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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

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.

Support:

1. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Courcelles 20:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. AGK [•] 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. L Faraone 22:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• Do we normally link something in this principle? Carcharoth ( talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

  Not usually, as you will see in the previous decisions that have included this principle in some form or another. AGK [•] 12:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

  Thank-you. I have some thoughts on this, but will leave those for another time. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Levels of consensus

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.

Support:

1. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. AGK [•] 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 21:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. L Faraone 22:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Links (provided in most of the other principles) would definitely help here. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Provided links as requested in the last, feel free to revert if anyone disagrees. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrators

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.

Support:

1. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. AGK [•] 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 21:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. L Faraone 22:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Though the application of this and where lines are drawn varies in practice. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrator accountability

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.

Support:

1. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. AGK [•] 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 21:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. L Faraone 22:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Building consensus: WikiProjects

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.

Support:

1. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. The advice on WP:PROJ and WP:Advice pages is worth noting. WikiProjects are very useful as noticeboards to exchange information, ask for advice, and to motivate and co-ordinate activity. I think problems occur when WikiProjects see themselves as distinct groups somehow apart from the general Wikipedia editing community. At the same time, when editing in any area of Wikipedia, it is common sense to become familiar with current process and consensus, and checking advice pages relating to the area, including WikiProject pages, does help. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. AGK [•] 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 21:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. L Faraone 22:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Per SilkTork, why not include links available to the relevant policies and guidelines? Carcharoth ( talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Added link to Wikipedia:WikiProject. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Ownership and stewardship

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.

Support:

1. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. WP:STEWARDSHIP is seen as different to ownership, and the point at which stewardship becomes ownership is not always clear. I don't think people should be concerned about making civil queries to someone editing out of process on an article they are watching, but certainly they should not be forbidding edits that follow broad consensus and are not harming the project. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. With the obvious exceptions (legal policies, core policies, Terms of Use, etc.). AGK [•] 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 21:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. L Faraone 22:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Though the principle should mention stewardship, given that it is mentioned in the header. SilkTork has provided a link that could be included, along with one on ownership. Though it may be worth making clear that this principle applies to community processes (such as Articles for Creation, which I think is what is being referred to here), not just articles (it is not the article drafts themselves that were being argued over, as far as I can tell, but the process for dealing with them). Carcharoth ( talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. I would support mentioning stewardship in the principle. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. I think it's clear where stewardship falls in this principle but if people want to make the connection more explicit I'm open to wordsmithing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments

I think the original wording here is too sparse. I think clarification is needed that this refers to Wikipedia processes as well ('pages' as a term is not very clear - is a template a page? Is a script a page?). I've proposed principle 7 below to make this clearer. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Processes and bureaucracy

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.

Support:

1. I think this principle does a better job of describing the problems in this case. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. This would be better merged with P6, but happy to support. AGK [•] 13:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Potentially redundant, but it is clarifying. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. L Faraone 21:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Worm^TT( talk) 09:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments

Background

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.

Support:

1. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. AGK [•] 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 21:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. L Faraone 22:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. It might be worth clarifying that drafts are only speedied if they're >6 months old they've gone unedited for six months, or if they meet the G# speedy criteria. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. Some mention that this is one of several options for article creation may help ('new users' is a bit nebulous). The other options include learning the ropes as an editor and waiting until later to start creating articles. Plus the use of userspace to create drafts, or the new Draft namespace. The point being that AfC is not the only option available, though it may be the one most used and the one most used by certain classes of users. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 03:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Kafziel: Administrative actions

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]

Support:

1. The administrative actions themselves were mildly contentious, but not significantly. He made a lot of deletions over a short period and few were overturned. Indeed, he overturned one himself when challenged. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. The incident started during this discussion, in which Kafziel came to this conclusion, and from 15 November proceeded to move articles "out of limbo" into mainspace - by 21 November he was also moving and deleting. His statements in that discussion and on his talkpage indicate that he felt he was reacting to the backlog in his own way. Concerns that he was missing the point of the process were not understood by Kafziel. There is sometimes difficulty in judging where BOLD and IAR moves into POINT, though in general if we feel something is not working properly, the community prefers discussion to resolve the matter. At the point where concerns are being raised about one's activity, it is expected that one will stop the activity and fully engage in discussion. This expectation is even higher for admins, particularly when admins are using their admin tools. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. AGK [•] 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 21:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. L Faraone 22:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. The actions themselves were fine. The response to them (on both 'sides') was not. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 03:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Kafziel: Response to queries

3) Kafziel's responses to good faith queries were abrupt and inflexible. [4] His comments at the Administrators Noticeboard showed a battleground attitude. [5] [6] [7] [8]

Support:

1. Whilst the actions themselves were not hugely problematic, the attitude shown afterwards was. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. (Minor change of 'was' to 'were'.) AGK [•] 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

   L Faraone 22:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

4. This is a borderline call for me as the diffs are borderline battlefield. However, the responses are sometimes tetchy and irritable, with more an air of exasperation than anything else. Exasperation with process does not, however, absolve an admin from the requirements of WP:ADMINACCT, which might be a better focus of this FOF,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 03:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not sure I see the problem with that first diff, and not sure I like the person it was responding to voting on this FoF. (Though this should also cover his edit warring over the ANI close) Courcelles 21:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Abrupt and inflexible? Yes. But I don't agree that those diffs are clearly exemplary of a battleground attitude. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. ( edit conflict)Upon reviewing the provided evidence in this FoF and elsewhere on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence, I don't think I can support this. L Faraone 03:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. per all the above. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. This is not a battleground attitude. What I see here is Kafziel doing a good job of explaining his actions. That others might not like those actions doesn't make them battleground actions. I share Courcelles concern that the person Kafziel was responding to is voting on this FoF. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Actually, per below opposing. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. I agree with those above in this section, and would prefer to focus on ADMINACCT. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I have supported this, though somewhat reluctantly. I'd be more enthusiastic about a FOF focussing on WP:ADMINACCT rather than on battlefield conduct,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I would as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Clearly tersely spoken, but not battlefield. Combined with some provided diffs in evidence this does show a bit of a pattern, but I'll abstain here. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Kafziel: Retirement

4) Kafziel announced his retirement on 16 December 2013 [9] though subsequently made a small number of edits on an account previously disclosed to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. To be clear, the edits made on the alternate account were minimal, uncontroversial and completely unrelated to anything Kafziel had worked on previously. As far as I'm concerned, it is a legitimate alternate account, used properly - however the fact that he switched to it very soon after announcing a retirement made it necessary to mention. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Given Kafziel's statements on the matter, it appears that he has essentially abandoned this account. My instinct in this matter is that if Kafziel fully returned to this account or if the outcome of the case is that no sanctions are imposed on the account, then the alternate account need not be named. But if sanctions are imposed, and Kafziel does not return, then I feel that the community would prefer the accounts to be linked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. AGK [•] 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 21:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. L Faraone 22:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. I think we can save the debate over whether to publicly disclose the other account for another day. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. This is accurate. It also made the case much more complicated than it needed to be. Kafziel is clearly capable of answering questions and arguing his case. That he made a few statements and then walked away is disappointing. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 03:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Kafziel: Multiple accounts

5) Kafziel used a non-publicly disclosed alternate account to participate [10] in the Arbitration case about his actions, a violation of WP:ILLEGIT.

Support:

1. As proposer. L Faraone 22:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Although I note this is now disputed. I don't think I believe the explanation presented given the easily established facts, but beyond that I'm not even sure it makes a difference one way or the other at this point. In other words, mistake or not he did do this but it seems unlikely to affect the outcome of the case. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. And tweaked header to "Kafziel: Multiple accounts", which is less finger-pointing,   Roger Davies ^talk 12:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I posted above that this was a legitimate alternate account. Arbcom has been aware of it since 2012 and I had a good look into it's editing history. I had not found any issues with the account before this case. When Kafziel posted a retired banner on his Kafziel account and jumped across to his other account, I empathised - it was relevant behaviour to mention but didn't cross any lines. It was for that reason that the finding above was crafted in this way - so as not to link the two accounts.
   Now, it is his responsibility to follow the rules at WP:ILLEGIT and because he failed to do that, the accounts should linked so that the community do not get a false impression. However, I would not go so far as to label his use as "abuse", nor do I believe we need a finding here. Worm^TT( talk) 08:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Along Seraphim's lines of thinking. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 14:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Unnecessary. AGK [•] 23:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Per Fuchs/Seraphim. Noting FoF 7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Per above. Carcharoth ( talk) 19:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. It did happen (though as Beeblebrox noted, the motivation as to why is in dispute), so I can't really oppose, but I don't see this FoF as particularly germane to the case's outcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Per Seraphimblade GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments:

The only real problem I see here is the section title. The actual FoF is an accurate description of the easily established facts, but the title makes a judgement call about the underlying motivation behind those actions. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Renumbered was 4½.   Roger Davies ^talk 12:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Kafziel: Administrator accountability

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. [11] [12])

Support:

I think the larger issue comes at play when we look at the whole picture. While this in itself was a breach of policy, admittedly Kafziel did refer to the ANI thread. But his departure, coupled with the whole set of circumstances leads me to my final conclusion. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

1. How one reacts when challenged is often at least as important as the validity of the challenge itself, and Kafziels's responses, both on and off wiki, have not been what is expected from an administrator. This factored heavily in my decision to support removing his bits. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Tweaked header per WTT's suggestion,   Roger Davies ^talk 11:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. I suppose I could have just tweaked it! Worm^TT( talk) 11:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. ON balance I see Salvio's point but don't think Kafziel's activity satisfied the spirt or the letter of ADMINACCT. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. I don't believe that Kafziel's responses were sufficient to satisfy ADMINACCT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. I have concerns about Kafziel's admin actions from when he decided to use the tools to make a point; however, for me a clear line was crossed when he resigned his admin account during this case and went off to edit in an alternate account. I was hoping he would return to see the matter through, but he has made it bluntly clear to the Committee by email that he doesn't care what happens to his Kafziel account as he has several other accounts he can use. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. To retire at the beginning of an arbitration case is to make yourself unaccountable. AGK [•] 10:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. WP:ADMINACCT says nothing about ArbCom. Kafziel responded promptly and justified his actions when they were brought up. He commented on this case, although he declined to submit additional evidence. I cannot endorse a FoF that invents some new threshold of "substantial evidence" being required; that's creating new policy. L Faraone 00:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. I agree with SikTork. But the finding needs to be more accurate and focus on the retirement. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. I find FoF 7 more accurate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

I agree with the first part of this FoF and also find Kafziel's incivility problematic; as far as I'm concerned, that would be enough to support a desysop. However, I can't agree with the second part of this FoF: as I've already said, Kafziel did participate in this case (by pointing us to the replies he made on ANI) and, for me, that's enough to satisfy WP:ADMINACCT; demanding that people drop everything to participate in an arbcom case and then sanctioning them if we think they didn't participate enough or to our liking in my opinion makes us look horribly pompous. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

1. I think that although he should have engaged, and had he engaged outcomes for all involved would have been far superior, he did meet the threshold for participation in my mind. The evidence he submitted was enough to convince (at least some portion) of the committee that his actions directly related to the AfC were not nearly as problematic as his attitude. When I drafted this I initially struggled with "well, individuals on the committee would like this finding, but when you distill it, it really comes down to "lack of response to ArbCom." We can reframe it to WP:ADMINACCT but that doesn't really change the underlying message. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments:

