint. That's why I have opposed putting the standard {{essay}} tag at the top of the page. What we've got works for the community -- so long as it's used in its place, e.g., for giving people a simple overview. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're distinctly in the minority here. 5P is part of the woodwork, and probably the only immutable set of rules on the entire project. I don't agree with the point you were replying to, but I've got to firmly disagree with your characterisation of 5P. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. 5P may be "only an essay", but it's pretty much King Essay. It's not any kind of rule that anyone can really enforce, but rather a goal we should all strive towards. BOZ (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was apparently intended to be a simplified summary for newbies -- which is why you'll find it in Category:Wikipedia basic information rather than Category:Wikipedia policies. It was never formally proposed to the community for any particular status, which makes it officially an essay. It might well be the "King Essay", but the important point is that it's never been considered a policy or a guideline or other 'official' advice page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Arrrrgh!

I've had enough. [[3]] ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Given he's aware of this (no question about that), but continues to engage in this behavior perhaps egregiously, I wonder if we need to expedite an ArbCom case for this. I'd like to see if there's any other opinions on the issue here at RFC/U first. --MASEM (t) 12:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Unambiguously edit warring on WP:N, at the point everything else is at, seems to say Arbcom, yes. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian, we let the RFC/U run for its customary month-span (and then some) and it was taken to ArbCom immediately after the RFC/U ended. At first I disagreed with that decision, but I have come to see that it was the right thing to do, as his behavior continued not only throughout the RFC/U but even after the ArbCom case started, and as a result the ArbCom had no trouble banning this user. I'd recommend patience (this was just opened, what, yesterday?) but definitely keep ArbCom on the table as a significant option. BOZ (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that allowing the RFC/U to run its course is necessary. That said, without Gavin responding, this may close earlier than a month (in contrast with Asgardian's case). But, barring any changes between now and then in behavior, I certainly think that assembling the points of the arbcom case is possible. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ban

Its obvious he doesn't care about consensus. This is years in the making. Three RfCs and countless attempts at bringing him onboard. I don't see solving the problem without a ban. He won't cooperate. Hooper (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that RFC/Us cannot create anything "enforceable" like bans, blocks, editing restrictions, etc. The next step (as outlined above), being the ArbCom, would lead to such actions if it goes there. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the standard system, but there are caveats: If any individual admin sees sufficient support for a topic ban or an indef block here, then s/he can personally issue the ban/block; alternatively, the issue can be taken to ANI for discussion about a ban. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That is true, I believe A Nobody got banned that way. I don't think that Gavin has exhausted the community's patience as much as A Nobody did, but that may work. I'd still advise patience for the next week or two, though - give this RFC/U time to build. BOZ (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody was banned for abuse of sockpuppetry. ([4]) Gavin is far far far from anything that I would necessary qualify as a bannable offensive, short of some very short term edit wars. Something can be fixed here. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to second Masem on this. An old military quip comes to mind: And we need to cancel all leaves and passes until morale improves. If the result of this RFC is ultimately a ban, then we as a community of editors have failed. Gavin has shown in the past that he can be a productive contributor. We just need to find a way to return him to collaborative, collegial form. That's our job as members of a collaborative group working to improve this encyclopedia. A ban would be a failure on our part. Let's not fail here. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bans don't have to be comprehensive; they can be of limited scope, such as a ban from Wikipedia: space that would still leave one free to contribute to articles. postdlf (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Even a limited ban in WP: space would be disingenuous; that would effectively censor Gavin from providing input on discussions. It is not an issue of him getting involved in discussions and offering (even if far afield) his suggestions, it is the prolonged discussion that results because Gavin cannot let go of an argument that may have well passed him by. A ban should only be a last resort if after several uninvolved admin-placed warnings that his behavior is a unnecessary distraction to improvement of the rest of the work (possibly based on blocks from these admins). Obviously, such a solution cannot be the outcome from RFC/U unless Gavin is willing to accept that. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. The whole point of the RFC is that Gavin is not a productive contributor in Wikipedia: space (or, better put, that his positive contribution is lower than his negative one). So I don't see why a, say, 1-year ban from WP: space is so bad. It seems me also much better for him than "several admin-placed warnings" and blocks, that if anything are at risk of annoying Gavin even more without tackling the issue. --Cyclopia^talk 13:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

He may not presently be a productive member, but at one point he was, and even now at times shows productivity. It's his dedication to his person opinions on how policy should be handled for certain aspects that is a problem. Throwing a ban at him for this seems way overkill without any previous steps. And, given how he responded when he discovered the draft of this RFC/U, he's already annoyed at what he's considering a personal attack against him. There needs to be a staged escalation of enforcement here for what otherwise is most likely just a misguided effort. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that one should consider the overall balance. I agree that he can be a productive member at times. But the point is that, overall, the balance is negative. Also the fact that he is "annoyed at what he's considering a personal attack" instead of trying to understand the issue is a very worrying symptom -it means that he simply cannot accept that some of his behaviour can have been problematic. A ban from WP: space (or even from a subset of it, like policy/guidelines/AfD's, so that he can still write essays in WP space or participate to WP:FPC, for example) seems to me the best solution for both: we avoid to deal with the most problematic side of Gavin, but we can happily work together when he is an effective contributor. A continuous trickle of escalations is only at risk of losing Gavin altogether. What am I saying is that the partial ban could be the less drastic measure. --Cyclopia^talk 14:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Masem on this point. It seems to me, also, that we are not really in a rush, and how things unfold depend mostly on how Gavin Collins chooses to act during and after the RFC. Perhaps he will come to reassess how he participates here based on the RFC even if he does not involved himself in it. We should assume good faith and hope for a good outcome in the long term. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. I don't assume that he will change his behaviour, however. Seems simply too stubborn. --Cyclopia^talk 16:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else was failing to assume good faith--I was rather more thinking of the difficulty I've had from time to time in assuming good faith myself in some conversations I've had with Gavin Collins. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be very good if we could find a way to persuade Gavin to change. Multiple people have tried to find a way for several years now, but he has never been willing. His refusal to respond at the RFC is good evidence he will continue to be unwilling. Mike suggests some behavioral changes, but I see no possibility that Gavin will agree to them, or even recognize the discussion of those suggestions: I see no recent instance where he has been willing to abandon or modify a position once he has taken it. Pursuing temporizing measures will merely result in Gavin Collins 4. Nor will arb com do anything that consensus at AN/I cannot do. Everything positive having failed, it's time for negative sanctions. I dislike negative sanctions, but this is the time doe them. Anyone who assumes good faith at this point, underestimates Gavin's stubbornness. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with DGG. --Cyclopia^talk 16:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I would to point out thathis behavior has also caused other productive editors (like myself) to all but quit. If the goal here is to "save" productive editors or add to the net postive of WP contributions then who speaks for the editors that have left due to Gavin? Why weren't those editors given the same consideration? Web Warlock (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't know whether AN/I will be sufficient to impose any sanctions on Gavin. He has been the subject of AN/I and other noticeboard threads numerous times, and as far as I can recall, no consensus has ever been achieved there regarding his behavior. Maybe I need to look further, but that link is there in case I do need to. BOZ (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'll state that in the above link, you'll find that Gavin probably started as many AN/I threads as to which he was the subject. And I wanted to add that, from Vyvyan Basterd's endorsement on the front page, he recalls the "absurd ban proposal and subsequent refusal to get the point" but what people may not recall was that there was a second absurd ban proposal a month later which resulted in that subheader on the above referenced talk page thread. BOZ (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been following all of the discussion of various possible outcomes, and I think that we, collectively, need to start thinking in terms of either Gavin improves his conduct or there is an Arbitration case leading to a ban. I say this taking particular note of the AGF comments immediately below, and the thread about conduct since the start of this RfC/U farther down. I don't think that restrictions about the kinds of edits he makes and the various other proposals that stop short of a ban are realistic. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom may be necessary regardless of what we decide we would like to happen, because Gavin rejects the entire RfC process. I will tell you that it took quite a bit of arm-twisting to get him to participate in RfC2. Someone can take whatever findings we come up with to his talk page, and see if he agrees to the consensus-determined proposal or rejects it. If he rejects the findings of this RfC, then ArbCom will be the next necessary step to accomplish any change. At ArbCom, the participants can suggest multiple solutions, which in this case could include "he needs a mentor" or "he needs to be banned for one year" or whatever there might be. I don't think we have had any trouble finding consensus that there is a problem and what the nature of the problem is, now we just need to build consensus on what to do with it. BOZ (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Would there be any president to consider community action initiated from ANI based on these results? While we do consider ArbCom the top of the dispute chain if there is considerable dispute, the current issue here appears extremely in favor of action against Gavin and really isn't a "dispute" that ArbCom would take; without any voluntary input from Gavin, it could be successfully argued at ANI that a community action is needed. Also, this is strictly behavioral and not an issue with policy or the like, and I don't really see ArbCom stepping in unless that behavior is disruptive at the larger scale (like TTN's mass merging). --MASEM (t) 19:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There is precedent for invoking a ban at AN/I, but I have not heard of having the community enforce a different type of decision on someone. If you have a clear goal in mind, I think it would be wise to ask around and see what is possible. The community is the ultimate authority - if we can get our heads together enough to make a decision. ;) The problem is that AN/I is exactly that - a noticeboard for administrator intervention; if there is nothing specific for an administrator to do, then such an attempt may accomplish nothing (believe me, I have gone down that road before re: Gavin). BOZ (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of AGF

Running from BOZ's post above (and seeing Gavin comment similarly in a very negative light on the various editors/bots that created all the settlement/town stubs), there is something to say about Gavin refusing to accept good faith and deep down seeming to have a very personal objective to get through. I've also noticed that he's now calling out another "ad hominem" attack against another editor simply because this editor is asking him to stop prolonging the list AFD, even though no one has attacked his character ([5]). At some point, an editor with such a deep ax to grind to get his way an distrustful of other editors, even if that editor does make good contributions, is going to be a continued problem for WP and one we may not want to have. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I did not support any sort of ban as considered above, I have changed my tune. Any attempt to engage Gavin productively, and without drama is just ignored. [6] This was an attempt to engage him off-wiki to avoid drama (the 2nd time I've tried this) and he has flat refused. He does not play well in collaborative environments. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop-opened discussion in Mike Cline's proposed solution

What do we do with this? Move the discussion here? —chaos5023 (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe an uninvolved admin needs to explain to him how RFC/U works - I get the feeling he hasn't been involved in one of these before. BOZ (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion in question follows. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Comment) Mike Cline—you are speaking patronizingly to the most "patriotic" of editors. Gavin Collins represents the most core of Wikipedia principles. Gavin Collins' efforts are to rein in the excesses of others. Gavin Collins stands for editorial conservatism. Gavin Collins (if I can speak for him) stands in opposition to editors functioning in the capacity of activists. Activism can be broadly interpreted: whenever an editor makes up a topic, that doesn't have a well-sourced existence outside of Wikipedia—that is an "excess." Gavin Collins has tirelessly endeavored to rein in the creation of content in the absence of sources. Those opposing him have one thing in common—an enhanced vision of what an editor is. Wikipedia can easily lend itself to abuse. And it already does, to some extent. Sourcing requirements are the antidote to a project that does the bidding of vested interests. Vested interests could be anything. This has to be broadly interpreted. We all have our pet ideas and some of them are very noble. But Wikipedia is ultimately a compiler of material that already exists. That is not a glorious self-identity. We are assembling all the world's information in one place. Our role is not to create value beyond the consolidation in one place of all the world's information. From what I can see, Gavin Collins has toiled away, trying to prevent editors from making Wikipedia into a tool that is ultimately "activist" in some way. Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if Gavin is "right" about how WP is to be built (though it is difficult to be "right" on an open-membership project built by consensus), the behavior outlined above has no place in policy and page discussions. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly claim that "Gavin Collins represents the most core of Wikipedia principles". Please review the most core of Wikipedia principles so as to understand that this is not the case. Specifically, a core Wikipedia principle is the non-primacy of rules and legalism. A belief in the primacy of rules and legalism seems to be exactly what you laud him for. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop – This RFC is about Gavin’s behavior in this collaborative environment where 1000s of volunteer editors must work together, in harmony, to improve content. He is clearly entitled, as we all are, to have personal views on how policy is interpreted and applied as well what changes should be made to policy, articles, et. al. When his views however don’t mesh with the majority of the community, regardless of the issue, he is not entitled to attempt to impose his personal views on others through the types of behaviors he is known for. In my personal opinion, his views are suspect because I believe he has a serious lack of perspective through lack of real content participation. Others may or may not agree, but that is the way I see it. My recommendations in the RFC are merely suggestions to Gavin as a course of action he might take that might possibly improve his behavior in the future. It’s really his call alone to make at this time. As you are defending Gavin here, I would ask you one simple question. Would you hold Gavin and his behavior out as model Wikipedian that others should emulate? In other words, would WP be a better place if we all behaved like Gavin? Your comments seem to imply that, but it remains for you to say. Sincerely.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop - Imagine if someone demanded that the order of subtopics within every article be sourced; or that the existence of each sub-topic header within an article had to be sourced. These things are clearly unsourcable in the main - but we require sub-topics within articles to group sourced content in order to make the encyclopaedia worthwhile. It is agreed that all content should be sourced, and all topics should be sourced as notable, but Gavin seeks to push sourcing in certain areas beyond these natural bounds to things like the formatting of information, or consensus decision to limit articles that contain sourced, but superfluous information, despite there being NO policy or guideline that requires it. ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't want this to be a policy discussion, but I will say most of the issues of where Gavin is displaying this behavior involves around the concepts of original research and the line between when original research is bad (synthesizing conclusions and pushing POV), and when original research is necessary for summation and construction of an article. There's other aspects too, but most of the examples I give - fiction, article titles, lists, etc. all come down to OR issues that Gavin has. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that since Wikipedians are so heavily trained that Original Research is Bad, it might be less useful to try to draw a line between "good OR" and "bad OR" than between OR and editorial work, under which falls such things that are sometimes called OR as "reading comprehension", "summarization", "organization of information", "judgment of relevance", and so on. Organization of information, as it pertains to lists, seems to be the one to convince Gavin is valid. (To relate it back to the topic in the coda...) —chaos5023 (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On Mike Cline's proposed solution

Some points:

1. Gavin's most common area of work in articlespace is on adjusting fictional articles to fit (his interpretation of) our content guidelines. He has been hamstrung here by his notoriety amongst our more pro-fiction faction, resulting in it being difficult for him to work on this area productively. As such, it's probably not possible for Gavin to fulfil the articlespace ratio criterion.
2. I don't think this is workable. Gavin's main argument as regards, say, list notability is that it is inconsistent with the GNG, and right now there still isn't strong, codified consensus as to what takes precedence.
3. This is difficult to do while prohibiting him from working on increasing the quality of our fiction articles, which has been Gavin's main work for the last two or three years.
4. Where "caution" equals "leniency", this is essentially asking Gavin to accept as consensus the low inclusion threshold which he believes is the major problem with our list and fiction articles.
5. This is too vague. How long does one need to avoid posting on a given talk page to be seen to be avoiding WP:DEADHORSE?

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris I am interpreting your points above with a sense that you believe there is both an element of unfairness and impracticality in my recommendations. I’ll address the unfairness aspect last. As to the impracticality. There are 3.4 million articles in English WP and the upside for new articles is still huge. Surely Gavin could find a niche to raise his article space contributions by 3 or 4%. I have no problem sustaining an ~70% article space contribution and Gavin and I have about the same number of edits ~20K. As to the recommendation re policy interpretations. The great majority of editors make reasonable interpretations and applications of our policies and guidelines every day. Certainly there are areas of tension, but it is extraordinarily clear what the broad consensus and community practices are. Why is practical for most editors to interpret and apply policy without imposing their personal opinions that run contrary to community practice, and it would impractical for Gavin to do so? On the last point you made about the vagueness of the criteria, I would contend that is absolutely clear what behavior we desire. You, I and the great majority of editors function every day in WP very well without being accused of WP:TE, WP:DEADHORSE, and WP:DISRUPT. Yet Gavin’s behavior seems to bring widespread accusations of these disruptive behaviors on a regular basis. How is practical for the majority to avoid this, and not practical for Gavin? In my view, when editors stop accusing Gavin of this behavior, he will have demonstrated he has changed it to the better. He however, by his own behavior has set a high bar in the eyes of the rest of the community.

