Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Commentary by Hasteur on suspension motions

I would like to register my supreme dissatisfaction at these two motions. I think under pretty much any reasonable interpertation Kafziel has lost the confidence of the community at large in their status as an administrator. Punting the desysoping down the road 3 months only leaves the AfC space in danger of Kafziel coming in during a period of low activity by the admin corps and steamrolling their will over the AfC submissions. Are the Arbitrators willing to sit on a special watch to guard against a Fait accompli attack by Kafziel during the 3 months of cooling off for the case?

I would also like to note that before proposed suspension motion 2 is carried out there are multiple tasks/consensus building activities that are more important and urgent than this recommended RfC:

Discussion about how to transition the current AfC project space (where the submissions are placed) to the Drafts namespace

Discussion about how to and to what granularity apply the CSD G series criterion in the Drafts namespace

Discussion about how to keep the Drafts namespace from being weighted down with much of the problems that currently plague the AfC project space

Get the "Pending AfC review" backlog down to under ~300 submissions consistently without the need for continous backlog drives

Finish resolving the first pass of G13 eligible submissions down under 9000 (which is an approximation of 300 submissions a day multiplied by 30 days delay between becoming eligible for G13 and being nominated by the automated HasteurBot Task 1 job)

For these reasons I really think that motion 2 is going to be invalidated as Drafts is a wikipedia process and people outside of WPAFC are going to be deciding the consensus on how to resolve this. Hasteur (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The motion provides for Kafziel to be deysopped in the event he uses his tools during the suspension period. AGK [•] 14:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So your viewpoint is the indiginty of being desysopped immediately is greater than the indignity at the administrators having to go and do a cleanup if Kafziel goes on a rampage. Got it (but oh so not surprised). Hasteur (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion

I awoke this morning to discover that one of my colleagues decided to post motions without there having been any discussion amongst the committee about such motions since the very early days of the evidence phase. (In fact, the committee hasn't been discussing this case on the mailing list, except to clarify which departing and arriving arbitrators will be participating.) There does seem to be continued support for a full case with most of the arbitrators (current and about to start) who have weighed in, although obviously given this only occurred a few hours ago, a majority of the committee have not weighed in. I will continue to develop a full case, based on that feedback. Should this change, we will advise the community. Risker (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Risker. While we're on the point of feedback from the committee is there any chance of an answer to the question posed 11 days ago when the evidence page was still open at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence#Update_on_status? I ask because I'm trying to present the Advocate's position and I also observe that the primary clerk to the case has gone on extended wikibreak and therefore that route of inquiry/maintenance is vacant. Hasteur (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We will, of course, continue to update the community when positions become more clear. However, I would correct the misstatement above that this motion had not been discussed by the committee. There was in fact a full thread devoted to suspending the case after Kafziel's departure, and the idea of these motions was actually first floated in that thread. And I think it would take rather a lot more than a pair of motions to "confuse" the community, which is not made up of simpletons. AGK [•] 22:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hello there.

I haven’t paid any attention to this for the past couple of weeks, but following a few ArbCom emails over the weekend I checked the status and thought it might be worth making one final statement. Since the only two proposals seem to have net zero support, maybe this can at least get things moving.

I think Salvio said it best in his opposing statement to the first proposal: This isn't about me refusing to participate in the ArbCom decision, it’s about me refusing to participate to the level of everyone’s liking. I did make a statement: I referred to my previous arguments at AN/I, none of which were refuted there or here. I had already spent a lot of time participating in that original discussion, and simply declined to go in for all the tedium of rehashing it in a new forum. I’m not going to post line-by-line breakdowns of evidentiary findings because I’m not being paid to be a paralegal. You want to see what happened? Go look. The discussion is there for all to see. Could I have spent my Christmas and New Years bantering about this crap? I suppose. But I can see that no progress has been made in my absence, so I'm glad I didn't bother.

Some people seem to take it as a foregone conclusion that I must be desysopped, for one reason or another. Some argue that my work on the AfC backlog was so egregious that I must be stopped to prevent me from ever doing that again… but there has never been consensus for that.

Failing that, some went on to argue that my refusal to beg for forgiveness for my supposed crimes means I’m unsuitable to be an admin; but if the crimes aren't crimes (and, again, there is no consensus that they were) then I have nothing to apologize for. You’re putting the cart before the horse. If you want me to change what I'm doing, change the rules first and then check back with me.

So, having failed at the first two attempts, then it’s argued that I should be desysopped for retiring. But retiring is not grounds for automatic desysopping; retiring to avoid sanctions is. I didn't do that. In fact, in my last statement, I specifically urged the committee to proceed as planned in all cases.

It is absolutely absurd to me that so many editors would on one hand decry my defensiveness at AN/I, and on the other hand demand that I defend myself more strenuously here. So I shouldn't be an admin because I defended myself, and I shouldn't be an admin because I didn't defend myself? It’s a ridiculous catch 22. And, if the outcome is going to be the same, then I might as well opt for the one that requires the least amount of effort on my part.