I can't support a "Lack of response to Arbcom" finding.. it really makes us seem too self-important. The underlying point, that he breached admin accountability (both at Arbcom and elsewhere) is very much at the core of the issue and I don't disagree with the statement. Could I suggest a title change to "Kafziel: Admin accountability"? Worm^TT( talk) 11:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Tweaked,   Roger Davies ^talk 11:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I didn't like it but didn't know what would fit better. This is a huge improvement, thanks. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Salvio does make a point, in my mind Kafziel's refusal was part of a larger problem, but I'm not sure how best to express it. To me the incivility on its own was insufficient though. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, actually looking through the evidence and at older diffs, it does seem to be vaguely systemic. I'm not one to be the civility police but if we are to hold all editors to the same standards, he did violate norms on civility on several occasions. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Having had time to think some more on this, I think better wording would be something like: "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 made minimal contributions to the case and retired, a breach of administrator accountability." - would that address some of the concerns? Carcharoth ( talk) 02:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

All of these proposals, in my opinion, have the fatal flaw of enabling or even encouraging vexatious litigation. If an admin has to explain himself over and over again, then a person who disagree with something an admin has done can drag him from one venue to the other, forcing him to participate each time (because, if he doesn't, ArbCom may desysop) until the admin either reverses himself so that the forum shopping stops or loses his temper (so that he can be reported to ArbCom). In my opinion, WP:ADMINACCT is satisfied once an administrator has explained his actions once (or twice, as in this case) and then points to those explanations, saying that, unless something new is discussed he has nothing to add.

I agree that Kafziel's tone was problematic and that his retirement was as well, but not because he thereby breached WP:ADMINACCT (whose requirements he had already met) but because he gave the impression of retiring during a case concerning his actions and started editing using an alternative account which had not been disclosed to the community and in that there is an element of deception which taken alone would not justify desysopping, IMHO, but taken along with all the rest does warrant the removal of admin privileges. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Kafziel: Conduct unbecoming

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.

Support:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply

   Roger Davies, I have made a small change to the wording of the FoF. Please check you're ok with it and, if not, feel free to revert. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply

2.   Roger Davies ^talk 10:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. AGK [•] 23:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Though 'attitude' is not the word I would necessarily use, it's all of those incidents in tandem which drove my thinking in the direction of desysop. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. In essential agreement here. The desysop here is not for one bright-line infraction but rather for a pattern of poor conduct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Worm^TT( talk) 10:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Courcelles is travelling ( talk) 03:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 13:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I agree with the abstain comments, and agree with large parts of this finding, but the bundling together of elements that I had previously opposed means I have to in the end oppose this finding as well. In future, we really need to have clear findings voted on and passed before moving to voting on the remedies - that will avoid the unseemly 'post-remedy voting' drafting of a finding that can obtain majority support for a remedy that was passing when the relevant findings were not (at that time) passing. Carcharoth ( talk) 19:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I feel like this finding is dependent on support of findings 2–6, and doesn't add much beyond that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Similarly. This finding has some parts I agree with (of course, as the proposer of FoF №5), and others I don't ("battleground", FoF №3, which I note several of the supporters here had opposed). As such, I feel this is at best redundant, and at worst an unfortunate bundling. L Faraone 17:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. I agree with the conclusion reached, but I am not sure I get why this essentially bundles an already failed FoF into a new one. I support portions of this, so I am not opposing outright. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments:

WikiProject Articles for Creation

8) Members of the WikiProject associated with Articles for Creation insisted that Kafziel follow their procedures. [13] [14] [15] When he refused to agree to their terms, he was brought to ANI. [16] The request was closed as insufficient evidence was presented that Kafziel abused his tools. [17]

Support:

1. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

   SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

2. A fair summary. AGK [•] 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. L Faraone 22:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Broadly true, though per the discussion below this might be better handled with individual FOFs,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Agree with Roger. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. While I see the point of my colleagues below, I think that it's fine to put these together. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 03:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Broader than I'd like, but true. The attribution here is rather neutral, if it was a negative FoF I'd oppose. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The problems, such as they are, should be attributed to the individuals who made them, not an entire Wikiproject. Courcelles 22:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. If individuals have misbehaved, it is a disservice to both those individuals and the wider community to not specify who and how. That is the only way that those individuals will know what type of conduct needs to be amended and for the community to hold them accountable for doing so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Per Courcelles and Seraphimblade. Those editors whose diffs are being cited should have been notified when this decision was posted. The question is left hanging over whether the conduct here was appropriate on either side - that needs answering as it is at the core of this dispute. Apologies for not spotting this when the draft was being reviewed. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. per the discussion below. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Courcelles makes a fair point. I supported this as it was essentially a true statement; though it would be more appropriate to name those individuals who "insisted" that Kafziel follow procedures. If we name those individuals here, then we should add them as parties to the case. This finding with named individuals would then tie in with Remedy 3, and we could name them again there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