Now to the fairness of all this. First, since Gavin must voluntarily choose to change his behavior based on this RFC, fairness really isn’t an issue. That said, clearly some of these recommendations if Gavin chooses to adopt them will be uncomfortable for him. But that discomfort is a consequence of his behavior. No matter what walk of life an individual is in, when they run afoul of community behavioral norms, the community makes life uncomfortable for them. The facts and strong endorsements in this RFC clearly indicate that Gavin has run afoul of this community of editors. In my view, is absolutely fair to ask him to change his behaviors in ways, despite the discomfort, that will make him a more collaborative, collegial contributor to this project. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is simply that we don't operate a points system here. Users do not build up karma on good edits to spend it getting into arguments. It isn't obvious why increasing his non-fiction edits by 3% would allow him a seat at the table again. I edit articles all over the project, and yet my views on notability are practically the same as Gavin's, so it's not like he would mellow out by editing articles on house mice or mortgages for a while. And yes, Gavin has "fallen afoul of this community of editors": a community of editors whose views on the notability of fiction were or are quite different to that of the wider community. It's worth noting, after all, that one of the outcomes of Gavin's actions as described in RFC1 and RFC2 was a sea change in the attitude of the Dungeons & Dragons project towards notability. The question is how we can further that without getting into bitter arguments and edit warring. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I think you are missing my point of increased content participation. I think Gavin's views on some aspects of our policies are suspect because he's not out there working in the article space--creating and improving (not attacking) content on a regular basis. He needs to be creating articles and putting into practice the very things about notability, verifiability, et.al he goes on about. As long as he remains a Do as I say, not as I do contributor, his credibility is suspect. It's not about a seat at the table, it is about practicing the craft of being a WP editor. Why can't he create new articles, lists and expand stubs into full-fleged articles and put his understanding of policy to the real work of this encyclopedia--free, quality, encyclopedic content?--Mike Cline (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that's a good idea. The sort of situation where we have policy being formulated from on high by people uninvolved with and detached from the ground-level problems of building and maintaining an encyclopedia is just what consensus, IAR, and document-not-prescribe policy are meant to prevent. It seems entirely possible that Gavin's troubles come from falling into that pattern, so measures to break him out of it seem reasonable to attempt. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I have substantially the same views on notability as Gavin and they haven't evolved that much over my last 30,000 articlespace edits. I do not believe that Gavin's views on notability are those of one raised in an ivory tower. Moreover, it's not as if he doesn't work productively on articlespace anyway: he's got over 3000 articlespace edits, which is three times the threshold the average admin candidate needs for most editors to consider him experienced enough in the trenches. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In my observation, I'd say that the signficant majority of his edits to articles have consisted of placing various templates (or replacing them after other editors have removed them). While that activity may lead towards article building over time (if another editor chooses to put the work in), it's hardly any sort of direct involvement in said process. BOZ (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinions on the notability of fiction are closer to these of Gavin than those of most other editors, and I endorsed the summary of this RfC as well. His rigidity and unwillingness to look at his opinions from anyone else point of view are comparable to those of (to take someon at the other end of the spectrum) A Nobody. He just keeps going on, and on, and on, with the same arguments, no matter if they have been rejected by the nearly every other editor. I have linked in my endorsment to a discussion about whether sources in other languages were acceptable or not. This discussion had nothing to do with fiction, and he showed exactly the same behaviour. The same goes for the discussions about lists: again, most of the discussions were unrelated to fiction, and still he gets into thesame problems by the same behaviour. You can't blame his problems or this RfC on the "fiction editors vs. other editors" distinction (if any), nor even on the more general notability vs. no notability distinction. Fram (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if it reads like I'm doing us-versus-them. I agree that there are aspects of Gavin's behaviour which aren't helping; however, I don't see how a de facto topic ban helps to alleviate that. I'm still happy to support any proposal which I think will genuinely work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A topic ban from all of the Wikipedia namespace (with the obvious exceptions of replying to statements about him and the like, of course)? Fram (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I really really really think a ban is far too strong right now. If this should go to ArbCom or a community action, the first step is going to have to be something akin to mentorship or monitoring of Gavin's actions, warning him when an outside editor sees him involved in TE and other such behavior, and increasing blocks if such warnings are ignored. Should that escalate beyond that, a WP: space ban may be needed, but it is far far too premature to be calling for that. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much hope for this, considering that he rejects this RfC on the basis that he wasn't consulted about it before it was started. With that attitude, I would be surprised if e.g. mentoring would be acceptable to him, or would help. I don't object to anyone trying such solutions, of course, but it seems pointless to me. Fram (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But they are necessary steps and ones that can only result from these followup venues, before the engagement of editing bans, unless the community agrees his actions have been egregious enough to go that next step. There's a progression here, we should be giving Gavin the full extent of the so-called "Wikipedia legal process" and not try to jump to drastic solutions before others have been attemtped. This RFC/U was an attempt to get voluntary cooperation, it's likely not happening, so next would be to require more enforcable cooperation from an ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

RFCU is not just about preparing evidence for arbcom, or ticking boxes in a dispute resolution process. Even if the subject completely ignores it, it gives other editors a neutral forum in which to see if there really is a broad agreement that the subject is behaving improperly, and to come to some consensus as to how that might best be addressed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, I strongly disagree that Gavin's main article area is fiction - if anything Gavin has shown a strong dislike of whatever leeway fiction is given and appears to be aimed to drastically cull fiction coverage from established norms. (Gavin's subject expertise is accounting and business-related articles based on his early edit history). --MASEM (t) 12:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify that. Gavin's "strong dislike of whatever leeway fiction is given" translates to spending a considerable portion of his editing history (of late, at least) on fiction articles. It evidently satisfies him to see them edited in such a way as to conform to his expectations of how an encyclopedia should treat fiction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair statement. There is some question int that, unless one is part of a larger cleanup effort, the need to focus on a specific target topic area for cleanup on a subject topic he otherwise don't particularly hasn't shown any interest in, particularly in the manner he entered that topic area (AFDing RPG articles). Yes, WP articles across all fields need to conform to similar standards and we can't have walled gardens, but it seems there are many other routes to take to improve fiction towards these than the routes he has taken long ago. I would *almost* consider these outside of this RFC (dealt with in RFC#2 and the Kender mediation) since he really hasn't touch any specific fiction article since. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the previous RFCs have, contrary to assertions above, actually been very successful in that regard: the articles improved, the disruption stopped. The question is how to effect the same mutual benefits at the new level of dispute, which appears to be to consist mostly of acrimonious debates on policy pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But at the same time, such RFCS/Mediations force the issue of resolving that; it is likely the articles would have imprved in time, the RFC/Mediation only forces it faster (despite no deadline). This is why I don't want to see Gavin silenced; the improvements which I agree can be applied in general across fiction are all good things. But to get those improvements meant that Gavin had to come to a consensus with the editors of the affected articles, something he's not doing now. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Chris' analysis of this proposal. More specifically, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of saying, in effect, "you can't do any more edits in this area until after you've done sufficiently many edits in that area". It's mind-reading to think that Gavin will learn from such an experience, and we need to be humble enough to realize that we cannot read someone's mind in such a way. I think the expectations in this RfC/U should be improvement in talk page conduct, full stop. As noted above, good work in other areas does not excuse bad conduct here, and we have no basis for concluding that good work in other areas will lead, causally, to better talk conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish. While I agree that it would be best for all contributors to have X percentage of mainspace edits, that's never been practical to require and could be very, very easily gamed. At the same time, I'm pretty concerned that editors may be dismissing Gavin's statements because he has no "credibility" due to his lower percentage of mainspace edits. We should instead be looking at strength of arguments. Would the same arguments be better accepted coming from me (with my 20+ FAs, a handful of GAs, an FL, and a year's experience as a delegate judging consensus at FAC?)? Would mine be thrown out because I spend too much time in the sometimes-perceived-as-elitist world of featured articles? It bothers me to think that there is/may be a double standard in that who the argument is coming from makes a large difference on how the argument is accepted. Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs - I would contend that part of the reason that you do not behave like Gavin behaves is that you are an active, experienced and productive editor in the article space, particularly in the world of FAs and GAs. You know from that experience that disruptive behavior and nutty arguments pushed to the limits are not conducive to collaborative behavior and the growth of the encyclopedia. You don’t behave like Gavin in part because you have that experience and have learned how to participate productively in this environment. This is not about X edits = X% credibility. I don’t think there is any correlation there. But what it is about is finding a way to get Gavin a new perspective on what this encyclopedia is all about—the creation of free, quality encyclopedic content by an army of volunteers who must find ways to work together in harmony and productively. Serious experience in the article space is one way to gain that perspective.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

While his behavior may not be agreeable, in the vast majority of instances I've found I agree with his arguments (and that in many cases he is much better at articulating those opinions than I). My point is that the number/percentage/whatever of mainspace edits should not have anything to do with "credibility" (as was mentioned above) and weighting of argument. I also don't agree that enforced mainspace participation will improve talk page behavior, if that's the goal, as one can surely find a great many articles to work on that would not require one to interact with any other users. Karanacs (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how we could impose a % mainspace edit, but let me do point out something: when all one does is keep pounding the same pavement over and over again without doing anything else, on a daily basis for the est. 3-4 hrs that one can guestimate from Gavin's edit summaries, and requiring other editors to stay involved, the lack of mainspace edits questions what Gavin's purpose is here. AGF and all, we have to assume he is trying to improve the work; but I would argue that if Gavin only has 3-4 hrs a day to participate on WP and he spends most of that time rehashing the same arguments in Wikipedia and isn't going any where, there's a problem. We can't force a % mainspace edits, but we can tends towards suggestions that should a mentor or uninvolved admin see Gavin exhausting the patience of others in an argument to step away and work elsewhere - there's plenty of articles that need improvement. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have many thoughts on what will or won't work to help resolve the situation. I observe however that my (and others) interactions with Gavin at Scientific opinion on climate change were remarkably similar to those around list guidelines (ie: mainspace v project space didn't mean much). ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mike that the project would benefit overall if all of the time sucked up by these endless and fruitless conversations were used for productive means, and that if a greater proportion of Gavin's energy were poured into solid article writing, then there would be less time wasted (by all parties) on these discussions.

However, I think the proposed solution is too easily gamed and doesn't actually measure what we want (the production of new, well-sourced paragraphs in articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have struck parts of my recommedation that applied a % of article space edits and the relationship to credibility based on the above discussion. That said, I am convinced that Gavin's inability to function well in WP is pretty much due to his lack of real article experience. In reviewing his contributions, almost from day one he saw himself as a community policeman--enforceing notability and sourcing by removing content and tagging articles, reinterpreting policies to make his job as the policeman easiler and more important. Rarely has he gone out and found sources, wrote decent prose and provided real contributions to WP. There is a reason we don't allow the police to make the laws, else we would be living in a police state. Because Gavin does not have to have his article contributions subjected to the scrutiny of the community (he doesn't make many, therefore there is nothing to scrutinize) he can propose and fillibuster policy without any fear of how it might impact the encyclopedia. Gavin is a Do As I Say, not As I Do kind of editor. Regardless of how we accomplish it, that kind of behavior has to change. Hopefully he'll do it himself.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As for expecting him to limit his project space contributions to reasonable ones, he will surely continue to think his own views reasonable, and he has always claimed, however unlikely, that they represent the standing consensus. Even with articles, I do not see how he can work with material in article space without working in article talk space also, and I predict he will use that to the same purpose as he uses WP space, for trying persistently to single-handedly overturn practices that have the approval of of essentially everyone else at Wikipedia, and removing material he does not like, to make an encyclopedia of his own liking. That desire is what is destructive of a communal project. I do not think he will accept any meaningful limitation, so there is no point in imposing one. "Exhausting the patience of the community" is the standard reason for banning. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Throttling his edits to project space won't fix the issue. Even if it was "one major edit per WP talk page per day, with reasonable numbers of minor edits for corrections", Gavin will simply try to always get the last word in, and that's enough to continue the same problems, just at a slower rate. We need a solution that would require him to drop out of a conversation when his point has been SNOWed under, which unfortunately requires human determination. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal of Bus stop's comment

Note the first and second sentences which undercut the point you make by giving too much weight to the final sentence. NPOV is one of three core policies which determine the type and quality of material we accept. Gavin does not defend the idea that Wikipedia requires sources. Gavin defends a reading of the three policies which apparently mandates that material referenced to primary sources is unacceptable. Given that WP:NOR allows for the use of primary source material, and given that the three core policies cannot, as you quote, be interpreted in isolation, it is perfectly clear that Gavin's arguments are in violation of the three policies and his refusal to accept that point makes his account a single purpose account which is detrimental to the three core policies.

Users who endorse this rebuttal:

1. Hiding T 13:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
2. BOZ (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Edward321 (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
4. --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal Rebuttal

I've never seen a "rebuttal" section before, so I might as well blaze new ground with a rebuttal rebuttal. WP:V clearly states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This means that articles cannot be based on most primary sources, such as fictional works (which is where Gavin has fought hardest) and self-published biographies. They can certainly include material from primary sources, but the meat of an article must be derived from reliable, third-party (independent) sources (which occasionally can also be primary sources).

Users who endorse this rebuttal of this rebuttal:

1. —Kww(talk) 04:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
2. I support this rerebuttalbuttal. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Rebuttal" of Bus Stop's comments

I don't think this is at all productive. Neither the argument nor the outcome are logical (the supposed contradiction is not at all clear) and the "SPA" branding is, as I said in my statement, an extreme characterisation which damages the brander's credibility.

In addition, the editor adding it apparently retired three six months ago, returning to place this comment. My opinions of editors who use {{retired}} banners aside, the tone of the argument suggests that this was intended as a cheap shot.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A highly prolific editor retired because of this person. Said editor coming back for this RfC shouldn't be shocking. I find the tone of the argument to be fine and don't even remotely see a problem let alone a cheap shot. Again, this isn't about policy, it's about behavior. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And that comment was about policy: it posted a short and illogical "proof" that Gavin's edits here were contrary to our inclusion policies, and drew from that a rather extremist conclusion. Coming out of retirement for cheap shots like that is not "shocking": indeed, it's depressingly familiar. I'm sure you do find both the tone and content acceptable, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree in part it is a bit too much about policy, but at the same time, it identifies one possible issue that someone has seen that I do have to agree with: Gavin often selective reads policy, almost treating it like a letter of law, to back his points. Sometimes this can be ok, but sometimes it can be a misuse of policy and guideline. Is this something that needs further exploration? I dunno. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that Gavin has hardly varied his rhetoric for three years, if it were self-evidently contradictory then we wouldn't be here right now. I would also like to think that if his assertions that others' arguments were inconsistent with the core guidelines were false then he'd have been unable to escape the logic of said arguments by now. For the most part, Gavin has worked within the system to effect the changes (or clarifications, depending on your POV) to policy which would end this in his favour. The real problem is how to resolve stalemate at that level without endless threads on talk or edit warring on policy pages, and that's where we're at here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to go into detail re particular policy or guidelines, but I need an example to make this point. You say: "I would also like to think that if his assertions that others' arguments were inconsistent with the core guidelines were false then he'd have been unable to escape the logic of said arguments by now."

Because guideline logic != math, it's difficult to demonstrate logical inconsistencies in summary form. Nevertheless, for a relatively simple example, of late he keeps falling back on WP:NOTINHERITED to claim that since a topic being notable does not necessarily mean that instances are notable, a list of instances is non-notable - despite the obvious fact that the individual list entries are not individual topics, but are article content, and thus not individually subject to a notability test (just like elements of prose articles are not required to be notable). To me, (within the context of the guideline Gavin has been using) that's pretty black and white - and yet Gavin has never responded to this aspect when I've challenged him on this point. And yet he keeps redeploying NOTINHERITED in an attempt to make the same argument.

In short, he seems more than capable of escaping the logic of any argument when it doesn't fit his agenda; and presenting any such logic is demonstrated to be futile. If this is the situation for such a clear-cut case, what hope when there is wriggle room for ambiguity, or complex interplay between guidance, except through consensus interpretation. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)He has been able to "escape the logic of said arguments", I guess. Another example is that he ignores consensus. Our rules are necessarily ambiguous to a certain degree, and how to apply them is decided by consensus. He doesn't concede that point, and reiterates his viewpoint (a few thousand times a year). Our rules, treated as axioms, can only lead to one inescapable conclusion if the axiom about consensus is ignored. So he ignores the consensus axiom, and I guess all his "proofs" then work out perfectly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheap shot?

Nothing I wrote was intended to be a cheap shot. I have retired from Wikipedia because of this editor. If this is not the correct place to state that, please direct me to somewhere better. If you consider my rebuttal not to be based in logic, I suggest you re-read both the rebuttal and the three policies, which are not to be read in isolation but taken together, and also re-read all of Gavin.Collins and my contributions to the entirety of Wikipedia, which will contextualise the matter for you. As to hiding behind a retired banner, I have absolutely no idea what that means, beyond perhaps assuming it is meant as a cheap shot at my user name. Best regards, and see you all on the other side. Hiding T 14:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

better ideas?

I appreciate that Mike Cline is trying to create a more collaborative encyclopedia. It's always a little hard to single out a single editor's behavior and blame that one person for being less than collaborative. It's an old problem and I'm sure that if we think hard we could name many editors who rest on "repeat ad nauseum". It's fair based on Gavin's history but there are also legitimate concerns about going too far and cracking down too hard.

