Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel

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

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC).

Folken de Fanel (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Folken de Fanel has displayed a long-lasting trend of disruptive editing, going against consensus, edit warring, POV pushing, personal attacks, harassment, threats and taunts, and bad faith accusations. This has persisted for years on English Wikipedia and multiple other language Wikipedias as well, on some of which he has already received sanctions.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

My hope is that Folken de Fanel can be encouraged to edit with a more collaborative and collegial spirit, working with other editors instead of taking aggressively hostile stances towards those he disagrees with, and to end the behaviors listed above.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Although I had encountered him previously, Folken de Fanel's behavior first came to my attention just over a year ago. He seemed to exhibit a pattern involving many of the familiar traits I have seen from users I have encountered before, who hold content policies and guidelines to be so important that they feel they can ignore or even abuse behavior-related policies. His behavior at AFDs includes arguing against every user he disagrees with, and demanding that closing admins ignore arguments that he feels are not sufficiently policy-based. When an AFD is not closed the way he feels it should have, he badgers the closing administrator to change the result:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] He also insists that the results of some AFDs ([9][10][11][12][13][14]) automatically determine the fates of all similar articles, even though the results of other AFDs ([15][16][17][18][19]) indicate an inconsistency with his claims. Another more specific example of his questionable behavior includes the highly contentious, months-long merge discussion at Talk:List of Dragonlance characters, where he accused another user of misconduct twice [20][21] for restoring an article to add sources. Another example of his questionable judgment was arbitrarily redirecting Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons) without discussion or examining its potential [22], which was worked into a Good Article just a few months later.

A review of his block log reveals that he was blocked six times between 2007-2009 for edit warring, 3RR, disruption by removing other users' comments, and personal attacks or harassment. Noting on his user page that he is from France, I wondered if he had gotten into any trouble at his native language Wikipedia. I discovered that after a 2010 arbitration committee case in which he was found to be disruptive and working against consensus, and after another complaint he was ultimately community banned there in 2012. Further investigation revealed more troubles on other language Wikipedias. A user complaint on Italian Wikipedia in 2009 led to him being indefinitely blocked there as well, and he was found to be editing under the sockpuppet account of Shinketsu to evade the block. He does have a block log on Portuguese Wikipedia similar to the one here on English Wikipedia with six blocks for edit warring, and also one block on Spanish Wikipedia after warnings there too. Because I don't speak any of these languages, I am inviting the involved users from those cases to elaborate here.

This history reveals a disturbing trend, a pattern which is repeated in multiple places and consistent with his behavior here. This is not to say that all of his contributions here have been bad, even though the only article on which I have seen him do any content building within the past couple of years is Panzer Dragoon. We have tried to encourage him to build content so that he can be more of a net positive to the encyclopedia. The problem is that old habits die hard, especially in someone with no desire to change, and I am not sure what results can be achieved through positive encouragement. Ideally, all Wikipedia users should edit in a collaborative spirit, and I am having a hard time seeing how this could be possible from Folken de Fanel without a major change in his approach.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

See above for various instances of his behavior at talk page discussions or on AFDs; more examples can be provided if required
His block log on English Wikipedia
His block log on French Wikipedia
2010 arbitration case on French Wikipedia
2012 user complaint on French Wikipedia
2012 community ban discussion on French Wikipedia
2009 user complaint on Italian Wikipedia
2009 sockpuppet investigation on Italian Wikipedia
His block log on Portuguese Wikipedia
His block log on Spanish Wikipedia

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

chaos5023 encouraged him to take a step back from his hostility [23]; the conflict later instead escalated
Torchiest and BOZ tried to encourage him to build content to focus his attention away from conflict [24][25]; no such content building took place, and the conflict continued

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Yes, the desire to get the last word and frequency of comments on some of the pages in question is rather evident. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
—Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True as far as it goes, even if it doesn't go far enough. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sangrolu (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Khazar2 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Web Warlock (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robbstrd (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus 01:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My limited experience with Folken de Fanel‎ has been quite unpleasant User226 (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

What a waste of time. This RfC is the continuation of an editorial dispute over the notability of articles on fictional characters of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game. So basically, BOZ opened this RfC because he can't stand that I'm trying to make Dungeons and Dragons article actually comply to our inclusion standards. He's resentful that I managed to obtain a solid 13-users consensus at AfD (in a 20-articles and 21-users discussion) specifically acknowledging that certain sources were not significant enough to grant notability, and that I tried to apply this 13-users consensus to similar articles that used the very same sources. I'm sooo evil.

Oh, I've also committed the high crime of defending my POV in discussions, and of following the regular procedures in cases where I disagree with an AfD outcome.

