Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Gavin Alert (continued...)

Dan Willis

The Dan Willis discussion just exploded again. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Dan Willis dispute has been resolved. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
For now, at least? ;) Only to be replaced by numerous others... BOZ (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Umm... not just for now. Another person came in and, point by point, explained why Gavin's viewpoint was valid, and I agree. I had just needed a real go-through of all of the sources so that I could understand the opposing view. So, although logically I think that Dan Willis is notable, according to WP guidelines I now understand why he isn't. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, from a purely detached viewpoint (and having spent much time in WP:AFD) I can definitely understand Gavin's perspective. It is just an unfortunate fact that D&D (and other RPGs) don't get a lot of independent coverage.—RJH (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about a living person in the Dan Willis article. I understand, but don't agree with, his point of view on some D&D articles, but I don't understand his PoV with Dan Willis. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The case for notability seems a little marginal, at least at present. If he was a teacher I don't think he'd meet the average professor test used at AfD. It's possible he may become more notable in the future, but that's neither here nor there.—RJH (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


For whatever it's worth, you may wish to note this discussion. (Scroll down.) - jc37 01:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Kermit the Frog is not a fictional character? What? O.o shadzar-talk 03:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth

For all parties involved (or not involved for that matter) I'd suggest reading (in no particular order, and with no insult, slur, or otherwise intended for any editor here, there, or elsewhere) this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Amusing because it's all true. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons deities

The entire collection of the Dungeons & Dragons deities articles, including all the lists, articles and categories really need an overhaul. Most of the articles are ripe for AfD I am afraid and most, and lets be honest here, don't really need a page. I am going through all the pages here over the next few days with the goal in mind of making them easier to read, notable and combine where I can. If anyone has an opinion or a wish for thses pages, please mention it here. I am not sure what my ultimate timeline will be but I would like to have something in place in the next few weeks. Web Warlock (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I was working on them for a time (you can see the results in Elf deities, Dragon deities, Goblinoid deities, Dwarf deities, Orc deities, Halfling deities, Gnome deities, and Giant deities), but I've taken a break because A) the work was starting to get a little tedious, and B)I was working on the new D&D main page project, not to mention that C) Gavin came back. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I noticed. In fact it was the work you did on the various sub-races that got me thinking of combining some of the others. Maybe a table like approach like what BOZ is doing for the all the monsters.Web Warlock (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe... or maybe organizing them by setting, alignment, or something similar so that we can keep the full descriptions (that's why I did it that way with the demihuman and monstrous deities; a list wouldn't be able to contain nearly that much information). -Drilnoth (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I can live with that. :) I prefer to see everything get its own page, but that's in a perfect world. In the interests of preserving information, combining the weaker ones into a more cohesive whole is probably the only workable solution. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it would be nice to have everything have its own page, but I think that merging, then working on adding references and expanding the sections, then splitting them back out would make sense. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I am just one voice, and let me preface with saying again, I don't really like the game 4th edition to play, and don't like what it does to us here working on this project either. Just remember that "setting specific" died with 4th edition as the material is all made interchangeable now, so any article will need to represent that in some way without bias towards older edition. So splitting by setting shouldn't be a problem so long as each split group of gods states which are in 4th, and that the cosmology of 4th does not really separate even settings deities. (or we could all just ignore 4th edition and act like it never existed for the purpose of wikipedia? didn't think anyone would buy that one.) shadzar-talk 15:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Shadzar, I'd be happy to just ignore 4th edition all together. ;) -Drilnoth (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(de-indent) At the moment I have no particular plan other than seeing that these articles are going to be ripe for someone to start spamming tags all over them. I am not in favor of alingment, since that changes between editions (see Grumush. I am not in favor of editions, since that spans too much territory (all those 2nd ed FR gods), in the end it seems published settings (which I can point to for "real-worldlieness") might be the best bet. The issue of course becomes when do D&D gods end and Greyhawk god begin? I say keep D&D gods generic with information about gods in-general, and then point to the lists of campaign specific gods. Web Warlock (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do would be to maybe have the 3E-core gods separate somehow, and the Greyhawk gods on their own page with a link to the 3E-core page. For example, on the Greyhawk page, we would see a link to the 3E page for Cuthbert and Boccob, or whatever. BOZ (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This came up a while ago. As far as I'm concerned the entire lot should be rolled into list of Dungeons & Dragons deities right now and spun out only if sufficient secondary sources are found which deal with the subject from a real-world point of view. There is basically no material at all in Elf deities of this type, for instance. I appreciate that ~10 articles full of fancruft is better than ~80, but I'd rather have one article with a potential for improvement to GA/FA than lots which don't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree. Still doing a lot of reading now. Web Warlock (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps out of naivety I have to ask: what is the purpose of this list? Right now it mainly looks like a series of redirects to other pages, which may or may not survive the notability culling process. Is the goal just to provide a set of names? Wouldn't it be of interest to instead to describe the pantheons and each of the deity's place within? I.e. what the deity's alliances and conflicts are; which are good or evil. &c.—RJH (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
We plan to have more complete information, more like what's in Elf deities. Right now, there's a lot of stuff to work on and that isn't necessarily the highest thing on the project's list, but whatever we do it will not just be a list of names. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - a list of names has a very dubious encylopedic value. BOZ (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Great, thank you. It might also make sense to expand the pantheon information in the campaign setting pages (where they meet notability requirements), such as the Faerûnian pantheon on the Faerûn article.—RJH (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
That's one idea. I was also going to continue adding the publication history section to FR & GH deity articles as well, when I find the time. :) BOZ (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Greyhawk articles

