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 talkedits 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 ?).

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 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 .  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, "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, 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.


 * 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. Adding the date and sig  of this post because somehow the 4 tildes didn't  work: Revision as of 09:03, 17 June 2013, Kudpung
 * 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)
 * Is it any surprise that those supporting Folken de Fanel are both 1) incivil themselves, and 2) fail to read what is already in evidence? shows that Folken de Fanel is indefinitely blocked from the Italian Wikipedia for sockpuppeting. Feel free to apologize appropriately for insinuating that I was saying anything remotely incivil by referring evidence on another language Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is your claim that he socked on Italian wikipedia based on the sock investigation there (although you yourself state that you had no idea such an investigation had occurred when you started making your accusations of socking), then stop making the implication that he is socking on english wikipedia or formally request an investigation here. And I will continue to tell you to shut your damn mouth if you are not going to follow WP:N or WP:CIV. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto, any reference to events that are 4 years old and occurred in a completely different context (different website, different rules, a rogue admin encouraging copyright violations) are completely irrelevant as far as en.wiki and D&D articles are concerned. I have not socked on en.wiki, and any insinuation of the contrary or reference to it in an en.wiki context, if not supported by a conclusive en.wiki SPI, is bad faith. Jclemens's original sockpuppet comment was that he was reminded of specific en.wiki sockpuppets, in that case I see no relevance for closed cases of which Jclemens had no previous knowledge. Again, Jclemens himself has stirred so many controversies that he is in no position to play the saint who can cast the first stone over every single event of my remote wiki infancy. I urge JClemens to either start a proper SPI here, or drop the stick.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For once, we agree: this has nothing to do with D&D; it has to do with your history of sockpuppetry. You don't have to sockpuppet on en.wiki to be a sockpuppetteer. You remain blocked on it.wiki for your sockpupperty there, on the basis of a checkuser apparently, and have never denied it. There's nothing uncivil about calling you a sockpuppeteer, any more than there is about saying that you have a block log on four separate Wikipedias: these are facts, and the impact and meaning of these facts is what these various victims of yours have come together to attest. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is en.wiki. I have no history of sockpuppetry and am not a sockpuppetter. Insisting on calling me a sockpuppetter here on the basis of extra-en.wiki, years-old and extra-contextual events (I was the victim of a rogue admin who promoted copyright violations), without conclusive en.wiki SPI, is a characterized personal attack. You've been warned. There is no "victim" of mine.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should leave it at that; you've well and truly made your point. It is clear that this RfC will not conclude the way Jclemens wants. If he wants to take it further, there are other avenues than here through which he can do that, and that will be the time and place for you to make a counter-case. Nothing more can be achieved by you two arguing back and forth here. Reyk  YO!  08:25, 19 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)
 * It seems to be very important to you that you get your way in this matter. You're interpreting the community's lack of participation in this RfC as agreement with your point of view. Sorry, but you do not get to put words in the mouths of people who haven't spoken. I could just as easily, and just as self-servingly, claim that the silence is because everyone agrees with me. All that can be interpreted from the lack of participation is that there is no consensus to take any action. Reyk  YO!  03:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Folken de Fanel's victims"... isn't that over-the-top ? That kind of wording would suggest physical aggression that I do not remember happened. And had Jclemens read the RfC thoroughly, he would have seen the poor non-English "victims" have also been admonished for personal attacks, in that case I'm equally their "victim".Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (I didn't respond to Jclemens's comment sooner because I thought that it didn't require a rebuttal.) As Kudpung pointed out immediately below, RfC/U cannot impose bans. The various avenues for proposing and enacting bans are described at WP:Banning policy. Likewise, the process for requesting checkuser is WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Your proposals are contrary to policy and would require incredible local support to be enacted, per WP:Consensus and WP:Closing discussions. I dispute your dismissal of my view as a tu quoque argument, and I have defended it at below . Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Whatever your position is, I resent  your reading  things between the lines of my  comment  that  are not there and I  suggest  you  review the guidelines once more for closures of RFC/U. The contributors to this RFC/U have the choice: either conduct  it  quickly  to  a mutual  conclusion, or take it  somewhere else where sanctions can be enacted (you  may  wish  to  refresh  your memory  at  Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance). Otherwise, if no tangible progress is made, it can be closed any  time soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with your initial summary.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I do feel that there is enough of a response to this RFC/U to find a consensus, although I do concede that determining exactly what that consensus is may be difficult. Although a closer may choose to feel that my suggestion (that Folken's past behavior is related to his present behavior, and that his present behavior has been at the very least questionable) is not the clearly dominant position here, I have to assert that closing this as an unqualified "no consensus" would be a mistake. I do not see that this RFC has been dormant for 14 days; within that time, there have been three new endorsements on my initial statement, and at least one other endorsement on Flatscan's response. I agree that this alone is no reason to continue to keep this RFC/U open, however; I requested this to be closed almost three weeks ago, after all. Additionally, I have not seen anywhere to suggest that a certain number of respondents needs to be met in order for an RFC to achieve a consensus; if someone can point me to a guideline that describes the minimum number of respondents to achieve consensus, that would help me understand.