At this point, I don’t see any consensus to remove the admin bit from this account, or any reason that it should be removed as a matter of procedure. But I’m not going to argue any further with the wikilawyers because it really doesn't matter. I’ll continue editing Wikipedia, in one form or another, for as long as I care to do so. And I'll be retired for as long as I care to be, too. So I guess that's about all I have to say on the subject. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to state the obvious for the record, there is a distinct difference between "defending oneself", putting up rational, logical and reasonable arguments, backed with evidence, to counter charges brought against oneself, and "defensiveness", an irrational and emotional oversensitivity to the criticism of others. That editors may object to your defensiveness when criticisms of your actions were voiced on the noticeboards doesn't mean that they wouldn't expect, and want, you to put up a defense when formal charges were brought. There's no "Catch 22" in that.

I'll comment as well that your final paragraph seems typical of your "screw the community" attitude, and - at least for me - is the primary reason why I find your adminship to be suspect: you just don't seem to have the right qualities to be an admin. If we had a reasonable community-based process for desysoping (ha!), I'm fairly certain you would have been through it by now, and would be retiring as a rank-and-file editor. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel, It's probably for the best that you made your statement and succinctly directed ArbCom to the previous discussions and actions (none of which show any wrongdoing or abuse). In the last few weeks, all we've seen is that Hasteur is vindictive, relentless, out for a lynching, and has some seriously antagonistic WP:OWN issues over AFC. Further, his commentary against anyone who disagreed or criticized his position and actions has shown that arguing the matter vociferously would not have been fruitful. With his demands for a vendetta, I fully support Wee Curry Monster's call at Workshop for a topic ban from AfC against Hasteur, although a year is too lenient. I do hope that you return to editing, and do so as an administrator. I have never seen you abuse your tools--I don't think anyone ever has. It pains me to see you have to go through this, since you've been helpful to me over the years and to many others, and your knowledge, fairness and by-the-book actions are far more a benefit to Wikipedia than what we've seen of the abuses perpetrated by Hasteur. I hope that ArbCom sees that, too. --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel, if I had to point towards one piece of advice, it would be this - if you think a page should be speedied, and it's not of paramount importance to delete it immediately (ie: G10, G12), tag it instead of deleting it unliterally. In return, delete other CSDs that you agree with. Having two editors make a decision together is, all other things equal, better than one. For example, I nominated Bioscale for a G11 CSD, but an admin challenged it and it was restored and improved (although I see it's been respeedied and prodded again since). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Before you make your decision

This discussion does not help ArbCom reach its decision, so I am closing it. AGK [•] 19:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Just saw this pop up today and thought that folks here might be interested in this work in progress... User:Hasteur/Essays/Arbitration,_the_worst_hive_of_scum_and_villany.[1]. After one user mentioned their opinion that AfC had become a walled garden, Hasteur has mirrored back the rhetoric calling ArbCom one as well. Another tally mark in the reasons why I think Hasteur's behavior is troublesome and potentially subversive. I'd venture to say that I expect his behavior to worsen despite the decision.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Ok, so you're stalking my edits now, and I'm the one at fault? Please explain how a personal essay vending my feelings is against policy? Specifically I claim the User Essays section of Wikipedia:Essays. ColonelHenry, I explicitly assert that your tattling on the essay here less than 2 hours after creation is specifically harassment. I want you to stop stalking my edits and mentioning me in any manner as you have not passed the point that WP:HOUND grants. Hasteur (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Nope, not purposefully hounding--and I don't follow you around Wikipedia (which is what hounding really is). Quite frankly, I care very little about you or what you do and have less respect for you and what you do. However, something (namely, this essay draft) was brought to my attention privately, and I bring it to ArbCom's attention so that they can do what they please with the information. I think the scope of the personal essay is rather deluded and an exercise of poor judgment on your part in that it evinces more WP:IDHT attitude and refusing to acknowledge your negative role in these matters. If you don't like being called out for suspicious and potentially subversive behaviour that seems to evince an intention to continue it after ArbCom decides, perhaps you should not be writing "personal essays vending (sic) my feelings" for the world to see. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC) If it was brought to your attention privately, then the black hat informant should stand forth and claim credit for their discovery rather than working having you be a proxy editor. Still it comes down to you intentionally stiring the public drama pot. I would note that many individual userspace essays say a great many minority (even singular) viewpoints where they have an issue. This might have been germane if I was running for ArbCom or advanced permissions. I don't recall any specific restriction on any editor writing their own thoughts about how wikipedia is operating. My nacent essay is no different than others so I assert that you are continuing to harass me with this continual attack on me. If only there were some clerk or Arbitrator that would read through all your and WCM's proposals and static generating to realize that your actions are not productive to the case. Hasteur (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Go on thinking that if it allows you to sleep at night...when you get your comeuppance, in great WP:BOOMERANG fashion, I'll raise a glass or two of a decent single malt to ArbCom for a job well done.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC) I will probably add scum and villain to my signature presently, Hasteur when people are commenting on a WP:BATTLE mentality such an essay shows a distinct lack of appreciation for the impact of your conduct. I am sure as 74 has commented you believe that WPAfC can effectively create policy and people not following your process are "damaging the encyclopedia". Trouble is the guidelines of WPAfC are not policy, they do not represent consensus for whole of wikipedia and other editors can edit within policy and not follow your rules. If anything comes out of this mess I would hope its an appreciation that is the case. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC) By all means become a member of the "Wikipedians who aren't wikipedians" category or whatever nonsense category it was that spawned from the last great civility case. Prove me right that you and CH are here not to improve wikipedia, but to stir the drama pot over and over. I would note that the essay you both rail against was "discovered" and nominated for MFD. At this time it has a all keep with the exception of the nominator. Perhaps its your and CH's reading of consensus that is out of whack, but by all means go ahead and make fools of yourselves. I look forward to any future candidacies in which either of you make a bid for advanced permissions as the conduct and drama mongering that both of you have conducted are sufficent in my mind to warrant an oppose on any request for additional privileges from me. Hasteur (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