Hey there. I found a whole bunch of articles that had the {{WikiProject Greyhawk}} template, but not the {{D&D}} template. I started adding the D&D template to them yesterday, and I'm going to continue now, just FYI. (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Whew! All done... for now. Expect more soon (but not tonight)! (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Cool, added them all to the watchlist. BOZ (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Template, take 3

I, personally, have come to the conclusion that a single giant template would be better than two. Does anyone think that it still needs some work before use? Should we scrap the idea altogether? Here's what I have right now:

User:Drilnoth/D&D Navbox template idea

-Drilnoth (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Would it be wrong to have three different templates? The two smaller ones you've created for those it would best apply to, and the larger one for topics with a broader range? Otherwise, I'm fine with the larger template for all articles - for one thing, when collapsed it's still a lot smaller than most of the templates we have floating around now. BOZ (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that it would make the navbox situation more confusing to have two or three templates than what we already have, because each template would cover a wide range, not include some major topics, and not be associated specifically with the article in question. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Them I'm fine with one big'un. :) BOZ (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay; I'll just tinker with it a little, create a page in the Template namespace for it, and start using it in articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Done! Check out {{D&D navbox}}. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the templates section of the project page. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way to do a tabbed pane template?—RJH (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure quite what you mean by that; there is some documentation which might be what you're looking for at the bottom of the template description, but if its not just let me know. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I meant something like the tabs along the top of this wikipedia view (or like a tabbed browser or dialog) with a tab for each subject and the contents underneath. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any example of that implemented in a wikipedia template, so perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part.—RJH (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha; I'll see if I can figure something out. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

DDM major news update

Today WotC annoucned the plans to allow a fan group to take over the DDM skirmish game in order to keep it alive. I have added a small bit of information to the Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game article, and a link to the news from the WotC site, but someone better suited may want to fix it up to be proper for the encyclopedia, as this is a major step from any game company to give the fans control of ANY of their games, and for such a major industry leader, and one of the industry leading games as well, this deserves some special attention. shadzar-talk 21:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll update the minis game page sometime in the next few days unless someone else gets to it first! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Baldur's Gate articles

Just to let everyone know, someones been going through Baldur's Gate (series) and Minsc and removing quite a bit of content because of poor citations and/or being in-universe. I'm not sure if anyone here might want to take a look or not (the video games are really outside my gaming knowledge, so I don't want to mess with them). -Drilnoth (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin's reverting {{importance}} tags.