Let me examine what we do have. I see 33 respondents to this RFC, including myself and Folken. Of these, 12 were foreign language respondents that I had invited to better explain their interactions and observations from the other Wikipedias; they all wrote and/or endorsed statements that ranged in tone from merely confirming that Folken had gotten into trouble elsewhere, to opining that he has added nothing of value to the encyclopedias and stating the firm belief that he has not changed and likely never will. Black Kite also responded, but only to add a comment that Folken was using a comment he made out of context. Folken and four other users wrote and/or endorsed their own responses ranging from stating that all the evidence submitted was irrelevant and that we were the ones at fault, to Flatscan’s more balanced response indicating where he saw fault on both sides. My initial statement was certified or endorsed by 14 users (including myself), one of whom (Jclemens) added his own opinion that Folken should be banned, which was endorsed by three users who had also endorsed my statement, as well as Unscintillated.

Thank you Kudpung for providing a link to The nature of RfC/U. I have understood all along that none of the listed sanctions would be applied as a direct result of this RFC/U. I do think the first bullet point has been achieved. I hope the second bullet point can be achieved in time. I also think the third bullet point has been achieved, in part by the natives of en-wiki and in part by the foreign language respondents. Because they expressed no opinion of his activities here on English Wikipedia, did not endorse any statements from en-wiki natives, and did not have their statements endorsed by any en-wiki natives, I can agree that the numbers of the foreign language respondents should not be applied towards a reading of consensus, although their statements stand on their own for what they are worth. After removing them and Black Kite, it is clear that 15 of the remaining 20 users clearly support the idea that some of Folken's behavior here on en-wiki has been problematic. I do think an unqualified "no consensus", however, will tell Folken that he was correct in his notion that this was "a waste of time", and I urge you to consider the following.

His biggest problem, shown by an aggregation of his various block logs, seems to have been edit warring (and 3RR, which is related), followed by various issues related to civility. Is all of that in the past? Let me examine Flatscan's response more closely. Yes, as supported by those who feel Folken has done nothing wrong, Flatscan did note many points where he would lay the blame on myself, Jclemens, or others, as well as a number of other situations where he felt that Folken simply did nothing wrong, or nothing outside of community standards. Fine, let's put those all to the side for the moment and look at what is left. Flatscan did find evidence of more edit warring by Folken. He did note that he "would not prefer to be [the] target" of Folken's tone, that Folken's accusation of misconduct towards me is "near the line" and that his tone in at least one of his discussions with a closing admin was "not the best", and most strongly that Folken "fails to assume good faith when he speculates underlying motives". Flatscan also admitted that while his histories on other Wikipedias are mostly stale, he felt that they "are concerning" and "may justify extra attention and scrutiny". I would note that Folken's defenders disputed none of these points; TheRedPenOfDoom endorsed with no comment, Reyk called the whole an "Excellent summary", Neelix called the whole a "thorough and well-thought-out analysis of the situation", and Folken's endorsement called it a "perfectly balanced external view" and admits edit warring among his mistakes. If we can assume that none of those who endorsed Flatscan's view are disagreeing with him about any of these points (speak now or forever hold your peace), then perhaps we can assume there is at least a small amount of common ground here with some of the things I brought up and had more than a few endorsements on.

