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)

I agree that this isn't the best of remedies IMO. I consider myself part of the WikiProject (I'm not sure if I'm listed on the project page or not, neither do I care much). If this passes, I'm going to be 'reminded' (I'm not sure if I'd be more reminded when the remedy passes than I am now). While I find being officially reminded a little silly in itself, the idea that by withdrawing from a project (or by any other non mind-altering action) I can than be un-reminded again is even more silly. Any Wikipedian who would argue they didn't remember something because they were reminded of it as a wikiproject member which they are no longer member of would be completely ridiculous. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

How I would deal with an arbitration request about the WikiProject would depend on many variables that are currently unknown. I therefore cannot easily predict how I would vote. However, to answer your question as phrased, it should be obvious that I would decline a request that I find "spurious". No request is accepted if it is without merit. AGK [•] 14:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved from AFC section

With all due respect to this most esteemed body of Wikipedians; the only rational response to an allegation/suggestion/implication that my post is evidence of an WP:OWN problem, is; "WTF are you smoking?".

Having just taken a substantial chunk out of my day to read the whole case here - I was not aware of this whole issue until I got pinged a while ago - I might as well comment on the main issue before this tribunal: Kafziel's behavior was akin to someone "dealing with" a leaking roof by burning down the house, and upon being taken to task for that responding by threatening to torch the whole village - then there won't be any leaky roofs, squeaky stairs, cracked windows or dripping taps. AfC's task is not merely to filter out trash, there are far more efficient mechanisms for that job, but as one of the legs of the editor retention initiative, AfC is actually aimed at helping struggling newbies become happy productive Wikipedians. Kafziel's actions at the time were anything but newbie friendly. BTW the incident happened so long ago and we haven't seen Kafziel back at AfC since then, so is this whole process actually still relevant and necessary? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to see my comment at least being acknowledged as having at least some value as a contribution to the discussion, even if an actual substantive reply is not forthcoming. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed decision is decidedly one sided and intrinsically unfair

At the moment, I see the proposed decision as decidedly one sided and not reflective of either evidence or the conduct of editors during the case.

This was a case that should never have been before Arbcom in the first place. Arbcom is supposed to be the last resort in WP:DR. Instead, we had User:Hasteur angrily opening an arbcom case after failing to get the result he wanted at WP:ANI and it was taken on immediately. If Kafziel's conduct was a problem, there should have been at least an attempt at an RFC/U.

The central reason for this case was the allegation of misuse of tools, there has been a clear finding that there was no abuse of the tools. The rationale for desyopping is though 100% correct in policy terms he did not speak politely to a group of editors angrily accusing him of tool abuse and damaging the encyclopedia. Given the complete lack of an RFC/U to stampede straight to a desyopping when cleared of the main charge against him and there is zero evidence of damaging the encyclopedia is intrinsically unfair.

It is decidely one sided that there are no sanctions proposed against the editors who made those false allegations and whose WP:BATTLE conduct and WP:OWN behaviour has been very evident in the page. There were two sides here and you've chosen to ignore that. The same conduct is still evident, arbcom is coming out and stating there was no abuse and editors are still posting here claiming there was.

And yes whilst its encouraging to state explicitly that WP:WPAFC doesn't get to define and enforce policy, its rather Kafkaeque to assert that to follow policy you have to discuss with those self-same editors who claim it does and gain their agreement. Surely even arbcom members can realise that you're effectively saying that WP:WPAFC does get to write policy if you have to get their agreement to act.