I share some of Thumperward's reservations about the description of the problem and even Mike Cline's proposed solution. I'm not sure asking Gavin to work more on articles is practical nor does it really lead to a more collaborative spirit. I'm sure that Gavin believes in good faith that his interpretation of policy IS the policy. So we're left with an empty call to "please try to be more collaborative". Don't beat a WP:DEADHORSE, try to build WP:CONSENSUS and try not to miss everyone else's WP:POINT.

Does anyone have any better suggestions for how to get more collaboration from Gavin? Ideally it would be a solution we could apply to other similar editors should they return. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have some general ideas I will post. I have been musing on this today. I did propose a similar idea about content contribution WRT TTN (talk · contribs) in the past but it was unpopular, and upon thinking about it I wonder whether it is too inequitable for wikipedia where many editors do little content contribution. Gavin and I have definitely vastly different views on notability, yet I do recall him giving the D&D wikiproject some space and time to tidy up a bunch of articles which I respect him for. I also share his concerns regarding some issues such as sourcing of combination articles like the Criticism of.., as well as a debate we had on sourcing obvious content somewhere where I was surprised that it was only him and me which were worried (wish I could find that now). I am (funnily enough) reminded of A Nobody in that I do think we need folks to play devil's advocate from time to time to keep us accountable, however I agree that reams and reams of acrimony and argument help no-one, and we need mechanisms to reduce this as much as possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC, and speaking of former Arbcom members) I don't think telling GC to work more in article space will help. He has responded somewhat positively to the previous RfCs, but we can't just keep doing them (or maybe we can). I could be wrong, but the certainty with which he argues from tells me Arbcom is coming. From what I've seen of Arbcom lately, they'll probably block/ban him for about a year. We can theorize other solutions all we want, but only Gavin can fix things, and he probably won't. Then we just see what Arbcom says.

I'm only saying this as a prediction, not as what I want to see happen or a threat or whatever. If you follow Arbcom, you'll know what I mean. If there's anything to a case (and there's something here, even if we can't agree on what it is), they block/ban first and ask questions later, if you know what I mean. Hopefully GC follows Arbcom himself, and will modify his behavior. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Casliber, I think we agree there is a line between devil's advocate and filibustering. Dissent and refusing to get the point. This is one of the hardest guidelines to enforce because sticking to your position and arguing hard is sometimes a good faith tactic to improve WP:CONSENSUS, and not a bad faith effort to disrupt the Wikipedia. But we're talking about cases where dissenting ad nauseum destroys the WP:CONSENSUS building process, where people are hellbent on preventing things from moving forward unless everyone else caves in. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, in which case we look at some general things we can do - along the lines of the reminders I have posed. These include getting uninvolved admins to watch behaviour, remove repetitive posts deemed disruptive, block for edit warring, and the community itself can do things (with a vote, that is) like issue moratoriums on pages where no consensus has been achieved. Look, I don't know otherwise - I am just trying to think of some ways forward here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it make sense to recommend a rate limit? I have seen 1 revert per day rules imposed upon editors, would it help matters significantly if Gavin restrained himself to 1 post per day on any page involving sourcing issues? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• A rate limit might help. A length limit (e.g.: after one week, he has to back off or ask for mediation) might make sense too. If there were a ticking clock, there would be an incentive to find a compromise, and a disincentive to stonewall everyone else. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• I think that the rate limit is more appropriate, because it deals with the externalities. "One message per day on a policy/guideline talk page" directly results in "The rest of the community doesn't need to respond to more than one message per day from this editor" (and the excessive imposition on the community's time and energy is the problem I want to solve). Length limits assume (incorrectly) that everyone else is available every day. If someone can only get to Wikipedia on the weekend, then a reasonably normal discussion can literally take a couple of months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a length limit would work. The rate limit idea is exactly as you say--to reduce the stress on other editors, and it might result in better arguments over all by pacing discussion. Anyone else have any thoughts on this notion, esp. how it might augment or intersect with other discussions. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering Gavin's behavior since the onset of the RFC/U?

I will note that Gavin has been aware of this RFC from posting, remarked that he will not participate, but continues to engage in the behavior that has been outlined and certified by other users. Obviously, he's not even required to read this (the user simply has to be notified) but there is a question if this actually is a problem. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Question if his continued behavior is a problem, or question whether it was ever a problem in the first place? BOZ (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The first part, that he is aware his behavior is being examined but continues to participate unchanged. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO it simply means we can't assume he will change his behaviour willingly. --Cyclopia^talk 13:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course not; you can't assume something like that about anyone, but neither can you assume the opposite. Note what I said above about the Asgardian case; if we come to a consensus here, and his problematic behavior continues, and he refuses a mentor or mediation (seems likely), then there is only one inevitable step left to take. BOZ (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again BOZ. You may remember me. We participated in the last RFC on Gavin. I said then that he was not going to change his actions, that he was going to continue his aggravating behavior, and that a 3rd RFC would happen. Well, here we are. Gavin hasn't changed his stripes, only the particular articles that he's targeting. By changing the subject matter he essentially changes the people that he's dealing with so that the new batch of people that he's annoying won't know about or remember his previous behavior.

His pattern of behavior is unchanged from the first RFC. Sure, he's refined his methods and altered some details, but the essentials are the same. He latches onto a point of contention and tenaciously defends it until everyone else is exhausted. When people are finally tired of fighting with him then he goes ahead and does what he wanted to do in the first place.

He is not working with others but against them. He is not building any consensus but his own. He is driving valuable contributors away from Wikipedia. He needs to be banned if only to show him that he must change his behavior. If he doesn't change his behavior after a temporary ban then he needs to be permanently banned.

I'm not saying that everything he does is wrong. Nor am I saying that he hasn't made valuable contributions to Wikipedia. I am saying that we need to decide whether or not his contributions outweigh the loss of the other contributors that he drives away from Wikipedia. In my opinion his contributions do not outweigh those of the multiple people that he has already driven away and that he will drive away in the future.

This is why I feel that the necessary steps must be taken - I admit that I do not know what those steps are, I've never been involved in the admin side of Wikipedia - to at least ensure that people who have the ability to ban him are made aware of his actions and review them to see if a ban is appropriate. Seanr451 (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I was inclined to disagree with you before, and I don't feel like I'm inclined to disagree with you now. :) If it seems to the contrary, then perhaps I was trying to do my best to extend the olive branch, and give him a chance - to encourage this editor to have a more collaborate spirit (an idea I tried to get across as I wrote the "desired outcome" for RFC2). I never felt strongly that this would be successful, but still held on to a faint glimmer of hope, and pretty much feel the same way now. I've never felt Wikipedia would be losing much of anything without Gavin.collins around, at least given the majority his contributions up until now. BOZ (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had disagreed with me, and I didn't mean for my post to seem like it was directed only at you. However, I've seen on your Userpage that you're an administrator. Don't you have the ability to ban people? I ask because I honestly don't know. If you do have that ability don't you think that Gavin has caused enough grief to warrant at least a temporary ban? Seanr451 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I could block him, but it probably wouldn't stick, especially because I am an "involved" administrator. Worse yet, I could face sanctions if I misuse my admin tools, so I'm not going to do that. He's been temporary blocked twice before, but that changed nothing. BOZ (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it makes sense not to be able to block him because you're involved in the incident/discussion. However, he's already had two RfCs against him and two temp bans/blocks and he's still causing problems. How long is he going to continue to be allowed to disrupt and annoy other contributors? It seems to me that the next step is Arbcom. I'd prefer that someone who has experience with this begin this process. I would have no idea how to even start it.

Anyone who is reviewing Gavin's record or trying to defend him should consider what it appears he's trying to accomplish based on his pattern of behavior. It appears that he joined Wikipedia back in 2007, at least that's as far back as his contributions go. He then spent a lot of time trying to clean up a number of pages and trying to get others deleted. He got into many discussions regarding the rules, and how he was applying them. So having lost a number of arguments based on the rules he is now spending his time trying to change those rules. Once he's accomplished that then he will be able to go back and make the changes that he wants based on the rules that he has personally rewritten.

His actions are simply another example of how some Wikipedians feel ownership of their articles. Only in his case it isn't any one article in particular, but every article that he chooses to touch. He has demonstrated that he wants Wikipedia to be the way that he wants it and is unwilling to form a consensus with others. Seanr451 (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd consider that a pretty good summary of the situation, as I have long seen it. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am just adding this diff [7] where he attempts to summarize the list RFC via a statement that claims to represent the results of the RFC but only support his POV and which most other points have been countered. This is serious "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" behavior. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Downtime

Casliber,

I like the feel of your "downtime" idea, but I don't think it will be practical.

Let's pretend that you and I have a dispute. We decide to give ourselves a month of downtime. This sounds fine... except we're not the only editors in the world. So shortly after you and I decide to take a break, someone else re-starts the discussion. We're left with undesirable choices: Do we smack the newbie for asking a legitimate question during an official downtime? Do we exclude rigorously ourselves from the discussion, even if this means that (in our own opinion) bad choices are made?

Consider a more relevant scenario: Masem and Gavin have another ten rounds at WP:N, and we put the two of them on "downtime" for a month. Someone else (someone who wasn't involved in the latest rounds) deliberately re-starts the discussion, knowing that the 'problem child' can't be involved in any discussion during the official downtime. Do you think Gavin would sit on his fingers while Masem's friends re-write the guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I was musing along the lines of our ceasefire at WP D&D, and something like,say, there was a particularly heated and lengthy argument over a policy, that the community might put it to the vote that the page should be 'fixed' for three months (i.e. no substantive page change) to give everyone a breather and maybe some research. But yeah, I concede your point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And now what?

So I was reading Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Closing and wondering where things go next, given that contributions to the RfC have significantly reduced. Not that I want to rush anything.

The routes to closure open to us to achieve anything seem to only be those that lead to an escalation to Arbitration or Mediation. I am intentionally avoiding contributing anything about what I think should happen re Gavin, because I really do not know... But I want to see something happen. When I look at Notability talk history it just scares me off. Clearly nothing has changed during the RfC process.

The proposed solutions on the project page are all well and good, but they are meaningless without Gavin's engagement. The process here cannot compel him (or indeed, any uninvolved admin) to take responsibility to see that they are even fractionally implemented. So what now? ‒ Jaymax✍ 15:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Mediation would work here; it arguably a lopsided discussion and more about behavior than content. I think the next step is ArbCom. If ArbCom does not accept the case (for reasons that it may not be the type of case they take), we can then seek a community-agreed resolution because clearly there's agreement something needs to be done and very few have supported his behavior. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who has the power to do so, maybe a crat, but someone needs to attempt to engage Gavin off-wiki in a dialog and convince him to participate in this RFC before he's forever banned from WP.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I did make him aware this is was the last step before ArbCom when I notified him on his talk page (and his response). I don't think we're obligated any more to get him to engage. Mind you, I think if we go to the next level of dispute where actionable steps can be done, he will get involved. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Take it to ArbCom. One of his latest stunts; claiming that current policy prohibits us from updating lists is so absurd that I am struggling to figure out whether he is really offering that view in good faith. Either way, I see no reason why we should need to put up with it any more. This edit full of snide and sarcastic remarks shows that Gavin is still pursuing an arrogant style. He has refused to respond to this RFC, so I cannot say that this round of dispute resolution has brought us closer to resolution. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; it got people talking, and comparing notes, which is very important. It hasn't done anything to bring the situation closer to resolution from Gavin's end, no, but for his detractors it has. So, if ArbCom is the generally agreed upon next move, then what are we seeking? A one-year ban? An indefinite ban? Something like, like a topic ban? Any other ideas? BOZ (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, comparing notes and working out what the consensus is indeed important. The main point with ArbCom is not so much to seek a sanction, but to end the disruption. What is needed will depend on Gavin's conduct during a case, assuming that the ArbCom accepts it. The committee would need to be presented with the entire history, the good and bad, from Gavin and his detractors, and make a decision based on that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow - that diff says something - several somethings, none-the-least that Gavin still fails to acknowledge that list-content is just article-content. But the tone is especially disturbing. I concur that mediation is unlikely to be productive. In the absence of Gavin's attendance here, that leaves arbitration as the only RfC/U closure path that might achieve anything. I concur with BOZ and Sjakkalle above that the process has been useful in appreciating that there is very much a (strong) consensus - without wanting to put words in anyone's fingers, as to the disruptiveness of Gavin's approach/style/interpretation/attitude. ‒ Jaymax✍ 18:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this diff says it all about his views and what they mean. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree that it says it all about his views. As to what they mean, if nothing else this RfC (and your diff above is a great example) has made me accept that his views are impenetrable to me, and no amount of AGF debate is going to bring us together. I wish I had appreciated this properly before I spent days engaging Gavin (even whilst others were telling me I was being 'overly generous') at SOoCC. :-/
‒ Jaymax✍ 19:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As a caution here: I think we can all agree and narrow down arguments on behavior (beating dead horses, tone, etc.) is a problem. That's fine, that's point 1 and likely still enough to build a case on. Point 2 that is being argued here is that "Gavin's interpretation of policy/guideline is way out of line". Now, I agree with that point, but if we are going to argue that to the next level (Arbcom/ANI/whatever) we better be assured ourselves that our own interpretation of the policy/guideline often cites is where consensus is. I think we can narrow down to the recent pointers about original research and building lists assembled from multiple sources (postdlf's comment) but again, if we are unsure of this point, it can be evidence but I don't think we can push it hard. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what our interpretation is because it's clear what the consensus interpretation is not. Gavin was defended by a few who agree only in the most general sense with him that notability should be more strictly applied, which implies that some will excuse tenaciousness in favor of a defensible outcome. But when it's made crystal clear that his views boil down to an absurdity, with no discernible benefit and that is at fundamental odds with how Wikipedia works, and that there is not a single other person who agrees with him (as far as I have seen), his sincerity and zeal are clearly shown to be just detrimental. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I guess that's what I meant; we have to be assured ourselves that Gavin's views just don't fit into consensus of how the appropriate p/gs are used. There is a difference between an extreme but reconcilable position, and an extreme, contradictory position, and we need to be clear that we believe it is the latter. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2

But (2) follows from (1) - if he's demonstrably beating a dead horse (and I think we're solid on that), and that horse is an interpretation of policy (which it demonstrably usually is), then clearly if the horse is dead, Gavin's attempt to ride the poor beast into battle demonstrates that his interpretation of policy is "way out of line".

I don't think the distinction between (1) and (2) is as disconnected as you imply, and it is Gavin's approach and actions that draw a clear arrow from invalid interpretation of policy and guidelines to incessant circular argument on talk pages. ‒ Jaymax✍ 19:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

While normally, it is not necessarily advisable to bring up someone's point of view as being a problem (none of us agrees on everything), in this case the differing point of view is where the point of contention starts, and drives the interactions. Do his views represent community consensus? Few will argue that they do. Are they, in fact, quite divergent at times from the community consensus? Well, few will argue that they are not. Does that matter? Not to ArbCom - they will say that he has the right to feel the way he feels. Why should it matter to ArbCom? Because the disruption and his subsequent behavior comes from his inability to accept that not all others agree with him, and his efforts to change policy to match his views rather than what the community as a whole can more or less agree on.

As for the sarcasm, I still remember the sarcastic barnstar he gave me once during an AFD - "best dramatic performance" I think it went! I'll admit that I was amused, but at the same time sarcasm does not help serious debate. It's not an actionable offense by far, but it is part of the problem; you simply cannot expect someone to engage you in discussion when you are mocking them. BOZ (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My concern here is - there are probably a number of us (myself include) that would like Gavin just barred from WP talk page discussions, as he rarely contributes anything but strive to the conversation. but that's nearly akin to censoring, and I feel attempting to censor him because his viewpoint is an ultimate minority is not the right course of action. It is not the case that every viewpoint Gavin has is outside of consensus. Take, for example, the book template/Worldcat thing. Questioning whether we should promote one commercial service over any other is a completely fair question per COI and the intent of WP; only his insistence at it when everyone else said that the value of the linkage was worth more than the minor COI issue, that's the problem. But I cannot disagree that his current interpretation of lists and original research is anywhere close to reasonable. If we are taking this to ArbCom , it needs to start from point 1 (behavior) and mention that he uses 1 aggressively to posit views that are very incompatible with current consensus (point 2). It should not be a case of starting from point 2 and adding on point 1, otherwise, the ARbCom case screams of forcing his viewpoint out of the picture by censor. (Of course, this is how I see it; it could be possible ArbCom takes point 2 , says "no question Gavin's out of line", and proposes the ban remedy.) Gavin is an editor that has worn our collective patience thin, but has otherwise not disrupted the main space of WP or any other actions that would need proactive measures. This is going to be a tricky ArbCom case, and rather not make it inflammatory from the start. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It would be bad to take this to ArbCom because we're looking for a ban, or wanted to ban him. There's a huge gulf of options between "let him dissent, filibuster, and obstruct ad nauseum" and "silence him completely". Shooterwalker (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The question then, again, is what do we want? You have to have at least a vague idea of that, and preferrably a few options, because suggested remedies are part of the process. BOZ (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Two points: This RfC was opened on September 14, so it has been going for 10 days. The closing instructions indicate that it is normal for these RfCs to run for 30 days. So it is still pretty early. Of course, there is nothing wrong with discussing things here, but we should not actually act on bringing anything to arbitration until a month is up (and Gavin's conduct remains unchanged throughout that time).

