Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel

Statement by Wee Curry Monster
As noted at WP:ANI, in a thread closed minutes ago following the usual drama and furore, there was no grounds for action. I would observe if there is any grounds for action, per WP:BOOMERANG it would be looking at the ownership issues of those filing this complaint and that at WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved JodyB
I hope the committee will decline this request. The AN/I thread was clear that there was not objective wrongdoing by an administrator. It would have quickly blown over had Kafziel been less confrontational but there is still nothing significant overturned. WikiProjects all have their procedures but the broader community procedures are not subjugated to the Projects. What specifically has he done to warrant losing his adminship? I don’t think you will find anything he has done wrong. Please note the policy at WP:CONLIMITED JodyBtalk 17:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no question that Kafziel has been stubborn and brash with his replies. If ARBCOM wants to take this as a review of conduct then fine. But please note that there is still no confirmation of any sysop abuse. Kafziel acts as one trapped in a corner. He is trapped by his own anger but also by the attacks of others. I note that there are backlogs at AFC that are dating back over a year. Something is not working. JodyBtalk 19:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
Of the five examples of Kafziel's deletions brought up in the thread (simply as the five most recent they made at the time), two were valid G11s, one was a G12 (but mistagged A7), one was a valid G13, and the last was tagged A7... but had been abandoned for three months. Four of the five were clearly correct, albeit one deleted for the wrong reason, and the last was incorrect only in terms of being deleted now instead of three months from now. While I agree that Kafziel should avoid deleting AFC pages using the A criteria of CSD, my scan of the ANI thread revealed no examples of actual tool abuse that were brought up. At worst, there was one honest error. This does not merit a desysop, a block or a topic ban. Lacking actual evidence of abuse, I fail to see how this request could be permitted. My impression from the ANI is that this seems like an attempt at driving someone away because he won't kowtow to the AFC wikiproject's desires. Resolute 17:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Beyond My Ken
I'm not involved in any AfC activity; in fact, I'm barely aware of the project's existence. I am, however, broadly sympathetic both to the concept that WikiProject practices are voluntary and not binding on anyone who doesn't choose to follow them, and to the concept that WP:IAR means exactly what it says, and should not be restricted to the "big issues". (Surely it would be called "Ignore Some Rules Sometimes" if that was what was meant.) Despite these prejudices, which might seem to work in favor of Kafziel, I am still concerned about his behavior, not so much because of what he's done, but because of the attitude he's taken in the discussion related to it, and in other discussions as well. Like Kosher hot dogs, admins need to answer to a higher standard of behavior then do rank and file editors, because they've specifically chosen to take on their roles and have been selected by the community to be entrusted with additional powers. Admins are certainly allowed to be human, and to get pissed off occasionally, but an admin who approaches community criticism of his behavior with the equivalent of a big "FU" may not be ideally suited to the role. Therefore, I would ask the committee to take on this case for the specific purpose of examining Kafziel's demeanor and behavior as an admin. It is most probably not sufficiently egregious to warrant desysoping, but it's possible that a warning and adminishment might be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Fluffernutter
Everyone makes mistakes, and every AfC reviewer does things slightly differently. If this were just a case of doing things differently, an arbcom request would be a gross overreaction for something that could be handled through dispute resolution if it became a problem. However, Kafziel has stated that he will not participate in standard dispute resolution, nor will he change the way he's been doing things (which has involved violations of CSD policy, disregarding consensus, and personally attacking anyone he feels is associated in any way with AfC). As a result, I'm very concerned about the implications of the assertions Kafziel has been making in discussions related to his AfC activity. For instance, even when specifically asked, he will not restore AfCs he deleted because he believes that articles and editors must sink or swim in mainspace rather than using AfC as a drafting space. He doesn't need anyone's permission to do "any other damn thing" he wants, and since dispute resolution processes are "a matter of one editor/group of editors thinking another editor/group of editors should kowtow and beg forgiveness", he has no interest in participating in them. Anyone who asks him to do things differently at AfC is a "tin-pot dictator" who likes to "hold back articles" so they can feel important. He'd love to "have the luxury of being more careful" with determining what to do with AfC articles, but he "outright reject"s the notion that he (or any other editors) has to follow the same reviewing procedures. Consensus is discounted because he suspects it was made by people he doesn't like; "[he's] not saying [he's] right and the community consensus is wrong. [He's] saying [he's] right, and whatever little consensus you all might have dreamed up at AfC is wrong.". He's "not required to collaborate with everyone", and despite strenuous requests from a number of users that he moderate his behavior or discuss changing the current operating consensus, he "will continue doing exactly what [he has] been doing at AfC" as much as he likes.. He will not accept a compromise, and if "you think you’re going to do sanction me, tell me where I can work and what tools I can use to work there, then it’s going to take a damn sight more than an AN/I report. In short, Kafziel does not feel bound by consensus, chooses to believe that IAR allows his own judgment to trump any other policy or consensus, and will not consider changing his behavior (including misusing his admin tools to improperly delete things) unless forced to do so. This is not the behavior (or the attitude) we should se coming from any administrator, let alone one who has appointed themselves to work in a newbie-facing area like AfC. He's not "ignoring" the rules, as he claims; he's purposely flouting them. I would certainly not be comfortable working with such an administrator and having to continually hope that he didn't substitute his own consensus-of-one for any and every policy the rest of us abide by. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We're here rather than at RfC/U because (among other reasons), Kafziel indicated that he had no intention of abiding by any restrictions that ANI might place on him (cf ). Given that, and the comments he's made about his interpretation of IAR trumping consensus (and his tendency to feel that any consensus that doesn't align with him is automatically invalid because something something AfC people), I see little reason to believe he would either participate in or honor the results of an RfC; at any rate, active tool misuse is Arbcom's purview, not RfC/U's. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved admin Coffee
I'll only state what I stated in my close of the ANI thread: I have seen no evidence put forward that Kafziel has abused his tools yet, nor that he has breached policy in his actions. ArbCom is not the place for talking about the perceived possibility of an admin/editor abusing their tools in the future (somewhat akin to a corrupted crystal ball), but instead is for actual breaches of policy and disputes revolving around this. I would recommend that ArbCom decline the matter at this point, and await actual dispute resolution processes (RFC/U) that could more appropriately handle this matter. That is unless ArbCom thinks they are the only possible way of this situation getting handled, and that situation being that Kafziel has been a bit dickish and certain editors don't appreciate it. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ramaksoud2000
First off, just by glancing through this issue as a previously uninvolved person (I do participate in the AfC wikiproject however if that makes any difference), Kafziel's incivility is readily apparent, which is just as much as a policy as WP:IAR. Now, when judging civility, there is no bright line and it is objective. However, speedily deleting articles without a valid criterion is not objective. Kafziel apparently interprets all the A criteria as G criteria and has made way too many improper deletions, sometimes moving pending articles in the WT namespace to the mainspace and then speedily deleting them under A criteria, which would be like me moving an article into my userspace then promptly deleting it under U1, which is unacceptable. I am not an admin so I can't view the deleted revisions, but I ask one to review all of Kafziel's deletions at Special:Log/Kafziel. I also ask for undeletion and then perhaps a redirect of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Osseointegration Group of Australia, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/University of California, Irvine School of Education, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gender Paradox (sociolinguistics), and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Balkan Egyptians (Jevgs, Egjiptjant,Jevgjit,magjypë) which were all deleted under A10, which only applies to the mainspace, and have not been undeleted already. I also ask for undeletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), which is one of the submissions Kafziel moved to the mainspace then immediately deleted under A7, however, this one was not undeleted already like the others. I also ask for review of all the ones deleted under other criteria, very specifically G11, because judging from User_talk:Kafziel and User_talk:Kafziel, with one submission restored already and not G11 material in the slightest, Kafziel appears to be just deleting every single page created by someone with a disclosed or possible WP:COI under G11, which is not allowed in the slightest, then being so blatantly uncivil to the creators that dared to ask him on his talk page nicely why their AfC submissions just disappeared, not even declined when they are trying to not edit articles with their coi and are disclosing them. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition: I would specifically like to point the users who say that there is no evidence that Kafziel misused admin tools, just may have been a little confrontational, to the above comment. Other users have said that Kafziel has been a nice, helpful person in their personal experiences. This may very well be true and I have no reason to doubt it, however, AfC, WP:COI, WP:CSD, and accusations of the misuse of admin tools seems to bring out the worst of him. Also, the number 40,000 keeps getting thrown around a lot as the backlog of articles that need to be reviewed. This number is incorrect and right now there is a backlog of ~2,000. I don't know where the number 40,000 came from. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply specifically to Newyorkbrad's questions: Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 21:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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? Answer: No. The reason AfC exists is for new users to have the ability to have their articles reviewed in a friendly zone compared to Special:NewPages. In fact, Article_wizard/Ready_for_submission specifically states "we strongly recommend that you use Articles for Creation instead: doing so will temporarily immunize your new article from the risk of speedy deletion." Kafziel's completely inappropriate and unnecessary speedy deletions (which would not be ok even in the mainspace) goes completely against this.