Therefore, if Kudpung or another user wishes to close this RFC/U as "no consensus", I urge you to consider at the very least adding a caveat to the close that Folken be strictly warned about future edit warring, and that he be cautioned to review and observe the civility policy and its applications in his dealings with other editors. If a block, sockpuppet investigation, topic ban, full ban, or whatever is to be pursued, I agree that these things are better discussed at another venue using the evidence and discussion brought up here. BOZ (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Or, if further input is required to assess a consensus, we could invite the respondents to a vote. Options could include straight "no consensus", or "no consensus" with caveats like the ones I suggested, or close and move to a topic ban discussion; more options can be suggested, but too many options may thin out the votes and make it even more difficult to determine a consensus. BOZ (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This RfC, notably per #Outside_view_by_Flatscan, highlighted several instances of disputable behavior almost to the point of consensus violation mainly on the part of BOZ, and Jclemens. Another, Comments_by_TheRedPenOfDoom, noted "the personal attacks and innuendo that are far too common among the trivialist in the D&D discussions" (this trivialists being BOZ and co). BOZ is nice and all when he tells us to "put those all to the side for the moment", but strangely these view do not reappear in his proposed caveat at any later moment. I will find dangerously unfair any closing comment (and so will others, I think) that would once again put all the blame on me and conveniently forget BOZ's own questionable behavior. BOZ's partial appreciation of the situation has indeed permanently "put aside" any criticism of his own behavior, and it would be disregarding actual discussion to write anything close to what he proposes.
 * As for edit warring, there was one instance noted by Flatscan, balanced by the fact that BOZ did violate consensus for these articles. If I admit any mistake on my part in this incident, it was to answer to BOZ's unconsensual action by another questionable action, but if BOZ had followed WP:CCC in the first place that wouldn't have happened. As for civility, BOZ failed to produce any evidence of me having breached the policy, however I can (and have) cite several instances of Jclemens clearly attacking me personally. It seems BOZ has the same selective analysis as Jclemens when he freely reinterprets Flatscan's statement as a proof of personal attack on my part, while Flatscan specifically adds that "FdF's tone is quite tame by current standards" and "his response under pressure here is not worthy of AN/I‎". BOZ also conveniently "put aside" (for the moment ??) the bit about "other users have discarded AGF, most obviously #Concurring view by Jclemens", when he reports Flatscan as saying "Folken "fails to assume good faith when he speculates underlying motives"".
 * So yes, it seems BOZ has done a good deal of "putting aside" (what happened to "for the moment" ? We are, apparently, never to know...) to reach the conclusion presented here, and if anything other than "no consensus" is written as the conclusion for this RfC, it will in my opinion be terribly unfair if it doesn't mention the way BOZ and Jclemens managed to deteriorate the editing conditions for anything D&D related (and encourage them to more questionable and uncivil actions). The way BOZ proposes to of course "put aside" anything that is not favorable to him and Jclemens's own demands for a block (even without consensus and without RfC having any power to enforce it) are, in my opinion, quite representative of the nonconstructive attitude I and others like TRPOD have had to deal with ever since we started editing D&D articles.
 * As for turning the closure of ths RfC into a vote, it will in my opinion achieve nothing other that putting even less emphasis on argumentation (notably the one defavorable to BOZ) and more on popular appreciation of my person. Allowing it would just annihilate any dissenting opinion. Per Rfc, "Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome". I note that BOZ specifically requested "an uninvolved admin to gauge the consensus", yet since he is apparently not satisfied with the uninvolved admin's gauge, he now wants the consensus to be gauged by the participants. This doesn't seem like a very coherent or selfless request (or respectful of Kudpung's input, in my opinion). I thought BOZ wanted uninvolved assessment, that's precisely what Kudpung offered, and I'm satisfied with it. Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Who was this RFC/U about, again? Did I miss something, and it was really about me? BOZ (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't shoot yourself in the foot.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If a vote is not appropriate - and that is fine, as it was merely a suggestion for an alternative - then I will only note that the same section also reads "a closer should not ignore numbers entirely". We do have a 3/4 majority that should not be ignored. BOZ (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no indication this wasn't accounted for in the initial summary. Apparently the arguments were strong enough to counterweight the numbers, hence a no consensus, which seems a sound conclusion to me. I don't think you show draw too much attention to numbers, though, considering some of your endorsements have appeared dubious (resurrected accounts, revenge for disagreement, partisanship etc).Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You know what though, I've thought about it, and how an RFC/U is closed doesn't really matter. Many of them are simply just closed, with no comment at all. In the end, on this RFC/U we still have all the accumulated evidence, the endorsements, the arguments, etc., and a different close won't change that or invalidate any of it. If anyone ever takes Folken to further steps in DR (or AN/I for that matter), it won't matter if this says "no consensus" or something different. Likewise, it will always be there for the public record for all to view. I can't see us coming to an agreement on this one, so it should be closed due to lack of progress and activity.