Also, I agree that this very likely will need to go to ArbCom, probably requesting some sort of ban. I also share Masem's concerns that we not base this on disagreeing about content, and I'd probably take that even further. ArbCom does not mediate content disputes, full stop. They deal with conduct only. Unfortunately, some of the RfC page is devoted to responding editors' opinions about content, but that won't work going forward. Any request for arbitration should be about conduct only, and should refer to content only insofar as Gavin acting against consensus about that content. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I will leave it to the experts here, but feel it necessary to point out that ANY opinion is only valid if it is subject to reason. To utilise Reductio ad absurdum, one can easily imagine two robots with fixed and contradictory viewpoints, and clearly neither could add to the consensus upon which WP policy is built. I appreciate the argument about conduct, not content - but there must be a point at which content is recognised to be no more than a reflection of intransigent ideological conduct. Gavin's perception of reality/policy may be valid, and worthy of consideration - except that its expression is robotic. It is impossible to separate, in any meaningful way, the (robotic) conduct from the (robotic) expression of content. So, this is not a dispute about content, but about conduct, and thus rightly grounds for ArbCom; but it would be a mistake for ArbCom to not take note that the conduct in question is a direct result of a robotic (inflexible) and largely irrational interpretation of content standards and policy. ‒ Jaymax✍ 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, to be clear, its not that we can't mention Gavin's extreme opinions on p/gs, we just shouldn't make that the thrust of the case. We could argue "Gavin disrupts and overextends WP talk page discussion beyond useful trying to put into place his extreme views, some which are irreconcilable with the larger consensus at hand" as the lead-in for example. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And to be clear :) "I will leave it to the experts here" at least in the _first_ instance - I don't really know how ArbCom works - I hope that the RfC and this Talk page will be at least glanced at in whatever process is to follow. I can't help being a pedant, and if it seems to me that an artificial distinction between Gavin's behaviour and Gavin's attitudinal beliefs is being drawn, I will feel the need to challenge that. Having said that, I've no problem with a focus on the behaviour in the absence of a suggestion that the attitude is somehow okay, despite the behaviour. (I hope that makes sense; to rephrase, is intransigence a matter of belief, or of behaviour?). ‒ Jaymax✍ 21:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Was just pondering for a few minutes - I guess everyone is entitled to argue that black is white once, for a moment. I guess I accept that Gavin is entitled to his belief, but not to his attitude or his behaviour. The point about intransigence still applies. ‒ Jaymax✍ 21:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to go to ArbCom, there's information at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

I suggest finding a few similar cases in the history, and seeing how they were written. The ArbCom folks seem to be stuck with an overwhelming volume to process, so I'm sure they would appreciate a case report that is tightly focused, diff-supported, and strictly behavioral (scrupulously omitting 'content' issues). Writing such a case is likely to take a little while, and can be done while the RFC/U remains open.

BTW, while I don't see any need to rush this RFC to a conclusion, it should be closed immediately when (if) ArbCom takes the case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to focus on WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IDHT, WP:GAME (namely the "stonewalling" provision), and perhaps WP:OWN applied to policies and RFCs. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is allowed to dissent. But when WP:CONSENSUS is the primary goal of any discussion, repeating the same dissent over and over becomes disruptive to Wikipedia. It causes good editors to burn out, withdraw from the process, and even exit Wikipedia in frustration. It also prevents policies from adapting to new circumstances, which means that long-standing problems prevail (at best. Sometimes they even get worse!) By no means am I saying that people should be forced to give into the majority like some kind of twisted thought police. But EVERY participant is obligated to show SOME kind of movement during a discussion for the sake of building a WP:consensus. An unwillingness to negotiate is troubling. But an unwillingness to negotiate, stated repeatedly and forcefully, does real and noticeable damage to the sense of community. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. I can recall the difficulty we had in setting up the Kender RFM, because RFM is about content disputes, and not conduct problems - it was equally difficult - then as now - to separate the content issues from the conduct issues. I wish there was a DR function which deals with both at the same time, unless you could say RFC/U does that. BOZ (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no experience with this level of WP, but it does seem to me that Gavin is completely entitled to hold whatever opinions he likes. His opinions may well and probably do inform his actions, but only his actions are disruptive. Shooterwalker has a good point, but really, I think no one is obligated to shift their opinions--we benefit from editors keeping an open mind and seeking to understand others view points, but there's no way to enforce that behavior. And for all I know, Gavin is completely open minded, but completely convinced that his opinions are correct. The fundamental issue is, I believe, that Gavin is simply too tenacious--if that were to change, I do not think we'd have a problem. And from that point of view, I completely agree with Shooterwalker's approach of focusing on WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IDHT, WP:GAME and WP:OWN applied to policies and RFCs. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Process

(I created an arbitrary section break here since it's a shift in topic a bit --Nuujinn (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC))

More a process question that anything else. Should the consensus of this RFC's participants be that we should go to ARBCOM on Gavin, how and where does the case get written. Just a series of questions.

1. Do we select a lead editor?
2. Is the case compiled in user space first or off-wiki first?
3. Do we all weigh-in on the case before it is submitted to ARBCOM?
4. There's no doubt in my mind that a legitimate case exists and the great majority of participants in this RFC would support it, but how do we craft a case that we can all agree on? This clearly a dispute between a single editor (Gavin) and a community of editors (us, not as individuals but as a collaborative group). How do we ensure that is the message we are trying to send? Just questions we should ponder I think. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I've numbered your questions, and hope you don't mind. Here's my off-the-cuff set of answers, and perhaps others will add theirs.

1. Yes, sort of. I suggest that the initial selection process be 'whoever starts first'.
2. Userspace is probably adequate.
3. Yes, or at least all editors who are interested enough to comment.
4. By keeping the case tightly focused on the smallest number of biggest problems. I think also that highlighting the "big picture" of damage to the community (e.g., lost editors, wasted time, loss of collegial atmosphere) would be appropriate, to give them an idea of why this particular dispute matters.

NB that two things need to be written: The first is a "Please take this case" request, and the second is a diff-heavy presentation of evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Please take this case" part should be very polished & convincing as the majority of the ArbCom are leaning toward stricter guidelines inclusion guidelines. Not that i don't think the ArbCom can't handle it fairly but i believe that opening the case would be the very last thing they want thus the probability to have ArbCom forcing a mediation and declining in block is rather high.

Edit: The right word would "Reluctance". How to overcome ArbCom strong reluctance to open the case --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's assessment seems to be pretty spot-on. The "lead editor" should be whoever wants to take the initiative to get it started. It could be Masem, it could be Mike Cline, (just to throw some names out there) or it could be someone who's barely even been involved in this RFC or not at all. It should be at least two weeks from now, but the case would go to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case page. The opening statement from the "lead editor" doesn't need to be terribly long, but definitely comprehensive on the issues we're focusing on. Plenty of other editors are likely to weigh in on the problems. Keeping it focused should help to reduce responses where people instinctively jump in just because they like him as an editor, and force people to look at his conduct problems. The filing party should have a primary remedy for the situation in mind by that point, which he will propose, although suggesting other remedies would be OK, because ArbCom will want to know what we want to happen. Remember, at this point, all we are doing is trying to convince as many arbs as possible to take the case; actual presentation of the main evidence can and will wait for later. It wouldn't hurt to toss in a few of the better gems that were part of the RFC or came up on the talk page here, just to give the arbs a better idea of the situation.

Now, of course, when this RFC was drafted in user space without warning him, Gavin complained bitterly (brought up a Wikiquette alert, was it, and tried to complain on some other policy pages to no avail), and I think that's his main excuse for not participating in this one. (He tried to interrupt the drafting process of RFC2 as well.) With an ArbCom case, I don't think his protests to the drafting process will matter much, as I don't think he has any reason to be surprised that this one is coming. BOZ (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Another option: Community action

I just noticed that a thread on AN was opened seeking community-approved ban of a editor for poor and possibly long-term behavior in an RFC (effectively a mirror of Gavin's actions) (the AN thread was added here [8] and the RFC here [9]. It will be interesting to see how that takes, because if that action goes through, I think we could easily approach the community in the same way, seeking specific action on Gavin (maybe not a ban, but something enforceable) This may be a way to avoid a long and tired case at ArbCom (which really, too me, does seem overkill for a behavior pattern problem as opposed to abuse of tools or two significant sides split by an unreconcilable gap). --MASEM (t) 06:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, i would like to put some limited & reasonable restraints bearing in mind that it would likely not work. At least the one who decide to push the self-destruct button or not would be Gavin and not us. All would be up to him in such case. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

AN is a far better idea than ArbCom. First, the ArbCom is unlikely to do more than ban him for 1 year and even that seems very unlikely. Second, an ArbCom case takes forever and is just another opportunity for Gavin to argue and lawyer. AN is a more effective plan, especially considering the fact that there's almost no opposition to the points raised on this RfC. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We haven't hit the arbcom threshold in my opinion. I still think there's a chance to do this through an RFC. I believe Gavin will respect consensus. Editors overwhelmingly agree that his discussion tactics cross the line into disruptive behavior. So I think the RFC will be successful and persuasive to Gavin. I'll assume good faith. And if we're going to go to ArbCom because the RFC fails, then let's let the RFC fail first and remove all doubt. AN might make sense too, but as Vyvyan noted it will be helped if the RFC is closed with some kind of consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is very hard to assume good faith with Gavin's actions. When, two weeks into this RFC (which he is aware of) and several weeks into the list RFC where he's clearly in the minority and then posts this as if it was consensus shows continuing resistance to fix his ways. I strongly agree that we should develop a plan of what exactly we want remedied and best approaches to do that , using that either at ArbCom or AN, whichever is best when the time comes. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we have no need to rush, this sounds like the appropriate approach. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We can certainly use AGF and hope that Gavin will change, but AGF's intention was never to force users to abandon their reasoning skills and assume the unlikely. I think coming up with a backup plan(s) is more than reasonable, as is setting up our contingency ahead of time. As for AN/I, I never said it would not work or that it was a bad idea, just that it might be ineffective. Although, I suppose, that if we come up with as tight of an argument as we would have for ArbCom, provide some "standout" diffs like I said above, and link to a developed consensus on this RFC and continued misbehavior from Gavin, then AN/I might just be enough. I'm with whatever everyone else wants to do. Meanwhile, I think it would be a good idea to soon come up with a proposed solution that other people would be willing to back up. I might have some free time this afternoon to work on that; we'll see. I know one thing that helped in RFC2 was that someone drafted a solution on the talk page, discussed it with others, and when we had consensus, it was posted and got overwhelming support. BOZ (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been following both RfCs, and I think there are some similarities. Specifically, I think that the identified editor in each case is simply unable to believe that the community really, truly supports the "wrong" position. In effect, I think the identified editors are saying, "You can't mean that. You all seem like reasonable people, so obviously your opposite conclusion proves that you don't have all the information, because nobody who really took the time to understand this could possibly hold your position... Just let me explain it to you, again. I know I'm rational and thoughtful, and I came to this other conclusion, so if you just think it through, rationally and thoughtfully like I did, then I'm convinced that you will also come to the exact same conclusion that I did."

Except, in both cases, we did think it through, and we still don't agree... and the editors are, in "good faith" trying to re-re-re-re-re-explain the "obvious error" that they think the community is making.

I believe that a trip to AN for a community-imposed topic ban would be much faster than ArbCom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting more inclined to think that you may be right (and if the AN/I thread turns out to be inconclusive, we can always consider ArbCom again as a last resort). Following the AN/I thread that Masem linked to above[10], there is strong support for what Jclemens proposed. So, we need a conclusion here, a summary to post there, and when the time comes we can roll with it. My day was busier than I expected (but, ah, aren't they all?) so I didn't have time to put any thought into what I was going to do here. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should try AN first? I don't think it will be super successful, but at least it would show we've tried everything, and I think arbcom wants people to try AN first. I could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

They do. Also, ArbCom isn't going to accept this if it thinks the community can handle it. If we file a request and the number of people who thinks Gavin should be (topic)banned clearly outnumbers the opposition they aren't going to accept it because the community can handle it. What we really need is an uninvolved admin on AN. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Then the key thing we need is series of simple diffs that show his dead horse beating in a way that's quick to read and conclusive. Masem? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Even a topic ban would be asking for too much. I say ask for a firm warning about stonewalling. If he's going to dissent, he has to dissent and get out of the way, or dissent and learn to make even MINOR compromises and concessions to at least TRY to move the discussion forward. A clear warning sanctioned by administrators would go a long way and would encourage Gavin to be more cooperative. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(redent) In my experience, an editor like Gavin will not stop his fillibustering. So, we need to set ourselves up for him not stopping. If he did stop, then that would be great. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban would just move him onto a new topic area; Can AN implement the kind of oversight options that are discussed as possible resolutions, like requiring him work to with an assigned mentor? If so that would be great - and if an assigned mentor can't pull him in, then that seems to make the case that the community has tried and failed for ArbCom. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a community-enforced mentorship - these usually fall out of ARbCom or voluntary actions. I do think that we can do a "increasing blocks for TE, 4th block == ban" that can be supported and enforced by the community as long as the community action is agreed on and independent admin(s) make the call when the block is valid. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I still think the case is more or less ripe for ArbCom, and I have doubts as to whether WP:AN is altogether appropriate for a dispute of this nature. This is something which has been building up over a long period of time, not a sudden burst of disruptive edits which require urgent attention from admins. Appreciating the full impact of Gavin's conduct also needs a great deal of research through many diffs, because it is more about a long-term pattern than specific incidents. WP:AN is not part of the dispute resolution process, and the WP:DR page says (the emphases are mine):

If a user's conduct needs other urgent attention from an administrator, report it to the Administrators' Noticeboard. The Administrators' Noticeboard is not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors.

I don't think ArbCom will decline the case out of hand; there are serious user conduct issues here concerning WP:GAME, WP:TE, as well as outright misrepresentation of WP:V and WP:NOR policies. Also, I think several of the edits which try to mock the opponent's position ([11]), and which question the integrity and intelligence of administrators who follow consensus instead of him [12], the ban proposals, and repeated allegations of WP:LINKSPAM to the point of getting blocked, are breaches of the WP:CIVIL policy. These are issues which ArbCom do take on.

I am not really against trying to resolve this at WP:AN, but I have doubts as to whether it will be effective.

I appreciate Vyvyan Basterd's concern over the time ArbCom takes, and the opportunity to "argue and lawyer". However, the time taken in the current "Climate change" case is atypical, the case is very complicated because there are content issues, a huge number of involved users with otherwise meritorious track records, and highly political real-world issues in the mix. In contrast, the last ArbCom case I was involved in (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118) concerned user conduct and lasted only a month. Finally, ArbCom are not amused by people who use cases as opportunities to "argue and lawyer"; in extreme cases they may even issue temporary injunctions against that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that ArbCom has little tolerance for the "argue and lawyer" approach. It didn't work for Asgardian when I was involved in his arb case, and I don't think it will work here either. When we first brought his case to ArbCom, a couple of arbs said "Why don't you bring this up at AN/I instead?" and when I dug up some more compelling reasons (such as his long history of having been brought up there and other noticeboards) they decided to take the case instead. BOZ (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is this isn't as clear cut a violation of the rules as WP:3RR, or WP:NPA. Gavin didn't go on a tirade calling everyone a bunch of assholes. But in a way what he's done is more disruptive. I firmly believe that stonewalling hurts more than namecalling. But there's little precedent for enforcing WP:GAME and WP:IDHT. (Can anyone find a single example? Honestly?) Which makes it unfair to act like we can suddenly enforce or invoke a rule that's never really been enforced before. I think you'd be surprised how effective a warning can be. Not just because it forces the person to pay attention to what they should stop doing... but so that if they keep doing bad things, you can show they crossed a clear bright line. Right now, Gavin has crossed a line but it's not crystal clear. Do you really want to leave that to ArbCom? Shooterwalker (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's why I look at these cases of requests for community bans and think that ArbCom is less likely the place to take this. When you consider that The arbitration process within the Wikipedia community exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, bureaucrats, nor mediation have been able to resolve. emphasis mine. We have not tried admins, technically. Gavin has yet to be blocked. As this is all behavioral, it is behavior that is against the community norm, and thus a community-proposed enforced action is looking like the "right" approach to do this to be completely fair to Gavin and to avoid wasting time in the wrong venue. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a straw poll: AN/I first or straight to ArbCom? BOZ (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that AN/I can only hand down a topic ban for Gavin? If so then how will that help? Gavin has edited many different and unrelated topics. A topic ban would only cause him to switch to a different topic again and then continue his same behavior there. In his case resolution won't come about because of a topic ban, he isn't edit warring with other editors over a single page or topic. Any resolution has to cause him to modify his behavior. I'd like to remind everyone that this is Gavin's THIRD RFC. He didn't change his behavior after the first two, he's already said that he isn't going to respond to this one, so what makes anyone believe that anything other than a complete ban from Wikipedia will cause him to change his behavior? Seanr451 (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am aware; as best as I can recall, as long as the enforcement requires the involvement of an admin, any fair request seems to be possible (eg esclating blocks towards ban). If ANI could only place down the ban, then obviously yes, it is the wrong place. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've posed the question of community action limitations over at [13] AN. Initial consensus seems that any actions short of desysopping can be proposed. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

For this kind of thing, it's "AN", not "ANI"; a community ban isn't really an "incident". The policy can be found at WP:BAN#Community_bans_and_restrictions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for community ban resolution

I've "proposed" several possible resolutions for a community ban. I've tried to come up with all the issues that I've noticed editors being concerned about. If there's a clear favorite, then we could see about taking that to WP:AN.

