Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence

Evidence by 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 manner 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)

Motion to "dispense"
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 &#124; contribs) 18:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs) 18:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contribs) 23:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Meh, those mirrors used to show up a lot more a few years ago, before Google changed their algorithm. There are only a couple of them, and they have very low search rank, so they don't show up if you just Google the name of the company.  You need that very specific search string that eliminates all other results about the company, making the mirrors almost useless for spamming purposes.  The spammer could put the same content on their own domains directly with about the same results, without bothering with AfC.  So the mirror effect is a valid point, but it's a less serious issue than indexed pages on a high-ranking site like Wikipedia.  50.0.121.102 (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by 74 Moved by clerk here, per request of Hasteur, due to not including URLs of the direct quotations
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."  ((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." Hope this helps; thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. Methinks the explicit scope of the case 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)

Evidence by Ritchie333
I'd like to note that the flowchart for cutting throught the AfC bullshit(sic) Kafziel presents is nearly identical to the AfC process, with the distinction that in all but the most errageous cases deletion doesn't happen untill 6 months after the draft has gone stale, rather than 4 weeks after creation (this was discussed at length, community wide, at WT:CSD, and had several RfCs, so is unlikely to count as local consensus. If the ArbCom so wills and decides, I can look them up), and that when an article isn't moved to mainspace after the creator requested review, the creator receives feedback as to why it wasn't moved. It seems that by trying to blow up the process (my interpretation) Kafziel acted almost completely within the process AfC set out, apart from deleting earlier. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to "Evidence/Analysis presented by ColonelHenry"
Disrespectfully responding because you miss (or convienently overlook) several points, let's try again...
 * I am not proud at having being dragged to AN* but it's a snarky response to how editors who take decisive action are hauled before the DramaCommittee on a frequent basis and for petty crimes.
 * I did not open the AN/I thread. The quote is related to the "I know what porn is and that is not it" Supreme Court case.  If you had read the full line you would have noticed that it was in the context of deletion discussions (i.e. *fD discussions, CSD, etc). AfC is specifically intended to be a place for editors to be given more benifit of doubt with respect to submissions that are not ready for mainspace.
 * Again, you convienently leave out the accusations of a witchhunt. It would have been a hunt if it were only a few editors on the fringes, but when Arbitrators and Administrators also express concern with the responses for Admin Accountability it is justified to call the Admin's behavior into question
 * The G13 nominations you speak of consist of multiple consensus building exercises at multiple different locations (WT:CSD, Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot, Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 2, WT:AFC, etc.) that determined that the stale drafts do need to go, a negotiated threshold for how many nominations at a time the bot should put in, and working with admins to come up with reasonable limits. When a single editors come in and disrupt the currently running process, it's reasonable to verify that the bot hasn't sailed off the reservation.  There was what I though was a reasonable response to the process other than the editor being much more interested in going through the shrubery with a dull machette than with a procedural cleaning of the forest.
 * Kafziel's actions may be correct and expedient, but there is no deadline for resolving AfC submissions (pending, declined, or stale). Therefore it is reasonable to let the drafts sit for the 6 month reaping process of CSD:G13.  If you think a article cannot be fixed of whatever problem it has by normal editing, then those are available. A wide gulf exists between "copyright troublesome" where some phrases and sentences are copied and "Impossibly copyright infringing" where entire paragraphs or larger are lifed from sources.

For these reasons, your premise that I and others treat AfC as a personal fiefdom is wrong. We pass from AfC those submissions that have a decent chance at surviving a AfD challenge. Would you rather AfC volunteers start passing every single submission that met a bare minimum ruberic (Not an attack, Not made up, Conforms to minimum BLP) out and shift the backlog from AfC which has a great many tools for verifying that the content is reasonable and notable to NPP where there is a gadget that does nearly the same thing that AfC would do? Hasteur (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If this is the kind of attitude and defensiveness that you presented to Kafziel, and if you refuse to deal with other editors who try their hand at resolving the backlog caused by your troublesome and byzantine process, you are the root of the problem. AfC is a mess, but since it's your preferred process, the mess doesn't look so bad. God forbid someone may want to wade into that trash heap to clean up that mess--your response, your actions, and the failure to work well with others who see backlog and act decisively to resolve it, give me and and other reasonable editors the impression that it's a fiefdom. Usually the liege lord ignores problems in his own realm and expresses shock when the peasants revolt. Defend the status quo at all costs--against any better ideas and people foolish enough to try them. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * With what actions have you, ColonelHenry, strived to improve AfC? Which articles have you reviewed?  Open not your mouth and cause people to think you are ignorant, lest you open it and remove all doubt. Hasteur (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw the mess that was AfC a while ago and steered clear. The person who invited me to consider it eventually left the project as well. I found better projects, where new blood is appreciated, and where there are no petty tyrants imperious, less-than-cooperative, less open-minded personalities running them like fiefdoms. Your attitude is revealing. If anyone from ArbCom reads this, I'm done here (like many others who have crossed his path)...no time to waste on intransigent and unrepentant people like Hasteur. We already lost a good admin to his behaviour. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please try to describe your problems with someone's actions (individually or as a pattern) without using personal attacks. ArbCom cases, by their very nature, invite more direct opinions on editors, but that doesn't mean that everything is allowed. Fram (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fram that the now-struck comment by ColonelHenry was certainly not retaining the high moral ground... but then, Hasteur starting off with "disrespectfully" and ending with "you are ignorant" can hardly be counted as WP:NICE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In all fairness to Hasteur, he was imparting the wisdom of Mark Twain (re: the "ignorant" comment). But agree, the rhetorical intent is there.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even without the Twain quote, his statement is illustrative of the ownership attitude he is being accused of. Anyone who reviews AfC must respect and follow the process first, anyone who criticizes AfC processes are only entitled to do so if you review AfC's, anyone who reviews AfC's must first respect and follow the process... And so on.  Makes it easy to dismiss your critics as ignorant if the only people who aren't ignorant are the ones that agree with you.  Tautology: It's right cus its right!  204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If a newly minted admin started closing deletion or AN/EW discussions with questionable rationales would you still object so vigorously? Hasteur (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The only reason you call them "questionable" is because they are outside of your narrow box on how AfC should act. And your view of what AfC is/should be and how AfC participants should act and process is excessively narrow--and needlessly and unpleasantly exclusionary as a result. Different ways of achieving the same goal--but it's not your way. That's all this is. Much like Eric Cartman getting flustered and ranting "respect my authoritah." Your behaviour reminds me of the mindset of Stalin's Russia where if someone didn't agree with the regime, they were punished, and sometimes given a show trial (your relentless pursuit of Kafziel here and your unsuccessful AN/I persecution is very purge-like) to cut them down to size--and if you fled the country you were denounced and savagedly defamed. Apparently, because Kafziel didn't do it your way and toe the party line, you purged Kafziel from your fiefdom. Your behaviour at AfC, the sanctimoniously unrepentant attitude here, and that of the people who think in your narrow way about AfC (the clique), smacks of Yezhovshchina. Sorry, but from what I've seen, I would never want to waste my time working with you, and I can't blame anyone for steering clear of AfC or saying with Cartmanesque indifference "screw you guys...I'm going home" because of your behaviour. As I observe it, AfC is a mess in no small part because of your behaviour and will continue to be so because you chase away those who would make a difference at the project. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm interested to find out what's broken with editor retention generally (not just at NPP/AfC/AfD etc) but I'm afraid that comparisons to Joseph Stalin and Yezhovshchina are pretty much one step away from Godwin's Law and aren't really going to give us the information we need to find answers. Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   17:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Col. Henry, 1) Kafziel did a lot of contentious, out-of-process "IAR" deletions that were apparently motivated by mistaken factual assumptions about search indexing (see my evidence), i.e. he was just wrong about those at every level; 2) WP:CIVIL is policy in case you forgot (i.e. Kafziel was persistently uncivil enough that it overwhelmed whatever points he was trying to make); 3) WP:DR is also policy and if Kafziel (or anyone else) had a problem with Hasteur or the AFC process, there are well-established channels like mediation, RFC, etc, to work out the issues. Kafziel instead used a pure battleground approach (WP:BATTLE is also policy).  These AFC problems (while they may be real) aren't terribly urgent, and not everyone agrees on the best solutions, so it's best to take a more deliberate approach to understanding and solving them.  I look at some of the points of disagreement between Kafziel and Hasteur, and see there are reasonable arguments on both sides.  It is NOT a matter of Kafziel being "abrasive but right".  Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong, sometimes it's debatable. I'd be interested in knowing where this large backlog came from and how long it's been there.  I don't remember ever waiting more than a day or so to get a submission processed. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO, it's "Backlog Drive Fatigue". 2013 has had 4 backlog drives, and what do the editors do as soon as they're not being patted on the head (or collecting barnstars), they go back to not reviewing so that by the next month we've got a raging backlog to deal with again. We've also had to clean shop of some volunteers who were abusing the guidelines (review trading, accepting patently incorrect reviews, inexperienced reviewers, etc.) that has taken away time from reviewers working the reviews. Some stems from review fatigue (looking at lots of bad submissions makes one dispair). I think that some (such as myself) see AfC as the first line of defense against hopelessly COI/Non-Notable/Malformed/"in desperate need of assistance" pages.  Yes AfC could be more generous with their passage, but what benefit does the submitter get if AfC passes it only to have a New Page Patroller stamp it with problem templates or nominate it for deletion? Hasteur (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I could see a fatigue as part of it, but when you and Kudpung drive off another editor the same week you persecuted Kafziel for not doing it "your" way (which I cited in my evidence statement)...that's a pattern. Doubtless, look through the history and the numbers of editors you drove off with your attitude and territorial defensiveness probably equals if not exceeds those who walked away from fatigue. You and the ownership attitude with which you oversee your fiefdom are a significant part a problem.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment's on WeeCurryMonster's evidence
I have read through WeeCurryMonster's evidence and would like to put some of it into a little more context.

One of the (seemingly terminal) problems AfC has had is that the quality requirements for reviews have got higher and higher over time, because too many low quality submissions have been sent to AfD or tenured professors at Harvard have been declined, both of which piss off editors bigtime. ( being the serial offender). I think we're now seeing a backlog because reviewing submissions seems too much like hard work.

In terms of moving forward, as long as you don't bite newbies I really don't mind what you do - whether it's via NPP, AfC, userspace drafts or the new draft namespace. I think if we could get into a habit of sending unsuitable but possibly salvageable articles to draft instead of tripping over ourselves to stick db-a7 and / or db-g11 at the top of them, that might be the answer. It would stop driving new editors away and stop our navel gazing over a never-ending backlog.