Kudpung, if you have read my comments above and still feel that an unadorned "no consensus" is an appropriate close (or a simple close with no comment at all; either way), then I can respect that. Thank you for your time and your willingness to look at this unnecessarily overly contentious case. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * i would support Kudpung's summary with the change of  "Users remain  free to  take any  specific complaints to  WP:AN/I" to "If users have any further specific complaints they should take them to  WP:AN/I or the appropriate notice boards." The continual innuendo  for the sake of slurring a reputation on any and all forums except the proper ones by administrators who should know better needs to stop. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea that an RfC/U on a user who cannot, in nearly two months, manage to put together a response that garners a single unqualified support, would be closed as anything other than a finding of inappropriate, inadequate, or otherwise non-collegial behavior is ridiculous. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you've found any hint of "inappropriate, inadequate, or otherwise non-collegial behavior", you're free (and encouraged) to report it at the proper venue, WP:ANI, which currently remains empty of any notice concerning me (but not concerning you, I note).Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Closing
Just to let you know that I'm responding to the request for closure on WP:AN/RFC. I checked with Kudpung in case he was in the process of closing, and he invited me to go ahead, so I hope to post something shortly. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking your time on this. Note that there is a possible issue of canvassing for this RfC, that may or may not be relevant to the close...Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It may become an issue if it attracts more people to the RFC/U before it is closed; so far, only Tarc has responded. BOZ (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether it attracts more people or not, it provides more background on the RFC and the motivation of some of its participants. It may not yet be an issue, but it's clearly relevant to the discussion as a whole.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's done. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful close. I appreciate all the time you must have put in to read all the TL;DR here. BOZ (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and good luck to everyone in sorting things out in future. I hope the RfC will turn out to have helped. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC/U closure
Copied from  Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not ruling out the possibility to "change course", whatever that means, in the future, such a decision assuredly won't be based on your closing comment. You have made several problematic conclusions that I absolutely disagree with, and would like you to possibly reconsider them. I'm going to proceed in the order you wrote them:


 * 1) "Twenty-five editors supported the general position of the RfC" : Your count doesn't seem to make any reference to the suspicious endorsement from a user that came out of a de facto retirement specifically for this RfC. Nor to his own admission that the endorsement was a reaction to a (successful) AfD of mine and based on his own inclusionist prejudices. I have detailed the issue in my response, and an endorsement also noted it.
 * 2) "and two asked him not to be tempted to post personal attacks or innuendo." If think you read it wrong. Per #Comments_by_TheRedPenOfDoom, it seems the "personal attacks or innuendo" are not from me, but from "the trivialist in the D&D discussions". That I'm asked not to respond to them does not mean I have indulged in them. You seem to be missing the point that my accusators have been noted to indulge in them, and thus you fail to provide an accurate summary of the debate. I'm inviting user:TheRedPenOfDoom for clarification on this.
 * 3) "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". You seem to equate "consensus" with "headcount", to which I disagree. It is my opinion that you've ruled out arguments in my favor based on numbers only, which is not supported by RFC which states "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely". Your conclusion does not enough take into account #Outside_view_by_Flatscan, which discarded most accusation of bad behavior on my part and the evidences provided, and actually underlined severe failings (consensus violation) from BOZ, who opened the RfC/U. You point out (and rightly so) the difference in number of endorsments with other comments, but that alone does not justify that you entirely discard a well-constructed comment in my favor. Besides, your conclusion significantly diverges from Kudpung's, as it goes from a probable "no consensus" to a full-on FdF blame. There is obviously a problem.
 * 4) You also seem to have completely ignored the numerous diffs I have provided in my response of Jclemens personally attacking me (notably when he disagnosed me with "mental illness"). You don't need "consensus" to read the diffs and see these for what they are.
 * 5) You also seem to have completely ignored the issue of canvassing I have noted in the RFC/U talk page.
 * 6) "Rather than agreeing to make concessions, FdF's response to the RfC has been dismissive" Why should I make concessions, and not BOZ, whose behavior has been found fautly in a comment you've chosen to ignore ? If the merits of the arguments determine an RFC/U outcome, I don't see why I should be the only one to make concessions.
 * 7) "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": As a non-French speaking person (as far as I can see, my apologies if I'm incorrect), you do not have enough knowledge of other-languages issues to be able to take them into account. You (apparently) are not aware of the fundamental differences between the various Wikipedias (the French one, for example, didn't have an equivalent for WP:GNG until december 2012). You are forced to to take foreign complaints at face-value, without any possibility to verify them. I'd recommend against incorporating them in your closure. You can make note of them, sure, but to entirely depend on what other-language Wikipedias are willing to disclose here for your own view of the case is problematic.
 * 8) "if you're not willing to agree to a topic ban, please at least consider significantly reducing your activity in this area": I'm not ruling out the idea of reducing my activity, however it won't happen unless wrongdoings are properly attributed. This RfC/U (and particularly the comment and endorsements at #Outside_view_by_Flatscan) allowed to underline serious misbehavior from a general group of users who defend articles from deletion, and most notably from two admins, who have engaged in various personal attacks, innuendos, consensus violations. Of that, not a word from you. Had you required of BOZ and Jclemens to step down as well, maybe I would have agreed to it, but I'm sure you'll understand I can't let myself be bullied and harassed, and called a "sockpuppet" and "mentally ill" and "clueless", and just leave D&D and AfDs as if nothing had been done to me. No.


 * I'm also sure your statement is not going to please the few users who take part to the daunting task of cleaning up WP of non-notable articles. All your statement has done was to legitimize the bullying and harassment done to them, and to complicate their task further.

In conclusion, I'm not asking to ignore every complaint about me, but to be fairer in your assessment of the situation. Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Folken, this is why people don't want to close RfCs, because it becomes a full-time job for the forseeable future. :)


 * The bottom line is that you've behaved in a way that has caused problems. That's evident from your contributions alone. I closed the RfC by offering you advice, which it's in your own interests to take. Wanting to wait until "wrongdoings are properly attributed" is not a good attitude, because it's about other people. The way forward is to focus on yourself. What can you do differently and better? I understand that that will feel like an unsatisfactory close, but the consensus was clear that most of the issues stemmed from your approach. If you would change that approach, and also diversify a little, it would make your life on Wikipedia a lot easier and probably more pleasant.