I'm still thinking about which one(s) might be most effective, so I'll post my own "support" later (tomorrow, maybe). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the RFC is not an appropriate place for proposing a ban. Remember, this is supposed to be a place where we make suggestions that Gavin might be willing to work with (regardless of whether he ever responds to the RFC), not imposing anything on him. You can change that to say "Gavin voluntarily abstains from..." instead of "is banned from", and that might be OK. BOZ (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the right place to propose the ban, but it is definitely the right place to discuss and decide what, exactly, we're going to propose at WP:AN. The actual proposal will have to be at WP:AN. But to do that, we need to agree on something to propose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that WP:AN may not agree on a remedy unless this RfC can produce a more focused recommendation. I see many complaints here about Gavin's participation in policy discussions. Do many editors think that it would be sufficient for Gavin to stop participating in Wikipedia space discussions? Any work that people are willing to do to boil down the RfC into a summary would be worthwhile, whether it's intended for use at AN or at Arbcom. Also, condensing the 'evidence of abuse' and collecting the most appropriate diffs would be useful. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We do need three things I think to continue an AN: 1) A reduction of the arguments from this RFC and talk page into a single cohesive statement, with diffs etc to focus on the points we have issue with (TE, DEADHORSE, etc.) 2) A shorter summary that points to this cohesive statement that we can use on AN as part of the proposed community ban. 3) Exactly what action we are looking for (limited or full bans, escalating blocks, etc.) I think we're at the stage of figuring out 3 right now, which 1 and 2 then easily follow. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been wanting to put some work into exactly that, but haven't found the time; tonight might be the night! :) BOZ (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A community ban doesn't actually need diffs, policy complaints, or anything else: It's whatever the community chooses, full stop. The only thing we actually need for a community ban is a statement that the community agrees on.

Now -- if you think that a choice selection of diffs and well-thought-out explanations will increase the likelihood of the community agreeing with whatever sanction you like best, then it's just fine to provide such text. But (in sharp contrast to ArbCom's work) it's not actually an integral part of the process, so if your motivation is just to jump through perceived hoops, then you don't need to bother. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My guess if that we approach AN with a request for community action, we are going to have one line of people ready to sign their name as soon as they hear "Gavin" and "dead horse", and most others going "Who's Gavin?"; I agree that while diffs aren't required, a concise statement of the issue, as well as area for debate at AN, (and likely where Gavin will respond), and a brief explaination with diffs will help the latter group. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Or we could just provide a link to the three RfCs, and let them read it all, if they want.

Like I said: There's no actual requirement to do this, but if you want to, that's okay, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Working on a Proposed Solution we can all agree on

Ah, see, I threaten to do something and I actually come through with the goods.  ;) We have several proposed solutions already, so maybe it seems like the last thing we need is one more. But I have started to get the feeling that we have lost focus with this RFC, so maybe it is time to get things back on track. I re-read the entire RFC, and picked out the parts that seemed to come up the most often, not only in Masem's summary, but in the endorsements, and other people's outside views. I was going to re-read the whole talk page, too, but... I'm really tired, now.  :) We'll call what I came up with below the rough draft. Maybe you have some solutions on how I can improve it? I tried to keep in neutral in tone, rather than specific to Gavin (these are things all editors should be doing, but that we agree he is failing at). I also avoided mentioning any of his specific viewpoints on anything, to keep it focused entirely on behavior. Please do let me know what you think, and hopefully I can propose this one soon! I'm really not married to anything in here in particular, so whatever we can agree on is fine by me.

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

BOZ (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I like this approach very much, better in fact than the AN thread that has started, and I thank you for your work on it. There really isn't much that I can find fault with. My only suggestion is to change the first sentence, after the bold, in part 3 to: "A better way to approach a dispute...". My reasoning is that, strictly speaking, BRD is not required, but recommended. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that the AN thread is coming to build a consensus after all, I might as well post this to the RFC. BOZ (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN thread started

I feel that the case was ripe for ArbCom, but trying WP:AN first is fair enough. I have opened WP:AN#User:Gavin.collins. Stonewalling, intimidation, misrepresentation of policies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If I'd known you were going to do that, I wouldn't have bothered to spend a couple hours last night working on what I did above.  ;) BOZ (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case we wouldn't have the fruit of your labor. I think it's very well put, although I haven't finished my coffee and need more sleep myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically, because Sjakkalle has moved on to AN, this RFC should be closed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That may be premature, given the way the AN thread has been heading over the last few hours. We may find no consensus there, and with the RFC closed, it's either give up or move right to ArbCom. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that I felt going to AN might be ineffective. BOZ (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's my concern too, but I do note that there is an issue with those that seem against any action to point out that Gavin's correctness (or some degree of it) w.r.t. to policy, which is not what this thing is about. It is TE and DEADHORSE more than anything else. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

See if you can get behind what I just proposed, or some modification thereof. BOZ (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC#Ending_RfCs says, "All requests for comment on a user need to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) when the dispute has been resolved, moved to any other forum, or seems unlikely to be resolved." Sjakkalle's choice to move the dispute to another forum indicates that this RFC should be closed.

And, no, if AN closes with no consensus, then ArbCom isn't the only remaining option. We could have a fourth RFC/U. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin now blocked for CCI

It should be noted that the AN thread above has resulted in the discovery that Gavin has performed numerous copyvios and has been blocked indefinitely until he recognizes what he has done and offers to cleanup. This should not prevent further discussion here about remedies to be taken on Gavin's behavior. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If anything, that should become a key part of the discussion. Here we have a man whose personal wikiphilosophy was so off the chart, that to not copy directly from the source is apparently against his interpretation of policy. BOZ (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, eh, I can certainly see how his opinion that he should be able to copy text (including sections that are generally paraphrased and summarized) verbatim with attribution but without quoting fiting into the larger view of how he views OR, but again, this should not be about what Gavin's interpretions are, but the behavior that his insistence to these interpretations even when pointed out that consensus is on the other side of the board. The overall CCI issue may make all of this discussion irrelevant if he opts not to involve himself here on out in the CCI aspects, or the charge serious enough to warrant a ban on that alone; but as you can see from the AN, behavior towards this CCI charge is also of issue. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to see that Gavin has committed to helping clean up the copyvio issues due to his "oversight" of the relevant policies. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary mentorship under Kww

After Gavin had be blocked (and since unblocked) when he offered to repair the copyvios he included, he has voluntary accepted User:Kww's offer of mentorship. [14] [15].

I realize this looks more like dealing with the copyvio issues and repair, but I would help Kww can help Gavin recognize his behavior issues; this incident may have tempered him.

As to how that affects this RFC/U, I believe the mentorship was one ideal solution that neither is punitive nor a simple slap on the wrist. It would likely be good if Kww, Gavin, and we can outline the nature of this, but right now, this doesn't seem imperative. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fair. If they can work together, hopefully Gavin will learn some positive things. I still think it would be good to have an uninvolved, neutral admin to work with the situation as well, for situations where Kww might find it difficult to view Gavin's behavior impartially (like, anything dealing with a policy debate). I do think Kww will do good work on coaching him with the copyvio issue, and keeping himself out of edit warring on policy pages. BOZ (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all of the above. It makes sense to me that this should be the next step to follow. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So, where do we go from here, with the RFC? Move to close? It looks like we have consensus to go with some form of my proposal (16 for, 2 against), plus Gavin has taken on Kww as a mentor (though I stress there may be a few [[caveats, and the AN thread seems to have died down almost completely. So, what happens next? Do we hammer out the details of how exactly my proposal works? Does someone else decide that? Do we close this RFC and have another RFC specifically to decide that? BOZ (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think we need to open a new RFC. Maybe we work with kww towards finding a fair way to apply the sanction you came up with, which has community consensus. I'll be around to help make sure it has teeth but is still fair and not gameable (by Gavin or by his critics). Once we have the last few kinks ironed out we can close it. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Shooterwalker just said. Logically (per AN), we are now at the point of letting the mentorship proceed, and then seeing where that leaves us. If this RfC/U can play a role in shaping the expectations for that mentorship process, all the better. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that what might be best if there was a separate page - probably in Gavin's user space, where any issues related to his mentorship can be addressed and act as an open forum - but within Gavin's control - to discuss things. This, in part, addresses this point of Gavin willing to discuss things in talk pages but very much disliked the open forum. It's still "open" but just not obvious; the page should be noted at the editing restrictions page just in case it comes up. That way, with this suggested page, we don't need to keep the RFC open, and if Gavin's poised to work better going forward, there's hopefully never any need to speak of it again. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I will be extremely happy and supportive if Gavin continues along the path of content contributions, whether or not he's correcting his copyvio issues or just contributing. Whatever it takes to keep him on the path he's on now is fine with me.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I take exception to much of the above. Would copyvio infractions have been raised to the level of threatening account blocking, if in the absence of a general disagreement over a basically unrelated issue? Gavin Collins has argued for the importance of sources, in opposition to those who have argued that consensus can override a deficiency of sources. I agree with the position that Gavin Collins has taken in regard to that issue—when you skimp on sourcing requirements you threaten to erode the most important pillar of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're still cheerleading here, Bus Stop. Gavin didn't undertake some noble defense of the importance of sources, he used specifically disallowed tactics to push positions so extreme that you, his biggest fan, when apprised of them could not believe that anybody in the discussion had advocated them. That people are willing to hope for the best from this mentorship approach is not a license for you to start a campaign about how the whole thing is a plot to destroy Wikipedia. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Chaos5023—I'm not sure what you are referring to—I completely support everything Gavin Collins has stood for in the long-running discussions pitting the primacy of sources against the primacy of consensus. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about [16]. I'm fascinated to find out that you completely support requiring that list articles be built on a single source that published a list on the exact topic of the Wikipedia article, and that we cannot so much as update a list of United States presidents to include a new one until a new edition of our single list source is published. That doesn't paint you as a completely indiscriminate Gavin cheerleader at all. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Chaos5023—Wikipedia is first and foremost a compiler of sources. This applies to anything in article space and yes this applies to Lists. Consensus is a principle that matters but sourcing requirements take precedence over the principle of consensus. Bus stop (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And from that (a position that I have never argued with, and your tedious reiteration of it here serves no useful purpose), you get this insanity where a list can't be built from two sources because that would be original research? How exactly does that happen? —chaos5023 (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I get it. You've apparently seen people (God knows who) argue that sourcing isn't important, and they're clearly wrong, and Gavin says that sourcing is important, and that's right, so therefore everything Gavin says is right and he must be supported no matter what or Wikipedia will be overrun by hordes of crazed inclusionists. Ah, clarity at last. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Chaos5023—huh? I don't know about "crazed" but there has been an over-importance given to consensus. The argument that has been presented has been that consensus overrides sparse sourcing. I disagree. I think that opens the door for a Wikipedia of editorial views being presented instead of that which is strictly represented by sources. Bus stop (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that to be the case. The argument is that consensus overrides Gavin's extremist interpretation of sourcing requirements, which it certainly does. Now, the requirement for sourcing is a matter of consensus in the first place, but to my knowledge nobody is arguing that present consensus of a limited number of editors overrides the overarching, project-defining consensus represented by WP:V and other sourcing-related policies and guidelines. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop - do you acknowledge and accept that the policy requirements for sourcing only exist as a result of consensus agreement on the policy wording? You are entirely wrong to suggest that sourcing policy intrinsically supercedes consensus. Policy governs wikipedia, but policy is the product of consensus agreement about what policy should be. I think you have it backwards. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Would copyvio infractions have been raised to the level of threatening account blocking, if in the absence of a general disagreement over a basically unrelated issue?. Yes, actually. Copyvio as Gavin did is a blockable offense if repeatedly done. The reason it didn't go further is in part to Kww's mentor offer, and Gavin's admitting the mistake and willingness to repair. The only step that this RFC influenced on that - besides the discovery of the copyvio which would have been a matter of time - was the early approach by Kww to get Gavin to take mentorship regarding his discussion behavior. As it happened, it was a working solution to the copyvio too. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume Kww has fully read the RfC here, but confirmation of that (here) would be useful. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've monitored the RFC, and plan on doing a complete review to make sure I didn't miss anything.—Kww(talk) 05:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Kww, FWIW, after writing the note above, I came across the diff referenced in the AN thread pointing out that you appear to perhaps disagree with the overwhelming consensus expressed in the RfC page. Could you please comment on that? ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You are seeking a behavioural change, not a belief change, are you not? The discussion at WP:FICT was a travesty, with editors seeking to override the fundamental notions of notability and sourcing in order that they could write articles that do not belong on Wikipedia. The vast majority of fictional characters are never covered by independent sources, and WP:V demands that articles be based on independent sources. Most fictional character articles serve as a platform to extend discussions of plot, and, as such, should be deleted. The need for that deletion is obvious to me, and well founded in policy and guidelines: WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT#PLOT. I also think that television episode articles are the equivalent of covering novels chapter by chapter, and would like to see "article topic is a television episode" become a CSD category (yes, including all episodes of the Simpsons). I firmly believe those, and think that Gavin believes similar things. That said, you don't find RFCs about my behaviour being started because I believe that, and you do find RFCs about Gavin. My goal isn't to make him stop believing that, nor is it to make him stop expressing it. My goal is to make sure that he understands how to do it properly.—Kww(talk) 18:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above, though I will comment that while we are not trying to change Gavin's opinion, we do need Gavin to be able to set that aside when necessary and acknowledge a solution that may be less than desirable from his stance but that works in the greater good for all; if it is simply a stance he cannot accept but clearly is snowed under by large consensus, he needs to acknowledge that too and be prepared to drop out or remain silent. I can envision that one can talk about a case where the "consensus" may be so wrong with the purposes of Wikipedia that Gavin cannot help but to fight against for fear that the consensus can damage the work, but I would be extremely surprised if such a case would ever happen - the editors that are generally counter to Gavin's position are also just as rationale, and recognize, say, the value of sources and the like, and such a case will likely never arise. But yes, I affirm that we cannot seek to change Gavin's mind on how he believes the work should be written, but only to how he presents those ideas and works with others to refine them in policy is what we want to improve, and to be a "good loser" should consensus not work in alignment with his ideals. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

MASEM—Gavin Collins did not stand for innovation. He defended the status quo. Others were playing fast and loose with sourcing requirements as concerns article-creation. All that he really did was argue against creative approaches that were being suggested and supported by others. I completely support the conservative approach to sourcing requirements concerning article creation that Gavin Collins represented. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is hilarious. Annihilating every list article currently extant on Wikipedia and wholesale replacement of sourcing practice with a version where we must hew so closely to sources as to routinely violate copyright is in no way, shape or form the "status quo". —chaos5023 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot answer whether what Gavin was suggesting was the status quo or not, but the important factor here is that policy and guideline is guided by consensus and that consensus can change. If what was being proposed was a change to the status quo, that's completely acceptable given how WP is built. Even arguing for the status quo when others want to changes in in the aggressive manner Gavin wanted is not appropriate. And BTW: I don't think anyone involved in that discussion was talking about changing sourcing requirements in general. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've always wondered what Gavinopedia would look like if it came to fruition. The more I see from his approach, it looks like it would start off as being completely useless to just about everyone given the draconian restraints one must write under, and before long move into the territory of completely illegal as he would be sued for copyright infringement. Anyway, that said, gentlemen this line of discussion is looking to be moving into the territory of "We'll just have to agree to disagree". BOZ (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Kww, I wasn't involved in the Fiction discussion - and I'd agree that the whole fictional universe side of WP is problematic, with an awful lot of content that has no rightful place in WP. Generally I have no interest in articles about fiction, so am uninvolved in that arena. Given your response to me (and I'm not being critical in any way) I think it's worth keeping in mind that the behaviour issue extends well beyond the fiction side of things. I (and others) are most definitely looking for a behavioural change from this process (although, I willingly confess that I believe getting Gavin to comprehend the consensus interpretation of consensus developed policy re sourcing would be useful as well). Article:Talk consensus should not override policy. The 'lists' debate is key here, and I would hope you have appraised yourself of that (including the 'Obama can't be added to a list of presidents unless...' thing). As a total aside: The whole fiction universe thing seems to me to have some reflection in the natural(?) 'collecting instinct' that many humans seem to pursue as a hobby, and I half wonder if the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't have a sister wiki project specifically where fanbois could document from primary sources the characters, events, in's, out's, and anything else of cultural fiction... ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The list area concerns me, as it is clear to me that Gavin took an unreasonable stance. He started from a spot that I think is a reasonable question: how exactly do you decide that List of guys in red shirts that didn't survive the second act of a Star Trek episode probably isn't an appropriate list topic? Third-party sourcing is certainly a key influence, but trying to extend it to saying that the third-party source must contain the exact same list is unreasonable. I think his problem with interpreting WP:OR in the copyright arena is the key to this. He's working his way over the copyright issues right now, and lists will come soon.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Break for debate with Bus Stop

Busstop - I asked this question early on and you did not respond. As you are defending Gavin here, I would ask you one simple question. Would you hold Gavin and his behavior out as model Wikipedian that others should emulate? In other words, would WP be a better place if we all behaved like Gavin? Your comments seem to imply that, but it remains for you to say. Sincerely. Regardless of his policy positions, is his behavior something we should encourage and emulate?--Mike Cline (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike Cline—you can't refer to Gavin Collins' "behavior" when it is my perception that it is the "behavior" of others that assured these discussions remained in a permanent state of being bogged down. From what I saw, Gavin Collins was constantly being questioned on every minute detail of every possible permutation of the basic issue at hand. I do not perceive that as acceptable "behavior." I do not see that as the embodiment of "reasonable" dialogue. I perceive that as being "unreasonable," and I don't perceive that "unreasonable behavior" as attributable to Gavin Collins. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When someone is presenting a suggestion that is far from where the consensus lies, other editors are going to ask questions and poke and prode at it, trying to understand why that idea should be implements is completely fair, and far from unreasonable.

