Revision as of 01:01, 12 December 2013

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Kafziel's AfC actions

Initiated by Hasteur (talk) at 16:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Hasteur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Darylgolden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Kafziel
• Darylgolden

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• User_talk:Kafziel#AfC_reviews
• User talk:Kafziel#Working on backlogs
• Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:Kafziel_abusing_admin_tools_and_overriding_long_established_consensus

Statement by Hasteur

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

This ArbCom request is being motivated after the ANI thread was closed as a "witch hunt" when multiple editors expressed significant concern at Kafziel's actions (even if they were expedient) as being out of process without trying to establish a consensus for said process. Hasteur (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I assert that this is not a case of a small project trying to impose it's will on the entire encyclopedia at large, I assert that CONLIMITED is not applicable here. Where else but at the CSD talk page should discussions of implementation of the CSD rules be applied? Where else but from within the guardianship of AfC should changes to AfC best practices be conducted? Having an admin blunder into a sensitive section of wikipedia and start throwing their novel interpretations of policy and guidelines is not helpful at all. A though experiment for those who think this is a tempest in a tea pot: If an admin with no experience in Checkuser/Sock Puppet Investigations started blocking for those reasons and disregarding advice from editors who are involved with the area would you still cite CONLIMITED? Hasteur (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(Re to NYB questions)

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

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

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

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 Kafziel

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

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

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

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

It seems we've moved out of the realm of "Kafziel is disrupting Misplaced Pages and abusing the admin tools" into "Kafziel isn't nice." If that's the case, then I'm guilty as charged. Kafziel 18:19, 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 JodyB _talk 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. JodyB _talk 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; " not saying right and the community consensus is wrong. saying 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 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)

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. — 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/The Osseointegration Group of Australia, Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/University of California, Irvine School of Education, Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Gender Paradox (sociolinguistics), and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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#Submission:_IgnitionDeck and User_talk:Kafziel#Submission:_OrderUp, 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 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 05:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages (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. Misplaced Pages: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&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#A7, thus effectively applying A7 to AfC space. Others, such as Misplaced Pages 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#A10 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#G11 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 Misplaced Pages talk:/Articles for creation/Tyrolean Independent Film Festival needs improvement, but not a total rewrite to comply with WP:NPOPV. Kafziel 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. Misplaced Pages: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 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 15:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Noting that with Worms vote at 08:39, 11 December 2013, the 4-net clock started. This case will be opened at 08:39, 12 December 2013. — ΛΧΣ 14:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel's AfC actions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/2/2/0>-Kafziel's_AfC_actions-2013-12-10T16:57:00.000Z">

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

• Awaiting statements, including Kafziel's. Having followed the ANI thread, I urge the parties to stick to the issues and avoid name-calling and excessive rhetoric. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC) I would find it helpful if statements would briefly comment on, among other things, the following questions: (1) were Kafziel's actions with respect to pending AfC drafts reasonable and appropriate in light of the reasons AfC exists and the role of AfC in the project? (2) were his actions, even if otherwise problematic, understandable in light of the great backlog of AfC drafts? (3) has he discontinued the most problematic types of actions, specifically, allegedly improper deletions? (4) should AfC be deemed to be an English Misplaced Pages process (akin to AfD, for example) whose policies and procedures must generally be respected outside an occasional "IAR" situation, or is AfC more akin to a wikiproject whose internal guidelines do not supersede overall policy? and (5) apart from the merits of the concerns raised, has Kafziel addressed those concerns and the editors who have raised them in a fashion appropriate for an administrator, and if not, is he willing to moderate his tone and conduct himself in a more collegial fashion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)"> ">
  • Recuse per Kafziel's suggestion in light of the thread to which he refers. Although it is not clear to me that an isolated discussion from seven months ago raises a doubt as to my impartiality in this case, I will step away and allow the other arbitrators to handle the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I also am in doubt that the brief exchange is reason for recusing, though you did nominate him for adminship in 2007; and that may come up if a case is accepted. SilkTork 13:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Accept. Risker (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Accept - reviewing the ANI thread and the responses above, it is clear there are issues here that aren't being resolved. Hopefully an arbitration case, if kept to a limited and clear scope, will help sort things out. I will revisit this tomorrow to see if further statements or discussions by arbitrators and others indicate a need to change this view. Carcharoth (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• I remember when administrators had discretion to delete a page on the broad grounds that it is "not encyclopedic". Now, policy on administrator actions demand sysop actions comply with specific provisions in policy. For better or worse, Kafziel seems never to have adapted to this new culture. I respect how principled Kafziel is, and sympathise with his frustration with the bureaucracy at AFC. However, he seems to be seeking every opportunity not to work peacefully with the AFC project. This worries me. Some statements given above and at ANI seem to miss the point that the problem his Kafziel's demeanour, not his specific actions – some of which were correct, and others blatantly wrong. Also, Kafziel was asked on several occasions to avoid acting as an administrator on AFC pages, as he is obviously unable to act neutrally. That he refused worries me more. I would not open a case because an administrator refused to comply with a constrictive bureaucracy, but I certainly would open one to hear evidence about an administrator who needlessly inflames tensions by his use of the administrator tools. Kafziel appears to be such an administrator. Accept. AGK 23:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Fram: I would intend for us to examine the conduct of all involved editors. AGK 10:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Accept My reasons are broadly similar to AGK's, I've seen enough from Kafziel that does concern me - there are certainly enough actions that are questionable that we should look further, especially given the attitude of Kafziel towards dispute resolution and these editors. Worm(talk) 08:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Accept per WP:Admin conduct, WP:Admin accountability, and WP:Admin abuse. SilkTork 13:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Recused due to my involvement with AFC a few years ago. T. Canens (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. At the moment, this looks like a massive overreaction, which, by the way, is also short-circuiting the system: with very few exceptions, ArbCom usually is the final step in dispute resolution, to be tried only when no other method has worked. At the moment, this dispute in my opinion is not ripe for Arbitration; please try an RFC first. Salvio 22:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. I agree with Salvio that this isn't in our jurisdiction yet. An RfC on the issue at hand, as well as Kafziel's actions, seems warranted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream

Initiated by Beeblebrox (talk) at 23:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Nightscream (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Nightscream notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• ANI April 2008

Note this comment from Nightscream which precipitated the closure of the thread: " I'll make it a point from now on not to mix conflict participation with administrative actions. I apologize for failing to do so up until now. Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)"

• AN February 2009

A very long discussion of a block issued by Nightscream in a situation where they were involved. Partial quote (the discussion is very much in TLDR territory):"I not only do not find the opinion that involved admins are preferred not to be the blocking admins in such disputes, but I explicitly stated that I agree with it...Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)"

• ANI September 2009

Note this closing comment from Nightscream regarding the involved admin policy: "I will make sure to read over that policy more carefully. Thanks to everyone here, and you especially, xeno. Nightscream (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)"

• ANI April 2012

Thread regarding Nightscream's understanding of the edit warring policy, among other things.

• Current discussion on their talk page

Regarding the recent edit warring and block for same.

Statement by Beeblebrox

While reviewing unblock requests a few days ago I came across a block placed by Nightscream on User:Rtkat3. The block was for their edits to the article Gotham City. They edited the page on 7 November. Nightscream edited the page themselves, and then issued a two week block on 6 December. I should think it would be obvious what is wrong about that as there is little preventative purpose to issuing a block a month after an action, and Nightscream was involved in editing the same article so blocking at all for anything but obvious vandalism is completely inappropriate. When I went to speak to Nightscream about this I found that they were also blocked at that time for edit warring at the article Jessica Nigri. A close look at the page history reveals that the final edit before the block was made after the page had already been protected by another admin and Nightscream edited through protection in order to restore their preferred version. It is true that the protecting admin another admin also reverted, to a pre-edit war version, after the page was protected corrected per Salvidrim but that does not seem particularly relevant. Any responsible admin will never make substantive edits to a fully-protected article, and especially not to one they were already involved with in an editorial capacity.

If these were isolated, one-off incidents that would be one thing, but a search of AN and ANI archives quickly reveals a long-term pattern of ignoring WP:INVOLVED going back at least five years. Additionally, they seem to believe that if they perceive a violation of any Misplaced Pages policy that their subsequent actions related to that content are not subject to the edit warring policy. This would be bad enough in a "regular" user, it is a dangerous and destructive attitude when coming from an administrator. Above are just a few examples demonstrating this pattern, but this is by no means an exhaustive list.