 * The one point I will look at from above is the personal attacks issue. If I misunderstood that point, I'll reword it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Folken, now that the RfC has been closed, I'll be bold and make a few observations. I probably  unfairly  passed the buck  to  SlimVirgin to  close that  RfC because I know how long  it  takes to  read and assess a thing  like that. She probably  spent  several  hours on  it  (I know I  did) and I  admire her for that, and one cannot  fault her for having  taken a different  approach  to  the closure than  I  may  have chosen.  My  close would have been different simply  because in  my opinion (at  that  time) the RfC had become stale and could have been simply closed and archived without comment. The thing  is however, my  proposal for close precipitated a last  minute flurry of comment, albeit  mainly  from  those who  had not  paid much  more attention  to  it, and comment  about  the RfC in  other places. What  we have to  remember however, is that  the RfC was about  you and not  about  the other participants, and although  there are probably ample grounds to  criticise them too, these are matters that  are best  addressed separately  and elsewhere. To  compound  an RfC/U with  counter offensive rather than focusing on straightforward defence is one of the reasons why  potential  closers shy  away  from  the task. Oh, and BTW, I  have a command of French  that  is possibly better than that  of many  of the natives ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you both for your input here (and also for the time you took in reading the mess that was this RfC). These comments have helped me to put things into perspective. Kudpung provided the little bit that was necessary to move forward (sorry, nothing personal here, SlimVirgin). Here's my conclusion on the whole matter:

If this is a problem of "approach" (and the actual summary doesn't say otherwise, in my opinion), then I guess my opinions on notability and AfD recommendations, in themselves, are fine and within the norms. I think that is backed up by my AfD stats of 54% (and it would actually be 64% if it accounted for "merge" outcomes). I have been involved in 113 AfDs, and do not think it an excessive number considering Jclemens was in 2262 AfDs.

Given I have nominated only 10 articles for AfD in 6 years, and, counting "merge" outcomes, with a success rate of 55% (plus 22% "no consensus"), I conclude there is no concern over bad faith, disruptive, or excessive nominations. The RfC/U did not make any reference to that anyway.

As such, I see no reason to stop nominating or participating in AfDs, nor in debates around sources and notability, though I will keep on making sure I don't nominate articles without good "chances" of them being deleted/merged. I see no reason to change the nature of my AfD recommendations either.

However, I agree to diversify so that my entire activity is not centered around AfDs and notability questions. I will also modify my approach regarding these discussions, here is how: 1) I'll limit, as much as possible, the volume of my participation so as to make my point clear in one comment/recommendation, while keeping an absolutely civil tone. I will not try to convince users of agreeing with me if they don't want to be convinced. 2) I will not go to closing admins talk pages or request DRV. In case I disagree with a close and consider there are strong grounds for deletion, I'll renominate the article after 6 months. I'll not go beyond 2 renominations per article (provided I'm not the nominator, in that case, only 1 renom).

I have a few provisions on this, though. The main being that per your involvment as closer and potential closer, I'd like you two, if you accept, to be responsible for overseeing my participation in AfDs/notability debates, and for my overall "wiki safety". 1) The "1 comment per AfD" limit doesn't apply to discussions requiring productive back and forth between users, mostly in cases when a new source is brought up and needs to be assessed. In that case I'll keep an absolutely civil tone, my comment as short as possible, and the volume at a minimum (ie I won't try to convince users who don't want to be convinced). that kind of comment, from a user in the RfC/U consensus, is what I'm aiming for. If that happens, I'll provide you both with a link to the discussion so you can review my participation and assess it as reasonable/excessive. Also, if a sub-debate has naturally started among other users, I will provide my input. 2) If I experience a grossly erroneous AfD closure (ie 5 deletes, 1 keep, unmotivated outcome "keep") and if no one else does it first, I'll come to either of you and ask you to start a DRV process in my name if you deem it reasonable. 3) when one of the user involved in the RfC choses to personally attack me as a revenge for my participation to a discussion, as it happened in the past, I will report the user right away at WP:ANI and will invite both of you for comment there. That is, provided I haven't breached my promise to diversify (in that case I'll just report it to you personally so that you can informally admonish the user for making a personal attack, and me for not having kept my promise). 4) I'll reject any direct involvement in my oversight from either BOZ or Jclemens. If these two have any ground for complaint, they should go to you first before any action (and that includes WP:ANI). 5) Similarly, unless they want to notify me of a particular discussion, or to answer to one of my comments, these two (but especially Jclemens) are definitively forbidden to make any reference to my username or my person, even in elusive terms, in any discussion in which I don't already take part.