I agree that sending this to Arbcom was misguided, and this whole issue was really just several people getting completely mixed up with cross purposes, getting carried away, and snapping at each other. The thread should have been closed, everyone should have forgotten about it and got on with their lives. I note that two arbitrators shared this opinion. Ritchie333  (talk)   (cont)   11:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Administrators are supposed to provide an accounting for their actions upon request per Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. (WP:ADMINACCT). Kafziel was challenged by multiple different editors and met with significant hostility, which violated WP:BITE.  When no positive accounting could be made at their talk page, the matter was escalated to AN/I, per the procedure laid down at WP:ADMINABUSE.  When multiple editors/administrators/arbitrators called Kafziel's actions problematic there was an assertion that they would continue with their actions and would not be restricted by a minority viewpoint.  At that point the problem went from a minor misuse of tools to an outright threat to continue to misuse tools after being made aware that the use was problematic. Once the AN/I thread was closed with a non-neutral summary of Witch hunting it was time to escalate to the next level of Dispute resolution as the underlying problem was not resolved, but further enflamed the issue. Per Administrators, Kafziel was not listed in the Administrators open to Recall (nor did I expect them to accept such a petition), A RfC/Administrator Action would only delay a resolution and would leave new articles under perpetual threat of Kafziel's cowboy admin (acting rashly and with great effect) actions that make the playing field inequal in the attempts of new content creators and volunteers trying to help  the creators when compared to the toolchest that an admin has at their disposal. Hasteur (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BITE? I've seen no evidence of this. You e.g. presented this section in your evidence, but while you may disagree with this approach, or his description of AfC, I see no "biting the newcomers" here. There is nothing in bite that discourages people from nominating unsuitable pages for deletion, apart from the "don't speedy at first sight", which doesn't apply here. Being less patient or taking a different approach does not mean that one has violated BITE.
 * "At that point the problem went from a minor misuse of tools to an outright threat to continue to misuse tools after being made aware that the use was problematic." Jumping to conclusions much? There was clearly no consensus at that ANI discussion that he was misusing the tools, so any statement that he would continue to act in the same way is not "an outright threat to continue to misuse tools". You can't continue doing something you haven't done in the first place, and there was no consensus at all that he had misused any tools. The rest of your post nicely emphasizes that you just want to keep a playground where normal policies don't apply and admins (and everyone not belonging to the incrowd) should stay out. Fram (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ((e/c)) Fram said it best. See also my reply to Richie333 below.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Richie333 is 100% right, sending the dispute here was misguided. The AN/I thread was closed, in favor of Kafziel's use of WP:IAR being well within wikipedia's mission, and acceptable per the other four pillars, albeit as always subject to WP:ROPE in the future.  That the closing-summary was not very WP:NICE, perhaps or perhaps not is relevant.  But in good faith, the alleged problem *was* brought here.  Fixing WP:BITE is my primary mission nowadays.  The keystone of that mission is WP:IAR, because our five bazillion rules is the leading cause of WP:BITE amongst beginners, and they are all *delighted* when I quote pillar five to them.  Pillar five is the best *antidote* to WP:BITE.  However, I also highly recommend WP:BITED... bringing this complaint to arbcom, and more importantly, arbcom accepting the case with commentary that WP:IAR is too old-school, directly led to "retiring -- do good work" (Special:Contributions/Kafziel).  Kafziel is gone, but there are many cowhands of both genders still around, myself included.  I disagree with Richie333 that arbcom should reject the case; the conduct-dispute is still wide open.  Does WP:IAR trump WP:PG, or not?  That is why this case was filed.  The minor fact that now-out-to-pasture Kafziel happened to be the WP:IAR cowboy, should not result in motion-to-dispense.  What about the other cowhands, and their future conduct?  Thanks.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fram and 74IP: IDHT much? User_talk:Kafziel, User talk:Kafziel, Fluffnutter's ANI statement of 17:24, 9 December 2013, Jprg's ANI statement of 18:51, 9 December 2013, Ross Hill's statement of 17:54, 9 December 2013, Jprg's ANI statement of 21:22, 9 December 2013, Huon's ANI statement of 22:19, 9 December 2013, Huon's ANI statement of  01:12, 10 December 2013, Georgewilliamherbert's statement of 04:29, 10 December 2013, Eats Shoots and Leaves' ANI statement of 12:15, 10 December 2013.  Any way you'd like to pirouette around this advice from multiple others who think that the actions are disruptive? Hasteur (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think User talk:Kafziel was a good example. Huon made a good opening remark, Kafziel dismissed it, diverting attention to the AfC "possee" rather than considering why using an "A" CSD criteria on a "WT" page might have been a problem. But then, Hasteur, you went straight to threatening with an Arbcom request. A better course of action would be to politely explain that an out of process speedy is at best confusing to a newbie, and at worst downright hostile. Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   15:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Absolutely zero evidence has been produced during this unnecessarily long discussion to show that Kafziel has in any way abused his admin tools, nor has any evidence been produced that what he's done in the realms of AFC is against policy (de facto AFC processes are irrelevant)." That would be the 16:05, 10 Dec closing statement, which weighs policy-based-arguments, not counts votes.  You have said you disagree with it, in particular, the sentence afterwards; that's fine.  And of course, the statements you referenced were all great commentary, I read them, but they were not the closing statement... and unless my memory fails me, at least three of the people who you quoted *could* have pulled out WP:IAR themselves, using their admin-powers to un-close the ANI thread, if *they* found it to be an improper close (enough to start a wheel-war over).  Instead, here we are, you accusing moi of WP:IDHT, amongst other things.