And making them into {{notability}} tags again. This needs to stop. I think that we should give him a warning and then either get a RfM or file a more formal complaint. Opinions? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. He's married to the {{notability}} template; time for a divorce. BOZ (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Let's make sure that the warning is right before giving it to him. I've created a subpage here where I'll soon put a draft version of a warning, and then other people (except Gavin!) can tinker with it until it looks good. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Done with my draft. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we get that signed like a petition, too? I don't have time to study it for the next couple of hours or so, but you better believe I will. BOZ (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I'll add something to it. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I made a few minor changes. How about a mention of his frequent assuming bad faith, and accusations of COI or vandalism? It's best to be as explicit as possible, preferrably with examples, since he usually denies any accusations laid against him, and in fact often tries to turn it back around on other people. Also he does not seem to accept compromise. No need to mention deletions, since he hasn't done any since he came back to haunt us. BOZ (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I've just added two more points to the draft. And regarding deletions; the {{notability}} tag will call for deletion; it just won't happen as quickly. Therefore, he is still nominating articles for deletion, just in a different way. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, although I think those two points could probably be shortened and maybe even be merged into one; let's face, it Gavin is probably not in the least bit bothered about the prospects of a D&D article being deleted. I'll have a look at that. BOZ (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
He probably wouldn't, but it will be a valid argument if a formal complaint is needed, and having told him will make that point stronger. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that: If it comes down to being a formal complaint, I think that those are both valid but distinct points which should be considered. Having told him about those points before a formal complaint will make their impact on the complaint's results stronger because he would have seen them and not stopped afterwards. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, those were some good updates you made. It looks like I managed to forget an "appears to" (I tried to write from an "this is what we think, but it may not be true" point of view, but that's difficult). Thanks for fixing it. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I've just remembered a few more reasons which I hadn't included earlier; for now I need to take a short break and get back to Real Life, so I'll add them in a few hours from now. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. If you don't mind too much, I'd also like to take a stab at reorganizing it... at present, it rambles a bit, but some reordering might bring more focus. BOZ (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Go right ahead. It's a draft for everyone to edit. Actually, I was just going to add a few more points and add more examples; maybe you should reformat it after I'm done. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

-removed indent-Much better! I was just about to start finding examples, but there's just too much to look through and it's all just him changing around tags, defending illogical tags, and turning people's comments back around on them. I can't stand it. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I figured it made sense to put your last points first, since they seem to get to the heart of the issue, so why not go for that right away? I'll leave it alone for awhile; go ahead and do what you gotta do. :) BOZ (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The only problem with not providing examples is that he'll probably demand that you do so, or that we're simply just making things up about him. He plays the wounded heart so well - you should have seen how he first reacted when he realized we were bringing up the RFM... I believe he used the term lynch mob. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. Well, any examples you can find will help; I wasn't around before the RfM so you probably know more about what was going on. I'll see what I can do, too. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No prob - I wish we had done that some time ago. It may not be necessary, but it will probably become a point of contention. Let's not spend a ton of time on that, but if we spot something it needs to be added. For example, those two or three articles where he added the notability template today where there was already an importance template would be a good idea. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest also looking through his contributions on WT:NOT, WT:FICT, and WT:N in regards to his absoluteness stance on fiction and notability - even though this is geared towards D&D, his general stance tends to lead to little useful discussion e.g. this discussion on lists of fictional animals. I certainly appreciate that he has an opinion of what he thinks WP should be like wrt to fiction, but he's unmovable in trying to achieve consensus. --MASEM 19:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of that actually, but not sure if we needed to bring it up. Masem in particular has been a target of Gavin's ire on the notability talk pages. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
(EC) and also I would review the discussion from the Ep&Char2 arbcom case and identify the recommendations in general for editors to be aware of. Gavin wasn't a listed party, but the fait accompli arguments reasonable apply here. --MASEM 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I might have been a bit out of line in that list of fictional animals discussion, but was frustrated about what you mention his concrete stance in regards to Kermit the Frog in particular. :( shadzar-talk 20:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added some examples, with more to come. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Something you may not have ever seen Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins shadzar-talk 20:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I've seen that and will add it to the examples shortly. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The RFM should provide a number of leads as well, just as the RFC. BOZ (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Please be aware that activities in formal mediation should not be used as evidence in conduct complaints. MedCom cases may be pointed to as indications that dispute resolution was attempted and the outcome may be discussed, but please be aware that the mediation policy prohibits the use of communications during mediation "as evidence in other dispute resolution or similar discussions, including (but not limited to) arbitration and user conduct requests for comment". Vassyana (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - that's important to remember. Actually, there was very little inside the actual RFM case that would be useful here; the parts that would be useful are the links to prior debates. I should have been more specific, but that's what I was looking for. :) BOZ (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
And thanks for the advice to us on your talk page. BOZ (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