Provided the consensus is far from unanimous (12 to 6, with respectable users and one admin also on my side) and with my accusators having been accused themselves of uncollegial behavior by uninvolved users, I cannot reasonably go beyond the above agreement.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * number 4 seems a non-starter to me. Any attempt to reframe the close as a prohibition on any party seeking future sanctions on any other party through any appropriate Wikipedia channel or venue would be beyond the scope of an RFC/U. My sincerest hope is that nothing further will be necessary, but SV did not sign up to be a perpetual guardian of anything, certainly not as a prior restraint on filing any potential future requests for sanctions on anyone's behalf. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * N°4 is only a necessary provision to ensure you'll not make abusive reports at WP:ANI just whenever I participate at AfD or a notability discussion, even when my behavior is not at fault. Per WP:INVOLVED, I see no other way. You do not get to be at the same time party and judge in the dispute. Any control over my areas of activity and approach is now beyond your reach, whether SV agrees to supervise me or not (by the way, I don't foresee this to be a massive work overload, given my overall average/low participation in AfD). You remain free to report any objective breach of conduct (personal attacks, 33R violations...). Had the RfC outcome been any different, I might not have made the same proposition, but with no unanimity (and phantoms users...) and your own share of uncollegial behavior, that's the way it's going to be.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Copied from  Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of you, please take your possible disagreements somewhere else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Kudpung,, would you comment on FdF's #7 and the French Wikipedia? Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, the RFC has been closed. No  prejudice to  another RfC being  started, but I will  not  be participating. That  said, in  my capacity  as a translator, I  would translate or neutrally summarise anything  from  fr.Wiki if I'm provided with  the diffs. Requests on  my  talk page, please.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply using FdF's eight-point list for reference:
 * I disagree with the 25 total being presented first, as it misleadingly counts the French and Italian users. In addition to them being separate Wikipedias with different cultural norms (FdF #7), FdF has not edited the French Wikipedia since April 2012 (ban) and the Italian Wikipedia since 2009 (indefinite block). I am ambivalent about discounting User:Robbstrd's support: RfCs often track poll counts, but headcount appears to have been weighted heavily in the closure. In that case, User:User226 and maybe User:Dream Focus are also worth examining.
 * It is not clear to me from the comment alone if "WP:BAITed into the personal attacks and innuendo" would be more accurately phrased as "by", but I have not seen FdF use innuendo.
 * Three separate points:
 * I agree with FdF regarding headcount. If it was the primary consideration in determining consensus, SlimVirgin should write that explicitly.
 * My Outside view by Flatscan rebutted much of BOZ's statement point by point. I glossed over the histories on other Wikipedias because I believed they were stale and because I could not comment on them in detail. No one replied to it on its merits: the only responses were and.
 * , which I will reply to directly. FdF is correct that this is a huge swing from the most favorable realistic outcome for him, to the most negative possible, as RfC cannot apply binding sanctions.
 * FdF's response did not receive enough support to rise above RfC/U's tendency to focus on the named user. It is not clear whether it was considered when weighting Jclemens's proposed ban, which received only one sentence in the closing statement.
 * The total impact of at WT:Article Rescue Squadron was  by User:Tarc. Since Jclemens did not benefit, the alleged canvassing is not material to this RfC closure.
 * While I would have preferred that FdF's comments had been less confrontational, I doubt that a conciliatory tone would have benefited him. Why should someone offer concessions in the face of few substantiated policy violations?
 * FdF, can you link to the French GNG equivalent and relevant discussion, so that Kudpung may verify your December 2012 claim? I am ignorant of the differences between the various language Wikipedias and, as I wrote above, I am unable to comment on them in detail. User:SlimVirgin has no language user boxes. I disagree that "the French ban [is] so recent", as it is over a year old.
 * It is common for RfC/U to focus on the named user, so the omission of commentary on other users is within its norms. I think that it is incorrect to ignore the evidence on them outright and lay all the blame on FdF.
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply to The only discussion I see is the section you started above, . It involved previous participants reiterating their points and antagonizing each other.  and  mentioned my view, but I did not see any points that required responding. Were there other discussions? I see nothing at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel. Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I recuse myself now from  any  further comment  on  this case. That  said, with  the copy  of the thread from  SlimVirgin's talk page, I  believe that's everything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I asked because I see this close as akin to one user relisting an AfD,, immaterial sparring between already-involved participants , and the final closer closing against the new comments. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Flatscan, thank you for your integrity and your dedication to this case. I don't think, however, that anyone besides us is ready to re-evaluate the close, especially if it requires perusing years old fr.wiki archives. Let's not forget that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that here, admins have the final say on absolutely everything, entirely at their own discretion. Most of them are reluctant to reconsider their decisions. Remember that I was dragged here precisely because I was opening too much DRVs for BOZ's liking. Add to that the fact that 2 prominent admins have been implicated, and the external pressures that have been hinted at...and you have a completely political decision which doesn't really surprise me. It is indeed troubling that WP:BOOMERANG was completely ignored, while it's standard procedure at WP:ANI to determine who's at fault in a dispute (and I'm sure none of the admins involved in the close are reluctant to use it there). Were I to go to report any of my adversaries at WP:ANI, I'm sure no one will forget the boomerang. It's also very troubling that the closing admins, when notified of serious personal attacks and possible policy breach from their fellow admins, just said...nothing. And I thought that admins were supposed to lead by example. However I don't see how this close could have any weight at higher venues such as arbcom, per the flaws you very rightly pointed at. I think, if you read between the lines and consider the limits of an RfC, that it was more a matter of telling fellow admins merely what they wanted to hear rather than being the first step of administrative action (that won't be possible unless it is decided to ban deletionism from WP). And in the end, it that's all it takes to have more civil debates regarding fictional characters, let them have it. As I've said, I've no intention on giving up on fictional characters AfD, if all I have to do so that BOZ et. all have no case whatsoever is to diversify my participation, then so be it. To answer your questions about fr.wiki, here is when fr:WP:CGN (French translation of WP:GNG) became a guideline (in French a "Recommandation"), in December 2012. Also, note that #Outside_view_by_Turb (translating an Fr arbcom decision) mentions user "Ju gatsu mikka" having been "warned [...] about "no personnal attack" and "assume good faith"." #outside_view_by_Ju_gatsu_mikka completely forgets to notify us of it, which undermines any credibility French users could have here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * According to WP:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance, "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." In practice, RfC/Us tend to focus on the named user, and WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot (WP:BOOMERANG) is more commonly applicable to noticeboard reports, especially AN/I.
 * Jclemens criticized my view as, in other words, a flawed tu quoque argument. If my arguments were tu quoque and dependent on other users, discounting them would be within RfC/U norms.
 * 2. WP:Consensus: I asserted that your edits drew on existing discussion, were supported by other users, and were thus within WP:Consensus. The bit about BOZ was under a separate item primarily intended to support your accusation of "misconduct", but it also made it difficult for BOZ to cite WP:Consensus credibly while bending it himself.
 * 5. WP:No personal attacks: I undercut "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" (WP:No personal attacks) by pointing at evidence, some of which you had already cited with the accusation. Compare to the defense of truth to defamation. Disclaimer: No defamation is alleged.
 * 6. WP:Assume good faith: This item is tuo quoque, but it was meant to call attention to overall problematic atmosphere.
 * The paragraph about Jclemens seeking sanctions is an explanation for my participation, not a material argument.
 * If I am reading the history correctly, fr:WP:CGN began as a translation of WP:GNG in August 2012. fr:Wikipédia:Notoriété des œuvres de fiction was created in 2006. Were there only subject-specific notability guidelines in the interim? Regarding Ju gatsu mikka, the Arbcom finding and warning add context, but the failure to disclose is immaterial because Turb provided the decision text within six hours.
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)