How about: " User:Dodger67 [18], User:Hasteur [19], and User:Darylgolden [20] insisted that Kafziel follow Articles for Creation procedures in a manner suggestive of WP:Ownership. When Kafziel refused to agree to follow those procedures, he was brought to ANI by Darylgolden. [21] The request was closed as insufficient evidence was presented that Kafziel abused his tools. [22]". If this is acceptable, we could add Dodger67 and Darylgolden to the case, and then name them in Remedy 3. Personally, I'm not sure Dodger67's comment can be seen as ownership. And in general it might be useful to get a few more examples if we are to go down this road. I'm withdrawing my support vote for now. If it is decided to stay with the current wording I may move to oppose, along with Courcelles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I like the general idea of it. I'd like to change the wording to something more along those lines. I don't think that the Dodger comment is ownership. If somebody did not use a script generally used for ease of usage for any wikiproject or noticeboard, it bears noting that it would be ideal for the script to be used to aid the process. It takes a lot of extrapolating to say that diff is representative of ownership. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, in general I'd like to refactor this. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Could one of you write up formal findings of fact for the rest of us to vote on? If you intend to do so, I would happily treat this (FOF5) as superseded and withdraw my support of it. AGK [•] 12:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Hasteur: Battlefield mentality at AfC

9) Hasteur has displayed a battlefield mentality, specifically in areas relating to Articles for Creation (eg. [23], [24], [25])

Support:

1. Although at first Hasteur's actions were justifiably stern, they continued to escalate into what was, in my opinion, a one man war. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. I understand that there is a natural tendency to rally against authority and that administrators are perceived to have said authority, but I believe Hasteur over-reacted from the get go. He was not the only one to do so, but his actions were certainly the most egregious. Worm^TT( talk) 12:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. L Faraone 21:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. AGK [•] 22:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. SilkTork may have a point, and there are some cases that ArbCom should maybe have looked into matters in more detail, but I'm not sure this is one of them. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. While I am not entirely comfortable with the difs here, there is evidence that there have been concerns regarding Hasteur's inflexible and overbearing manner from before this case, so though this is not exactly the wording or evidence I would prefer, I support the general essence that Hasteur's attitude has been a cause for concern. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. Per the above, this is needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. Been on the road since 21 Jan, sorry for the late votes on the new stuff, but this is needed here. Courcelles is travelling ( talk) 15:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm not seeing a significant difference between Hasteur and Kafziel in the difs here and the difs for Kafziel's Battlefield attitude. Who started the war? In the case before us, it is Kafziel who started the campaign, and Hasteur was one of those who responded. Hasteur's language was the worse of those who challenged Kafziel, though he was not alone in questioning what Kafziel was doing. However, if we really want to resolve this, perhaps we need to look back before this incident. It is notable that for both editors, ArbCom is considering sanctions based mainly on their behaviour as a result of this case. Concerns have been raised about Hasteur's possessive and restrictive attitude prior to this incident. The possessive and restrictive attitude of AfC is what appears to be mainly what provoked Kafziel into his actions. The questions for me are: 1) is the AfC process harmfully restrictive? and 2) is this due to the influence of Hasteur? If that is so, then an appropriate finding would be helpful, and that would likely lead to a topic ban. If that is not so, then Kafziel's provocative actions were unwarranted, and that would mitigate Hasteur's frustration and intemperate language - though not excuse it; he has behaved poorly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Kafziel admonished

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator by failing to respond appropriately, respectfully and civilly to good faith enquiries about his administrative actions, Kafziel is strongly admonished.

