Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel

Response to Reyk

I'm not going to try to convince Reyk of anything, since he has already judged me as guilty and Folken as innocent (oh, I'm sure there's no wikiphilosophy-based bias involved). But I do figure I might as well explain my motivations more clearly to the undecided folks out there, lest my silence make me seem as petty as Reyk has characterized me to be.

Like I said in my statement, I first took notice of Folken just over a year ago. I had encountered him before, as I explained, but I was just noticing how feisty he was getting. It seemed like everywhere I went, he was waiting there to try to delete or redirect something. Resisting him seemed to rile him up, and resisting him in numbers seemed to really make him angry; actually putting work into finding sources sent him through the roof. As the situation contintued to escalate, I thought more and more about doing an RFC/U, but I really didn't think I had anything to go on. So this has been brewing for a while.

Then, just as it seemed like tensions might explode, the situation sort of imploded, or at least just went "poof" into nothingness - he just disappeared completely in September 2012. It was a pretty good time after that, as Torchiest and I started working together to get as many articles sourced with HighBeam as we possibly could, and without Folken troubling us we were quite productive at it. So when he just as suddenly came back in November, he quickly located an article I had unmerged so we could source it, and he claimed that HighBeam was not a reliable source (because he could not view it), remerged the artice and said I had committed misconduct by not asking permission from the person who merged it in the first place. Huh? So began the long battle at List of Dragonlance characters.

But, again, just as suddenly, he disappeared again in January 2013. Torchiest and I went back to being productive, but this weird disappearing and reappearing with aggression act stuck in my mind. Why was he doing this? What was he doing in this "off" time? One day I got curious, and thinking that since he comes from France, maybe he just went back to French Wikipedia. I decided to check this out, and in fact he was not only not active there, but had been banned since, oh... right before he started getting more active here. Not just banned, but community banned. Unanimously, apparently. That's no small thing. His block log on fr-wiki is a mile wide and had been going on for years, and had exhausted the community's patience. So I guess they threw him out, and he came here.

Still, since he was inactive at the time, there wasn't much I could do with this information, so I kind of filed it away mentally. Then - both expectedly and unexpectedly - he came back last week. I noticed him pretty quickly because he had resurrected the Dragonlance characters discussion, and that set the wheels in motion. Any other edits, regardless of how they may seem, were incidental, contrary to Reyk's theory. I went back to researching his ban at fr-wiki. I asked someone to try to translate the ban discussion for me, and he informed me that Folken had also been indefinitely blocked at the Italian Wikipedia. So he is some kind of international troublemaker? That made up my mind for me that I need to do an RFC/U.

His block log on en-wiki may be stale, but his ban on fr-wiki is far from ancient. Just because someone has been avoiding getting into trouble doesn't mean they haven't been misbehaving; sometimes getting caught just teaches you how to avoid getting caught. The relevance of the other-language misbehavior is that it establishes a pattern that has been repeated in other places. One place kicks him out, he moves on to another one until he exhausts them too. Is it in any way actionable here? No, of course not. But do you think this information might be something that the en-wiki community (and people on other language wikis for that matter) might be interested in knowing? I would think so.

I have done RFC/Us on two other users before: Gavin.collins and Asgardian. In both cases, the user was not doing any one specific thing that was a problem, but rather an accumulation of behaviors that was overall harmful to the encyclopedia and its editors. In both cases, I needed to use historical evidence to set up the fact that, yes, there is a pattern of behavior that goes back a long time, and was related directly to what they were still doing. I guess the community found that input useful, because lo and behold, both users were eventually banned and remain so. So yes, everything I have found for this case is very relevant.

For the record, as I mentioned in my statement, I did invite people from the other language wikis to comment here. I did so solely hoping to have them better explain what I, in another language, could not explain. I invited all respondents neutrally, so I do not know who was supporting him in a discussion or on the other side (although for some people it would be a pretty easy guess).

Any more questions, or aspersions to cast on me? BOZ (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's interesting that you would accuse me of editing with a "wikiphilosophy-based bias", and this is your automatic go-to rather than actually addressing anything I've said. In my experience there is a philosophy bias: inclusionists can troll, lie, fabricate sources, and sockpuppet for years before they get banned; deletionists need only show dissent. It's interesting that you would accuse Folken of popping up wherever you go, because you yourself say you've been following him around to other language wikipedias when he hasn't been editing here. If you start proceedings against someone, you must accept that your own actions are subject to scrutiny. You claim the trigger for this RfC was Folken continuing to argue on the Dragolance characters talk page; I'm not an expert on that topic but I've looked at his comments and they seem to be cogently argued and grounded in policy. I do not actually agree with him in this case, but that doesn't mean he's being distruptive. People are entitled to hold dissenting views. Reyk _YO! 04:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Talking about me, not to me? Reyk _YO! 06:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what more I can say to you anyway, since you feel that I didn't even try to address anything you said... when that is exactly what I was trying to do, address everything you said. I don't really know where to go from there. BOZ (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Nice conspiracy theory you have there. Obviously assuming good faith is not something you live by. The fact that I have had very few edits in the past few years means little. I'm mostly a lurker these days, and rarely log in. I occasionally visit the D&D Wikiproject page to see what's been happening, as well as the talk pages of certain members I've collaborated with in the past. It's in these places where I usually learn about current AfDs. I first became aware of Folksy (Can I call you that? Thanks.:) when he put Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) up for AfD. Given my experience with fiction-deniers in the past (Gavin.collins, anyone?), I tend to look at the past contributions of those who put articles in my interest up for AfD. And Folksy, thou hast been found wanting. Kudos on the tale you've spun, though.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If you like conspiracy theories, I have perhaps an even more interesting story. For over three weeks, this RFC was extremely one-sided; Folken's ranting, accusatory response had no endorsements, and the only user defending him also had no endorsements for his completely dismissive view. The two users I most expected to jump in to toss out everything I've said and defend Folken unconditionally (Neelix and TheRedPenOfDoom) were nowhere to be seen; were they just late to the party, or were they going to miss it altogether? Then, on May 27, another user found the RFC, saw shortcomings on both sides, endorsed Folken's response and Reyk's view (both with caveats), and gave a supporting view that was sympathetic but not without condition regarding Folken. Later that same day, Folken endorses this view; an hour later Neelix endorses all three, and three hours after that TheRedPenOfDoom comes in with some of his own comments. I could say that timing was awfully suspicious, but I think I will stretch WP:AGF a bit and say that maybe they were just waiting for someone to post a view they could really get behind.

And, just to clear up any confusion about this, I want to address the point about me contacting Robbstrd in 2007 about another deletionist. By looking at the link Folken provided, I see that in this case we are talking about Eyrian, that user was banned by ArbCom a few months later because of his activity so it seems to me we had a good reason to discuss him. He came back with sockpuppet accounts at least a couple more times after that. BOZ (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any use of further discussing this. Robbstrd has admitted to a bias against what he calls "fiction-deniers" who "put articles in [his] interest up for AfD" and confirmed he came to this RfC right after he saw my AfD and had no previous knowledge of me. I'll leave the person who'll review this RfC to judge of the motivation and credibility behind such endorsements. I also think seeing how you called Eyrian a "dick" for being a deletionist and how you were "glad to be rid of him" on Robbstrd's talk page gave a nice insight as to how the D&D Project chooses to deal with AfD nominators, and how the present RfC might have come to be. Your sympathy for Eryan, whom "a number of seriously immature people started harassing" sounds particularly ironic in light of what has been said against me. Given the high level of assumed bad faith I have to defend against, I think it's only fair for me to point out anything that can help me in my case (and it's not over yet, I found something interesting on Jclemens's talk page). You've had your turn, now it's mine.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

the new notification system is how I found out about this page, "Flatscan mentioned you on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel.

"→‎Outside view by Flatscan: new section" Monday at 04:27 - so yes, I appeared shortly after someone here mentioned my name. Theres a conspiracy for you - this has all been plotted out by the Wikipedia programmers cabal!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Mystery solved, then - I imagine it's the same for Neelix. And I did not get a notification because my name was not linked to. Thanks for clarifying. I guess some people were concerned about other people talking about them and not knowing about it! BOZ (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware of that feature of Special:Notifications when I submitted my view. Excluding FdF and BOZ, I linked all users as I mentioned them except User:Torchiest, which was an oversight. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And here I was all excited when I just saw that notification pop up. Oh well. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL - now you feel the love, Torchiest. Flatscan, that's what I figured, so no big deal. I was contemplating mentioning it to you, but I didn't want to sound accusatory. I've already seen other places where people show up soon after their name is linked to. There will probably be other instances of "accidental canvassing" before it becomes more widely known, although I am wondering if we should put it to some kind of community discussion over whether this should even be a feature at all. It's got its uses, but there is also high potential for abuse. BOZ (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Additions by Folken de Fanel

Moved from the main talk page to here as discussion, and as altering an existing statement after it had been endorsed by others. 16:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

June 1st: Note that Robbstrd, on the talk page, has confirmed his bias against what he calls "fiction-deniers" who "put articles in [his] interest up for AfD" and confirmed he came to this RfC right after he saw my AfD and had no previous knowledge of me. I'll leave the person who'll review this RfC to judge of the motivation and credibility behind such endorsements.
I also think the discussion between BOZ and Robbstrd from 2007 that I linked to, in which BOZ called another editor a "dick" for being a deletionist and was "glad to be rid of him", shows the sort of relation BOZ and the Dungeons & Dragon Wikiproject as a whole maintain with those like me who don't share their views on fiction articles, and provides some background to this RfC.

I have also found on Jclemens's talk page what looks like a breach of the etiquette on publicizing RfCs and canvassing.

On May 22nd at 04:11 UTC, Jclemens answered a comment on his own talk page by providing a link to this RfC, presenting the case as "disruption in the D&D articlespace, broadly construed", which "poisoned the atmosphere" to the point that Jclemens seems to make me responsible for his inability to "AGF'ing on an IP prodding something" (does that means he suspects me of being behind every IP prodding ?).

Wikipedia:RFC#Publicizing_an_RfC forbids to "argue the RfC" when publicizing it, yet I think that's precisely what Jclemens did by presenting my actions as "disruption" (as if it was fact and the RfC was already decided), and his comment actually relies so much on his own view of the case (while neglecting to present the other side, and forgetting that his allegations still remain to be proven) that I consider it to be a breach of WP:CANVASS, which states that notifications "should be neutrally worded".
Of course, Jclemens could merely have been carried away without any malicious intent, yet I think this element should be considered during the review of this RfC.

---

• I do not endorse this update. I did see Jclemens's comment and disagree with its laying the blame completely on FdF, but inappropriate canvassing is a stretch. It was intended as a warning, not an invitation. Even if it had been neutrally worded, the RfC was very one-sided at that time and would have swayed readers on its own. Regarding the move to the talk page, the update is clearly dated and separated by a horizontal rule. Jclemens's accusation of WP:Disruptive editing is unfounded. Flatscan (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I still think that it shouldn't have been a problem to mention this RfC while remaining neutral, and Jclemens being an experienced user, admin and fully involved party in this RfC, should have known better. In any case I didn't call it outright canvassing, but it does contradict several recommendations as to proper way to publicize RfCs. And it is even more concerning now that Jclemens has decided to make improper use of WP:AN/RFC to continue accusing me of "soapboxing" and "personal attacks", while, as usual, avoiding to provide any specific diff and to make his complaints at the proper venue, WP:ANI. Now if I follow WP:NPA#WHATIS, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is a personal attack in itself...Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Closing thoughts from Jclemens

Everything needed to close this RfC/U appropriately is right here in the RfC itself. Folken de Fanel accuses me of "a particularly hateful and violent attack on my person." here, and maintains it unchanged even once I advised him to revise it.

Folken de Fanel wishes this were about D&D. It's not. There are plenty of other Wikipedia editors who disagree on notability, but none of them have a years-long track record of edit warring, sockpuppeting, and being banned on one wiki, blocked indefinitely on another, and blocked for edit warring on two others along the way. The only reason Folken de Fanel hasn't been banned yet, as far as I can tell, is because he hops between Wikis. Invited comments from the other-language Wikipedias that banned or blocked him demonstrate that his conduct is consistently sub-par over years of "contribution".

There will still be disagreements between good-faith editors over some of the topics. Indeed, the few supporters that Folken de Fanel has gained are entirely based on his editing positions--not one will endorse his conduct, or his characterization of my conduct, beyond "well, there are less civil people around." When Folken de Fanel leaves the topic area, things calm down, are less polarized, and disagreeing editors can and do work together to put forth a better set of compromises than the WP:BATTLEFIELD he engenders by his interaction style. Thus, banning Folken de Fanel will do nothing appreciable to alter the balance of coverage, but only serve to improve collegiality by removing a partisan who is unwilling to admit that consensus is ever against him. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe some people will frown at the "hateful and violent" bit, and I admit, not that it is a personal attack, but that these words could have been avoided. However, I stand by them, considering the level of assumed bad faith I had to face, considering I've been called here "not a contributor-- an agitator" (certainly has a nice "not a wikipedian" ring to it, eh, Jclemens ?), considering I've been outright accused of sockpuppetry here without a shred of evidence. After having been told by Jclemens I was experiencing mental illness or that I was disengaged from reality, after Jclemens has repeatedly accused me of WP:IDHT for disagreeing with him ([1], [2]), my words, as clumsy and over-the-top they may sound, were merely the answer to the months of insidious and abject bullying I've been subjected to. So I stand by them. I told you Jclemens, we'll settle that at Arbcom, I won't add anything on the subject.

I'm not going to comment on other language wikis because they're completely out of the English WP's jurisdiction, other than to say that 1) these wiki differ so much with regards to rules and guidelines, that are either non existent or outright ignored, that for all intents and purposes they are completely different websites than Wikipedia in English 2) BOZ's and Jclemens's insistence on these wikis is merely an attempt to hide the fact I have not done anything wrong here.

As for WP:BATTLEFIELD, Jclemens casually throws it around, as well as other bad behavior accusations, basically whenever people disagree with him [3].

One last thing, if, according to Jclemens, I'm "unwilling to admit that consensus is ever against [me]", then could he tell us how a comment in which he qualifies an AfD outcome that agreed with my recommendations as a non-policy-supported outcome, should be considered ? I at least expect of those who accuse me that they themselves stay clear of the behavior they try to blame me for.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Summarising for closure

Most of the discussion revolves around Folken de Fanel's participation on non-English Wikipedias. Based on the remaining claims and comments, the low subscription to this RFC/U, and the lack of recent activity on this discussion, I suggest closing and archiving this as have having reached no consensus. Users remain free to take any specific complaints to WP:AN/I where admin action, if required, could be taken. Disputed AfD closures should be addressed at WP:DRV, disputed redirects (after discussion with the closer) at WP:RFD, and just for the record, CUs are not permitted to go on fishing expeditions - any calls for abuse of multiple accounts must be made through official channels and supported by substantial evidence. ----