 * 2) Were his actions, even if otherwise problematic, understandable in light of the great backlog of AfC drafts? Answer: No. The backlog of pending articles is 2,000 and not 40,000 and it appears that he was going through declined articles and deleting them. Deleting takes just as much time as declining and is not understandable.
 * 3) Has he discontinued the most problematic types of actions, specifically, allegedly improper deletions? Answer: He has defended them and stated that he has no regret and would do them in the future.
 * 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? Answer: It is treated as a de facto policy, with all the news users being directed there and all the rules and guidelines. So the answer is yes.
 * 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? Answer: No. He has acted in a very uncivil fashion, even in his arbitration statement right here, and has shown no hint of wanting to address the concerns.

Statement by uninvolved ColonelHenry
I have considerable respect for Kafziel, even though we've had our differences. As an administrator, I have never seen him abuse the power or tools that comes with the position. He has always been fair, by the book, and entirely transparent with his actions and the reasons for his actions. He may be a little harsh in discussing a matter from to time, but I respect his honesty. He is one of the few admins I can trust to tell me how it is, unvarnished, clear, and the way it needs to be said. I was asked to help at AfC and I declined after observing its failings and seeing what the personalities who defend it from change like a petty fiefdom. Kafziel should be applauded for wading into that quagmire and trying to fix some of the systemic problems that have made it a quagmire. The backlog and systemic issues can only be addressed with a heavy dose of boldness--some people don't like that. Kafziel's work as an contributor and an admin are a tremendous benefit to the project, and it would be regrettable if he were blocked or driven away only because he had the audacity to responsibly address and seek to remedy the nonsense that has kept AfC a mess. I would urge ArbCom to decline taking this case.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Fram
If this case gets accepted, then I hope that the main focus of ArbCom is on the behaviour of others, not that of Kafziel. WP:OWN and the witchhunt behaviour, where people get threatened with desysops, blocks, and now an ArbCom request, without any evidence of serious wrongdoing, should be sanctioned, not the admin acting to create a better encyclopedia. People can disagree, I do it all the time, but without trying to silence the other party only because you don't like their approach. Either they should provide solid evidence of where Kafziel has damaged Wikipedia (the encyclopedia, not their project) and where he has made wrong decisions (both in deletions and in moves to mainspace) which are sufficient (in number or severity) to even start discussing desysops and blocks, or they can't and should have long since shut up. Witchhunts should not be tolerated. Fram (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Question for Arbcom from Leaky Caldron
There seems to be enthusiasm to accept this case and even extend the scope to all involved parties. Arbitration scope and exhaustion of all other avenues are clear about the only circumstances in which cases are acceptable. In this case we have a couple of talk page discussions and a prematurely closed WP:ANI. No other avenues attempted, no WP:RFCU. Please clarify under which heading you are accepting this case, either emergency actions to remove administrator privileges or unusually divisive disputes among administrators or the community. Leaky Caldron  11:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves
I quick perusal of the ANI that led to this filing shows an interesting progression in my own statements: I was originally fully defending Kafziel's actions, as blatant promotion, unsourced BLP's, Copyvios, etc, should indeed be immediately deleted, even in AFC space - those policies cross all namespaces. I was, however, appalled by Kafziel's responses, which basically amounted to "screw you, AFC is crap, I'll do whatever I please, now screw you a second time". This is an entirely inappropriate response to our requirements for admin accountability. Having further read the discussion, I made what I would consider to be a rather WISE suggestion to Kafziel: that he voluntarily stop deleting articles in the AFC space, but that he could blank and CSD tag problematic ones. That actually seemed to be a solution that would resolve everyone's issues in a polite, gentle manner, that would continued to forward the policies of the project AND the AFC process as a whole. It would even allow all parties to back away from the precipice without eating any crow whatsoever. Yeah, I hinted that a topic ban cold possibly be implemented - but that was unneccessary if the voluntary ban was taken. I still personally think that it's the best resolution. However, that would only resolve half the issue: the other half is Kafziel's actions in escalating this due to an "I'll do what I want" attitude. Could these be resolved by motion - or is there a need to temporarily implement a topic ban while this case progresses? Quite possibly. I want Kafziel to continue in AFC ... but in a respectful manner - not only to the editors who create those drafts, and not only to the policies that cross the namespaces ... but also to the editors who say "hey, please don't do it that way". ES &#38;L  12:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DESiegel