Support:

1. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (If this and the desysopped remedy are to be regarded as alternatives, then this is my second choice). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. AGK [•] 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

   Equal choice with R1.1. AGK [•] 14:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply

4. L Faraone 22:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Support if and only if remedy 1.1 fails. No need for an admonishment if a desysop is the end result. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Second choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply

   Second choice,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC) switch to oppse to simplify tallying,   Roger Davies ^talk 09:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

7. Admonishment needed here, but probably for other parties to the case as well. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 03:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. Second choice. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This is a defensible choice for sure. But retiring during a case is too far, on top of everything else, for me to support it. Courcelles 16:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Technical oppose,   Roger Davies ^talk 09:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm not sure we need both an admonishment and a desysopping, but I'm OK with both if others are; otherwise I'm OK with supporting with an if and only if remedy 2 fails. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

The second is sort of implied by the first, yes. However, I don't think that treating them as either/or remedies helps much, and just makes vote counting confusing. L Faraone 22:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Kafziel desysopped

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.

Support:

1. The overall attitude of Kafziel is not in line with our current administrator standards, and so I believe he needs to be desysopped. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (If this and the admonished remedy are to be regarded as alternatives, then this is my first choice). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Plainly the only option left open to us. AGK [•] 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

   Equal choice with R1. AGK [•] 14:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply

4. Unfortunate but the best thing for the project. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Terribly unfortunate indeed. For clarity's sake, this is due to the combative and nonresponsive attitude when questioned, as the admin actions in question would not in my opinion themselves warrant a desysop. Admins must be willing to explain and discuss their decisions even when those decisions ultimately turn out to be acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. First choice,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. This is one of those cases where the actual use of the admin tools isn't what landed us here, it is the attitude towards and disregard for those who questioned him, including during this case. Courcelles 15:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 03:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. I do somewhat agree with what Courcelles ( talk · contribs) said. I held off on commenting earlier because I felt the then-proposed findings of fact did not sufficiently support this remedy. Unfortunately this is a case where a good chunk of the evidence that lead myself and other committee members to this decision were not available for public inspection. L Faraone 22:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. As written, I cannot support this. I am prepared to support a desysopping for failing to respond adequately during the case and/or a general desysop for retiring in the face of an arbitration case. But as written, this remedy implies that the desysopping was for the actions that led to the case, and I don't think Kafziel's actions prior to the case warrant desysopping. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply

   Confirming my continued opposition. The only desysop I would support would be an automatic no-fault one due to the retirement, plus a requirement to go back through RFA. It is important that admins don't just walk away from arbitration cases. Retire at the end of a case, or hand in your tools and retire, but don't retire and leave your tools hanging in the air. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

   This remedy is based on a FoF which is currently failing, which makes this sanction appear capricious and groundless. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. FoF 7 tangentially addresses the concerns made by Carcharoth and Salvio, this doesn't really address the ultimate reasoning for the desysop. I really do feel like with better engagement this could have been avoided. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments:

I understand the concerns stated above by Salvio and Carcharoth, but I believe the new FoF on lack on response, as well as the FoF on retirement could both be considered to fall under the terms outlined here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I was not expecting the findings of fact to fail. However, if we are to desysop someone, we owe it to them and to the community to explain why we did that. Until and unless we can agree on that reason, I have to withdraw my support. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Thinking through. I don't know how to articulate my vote on this, which will likely be Support. I feel that if I can't articulate it I shouldn't vote it... My reasoning is slightly different than this, attitude is sort of a slippery slope. Yet it was clearly problematic and to me would indicate further problems. But should we act on an attitude FoF in this way? NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

WikiProject AFC reminded

2) Editors from WikiProject Articles for Creation are reminded that they do not control the Articles for Creation process and that any editor may work in that area as long as they follow Wikipedia's policies.