And I refused to shut my mouth when BOZ basically told me to leave the D&D articles alone because I shouldn't be a deletionist and I shouldn't disagree with him: [26]. Please BOZ, tell me exactly why I should be the one backing up and letting you do everything you want with D&D articles ?

Not a single one of these facts is proof of a so-called bad behavior, and all that happened months ago. Everything I've done was supported by consensus. As Reyk said, there's nothing that justifies such an RfC. As BOZ himself explained in the RfC talk page, this is just his way of getting back at me for not leaving D&D articles alone, which BOZ apparently sees as his own property. That's it. Just take a look at the RfC talk page and you'll see this just boils down to the holy mission of an inclusionist saint set out to eradicate the deletionist scum. This kind of discussion has nothing to do at RfC, nor anywhere else on WP.

I know all the resentfull Dungeon and Dragon fans on WP are going to show up and approve this RfC because I dared to "attack" the object of their passion and they want their revenge, but this is not going to mean anything. A few roleplaying gamers are not happy to have been reminded that Wikipedia actually has strict inclusion and notability standards. So what ?

Yeah, so basically, fans of various fictional works will get angry whenever people tell them Wikipedia is not a fansite dedicated to their favorite game/tv show and that there are limits to what they can actually write/create about it. Thanks, Captain Obvious. Happened countless times since the creation of Wikipedia, will happen again whether I stay or go.

As for my involvment in incidents in international wikis, en:WP has no business judging me on facts that happened years ago and for which I have already paid. I have obviously not committed any act of sockpuppetry on en:wiki nor any kind of disruption related to the editorial dispute that led to this RfC. Reyk's comment (who has followed the dispute while never having been involved in it - and actually disagreed with me sometimes-) is proof of that. If all BOZ could find against me was my past on other wikis from years ago, then there's nothing to be done, and if a troubled "WP infancy" was ground enough for a block, I'm afraid there wouldn't be much users left on WP.

On a side note: user Jclemens has delivered a particularly hateful and violent attack on my person. So much that I wonder how I could have edited WP for almost two years without anyone else rushing to block me, if Jclemens's constant rants on my supposed more than awful behavior had any hint of truth (I'm almost surprised that I haven't yet been accused of eating children at breakfast...) What I do when I don't edit WP for long periods of time is my business and mine alone. I'm not going to reveal private information on this page. Checkuser me as much as you want, you won't find evidence of sockpuppetry here or on the other wikis. It is however very much like Jclemens to depict me in the worst of lights and to assume that, whenever I don't edit en:WP, I must be sockpuppeting somewhere, without evidence. This is, however, a particularly despicable accusation that I will not tolerate. An I expect formal apologies once the checkuser is done.

But as i said, this is not surprising: after all, he has already diagnosed me with "mental illness" ([27][28]), and has been admonished several times by other users for resorting to personal attacks against me: ([29], [30], [31], note "another example of Jclemens's intolerance for dissent"). Indeed it's strange that whenever Jclemens interacts with me, I systematically end up being accused of WP:IDHT behavior merely because I dare to disagree with him (see for example [32]).

Even right now, for having dared to defend myself against this RfC he's just accused me of "WP:IDHT behavior" [33].

Actually, this little habit of jclemens's seems to have started around August 2012 when, after I merely notified a project of the opening of a new discussion, Jclemens unleashed a torrent of insults and bad behavior accusations against me: [34]. I wasn't under the impression that we were even having any kind of heated argument in this discussion (in fact I hadn't adressed Jclemens at all and he hadn't even taken part to the discussion before I came).

Jclemens is also no stranger to making quick sockpuppetry accusations and personal attacks against anyone disagreeing with him in editorial disputes, something for which he has already been admonished at WP:ANI : [35].

For all this time I've tried not to pay much attention to Jclemens's heinous comments, but it seems this time his violence has reached a level never seen before. This is my honest view that Jclemens took a dislike of me for not sharing his opinion, and that he is now harassing and bullying me, in a way that I now can't see how I could serenely edit WP if he's still allowed to have any interaction with me. His proposal of getting me blocked for having being blocked on other WPs is ludicrous, and merely shows his intention to eleminate me from WP out of personal hatred. Having looked through the WP:ANI archives, I've found further evidence of Jclemens's inacceptable behavior towards users who don't share his views, according to User:Black_Kite in November 2009: "I think it's about time that someone asked this admin to keep away from anything that involves WP:BLP, and about his use of admin tools in this matter. I'd also ask that he stop interacting with me, because he's clearly got a major problem with me and doesn't appear to be capable of acting neutrally" [36]. As I've said, the level of violence Jclemens is using against me is such that I'm considering to take it to Arbcom. Such a behavior from an administrator is not acceptable and if nothing is done, Jclemens is likely to continue, and find more targets. If and when I take it to Arbcom I will provide a more complete and organized account of all the agression Jclemens committed against me.