In short, I do not believe Nightscream should continue to be permitted to serve as an administrator as they do not respect important policies regarding both editorial and administrative actions, they have repeatedly abused thir position of trust in the community, and in recent times have been utterly unrepentant and refused to even acknowledge their errors in judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• In light of some of the comments below, I would like to emphasize that the recent incident is just the latest indicator. I believe if you look at the evidence submitted above that it is pretty clear that this is an established pattern going back several years, that Nightscream has repeatedly promised to abide by the involved admin guideline when called on it previously, and that he nonetheless continues to ignore it when it suits his purposes. Same goes for the edit warring issue, which doesn't always involve the use of admin tools but nevertheless is conduct unbecoming an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

One thing I discovered when researching his history is that he and Alansohn have been feuding for some time. It seems clear from his recent activity that he is more interested in continuing that antagonistic relationship and making other edits than in responding to this case. This is not complicated, and as he is obviously familiar with his own history there is no need for him to research it. This "I need more time" excuse appears to be a delaying tactic. I think a simple motion to desysop should be considered at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Salvidrim

I was involved in the latest issue, as mentioned above by Beeblebrox, but had had no previous interaction with Nightscream and as such have little insight to bring forward as to the pattern of editing other than what I can see from the history presented above. See this section on my talk page for more details about my view of what happened in the past few days. I'd also like Beeblebrox to clarify in his above statement that the protecting admin at Jessica Nigri was not the one that reverted to the last pre-war version; if I hadn't stepped in to revert to the last pre-war version in an administrative decision, Nightscream would not have had the opportunity to revert to his preferred version in an editorial decision, and would have stopped just short of violating WP:3RR. That does not excuse edit warring, nor the attitude surrounding the heated denials that edit warring took place, and obviously does nothing to alleviate concerns brought on by the history of such warring and denial cases, but it's important context for the latest issue in my eyes. Since I know my own block of Nightscream will, clearly, be the subject of scrutiny, I thought it better to come out right away and offer some explanation. Make of that what you will. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• @PinkAmpersand: I agree 100% with what you're saying. Also, thanks for the link to m:The Wrong Version, I had looked all over Misplaced Pages-space for this as I felt it was highly relevant, but couldn't find it... should've peeked over at Meta! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• I'll also take the liberty of pinging User:Fluffernutter, because while they're completely free not to comment if they don't want to, I think their insight could be relevant, considering they declined Nightscream's initial unblock request for behavioural reasons. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by BOZ

I have to agree that an admin needs to come to WP:AN or WP:AN/I for help from other admins rather than using admin tools in WP:INVOLVED situations. I don't know if that is what has happened here, but I notice that this latest tussle has been with User:Niemti, whom as I have observed is an experienced edit-warrior himself. He has been blocked three times, once for abusing multiple accounts and unblocked three days later, once (by Beeblebrox) for edit warring, and once for personal attacks or harassment. I recall that there was a fair amount of edit warring on his part at Psylocke for example, and note quite a bit of undos there earlier this year, including edit-warring over an image while a discussion was taking place , and edit-warring over categories , and another edit war with User:Lucia Black and TriiipleThreat over images several weeks ago . I'm not excusing anything on Nightscream's part, but if he had to deal with anything like this again from Niemti anywhere else, I can fully understand his frustration. BOZ (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Sjones23

I was unaware of the case until I saw it on my watch list, but I remain uninvolved in this matter and have had no direct confrontation with Nightscream. Nightscream helped edited on Veronica Taylor article by removing unsourced material per WP:BLP/WP:V and protected it for BLP violations. Though the recent edit war on the Jessica Nigri article led to Nightscream (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) being blocked for his actions, my only concern here is that the user has a history of ignoring long-term WP:INVOLVED for five years per Beeblebrox's comments and I think he is being disruptive by abusing administrative tools to further his viewpoint in a content dispute. Abusing administrative tools as an involved administrator can lead to their desysopping for good reason; for example Alkivar (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights) was desysopped for abusing his tools back in 2007 per this case. Nightscream, unfortunately, has refused to acknowledge his errors when he makes them. That's what concerns me the most.

So in the end, I think that Nightscream does not have the competence to be an administrator, and I think his attitude is far from being the cool-headed/objective stance that administrators should have when they are in situations of conflict. I urge the committee to ensure that Nightscream does not become a liability to the community. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nightscream

Hi. I hope I'm placing this in the right spot. If I'm not, please let me know. Although I received Beeblebrox's yesterday, I did not see the case here that had been started begun with respect to me; I must've screwed up the search for it somehow. I'll need some time to compose a proper response, which must be juggled with other things going on in the non-virtual world, so please be patient. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by PinkAmpersand

I'm totally uninvolved here, but I seem to recall his Bradship saying in the past that it's unnecessary to put that in your section header. A clerk can change that, of course, if I'm incorrect.

Nightscream should be desysopped. On the Jessica Nigri page alone, he's violated WP:INVOLVED in two major ways: First in this edit summary, uttering words in his final sentence that should only be used against a common vandal, and later in his edit through protection. While the latter edit is somewhat mitigated by Salvidrim!'s revert, which really wasn't a very good idea per m:The Wrong Version, if Nightscream had a problem with it, he should have raised it to Sal, or to another administrator. Once you've been involved in an edit war on a page, you are, for all functional purposes, not an administrator when it comes to things on that page. If you have a complaint, you have to try your luck before another admin, just like the rest of us. That Nightscream cannot see that is in itself worthy of desysop, in my humble opinion. If the Commitee feels Salvidrim!'s behavior crossed a line, they can send a reminder his way, though I'd say his self-trouting should suffice.

— PinkAmpers& 23:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

1. I've clashed with Sal in the past, but always peacefully enough, and I'd like to think we both respect each other as editors. My interest in this matter comes just from seeing the Nigri dispute pop up at ANB.

Comment by Someone not using his real name

I think Beeblebrox makes a compelling case that there indeed may be a pattern of behavior by an admin that needs examination as to whether it is compatible with the policies regarding administrators, specifically WP:INVOLVED. Contra to what Sjones23 writes above however, this seems to be a case of someone being well aware of their past transgression of policies, but perhaps not being able to translate that knowledge into corrective action in subsequent events of a similar nature. I'm also inclined to agree with BOZ that some of the other editors involved in the latest incident don't have good wiki-reputation. The options here seem to be "trouts all-around", "sanctions all-around" or "interaction ban"—the last one assuming you buy that it's just a case of some editors bringing the worst out in each other... Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Fluffernutter

Responding to Salvidrim's ping to say that I don't really have a lot of insight to add about INVOLVED issues; my concern when I declined Nightscream's unblock request was that it showed no apparent understanding of the fact that being right (or righteous) isn't an exemption from our edit warring policy. That fact is something I would expect anyone wielding admin bits, especially someone who'd had them for a long time, to know backwards, forwards, and upside-down. He also seemed to have an idiosyncratic understanding of administrative response to edit warring as a whole, believing that "You can't lock down a page or prevent reverts unless the matter is being discussed". My sense, and the reason I declined the unblock request, was that Nightscream seemed to be substantially misunderstanding both policy and his obligations as an editor of a disputed page; if what he said was his current understanding of how things worked, it indicated to me that the disruption would continue if his block was lifted (this was later mitigated by his promise to not continue reverting on the page in question, which led to Salvidrim unblocking him). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Nightscream: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/6>-Nightscream-2013-12-09T23:37:00.000Z">

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

• Awaiting statement from User:Nightscream, who has edited at least since the notification was placed so is presumably aware of the arbitration request. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)"> ">
• Also awaiting a statement from Nightscream. By way of disclosure, I have met him at New York area meet-ups three or four times. We haven't collaborated on anything either on or off wiki, and I don't believe mere acquaintanceship warrants recusal, but I thought I'd mention the fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • At this point I think it is reasonable for us to ask that Nightscream post his statement within the next 24 hours, please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• My position on misuse of tools is that once may be a mistake / temporary rush of blood to the head, twice is cause for concern and worth looking into, thrice is a bright line for desysopping. We appear to have two incidents here, so worth looking into - though I'd be interested to see what explanation Nightscream has before formally accepting the case. That there are previous concerns is disturbing, even though these date from four years ago, as they appear to relate to the same concerns being raised now. I suspect that as there were two posts on Nightscream's talkpage that occurred when he was offline, and he removed the second one when he logged back on, so clearing the alert, that he may not be aware of this case request. I'll ping him. SilkTork 09:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Waiting for Nightscream's comment, but I'm certainly minded to accept this case given the history and the recent situation. Worm(talk) 10:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Nightscream has indicated he is drafting a statement. Waiting to read it before deciding whether we need to open a case about his administrative actions. AGK 23:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• No longer awaiting statements: as @Nightscream appears to have had time to make a long ANI post and several other edits on unrelated matters, I will now evaluate the situation and cast my vote. AGK 13:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Awaiting Nightscream's statement. Courcelles 05:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)