When someone keeps presenting a suggestion, refusing to answer these questions, and ignores advice that the suggestion probably doesn't have any support but his own, that's a problem. The degree to which Gavin did this, as attested by all editors that signed on this RFC, is "unreasonable". --MASEM (t) 17:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What is it exactly that you expect us to do, Bus Stop? Say "oh, sure, Gavin, the broad principles of what you're saying seem really happy and shiny" and not bother finding out what doing things his way actually means before we sign on to it? —chaos5023 (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Break for meta discussion

It seems to me that we have two, separate discussions going on in this thread: the argument that several editors are having with Bus Stop, and, well, the useful discussion. Let's all stipulate to the fact that the consensus of the RfC/U is not unanimous and some editors disagree with it, but it does not need unanimous consent, and we do, in fact, have consensus. And move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. In terms of moving forward, would it make sense to take Boz's alternate proposal and try to hash that out in a general sense, with the idea of forming procedure apart from Gavin's particular case? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think so, but it might be more prudent at this juncture to first figure out exactly how it should apply in Gavin's case. BOZ (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we proceed on that here, or in the AN discussion? I think we should proceed somewhere, but narrow the focus if possible given that Gavin has accepted a mentor. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that the AN discussion has been archived, so I reckon here 'tis the place. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is now and forevermore at this archive, so here is indeed the right and proper place to continue discussion. BOZ (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal of Bus Stop's comment of project page

Per: [17]

The debate around "primary sources" is perhaps a distraction. Bus Stop does not distinguish between sourcing levels in his comment, and the 'rebuttal' has now lead to Kww's rebut rebuttal. I'm confused by "first and second sentences which undercut..." - first and third sentences of which bit exactly? Mostly I want to avoid a go-nowhere discussion around what may be a relative non-issue. Perhaps those involved in the 'rebuttal' there could clarify? ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a distraction. This is not about policy setting. The fact that primary sources got highlighted in one statement didn't mean or imply that there was any effort to override the statement in WP:V (about the need of third party sources) but it was taken that way. --MASEM (t) 11:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all the most proper place to discuss but still the can of worms is open so better to swallow it whole :(
As much i could "assess & understand" Bus Stop & Gavin where toward having articles "Exclusively sourced with Third Party sources" which you could gather can extremely awkward. For example book publishers like Random House would be less reliable than Amazon.com for the books they publish because it's a primary source. Another one Adult Swim would not constitute a reliable source for their TV programs airdates as it is the primary source. Third one Oricon would not be a reliable source as the primary source for their singles & albums ranking in Japan.

Facts can be assert be either primary or third party reliable & credible sources.
Commentaries, criticisms, prizes, opinions and "why the subject has something to do with wikipedia" can only rely on both credible & noteworthy third party sources.

Does this clarify anything? --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Prizes can be reasonably sourced to first-party primary sources. There's no reason to think that Oscars.org is an unreliable source for the list of Academy Awards winners, even though the website is written and published by the same group that gives out the awards.

Somewhat tangentially, I'd like to invite editors interested in this to read the new essay, Wikipedia:Party and person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No change in his behavior despite being blocked

After three RFCs, an AfD, being blocked for massive copyright violations, then being unblocked and being given a 'Mentor', he's still acting exactly the way he was before. As I've said. Nothing short of a complete, long-term ban from Wikipedia is going to change the way he acts. Seanr451 (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• As the "victim" of his latest effort to ignore community consensus, I'd like to see how he acts as the list RFC closes and goes forward. The discussion has been closed, an independent administrator is looking at it, and we'll soon move onto the next step in the discussion. If it's impossible for him to change, we'll know very very soon from how he participates. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Mentorship clearly isn't working here. It's not that I blame kww for that but Gavin has apparently refused to listen. There was widespread support for BOZ' proposal on the AN thread - I think we need to revive that discussion and close it properly this time. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  Shooterwalker opened a thread on Kww's talk page; I'd say let's see how he resonds to that first. BOZ (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed in Kww's input. Unless he and Gavin have been emailing or on IRC, there seems to have been little exchange between them. My exchanges with Gavin on his talkpage suggest someone who has a very literal way of looking at things, and who struggles to come up with alternate strategies. He stopped working on articles after the copyvio thing, because he cannot figure out how to include the information that a source includes, without copying what the source says, because he thinks it is WP:OR. That this is down to a massive misunderstanding he had years ago is evident from the talkpage discussion. That he finds it difficult to develop a new strategy, even though he realises this, is evident also. I think he can't see the difference between a request for a behaviour modifier ('don't do that') and a request to change his opinion, as he does not have an 'agree to differ' strategy in his skillset. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  It hasn't been particularly fruitful so far, but I haven't quite given up.—Kww(talk) 15:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Gavin is still here at all. He can't contribute constructively to discussions, as three RFCs indicate. And his article contributions were mostly copyright infringements because he doesn't understand how to summarize or what WP:OR means. He completely lacks an understanding of fundamental principles of Wikipedia despite being on here for years. He either has zero reading comprehension, or is so stubborn and arrogant that once he has decided something is a certain way he just ignores what everyone says or what the text of policies and guidelines actually say. So I honestly don't see what the possible benefit would be in giving him another day here, or wasting anyone's time trying to "reform" him. postdlf (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his recent edits, but his opinion certainly is just as fringe now as it used to be:[18] ":I think your view that "redirecting it to the main article is normal procedure" is dependent on the level of significant coverage afforded to a settlement. We know that Wikipedia is a not a directory of every village in the world; rather it provides encylopedic coverage about a settlement if there are sources to provide context (commentary, analysis or criticism) to the reader. Redirects don't provide context, so I don't see what useful purpose a redirect could serve." Fram (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"I'm wondering why Gavin is still here at all." - He's still here because for some reason the admins seem incapable of recognizing that he is and will always remain a problem. Over the last three years he has shown that he WILL NOT WORK WITH OTHERS TOWARD CONSENSUS. Editing boldly is one thing, and I support it. Editing a page in a manner that goes against consensus, and then fighting tooth-and-nail with everyone against even the tiniest of compromises until they finally grow tired of fighting at which time he declares victory and puts in the changes that he wanted, regardless of what the community wants, is what he does. It's what he's spent 3 years doing. It's why he's driven multiple editors away from Wikipedia altogether. Don't take my word for it. Look at his record. He has demonstrated that he will not change, ever. How much longer is he going to be allowed to drive off other contributors and disrupt Wikipedia to make his point? Should I just go ahead and start RFC4 now, or is someone going to finally ban him? Seanr451 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

How long will it take? We're up against the usual timer: Nothing happens until your own ox is gored. Most Wikipedians are not very good at assessing the big picture. Until "I" personally experience an intractable problem with an editor, then "I" refuse to give up on the editor. So long as "you" are the person whose ox is gored, then surely it's just a small, routine, solvable problem.

(I am developing this idea that Wikipedians underestimate their own WP:COMPETENCE, a la Dunning-Kruger effect. That is, if "I" can be a successful Wikipedian, then surely anyone can, because my own success proves that it's not at all difficult.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

After multitudes of complaints and discussions of behaviour, all unproductive, I have to agree that the only resolution of this matter is an indefinite ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Actually... This thread started because I got "gored" and I think we're making progress. He may still insist on his viewpoint, but there has been a bit of a change in tone, and he's at least learning to back off when there's a consensus against him. If he really is going to be a total intractable problem we will know soon enough. So let's not get hasty. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that merely an inadvertent illustration of what I said? You personally are (currently) feeling progress in your dispute with Gavin -- and so who cares if Elen, and Postdlf, and Fram, and Sean, and Xxanthippe, and other editors' oxen are now being gored? From where you sit, the "real" situation is that your ox is healing nicely (currently). From where they sit, the "real" situation is that their oxen are getting worse.

(I agree that haste is not desirable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I reject your characterization that I've allowed him to crap on others so long as he doesn't crap on me. He tried to take a gigantic wikishit on me. Just that some people believe in banning as a remedy, some people think there are softer ways to accomplish things. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Kww says above that the mentoring is continuing, and that it is still early to give up. I suggest we accept that for the moment, while also making it clear to Kww and Gavin that this isn't a blank check, and that either there will be real progress soon or the discussion of a ban will become very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not mind waiting, but I have to say that after reading this, I can no longer work up any semblance of hope that Gavin may be able to come around. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And having said that, I think now we've waited long enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Attempts at mentorship have ceased

My comment on his talk page.—Kww(talk) 00:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to thank you (and Elen of the Roads) for making the effort. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's telling. Thanks for trying. I guess we'll wait and see what Gavin decides to do next. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

All due credit to the heroic persistence and charity of Kww, and others above who have been attempting to rehabilitate Gavin Collins. Unfortunately they have failed through no fault of themselves. From his attitudes on his talk page it is clear that Gavin recalcitrantly rejects core policies of Wikipedia and is not prepared to change. Everybody is out of step except him, and he is determined to get them to see the error of their ways. Unlike some other disruptive editors, his edits have contributed little (nothing?) of value to Wikipedia but have generated a multitude of interminable disputes that waste the time of editors who could be doing better things. As it says on WP:Competence "At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to mischief or incompetence. .... There's no point trying to distinguish between fake or real incompetence – disruption is disruption, and needs to be prevented. Give editors a few chances, and some good advice, certainly -- but if these things don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable timeframe, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent. " The article make it clear that the recommendation applies to more than technical incompetence but to any behavior that results in persistent disruption, whatever the cause. Gavin Collins has been given more than enough chances and good advice and it is now time to put a stop to these time-wasting dramas once and for all. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

I agree with every part of that statement. We should close this RfC now as it serves no useful purpose anymore and move the discussion back to AN. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempts. At this point, I think the only acceptable resolution once this is all said in done, even if it has to go to arbcom, is a permanent community ban. Vodello (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the thanks of making the attempt, and the demonstration that he is just not going to listen to sound advice. Clearly the community was ready to deal with him at ANI, so as noted below, that seems to be the next step. --MASEM (t) 05:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempts. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Kww - I was hoping that you of all people could have some effect on him, but a normal man cannot accomplish one of the Labours of Hercules. BOZ (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

I suggest we move this discussion to AN where it belongs at this point. Mentorship has failed to work and we need to discuss what else to do. We are no longer gathering comments on what is or is not the problem, we're gathering comments on what to do next and that belongs on AN, not here. This RfC has served its purpose and should be closed now. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
• This recent statement by Gavin [19] shows that, first, he's lying again (Notifying him was the first thing I did after posting the RFC/U [20]), and secondly, it is going to be near impossible to address his behavior if he's going to attack the standard procedure for discussing that behavior. He is beyond the point of dispute resolution, and something stronger needs to be done. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed on closing and moving to another venue. Nothing more to be done, here. BOZ (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• In addition to the repetition that the problem is not about him, he made this accusation of NPA when confronted with the fact that his interpretation of NOR led to copyright violations. I see no indication of change in behavior, and since RFC cannot impose any sanctions, I think we've done all there is to do here. Close. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Concur - Made the request at AN yesterday here. Should have posted a notice here but was pressed for time. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yup. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Close --KrebMarkt (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Close once again, he sees the problem not as him trying to stonewall and play WP:IDHT with consensus, but that we're at fault for not liking his clear and simple principles. When I pointed out that he was blocked because his interpretation of WP:NOR resulted in WP:COPYVIOs, he accused me of personally attacking him. It's not the thief's fault for stealing, it's society's fault for refusing to understand why we should all be thieves. Forget it. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Close. Slow things down? Gavins been doing this for 3 years now. This is his THIRD RfC. How much slower should we go? My grandchildren will be fighting with him on Wikipedia at this rate. Seanr451 (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

May I throw some cold water on this? Not to stop it, mind, but just to slow things down? We rushed off to AN a month ago, without a clearly written case and without the shortest appropriate list of the most telling diffs. And what did we get? A bunch of temporizing, surely-all-can-be-saved, I-don't-see-consensus responses.

If we're going back to AN, let's do it with a reasonable chance of getting a final decision, rather than more of the same. IMO that means spending the next several days right here, figuring out exactly what we want to say at AN. Perhaps one of you would like to start a new section with a proposal for a one- or two-paragraph message, and maybe four to six diffs, to be posted at AN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable - in fact, I agree with you 100%. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Frankly I say just ban and be done with it. It is pointless to try to "save" him while other, more productive editors leave in disgust over his actions. Web Warlock (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all three of you, and I think WhatamIdoing made a very good point. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• This has now been closed, if not due to the motion to close, due to the fact this has been open for 1 and a half months (it usually would be closed after 30 days). RfC/U being open or closed does not prevent users from escalating the dispute where it is appropriate to do so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking a Shot At It

Gavin.collins refuses to engage in the consensus building process, resulting in disruptive editing and gaming the system of dispute resolution in his favor. It is acceptable to have an opinion that is shared by no one else (or occasionally a minority of less than 25% of the other participants). But for such a minority viewpoint, Gavin dominates the discussion and prevents a consensus from forming by causing other editors to give up and bail out. He wins arguments using "argument ad nauseum" and attrition.

• Examples of argument ad nauseum...
  1. Links to Book Information: Talk 1 Talk 2
  2. Notability of Fiction: Talk 1 Statistics on dominating participation
  3. Inclusion policy of lists: Talk 1 Talk 2 Statistics on dominating participation

• Examples of argument ad nauseum, and accusing other editors of bad faith personal attacks when they point it out:
  1. Lashing Out in List RFC: Spearheaded by myself, me and all other RFC participants worked to create a summary of issues where there is a consensus. After one week, I made a request to an uninvolved admin to close the discussion, but Gavin accused me of operating in bad faith. I turned the other cheek, but he was admonished by the most respected of Wikipedians. He then went to the RFC argue ad nauseum his point of view, rather than trying to look for areas of consensus. When he did not gain any support for his viewpoint, he tried once again to accuse me of operating in bad faith to push my own point of view.
  2. Lashing Out on OR Policy: Gavin has an interpretation of WP:OR that is not the consensus. He believes that to summarize a source in your own words has a high probability of injecting original insight, and this interpretation causes him to engage in significant verbatim copying from sources that result in copyright violations. When trying to explain to him that his viewpoint is so outside of the consensus that it led to him being blocked, he accused me of personally attacking him.

Failures to resolve this dispute:

• This RFC, where there is a consensus that he is disruptive
• Kww's efforts to mentor Gavin
• Repeated AN/I incidents.