Well, some strange things are happening in this RfC.

Today (May 25th) at 10:27 UTC I nominate a Dungeons & Dragons article for AfD [37], and at 14:08 user User:Robbstrd appears here to endorse BOZ's statement in this RfC [38]. Per an overview of his userpage and talkpage, Robbstrd is an inclusionist fan of Dungeons & Dragons/Greyhawk (often !voting "keep" in D&D AfDs: [39], [40], [41]...) and has been in contact with BOZ quite often (see for example here where BOZ asked for help to bring down a deletionist in 2007). More strange is that Robbstrd has edited only 4 times in 2013, his last significant contribution dating back to November 18th 2012 [42] (note that he has edited only 17 times in 2012, and only 22 times in 2011).
So we have an almost inactive inclusionist D&D fan and collaborator to BOZ, who just happens to come back to editing right on time to endorse this RfC, and right after I nominate a D&D article for AfD ? What a coincidence. The timeline is a little too perfect. I'd be interested in knowing in which circumstances Robbstrd heard of this RfC, and what are his true motivations in endorsing it.

Given this RfC is the continuation of an editorial dispute over the notability of articles on fictional characters of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game, in which I adopted a rather "deletionist" stance, I really wonder how many users here took their time to read statements and have a good overview of both sides of the dispute, and are objective and honest in their endorsement of BOZ's and (especially) Jclemens's statements, and how many actually came here just for the sake of taking a jab at a deletionist, or out of personal revenge for AfDed D&D articles. Robbstrd already seems suspicious to me, but for example user:Dream Focus is known to be a fierce inclusionist, who has already been admonished for personally attacking me at DRV just 4 months ago. It's likely there are a few cases of inclusionists merely piling up votes against the "deletionist enemy" I represent. After all, that's one of the risk of an RfC: making it a popularity contest, with no one accountable for their endorsements/votes, rather than an actual discussion process.

(‎Additions by Folken de Fanel after response was endorsed)

Users who endorse this summary:

Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse most of Folken de Fanel's response, except for the speculation of motives, including the follow-up regarding User:Jclemens (minus the "violent attack"/"violence" wording and the bit with User:Black Kite). I noticed User:Robbstrd's endorsement and overall inactivity on my own. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Flatscan above. Neelix (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Robbstrd's reply moved to talk page)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Reyk

Looking at the links provided, I am not seeing any real basis for bringing this here. Asking administrators to explain or reconsider an AfD close is not a crime, nor is disagreeing with the RFC litigant in AfD discussions. I also see that most of the links provided are at least three months old, and most are older. The block log on en.wikipedia is over four years old and the non-english-Wikipedia stuff is not within our jurisdiction. What really prompted this RFC? Was it FdF's recent redirect of a bunch of Dungeons & Dragons monster stubs that were sourced only to rulebooks? If so, I heartily endorse those edits, and condemn this RFC. Reyk _YO! 00:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

'cos I wrote it. Reyk _YO! 00:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(replied on talk page - BOZ (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Endorse Reyk's view, except the guess at BOZ's motive. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for merger discussions. Neelix (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concurring view by Jclemens

One can look at the evidence with a great deal of AGF, but the fact is that amongst the various block logs, we have a user here on en.wiki who has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppeteering on it.wiki, and banned by admin consensus on fr.wiki for contentious editing. Mind you, those are subject to Google translation, but the point still stands.

When I said last July in abject frustration "The level of WP:IDHT involved in the arguments for redirection is... peculiarly high, and reminds me of some banned sockpuppetteers, actually." [43] I had no idea that Folken de Fanel was at that time (and remains so, apparently) indefinitely banned from it.wiki for sockpuppeting.[44] Nor did I know that he had been recently banned from fr.wiki.[45] Yet, here he is, skipping from Wiki to Wiki, engaging in contentious behavior that has gotten him blocked on at least two other wikis, and allowing those who agree with him to express their righteous indignation, knowing full well that I'd correctly identified him.

When you add up the periods of inactivity punctuated by contentious interaction, the history of sockpuppeting, the fact that he is banned from his home-language wiki, you get a better picture of Folken de Fanel. He has been edit warring over scads of different topics, on half a dozen different language Wikipedias, for half a dozen years. He is not a contributor--he is an agitator. I strongly suspect that if we were to checkuser Folken de Fanel's underlying IP addresses, we'd find that when he's not active on a recognized account here, he's off on another account on another Wiki, conducting himself in the same contentious, BATTLEFIELD-conduct manner under another username. I might be wrong, but I can't seem to think of any other explanation for his conduct--AGF not being a suicide pact and all. Folken de Fanel is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and I suggest that the most appropriate action is to ban him from en.wiki until such time as he can mend fences on his own home wiki. Failing that, I suggest that the next best course of action is to do what I suggest, and have an uninvolved checkuser track his actions under whatever username through the various Wikipedias to find out what he's been doing when he's been dormant under this account name on all identified Wikipedias.