 * Stuff which happened after the AN/I close, such as the arbcom accept, do not change the fact that the AN/I close was 100% in Kafziel's favor, per WP:ROPE and also upholding WP:IAR. The former WP:PG question about noose-vs-lasso is now moot due to retirement... but the latter pillar has been called into question, more than once now, and I'm unhappy to leave it up in the air, as somehow "subject to opinion" going forwards.  Either pillar five still stands, like a rock, or it does not.  (Obvious corollary provided by 50 is one I fully support, though of course I don't support *linking* to it, except when directed at myself or at Kafziel or at somebody who will take it as intended.)  That boldface is my only issue, as far as arbcom-case-decisions are concerned, at least.  And it *is* most assuredly a conduct-issue, for myself and the other cowhands that are still sticking, whether one can any longer rely on pillar five, or not.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To be "old school" about it properly, Kafziel's problem was not IAR per se, but rather it was forgetting m:DICK (old-school version). 50.0.121.102 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we can all be a little less dickish around here. That's a problem throughout the entire project and to hold one person accountable for being abrupt and a little too cold when a little more understanding compassion is called for is inconsequential. Whether he was cold or not, no one can point to any policies or evidence that Kafziel's actions were wrong other than to say "he could have been nicer about it." Honestly, all of us could be nicer about it and that he didn't do it the way preferred by the AfC's over-aggressive cabal/clique.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just given one example - this deletion log. The log clearly states, . Now this may not be a big deal (we all make mistakes etc etc) but you can't say in good conscience that people haven't done things that are at least questionable.  Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   17:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at that right now, and don't see anything Malum in se "wrong"...Kafziel is a smart guy and perhaps he thought it was a creative solution to a tricky problem...and AfC is fraught with tricky problems. I give him the benefit of the doubt because he probably came to this solution because other solutions didn't work (again, AfC process issues). I don't see a bad intention here--no mens rea for doing something "wrong" and the solution does not conflict with the transparency and reasonableness of the AfC Decision flow chart that Kafziel created (posted in his userspace). I see this article and wonder what the motivation for creating it or the merit of including it. So I'll reserve judgment except to say not even a million-dollar baseball player can bat 1.000, a racehorse can't win every race, and occasionally an emergency room doctor despite his skills loses patients. Mistakes are made from time to time. Sometimes we can't run to auto parts store for a new radiator hose and a piece of duck tape works just as well. In any decision, we'll never satisfy everyone. If it was "wrong", it was minor, it's not worth going to pitchforks and burning torches over...as Hasteur and his companions saw fit to do. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have real life friends who tried creating articles (usually on bands) who had them deleted per A7 or G11 (as per the case here) with no other communication who now hate Wikipedia ("Nazis" and "puffed up wallies" are two terms I have heard being used) and will never edit it again. The fact the deletions were within policy and valid means nothing to them. Old Colours are a good recent example - and I sent that to AfD! Interesting analogy about the emergency room doctor - I can assure you that if it resulted in your own father dying, your thoughts would probably not be "oh well, accidents happen!" All that said, I see you agree that this in itself is not sufficient to bring up to Arbcom level, so I think this conversation can gracefully draw to a close. Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI: I had a close friend died on the operating table at 31. Had a massive coronary right in the middle of surgery. The doctors did their best and life is often unexpected. Shit happens. Where your friends had problems with A7/G11, I hate the editors who are seemingly and excessively dictatorial about image use policy--definitely rub me the wrong way. So we each have our bogeymen. I like that "puffed up wallies" line...will have to use it. Communication is key. And no one really does communication well...a lot of the edits on Wikipedia (undo, reverting, etc. etc.) are done unilaterally and in an almost robotic manner. However, ambition should be made of sterner stuff...some people are too sensitive and take things too personally. Most of the kerfuffles on Wikipedia are just because people don't know how to talk to one another even when they do try. Wikipedia is truly the land of misfit toys. The battles behind the scenes at Britannica aren't well known, but the clerks and writers there are just as tempermental and some of the battles over content legendary. Add the anonymity of the internet, the often "quirky" personality traits or hang-ups of contributors, the human nature to be overprotective and territorial about what is "ours" vs. "theirs", and that opinions and facts are often conflated...and it's a recipe as fatal as bad meth. Good to see we agree that ArbCom is not the place for this.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Colonel Henry and others who are relatively new here: really, Wikipedia has not always been as bureaucratic and obnoxious as it is now (except in some contentious areas that sensible people have always stayed away from). It used to be much more welcoming.  "[A]mbition should be made of sterner stuff" is a terrible concept to apply to would-be contributors--the idea is to be more like a potluck, where people bring interesting "dishes" in the form of facts and knowledge, and are treated with kindness.  The current broken situation is that 80% of new articles are deleted within a week of creation and the contributors go away angry.  That is tragic.  Retaining the articles (which are mostly crap) is a non-starter, so different approaches are needed.  AfC is at least trying reasonable avenues, maybe not always with success, but Hasteur seems open to new ideas as far as I can tell.  Kafziel's (and apparently your) approach of reinforcing the accumulated bureaucracy and hostility that the site has gravitated to, seems much less interesting to me. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 50.0.121.102 - I guess editing on and off since 2003 makes me "relatively new" (lol)--just because I started a new account after a long hiatus, you shouldn't assume that I'm "wet behind the ears." The claims that Wikipedia used to be "more welcoming" are a canard...it was just as hostile and unwelcoming then as it was now. When I hear talk of the "glory days", I laugh because we still argue the same type of issues now that we argued then, the same petty squabbles, the same nastiness, the same misinterpretation of rules to suit our own purposes, failures to get a logical consensus and a fumbling ineffective bureaucracy. I like your potluck example and wish we (myself included) could be a little more conciliatory toward each other but then human nature rears its ugly head. To extend the metaphor, Wikipedia is like reenacting Lord of the Flies at an AA meeting filled with people who just finished a Santacon pubcrawl and no one brought the coffee or oreos.  Lastly, if Hasteur's behaviour toward me (just for commenting), and to other users is any indication, he may be open to new ideas but it seems so only if they reinforce his. I'd be glad to find a quicker way to process AfC, but if I have to deal with his imperious personality and attitude...thanks, but no thanks. I have better things to do with my time. I contribute where my contributions are valued, I don't have the time to quickstep toward burnout and fights over bullshit. Speaking of which, I'm out...I have several articles I'm working on with an eye toward FAC early next year, and this is distracting.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 50, either we are really misunderstanding each other, or you just said that WP:IAR is a means to reinforce the accumulated bureaucracy. As opposed to, say, the only policy-compliant-means of bypassing entrenched bureacracy, which is what *I* see when I read pillar five.  Agree that the AfC process is open to new ideas... agree that success is not yet achieved.  Agree that hostility is bad, and that almost all parties here have stepped over the line from passion into anger, the dark side of a rubbery pillar four.  I want pillar four to be granite.  I want pillar five to be granite.  I want arbcom to immediately dismiss admins who abuse pillar five to win some WP:BATTLEGROUND, or even to influence a dispute in which they and/or their friends are WP:INVOLVED.  *That* is the way to less bureaucracy, methinks.  80% of new articles deleted, is tragic, in some sense... but we still have (actual measurement) one new article every 127 seconds... *thousands* of new articles, constantly.  Bureaucracy cannot solve that.  I disagree with Kazfiel's coldness, but I do not therefore think that WP:IAR is now useless, and bureaucracy is henceforth FTW.  Rather, I just think that Kafziel did it slightly wrong.  WP:PBAGDSWCBY.  Are we on the same page, or am I totally confused?  74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ((e/c)) Richie, pillar four violations by Kafziel are now moot. The admin who made the mistakes is gone.  Your friends are gone; that hurts.  But you are kidding yourself if you think that Kazfiel is the *only* problem, and everything else is just peachy... and in fact, you posted as much, right here.  That page is like a laundry list of WP:BITE!  (As for the images... I saw an editor with 18k edits in one month retire that way... it was the straw that broke the camel's back.)  Agree that arbcom has no need to remind everyone to be WP:NICE, or that WP:BITE drives away actual beginners.  Kafziel's deletes drove away beginners; arguably, that hurts the encyclopedia, but it is a grey area (for instance Hasteur's commentary in this thread is making my blood pressure spike... but not enough to make me leave... so arguably... no harm no foul because they *are* trying to improve the encyclopedia by keeping discussion brief now that Kazfiel is retired and Hasteur's reason for filing is moot).
 * So why not move on? Why not let AfC work out their proces-bugs and the WP:RETENTION people work on the larger issues of WP:BITE and WP:BITED, without involving arbcom?  Because, pillar four is not the only issue here.  The other issue, the remaining issue, which *was* closed at AN/I but has been re-opened by evidence&commentary in this casefile, is whether WP:IAR can be justified, when it contravenes an essay.  Or a guideline.  Or a policy.  Or an arbcom-ruling.  Or the established traditions that the best minds of a wikiproject have set forth as the best-practices for articles claimed to be under their purview.  My past and future conduct *assumes* that WP:IAR trumps all of those, no exceptions whatsoever.  Is this wrong?  AGK suggests it is... Hasteur suggests it is.  I'm not alone in preferring to operate with the five pillars as my guiding stars, or star-quintet, or stones-of-power, or whatnot.  Is that allowed nowadays, or not?  This is definitely a conduct-question, and it has nothing to do with Kazfiel, save that they were the cowhand who kicked the hornet's nest, as it were.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem 74IP is your insistance on using IAR for what appears to be a great many things beyond it's stated purpose. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. IAR is perfectly fine as is (i.e. a infrequently used relief valve when it is obvious that standard operating procedure is rendering a less than optimal outcome.), it does not need clarification as to how it related to other procedures. Take a close read to the entirety of What "Ignore all rules" means and see that IAR does not need a clarifying statement from this proceeding. In fact I suspect that ArbCom will stay well apart from creating/clarifying IAR as the committee has been exceptionally hesitant to rule from the bench except for extraordinary cases (like BLPPROD). Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just call me 74, please... as you know, underneath the username, you are also an IP address, so there is no need to tack on the "74IP", please.  If you believe I have abused WP:IAR, please provide diffs; if you just want to talk about my interpretation of WP:IAR beyond this post, please visit my user-talkpage, I'm happy to chat.  But the stated purpose of WP:IAR is to permit anyone, from the lowliest anon to the most vaunted Great Jimbo Our Beloved  Founder, to ignore *any* rule that prevents them from improving the encyclopedia.  Ever.  Period.
 * There is no addendum, that says such power "needs to be guarded" or even worse that "policy on administrator actions demand sysop actions comply with specific provisions in policy". Logically, that would imply rules trumping WP:IAR, exactly the opposite of what it says.  I don't expect arbcom to clarify WP:IAR in any way.  I expect them to vote that WP:IAR, exactly as written, is still 100% in force, and 100% enforced, and means exactly what it says.  That's all.  Practically every arbcom case has "wikipedia is an encyclopedia" right at the top of the results, pillar one, affirmed again and again.  Somebody has brought an arbcom case, questioning pillar five; I want arbcom to take the case, and affirm pillar five still stands, just like pillar one.  Before my conversations concerning The-Post-AN/I-Saga-Of-Kafziel and arbcom, I would have thought such an Official Statement&trade; by arbcom quite unnecessary.  It is a pillar.  Everybody has read it.  There is no wiggle-room.  Improving the encyclopedia is taken to be  self-evident.  Arguably, it is.  Everybody here agrees that WP:BITE which drives away beginners is no way to improve the encyclopedia, right?  Right.
 * Anyways, I've said what I came to say (now new&improved with wikiDiffs&trade;). Either arbcom will check the evidence-talkpage, or they will not.  Either they will affirm WP:IAR means what it says, or they will fail to do so... in which case WP:IAR still means what it says, as that is the long-standing consensus.  Thanks to those who participated, and more thanks to those who lurked.  See you folks around the 'pedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Going back to another point mentioned, WCM asserted that because some AfC submissions were not reviewed in a timely manner, that the editors had "given up" on Wikipedia. Do we know for certain if that's the case? Many casual editors go months without making a single edit, without necessarily abandoning the place. For example, Passafire went round the AfC loop again and again before passing (and it required unsalting), yet the article's creator was working on it only a couple of days ago. Ritchie333  (talk)   (cont)   18:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Update on status
It was communicated previously that the committee was close to rendering a decision in light of the retirement of Kafziel as to if they were going to continue the case. Being that it has been 3 days since then and in light of no new evidence/commentary, I would like to have an update as to the committee's decision/questions. Hasteur (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it's been almost a week with nothing else discussed, let's take Kafziel's retirement at his word and close the case as "no action required". Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   17:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but "no action required" is a very poor answer to Admin abuse. This would further embolden admins who run into a spate of trouble to "retire" for a bit, let the furor blow over, and then go right back to their actions that caused concerns.  At minimum I could see an involuntary "Under a cloud" removal of the advanced permissions as the minimum action necessary to protect the encyclopedia as a whole. Hasteur (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're jumping ahead a bit, here, Hasteur. You keep trowing around words like "admin abuse" and "disruptive" (in the edit summary); now, you think that, we get it (as you've been rather vocal), but I've yet to see a consensus of editors sharing that view. And, as far as I'm concerned, overstatements such as those are entirely unhelpful and do make it harder to solve the dispute. This case should not have been opened; I said as much before and still think we should be closing it without action now, merely inviting the community to start an RFC, which, to be honest, should have been tried before bringing this case, IMHO. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a can of worms you're suggesting. Big picture, saying that an admin can retire to avoid taking part in an arbcom case that they're the subject of, and then return at a later date and still have the tools.  That's an awful message, no matter how you felt about the case going in.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say that the more ArbCom cases I see, the more I understand why a person would want to keep as far away from one as possible... However, as for your objection, my reply is that it's not necessarily so. I'm not saying that any admin can temporarily retire to avoid an ArbCom case and, then, return at a later date without losing the tools; I'm merely saying that the refusal to take part in a case should not necessarily lead to a default judgement. When a case was unwarranted from the very beginning, the fact that the editor whose actions were being questioned refused to take part in it does not change the underlying fact that the case was, well, unwarranted. I trust we are reasonable enough to determine whether there was a fumus boni iuris (which is an assessment that doesn't require the same level of scrutiny required to adjudicate a full case) and the editor in question retired so as not to have his actions examined (which should lead to sanctions) and cases where no such fumus was present. In my opinion, this is one of the latter cases. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It shows a complete failure to abide by WP:ADMINACCT. If the case was unwaranted, the admin should have stated his case and let arbcom rule as it will.  It in itself is just cause for removal of tools.  If the admin does return they should be free to state their case to the community at a new RFA and let the community decide if they have the trust of the community.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your approach is a bit too categorical for my tastes; I don't think it's a good thing for Wikipedia to be thinking in terms of absolutes and prefer a more flexible approach, one which, in keeping with the spirit of wp:notburo, allows us to take into consideration all aspects of a case, including whether it was warranted ab initio. Granted, there is a very fine line between flexibility and arbitrariness, but I think that the least dogmatic approach is the best one for the project. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , when you say that Kafziel "should have stated his case and let arbcom rule as it will." ... that is what happened, by my interpretation of what Kafziel said.  "Evidence presented by Kafziel:  No thanks.  By this point, after all this discussion, if nobody has been able to point to a specific policy that says I'm wrong (while I've pointed to several which say I'm right) then there isn't one.  ...  I'm not saying this to try to end this ArbCom discussion. By all means, please see it through, because these issues—in particular, whether the demands of a Wikiproject can trump the core policy of IAR—is in dire need of attention from the wider community."  Kafziel, by definition, is letting arbcom rule as it will.  See also, 50's suggestion below of the SchuminWeb solution, or my own non-time-limited-SchuminWeb variation.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please bear in mind that in addition to the holiday season, the committee is in a transitional phase at the moment. This is on the radar of both the previous committee and the incoming arbs but in may be after New Years before there is any action from the committee. All parties are free to make proposals at the workshop while we are sorting out things at our end. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall an exception to the terms last year (or was it the year before) where there were cases in progress in December that were heard under the same committee that took the case so as to prevent this kind of disruption of the case. Are you saying that the committee is not going to invoke this precedent? Hasteur (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * New arbitrators have the option to take on continuing cases, and retiring arbs have the option to drop the same. L Faraone  17:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no emergency going on. Nobody's going to die. Everybody is a volunteer here. Calm down. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd calm down if the committee authorized a temporary desysop motion for the duration of the case in line with previous cases where admin accountability and actions have been called into question before (See also Rodhullandemu). Being that there has has been little evidence to the contrary, I would think it's fairly obvious that a Desysop is necessary so as to prevent any unintended precedents. Kafziel's statement of evidence is effectively "Nope, not going to participate, I still think my actions are right"  which implies strongly that they will continue to do such actions.  That represents a clear and present danger to the encyclopedia in both articles that could be damaged and the reputation of wikipedia be harmed by the disruptive actions of the admin. Hasteur (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about "unintended precedent"; the committee has repeatedly indicated that it isn't bound by historical precedent, but past actions act as a guide for future ones. As others have stated, there are many factors in play that may result in a delay of the actions of the committee. This specific issue will not spoil if nothing happens for a few days. L Faraone  17:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But is the retirement valid? After all, Kafziel was under a cloud at the time. Should the committee take the retirement at face value or should they continue with the case?  Konveyor   Belt  18:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Retirement is always valid, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. The committee should take his retirement at face value,  yes.  They should also take the case, because Kafziel's behavior is not the only conduct-issue here; see my  green box below.  Now, taking the retirement at face value, doesn't mean arbcom shouldn't make a ruling on what ought to happen to Kafziel (if anything).  In particular, on what will happen in the situation wherein Kafziel might  change his mind about retiring.  WP:CLOUD is just an essay, but WP:REQUIRED is policy, and arbcom should use common sense, and take the full range of possibilities that are a consequence of that policy, fully into account.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)  (( Later correction... WP:CLOUD itself is just an essay, but apparently I'm behind the times, because in December 2012 that scarequoted phrase ... defined vaguely as 'controversial circumstances' which methinks clearly applies here ... was in fact added to WP:ADMINISTRATOR, per some unspecified RfC outcome(s). HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC) ))

I have to say, Hasteur, having reviewed some of your earlier contributions, that your abrasive responses, particularly in the ANI thread in early October, have not been beneficial to the well being of AfC. I realise you probably didn't send Kafziel a Christmas card, but I wouldn't carp on about desysopping too loudly as the arbs are likely to look at everyone's conduct. Don't let the WP:BOOMERANG whack you on the noggin. Ritchie333  (talk)   (cont)   00:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm fairly new to arbitration proceedings myself, but what I am seeing is that the rules provide a fair degree of flexibility in this situation. Outgoing arbs are permitted to continue to be active on any case that was underway when their terms expire, but they are not required to remain if they wish to move on. Incoming arbs have basically the same deal. As Kafzeil is, at least for the moment, completely inactive there is no need to rush this. However, if anyone wants to formally propose any sort of action to the committee, the workshop page, which is currently devoid of content, would be the place e to so that. Whether the retirement is real and whether that affects how the committee proceeds is probably the first thing that will be addressed once the other details are worked out. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was my understanding that the Workshop page wasn't supposed to be used until the evidence page had been closed, but we're under a day from that happening so I've laid out principles, Findings, and Remedies. Hasteur (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Workshop page can be used at any time before the PD is posted, unless the drafting arbitrator explicitly prohibits it (as happened in the case that recently closed). --Rschen7754 20:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb handled this situation in a sensible way. The case was suspended for 3 months while awaiting Schuminweb's return to editing, and SchuminWeb was desysopped by motion after the 3 months elapsed without his/her return.   It's obvious to me (per Cube Lurker) that Kafziel's conduct was unacceptable for an admin, and some kind of remedy is called for (possibly short of desysopping).  Unless some more compelling evidence is presented against Hasteur (a non-admin), s/he rates some kind of advisory finding/caution at most, based on some lapses of decorum and possible poor judgment in places.  I don't think this is the right venue to argue the grand philosophy of AfC, whose issues in some ways reflect farther-reaching problems in Wikipedia, and that need creative, outside-the-box solutions more than "rule-based" or "by the book" ones (quotes are from Col. Henry's evidence statement).  So in Kafziel's absence I don't see much of a case to pursue. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are three parties to this case: Kazfiel#1, Hasteur#2, and anthropomorphized wikipedia herself as number three.


 * Party#1, Kafziel; agree that the best way to handle that, is to simply leave open the possibility that Kafziel may change their mind, and return. If and when they do, the sitting arbcom at that time can review the cold-by-then evidence-page here, engage with Kafziel, and see how Kafziel responds: hot, cold, good, bad.  Sanctions are not punitive, they are preventative, right?  Right.  I don't see the point in putting a three-month-time-limit on arbcom making or not making a motion against Kafziel... if they turn out to be really gone, then the admin-bit will be removed after 24 months (or something)  procedurally-removed after 12 months and new-RfA-required-removed after 24 more months based on the desysop-the-inactives ruling which is already in place.  That said, I'm definitely not against the current arbcom (or a mix of the old and the new arbcom-members) ruling on Kafziel's behavior, right away; neither was Kafziel, he explicitly said in his evidence-statement that he was happy for arbcom to make their ruling, whatever it might be.  Everything has already been said, that needs to be.
 * Party#2 is Hasteur. I think they are very frustrated, and that leads to some WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, but I really don't think they are acting in anything but good faith; Hasteur really is trying to improve wikipedia.  Trouble is, Hasteur deeply believes that the AfC wikiProject decisions/helpdocs/processes carry power, stronger than an essay like WP:CLOUD, stronger than a guideline like WP:DONTBITE, stronger than a policy like WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and even stronger than a pillar like WP:IAR.  Which is self-evidently wrong.  Processes must not be violated, because those processes *are* wikipedia, and therefore violating those processes, asserted by fiat through the local wikiProject members, cannot possibly be improving wikipedia!  (Counterargument:  WP:NOTLAW.)  Unfortunately, this means that anybody who goes against some traditional wikiProject-approved process, or even merely works orthogonally to said process, becomes the bad guy, the cowboy with the black hat.  "They always reach for WP:IAR."  Which of course, with that attitude (us good wikiproject members versus them bad cowhands), leads to unhappy people all around, and drahmahz.  More on this at the end; Hasteur respects arbcom's opinions, as do I, so methinks the best way to determine how much power wikiProject procedures hold, and how much pillars hold, is for arbcom to come right out and specify, to they extent they see fit, the role of wikiprojects.
 * But what about Party#0, wikipedia herself? Everybody knows that AfC is in trouble; tens of thousands of G13s languishing, forever, and a high steady backlog of well over 1000 articles in the queue.  More importantly, the number of active editors is going down, while the number of unique readers is going up:  that makes spammers and COI advocacy-driven folks ever more persistent.  Kafziel's approach was not perfect... but I kinda doubt there *is* a perfect approach.  Learning to help at AfC is not easy; the tools are complex, and the judgment calls are hard.  In fact, the folks at AfC regularly turn away contributors that *want* to help... because the contributors are too inexperienced, make too many mistakes, or "review" the submissions of themselves and their friends.  WMF is dead-set on increasing the number of active editors; guess what 9 out of 10 new editors most want?  An article on their band, their employer, their gramma, their boss, their pet project.  All that burden, of beginning contributors with a ton to learn, will fall on the shoulders of the folks at AfC!  Solving retention problems, and AfC problems, and visigoth problems, is very hard.


 * At the end of the day, although I agree with 50 that arbcom (in their role *as* arbs rather than in their role as everyday wikipedians) should not be pontificating about the grand philosophy of AfC... I do think that arbcom has a role. There is a conduct-question here, a very general one.  Arbcom has a role, in specifying whether


 * 1) wikiProjects, by their internal decisions, can de jure set  policy and/or trump pillars, or if
 * 2) wikiProjects in general and WP:AFC in particular are merely community-clubs, groups of editors that voluntarily work together.
 * Furthermore, there is the question whether


 * 1) wikiproject-pages (and articles within the claimed purview) belong to the wikiproject members, to govern as they see fit, and non-wikiProject-members must obey said governance, or if those
 * 2) wikiproject-pages (and articles within the claimed purview) in general and the articles in the AfC queue in particular are merely talkpages, over which the members of the wikiproject exercise no special control, and in which all normal site-wide policies &mdash; especially WP:BLPTALK + WP:COPYVIO + WP:NOTPROMOTION + WP:IAR + my favorite WP:NICE &mdash;  fully apply like usual.
 * To my mind, wikiProjects are important, they serve a useful function, they help promote teamwork & mentoring amongst editors, plus they help systematically ensure article-quality & editor-collaboration in their chosen area. But WP:BURO fully applies, as does WP:NOTCOMPULSORY &mdash; wikiProjects aren't in charge of *anything* &mdash; and thus, traditional procedures&processes of any wikiProject are neither pillars, nor policies, nor even guidelines... they are slightly more powerful than some essays, perhaps, depending on how many active wiki-project-members there are... but "rules" set by a wikiProject are definitely not sacred.  Specifically, such things cannot trump pillar five, which *is* in fact sacred.  Hope this helps.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 74 IP, mind not putting any words in my mouth (or stopping your never ending stream of navel gazing)? The only reason why there are ~18k G13 eligible pages currently "languishing" is because the community at large authorized the creation after forming a consensus about what constitutes an abandoned attempt at an AfC attempt.  There was a lag between the CSD being authorized and someone actually doing something about the hordes of the eligible pages.  There was a specific ordering and organizing of the nominations so that authors who had previously started the submission had fair warning that a "broom and dustpan" were coming soon and gave them an opportunity to postpone the deletion (by even a single registered edit).  When I looked this past week I saw that the index number the deletion process is on was around 50k.  This means that out of ~78k pages that HasteurBot has identiified, we've disposed of approximately 50k of them so far.  Not bad for ~4 months of automated work.  And how was the automation authorized?  By proposing the task, negotiating with various factions, and establishing a consensus so that it services both the communities desire to not have reams of moribund AfC submissions and the desire to give submissions that meet the G13 criteria a chance to defer the action of deletion.


 * Again, you lobby and harrang trying to argue that a WikiProject has no special authority over talkpages or pages within it's perview. I would point at the previous heated debates over WikiProject United States scope versus other Wikiprojects (such as US Roads) as to who has more authority to have what banners on an article space talk page.  If you were moving to a new country, would you proudly exhibit your heritage without any reservation (and potentially offending your new hosts by any of the many faux pas between cultures)? How long would you think you would be invited to participate in Articles for Discussion debates if repeatedly used rationalles straight from Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and especially when the page had been pointed out to you? I would have assumed that it's convention that when you enter a new space, if you're unsure as to the social conventions and rules, you would lurk to know how the game is played, not throw a rock into the middle of the playing field.  Wikipedia works on Consensus.  Consensus is based off of people taking bold actions and having discussions to form a consensus when there's disagreements. Wikiproject Articles For Creation was established as a way for those editors working on reviewing Articles for Creation submissions to come together and form a consensus about how the site wide policies are applicable to Articles for Creation submissions.  It is my understanding that many of the bright line rules about "Absolutely Not" that are typically enforced in article space, are strongly hinted at so as to give the editors who use this space (such as unregistered editors or newbies) an opportunity to wobble or fall prior to having the magnifying glass of NPP/Deletionists/Agenda pushers/Stat chasers look at their work and potentially remove it with a great deal less of appeal methods.


 * Kafziel could have prevented a great amount of drama by saying that they disagree and raising the point for discussion at the AfC project's talk page, at the CSD talk page, or one of a great many other alternatives. That they reacted by not exhibiting the behavior of an admin and continued to do so after the question of their actions with respect to these submissions was called is, in my mind, why the Arbitrators took the case over the troublesome CSD actions or abuse of guidelines. Hasteur (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I really think Hasteur's dogged pursuit of this, and for his relentless calling for Kafziel's head, should be taken strongly under consideration. This isn't justice, he wants to see a certain result to satisfy his urge for vendetta. It's too personal now for him. This is an extension of the same behavior he and other AfC clique members employ against anyone who tries at AfC and doesn't do to their liking. Since it's largely outlived its usefulness, and run like a fiefdom by a clique who don't want to accept reforms to fix it to be useful, I wish ArbCom would see this for what it is and say AfC delenda est. End this nonsense. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How is wanting to prevent further and future damage and disruption a vendetta? Isn't the purpose of the restriction of privileges to "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." (Paraphrased from WP:BLOCK)?  How is preventing an editor who has refused to bow to the broad consensus that their actions and the reactions to being questioned on them were being disruptive not a clear and present threat of future disruption?  If anything, your actions and "Evidence/Analysis" have been meddlesome and been on the verge of ad hominem attacks on myself.  Hasteur (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The question of wikiprojects is a red herring. Some Wikipedia tasks like content editing require engagement with the subject matter. Others like template maintenance or bot operation require a level of technical skill. I see servicing AfC (whether or not as part of the wikiproject) as being something like the Mediation Cabal in that it requires a level of diplomacy and empathy towards editors who are often clueless and in many cases trying to contravene site policy, in the hope of bringing them properly into the fold. That's part of the WP:COMPETENCE required to contribute in that area and Kafziel didn't show it I'm one of the bigger deletionists around this place and even I see the problem. Someone not competent to participate in a given area of the project should either upgrade their skills or find another area to work in, or be removed from the area if they don't improve. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)