Sorry, but that's the whole point: this user has evaded sanctions by popping from one language Wikipedia to another. If I were to paraphrase what you just wrote, it would be "Except for all the backstory indicating that this user has misbehaved in multiple places before, there's not much of a case here". Well, yeah, but the backstory of bad-faith participation and sanctions on multiple other Wikipedias is the main cause of action. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens, I have never "evaded" anything and I also never participated in bad-faith anywhere. Different language Wikipedias are different websites, with different policies, different ways of functioning and different administrative bodies. Other languages Wikipedias are not in the English WP's jurisdiction (as WP:ANI doesn't even take complaints for non-English WPs). Yes, you want me gone very, very badly, I think everyone got it, but unfortunately for you I have not done anything wrong (except disagreeing with you, which isn't a blockable offense), and your using non-English WPs was your desperate attempt at gaming the system in order to get me blocked, but that didn't work, so you'd better drop it. There is a point where even your peers are going to be fed up with your constant begging for me to get blocked for nothing else than your own personal convenience.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong, eh? The personal attacks in this very RfC/U demonstrate that that statement is simply not true. And yes, Wikipedias are different websites, with a unified purpose--collecting and sharing knowledge--that you don't appear to have contributed to on any of them. That is why your behavior there is relevant: you simply keep moving from one to the next to the next, over the course of years, and taking the same conduct elsewhere when a particular Wikipedia declines to continue putting up with it. That is why your past is relevant. Here's another one for you: In this discussion, I note that you post about sockpuppertry, supporting SudoGhost's objection to my suspicions, at the same time knowing full well you'd been banned from it.wikipedia for Sockpuppetry. If that's not concrete evidence of bad-faith editing, even if you didn't ever come out and say "I've never socked anywhere", I'm not sure what would be. Jclemens (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1) There are no personal attacks in this very RfC/U, at least not from me. If you disagree, you're free to take the matter to WP:ANI. 2) That I don't share your extreme inclusionist philosophy doesn't mean I don't "contribute". Please avoid that kind of sweeping judgments that stirred quite a controversy not so long ago... 3) Clearly, per #Outside_view_by_Flatscan and this uninvolved summary, the behavior that got me blocked elsewhere does not call for any sort of action here. You tried to argue it, but it failed: the reasonable attitude would be to not overdo it and just drop it. 4) the case on it.wiki is from 4 years ago, and involved a whole different situation (the involved admin, Koji, abused his administrative tools to promote copyright violations into articles). I have never socked on en.wiki nor for the editorial dispute you refer to. You'd have to be a saint yourself (and also to twist logic a bit) to be so hardline as to declare "bad faith editing" (which is not a small thing) over such minor events in my remote non-English WP infancy. Considering your own track record in controversial behavior you clearly aren't in a position to be that unforgiving. In conclusion, yes, it's obvious to everyone you want me gone and it's also clear it's not gonna happen with this RfC. You should show more moderation and restrain, constantly asking for a block to satisfy your personal convenience is likely to fed up everyone.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens as an admin and former Arbcom YOU KNOW BETTER than to keep insinuating accusations of sock puppetry everywhere you go. Stop it NOW. If you have actual evidence SPI is → Thataway. If you dont have enough evidence to actually file a case then keep your damn mouth shut.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@Jclemens: yes, you paraphrased perfectly accurately. What you missed however, is the general disinterest from other members of the community to participate in this RFC/U which has now been open for well over a month and largely dormant for at least 14 days except for the back and forth between Folken de Fanel and yourself. You also missed the other recommendations I made to take any en.Wiki specific infringements of policy to their respective noticeboard(s), where admins will take, if necessary, any appropriate action - failing which, ARBCOM would be the next step. If there is no consensus on the proposed summary above, or a further, succinct proposed closure here within the next seven days, and/or if in the meantime it has not been already closed by another uninvolved editor, I will procedurally archive this RFC according to the rules and guidelines as not having made tangible progress. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think it's permissible to ignore the framing and context of an RfC while closing it, I suggest that you have probably not read the RfC thoroughly enough. May I point out that there are no unconditional supports for Folken de Fanel's personal attack-laden response, aside from his own? The reason for the anemic response from the rest of the community is that consensus is pretty clear that Folken de Fanel has participated inappropriately and should be sanctioned. My position, that he should be banned from en.wiki, has as many supports as the only dissenting view, Flatscan's, which makes no excuse for Folken de Fanel's behavior, but presumes to malign myself and BOZ, though we are not the targets of the RfC/U, as a way of WP:OTHERSTUFF-excusing his misbehavior. So even if you were to completely discount the testimony of all of Folken de Fanel's victims from other projects, which I contend is inappropriate, you would still find consensus is to topic ban him from Dungeons and Dragons articles. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)