Users who endorse this summary

Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC), as author.[reply]
Dream Focus 20:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Folken de Fanel appears to have brought the same problematic style of interaction to English Wikipedia that has resulted in severe sanctions at other-language Wikipedias. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by GRS73

I was invited to this discussion. The user has been blocked twice one in 2007 and another in 2008 by Wiki-en edit war. Do not edit the Wiki-pt since 2010, I do not see that in my opinion could help this discussion. Sorry, my bad english. GRS73 (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

outside view by Ju gatsu mikka

I was also invited to this discussion.

The first interaction I had with Folken de Fanel (FdF) that I remember was for a discussion about the same editorial context at the wikiproject about manga and anime (P:ABDA) on WPfr. It was TWO very very long discussions (1, 2) where FdF served us the same arguments again and again and again, against everyone.

At first, even if we disagreed with his opinion, we respected WP:FAITH, but when he edited the page about notability of fiction [46] so that it goes with his opinion without warning P:ABDA or people who work on that page, we don't trust him any more.

After examination, the arbitration committee decided that FdF didn't respect WP:DISRUPTPOINT and ban him for three months plus 2 weeks for the next iteration of similar disrupt (double each time).

He doesn't learn from his mistakes (and the bans) and will never learn : after each ban, FdF restart his disrupt exactly as he did before. When doubling the ban means 8 months, WPfr community decided FdF infinite ban.

十月三日 (^o^) Call me Ju (^o^) 08:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

十月三日 (^o^) Call me Ju (^o^) 08:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC), as author.
Kelam, as one of the admins who agreed to infinite ban FdF.
¡ Bibisoul ! Also invited to this discussion, I had exactly the same problems with FdF. I'm glad he'd been ban from Fr because his constant aggression discouraged me to contribute.
user:esby, as involved in the french arbitration process against FdN. He just never learns and keep arguing and making people wasting time... esby (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bokken, per above, FdF had a very disruptive behavior on fr-Wiki. Anime and manga were not the sole problem, he did the same on several fiction-related projects. Bokken | 木刀 08:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Koji

Asked for a comment, all I can say is that FdF has been definitely banned from it.wiki exactly for the same kind of reasons: very low attitude to practice the consensus method, editwar as a way of contributing, personal attacks to other contributors not thinking like him and, basically, using wikipedia's ns0 to express his opinions as a pov pusher. Not a good wikipedian at all. For Italian speakers, look for further details at this complaint discussion on it.wiki.--Kōji (msg) 12:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Asked for a comment too, and I agree with Kōji, FdF had low attitude to consensus in it.wiki too.--Krdan^{(Write to me)} 22:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Turb

I have been summoned here by BOZ because, as a French arbitrator I led the arbcom on w:fr:Wikipédia:Comité d'arbitrage/Arbitrage/esby, Suprememangaka, Ju gatsu mikka-Folken de Fanel, fr.arbcom case involving esby, Suprememangaka and Ju gatsu mikka against Folken de Fanel.

As far as I remember, I had no interraction with Folken de Fanel outside this case, so the only thing I can do is translate the 2010 fr.arbcom decision:

Finding that:

Folken de Fanel refuses the consensus process.

Folken de Fanel tried several times to dictate its point of view, violating NPOV and No Original Research.

Folken de Fanel has done some tactical moves resulting in a mess in the encyclopedia to push its point of view, violating the POINT rule.

The whole behavior of Folken de Fanel has caused damage to the encyclopedic work on (fr.)Wikipédia.

Folken de Fanel, Ju gatsu mikka and Suprememangaka did personnal attacks, violating the corresponding rule.

The arbitration comitee:

asks for the blocking of Folken de Fanel, during 3 months. After that, each deny of consensus will lead to a 2 weeks blocking, doubled each time.

warns Ju gatsu mikka and Suprememangaka and asks them to read again rules about "no personnal attack" and "assume good faith".

