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

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.

@Hasteur:, what do you mean when you mention "established policy and consensus by the subject matter expertes for the field of Articles for Creation submissions." AfC is not decided by "subject matter experts", there may be some AfC "rules" experts but that doesn't make them any more or less "subject matter experts" than other editors. I don't have the impression that "subject matter expertise" has anything to do with how AfC works at all, so I fail to see what it is that you are trying to communicate here. Do you mean Afc "members" or "regulars", or anything else? Fram (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant experts, i.e. the ones that are using wikipedia's policies day in and day out with respect to the AfC submissions and for 98% of the time not challenged. I would have said 100%, but this and the Rhode Island Horror Winners list ones are examples where editors outside the project try to dictate how the regulars should deal with submissions. Hasteur (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an AfC "expert", but that hasn't stopped me pointing out severe problems with AfC (promoting copyvios and the like by AfC experts), or speedy deleting problematic AfC pages that were declined but not deleted by the AfC experts, or creating the G13 speedy deletion for old AfC contributions. That some people are regulars there doesn't make them any more (or less) policy experts for Wikipedia; and if AfC regulars think they have their own policies, then they should think again. WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS seem to be the main problem here, not the actions of people who are not affiliated with or regular editors at AfC, but who still are policy experts on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, Are you actively involved with AfC? Are you actively reviewing AfC submissions to get a general feel for the average submission and the extention of good faith that is being made to a lot of these sub-standard submissions? Are you able to see how often the submissions boil over and out from AfC's guardianship? Perhaps you should lurk more to actually understand rather than make ill founded assumptions based on your pre-conieved notions. Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, this is what people meant when they were talking about AfC "own"ing this stuff. We don't get to exclude people from contributing just because their name isn't on a Wikiproject list somewhere or because they haven't done the work you think they should do. The more you claim "you're not on the list, so you don't matter" as the basis for your argument, and the more you purport to speak for AfC as some sort of monolithic body, the less reasonable you make anyone who's ever worked in AfC (and that includes me) and anyone who opposed Kafziel's deletions (and that also includes me) look. Consensus-building involves everyone who comes to the table, and it's not about membership or strategically excluding people. If the only way you feel a consensus or a discussion is valid is by excluding people whose opinions you don't think matter, that's a problem. Ironically, in fact, it's pretty much the same problem that I saw in Kafziel's behavior that led us here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone started voting in RfAs with "I like the guy"/"He was Mean to me once" would the same level of objections be mounted? When people start voting at AfD with rationales of "I like it"/"It doesn't hurt anything" are they allowed to go on spouting absurd nonsense, or are they educated and reminded on how the encyclopedia is supposed to work? Hasteur (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Kafziel wasn't doing "how AFC is supposed to work according to the AfC regulars", but that hardly means that he wasn't working in the manned Wikipedia is supposed to work. What he did "educated and reminded" the AfC regulars "on how the encyclopedia is supposed to work", and that is the reason that no action was taken against him at the AN discussion. Fram (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur—I propose that this case be dispensed with by motion to desysop Kafziel...—but as AGK made clear, this case is not just about Kafziel's actions. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being that all the other arbitrators have made clear that it's not the actions, but the demenor and way that Kafziel responded that they were accepting the case request on. Being that no other editors have submitted evidence that shows AfC being at fault and that few arbitrators indicated that they were accepting the case as a vehicle to reform AfC, I made the proposed suggestion on good faith that Kafziel is retiring under a cloud and therefore the Under a Cloud procedures should take effect. Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that desysopping "under a cloud" shouldn't apply; beg pardon—I realize my quote above doesn't help to make that clear. If Kafziel has indeed retired then that part seems pretty straightforward. I'm more referring to your motion to dispense with this case; I don't think we know that "all the other arbitrators" have explicitly said this case is only about Kafziel's actions and behavior, although I suppose one way or another this will be revealed shortly. AfC being at fault—I don't think anyone would say "AfC" is at fault for anything, and that probably isn't a useful shorthand for "AfC regulars being at fault" or anything of that nature. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The role of the AfC Wikiproject doesn't seem ripe for arbcom. I'm an occasional AfC submitter and I didn't even realize there was any sort of controversy. If there are serious disagreements about what AfC should be doing, it's preferable in this instance to start a site-wide RfC rather than an arb case. Arbitration is for matters involving user misconduct, which I don't think has been alleged against the AfC volunteers in any meaningful way. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are serious disagreements about what AfC should be doing, it's preferable in this instance to start a site-wide RfC rather than an arb case.—exactly. misconduct, which I don't think has been alleged against the AfC volunteers—there was some allegation of misbehavior by others besides Kafziel. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actual conduct allegations (except against Kazfiel) were relatively tame as far as I could tell, not rising to arbitration level. There were some larger philsophical and policy-interpretation disagreements that are just the type of thing RfC is intended to handle. Kazfiel himself seems to have been motivated at least in part by rage against spam, something that I sympathize with. But specifically he wanted to clear out old AfC submissions because he thought they were indexed by Google (see my evidence submission), and as far as I can tell, they aren't (I'd be interested in seeing any counterexamples). I do notice that the pages are served with follow instead of nofollow, and that seems wrong to me. I might bring it up at WP:VPT but I'd prefer that someone else do it, if they understand the issue and are willing. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the Illigitimate Mirrors that I suspect that Kafziel was concerned about (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DragonWave, Inc. vs Google Search. Granted Kafziel only rarely used the "Mirrors cause bad things" argument and instead argued that WPAFC was an nepotistic/autocratic system designed to abuse people who were unlucky to get directed to the system. Hasteur (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly suggest that this case be seen through to the end, as Kafziel requested; certainly not dispensed with by motion! I will argue Kafziel's position, if necessary, though I think they have argued it themselves. "I agree only to work to improve the encyclopedia, and help others who are interested in the same."[1] ((inline links to policy added by me)) Has WP:IAR been repealed? That is what AGK said. "Now, policy on administrator actions demand sysop actions comply with specific provisions in policy."[2] Hope this helps; thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Methinks the explicit scope of the case[3] fully permits ArbCom to consider whether Kafziel's use of WP:IAR violated WP:PG, and if so, whether WP:PG now trumps WP:IAR. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]