-removed indent-I'll take look at that, too. The RFC only has a few usable examples, because that was when he being disruptive to WikiProject Role-playing games; we can only use D&D examples for this complaint. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the RFC was started when he was focusing on all RPG articles; it was continued for some time, and comments were being added long after he really got going on D&D. BOZ (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Anyway, why don't you take a look at the draft; there's 13 or so very appropriate examples, and more can be added. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
It's an excellent start. I know I've said it before, but good work. ;) I'll invite a few others to come and comment. BOZ (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
User_talk:Gavin.collins/Archive_5 Don't forget to check out all 80 or so examples form this page to see which are D&D related as well the rest of his archived talk pages. I made a small edit in your draft so it didn't seem to sound like some sort of threat. shadzar-talk 21:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference tip and the modification. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Gavin's just tagged a few more articles, and has also asked why {{importance}} is better than {{notability}} at Talk:Die Vecna Die!. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the question is why am I reverting importance tags, its why are you changing the notability tags to importance when there is no evidence that this topic Die Vecna Die! is notable at all. I think replacing the notability templates is a waste of time, and questionable if you don't offer any evidence of notability. in all honesty, I think the notability template is reasonably justified. The only reason I can think of for their removal is athe addition of reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be less of a waste of time if you just used the {{importance}} tag in the first place. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As to how it is notable, a google search (yes, that's not a valid excuse. Just bear with me) for "Die, Vecna, Die!" came up with about 22,900 results. Surely you understand that the topic, then, IS NOTABLE, even if the article does not demonstrate its notability. Therefore, the {{importance}} tag is more appropriate. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point that that first, a Google "search" is not a valid excuse. Google picks up hits, not context. If you don't know the context then you don't really have an idea of whether or not it supports the idea of notability. Second, when you don't use quotation marks (like I assume you didn't Given my quick search) Google will search for every individual word listed. That means that instead of searching for "Die, Vecna, Die!" it will search for that, plus "Die", "Vecna", "Die Vecna", and "Vecna Die", because when you are vague about your search it exhausts all options. When you do search for just that phrase, it only comes up with 430+ hits - hardly the 22,000 you got initially. Also, when you do a web search you got the junk of the intervet. That means you get fansites and other unreliable sources. Now, when you do a Google News search (like this one) or a Google Scholar search (like this one - quick note, the single scholar source indicates that it didn't locate the exact phrase, so that doesn't even count) or finally a Google Book source (like this one), you get a better understanding of what might be notable. If you want to argue that Google searches show notability, then I would argue that they can also show lack of notability (and my 4 searches through web, news, scholar and books would suggest that Die Vecna Die isn't that notable). Now, let me explain why searching is not a valid excuse. Google doesn't show everything, and depend on where you are searching from will depend on what you find. If I'm using a German search engine, I might actually find more information than using one located in North America (yes, it does actually make a difference). Thus, since Google searches are not valid evidence of notability (though, it does help you get pointed in the right direction, sort of like how IMDb can help point you in the right direction but isn't a reliable source that we can or should use), one cannot definitely say that having a lot of hits, or having no hits, is proof that a page should or should not exist. 16:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I not saying is non-notable topic (which can't be provien), I am just saying that there is no evidence in the form of reliable secondary sources cited in the article to show that it is. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Then if people are reverting your tags, maybe you should go back through them and put the correct tag on for a change, rather than reverting the removal of notability since you acknowledge the notability tag was incorrect when you put it on the article. ALSO the importance tag, when read by someone viewing the article, actually includes and states the notability of the article is in question, but doesn't have that threat that makes it seem like the person including the tag is trying to get the article deleted. shadzar-talk 22:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • From the {{importance}} template documentation: "Use this template when the subject probably is notable enough, but the article fails to establish notability." Are you stating that the tag does not mention "sourcing" because it doesn't actually have the word "sourcing" in it? You know that "establish notability" and "sourcing" are pretty much the same thing, right? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I support this effort as Gavin Collins has done absolutely no good, and refuses to use the {{importance}} tag instead of the {{notability}} tag despite many, many explanations of why this is the better option. He does not seem to understand that Wikipedia is not on a timeline, and that sufficient time must be given to make the requested corrections. He has been told multiple times that the number of people working on those articles is very small, yet he persists in tagging hundreds of articles knowing there is no way those involved in working on the articles have any possible chance to address the issues raised before he or someone else tags them for deletion. He has shown almost nothing but bad faith in his time here, and I have yet to find a productive edit he has made. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Gavin, a few points. Firstly, many of the articles you have tagged with {{notability}} also have {{primarysources}}. A combination of {{importance}} and {{primarysources}} should convey the same message to readers as the {{notability}} tag itself. Secondly, I think that we should try to come to an agreement without active conflict, so I have a proposal: You stop tagging articles while the WikiProject and yourself discuss the issue more peacefully in a user subpage. That way, there are not active edits being made which aggravate the D&D group and which will only make them fight more strongly, and it may give us a chance to come to a consensus more easily than having discussion on ten different talk pages does. In this discussion, I would hope that all participants act civily and try their best to understand the other side's point of view. Neither side should adamantly defend their position; instead we could work together to come up with a solution that is suitable for both yourself and the project. Gavin, BOZ, Web Warlock, Nihonjoe, Shadar, everyone else, what do you think? -Drilnoth (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Although we've been through this before on the RFM (and came back to where we are now as soon as the RFM was closed), I've always been a pessimistic optimist. ;) Sure, I'll try that if Gavin is willing to do so. BOZ (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Great; I'm hoping that perhaps, without RFM pressure, the discussion might go a little better. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry...did Gavin really argue that Kermit the Frog was not a fictional character? Wow. So...according to the archives on Gavin's user page (actually very interesting reading, if you're looking for good material for the draft I'd look at these frustrating discussions: [1][2][3][4][5]), there seem to have been multiple attempts to get Gavin to move on and stop editing D&D-related articles (up to and including an RfM). Unfortunately, a few editors (especially Grawp and his puppets) set about on a campaign of harassment, which seemed to steel Gavin's resolve (stiff upper lip, perhaps?) to continue to focus his attention on tagging RPG-related articles. It looks like the community consensus is that Gavin's edits are not helpful, and unwanted. Certainly, it appears that no one in the D&D WikiProject wants Gavin's assistance. Other than working on the kender article, Gavin has added absolutely no content to D&D related articles (even those that are notable). I honestly don't know why Gavin continues on this crusade, but I think we can all agree that all D&D project members want him to go away. Anyhow, best of luck with this. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Baah, I second the D&D WIki not wanting or needing his "help." His history prevents me from honestly assuming good faith. His edits are neither wanted nor immprove the articles he's editting, though if not for the latter I could overlook the former. As it is however, I have to conclude that he has some sort of negative bias towards D&D and that his true goal is to eliminate all articles releated toward this. What's more, I think he has clearly been more interested in truth than fact. I think he should be banned from editting any D&D related articles, indefinately. Kairos (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
THAT was not cool. You shouldn't talk about a ban like that; at least, not yet. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, at the moment no one is going to seriously look at a topic ban for him, even if most of us would like to see him move on, already. BOZ (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)