Turb (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Black Kite

Folken de Fanel has found it fit to bring up a dispute that myself and User:Jclemens had in 2009. Not only is that four years ago, but if he'd bothered to look more closely, he'd have found that we sorted that dispute out amicably. It looks like he's dug through the other editor's contribs to find any disputes that he's had with others. Not only is that completely pointless (the only things that are relevant here are disputes with him), but I'd like to find anyone who's edited here for years and not been in a dispute, especially if they've been an admin (as we both have), or an Arb (as Jclemens has). I sum this up with "Meh". Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Harmonia Amanda

Asked for a comment

sorry for my english, I am not fluentI have only interacted with Folken de Fanel in the French Wikipedia. As I said in the community ban discussion, in five years on frWP, Folken de Fanel :

created three stubs
improved two articles
did two others constructive edits

I am exhaustive. In the same time, he provoked several edit wars, was bloked for pov-pushing, etc. Several times warned, he began again as before, when his bloking ended. Wa grew tired of assuming his good faith. His obsessions are:

inclusions standards (basically he know which article is ok and which one is not, and if the community disagree (in a request for suppression), he is right and the community is wrong)
the quality of the sources (everyone agrees of course, but in five years, I did not see one source be good enough for him): for exemple, in a labellisation procedure (featured article), he suggested the deletion, or at least the fusion of the article, because four universitary sources weren't sufficient for the inclusions standards (they were not completely dedicated to the subject!). The article was featured, of course.
he knows the rules and procedures. So if you disagree with him, if twenty or more wikipedians disagree with him, they are wrong. Actually, in frWP, he modified a guideline page, alone, and then quarrelled with several users because they didn't respect this page.

My english is very bad, I fear that I am not translating correctly our conflict, but basically he didn't improve anything (less than twenty constructive edits for more than two thousands edits), and irked many users, disrupting several projects. Good faith or not, right or wrong at the bottom (the worse, for me, is that I agree with him in many aspects) he wasn't helping, his methods were destructive of the encyclopedia and community. I am deeply sorry, but we don't miss him. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Boréal (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
十月三日 (^o^) Call me Ju (^o^) 14:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Outside view by Flatscan

I think that this RfC's evidence of policy violations on the English Wikipedia is weak.

My evaluation of the cited #Applicable policies and guidelines:

WP:Edit warring: Yes, on Goldmoon and Raistlin Majere in December 2012. The August 2012 dispute was over many articles, but with a few users on each side.
WP:Consensus: Completely unsupported. Folken de Fanel's edits draw on previous discussion and are usually supported by User:Neelix and User:TheRedPenOfDoom.
WP:Disruptive editing: Completely unsupported. FdF's edits may be "disruptive" (English definition) and inconvenient to D&D editors, but "disruptive editing" (Wikipedia term of art) does not mean that.
WP:Civility: I would prefer not to be its target, but FdF's tone is quite tame by current standards. Even his response under pressure here is not worthy of AN/I‎.
WP:No personal attacks: Nothing egregious submitted as evidence. The accusation of "misconduct" directed at BOZ has a policy basis and is near the line.
WP:Assume good faith: FdF fails to assume good faith when he speculates underlying motives, but other users have discarded AGF, most obviously #Concurring view by Jclemens.

The #Description section lacks solid evidence.

Discussion of policies – including pointing out flaws in others' arguments – is encouraged by WP:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions. WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus requires that closing admins consider policy basis and weigh arguments not based in policy less or not at all.
WP:Deletion review#Instructions (transcluded from WP:Deletion review/Discussions) require that a user first approach the closing admin to challenge an AfD close. The eight examples given do not show a pattern of badgering by FdF.
- WP:Articles for deletion/List of Dragonlance artifacts was non-admin closed as keep by User:Sue Rangell (who had received complaints about inappropriate NACs), DRV'd by User:Sandstein, relisted, and reclosed as no consensus.
- I thought that the DRVs of WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Line (2nd nomination) and WP:Articles for deletion/Bruenor Battlehammer (2nd nomination) were very unlikely to be successful, but I don't see any bad behavior directed at the closing admins.
- User talk:WilyD/Archives/#Could you provide a fuller explanation was started by User:TheRedPenOfDoom. User talk:Scottywong/Archive 17#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination) was started by User:SudoGhost. The tone in the last one was not the best, but each participant contributed to it.
FdF has a point that similar articles should be treated similarly. WP:Other stuff exists may or may not be a valid argument depending on the degree of similarity. Of the five examples of "inconsistency", three were closed no consensus (1, 2, 3), one was keep with "quite a lot of support for a merger", and only one was an unqualified keep.
While the word choice of "misconduct" at Goldmoon and Raistlin is near the line, FdF and Neelix have a valid point that the merger discussion from February–March 2012 should be respected.
- FdF also provided diffs of the merger tags (Goldmoon, Raistlin Majere) and quoted WP:Consensus#Consensus can change (WP:CCC).
- BOZ and Torchiest added one source to each article (Goldmoon, Raistlin Majere) and let them sit for two months (Goldmoon, Raistlin Majere) until FdF noticed.
- BOZ proceeding to restore Other characters unilaterally while aware of the previous consensus to merge and the objections to splitting is more of a violation of WP:Consensus than any of the evidence against FdF. Neelix redirected them, then Jclemens reverted and insisted that unmerged was now the default state.
The redirection of Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons) is borderline to me. The topic seems notable, but the article at time of redirection had thin non-primary sourcing and was more than half in-universe style without inline cites.
The histories on other Wikipedias are concerning, but they are stale except for the 2012 community ban on French Wikipedia. #Outside view by Harmonia Amanda describes similar behaviors (inclusion standards, high sourcing standards, insistence on procedure) leading up to that ban, but FdF's edits on the English Wikipedia are within its norms. FdF's history elsewhere may justify extra attention and scrutiny, but it is not sanctionable. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Folken de Fanel is currently a red link.