This is just a draft. I'm reluctant to make it longer. But anything that would allow us to present more diffs / evidence would help. And if the diff isn't a clear cut and convincing case, we should leave it out. (And we should leave out anything I've botched.) Shooterwalker (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a style choice on my part, but I think the bulleted list at the end would be better as a brief summary paragraph at the beginning. That would catch otehr editors' notice and remind people of just what is going on. Something like "Gavin.collins has been the subject of three RFC/U, including one currently ongoing in which he has refused to participate, and where consensus has determined he is disruptive. He has been brought to AN/I multiple times, including once during the RFC/U in which he was found to be in violation of the Copyvio policy. Kww volunteered to mentor Gavin, but his efforts had no effect on changing his behavior." At most, maybe a sentence or two additionally, but I think conciseness is key. Including links is a must. BOZ (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need a lot of diffs, simply a pointed back to here (and possibly the first two RFC/Us) and Kww's attempt and discontinuation of mentorship, and the last ANI thread (which Kww first offered to mentor). We're seeking a block/ban, but history is all there for review and there's little to go over since the last ANI thread beyond continued problems and Kww's end of mentorship. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be right. Anyone else want to take a shot at it? Ideally something about the same length, if not a little shorter? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I can try to mock one up. BOZ (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, maybe start with this statement as a basis, and then add back in whatever you like from your original statement. You could also briefly add some highlights; one that I found particularly compelling was the CobraBot fiasco, and another would be his demands for blocking a user for creating too many non-notable articles, and of course we have plenty of other more recent examples on the talk page and the RFC page as well, such as the climate change imbroglio and the list RFC. Or maybe rather than putting them in the opening statement, save them up to fire them off at the inevitable "Gavin's not the problem, you guys are!" responses.

Gavin.collins has been the subject of three user Requests for comment, one in October 2007, one in December 2008, and a more recent one that began in September 2010, with the common thread between them being complaints about the way he interacts with other users. He has refused to participate in the current RFC/U, in which consensus has determined that he is disruptive. He has a long history at AN/I and other noticeboards, and as the current RFC/U progressed, another AN thread was started in which he was eventually found to be in violation of the copywrite policy. As a result of that discussion, Kww volunteered to mentor Gavin, but his efforts had no effect on Gavin's behavior and Kww thus discontinued his mentorship. The discussion on his third RFC/U has ultimately established that there is consensus that he has exhausted the patience of the community, and should therefore be (blocked/banned) for (one year/indefinitely).

BOZ (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I created a draft at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins_3#Incident_report. I welcome other editors to try to improve it, correct it, and add more evidence. Just try not to expand it too much. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• You may want to mention that he was unblocked only after agreeing to work on fixing his numerous copyright violations. Others have done a lot of work on the many many pages that he filled with copyrighted material, but Gavin himself has done nothing. Seanr451 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins is looking at closing this one out. If we're not fully ready with what we're going to post to AN/I by then, we can always bring it back here to the talk page to finish it up. If we're almost done, let's finalize it, but on the other hand let's not rush. (BTW, I appreciated his comments on Gavin's talk page.) BOZ (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Incident report (draft)

User:Gavin.collins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been the subject of three user RfCs, one in October 2007, one in December 2008, and a more recent one that began in September 2010. Each RfC cited complaints with his interaction style, with many attempts to warn and reform Gavin in between. The recent RfC/U has reached a consensus that he is disruptive; several users (including Hiding) stated they have limited or ended their participation on Wikipedia due to Gavin's actions. He has a long history at AN/I and other noticeboards, and as the third RfC/U progressed, another AN thread was started, during which the community discovered that most of Gavin's substantive contributions to the main namespace clearly and directly violated the copyright policy. As a result of that discussion, Kww volunteered to mentor Gavin, but his efforts had no effect on Gavin's behavior and Kww thus discontinued his mentorship. The discussion on his third RfC/U ultimately established that there is consensus that his disruptive behavior cannot be addressed with warnings or requests for improvement, and instead need more serious sanctions.

Gavin.collins refuses to compromise in the consensus-building process, resulting in disruptive editing and gaming the dispute-resolution system. It is, of course, acceptable to hold an opinion that is shared by no one else (or by a minority of the other participants). But for such a minority viewpoint (see his one-man crusades on "WP:FICTION", "links in infoboxes" 1 (and 2), "notability of lists" 1 (and 2), and his first and second demands to ban a user (with admins' response)) his comments dominate the discussion[21] [22] and discourage other editors from participating. In discussions, Gavin.collins' tendentiousness and repetition of arguments ad nauseum impede progress on the development of solutions where consensus does, in fact, exist. Even after his point of view is rejected by the community, he still will not cooperate with efforts to find middle ground. This damages the community by causing editors to leave in frustration, eliminating their valuable input, and allowing disputes to continue for years unresolved.

See the RfC itself for a list of examples. Please also note that after the RfC reached equilibrium, two other incidents have occurred despite multiple warnings and the generous mentorship of Kww.

1. Refusing to accept consensus for notability of lists: There was a contentious RfC on lists, but there were a few issues where there was consensus. Shooterwalker spearheaded an effort with the other participants to summarize the few areas where there is a consensus on lists. After one week, Shooterwalker made a request to an uninvolved admin to close the discussion, but Gavin accused him of operating in bad faith. Gavin was admonished by FT2. Rather than helping to find areas of agreement, he returned to the RFC to push his own point of view and prevent closure. When he did not gain any support for his viewpoint, he tried once again to accuse Shooterwalker of operating in bad faith. The remaining participants defended the summary as accurate, but wasted time and energy dealing with one editor who should have understood the community's consensus.
2. Refusing to accept consensus on WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO: Gavin has an interpretation of WP:OR that is far outside the consensus and apparently inhibits his ability to edit article content without violating copyright. He believes that to summarize a source in your own words has a high probability of injecting original research, and this interpretation has caused him to repeatedly engage in significant verbatim copying from sources that result in copyright violations. Editors have tried to explain to him that he is welcome to his opinion, but that he must avoid acting as though such opinions are policy if he wishes to avoid being blocked again. Gavin interpreted this advice as a personal attack. Around the same time, Kww decided that mentoring Gavin would not be "fruitful".

In summary, Gavin refuses to make constructive compromises when his ideas are rejected by the community, and instead uses argument ad nauseum to stonewall and filibuster issues where there is otherwise a consensus. He insists his viewpoint is in fact policy and blames other editors for violating his one-man rules. When other editors point out that it is against Wikipedia rules to ignore the consensus and enforce one's own view of policy, he accuses other editors of bad faith. The consensus of the most recent RfC/U is that there is no other recourse but administrative action, possibly including a ban, the details of which are to be determined here.

Comments

Just copying together some things from the RFC, BOZ, and myself. Feel free to enhance or correct it with evidence. I'd be reluctant to make it much longer though. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the two numbered recent incidents could be shortened? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest instead of:

His proposals never gain a consensus, but he never accepts any offers to find a middle ground, let alone offering to find middle ground himself. He instead wins arguments through stonewalling, "argument ad nauseum", and attrition. Other editors bail out of the discussion, and by the time the remaining patient editors realize he is merely repeating himself the discussion is over. This damages the community and prevents progress on solutions where there are in fact consensus. (Just not unanimity.)

we say:

In discussions, Gavin Collins's tendentiousness and repetition of arguments ad nauseum impedes progress on the development of solutions where consensus does, in fact exist.

My feeling is that we are not concerned with winning/losing, and that Gavin is entitled to his opinions (but not to bog down discussions). --Nuujinn (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Due to a near-edit conflict, I've already changed a bit of the wording that you quoted at the top. But, anyway, I agree with you that it would be better to take out any references to "winning", but I would also keep the descriptive material about not accepting offers to find a middle ground nor offering to find it himself. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a crack at recasting, please feel free to revert me if it's not an improvement. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked if I have a good diff on copyvio. When it first came up, Gavin was adamant it was a phony accusation, as outlined above. He then came up with [23] in which he identified the problem as a failure to use quote marks. I tried to work with him on this. We focused on [24] which added a single sentence which was a cut and paste without quote marks. This was removed as a copyvio. Gavin then readded [25] with quote marks, but what he put in the quote marks wasn't a direct quote of the source. He gave as his reason [26] he did not think people should be rewriting the insightful statements of the source.

A discussion on his talk page followed my rewrite (starts at [27]) about when you would use ascription and quotes, in which it was agreed that a non-contentious item ascribed to an otherwise non-notable (but reliable) source did not need "according to foo" tacking on to it. Gavin didn't care for the non-copyvio, non-incorrectly quoted version [28] and proceeded to add [29] a write up of a press release on the Very Large Telescope,with completely unnecessary ascription to the Daily Mail hack who wrote it up, based on his argument about her extremely insightful statements. I removed the Mail staffer's name. Gavin has not edited an article to add content since. I'm of the opinion that he does not know how to do it, as he has made no attempt to clean up the mess at various articles where he left substantial copyvios. In fairness to Gavin, he did say that he had been looking forward to working through some of the issues that arose in the article Profession, (see User_talk:Gavin.collins#Profession) had Kww continued mentorship.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've renamed the two bullits, and tweak the wording of the 2nd. My feeling is that the phrase "lashing out" is a bit too much. Please feel free to revert if it's not an improvement. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As a quick comment, what is our target goal out of this? Are we seeking a block? a ban? an editing restriction? Also, I think for any ANI message, we can be short and sweet with links to here, the previous ANI report, and the Kww stuff to demonstrate this final dispute resolution path. If we are going for a ban, we may need more, but we're talking ANI - most there likely know who Gavin is, and simply a matter of reviewing the last few bits of information to make a decision on the desired course of action. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I support a full ban, and I think it's well justified. In light of the longstanding conduct issues, the pervasive copyright infringement, and the complete refusal to acknowledge that he's doing anything wrong or that there are other valid interpretations of guidelines and policies (not to mention that his interpretations are in some areas were demonstrated as objectively false because they compelled him to copyright infringement), there's no reason to believe that he will ever reform or "get it". As has been noted here recently, he was only unblocked after the copyright infringements were discovered because he promised to help clean them up, but he hasn't done so. So there's nothing for him to do here, and no possible benefit to keeping him around that would outweigh all the problems.

On top of all that... His net contributions to Wikipedia have been minimal. He's started only two articles in his three and a half years here according to these statistics (and 10 redirects). And I found these statistics pretty interesting; his policy-related edits dwarf his mainspace contributions. And I know from reviewing his edits to clean up the copyright infringements that most of his edits to articles in mainspace were just for tagging... Kind of makes one rethink whether the SPA label wasn't hyperbole; he seems to be here primarily to dictate policy language and enforce his view of it. He doesn't create much of anything (and most of what he did was copyright infringement), and he doesn't collaborate constructively to develop policy language or interpretations. So I say he should be gone and no one should waste any further time on him. postdlf (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a better way I could have said that, and... yeah, I've got nothing. BOZ (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The inclusionist side of my psyche says keep Gavin around for content work only. The practical side says ban him. If there was a way (and it would almost have to be voluntary) that Gavin would restrict his participation to 100% content (article and talk) and do so in a collegial, collaborative manner, I think WP would benefit. To do that, he would have to voluntarily forego any policy, guideline, deletion, etc. participation to include policy pronouncements related to content. He would have to behave and follow guidelines on all aspects of the encyclopedia just as we all do, copyrights included. He would have to acknowledge that his views on policy are not wanted, nor will they be tolerated in any discussion. He would have to give up all of his user rights. In other words, user:Gavin.collins would no longer be nor could he chose to be a self-appointed WP policeman. He would just be a pedestrian editor, hopefully looking both ways, before he steps off the curb. If this was the course of action we recommended, it would be up to Gavin to agree and acknowledge clearly and upfront, that should he chose to Jaywalk or enter areas of the encyclopedia where his presence has proven historically disruptive, he would be banned without discussion. My inclusionist side says this would be a good course of action. Whether it is practical, remains for Gavin to decide. Either way, I am in full support of a sound thrashing for Gavin.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't think he would understand what you are proposing. But he may surprise me. Do you want to suggest it to him? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the audit of the content work when we were clearing away copyvios shows there is little constructive there as well. The vast majority of the article edits (ca. 95%) consisted of adding clean-up and notability tags. Much of the remaining 5% were, as we now know, copyvios. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I gathered. And to allow him to continue editing at all, as under Mike Cline's proposal, when he shows no sign of 1) understanding fundamental policies, or 2) understanding or respecting when others tell him his interpretations are incorrect or contrary to consensus, means that others would have to waste their time continually policing him. Honestly, even if he were restricted purely to making article-space edits (and he complied with that), how can we trust that he would not continue to post copyright infringements? So while we have in the past banned editors from certain kinds of edits or certain namespaces (I was involved in a case within the past year involving an editor being banned chiefly from category-related edits), I don't see why it's appropriate here to let him edit anything at all. He can't be trusted, he doesn't respect anyone's views or complaints, and what he does contribute is too minimal to outweigh those problems. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I respect where you're coming from, but the inclusionist side of my psyche learned years ago that Gavin despises everything about the inclusionist side of my psyche... so he's not going to get any sympathy from there. ;) I understand that you want him to be more productive (we all do, I was seeing "if you see these problems why don't you help fix them" from RPG editors since 2007), but I fear that may be about as practical as asking fire to be cold or for fish to breathe air. Ask if he is interested, like Elen suggests, and we'll see what kind of response you get to that. If he can contribute productively to articles aside from adding tags and copyvios, then who knows, there may yet be hope... but color me more skeptical than idealistic at this point. BOZ (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

BOZ, Postdlf - I am with you. Trust me, my practical side agrees with you and my inclusionist pysche will not be tarnished one bit if it never has to deal with Gavin again. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I always feel like asking for an outright ban of a long-standing editor sounds vindictive (even if it's not). And I'd rather not give his few allies any ammunition to accuse us of bad faith. Moreover, I'd rather not let Gavin leave thinking he's some kind of WP:NOR martyr when he's actually advocating for WP:COPYVIOs. I'm comfortable with letting the admins decide what's right. We already said that warnings have not worked. Leave it open. Or if we must, let's take Mike Cline's approach and find a remedy that stops the bad behavior but keeps Gavin. I have a big problem with turning WP:AN/I into a lynching. But I have no problem putting an editor on a short leash, whether they choke themselves with it or learn to behave. (And for the record I would say the same thing if we were discussing a tendentious inclusionist, and hope everyone else would too.) Shooterwalker (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You can leave it open - I'm actually fine with that - but it won't take long until someone does call for his head, even if it's not one of us. And it will be hard for me to find myself disagreeing once I see that. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I've asked Gavin the question per Elen and BOZ's suggestion. [30] As per SW he now has the rope in his hands? --Mike Cline (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading the discussion here, it seems to me that we are, in some ways, discussing the very last sentence of the draft: "We see no other recourse but administrative action", with respect to whether or not to make it more specific. In my opinion, this becomes a question of whether we should better define "We"—perhaps we should change "We see" to "The consensus of the most recent RfC/U is that there is"—and whether we should be more specific about "administrative action"—such as "administrative action, possibly including a ban, the details of which are to be determined here", where "here" refers to AN/I. Summary:

"We see no other recourse but administrative action." becomes:

"The consensus of the most recent RfC/U is that there is no other recourse but administrative action, possibly including a ban, the details of which are to be determined here."

I think it might help to spell those things out in these ways, but I'm not sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea; it brings up the idea of a ban upfront, but still leaves the subject open for discussion and alternatives. BOZ (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think User:Tryptofish's wording is good, and I think leaving it open is the right thing to do, given that most all of would be considered involved to a significant degree. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I might say "partial or full ban". My goal is to show that we're not trying to get rid of Gavin but stop him from behaving badly if it's possible. But at this point, I know people don't really have the stomach for process and probably just want to get rid of him. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that gets covered by the part about to be determined here? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

At this point my question is: is the draft too long? (I don't know the answer.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's actually a fair summary for the ANI. I would add two more pieces of evidences, that being editors that have stated they have retired or left an area well alone because of Gavin's involvement. Hiding would be one, I'm sure there are others. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Might also mention with that that some of us avoid discussions in which he's engaged, I know I avoided a couple of them after the discussions over segmented titles. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe - I mean, I've pretty much completely avoided interacting with him altogether since RfC2 two years ago - but that's more of a "personal testimony" thing, unless you just want a "people tend to avoid him rather than deal with him" sort of clause. BOZ (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think we should go there only if there are clear diffs showing something specific. Otherwise, it will seem too much like innuendo. If anything, we are at the point where less will be more. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Good points, I think you're both right upon reflection. This will be interesting, but not in a fun way. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that these are the main issues:

1. Gavin is incapable of improving the mainspace (because of his COPYVIO/NOR issues).
2. Gavin is disruptive outside of the mainspace (because of his COMPETENCE failure as it relates to CONSENSUS [not vandalism/bad faith] issues).

Consequently, a long-term full ban (e.g., zero editing of any kind on en.wiki for one year, or indef) is IMO the appropriate solution, and we should directly and plainly ask for that. Please don't put the people at AN (and NB that it's WP:AN, not WP:AN/I that we're going to) in the awkward position of trying to guess what the dozen editors most familiar with the problem recommend.