At the moment, you've given those editors whose abusive conduct resulted in this case exactly what they wanted, you've served his head on a platter and they don't even get a slap on the wrist for their vengeful, spiteful and downright vindictive behaviour. Frankly I'm appalled. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

People who live in glass houses should not be throwing rocks. WCM and CH are more interested in persuing a ventetta/harassment than improving the encyclopedia. After I have attempted to disengage from their "conspiracy" we have soapboxing such as this, tattling on a userspace essay, and general un-nice behavior to try and get any kind of sanction to stick to me as an advocate for asking an editor who was entrusted with greater power (and greater responsibility) to justify their actions. As it appears in my mind, it is clear that ArbCom saw more issue with the way that Kafziel reacted to being challanged and refused to accept requests to "not do it that way" even in the face of editors and administrators, WPAFC members and editors at large. Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, I don't like seeing a good man and longtime helpful and fair admin and productive contributor being cut down at the knees by vindictive bullshit--especially by a malefactor who has the arrogance to think he's innocent and pure as the driven snow. And if you doubt I've spend time improving the encyclopaedia, maybe you ignore my intensive work since your witchhunt here started on two FACs, a few GANs, and a two-month bigger-than-I-expected drafting effort toward a comprehensive article (and future FAC) on a major American literary work that has otherwise languished for 10 years as a stub (easy to miss when you're clubbing newbies and defending your castle from people who might be interested in fixing the walls and draining the moat). No matter what ArbCom decides, Hasteur, I know without a doubt you are the instigator and the problem in this case, and if injustice is levied against Kafziel, his blood is on your hands, I place my confidence in the fact that karma is bitch.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Oh, but if you think your credentials are great, have a look at mine" First, content building isn't the only thing that helps the encyclopedia. Second, throwing your weight around by comparing GAs isn't helping. KonveyorBelt 01:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree 100% with WCM's assessment and have considerable disappointment in the process and decision I've seen thus far. To hold Kafziel entirely accountable and defrock him because he got exasperated with in dealing with an petty, vindictive and intransigent cabal of editors at WP:WPAFC but not taking them out to the woodshed is entirely one-sided. I am incensed, rather than get myself into hot water for how I really feel, I'll just state that WCM has said it more pleasantly than I would. If you desysop Kafziel on a case that should have never been accepted and for Hasteur to end up walking away from this untouched and emboldened in thinking his behaviour was acceptable (a "reminder" to play nice is not a "remedy"--even by a long shot), then this is truly and absurdly Kafkaesque. You might as well hang the lion hunter for an "animal rights" violation while the lion eats all the children in the village.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Outsider's observation: As of today, there is no sanctionable Finding of Fact against Kafziel, yet the desysopping remedy stands at 9-2, and the admonishing at 9-1. Indeed, for someone just dropping by it seems that the desysop is done for not respecting the Arbitration Committee. Please be so kind to either document better what he is guilty of, or to arrive at a more logical conclusion. --Pgallert (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first --- verdict afterwards.'" HiDrNick! 14:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Pgallert: The finding is forthcoming. AGK [•] 15:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Can I repeat my question as it appears to have been swamped by other editors to ask if someone is also drafting something related to the problems with members of WP:WPAFC? I note the current proposed remedy is failing and suggestions that an alternative is required. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

AGK remedy 1 preferences

AGK, sorry to start a second thread on your votes/rationales, but could you clarify how you can say in 1.1 that "[desysopping is] plainly the only option left open to us.", but have equal preference between admonishment and desysopping? Maybe the statement in 1.1 should be struck if you have equal preference between the two, or you could add a word of clarification if you dont. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all. I meant that desysopping is the only option of desysopping and not desysopping Kafziel left open to us. I continue to support both admonishing and desysopping him, and clarified to this effect a few minutes ago. The change of the remedies from separate proposals to alternative options may have rendered my comments incoherent, but is the meaning more clear now? AGK [•] 14:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• AGK - what is your response (and I hope other ArbCom members address this) to Salvio's comment that desysoping looks capricious and groundless when the finding of fact it is based has 6 votes against to 5 votes in favour? IMHO, that's rather akin to "you're not found guilty of the charge, but we're still going to hang you".--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Somebody has drafted a suitable finding of fact illustrating the problem with Kafziel's conduct; it should arrive shortly. AGK [•] 15:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Can I also ask if someone is also drafting something related to the problems with members of WP:WPAFC? I have noted that the current proposed remedy is failing and that members have suggested an alternative is required. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks, looking forward to reading it--this not the first time I've seen this with ArbCom (saw it in the Manning case...topic bans for failed FoFs), so it does trouble me in that it seems rather Kafkaesque. I hope, also, that there are appropriate FoFs and remedies coming for the AfC participants (WCM above and I agree, as have many of your colleagues, that AfC participants' behaviour need to be addressed specifically--especially Hasteur, who should be called out and sanctioned for his ownership/battlefield/newbie-biting mentality and vindictive conduct). I do have continuing concerns though...if one FoF fails, yet the remedy that passed is tied to that FoF, is tailoring a new FoF to fit the remedy votes proper? Finding a new FoF to fit the sanction seems a bit "let's find a crime to fit the punishment" and both should be revoted--that would be the more transparent, less Kafkaesque way to do it, IMHO. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Funny how this section started out as asking for clarification on one topic and has become yet another soapbox for Wee Curry Monster and ColonelHenry to jump up and down like screaming howler monkeys throwing excrement against those they don't like. It is my impression based on the votes and commentary on the votes that there is a desire for alternative findings of fact/remedies yet not the will to follow through with it. I strongly advise the Wee Curry Monster and ColonelHenry from making any more assertions and further accusations lest I be forced to open an Administrator's Noticeboard thread asking for a two way interaction ban on the grounds of your continued harassment (See [2] as evidence of the Harassment result). Your objections and alternative proposals have been heard, but based on the fact that they have not been incorporated into the Proposed Decision should be indicative that the drafting arbitrator did not find your proposals compelling. Hasteur (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Entirely vexatious conduct. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Would you two mind collapsing your comments to stop my request being swamped by walls of text. I would also ask User:Hasteur to withdraw threats of further WP:DRAMA at WP:AN, noting other than a brief mention to the start of this case I made no mention of specific individuals above. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not a threat, merely giving you the option to stop prior to my appropriate invocation of conduct DR for harassment. WCM's question directly calls the question that I have misbehaved, therefore it is only reasonable to point out the soapbox that WCM is jumping up and down on. I would also point at the "Before you make your decision" section as non-productive soapboxing that an Administrator closed off as non-productive. Hasteur (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Wee Curry Monster - I have some legit questions above, too, since I'd hate to see Kafziel get railroaded.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Does this much drama accompany every ArbCom case? Or is this one special? This is the first one that I've followed, and it looks like it must suck to be an arbitrator. I don't know how you guys do it, but someone has to so thanks. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Ramaksoud2000: - not all of them are like this, some involve entirely unpleasant individuals. This one is rather one-sided because the person being complained of wisely said "I can either put up a lot of frustrating nonsense, or state my case and wait...i'll state my case and wait" (but is likely to be given the rogue's march). Although, this one takes the cake among recent cases for vindictiveness--that illogically is being ignored by the people who could have stopped it long ago.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand now. I think you are saying that due to the course of events, you see no option but to desysop Kafziel now. But you would support an admonishment and no desysop just as much? That still doesn't rhyme with seeing a desysop at this point as the only option. If you are saying you support desysopping if that were the only remedy on the table (which - to be completely superfluous - it isn't), saying a desysop is the only option at this point doesn't convey that to me. In other words, if you think that a desysop is the only option, I don't understand how it isn't your first choice (but you would support admonishment in case desysop fails). Not trying to push you in a corner, just trying to understand the reasoning. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think I do get it. You support both options passing simultaneously. So it's not that you have equal preference, but actually support both. A note of clarification would be nice (supporting two subnumbered alternatives both passing is somewhat rare I think, and a note in the votes section would be nice). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think my notes ("Equal preference with R1.1" and "Equal preference with R1") should do the trick, but to supplement those: I do indeed support both options passing. You seem to be correct that this situation is rather unprecedented; it appears to have been caused by some arbitrators treating the proposals as alternative when they were not proposed as such. I'm not letting it worry me to much, as the desysopping is more important than the admonishment because it is a substantive remedy (it arguably does more), and the desysopping will pass. AGK [•] 15:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@AGK: - With a new FoF on Kafziel's conduct, is there any plan to revote on desysopping? I see a horrible transparency problem redolent of the Star Chamber with finding a crime to fit the pre-determined punishment. As one editor added a quote from Lewis Carroll above, this has the unfortunate appearance of "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards!" If the crime here is not participating intensely at this ArbCom case (despite his two rational statements explaining why not--and given Hasteur's behaviour, who can blame Kafziel for avoiding such engagement), then punishment is not for the charges for which the case was brought which is improper and quite strange. This reminds me of Camus...Meursault was not guilty of murder because of the murder but because he didn't cry at his mother's funeral. Sorry, this just smacks of an unjust result, IMHO.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@AGK: - And, per the question above, where are the suggested alternative sanctions/remedies against WP:WPAFC participants?...since the "reminder" remedy was seen as not sufficient.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Replacement for "Response to queries" Finding of Fact

Kafziel's actions when confronted with objections to their use of tools ranged from WP:BITE-y (User_talk:Kafziel#EXNESS,User_talk:Kafziel#Submission:_IgnitionDeck,User_talk:Kafziel#Submission:_OrderUp) to terse (User_talk:Kafziel#Skimlinks,User_talk:Kafziel#Please_use_the_proper_procedure_for_aproving_drafts_at_AfC) to against policy (User_talk:Kafziel#Submission:_IgnitionDeck,User_talk:Kafziel#AfC_reviews) to outright attacks on the community (AN/I thread). This manner of response is against the policy for administrators with respect to accountability for their actions (WP:ADMINACCT).

This is a proposed finding of fact that specifically calls out cases where the responses have been deficient with respect to the requirements as enumerated in the Administrator policy. Hasteur (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to "Hasteur: Battlefield mentality at AfC" Finding of fact

Let's look at those diffs because if anything, they show an editor attempting to uphold policy

[3] is motivated after Kafziel's actions were complained at on the WikiProject AfC talk page trying to get an idea how to resolve the situation. Just like any other portion of the management of our day to day processes, if we see an editor that is doing something odd, editors who work in the space of the action will ask the rogue editor what they are doing. That Kafziel already declined to take the advice of Huon, an administraterial colleague, should have been an indicator that asking an admin not to exercise their privileges in the space is not a battlefield.

[4] How is asking an arbitrator a question about their vote on a proposed decision a battlefield? I asked AGK to indicate how they would intend to deal with an imminent case being brought against the AFC wikiproject after the comments indicated that there would be a lower threshold to acceptance. When it's clear that there are already 2 editors that are more than willing to be the advocate for Request for Arbitration: AFC that would be requested within a few weeks of this case closing, is it not wise to ask Arbitrators to clarify to prevent loopholes being exploited in the DR process?

[5] I filed the petition for emergency desysop under the argument that Kafziel's actions and abuse of the CSD rules coupled with their insistance that they would continue to do such actions in the future makes for a case for desysop under the emergency criteria Emergency: In emergency situations, such as cases where an administrator improperly blocks established users or deletes important pages without explanation, stewards remove administrator permissions. Jimbo Wales can also remove administrator access at his discretion. Informing Kafziel after the fact that a petition was made because it was clear that they intended to continue to disrupt the nascent articles in AfC space does not seem like a battleground, it seems like annother attempt short of the ultimate penalty to try and get a reconcilation with the community consensus. Hasteur (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I further submit that the finding of fact and remedies based on the finding bypass the entirety of the previous steps of conduct dispute resolution and does not yet merit a admonishment or topic ban. Unless the committee intends to permanantly deprecate the RFC/U process and all steps except "Go to ArbCom, do not collect $200, do not pass Go" , the committee would be wise to vote against the findings of fact and remedies. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: bypass the entirety of the previous steps of conduct dispute resolution... isn't that exactly what you did here? jumped from ownership/battlefield "cease and desist" demands, to AN/I (which didn't give you satisfaction) to ArbCom? Apparently, you bypassed several steps, and then spent the last two months calling for Kafziel's head without thinking too much of it. I think it's entirely appropriate, given you've been on war footing and whooping and hollering like an Commanche brave in a John Ford film. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Perhaps my good friend would like to read the WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE steps and try again. The first step was attempting to approach Kafziel on their talk page about their administrative actions. The second step was not done by me, but did indicate that some users including administrators had problems with the out of process deletions such as using the CSD A series in non-article space that Kafziel refused to agree to not do in the future. When there was no indication that future harm would be prevented (and on advice from the Arbitration committee regarding a emergency motion for desysop) it was appropriate to request a Arbitration Case as the conduct that was the cause of the case was still of concern. Now let's look at my "war footing". I've been brought to AN/I once on the grounds that an editor who was trying to get a sub-standard article passed out from AfC so that it could be tied to a DYK did not like my declines nor did like the way I restored the decline banners so as to show a history of the AFC submission's previous attempts. Having the AFC banners (even declined) while the article is still in AFC space is important as it shows the previous attempts made at acceptance, what improvements have been made, and an idea of when the submission was first put up. The banners contain a great amount of metadata and maintenance information, therefore it is appropriate for them to remain untill they are successfully promoted out of AfC space, deleted, or moved back to the user's sandbox. Hasteur (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yawn. No wonder Kafziel gave up dealing with you. Do you have to fight back every time anyone says anything with such hostile, pedantic, and waste-of-time mountains of text? Seriously...the CFR doesn't expand as much, as often, as your incessant need to fight everyone who disagrees with you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, I would note that the only intermediate step that was not tried was Wikipedia:RFC/Admin#Use_of_administrator_privileges, however as indicated in the opening statement, the commentary up to that point did not instill confidence that we could wait 30 days for a RFC/Admin could be conducted without further damage. I would also note that had such a step have been engaged ColonelHenry would use it as grounds that I was forum shopping around for the resolution I wanted. I submit that you can't have it both ways, therefore based on the state of the situation at the time the arbitration case was requested and with the rejection of AN/I's authority (Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel#Statement_by_Fluffernutter) the only resolution was to file this request. Hasteur (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to level false accusations at me and no arbitrator tells me that I don't need to refute your misstatements, I will continue. Not refuting them constitutes an implicit agreement to the accusation. Hasteur (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Congratulations! - you guys have managed to drive off one of the most dedicated, technically proficient and productive contributors to AfC. If Arbcom members are unable to take control of one of their cases and stop the extreme provocation and hounding by outsiders with long-standing personal grudges against one of the involved editors and/or AfC itself, then what remedy is still available to ordinary editors? BTW I have still not seen a single shred of actual PROOF (as opposed to repeated unsubstantiated allegations) of WP:OWN behavior by Hasteur or any of the other regular AfC contributors (myself included). -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've addressed him here. I will say that on the record I did not put much weight into the comments made against Hasteur on the talk page. I put far more weight in his actions. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment on additions to Proposed Decision

I am encouraged by the latest developments in the case that a more even outcome is possible. I was concerned that the outcome seemed to be very much one sided.

If the committee would indulge me, I would ask that you all perhaps seriously consider how you are going to finish the case.

As I commented at the outset, I have serious concerns that this was not a case that should have been taken on at Arbcom. It was a case opened in anger by an editor who had failed to get satisfaction at WP:ANI. Not good, we have other steps in dispute resolution, not least of which should in all likely have been an RFC/U. I also commented at the time, that there were ownership issues and that is something I still maintain is true. That there has been a battlefield mentality is also true.

The problem as I see it is that arbcom encourages confrontation.

Following discussion with the IP editor known as 74, I acknowledge that Hasteur at the outset seriously thought that the actions of Kafziel were damaging the encyclopedia. He also thought WPAfC could define policy. Both are misconceptions.

Equally Kafziel was of the opinion that WPAfC were holding spam advertising articles (likely true from what I've seen) and his actions in clearing the backlog were within policy. Again likely true. Where he went wrong was how he handled ctiticism, though ill-informed, since we hold administrators to a higher standard in responding to other editors. Also as GWH commented, it seemed symptomatic of a administrator approaching burnout.

The win-win scenario as I see it is for both sides to recognise where they went wrong. Hasteur needs to recognise that WPAfC doesn't define policy, nor does it get to tell people how to do things and the people running the project realise the way they're working is not encouraging new editors and there is a need for reform. Kafziel needs to realise that adminstrators are held to a higher standard in responding to editors even when those criticising them are incorrect. Wikipedia then benefits from retaining Hasteur's skill at automation and Kafziel's prior experience as an admin of long standing.

In truth both in part have behaved like badly. Unfortunately as the case was stampeded to arbcom by editors acting in anger we now face a situation due to the adversarial nature of arbcom where we lose two valuable contributors.

I urge you to pause and let common sense prevail. I suggest to you that if the two sides can recognise their failings that you reduce the findings of the case to admonish both sides and leave it at that. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would be happy if this was how the matter was resolved. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• That's what you want to hear? Fine... No project gets to define policy, however absent a larger consensus, the practices of a project should be respected as the established consensus until a new consensus arising from a discussion overturning the previous practice should be followed to the level of common sense. But you and CH have already won, I've given up on every last piece of AfC (including AfC automation). So congratulations, your actions took out another volunteer. Hasteur (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrators, since there is even a modicum of support for topic banning me from AfC the writing is on the wall. I have 100% left the AFC project space, the AFC project, and stopped the G13 maintenance tasks. As it's your action that causes it, it is now your responsibility to find someone to replace the bot tasks. Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hasteur, if there's one thing that Kafziel (in his abrupt but still wisely level-headed way) said to me on a previous occasion is that none of us are indispensable and that if we didn't do something, someone else would come along eventually and fill the void. I try (and sometimes struggle) to manage my time and mental efforts better because Kafziel told me that--when arguments get heated, I leave for a few hours. if some starts edit-warring with a second revert...hey, not important, if I come back next week they likely will be gone. Most problems disappear on their own given time and space. Several editors have stated that in how Kafziel dealt with you (and seems to have given up dealing with you in exasperation), it can be argued that he could have been approaching burnout. Thus, it leads me to ask you to engage in some introspection--was some of the battlefield mentality that some editors have pointed to because you possibly, too, were approaching burnout? Burnout tends to warp our ego-view of our ourselves and skews the idea of our importance. Was this matter entirely avoidable since it was the clashing of horns by two editors at their wit's end? It's always a bad thing to see a long-time productive editor leave or be pushed out, WP:DIVA or not. Burnout destroys good editors, defeats good admins, and even productive AfC people equally. Consider that. That's why I agree with WCM's wiser assessment above. This entire case was unnecessary because both sides couldn't know enough to take a day off. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I observe that your last statement This entire case was unnecessary because both sides couldn't know enough to take a day off. is the crux of your argument. All we wanted from Kafziel was to agree to not use their admin bits in the AfC space because the actions were contested and yet Kafziel saw nothing wrong with it. As it was noted elsewhere, Kafziel's solution to the leaky roof was to burn the house down and to threaten to burn the rest of the village's leaky roofs as they saw nothing wrong with their actions. Persuing this case was not vindictive, but a case of attempting to apply prevent future damage to the nascent articles at AfC. If anything your and WCM's actions merely fanned the drama fires to storm levels while at the same time attempting to minimize or neutralize any wrongs by Kafziel. So go ahead and pat yourself on the back if you think this is just a burnout. I was a veteran of the MMA WikiWars and the level of disruptiveness you and WCM presented was even enough to show that MMA editors (for all their faults) were actually fairly civil and open handed. Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, some reflective introspection is needed. You are still convinced that your actions were entirely blameless. Part of passing the blame onto others is a defense mechanism--refusing to undermine your pride and self-image to accept that "hey, I was part of the problem". It takes two to tango--and one can't say the other person danced alone when their feet get stepped on. Unfortnately, most of our problems in this world is that we can't be alone with ourselves and really look at ourselves...so we feel a need to control others when they do their own thing because we don't know how to look at who we are and what our limits and boundaries are--and freak out when someone crosses what we perceive as a boundary line (personal space, comfort zone, fiefdoms, things we protect--whatever we call it). Academics are this way (esp. in my area)--they carve out a niche for themselves and get pissed off when someone invades or barely touches their work or their space. Most of the drama we feel victimized by we often caused and brought on ourselves. Again. step out of the pride and try to view your actions and behavior as if you were someone else looking at it. You disagree with me; but I came into this entirely indifferent about you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, on a macro level...communities exist because of morals and beliefs that they deem important and that they group together to defend. WP:WPAFC became entrenched in defending their way of doing things. In a relativistic world, judgment of your methods or WP:WPAFC is not automatically wrong, and your way of doing things wasn't wrong. However, defending one method against many equally valid and acceptable methods and fighting bitterly to defend it is wrong. When two people are intransigent in their beliefs and argue bitterly, they fight. Fists eventually fly. When two cultures disagree over beliefs, wars start that way (see the Shi'ites and Sunnis, or the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland). When it's a wikiproject claiming territory against the wider community, you have this. And both sides of the fight lose. Someone walks away with a broken jaw or a busted hand, two cultures have to rebuild their villages and mourn their dead sons, and here at Wikipedia, people get desysopped and topic banned. WP:WPAFC became a subculture so tied to one set of beliefs it couldn't see the validity of outside views.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable

I can't believe that this has evolved from a case of me refusing to say I'm sorry (still not, by the way), into a crazy, flailing, slash and burn on the part of the ArbCom. I note one arbitrator's concern that desysopping me for not paying attention to the ArbCom proceedings seemed "too self-important". But you may as well call a spade a spade, because I made volumes of responses before we came to this point. I was curt, certainly, and rude eventually, but I gave policy-based, good-faith replies to any good-faith users who had good-faith questions. (Which, incidentally, is quite a bit more than I agreed to when I received the bit; this is what WP:ADMIN looked like back when I signed on, which was about the last time I had reason to read it. If any memos were sent out about WP:ACCOUNT being added to it, I must have missed them. So, as far as I knew, the responses I did make went above and beyond the call of duty.) Now, I’m not going to read through everything that has happened over all this time, but I don’t see any questions that have not already been addressed by me at an earlier point in the dispute. So this really is about me refusing to shake in fear before the glorious ArbCom (and, undoubtedly, for inviting one member to go fuck himself when he tried to threaten me via email).

And now the ArbCom is considering topic-banning Hasteur as well? Who's next? Is no one allowed to stand up for their principles? Another good contributor lost. I completely understand his reasoning, because as soon as the first arbitrators agreed to even take this case, I knew the project was no longer worth my time. The verdict didn't matter; the fact that it went forward at all was enough for me. Nothing good could come from all of this, and nothing good has. But even I didn't foresee how absurdly drawn out this would be.

I put that "retired" template on my userpage so people would know I wasn't around anymore. I guess I should have just stopped editing without saying anything, because evidently that little tag was just too much for some people to handle. So I’ll take it off, and I’ll sit here idly while you finish up, and then I’ll put it back on. Do what you need to do, guys, and be done with it already. The outside world is starting to take notice, and this shit is unbecoming. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The simplest thing would be to hand in your tools. We would then pass a note requiring you to go back to WP:RFA if you ever wanted to regain the tools (unlikely it seems), and we would then close the case soon after. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You got yourselves into this. Get yourselves out. Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)