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

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • "'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first --- verdict afterwards.'" HiDrNick! 14:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pgallert: The finding is forthcoming. AGK [•] 15:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The problem is that Hasteur did "put much weight" in the actions of the two persecutors while Arbcom simply let it happen on their own turf - Arbcom have done absolutely nothing to prevent or at least moderate the hounding of Hasteur by these outsiders. If Arbcom is unable or unwilling to enforce good order in their own court then perhaps its time to look at the possibility of impeaching Arbcom members for gross dereliction of duty - but no venue for such an action exists. Hasteur has already effectively been topic banned through the interference of outsiders, not by a proper procedural ruling by Arbcom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I would be happy if this was how the matter was resolved. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• It probably didn't help that you retired before the case opened. If that isn't evading accountability and scrutiny, I don't know what is... AGK [•] 10:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd. Like saying a defendant who declines to defend himself is holding up a trial. In what way did my retirement discourage anyone from scrutinizing me? There's been plenty of scrutiny going on here in my absence. And before I retired, I encouraged everyone to feel free to proceed. All I evaded was wasting my time in real life. What's holding all this up is your own self-righteous bureaucratic nonsense. And you just can't stop yourselves. So here we are. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 12:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration isn't a court; it requires parties on both sides to answer evidence brought against them. As you failed to do so, you made yourself unaccountable. What's even worse is that you appear to have returned in anticipation of picking up where you left off before the case was opened—thereby neutering the arbitration process. Administrators can't storm away from serious allegations, then return and say "you should have just carried on without me." Not to mention that the mere act of doing so speaks to an attitude which is incompatible with being an administrator: if you're like this in the final step of Wikipedia dispute resolution, what would you be like at the first step? An utter delight, I don't think. I have saved you from wasting more of the real life time you value so highly, by bringing a motion to close and implement the desysopping. If you have finally decided you want to respond to the allegations regarding incivility, or you want to keep your sysop tools, please let us know. AGK [•] 14:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If Kafziel had actually done something to merit desysoping, you would be able to present evidence of that without holding his refusal to participate in his own persecution against him. You cannot. HiDrNick! 14:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You need only open this link. Most of the evidence there is reliable. AGK [•] 14:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "return and say 'you should have just carried on without me'." I said that before I left! You’re flailing. "If you're like this in the final step of Wikipedia dispute resolution, what would you be like at the first step? An utter delight, I don't think." Exactly. So I spared you all. You’re welcome. I didn't make myself any less accountable than I ever was; you are free to judge me, admonish me (whatever that's supposed to mean), desysop me, etc., whether I’m here or not. If one proposal doesn't have enough support, don’t worry – just keep re-writing new proposals until you find a reason everybody likes. And all of it without any argument from me. Hasteur spent his time arguing his case and ended up being sanctioned for his trouble. It's lose-lose. I knew that before it even started, so I opted out. But all the explanations for my actions were already made at other times, at other venues. I didn't dodge any questions. I have always been upfront and straightforward about all my thoughts and actions as an administrator, which is more than anyone can say for the ArbCom.

You’re just mad because you can't intimidate me. That's what has bothered SilkTork from the very beginning, when he left his first message on my talk page. It’s too much of a reminder that all this arbitration stuff is just so much virtual puffery, and doesn't actually carry over into our real lives in any meaningful way. That's something the ArbCom just can't abide, because maintaining the illusion of consequences is the source of your authority here. By just about all accounts, my biggest crime is pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Right now there are three FoF passing against Kafziel. We don't desysop editors for occasional errors (#2) or for retiring (#4), so surely we can all agree that these are not actionable: . So look at #5. "While addressing concerns regarding his edits at Articles for Creation Kafziel acted in a hostile and indifferent manner." No diffs. No evidence. "When concerns were brought before ArbCom, he declined to submit substantive evidence explaining his actions, a breach of administrator accountability. (eg. [6] [7])" So failing to mount a defense to an Arbcom proceeding is desysopable? You're poised to desysop a dedicated administrator of seven years for what amounts to Contempt of Arbcom.

Arbcom is not a court (obviously), but please entertain this analogy: Suppose Kafziel were accused of a crime. In common law territories, there is no moral or legal obligation to mount a defense, whatsoever. The accused cannot be compelled to participate in their prosecution. If I go to court to contest a speeding ticket and the prosecutor fails to give any evidence of any actual crime, I would rest my defense immediately. The judge would not then rule that since I am not defending myself, I must be guilty!

Esteemed Arbitors, I implore you: take a step back and look at the injustice that you're about to commit. This case had no prior attempts at dispute resolution, so was outside of Arbcom's remit in the first place. The best way forward is to pass a motion to dismiss this Arbcom case as improvidently granted. There's no shame in hearing evidence and then concluding that no case was needed to begin with.

If you do this, I suspect that both Kafziel and Hastuer will get back to work. This is what's best for Wikipedia. HiDrNick! 14:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In our judgement, Kafziel's conduct would have earned a remedy against him. The problem is that no such remedy can be fairly brought, because he has not participated in the case – hence why the decision takes the form it now does. AGK [•] 14:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you're forgetting a couple of "in my opinion"s here and there, AGK...

@HiDrNick: I agree entirely with your analogy. This is not a court and, therefore, a fortiori, I believe we cannot demand that people drop everything and engage with us. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot demand anything of volunteers. But if a volunteer is entrusted to special tools which allow them to delete articles, then are suspected of misusing those tools and deleting legitimate articles, we expect them to stay around to discuss the matter. If they do not, then the understanding is that their rights to those tools will be removed until such times as they successfully request them back. This is not really a complicated scenario, nor is it injustice. Nobody is infringing on the freedom of the person operating the Kafziel account. All that is happening is a special privilege is being taken away. The case was opened because there was legitimate concern about Kafziel's conduct while in possession of the admin tools. If Kafziel were not an admin this case would unlikely have opened. I certainly would have rejected it as a minor dispute that needed a little more talking through. But ArbCom have a responsibility to look into cases where those who have access to the admin tools are believed to have behaved inappropriately. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, I don't buy the things you're finding Kafziel guilty of. There isn't any FoF that says anything other than (1) Kafziel didn't respond to ArbCom with every moment of his day and every ounce of his strength over the last two months and subject himself masochistically to needless headaches and aggravation (as we've seen Hasteur carried on a one-man battle against him without him here, what would it have been like if the conversation were two-sided?) (2) Kafziel wasn't effusively, bend-over-backwards nice to a rather tedious, hostile editor with a battlefield mentality after several attempts to explain himself (and there were efforts to explain himself) were met with more hostility and WP:IDHT behaviour. (3) WP:ADMINACCT, while encouraging admins to be nice and say "hey, this is why I did this"...there is a point where even the most generous admin will realize "hey, I've explained my actions, and the editor still won't accept my explanation, I'm a volunteer, I don't need to put up with abuse in a futile attempt to satisfy ADMINACCT." (4) You cannot COGENTLY point to any policy that what Kafziel did with AFC was actually wrong!!! No one can and NO ONE HAS. When you do a deep look at the history (something one arbitrator said wasn't necessary in this case...since we already have the punishment, let's find a crime) you'll see Hasteur was the provocation for all this, and his refusal to accept anything Kafziel did or could have told him was the antagonism. But no, Kafziel said his peace at evidence and with a few opening statements but that wasn't enough. Self-flagellation is to be demanded from ArbCom just like Hasteur in his feral bloodlust has been demanding his pound of flesh.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And, even after Hasteur is gone from AFC (he's already taken himself out apparently), there are still editors there with the same mentality and the same defensiveness (these are our rules, get out if you don't abide by them). So some other editor or admin who isn't violating any policy will meet their wrath just because they see a problem that needs fixing and they have an idea that works within policy but isn't WPAFC's way.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And you accused me of making this a battlefield. Per the advice I have received from an arbitrator I explicitly ask Callanecc in their role as case clerk to please evaluate ColonelHenry's missives of 16:19 and 16:26 with respect to conduct guidelines, ArbCom case conduct, and general civility to issue a formal warning regarding their soapboxing and increased battlefield mentality. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Frivolous and specious complaint, dude. All the hallmarks of a WP:DIVA thinking himself aggrevied. I'm allowed to comment, and the timbre of my contempt for this process and decision is proportional to what I and others perceive as an illogical justification for desysopping Kafziel and a Kafkaesque injustice. Further, none of my comments are incivility--and no more abrupt, direct, or any more rude than the treatment you dished out to others including Kafziel that you think is entirely acceptable in your defense/operation of WP:WPAFC--and nothing I have said is libelous, especially comparing your behaviour to the retributive and unyielding demands of Shylock from A Merchant of Venice is entirely apt. Methinks you dost protest too much, and seem to not be able to accept criticism but are more than happy to criticise and complain about others.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "We expect them to stay around and discuss the matter." Kafziel did discuss the matter. It was on ANI for hours. It's not like he made these deletions and didn't answer questions about them. What else do you want him to say about it that hasn't already been said?

"All that is happening is a special privilege is being taken away." Oh, come on. Are arbiters so out of touch that they don't understand that being defrocked by Arbcom is a big deal? If seven of your esteemed colleges voted to unceremoniously take away your bits, would you continue to contribute? I doubt it; few people would. The power to desysop an administrator is a solemn responsibility, and the proceedings of this case cast doubt that you all taking it seriously.

To put it bluntly, Kafziel is abrasive and direct. Perhaps you think that Wikipedia doesn't need abrasive and direct admins. That's your right, and if you feel that way, go and oppose any abrasive and direct editors who stand at RfA. But you must not vote to desysop someone merely because you personally think that they should not be an admin. You owe it to the contributor and everyone else that you hold power over to demonstrate either a clear pattern of administrator misconduct, or a single instance of gross administrative abuse. There is no evidence of either presented here. None whatsoever.

Please, act with integrity. Reconsider. HiDrNick! 17:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as someone who has been criticized in the past for being an abrasive, foul-mouthed admin, please allow me to clarify how I, and I believe several other arbs, came to this position.

On December 16th, Kafziel announced his retirement. [8] This would have effectively ended the case if he had simply walked away from Wikipedia and not returned, but was soon editing with another account. This made the so-called retirement seem more like a tactic to avoid the ArbCom case and any other scrutiny rather than the normal admin burnout it was presented as. We debated amongst ourselves whether we should publicly identify the account and ultimately decided to just say we were aware of it and leave it at that, but now Kafziel has outed it by using it to edit this very page so I guess we need't have bothered. As you can see from the timestamp here [9] this account became active within just a few hours of Kafziel announcing that he had left the project for good and the ArbCom case was not needed.

He has known for some time that we were perfectly aware that he did this, and his reply when confronted with it included, among other things, the words "fuck you". correction, it was actually "go fuck yourself". It was around this time that the entire committee began to feel that desysopping was the correct course of action. Not participating is one thing, saying you retired when you just switched accounts and saying fuck you when asked about it is something else, and not at all what is expected of an admin.

I realize this is less than obvious because we did kind of "bury the lead" here, ironically out of concern for not "outing" K's alternate account so he could continue to use it in peace, but there it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a sock that way isn’t disallowed by any rule, anywhere. I never said I was quitting Wikipedia forever – in fact, I specifically said that I valued the project and would continue to edit it. I left the Kafziel account because I didn't care to listen to all this bureaucratic horseshit, not because I was evading anything. As I told AGK above, I never tried to evade anything at all, and even encouraged the ArbCom to proceed with this case as planned. Implying that I was doing something shady or evasive is ridiculous. Look at the edit in your diff. I signed out of the Kafziel account, signed in as Keep Your Fork, and there was someone asking for help. So I helped. And fixed the article. Yeah, what an asshole I am. But SilkTork thought he would try to intimidate me for it, and I told him to fuck off. Off-wiki, not even through the email system, but from my own personal email address in response to him. We might as well have been standing on the sidewalk, for all it concerns Wikipedia.

I know I'm not supposed to do this, but if you want to quote emails, it's only fair to give them some context.

Hello Kafziel,

As you may recall, the Committee were made aware in 2012 of your alternative account, "Keep your fork, there's pie". We note that you have recently been editing from that account. Could you let us know what your intentions are?

Regards

Steve / SilkTork

For the Arbitration Committee

And my reply:

What does it look like my intentions are, Steve?

From the <10 edits I've made in the last month, none of which have anything to do with my admin account, I'd say my "intentions" are to edit Wikipedia when I happen to notice it needs it. I don't even have all that ArbCom crap on my watchlist - I made my case last month at AN/I and I am paying zero attention to it now.

But since your tone implies that I'm avoiding sanctions or something, I did go take a look at the Kafziel account and I don't see a thing. It's not blocked, banned, or anything else. Looks like the ArbCom thing is just droning on: A couple of proposals that have zero support, more of Hasteur raging and demanding that I be humiliated in whatever ways are still possible, and generally the same self-important, navel-gazing bullshit as when I left. So I'm certainly glad I didn't waste my holiday season thinking about it.

Anyway, I don't know if your email is supposed to make me go "oooh, I'm really scared," or what, but I'm well within my rights to use an alternate account to make uncontroversial edits on unrelated pages if I feel so inclined. If I run across a typo, or see someone asking for help, I'm not going to ignore it. And I don't have to. I can do it as Keep Your Fork, I can do it as an IP user, and I can do it as Kafziel if I want. I'm not a vandal, and if you want to try to treat me like one after all my years of service, then you can go fuck yourself.

Happy New Year.

K.

Once again, this is all about me not being sufficiently intimidated by ArbCom. Not anything I actually did wrong. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) In light of this, the Proposed Decision no longer qualifies as totally insane; however, I'm afraid it is a hasty mistake, all the same.

I hope that you will try to see yourselves in Kafziel's shoes. I bet he's tilting pretty hard, and probably has been, ever since these unusual charges somehow managed to get accepted into an arbitration case. I agree that telling off the Arbcom is not displaying the greatest judgement, but these are extenuating circumstances, to be sure. But is desysoping Kafziel over this what's best for Wikipedia, or what's best for Arbcom?

Kafziel and Hasteur both have been performing a slow-motion climb of the Reichstagsgebäude for weeks now. (Digression: if this case closes as it currently stands, it needs a rename.) If Arbcom drops this improvidently granted case without action, what do you think is the likely outcome? Do you suspect that Kafziel will start deleting more AfC pages forthwith and escalate this dispute? Or do you think that maybe he has learned something about collaborative editing, but is too proud to admit it in the face of his current mistreatment? Maybe he didn't do anything wrong, per se, but he certainly made mistakes. I'm sure he's aware of that, but he should not be forced to grovel and beg to maintain his adminship.

All this said, I really do appreciate your explanation. HiDrNick! 21:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stow the rhetoric about grovelling and begging. Nobody requires that. All that was required was a civil explanation and an assurance that, as you put it, "he had learned something about collaborative editing" etc. So far I've seen nothing indicative of any insight into the situation at all.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At AN/I, I said I had made mistakes (though hardly the number AfC claims I made), and invited anyone who disagreed with my edits or admin actions to reverse them. Some did just that, and I didn’t complain. What I will not do is apologize for them. This is a wiki, and by its very nature everything is un-doable. I’ve fixed tens of thousands of “mistakes” by other editors, without demanding apologies from any of them. Fix it. Move on. What got us here is that Hasteur (and others) demanded nothing less than contrition, and a promise that I will stay out of their little walled garden, and that they cannot have. Neither can the ArbCom. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one was demanding an apology either. But what are we supposed to do with an admin who (1) rage quits, (2) refuses to engage civilly, (3) sends us insulting emails, and (4) has an implicit subtext that they'll sock if their accounts go? There's more but that'll do for now. Whether you like it or not, ultimately admin misconduct is firmly ArbCom's bailiwick and that is a responsibility the committee takes seriously.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since he did chose to reproduce the email, I think everyone can see that there is no threat or intimidation even vaguely implied by it, just a polite request. They can also see that he included "for the arbitration committee" before signing it. SK was not talking it of turn when doing that, we had discussed this matter at length once it came to our attention and Steve volunteered to be the one to make contact about it. One thing we couldn't do, as much as we may have wanted, to was to pretend we were not aware of it. Nobody was suggesting he was a vandal, nobody was suggesting that the alt account was editing disruptively, and nobody was asking K to debase himself and kiss our butts. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"What are your intentions?" What does that even mean? So far as I can see, the answer you wanted was something like “Oh, massuh, I won’t be causin’ no trouble on da farm no mo. I's changed.” What kind of sycophantic reply were you hoping to get, by sending the same guy who I’d already told to fuck off when he tried to tell me not to edit at AfC in the first place? It was obviously a veiled threat (and considerably less veiled, in his follow-up email) that Big Brother is watching. Oooh. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

This is an inter-personal dispute that just wasn't ripe for arbitration when it was accepted. I'm afraid that sending it into arbitration prematurely has amped emotions up for all parties and clouded everyone's judgement, parties and arbiters alike. I hope that everyone involved can take a moment to relax, look outside your screens and remember that real people with feelings and flaws donate their time to Wikipedia.

@Kafziel: I understand that you feel that you were acting within policy with these contested deletions. And I know that you were doing what you felt, and still feel, was best for Wikipedia. That being said, if you could go travel back to 8 December, would you do anything differently, in hindsight?

Please take a moment to look at Hasteur (talk · contribs)'s contributions. Do you honestly think that Wikipedia would be better off without Hasteur? Do you think that AfC, for whatever it's worth, would be better off without his help? Would you see Hasteur admonished by Arbcom, an indelible stain likely to sour his contributions to AfC, maybe his contributions to Wikipeida in general, for a long time to come?

I certainly don't think Wikipedia (or AfC) would be better off without Hasteur. I said as much in my first post in this section. The sanctions proposed against him are ludicrous. Some people – not all people, but some people – can have heated discussions with each other like men, and not cry themselves to sleep at night. Colonel Henry is one. So am I. Maybe Hasteur is, too. For people like us, an environment of harsh criticism is far more productive than everyone standing around singing kumbaya. Not saying it’s the right way, but it's a way, and I don’t hold it against him on a personal level. That said, Wikipedia would not be worse off without him, either. Or me. Most people will hardly notice I'm gone. And fortunately, even though I'm no longer interested in being part of the community, under any username, this is still (for now) the encyclopedia anyone can edit. So I will. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 00:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kafziel: You both seem to prefer a universe in which the other person hasn't magically disappeared. I think we have a framework for peace.

Look past the case for a moment; it doesn't matter: Arbcom will do what what it does. Right now, let's be bigger than them. Please tell me, what, if anything, you would do differently, if you had this whole thing to do over again. I'm not asking you necessarily to apologize for your earlier actions, but to share with Hasteur what you've learned from this experience, in hindsight.

I'm pressing the question because I'm confident that you have learned from this, but feel that admitting so publicly is unnecessary. Everyone makes errors and learns from them, and it's uncomfortable to have to discuss it like a bunch of hippies. You think that in light of your extensive history of positive contributions, everyone should assume, as I have, that you have learned something and not bust your balls about it. But Hasteur is just as invested in this dispute as you are, and I assure you, it will do him good to hear you answer the question. I'd wager that if you do answer this, he won't feel triumph (as you might expect), but will instead be relieved that the dispute can be amicably resolved after all.

Thanks again for taking the time to talk with me about this. HiDrNick! 13:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't do anything different. I’ve always been very much against wikiprojects forming their own little cabals to control articles, and this was the hill I was willing to die on. I don't regret deleting spam, because AfC is not intended to be a safe place for spammers to learn how to game the system. I don’t regret deleting the articles that were later restored (most of which were again deleted), because I've fixed other admins’ mistakes and never demanded a pound of flesh for it. I don’t regret declining to voluntarily place restrictions on myself as dictated by AfC; if angry wikiprojects can bully admins into giving up their own tools, it’s a sad state indeed. I've received dozens of "thank you" messages and emails from people who appreciated my help in getting their articles out of AfC limbo, because they didn't know they were allowed to do it themselves. And I've received plenty of hate mail from spammers, which I enjoy almost as much as the thank you notes. And I certainly don’t regret enjoying my real life instead of arguing my case here. If losing this account was the price of bringing attention to the AfC/draft namespace issue and making some changes that will benefit Wikipedia, then I’m pretty happy with that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with most of what you said here. Some Wikiprojects can be cabalistic (infoboxes, anyone?). Spam pages are bad, m'kay. Non-systematic admin errors are OK. And I agree that sandboxing articles with a clear claim to notability just because they're imperfect is anti-wiki.

But if you were doing this over again, would you still act like a prick about it? Let's be real: you're attacking a strawman above. I suspect that you feel like you're about to be martyred for any of these reasons. But really, you're going to be desysoped for acting like an asshole, then and even now.

You and I agree that this case should not have been opened. You are angry about that, and I think that you have every right to be. If I were you, I'd be livid about most of how this has gone down. But let's back away from that nonsense and talk about what we agree on.

If you agree with me that the encyclopedia that anyone can edit works best when people edit collaboratively, now would be a great time to say so. Don't say so for my benefit, or for Arbcom's. But Hasteur is a hard worker and good contributor facing an unreasonable sanction because you both screwed up, and he would take it as a gesture of good faith. And say it for you, since if you're going to go out anyway, should go out with class, instead of tilting at windmills.

Again, thanks for listening. HiDrNick! 16:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not tilting at windmills if the problems are real. And they are. Real enough to have the WMF take interest. For the record, no, I do not believe that collaboration for collaboration’s sake is the best way to write an encyclopedia. I am much more a supporter of being bold. Of a free encyclopedia. Of ignoring rules when they are holding you back from doing good work. I’m comfortable with the responses I made to the bullies on my talk page, at ANI, and via email. Faced with the same situation, I would do it again. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You describe your opponents as bullies. Is that fair to them? To me, it sounds like you're not assuming good faith.

I went back and reread your replies to the ANI thread, and struggled to find anything you said that I disagree with explicitly. So I understand your position here.

Can you believe that Wikipedia discography articles used to be filled with fair use images? There was a copyrighted image for every album. A long time ago I went on WP:NFCC crusade. But I had to step away from it when I realized that I was looking at it as a crusade.

WP:IAR is one of the Five Pillars, but so is WP:Civility. Civility is not just about not calling people names. It's about assuming the best in other editors, working together, and not going around with a chip on your shoulder. Several editors felt that the manner of your actions around AfC were uncivil. Do you agree that consideration for the feelings of other editors is an important part of editing here, even if they're not feelings that you would have yourself? Do you see how too much WP:BOLDness without nearly enough tact (when working in a space filled with other contributors) can be uncivil? HiDrNick! 18:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have to continue assuming good faith after actions have shown me otherwise. I made civil replies to people who were civil to me. Anyone with a question, I answered. Anyone trying to give orders couched as requests (like SilkTork’s “suggestion” that I work elsewhere), I politely declined. When the threats and demands started, I no longer had to assume anything at all. Still, I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and spent plenty of time discussing, and then debating, and finally arguing, but they were not willing to accept anything less than obedience. But “civil” is not synonymous with “obsequious”. At least, it wasn’t when I started here. Clearly, times have changed. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur: I understand that when Kafziel waded into AfC, you probably felt like he was gunslinging. You didn't appreciate his caviler attitude about a part of Wikipedia that you spend a lot of time volunteering on. That being said, if you could go back to December 8, would you do anything differently, in hindsight?

Will you please take a moment to look at Kafziel (talk · contribs)'s contributions? I know that this is a tall order to fill, but here goes: do you honestly think that Wikipedia would be better off without Kafziel? Would you see his admin bits taken away? Friend, Arbcom is poised to give you everything that you asked for when you filed this request. Knowing what you know now, is that still what you think is best?

There are no winners here. Only losers, if Wikipedia loses volunteers over this. HiDrNick! 23:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DrNick: If I could rewind

I would have asserted "Kafziel has been an administrator who has been under concern previously with respect to their administrative actions and responses to questioning about said actions. Kafziel's insistance in their administrative judgement being right after multiple editors confronting them about their judgement should have moved forward with a discussion on the appropriate talk page. Pending the actions continuing without a consensus, Kafziel should have been summarily desysopped for refusing to follow the consensus model and using the administrator permnissions to attain a privileged state with respect to other editors.

I would have completely ignored 2 editors who, after the fact, had already announced their intent to disrupt and destroy the Articles for Creation process.

I would have been more forceful with the committee and clerks in trying to get feedback as to what issues, talk page circuses were in and out of bounds.

That's what I would do different. Hasteur (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that Kafziel's multple gunslinger actions as an administrator demonstrates a pattern where the judgement may have been in line back when they were promoted to Administrator, however the consensus has changed and the disposition presented by Kafziel is not in line with the current "expected behavior of an admin". Hasteur (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

::::You know what Hasteur, I have repeatedly ignored you suggesting that I have been out to disrupt and destroy the AfC process and and have disrupted arbcom; remember the earlier comments about your hyperbolic comments? Please stop it, its not helping you. They're is a blatant demonstration of bad faith. I don't wish to destroy it but I do recognise its broken and have said so. I won't say so at WP:WPAfC as I believe it would fall on deaf ears but I am contemplating raising the matter elsewhere. I'd also suggest you man up and accept that you are the author of your own misfortune and the case has gone this way not because of intervention by myself or Colonel Henry. You are where you are because of the attitude you displayed, I seriously doubt anyone has really listened to my comments but do me a favour and recognise nearly all my comments are a plea to use mediation first. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Comment withdrawin and struck out as requested, I wish Dr N every success. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)|}[reply] Hasteur, first, I appreciate your engaging me on this at all. Obviously you could say nothing at this point, and Kafziel would likely be desysoped around this time tomorrow, which is what you asked for, and (nominally) what you wanted. You, yourself, have said that arbiters supporting a motion to admonish you is such a rebuke that you are thinking of abandoning AfC altogether. I understand that: to work hard on something and have it thrown back in your face over something that, in your mind, is pretty minor feels pretty crappy. It's unfair. You probably would not be rude enough to say it, but you might even feel like the people who would propose such a thing are ingrates. With respect to this, you and Kafziel have something in common. You are each proud of your contributions. He feels that stripping his adminship away is such a rebuke that he couldn't continue working for those ingrates, either. Do you sincerely believe that Wikipedia would be better off on the whole without Kafziel? Whatever your answer is, I shall do my best to respect it, but please think on it carefully. HiDrNick! 00:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Prior to this thread I cannot think of a case where Kafziel was ever on my viewscreen good or bad. Had the thread never come up at AfC we would have probably passed as two ships in the night, never aware of each other's presence, but here we are at the Titanic-Iceburg intersection with both parties coming out worse for it. I see editing on various topics with no particular interest, but just as Kafziel said That said, Wikipedia would not be worse off without him, either. Or me. Most people will hardly notice I'm gone.. Did I go too far in calling for the Admin bits, probably. Could this have been diffused earlier in the conduct dispute resolution process, yep. Looking back, would I have done things differently, possibly. Hasteur (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Hasteur: It makes me glad to read that you feel this way. However, your reply to the "Outside View" section below at 12:24 UTC contradicts what you've said here. As a show of good faith to your colleague Kafziel, would you consider striking your comments in that section? HiDrNick! 13:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] @HiDrNick: I don't think the 2 statements are contratictory. Up here I say that the case could have gone better and I could have not been so strident in persuing the letter and intent of the WikiLaw. Down there I suggest a modification to a proposed finding of fact to indicate that it's evaluated against the current consensus of "What an Administrator should be" as opposed to the consensus that was in place when Kafziel was made a newly minted admin. Hasteur (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Again, it's worth pointing out that you don't have to engage me on this at all, and I think you're a stand-up guy for doing so. Above you say that you probably went "too far" in calling for Kafziel's bits, and below, you are actively contributing to a draft FoF that will prop up a motion to take those bits away. Don't you see how Kafziel might see that as two-faced, at a time when he is probably really upset about this whole hot mess? If you truly think that calling for Kafziel's bits (and, ergo, his head) was probably too far, why continue to carry on with it now? Kafziel has stated publicly that he feels that the proposed sanctions against you are "lubricious". His words, not mine. And maybe I haven't said so to you directly, but let me do so: I think that the sanctions against you are wrongheaded as well. But Kafziel pissed right into Arbcom's breakfast Cheerios with his email. They tried to sanction him alone, but have found that desysoping him without admonishing you is so unjust that it is just beyond the pale. Strange that two injustices are better than one, no? The only way I see this case ending without a bit flipped and a nasty admonishment is for you and Kafziel to work together. Perhaps if we can demonstrate clearly to all reasonable people that this dispute is moot, then Arbcom will drop the stick. I'm not asking you to play politics. I would like to know how you really feel. If you think that Kafziel should be desysoped, then so be it. And if there's something that he might say that would change your feelings about it, let me know, and I'll gladly ask him. Or approach him in good faith and ask him yourself. HiDrNick! 14:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'm actually happy to see the conversation go this way. And I think it is time for some boilerplate message at some other place than Arbitration, going something like: Good Morning, $username, you are an admin from the old school, when no sysop needed to be friendly, needed to consult others, needed to discuss their actions at whatever venue they were brought up. Times have changed, and we now see you as an XP server without patches, running in a modern data centre and endangering the operation of this encyclopedic endeavour. Please make a turn at WP:ADMINACCT and get the updates, and please be advised that dispute resolution venues, and in particular ArbCom, are dominated by new school admins. It looks pretty much as if that's too late for Kafziel's bits. That AfC, even WP, loses two prolific editors is more than just a pity considering how much and how long they contributed. Like others in this thread I think K's reaction is less 'No, I will never change' and more 'I'm utterly shocked what you're doing to me'. Reminding both sides not to put oil in fires would have been sufficient, and after such action and 3 months introspection by both editors, Wikipedia could maybe have both of them back. That would be the win-win, IMHO. --Pgallert (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] HiDrNick - you said Kafziel was acting like an asshole...I beg to differ. In this world where weakness and emasculation is lauded despite that there are problems to be fixed (god forbid someone take the lead), society expects people to sit back and agree, hold hands, hug, and spread good cheer and good vibrations all around. The world doesn't work that way, a lot of problems on Wikipedia don't get fixed that way. There are people who don't buy into that shit, or they have the arrogance to think they are gods or indispensable, and they act rather intolerant or uncontrollable. Hasteur was incredibly hostile and his behavior made AfC an unpleasant place to work. He had a twisted idea of his own self-importance and the power at WP:WPAFC went to his head. You don't come singing some hippie song with someone who is deadest unshakeable in his self-delusion that he can do no wrong and that his way is the only way (an attitude that Hasteur has maintained throughout this issue). I think Hasteur's sanction is appropriate--although I would have liked to see him given a similar Rogue's March since I don't think "admonishment" will make him learn his lesson. Kafziel was an effective admin because he didn't give in to bullshit, and he saw things in fair, just-the-facts, get the job done and done right kind of guy. He and I are both men with a military background--we think a certain way because that way works in the world. We identify a problem or job to do, find an effective solution, and we exercise that solution to eradicate the problem or complete the task. That way works rather effectively--and a lot of things on Wikipedia get fixed or get processed properly because of it. Unfortunately, hippies, idealistic editors, and the militant WP:CIVIL crowd, bolstered by the illogical decisions of arbitrators would prefer chaos and messes just as long as we sing kumbaya and everyone shares friggin' barnstars. This is right out of Nietzsche--the world of warriors, the world of priests--when the weak priests start talking morals, the warriors who got the job done are thrown out and no longer acceptable. Old school administrators who got the job done are thrown to the ashheap by people who think this is that perfect world we see on PBS when watching the Teletubbies or Sesame Street.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Mistakes were made on both sides. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from. I've worked closely with people trained in the military, and have a lot of respect for the mindset. It usually works well, in the military and in science. But this entire dispute amounts to a communication problem. I know that you feel like you are defending your friend here. But Hasteur is not an enemy, I assure you. HiDrNick! 16:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Hey, I don't hate Hasteur or consider him the enemy. I came into this indifferent, and quite frankly, am still rather insouciant. Honestly, I just hope this resolute smack makes him wake up to realize his mistaken sense of self-importance--although I don't have much hope that it will. I predict similar unpleasantness down the road because some people don't learn their lesson.