User:Jclemens has sought sanctions against FdF when the opportunity has present itself: for example, #Concurring view by Jclemens and WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 30. I expect this RfC to be referenced in the future – at a (topic) ban proposal or at WP:Arbitration – so I felt the need to record my objections.

Users who endorse this summary:

As author. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent summary. Reyk _YO! 04:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A perfectly balanced external view which points out the glaring flaws of this RfC, while not forgetting my own occasional mistakes in my response and in the case of edit warring. Since my views and actions, for the most part, are acknowledged not as "fringe", but well within community consensus as to what should/shouldn't be on WP, this should help both sides in the ongoing editorial dispute to reach compromise, or at least make the debates less confrontational.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A thorough and well-thought-out analysis of the situation as it stands. It would seem that it is less FdF's aberrant edits than his opposition to exessive documentation of a widely popular media franchise that has resulted in and bolstered this RFC. Neelix (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
endorse this review -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This all smacks of pettiness and revenge RfC filing by the ~~Article Rescue Squad and friends~~ editors with a strong leaning towards inclusionism, such as the Article Rescue Squad and likeminded individual editors. Fortunately, attrition and banning have thinned the flock a bit, so these things run out of steam quickly. Tarc (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TheRedPenOfDoom

It would benefit FdF not to be WP:BAITed into the personal attacks and innuendo that are far too common among the trivialist in the D&D discussions, as evidenced by their comments on this very page. Stick to the policies and sources (or lack thereof).

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Neelix (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

Final thoughts from BOZ

First of all, I want to say thank you to everyone who responded to this RFC by adding their own view, or endorsing one or more statements. The responses from the foreign language respondents were especially insightful. I'm very confident that this RFC has achieved what I intended it to, and hopefully it will have a beneficial effect for all as a reference. I have requested that this RFC/U be closed so that consensus can be assessed, although it will remain open for further statements and endorsements in the meantime.

Initially, I did not feel it was in my best interest to respond to most of the vitriolic ranting in Folken's response above, or on his talk page [47], or his taunts on my talk page [48]. However, I don't want leave an impression that validates any arguments from silence to suggest that I am admitting these things to be true by not arguing them, so I will address some of what he has said. Jclemens has offered his own closing thoughts as well.

The purpose of including Folken's history here and on the other language Wikipedias seems to have been clear enough to most of the respondents. Just to clarify, this history was necessary to include in this RFC to help establish a pattern of his contentious behavior. In no way did I ever feel that this history alone is sanctionable, nor have I ever suggested this, but merely intended to present this information for community review. I would not have started an RFC based solely on his behavior on English Wikipedia, as taken alone it is not egregious enough to bring to the attention of the community, but in putting it all together we get a bigger picture. I count an astonishing 20 blocks over 4 wikis, not counting his ban on French Wikipedia and indefinite block on Italian Wikipedia. That's no small number. It could be argued that he has learned from his mistakes, accounting for the lack of any known new blocks within the past 14 months, and I sincerely hope that is the truth. From what I have observed in that time, however, I am less certain than some people that he has changed much as there is still some evidence of edit warring and various civility issues. Perhaps I should have taken more time to dig through his contributions history for more evidence of these things, but I believed I had sufficient enough information to move forward with an RFC. If Folken is ever brought to RFC again, or AN/I or another venue, and my input is required or requested, I will try to be more diligent.