Only a few deletions were mentioned in the ANI thread, but many more occurred. See the log. I count 48 deletions of AfC pages since 21 November 2013. In several cases, such as Brainz, pages were moved to mainspace only to be deleted forthwith under WP:CSD, thus effectively applying A7 to AfC space. Others, such as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Ninivaggi were deleted under A7 directly from AfC space. Some, such as Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) were out of scope for A7 even in mainspace.

A number were deleted under WP:CSD as duplicates of existing articles, mostly cases where a cut&paste move was done from AfC to mainspace, or a 2nd version started by the same editor. A history merge would IMO have been better practice, but these actions do little harm.

Here he appears to oppose the entire AfC concept, and to indicate that he will treat AfC pages as if they were in mainspace. And this he calls a "compromise". Here he refuses to provide a page creator with a copy of a deleted page, apparently because the editor has a COI which was declared in conformance with current policy.

Many AfC pages were deleted under WP:CSD as promotional. The standards for promotion in the NOINDEXed AfC space are and should be more tolerant, and many of these are not, in my view "unambiguous promotion" even by mainspace standards. For example Wikipedia talk:/Articles for creation/Tyrolean Independent Film Festival needs improvement, but not a total rewrite to comply with WP:NPOPV. seems to be deleting as promotional any draft where there is or may be COI, or the draft is about a company of marginal notability, even though normal editing could well achieve a properly WP:NPOV article.

Kafziel deleted Skimlinks from AfC, and when asked to restore it did so in mainspace, sending it to AfD. Articles for deletion/Skimlinks was closed as a speedy keep, showing that the deletion did not have consensus.

Kafziel seems unwilling to change this pattern of behavior when asked, although to be fair it has been some days since his most recent deletion. But he shows contempt for the AfC process (and it should be regarded as a process, not merely a wikiproject) and for at least some of the editors involved. These actions appear to ignore the consensus that AfC is a place to allow drafts to be improved before they are subject to most of the speedy deletion criteria, orto WP:AFD, and that providing feedback to would-be article creators is important. They also ignore the consensus limits on the CSD: that A- criteria apply ONLY to pages in mainspace, that A7 applies only to a limited range of content, that G11 applies only to promotion that cannot be cured by reasonable editing. This violates clear project-wide consensus. DES (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
I do quite a bit of regular work on AfC, and it's through that I picked up on the ANI thread. I understand that deleting an AfC submission per CSD A7, which should never happen, was an accident and should have been a (legitimate) G12 copyvio, and that the creators of the articles have not really been affected by this. The problem, if anything, is that Kafziel rose to the complaints and abrasively challenged them, which caused more harm than good. As I outlined here, frequently it can be the better option to just have a short break and come back when things have settled. (See WP:MASTADON and WP:EOTW). It's a new day, there is work to do on articles, so I'd rather we just put this behind us as a case of simple cross purposes and let this all blow over. Ritchie333  (talk)   (cont)   15:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nick - I don't speak for anyone else, but my AfC "rules" are "is the subject a) notable, b) verifiable and c) suitable" - that's it. And most of the regulars I think would agree that there are major and significant problems with the AfC process that need addressing, some background information for which can be found in this general RfC and this RfC to introduce some quality threshold. DGG has some further criticism and comments about the AfC process on his talk page archives here. However, the "G" criteria (ie: G6 - maintenance, G10 - attack, G11 - blatant spam, G12 - copyvio) are all absolutely fair game for AfC submissions and anyone who cries foul over them is probably misguided - indeed, I put an AfC submission up for G12 speedy only yesterday. Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Note by Bishonen: another ANI thread
I'm on break, but I noticed this case, and was reminded of this ANI discussion from 2012, concerning a disputed block and subsequent removal of talkpage access by Kafziel. Kafziel's admin actions related to this thread, as well as his demeanour in the thread itself, suggest there may be a long-term problem. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC).

Comment by Nick
The fact an administrator saw it necessary to delete articles pending in the AfC queue is exceptionally important and must be examined here (and likely, elsewhere). The AfC process is abused daily (I come here having just deleted as a copyright violation an article written by someone who, in their own words [has] been involved in creating marketing materials etc for the subject of the article. There's not a single day goes by where I don't see something that is inappropriate for mainspace, but which cannot be deleted because we have these restrictive rules. The disheartening thing is to see so many complain about the sanctity of the AfC process being breached, when it's clear the process doesn't work very well at all, and is resulting in a torrent of complete rubbish being added to the project. Nick (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Someone not using his real name
I'm on the fence here too (but which fence?) Since it's now AE policy that "NPOV" articles are to be created by POV pushers warring with each other, what is wrong with admins edit warring at ANI for the last word? I think we should disband ArbCom ASAP. The alternative is much more entertaining, and we are volunteers here after all, getting paid in WP:DRAMA bits. Enough with the mind-numbing encyclopedia writing, it's high time for step 3: PROFIT! Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Orlady (uninvolved passerby)
This discussion reminds me of another fairly recent dust-up at ANI involving an administrator who was taken to task for actions deemed to be inconsistent with the rules of the AFC project: User:Hasteur, AFC, and "I didn't hear that" --Orlady (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I find that the other dispute is still very fresh, based on this archive of a discussion closed on 4 December: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival award winners --Orlady (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement from uninvolved Joefromrandb
I'm not a big fan of Kafziel's, and I've complained about his abuse of tools in the past. That said, his actions in this case don't appear troubling to me. No WikiProject has any authority to circumvent site-wide policy. I make no judgement about AfC itself, but I applaud Kafziel for both his stance and his refusal to waver. The community should be echoing him, rather than calling for him to be censured, blocked, ect. I'll also add that his stubborn "I'll do what I want" attitude is balanced by his invite for anyone who disagrees with any of his actions to simply reverse them. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mojoworker
NewYorkBrad asks an important question – is AfC more akin to an English Wikipedia process or to a wikiproject whose internal guidelines do not supersede overall policy? Clarification of this status is vital. In the ANI discussion I had assumed it's the latter and that WP:CONLIMITED does apply. I can see how Kafziel (or any other editor) could be confused... For example in the link to the AfC submission that Orlady mentioned: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival award winners, which is, as expected, a talk page – however the tab to the left (a redlink) says "Project Page". If AfC is something more than a Wikiproject, then the "Project Page" nomenclature is misleading. However, I just checked and (though I never noticed it previously) AfD exhibits the same behavior (so maybe it shouldn't say that either). Mojoworker (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nsk92
I am with Nick on this one. The AfC project is mired in a miriad of systemic problems and is used and abused daily as an avenue for sneaking in promotional, non-notable, copyvio and other questionable material that cannot be easily and quickly deleted because of the AfC project "rules". I would go further: I believe it is time to MfD the entire AfC project and close it down, as something that has long since outlived its usefulness and is, in the grand scheme of things, counterproductive. Everybody who, really wants to create an article in mainspace, has perfectly good means of achieving that task without using the AfC: just register an account and then create an article immediately if you want to, or develop it in your userspace first and then move it to mainspace. No AfC, no backlog, no endless AN/I threads, etc. IMHO, it is definitely time for the nuclear option regarding the AfC. Nsk92 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)