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Beeblebrox...so if I get this straight, you're calling Kafziel out for incivility in an email to Arb, for telling that arb to "go fuck themselves", when incivility and heated rhetoric[10] is in your past interactions.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] You know what gets old really fast? When you repeatedly try to expand your replies in order to give clarity and people keep trying to boil tham back down to something far less complex. At the time I first posted about that Kafziel had not yet republished the entitre text of his email here. I couldn't do so myself, but I felt that "go fuck yourself" was a fairly good reflection of the overall tone of the message. So no, this isn't about "four letter words". I have seen people be as rude or even much ruder without using foul language at all. The point was that his communications with the committee were yet another indication of his extremely poor attitiude and lack of willingness to address the issues at hand in a constructive manner. That he showed up a at the very end of the case when it was clear he was about to lose his tools and seemed to change his tune a little bit has not altered this perception, at least not for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Beeblebrox: It all comes down to transparency. Too much of this case happened offwiki for whatever reason that hasn't been explained. But because we get little pieces without context, it looks like bullshit. The result looks like a Kafkaesque injustice based on inconsistent and unsupportable reasons. ArbCom suffers the loss of some serious crediblity points because of that perception. I still don't think anything Kafziel did was wrong--and it's not me thinking he could do no wrong because I consider him a friend and respect him that leads me to assert that. It's because ArbCom hasn't established a case to be examined in public for desysopping him other than (a) he wasn't nice and told someone to go fuck themselves, and (b) he wouldn't masochistically bow down and serve a hostile editor out for blood who wouldn't be satisfied with any answer that wasn't in total agreement and surrender to his own. And because of this, the case looks like "punishment first, verdict when we can figure it out". Unless ArbCom really becomes transparent on this case and explains themselves, I'm going to continue thinking (and likely many others will as well) that most of you guys are a bunch of bumptiously self-important fools who are absolutely clueless and making it up as you go along. As Leonor Loree said..."hell of a way to run a railroad"--and to any reasonable observer, y'all railroaded Kafziel.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Motion to Close clock Resolved  – AGK [•] 18:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] As of the vote of the vote of Seraphimblade at 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC) the Net-4 clock has started on the motion to close. I observe that there is still the "Hasteur Topic ban" proposal that could still pass, therefore it is prudent to have the those arbitrators who have not voted on the proposed remedy to vote with all due haste as we now have a window of 24 hours before the case will be closed. Hasteur (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Do note that the lack of a vote would be in effect an oppose, and if no further activity occured that measure would not pass. Also, the case may be closed in 24 hours, but that's not set in stone. LFaraone 19:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] LFaraone Perhaps it's me but The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not. does not give a lot of wiggle room. Of course if an Arbitrator opposes and defusees the Net-4 trigger, then we wait patiently for that oppose to be overcome on a new net-4 or the oppose being revoked. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that was to what I was referring to. LFaraone 20:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes, but clerks are not machines, and we also sometimes are tasked to halt progress when certain situation arises (you will rarely see anything done right at the 24/48 hour mark when it comes to ArbCom related tasks because of the human nature). And any motion/proposal defaults to fail unless it satisfies the passing criteria, so as is that Topic Ban wasn't passing (and as of this edit cannot pass without any opposing arbitrators to switch their vote to support). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 00:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] FoF 4½ @Kafziel: Could you please clarify? When you made [11] this edit, were you attempting to avoid scrutiny by using an alternate account, or were you just logged into the wrong account? HiDrNick! 22:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] The latter, of course. I was editing from my phone instead of my laptop, and was logged into the wrong account. I’ve never been the most technologically proficient editor here. Hey, shit happens. If I had noticed before Beeblebrox pointed it out, I would have said something myself; I’ve never made it a big secret that I do have multiple accounts. The ArbCom has known about that account since 2012 (and not because of any abuse then, either). I’ve never abused any of my alternate accounts. Nice of you to ask, rather than just assuming. Perhaps the ArbCom could take a cue. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] (Kafziel, I understand that you feel that you are being wronged here, but acting like a dick isn't helping.) In light of this unambiguous acknowledgement, I hope that 4.5 will be dropped. I think it's pretty clear that he wasn't trying to illicitly sock: Worst. Puppetmaster. Ever. HiDrNick! 22:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Well, as the second "support" of that motion came five minutes after my explanation, I don’t think I’ll hold my breath. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 23:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Even arbiters are not omniscient. Perhaps it wasn't seen. Give it time. HiDrNick! 23:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Again, like the rest of this, it doesn't even matter. The fact that they assumed it was abuse, after all my years of work here, is enough for me to wash my hands of all of it. Yes, I’m a dick, and yes, I know that doesn't help my case. That's why I didn't participate here in the first place. But they wanted me here, and now they got me. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 23:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Kafziel, I do accept the "shit happens" point of view on this and I have opposed the finding. The important thing that should happen once the alternate was used here was that the two accounts were linked and you were reminded not to do that. That's enough. However, the choice words you have used by email to arbitrators and the general attitude you've shown during this case leaves me in no doubt that your temperament does not meet the current requirements of administrator. WormTT(talk) 08:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, dude. I know. That's exactly what I said when I retired. I tried to make it easy for you all by just leaving, but you dragged me back so you could tell me to leave. It's surreal. It reminds me of the old joke – “You can’t quit! You’re fired!” Petty shit like that isn't befitting people who are supposed to be helping run Wikipedia. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Kafziel, I've been watching this case from the sidelines, and I feel for pretty much everyone involved. But I do understand ArbComs point of view. The position you offered, that you did nothing wrong, you were unwilling to discuss it any further (for whatever reason, even if it is to cull the drama) but at the same don't agree with handing in the tools. You make the analogy "you can't quit, you're fired", but in a way, it's more like you were saying "I quit and I'm keeping the keys to the office" first. I can understand that that didn't sit well. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I had told myself I was not going to comment here again, but I am still seeing a lot of misunderstanding of what really happened here and I would like to try once again to clarify how things got to where they are. I apologize for the length but perhaps it will help people understand the series of events and the factors involved. "Retired" is generally understood to mean that you are done with a job and won't be around anymore. When it became clear that K was already editing under a different name most of the committee felt that the option of "just forget it, he's retired now" was off the table. This situation was not of our making. Kafziel made his own decisions while fully aware that the committee knew the identity of the alt account and had known for some time. What is our fault is that we have not done the best job explaining how we arrived where we are now. We did not "decide to desysop and figure out why later" but we admittedly did a poor job of clearly explaining one of the most important aspects of what caused us to question K's suitability as an admin. And for that, I offer my apologies, to the community and to Kafziel. Many of us are very new to all this and we are still finding our legs as a group. This has been a learning experience for us about some of the pitfalls of how to proceed with a full case that involves sensitive information and off-wiki communications. What we could have done, what past incarnations of this committee probably would have done, is keep K's secret about the alt account and just move on like we had no idea. That certainly would have been easier, at least in the short term. But we did know, and he knew that we knew. The community has made it very, very clear in the past that they don't want the committee keeping secrets like that, and I and others believed that we would permanently stain this committee and it's future deliberations if we did not publicly state that we knew about the account, even if we were the only ones who knew what information we had held back. Many of us ran for this position as reformers who would endeavor to be more transparent about committee proceedings. For me anyway, this was not just a campaign promise to be forgotten once the election was over. However, we also tried, at least for a while there, to keep the actual identity of the second account confidential as it had not been misbehaving. But now that ship has sailed as well. This hasn't been handled particularly well, by us or by Kafziel. There have been mistakes all around, and now when it should be over it just keeps getting messier and taking longer to resolve. That's not good for us, for the community at large, or for Kafziel. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Really, a handful of innocuous edits about Queen Elizabeth, tea, and Manitoba is what troubles you? Are you serious? Speaking franlky, It wasn't handled well at all, and it's good to hear you accede to that fact. It is an understatement, and indeed this gets worse and worse every day this case goes on. The entire thing about "offwiki" conversations has me really thinking that all the promises about transparency were mere lip service. I appreciate your attempt to clarify the matter, but it just raises a bunch of questions. Even now...there is no articulated statement of what was so egregiously wrong--anywhere in this case. Nothing. It's an overblown pissing match. All sides had attitude. So what. It was a case ArbCom never should have taken--an observation of many--and yet no one on the committee is willing to accept that. Everyone on ArbCom seemed in a rush to take a case that a dozen admins and several observing editors said was bullshit and thought was over at AN/I. I really think you ought to take a mulligan on this one, tell both sides to stay away from each other, avoid involvement in AfC for a few months, accept the status quo ante bellum and walk away. Done. Both sides have actually talked cordially with each other. Sometimes the best way to get out of a mess is to back out slowly without bumping into the furniture. Walking away, admonishing both, is more than enough to end this two months of bullshit--and probably would do more for ArbCom's credibility than actually going through with that mess of a "proposed decision".--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Outside View I am concerned that ArbCom propose to close a case with a desysop without passing a finding on which to base the remedy. I am surprised that the Committee members are unable to find a wording that reflects the strong consensus that a desysop is needed. As far as I can see, there was the attitude issues displayed in the ANI thread, the deletions in direct violation of policy (using A-category CSDs outside article space), the attitude displayed to NYB both about the block and in the arbitration request - all of which relate to admin accountability for actions. Then, there is the off-wiki evidence relating to attitude. Plus, the alternative account issue. What about something like: Kafziel took strong and unilateral actions in the AfC area, some of which were contested and reversed (diffs) including on the grounds of being inconsistent with the CSD criteria (more diffs). When Kafziel's actions were brought to community attention (ANI thread), Kafziel engaged with the discussion but also expressed frustration and battleground attitudes (diffs) inconsistent with the requirements for admin accountability. Concerning attitudes have also been displayed in other circumstances (NYB thread). After posting a retirement notice, Kafziel used a previously-disclosed legitimate alternate account, raising concerns about deceptive conduct; a recent case page edit (diff) necessitates the two accounts being linked publicly. Combined with off-wiki communication with the Committee during the case, the balance of evidence has led us to conclude that the problem is not one of burnout which would benefit from a wikibreak, but rather reflect an attitude inconsistent with holding advanced permissions. Would most Arbitrators support something along these lines? EdChem (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] EdChem your proposal wraps up several issues together in one masive block of information. I do agree with the sentiments, but would change the last stement to "but rather reflect an attitude inconsistent with the current consensus of holding advanced permissions". Writing it that way indicates that the desysop is because the committee finds the temperament problematic and follows precedent that advanced permissions can be taken away when the attitude of the user is not what a admin expects to see in the holder of permissions (See Also Autopatrolled, Filter Editor, Reviewer, etc.). Hasteur (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Hasteur: back off please. This was not addressed to you.  Roger Davies talk 12:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Speaking strictly for myself, this is a FoF I could certainly support. I'm seriously considering pilfering it and proposing it on the PD page... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) Update: I have mentioned this proposal on the mailing list so that my colleagues are aware of it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'd certainly support that and wish I'd thought of it.. WormTT(talk) 12:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Really, this is decidedly Kafkaeque, you decide the outcome, then find the crime to fit. Can I ask if you're deciding this case via the mailing list, which does not allow the case to be scrutinised by ordinary editors? You're basing decisions it seems on off-wiki communications made by an editor who was angry and lashing out. Arbcom does not provide an environment that encourages calm rational behaviour, particularly when its a case taken on prematurely without following the norms. Arbcom is the LAST resort, here it was the FIRST. Please have the courage to recognise you should never have taken this on and that the arbcom environment has made it worse. I can see above cooler heads are heading toward what would be a much better solution; mediation. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Actually, I think the Arbitrators looked at the evidence and most formed the view that a desysop was needed, but that they do not agree on a formulation for the findings that support the conclusion. There is a big difference between deciding the outcome then seeking the evidence (which you describe) and looking at the evidence and reaching consensus on an outcome, but not agreeing about how to articulate their reasoning. Different Arbitrators being more persuaded by different parts of the evidence and different events to reach the same outcome is neither undesirable nor sinister. I offered a suggestion for their consideration / re-working, etc, because I think not including a finding to support a remedy is inappropriate, but I do think the evidence has been examined and that the remedy is reasonable in the circumstances. ArbCom has always been made up of editors with differing perspectives, and that is a good thing. Sometimes this means that getting to consensus on findings or remedies is challenging - more typically there is agreement on findings but disagreement on appropriate remedies, as seen here with respect to Hasteur - but the reverse situation for Kafziel is not unprecedented and only becomes problematic if no relevant finding passes. ArbCom does descend in Kafkaesque territory at times; this is not one of them. EdChem (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Sorry but I must disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. If they could not articulate a reason at the outset in FoF to justify desyopping, then they should not have proposed it as a remedy. Thats the way its supposed to work. The actual reason articulated above is that he spoke directly in emails to the arbcom committee, whilst angry that they took the case on. If we're being truthful the finding of fact to justify desyopping should be something like "In emails to the arbcom committee he was rude and we don't like it." The charge laid was abuse of tools and a verdict of Not Guilty was delivered but they proposed to take away the tools anyway. Speaking plainly, your proposal of a finding of fact, after the verdict was already delivered is simply window dressing. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I have now posted the FoF you drafted on the PD page, EdChem. Thanks for proposing it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Salvio, thanks for the update and for engaging with my comments.  :) I did not respond to Hasteur above as I figured that copyediting would be done to suit the views of arbitrators (expressed on your wiki and/or mailing list). I do think he had a point about Kafziel's attitude being much more acceptable some years ago. Might I suggest, thus, that you change the end of the finding from "reflect an attitude inconsistent with holding advanced permissions" to "reflect an attitude inconsistent with his continuing to hold advanced permissions", or something along those lines? Up to you, of course. Regards, EdChem (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] PS: If this new finding (5.1) is an alternative to FoF 5, then votes on 5.1 might also mean changes to FoF 5 votes being appropriate. EdChem (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Concerning the change you proposed, I agree that it makes the FoF slightly more accurate and have therefore made it. And yes, in my opinion 5.1 is an alternative to 5, but let's see what my colleagues think about that... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I don't mind them being alternatives but they work equally well as separate FOFs (which may work best with two arbitrators away this weekend and thus the threshold for passing dropping). In short, I'm okay with them both passing and will renumber everything accordingly if you're okay with it.  Roger Davies talk 11:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Please, do go ahead, Ruggero. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Empty section