It seems like he wants to blame me, Jclemens, other users who endorsed our statements here, the D&D WikiProject, inclusionism vs. deletionism, or anything else convenient for his own words and actions. In the end, each of us has a personal responsibility to be accountable for our own words and actions. I am not perfect, nor is Jclemens or anyone else; we are dealing with human beings here, after all. Being that Jclemens and I have been active users and administrators for years, I am sure it is not too hard to dig up moments where we were not at our best, and Folken has gone out of his way to find little bits and pieces in an attempt to make us look the ones at fault, often resorting to hyperbole and misconstruing statements or taking them out of context. This RfC is not about anyone but Folken, and if the behavior of other users is a concern then Folken should address that in a separate venue. Generally, the community does not have a problem with users who make occasional or isolated mistakes or errors in judgment. When such things become repeated as a pattern of related behaviors over a period of time, especially when it seems like that person does not learn from their mistakes, that is when people begin to lose their patience with this person. If Folken de Fanel's views, and resulting actions, truly did have the full support of the community at large as he seems to believe, then I would have expected to see more people support him in general, and especially at a venue like this.

Folken de Fanel, since the start of this RfC, has tried to turn the focus away from his conduct issues and instead focus on content issues. I don't see why this helps, other than to confuse the issues and take attention away from his behavior. As far as inclusionists and deletionists (although a true opposite would be "exclusionists") go, there is always a risk of running to the extreme. When your philosophy is taken so far to the extreme that you simply cannot behave within community norms, then hanging out too far to the extreme can lead to aberrant behavior. I have seen a few well-known inclusionists banned, and several deletionists as well for being overzealous in their actions, especially after community attention has been drawn to them. So sometimes it may be hard to avoid conflating conduct issues and content issues, but viewing the situation objectively will help to sort that out.

As far as the D&D WikiProject trying to get anyone indefinitely blocked or banned, this is beyond the scope of such entities. WikiProjects have no such power. In fact, WikiProjects have no will of their own, as they are merely systems for project members to organize pages on a broader topic area. Project members each have their own areas of interest and goals, which may or may not include taking notice of users who seem to have been behaving outside community norms on articles related to one or more projects. Of the users I have seen indefinitely blocked or banned, these efforts have all been initiated and led by, supported by, and carried out by Wikipedia users aside from D&D WikiProject members. The idea that the WikiProject in question has an agenda to hunt down and destroy anyone who would put related articles up for deletion is ludicrous to me, and unsupported by any actual facts.

I do not wish for Folken de Fanel or any other user to be banned. Sometimes users step over the line one too many times or in too severe of a manner, and the community comes together to ban them, or ArbCom does the job. It is always my hope that users in danger of stepping over the line who are otherwise acting in good faith will do what they need to do to avoid coming to the point of exhausting the community's patience. An RfC such as this, when done successfully, will either alert the user in question to problems with their conduct, or serve to enlighten other users to problems with that user's behavior. If Folken de Fanel exhausts this community's patience, it could only be because he does not heed the warning signs along the way. I have seen it happen before with other users, so hopefully this is a learning experience instead of the first step along the road to more serious sanctions. Users who truly wish to support him would be best served to not simply hand-wave the concerns brought up in this RFC, and actually advise this user on how to avoid future trouble and become a more productive and collaborative community member. BOZ (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just baffled at the way you managed to just brush aside those views which pointed out that in many of the issues you brought here, your behavior was actually the one at fault, and mine noted as grounded in policy. Funny how you say you "would have expected to see more people support" me, if my views and actions "truly did have the full support of the community at large", yet how you seem to ignore the fact that, but for one user, no one outside your usual fellow editors at the D&D Wikiproject (a few of them specially resurrected for the occasion) came to your support either. You'd think the whole community would have rushed here, were there any truth to your claims on my views and actions. Your last paragraph, as dramatic and threatening as it sounds, loses all of its strength when looking at the actual discussions. You can act the way you like, but I'm afraid you fail to realize we're not longer in 2006/2008

The community at large has come to more and more embrace strong inclusion standards, and to be less and less tolerant with the excess articles about fiction can generate. The views of the fiercest fiction-inclusionists still active on the site are now unanimously disapproved of in noticeboard or guideline discussions. Longstanding derivative articles on fiction that had resisted multiple AfDs, such as Chronology of the Harry Potter series, are now deleted. With the present RfC, you failed to garner even a fourth of the total number of users who endorsed the first Gavin.collins RfC (since you very often seem to compare me to him), and it has largely backfired on you. Fun fact: on the French WP, fr:WP:CGN (French translation of WP:GNG) only became a guideline in December 2012, French WP is thus in an even worse state than the 2006 English WP; this puts my ban there in a much different perspective than what you intended.

As it was said on the talk page, "inclusionists can troll, lie, fabricate sources, and sockpuppet for years before they get banned; deletionists need only show dissent", but I'm afraid that as time goes by, you'll find less and less intolerant, staunch fiction-inclusionists ready to follow you against those who believe in WP:GNG too strongly for your taste.