And -- if you don't support a long-term complete ban, then please give me some verifiable evidence to support your belief that Gavin is likely to engage strictly in helpful, non-pointy, non-disruptive, non-copyvio edits in the main namespace that don't relate to the well-identified bugaboos (notability, article titles, copyright violations, original research, consensus, etc.). My mind's open on the subject, but I haven't seen any reason to think that it's going to happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Second. It's really absurd to do anything else at this point, and requesting anything short of a full ban just undercuts the seriousness of the problems. postdlf (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it was me who wrongly referred to AN/I; I stand corrected, thanks. Actually, I would also favor a complete ban, in discussion at AN, and I too have an open mind as to how we should frame this here. As I see it, it's a matter of strategy, how best to make the case at AN, where there definitely will be defenders who say this ban request is unfair. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There were some who believed that he shouldn't be banned for his policy discussion related behavior. Not a consensus, not a majority, but some. I was leaning towards topic bans rather than a complete ban.

But then the copyright infringement came to light...which all flowed directly from his skewed unilateral interpretation of policy, which he stubbornly adheres to no matter what anyone says to him, all of which undercuts any claim that he's a valuable contributor, or (in my view) that he has anything valuable to contribute to policy discussions given how he is objectively wrong in his understanding. An understanding that appears to have self-generated in a vacuum given that he ignores what anyone else says about...anything. If it turns out that there is not a consensus at WP:AN that he should be completely banned, we can then determine what measure short of that is appropriate. Hell, I think it would work for Sjakkalle just to "un-unblock" him given what he's said since, his complete failure to constructively undertake the mentoring process, and his failure to do anything to atone for and address the infringement. He's proven that he deserved to be blocked and that the unblocking was an undeserved mercy. postdlf (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm swung back your way once again. Let's ask for the ban, and if the community wants to pussyfoot around him again and do less than that, then it's on them if any further trouble arises from him. I think we have enough for a ban, and that's what we should be asking for, and this time I think there will be enough support for it to stick. BOZ (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just done some copyediting to the proposal. (Feel free to make further improvements.)

Additionally, I am proposing that we set this up so that we make the above statement, and then let editors individually sign their agreement/support for a long-term ban (with any very brief comment they might choose to add, e.g., "For one year"). My thought here is that if you believe that a ban is necessary, then you can (and should) say so, but if you don't, then it won't be represented as "absolutely everyone at the RFC totally agrees". Does this sound like a good idea to all of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fair. And those looking for a less harsh ban, but a ban of some sort all the same, have the opportunity to spell that out as well. BOZ (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable approach that I will support. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair to call for a full ban, allowing the ANI discussion to determine if there is a weaker option. I wouldn't suggest having to put a list of signees to it, a simple pointer to this talk section would be sufficient to show support. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the "your name here" spot would be more for people in the AN thread who haven't mosey on over here just yet. BOZ (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I might be the only one here who isn't into a full ban. It's not because I have a genuine belief that Gavin will improve at this point. It's more of an "assume good faith" belief as a procedural matter. Like, put him on serious parole with a serious leash and put the burden on him to prove that he can reform... or have him prove once and for all that he's unfit for Wikipedia. But if I'm the only one who is in favor of that approach, then let the record show that it's unanimous that he should just be indef blocked for a year. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You say that, "It's not because I have a genuine belief that Gavin will improve at this point." For Gavin to improve Gavin would have to get worse. Most of you are operating in an Orwellian universe in which principled and disciplined and polite/courteous editors with no axe to grind, but who just want Wikipedia to be upright and anchored in sources is an enemy that must be silenced. What do you think of all the editors that are not participating in this witch hunt? Do you think everyone else just doesn't recognize the "threat" the Gavins pose? Or are they just not aware of this petty squabble? Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of it, although I'm not going to scream loudly against it. I was disappointed that I couldn't get Gavin to consider the role his own behaviour plays, but I think a severe editing restriction would be enough to get him to start thinking that way. A complete block seems excessive.—Kww(talk) 23:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not exactly recommending it, we could have sections: "These editors recommend a complete ban", followed by "These optimistic editors recommend severe editing restrictions: (a, b, c, d -- whatever you want)". Alternatively, you could simply decline to sign the stronger recommendation.

And, of course, Bus stop is invited to add a third section, explaining why Gavin's persistent copyright violations in the name of 'no original research' benefit the project and should be encouraged. I don't, however, expect anyone at AN to buy any such argument. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm more of the opinion that we should leave off such a section, and just take it to AN and see what reaction the admins there have. Perhaps there will be lengthy discussions, perhaps not. In any case, there will be an opportunity to participate in discussions there. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn, and I'm glad that some editors have shown up here to argue against a ban. Those of us who have been discussing this RfC/U need to realize that there will be serious arguments at AN against a ban. For that reason, we should drop the signature business at this step, and let it play out at AN. Furthermore, it was wrong to change the last sentence to draw a line in the sand and ask outright for a ban, and then, in effect, dare others to oppose it. Some will oppose it, and the dare will backfire. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I see disagreements with a ban. I do not yet see serious arguments against a ban. postdlf (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I could see myself arguing against a ban if Gavin responded in a positive fashion to the upcoming discussion. I think we need to keep in mind that this is what seems to me (with my admittedly limited experience here) an unusual circumstance given Gavin's refusal to participate. How things turn out will and should have much to do with whether or how he chooses to respond. I am not hopeful about his potential for change, but open to being pleasantly surprised. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors like Bus Stop raise a perspective that's going to get some traction. There's a consensus on the problem. Let's not squander that by overreaching on the solution. I have a hope in practice that Gavin will change, but even in theory I think everyone deserves one last chance. If you truly believe he is beyond reform, then there's little harm in putting that to a carefully monitored test. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on that aspect. We've been very careful to address the fact that Gavin can hold an opinion, even one that may align in close proximity to policy, but that it is something that repeated consensus has determined cannot be incorporated. This can happen to any editor. It is behavioral. Period. Bus stop's arguments are "But Gavin's position is right and we are trying to shut him down" which is ignoring behavioral problems. We've also given Gavin at least three opportunities in large open forums to explain himself and he's refused to do so because of his opinions. It's sort of the reverse of a boy who cried wolf, in that if you chose not to participate, only arguing for yourself at what is considered the very last opportunity, few are going to consider the arguments you make in your defense. Gavin should still be given a speaking op at ANI, of course, but realistically he's had plenty of chances to speak up and instead considers them personal attacks and attempts to disrupt the system. That I think is the core here: we have a reasonable expectation that editors when choosing to participate in WP will abide by the proper decorum and procedures that we have in place to make sure the community runs smoothly, and Gavin has clearly outright rejected that, and without very convincing evidence he is willing to conform to that decorum (which again, entirely different from content or inclusion policy), its very hard to see him being a contributing editor, thus why a block and/or ban is reasonable to consider. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be pointed about this, Shooterwalker, but didn't we already do the "last chance" thing? Didn't you, personally, in fact use words like "unambiguous way to put Gavin on notice" at AN last month? Are you now arguing for a really-really-really-really last chance, as opposed to last month's "last chance" that you apparently now want to re-interpret as the next-to-last chance? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Last chance before a serious remedy. Not last chance before being ejected from Wikipedia entirely. But at this point I don't really care what happens to Gavin. But there's a risk of pushback if people overreach. As a matter of process, you might be better off asking for a short leash than asking for a noose. If he's as bad as you believe he is, it will lead to the same result, but will have a lot more support. And nothing happens on Wikipedia without consensus. Why risk screwing this up? To satisfy the angriest and most impatient? Like I said... I'm not going to stand in the way. But don't pop a blood vessel if it backfires. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have a concept of "last chance"? My impression is that it's more of "this is your last chance before we do something, after which, some period of time will elapse, and then if you come back and make a reasonable argument that you'll do better, we're more than likely to give you a chance to do so, if on a limited basis". Also, the goal here isn't to ban Gavin, the goal is to find some way to prevent the disruption he tends to cause. Some think a ban is the only way to achieve that, some do not, and I think a good number of us just aren't sure what will work. We are not unanimous in this discussion as to the best solution, and it is likely in the next step at AN there will be less consensus, at least initially, than we have here and now. And I have to say, like Shooterwalker, I do not care much what happens--if Gavin is given a short leash, that fine, for in some sense that puts the responsibility for seeing that he stays on it to those who gave it to him. And we also do not know that someone won't come up with some brilliant alternative to the ideas we have discussed. So I think the best thing to do is take what we have now, present it, and see how the discussion unfolds. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree especially with your last sentence there. We could debate the finer points into eternity. The way I see it, there are only two times you want to ban someone: when they are completely irredemable, and then you've tried everything you can think of and you just don't know what else to do. Here, we are somewhere in between those. We are saying to the community "OK, we've got to do something about him (we could ban him), what do you think?" Rather than daring the community to ban him, I think we are challenging the community to come up with another solution that would actually, practically, work this time, because banning is the only other thing we've got. So far, nothing proposed with any seriousness has worked. Kww as mentor was indeed fruitless, though not for his lack of trying. Gavin's promise to help clean up his copyvio mess led to absolutely nothing with others did all the work. My idea on the last AN thread got some consensus, but apparently no one actually wanted to implement it. So then we're left with "OK, what do we do?" and the only thing we can come up with is the harshest measure. We tell the community "If you don't like that, then do you have any better ideas?" If the community is ready to ban him, then so be it. Sure, some will argue against doing much of anything with him, but I think those opinions will carry less weight with everything that has transpired in the last month or so. If the community wants to keep holding his hand some more, then they can eat whatever that will bring and hopefully we won't just be back at RFCU4 or ArbCom in 2011. If someone can actually come up with some other sort of workable solution, then praise the Lord, it's a miracle. Let's get on with it, already. BOZ (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

BOZ—you say, "Gavin's promise to help clean up his copyvio mess led to absolutely nothing with others did all the work." So what? We are volunteers here. Was he on "work detail"? We all do what we can. Wikipedia works best when its participants understand themselves in a symbiotic relationship with other individuals. That isn't some pollyannaish thought. It is fact. And it works both ways—when people drag someone down they do so in concert with others. I am not surprised Gavin does not participate in this. I think it is the only intelligent thing to do. You folks (some of you) harassed him for many months in other forums. You would have hassled him here as well. What would he have accomplished? He would have "defended" himself? No—he would have participated in a mud wrestling match. I think he did the right thing by refusing enter this fray. I think so many of you bear fault for what you are trying to pin on Gavin. You harassed him. I saw it. You outnumbered him, pummeled him with questions that I think were constantly designed to derail his attempts to clarify the issues surrounding the application of policy in ever new areas. I know because I tried to enter those discussions and found the same technique applied to me. Now you are blaming him for not fleeing in frustration. Part of the blame resides with those of you who made those discussions so unproductive. Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So what? He was unblocked on the condition that he would help clean up the mess he made with the copyvio situation. He agreed to do this, and he did absolutely nothing to help. He was unblocked by an administrator in good faith, for a promise he did not keep. BOZ (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think such an arrangement is inconsistent with the type of project this is: volunteers can't be required or expected to perform work or any other activity. I don't know the details, and I doubt if it is a big deal, but I take exception to you pinning yet more blame on Gavin—this time for not doing something that falls under the general heading of a chore to be done. Bus stop (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple. The admin who unblocked him told him that he would have to agree to help clean up the copyvios if he wanted to be unblocked. He agreed to help, and the admin unblocked him. I can dig out the diffs, if that will please you. Is it acceptable to promise to do something in order to get something in exchange, and then when you get what was promised to you, to not fulfill your end of the bargain? It definitely was a big deal; in other words, if he he not agreed to help, he would have remained blocked - so is it enough to simply agree to help, but irrelevant whether you actually keep your word? I blame him for making a promise and then making no effort to stick to it. BOZ (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) One way of looking at it is that people hounded Gavin. Another way of looking at it is that Gavin went out of his way to repeatedly interject the same opinions over and over, even when others had already expressed disagreement and were trying to move on. Gavin was outnumbered because few (often none) agreed with him, yet that didn't stop him from continuing to insist he was right (a consensus of one) without advancing his argument or really responding to what anyone else said to him. And that every time Gavin repeated himself, people tried to point out in different ways why they disagreed, or to ask pointed questions to better understand why Gavin was claiming what he was and what the consequences were, all in hopes that some mutual understanding would be reached. (Hopes, I said.) I just don't see anything to persuade me that your characterization of events is correct or even plausible.

Apart from that, what responsibility do you think Gavin should have for his multiple copyright infringements? What do you think those many copyright infringements say about him as a contributor, and about his understanding of policy? What do you say about the failure of his mentorship with Kww? Can you offer any concrete specifics as to why Gavin should not be banned for all of the above? postdlf (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Postdlf—He was persistent. I see that as a characteristic of idealism. This is a project that has idealism at its heart. You say, "Gavin went out of his way to repeatedly interject the same opinions over and over, even when others had already expressed disagreement and were trying to move on." I would characterize what I think you are referring to differently. The general forum in which these ideas were batted about was a forum intent upon running roughshod over sourcing requirements. Gavin stood by and said you can't do that, and he was 100% right, in my opinion. I am a staunch believer in the benefit of close adherence to sources. There is a problematic idea heard even in the discussions above—that Wiki is a completely free project, where consensus is all that matters. This is not true—not if you value quality in the product we produce. Human nature is a major factor here. It cannot be overlooked. The only check upon the expression of personal opinion is the requirement that sources be closely adhered to. Without that discipline this project deteriorates.

I can't respond to copyright violations. I'm unfamiliar with it. We are all human. If Gavin erred in that department then that is an issue, but I'm neither accepting or rejecting it.

I think the failure of mentorship with Kww is an overhang of the previous problem, referred to in my first paragraph. Animosity builds up and it can take time to disappear. I don't know Kww, but perhaps he could have been more patient. This is an incident about ideas. We are just the human players in a drama involving very current and cutting edge ideas. This encyclopedia wasn't tried before—it is being tried now (the past 8 years, I think) for the first time. If Gavin helped you all to think about the underlying issues in some of the topics discussed—you should thank him for it. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the big reasons I tried mentoring Gavin was that there is no animosity between us. Philosophically, I think you would be hard put to find an admin that is more philosophically aligned with Gavin than myself: I'm a stickler for sources, opposed to overuse of primary sources, and would delete 90% of the lists on Wikipedia if I was given free reign for much the same reasons that Gavin argues. I'm patient, too. I abandoned my efforts because Gavin would not answer questions I asked. You can't mentor someone that doesn't respond to questioning.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Two things here. First, you mention about the volunteer and forcing Gavin to do things. WP is an open volunteer community, but until there's some matter of decorum and process for handling disputes, it would descend into chaos. Hence, while working on WP is voluntary, we do expect editors to follow that decorum, and use administrative actions to enforce the extreme cases and in other cases, place requirements and restrictions on editors to help resolve the problem. In this case, Gavin was found of blatent copyright violations, which is normally enforced with a block (or ban if serious), or by requiring that person to help engaging in correcting that action. That's part of the decorum of WP - we cannot take copyvios, so you are expected to avoid them or clean them up, and if you don't you get blocked. That has been a community decided action for handling the problem. As long as you are editing within the normal decorum, the project is still voluntary.

Secondly, Gavin does not seem to understand how important consensus building is towards WP's growth. One is free to suggest a new idea or even call for a return to an old approach, and attempt to gain consensus for this. Consensus may accept the idea, reject it, or talk about it more and make a modified version of it. In that regard, Gavin is completely fine in suggesting what he did. But when one is suggesting an idea that is contrary to existing consensus or that is not accepted by consensus, they should be prepared to explain why consensus should change to meet it if asked (as I would expect in any similar real-life situation), and they should be prepared to drop the idea if it is clearly is not gaining traction. Failure to do either is what Gavin's problem was, and that wears down editors and the discussion, and that's a tactic that consensus agrees is not productive or helpful. Even if Gavin's idea would have improved WP and boosted WP's verifiability to third parties or other similar benefits, if the consensus does not want to move in that direction, it will not move in that direction short of a Foundation mandate. These types of proposals happen all the time (see WP:PEREN) and consensus continues to reject them. There may be a time where Gavin's idea is closer to the changing consensus , but clearly not now. His failure to understand when to step away and/or adapt and work towards the larger consensus is the heart of this matter. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Motion to move Incident Report to AN

Based on the above discussion and Gavin's utter refusal to weighin on this, it is my recommendation that the incident report, as currently written be moved to WP:AN today! --Mike Cline (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - let's do it. BOZ (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support --MASEM (t) 14:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support postdlf (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support WP has been bad at enforcing WP:IDHT, because these editors are often celebrated as principled martyrs by their ideological allies. Let's present the problem and keep an open mind. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support --KrebMarkt (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely. The most recent arguments taking place here should, instead, be taking place there. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Nuujinn (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The incident report as drafted above has been posted to WP:AN here --Mike Cline (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have closed this discussion as all subsequent discussion on these issues should take place at the current WP:AN request. Thanks for everyone's rationale discourse. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.