AGK- With all due respect, Worm notes he considers admonishing someone else in a comment, such (and more) are proposed in workshop, and the page and discussion underline why those came up. I urge arbitrators to review collapsed and the linked userspace page and consider the inherent BOOMERANG issue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed decision arbcom wiki links.

Worm That Turned, you're linking to arbcom wiki for diffs. Those are hard for us mere mortals to read. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It's just the first one of the Response to queries finding by the way. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing whilst voting. There wasn't actually meant to be a link there - I must have pressed paste without noticing! Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Unprecedented

The findings of fact point out that Kafziel made a few suspect deletions that were restored. I’m confident that all reasonable people can understand and forgive this. Everyone makes mistakes, and Kafziel has admitted as much. Deletions can be undone. NBD.

The only other evidence of alleged administrative misconduct are small handful of diffs taken out of a single ANI discussion where Kafziel behaved in an "abrupt" way and "showed a battleground attitude."

Let’s look at this in the greater context of Kafziel’s tenure on Wikipedia. With over 25,000 edits, Kafziel has been an administrator for nearly seven years, taking thousands of completely uncontroversial administrative actions.

I am positively astounded that desysopping is even on the table, let alone that two arbiters have actually voted for it. Has Arbcom ever desysoped someone before because they didn’t like their sass? In one discussion. Out of seven years.

No evidence of a pattern of misbehavior warranting desysoping has been presented. This whole thing seems pants-on-head crazy. Am I the only one who shares this view? HiDrNick! 14:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCOUNT has replaced WP:INVOLVED as the de jour way to get an admin out of the way. Before you had to bait them until they blew up at you and you could claim bias. Now you stalk their actions demanding they acknowledge the mountain you have made out of their molehill. When they get fed up and stop participating in the in the passive aggressive outrage game, yell that they aren't being accountable and hope for a reprimand. Tadaah!. Admin gone. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well first, Arbcom is not bound by precedent. Second, Kafziel has stated that he has found nothing wrong with his behavior and that he would continue to do the same thing again. You say that his actions were wrong and were mistakes, so you would agree that they shouldn't happen again. The only way to prevent this from happening again is a desysop, because otherwise, Kafziel would repeat the same mistakes. So you are agreeing with this proposed decision in this sense. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 15:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

All he said was that Kafziel made mistakes, not that his actions were wrong. Everyone makes mistakes. By your logic, the appropriate way to prevent more is to block everyone forever. No concensus has emerged stating he was wrong. The proposed decision doesn't even say he was wrong. At no point does remedy 1 or 2 state or imply it was for his actions, only his responses. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

By this logic, every old administrator should have to stand for a new RFA (not a bad idea...as there truly are many unpleasant people who nevertheless manage to do great work). But then we'd have no admins. Desysopping Kafziel is just proof that the inmates run the asylum...something akin to letting criminals fire the town's cops and voting judges out of office. When an abusive user like Hasteur can get rid of a good admin on the grounds of "well, he's not nice" there's a fundamental systemic problem here. By the looks of the decision in its initial draft, ArbCom failed Wikipedia on this one. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"AfC wikiproject reminded" AGK vote

Steve makes a good point, but I think a general reminder to the project members is enough to resolve this dispute. If they do not heed this reminder, a future arbitration request on the WikiProject itself would probably be accepted (as the problem would then be intractable). If such a notice is entered into the final record, I would like to know how AGK intends to deal with the imminent "WP AFC" case. It is known to myself that there several editors (and administrators) who are itching for an opportunity to take down the WikiProject itself based on a slight that a member may have commited against a submission they were shepherding or have personal grudges against members of the project. It has come to my attention that some participants in the workshop advocated for the complete dismemberment of the WikiProject back in November. How do you intend to deal with spurious requests for case each time a AfC member tweaks one of these hostile editors feathers and the hostile editor runs immediately to ArbCom as the vote indicates that there may be a lower threshold for acceptance of a case. Hasteur (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)