Take it as a friendly advice, but by too actively adhering to a mindset overly favorable to fiction that fell out of fashion years ago, and if you send me to RfC each time you think I'm even close to the line, you only risk alienating yourself from any kind of sensible support. Contrary to what you and others have claimed, I have nothing against fiction per se, and I think my username and my few usertags show that enough (I even played some D&D recently). I truly admire your passion as a fan, which I think can be a strength for articles (but also a weakness), and there are ways for us to cooperate, but as this RfC showed my views are more often than yours grounded in the policies and guidelines that the community currently upholds, and you cling too much to outdated views on fictional articles for any cooperation to work. This became clear when we see that you and 7 other D&D fans have argued tooth-and-nails against a 13-user majority at AfD not even a year ago.

Please understand I'm merely doing as everyone now does on WP. Sure, you can always act as if nothing had changed since 2008, and you can keep on bickering and fighting me every inch of the way, and portray me as an "international troublemaker" (I had a good laugh), but you could also choose the more constructive way to participate to the Wikipedia of 2013.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary

I'm closing this following a request on WP:AN/RFC. The RfC was opened on 30 April by BOZ. Thirty-four editors, including Folken de Fanel (talk · contribs), responded between then and 26 June. Of these:

Twenty-five editors supported the general position of the RfC. BOZ and chaos5023 certified it, and twelve editors endorsed their statement, which alleged that FdF has behaved disruptively around AfDs and merge/redirect issues. The statement requested, in effect, a major change in his approach. Four of the same editors, and one other, endorsed a subsequent view by Jclemens that FdF be banned. Ten editors from the French and Italian Wikipedias provided evidence or endorsements in broad support of the complaints.
Five editors and FdF posted or endorsed positions in support of FdF. Two of these editors partly supported FdF's response, and two asked him not to be tempted to post personal attacks or innuendo.
Two editors made comments that neither supported nor opposed, and one editor posted only to edit another's comment.

The dispute revolves around the notability of Dungeons & Dragons topics and related issues. FdF opposes what he sees as too-extensive coverage. According to Wikichecker, he has made 5,416 edits since May 2006, 2,239 of which were article edits, but for the most part (at least in recent years) his article edits have consisted of adding merge, notability or deletion templates, redirecting, and reverting; the most recent 500 go back to July 2009. Overall there is consensus that FdF's focus on seeking the deletion of other editors' work, combined with the absence of other contributions, is problematic. In addition, evidence was presented of his engaging in sustained argument against the deletion decisions of other editors and admins, which appears to have exhausted the patience of the editors with whom he most often comes into contact.

A similar issue arose on the French Wikipedia (which I believe is FdF's home Wikipedia), leading to a three-month ban by its arbitration committee in 2009 and a community ban in 2012. FdF was also indefinitely blocked from the Italian Wikipedia in 2009 for similar behaviour, and was found to have evaded the block with a sockpuppet. There are also blocks on the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias. He was blocked six times on the English Wikipedia between 2007 and 2009.

In his own defence, FdF (partly supported by two editors) argued that everything he has done has been within policy and consensus, that this is simply an inclusionism/deletionism dispute, and that some of the complainants are engaged in ownership issues when it comes to these articles. Also in FdF's defence, Reyk (supported by four editors) saw no basis for the RfC, pointed out that discussion and disagreement are entirely acceptable, that many of the links provided in evidence were months old, that FdF's last block on the English Wikipedia was four years ago, and that the tendency of the complainants toward inclusionism lay at the heart of the dispute. Flatscan (supported by six editors, including the four who endorsed Reyk's view and FdF himself) argued along similar lines: that FdF has not violated policy, that discussing AfD decisions is encouraged, that the other-language disputes are stale except for the 2102 French ban, and that FdF is simply reacting to the over-enthusiastic documentation of non-notable D&D topics.

Rather than agreeing to make concessions, FdF's response to the RfC has been dismissive, which does not bode well for the future. Although he argues that it is unfair to raise issues that occurred on other-language Wikipedias, it would be foolish to ignore them when the complaints are so similar and the French ban so recent. Insofar as I'm allowed to make recommendations in closing an RfC, I would advise FdF to agree to a voluntary topic ban from deletion and notability discussions (or article tagging) concerning D&D and related articles. FdF, if these things need to be done, it would make sense at this point to let others step forward to do them. If you're not willing to agree to a topic ban, please at least consider significantly reducing your activity in this area, and finding ways to contribute that will give others a more rounded view of you, and you (perhaps) a more rounded view of the project.

Editors should allow FdF time to reflect on the results of this RfC and to change course, if he's willing. If the problems continue after a reasonable period, the next best step would be to approach AN or AN/I to request a community-imposed topic ban.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.