Support:

1. I'm very tempted to take this further, admonishing specific editors. I've been distinctly unimpressed with a number of members of the project, as their attitude was what escalated the entire situation. However, at the moment, I believe this is the best solution. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. 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). AGK [•] 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. If we are to go down this route, then we need to name editors, otherwise we are falling into the trap of treating a WikiProject as a group distinct from the rest of Wikipedia editors. And if we are to name individuals, then we need to have findings against them as individuals. I have throughout this case heard mumblings both against AfC as a process and against the WikiProject which aims to organise it. It is up to us in the community to work to improve any process; and that is done by co-operation and discussion. If any individual or group of individuals (be they signed up to a WikiProject or not) impedes or disrupts positive attempts to improve a process, there are systems in place which should be used. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Per SilkTork. This goes too far to treating a Wikiproject as a legal person. Courcelles 22:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

   I interpreted the remedy as simply using shorthand for "WikiProject AFC's members are reminded...". Should it be copyedited to reflect this? Would it really be useful to write up remedies on each of these members, rather than using such shorthand? If you think it would be, please write them up. AGK [•] 12:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

   But who are "Editors from WikiProject Articles for Creation"? If they are a body distinct from the rest of the editors on Wikipedia, how do we define them? Do we define them by their actions, or by their listing of themselves as participants? If by their listing, then by delisting themselves, do they escape any form of reminder? If by their actions, then Kafziel is also part of the project as he took part in edits on AfC. I suspect that Kafziel would want to reason that he is not a part of the project. And what of those who would consider themselves part of the WikiProject, yet have behaved admirably - taking no part in activities that may be construed as ownership? I think making a blanket comment here is perhaps not helpful in itself, and also in what it is suggesting about WikiProjects: that we can tar a whole bunch of people with the same brush, regardless of their behaviour, merely by their association with a WikiProject. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

3. As per my reasoning in FoF 5. We should provide specific guidance to specific editors, not a general note to a project in which most participants had little or nothing to do with this issue at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Per above: A wikiproject ain't a legal person. This could be replaced with remedies for specific editors provided there are corresponding FOFs for each relevant editor. That's probably the best way forward,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. Per above and in favor of admonishment and/or sanction of specific users involved. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Per above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. The remedies need to be stronger (admonishment) and directed at individual editors following individual findings of fact. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. Less effective than a more specific remedy. L Faraone 22:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Hasteur admonished

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

Support:

1. Likely first choice. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. First choice (for now),   Roger Davies ^talk 11:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Worm^TT( talk) 12:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Distant second choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. L Faraone 21:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Equal preference with R3.1. AGK [•] 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
8. Though 'overbearing' or 'strident' is probably more accurate than 'battlefield mentality'. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
9. Concerns regarding Hasteur's overbearing attitude regarding AfC have been raised prior to this case; example: [26]. While I am not convinced we have fully explored all aspects of that, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that it may be helpful to indicate to Hasteur that there is concern regarding his attitude, and that he would be advised to adopt a more collegiate and flexible attitude. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
10. Only choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
11. I think this is appropriate for now, with a clear understanding that further misconduct in the AfC area is very likely to lead to a topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
12. Second choice. Courcelles is travelling ( talk) 15:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply
13. Second choice. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Hasteur topic banned

3.1) For his battlefield mentality in areas relating to Articles for Creation, Hasteur is topic banned from all edits having to do with Articles for Creation, or the AFC Wikiproject.

Support:

1. Second choice (for now),   Roger Davies ^talk 11:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Equal preference with R3. The overriding sense I've gotten throughout this case is that Hasteur made a bad situation very much worse. That alone indicates he should be removed from the area. However, an admonishment may serve to correct his behaviour just as much as a topic ban would, so I support both and express no particular preference. AGK [•] 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 13:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. First choice of these options, but it would be a second choice to a Hasteur-Kafziel interaction ban, whihc would more directly target the problem. Courcelles is travelling ( talk) 15:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. I've delayed voting on these two because I was not entirely sure which one would better serve the project. In the end I find that, as with Kafziel, behavior during the case was a contributing factor that pushed me to favor a formal sanction. Unlike with Kafziel there is no relevant off-wiki material, behavior on the case pages was enough to convince me he is simply too agressive in this area. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I don't see that this remedy would actually help. Admonishment and the finding make it clear that his behaviour was not acceptable and should be sufficient. Worm^TT( talk) 12:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. Hasteur acted inappropriately in this sphere. But this sphere was limited to his dispute with Kafziel, not the greater AfC project. An admonishment is adequate and appropriate, whereas I feel that a topic ban would be more punitive than productive. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. Punitive, not preventative. While the mentality indicated in the FoF is problematic, there's no indication that removing Hasteur from AfC specifically would have any benefit for the project. L Faraone 21:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Per above. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Per Worm That Turned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. While Hasteur's interactions with Kafziel were inappropriate, it certainly took two to tango there, and I haven't seen any evidence of problems with other editors. I therefore don't believe a topic ban is needed at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Probably a bit too strong for my liking, especially because things escalated around the incident at AfC, more than AfC itself. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not seeing a significant difference between Hasteur and Kafziel - they are both plain speakers to the point of rudeness, both hold strong opinions, both tend to assert rather than discuss, both have behaved petulantly when faced with serious criticism of their actions. Kafziel is an admin, we are proposing taking away the admin tools; Hasteur is not an admin, we are proposing topic banning him. I'm pondering this. Kafziel's admin actions - using his tools in anger (his unilateral actions began after he made this statement, which indicates his heated personal stance in the situation), not dealing appropriately to concerns regarding his use of the tools, and then failing to fully engage with this case, so that the case has largely been one-sided, are concerning enough that I feel a desysopping is appropriate; though what I am pondering is if his confrontational approach to the perceived problems at AfC are of the same disruptive level as Hasteur's actions/behaviour. I understand that there are people who feel that Kafziel's concerns regarding AfC are worth listening to, and that the AfC process could be improved - however, actions which go against consensus and create conflict, distress and drama, are not actions we want to encourage. If there are problems, we should be working together to solve them - not disruptively working against each other. To allow Kafziel to return to editing AfC, but forbid Hasteur, would be to say that Hasteur's actions in asking people to follow process were worse than Kafziel's who decided to deliberately ignore that process. I'm going to have look deeper into this case to see if that is true. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Agreed, for this reason among others I am opposing this (3.1) NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Standard enforcement

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. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

General

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Rs chen 7754 19:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot. reply

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	13	0	0		-6
2	Levels of consensus	13	0	0		-6
3	Administrators	13	0	0		-6
4	Administrator accountability	13	0	0		-6
5	Building consensus: WikiProjects	13	0	0		-6
6	Ownership and stewardship	13	0	0		-6
7	Processes and bureaucracy	8	0	0		-1
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Background	13	0	0		-6
2	Kafziel: Administrative actions	13	0	0		-6
3	Kafziel: Response to queries	5	8	0		Cannot pass
4	Kafziel: Retirement	13	0	0		-6
5	Kafziel: Multiple accounts	3	6	2		Cannot pass
6	Kafziel: Administrator accountability	8	3	1		-1
7	Kafziel: Conduct unbecoming	8	1	3		-2
8	WikiProject Articles for Creation	7	4	1		0
9	Hasteur: Battlefield mentality at AfC	13	0	0		-6
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Kafziel admonished	9	2	0		-2	[1]
1.1	Kafziel desysopped	10	1	1		-3
2	WikiProject AFC reminded	2	10	0		Cannot pass
3	Hasteur admonished	13	0	0		-6
3.1	Hasteur topic-banned	6	7	0		Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Standard enforcement	0	0	0		5

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. 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.

Support

1. A satisfactory proposal is passing for every major aspect of this dispute, and the leftover proposals cannot pass, so I think we're done here. AGK [•] 10:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
3. I think everything that needed to be done here now is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply
4. Opposed new finding with detailed reasoning. I believe we're done here. Worm^TT( talk) 08:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply
5. I'm done,   Roger Davies ^talk 20:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
6. Me too. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose

With the new proposed FoF, this is now premature. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Striking, now that there's a new FoF to be discussed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments