Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Risker (before 8 Jan 2014), then: Worm That Turned (Talk) & NativeForeigner (Talk)

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1) That after retiring, returning, and reiterating their assertion that they see their actions as not wrong, Kafziel be desysopped for the duration of this ArbCom case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For the good of the community, the extra privileges must be taken. Hasteur (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Hasteur

Proposed principles

Purpose of the project as a whole

1) Remembering that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. (from WP:NOT (Pillar 1))

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Laying groundwork Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Civility

2) Remembering that Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. (From WP:CIVILITY (Pillar 4))

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Laying groundwork Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Pillar 5

3) Also recalling Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception (From WP:5P)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Laying groundwork Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admins

4) Also recalling Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia (From WP:ADMIN)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Laying groundwork Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admins are not infaliable

5) Also recalling Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. (From WP:NOTPERFECT)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Laying groundwork Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admins are required to be accountable

6) Also recalling Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. (From WP:ADMINACCT)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Laying groundwork Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admins tool abuse is a serious charge

7) Also recalling Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal. and When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used, then tools should not be used without an explanation that shows the matter has been considered, and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable. (From WP:TOOLMISUSE)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Laying groundwork Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admins tool abuse is a serious charge

8) Also recalling If an administrator abuses administrative powers, these powers can be removed. Administrators may be removed by Jimbo Wales, by stewards, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain functions or placement on administrative probation. (From WP:ADMIN Section "Review and removal of adminship")

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Laying groundwork Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Procedure for attempting to resolve a dispute with an admin

9) Also recalling In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgment or conduct issues), or dialog fails, then the following steps are available. (From WP:ADMIN Section "Disputes or complaints")

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Laying groundwork Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Avoiding scrutiny by retiring

10) Also recalling ...under a cloud describes a user who resigns from a position of trust in the community that must be formally granted or agreed, in circumstances where there may be grounds to believe this was done rather than face imminent exposure, scrutiny or sanction over possible inappropriate conduct or activity of theirs. (From Wikipedia:Under a cloud)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Laying groundwork Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Consensus

11) Also recalling Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. (From Wikipedia:Consensus)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Laying groundwork Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Initiatives to retain new editors

12) Also recalling that many different projects, initiatives, and procedures sponsored both by the foundation and the community at large are in place to make a new editor's experience at Wikipedia a positive one so as to prevent further losses in new editors. (From WP:WPAFC,WP:TEAHOUSE,Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, and so forth)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Laying groundwork Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Kafziel's history (Part 1)

1) Kafziel has been an administrator for a significant time, yet even in their "Request for Administrator" candidacy in which they were promoted there was a specific calling of Kafziel's civility and combativeness in prior Request for Administrator candidacies and in interactions. (From Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Showing how even before they were an admin, there was concern with Kafziel's civility and combativeness. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the commentary of CH, showing that there was cause for concern with Kafziel's responses prior to being promoted to an administrator is germane to the cause of this case. Furthermore that it took 3 attempts to be promoted is also germane to the case. Hasteur (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Being an administrator doesn't require being a nice, wishy-washy person that everyone agrees with. Sometimes there are rough-and-tumble moments. In his capacity as an administrator Kafziel was always helpful, reliable, fair, just, and by-the-book. He was candid and frank, and did not sugarcoat the truth. I appreciated such honesty and the objective judgment he brought to any situation. None of his decisions or actions employing his tools as an administrator violated any rules. Civility is a tough measure of any Wikipedia editor, especially when it's bantered about by one side that was guilty of being uncivil.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel's History (Part 2)

2) In July of 2012, Kafziel blocked a editor who was significantly familiar with the policies and best practices of wikipedia and revoked the talk page access. The concern of taking away the primary means of appealing a block and the length caused a reversal of some of the conditions of the block. (From AN/I archive)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Showing furhter "cowboy admin" actions and riding roughshod over editors that do not have administrative tools. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Showing ill considered actions that reach beyond the remit of administrators is germane to the case. That the block went above and beyond in removing talk page access on step one of a block (instead of step 2) is indicative of an overreaction and not supported by policy then or now. Hasteur (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a distraction from the matters before ArbCom. It's never good form to drag up resolved matters that have nothing to do with the case at bar. Kiefer.Wolfowitz was guilty of enough serious violations of community standards, caused a significant amount of trouble, and the situation was complex. That Kiefer.Wolfowitz is still banned from the community is a testament to the need to act. As I indicated above, administrators sometimes have to make tough decisions in complex, often hostile matters. Disagreeing with a decision doesn't mean that decision was incorrect. There is no evidence of any violation of policy. Taking away talk page access when the blocked user is still causing trouble is a tough call, but there are still other means available and easily accessible to appeal a block. Hasteur's comments are disingenuous.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Cause for this case (Part 1)

3) Kafziel saw a need to advance AfC submissions and to clean out potential submissions based on an internal ruberic. When Kafziel's actions were raised at the AfC project talkpage, several editors attempted to understand Kafziel's actions. These attempts were met with hostility and a "I do what I want" attitude.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Showing how this case came about. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I remind ColonelHenry that this case is entitled Kafziel, that the evidence is presented with Kafziel as the subject, and that the first step of attempting to resolve a dispute is to contact the user you have a dispute with. Attempting to make this about me and volunteers at WPAFC (which I observe that CH continues to misrepresent) is disruptive to this finding of fact. Hasteur (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What you describe as editors attempting to understand Kafziel's actions, I perceived very differently. They come across as ordering him to stop doing as it wasn't your way of doing things. I'm not surprised it got the response it did. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have commented about WP:OWN and we're seeing that even here. Right at the start of the case I commented that it should not be solely focused on Kafziel's admin actions. It was made plain by the Arbcom members it would also examine the way editors from AfC had behaved and yet still we have Hasteur asserting the case is solely about Kafziel. Even in the Workshop he is displaying WP:OWN characteristics. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur and his clique at AfC pushed out many editors who tried to do things differently than they liked (despite that they were doing it in an allowable way). They think their project's rules are ironclad and enforceable despite the standards of the greater community. Kafziel's crime as running into a clique of editors with severe ownership problems and a penchant for vindictiveness.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Cause for the case (Part 2)

2) Following the line proscribed in Dispute Resolution, a thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents was raised calling attention to Kafziel's actions with respect to the AfC process, Criteria for Speedy Deletion, and responsiveness to requests. Said AN/I thread was closed down in a non-neutral manner and had been edit warred over

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

And now that leads us to the Case. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hasteur nor his clique provided no evidence of actual wrongdoing there, administrators there said there was no evidence of wrong-doing, the case was closed. there. Vindictiveness is the only reason why Hasteur brought it there. The AN/I case only shows something wrong in AfC and among AfC's power clique--something rotten in Denmark.

AN/I thread

3) During the AN/I thread there was strong concerns by editors at large, other Administrators, and Arbitrators that the actions and the responses to questions about the actions were deficent with respect to the policies regarding Administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Showing that there was editors at large that disagreed with the administrative actions. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I remind ColonelHenry that there was disagreement from editors at large, Administators, and Arbiters at the time of the AN/I thread. Furthermore that the responses of Kafziel were significantly deficent with respect to ADMINACCT. All it took was for Kafziel to admit that their actions were not supported by policy/guidelines/consensus and that they would voluntarily abstain from exercising Admin rights with respect to AFC submissions. There are plenty of admins out there and many that do work with AFC to help keep the gears turning. Hasteur (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There was little disagreement on the fact that no evidence was presented that supported any claim of improper or impermissible action by Kafziel.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel's statements

4) Multiple times (AN/I thread, Case Request, Case Evidence) expressed the viewpoint that they still considered their actions right and would continue to do such actions which have been determined to not be entirely uncontroversial.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Showing that there is a continuing concern for disruption Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Again I remind ColonelHenry that wikipedia operates on consensus. Consensus is not a vote, Consensus is not a absolute majority. We operate on a valid reasoned position of agreement. That other administrators and arbiters found cause for Kafziel's actions to be concerning and that Kafziel continued to make the "F you, I'll do what I want" demonstrates that we have an editor with advanced privileges that has significantly diverged with the community norm. Hasteur (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Against the lack of showing of any evidence or violation of community-wide policy that it was wrong, there is no reason to not continue doing proper, permissible actions. Kafziel didn't do it "your" way--and "your" way runs contrary to community-wide standards and policies. AfC is not immune from those standards or policies just because Hasteur and a clique of editors dream up some rules for themselves which have no force and cannot be wielded as a bludgeon to keep other editors from contributing with permissible action. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel's retirement

5) On December 16th Kafziel entered their statement of evidence to this case and promptly retired. Therefore, the procedures regarding "Retiring under a cloud" are applicable as the case had been accepted by this point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The word "retiring" does not appear in that essay, and there is no indication that Kafziel has intended to resign administrative tools. LFaraone 21:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Showing that Kafziel is avoiding scrutiny. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@LFaraone: With respect to your January 6th assertion I call your attention to the preamble of the essay. in circumstances where there may be grounds to believe this was done rather than face imminent exposure, scrutiny or sanction over possible inappropriate conduct or activity of theirs. and A user whose hidden conduct, questionable good faith, or other uncertain behavior comes to light, and steps down before it can be fully examined, may not be seen as appropriate to resume the role at will once it has become "stale". I believe that their stepping down just after the case was opened and now re-appearance just before the workshop is scheduled to close and the proposed decision is scheduled to be posted exemplifies the appropach that is frowned upon in the essay. Hasteur (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

With respect to ColonelHenry's opposition, I call notice that it's not just the fact that Kafziel made some bad judgement calls, it's not just the fact that Kafziel refused to bow to consensus, it's not just that Kafziel has "disapeared" during proceedings against them during ArbCom. It's the entire package. Kafziel's statement basically says "I'm done with Wikipedia, so F off". Warren Buffet said it best in that "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it." Wikipedia has strugled during the 4 years I've been an active editor with the problem of "How do we deal with vested contributors?". As has been evidenced in other cases (such as Betacommand, Racepacket, Civility Enforcement, etc.) there has been an endorsement that editors who have contributed productively are to be treated no differently than any other editor. Hasteur (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Kafziel is not avoiding scrutiny, and his statements have shown that he is awaiting the judgment of ArbCom and letting the facts presented at AN/I stand. If ArbCom had any questions for Kafziel, I have no doubt that he would answer them in the appropriate forum. Dealing with Hasteur is a frustrative and futile effort, and there's no need anyone should have to subjective themselves willingly to that kind of relentness abuse if it serves no positive goal. Kafziel's judgment seems to be that the facts stand for themselves and petitioned in his statement his hopes that ArbCom will review those justly. I consider his retirement from editing and administrative duties for the interim to be a prudent move. I just hope Hasteur hasn't driven away another good contributor and that Kafziel returns once he is exonerated or the case otherwise concluded.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel's "return"

6) On January 6th, Kafziel posted to the proposed decision talkpage reiterating that they saw nothing wrong with their actions. This is a prime example of avoiding scrutiny/questioning by the community/ArbCom only to return later and resume their activities (WP:CLOUD). It is only appropriate, therefore that Kafziel's December 16th "retirement" be read as an attempt to avoid scrutiny.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Showing that Kafziel is avoiding scrutiny. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I invite CololelHenry to strike their assertions as to actions of my honesty as that is a personal attack. If we are to assume good faith that the December 16th statement was their retirement, their January 6th statement clearly indicates that they were not retired and were actively observing the case. Retired means you are not coming back to wikipedia. As the January 6th statement indicates that the December 16th statement was only a ploy to avoid scrutiny, to avoid questioning by the community, and to avoid questioning by ArbCom committee members. For this reason I consider ColonelHenry's assertion to be entirely a personal attack Hasteur (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No evidence that this was an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Stated above, Kafziel's statement says let the facts stand for themselves and he awaits ArbCom's decision. Hasteur is being dishonest in assuming any intentions above and beyond what Kafziel has stated clearly in his statement at the onset of this case.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

Desysop

1) Per the statements in WP:CLOUD it is only appropriate to revoke Administrator status for Kafziel. Kafziel may, in the future, make a new candidacy for Administratorship, but must place a link to this case/decision in the nomination statement or acceptance of nomination

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Pretty clear that the retire is avoiding scrutiny. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect to Kurtis, Kafziel has rejected multiple suggestions that they abstain from AfC (User talk:Kafziel#Working on backlogs,ANI thread of 20:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC), ANI thread of 21:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC), ANI thread of 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC), ANI thread of 03:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC), ANI thread of 05:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC), ANI thread of 05:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC), ANI thread of 13:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC), and so forth) it's clear that Kafziel (as of their last posting) saw nothing wrong with their actions and refused to accept wider consensus by both editors and administrators at large (i.e. not involved with the AFC servicing wikiproject) that their actions were disruptive. Therefore it is only prudent to remove the advanced permissions they threaten to continue to misuse. Hasteur (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect to ColonelHenry's thesis that the problem is myself, I cite the fact that there was originally a discussion at the WikiProject Articles for Creation talkpage citing concerns that evolved into a direct asking of Kafziel about their actions that evolved into an AN/I thread where editors outside the AFC volunteers expressed concerns about the actions (and where Kafziel went from being garden grade incivil to outright hostile) that evolved into this Arbitration Case. I did not forum shop. I posted at Kafziel's talk page, I posted at the WPAFC discusssion, I posted the Case request. All of these actions are explicitly endorsed as steps along the Dispute Resolution track. When Kafziel continued to assert that they would apply the CSD criteria as they saw fit, when they asserted that they would continue to follow the exact wording of the CSD criteria by gaming the spirit of the criteria, and when they indicated in multiple locations that they did not see problems with their actions was the point that they opened themselves to administrative review. Administrative review gives the advocates many more avenues as there is a inequality of privileges. Any Administrator that elects to substitiute their judgement over the consensus of the community should be investigated and have their administrative credentials checked. I would counter that rogue admins making judgements at their whim are infinitely more dangerous to the community's well being and interests than editors who are persuing their right to call into question Administrative abuse. Hasteur (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If I were to support this measure, it would be with one caveat: Kafziel should not be required to post anything in a hypothetical future RfA if he doesn't want to do so. It wouldn't really matter if he opts against linking to this ArbCom case, as the community would reference it anyways when they turn down his request for a resysop due to the complete lack of transparency that such a whitewashing would demonstrate. Kafziel doesn't strike me as an idiot, and I don't think he feels like he has anything to hide.

Now, as for this remedy itself... on one hand, Kafziel has been an administrator for a long time and does a lot of great work. As a side note, I agree with most of the things he says on his userpage, and in general, he strikes me as being intelligent and capable. As I was reading through this link provided by Bishonen in the case request, it struck me how Kafziel responded to criticisms of his actions. If it were an isolated instance, I would be more inclined to chalk it up to a bad day, but his response to this ArbCom case suggests that it is not. I'm not sure if Kafziel can keep his cool when things get hot. Actually, this case reminds me a lot of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango, which came about due to a profoundly ill-advised block performed by Tango against MONGO and branched off into a general review of the former's record as an administrator. In my view, the incidents highlighted there were more egregious than those attributed to Kafziel, but what swayed the arbitrators into desysopping Tango was not his poor judgment calls in the examples cited — it was his inability to accept any criticism for his actions. He was very defensive when anyone called him out on his decisions, and refused to admit mistakes made (examples are listed at the RFAR). Kafziel has at times demonstrated a similar tendency to generate more heat than light, which is not the most desirable trait in an administrator.

I can't say I'm willing to throw my full weight behind a desysop at this time, although I can understand the rationale behind such a measure if it is to be adopted. If he resigns adminship prior to the closure of this case, then of course it would have to be considered "under a cloud" and a new RfA would be required for him to regain the bit. I do think it might be best for Kafziel to voluntarily abstain from AfC, at least for the time being. Here's hoping that this whole debacle will be closed to the benefit of everyone involved, and we can move on from this ugliness sooner rather than later. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see this as retiring under a cloud, more the actions of someone completely fed up with the crazy beaucracy and an arbcom case that should never have been accepted as being the final straw. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OPPOSE - Kafziel's only crime is having disagreed with Hasteur. Kafziel did not abuse his tools and has been a rather good administrator during his tenure. Hasteur's forum-shopping relentlessness, wikilawyering, insistence on getting a skewed vengeful justice, and combativeness would drive anyone into retirement--and that is a severely troubling problem that should be dealt with swiftly and effectively or else it will continue being inimical to the community's well-being and interests.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Admonishment

2) For actions and explanations significantly below the standards required of all administrators, the Arbitration Committee admonishes Kafziel. Such admonishment may be used in future cases of Administrative review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A very weak second, but nonetheless making sure it's clear that the Desysop was missed by just a hairs width Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Georgewilliamherbert

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

No abuse of tools

1) While engendering some controversy, Kazfiel's use of administrator tools in this case was not improper or abusive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Flatly wrong based on evidence presented, but if you want to fly the contrarian flag, go right ahead. Hasteur (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect to ColonelHenry, it was patently clear that there was a opposition consensus (endorsed by Administrators and Arbitrators) that Kafziel's actions were abuse. Willful ignorance of these facts only serves to discredit your "Hasteur is a bad man" thesis. Hasteur (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry, although the actions were relatively minor, edit warring on ANI or using an Axx CSD criteria on a page not in article space, both of which I backed up with diffs, are improper - the latter is against policy, and the former is something all admins should know not to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Minor errors are not abuse of tools, it has been noted repeatedly by parties there was no abuse of the tools by Kalziel. He may have spoken directly and point blank refused to back off but he didn't abuse the tools. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Repeated "minor errors" with a proclamation of intention to continue them is abuse. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Support There was no abuse of tools. Only that Kafziel had the misfortune of running into an abusive editor named Hasteur.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel conduct on noticeboard

2) Kafziel engaged in hyperbolic and disruptive noticeboard discussions regarding his administrator activities. This was mitigated by his exiting the conversation after a reasonable time, without further engagement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur conduct on noticeboard

3) Hasteur engaged in hyperbolic and disruptive noticeboard disucssions regarding Kafziel's administrator activities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:HYPERBOLIC is not defined. As such leveling this kind of assertion is akin to "Hasteur's a bad man". Hasteur (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

With no respect (because it's clear you're making an attack) words in English are good and all, but if you're going to level charged words like that, it better come from a on wiki multi-editor essay. I could also level charges at you for being tendentious and disruptive, but I don't because the purpose of the case is (in my mind) to determine if Kafziel's actions have caused the community to loose faith in their qualification to have the admin credentials. Yes a few members opined about other members of the community, however since no evidence was presented during the evidence phase, I consider it highly improper to start leveling findings and sanctions without the benefit of evidence that had been discussed. Hasteur (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur - with all due respect, this is english, I am sure you either have a dictionary nearby or can look it up on our sister project Wiktionary in the browser you're using now ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hyperbolic, you are looking for definition 2. ), and there is no requirement that we have a project-internal special definition of every standard word in the dictionary to use it in case descriptions and findings. You have just proven my point regarding proposing this finding. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If we are to throw around barbed descriptions of an editor's behavior in a statement that may be made by the highest authority in dispute resolution, we ought to leave no doubt on what such words mean by way of pointing out an essay or policy that describes such behaviors. After all, to leave words vaguely defined in such a high importance decision by the ArbCom is the dinner bell of Wikilawyers everywhere. KonveyorBelt 02:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Support The final straw for me was when he accused me of "conspiring" with ColonelHenry, an editor I have never interacted with outside of this case. Hyperbolic accurately describes the wild claims he is making about the case. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Support - hyperbolic is entirely accurate. I would say Hasteur has developed into quite the bête noire. I can understand a heated AN/I or talk page discussion, but this is just excessive and since Hasteur has intensified his hyperbolic assaults on others here, it depicts entirely for any reasonable observer that it was largely his appalling attitude and actions that contributed significantly to the course of these events.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur conduct during case

4) Hasteur engaged in hyperbolic and disruptive discussion on this arbcom case evidence, workshop, and talk pages. This included repeatedly asserting consensuses regarding noticeboard and case evidence and discussions that do not exist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

So I understand your "truth-iness" stance. You deny the commentary of Darlygolden, Bellerephon, Jprg1966, Bbb23, Fluffernutter, Beyond my Ken, Fuhghettaboutit, Huon, Anne Delong, DGG, Kudpung, Epicgenius, Ross Hill, Nonsenseferret, Georgewilliamherbert , EatsShootsAndLeaves, Ritchie333, and SilkTork (Primarily in the AN/I thread with SilkTork's commentary at Kafziel's talk page) are not indicators of a consensus that Kafziel's actions and responses are not appropriate? Is not the non-party suggestions also indicators of a consensus against Kafziel's actions? Hasteur (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Hasteur's intransigent hostility and vindictive behaviour have made this matter more vitriolic than it needed to be--at AfC, at AN/I and every step of the process here.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Support The longer the workshop has gone on the more this is apparent. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

Retirement noted, thanked for service

1) Kazfiel's retirement is noted. He is thanked for his contributions and prior work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Kafziel has not edited since they posted their statement and put up the retiring, so this "remedy" does absolutely noting except polish the monument to questionable judgement. Hasteur (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur - your opinion here and opinions above are noted. I disagree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Seems the polite thing to do. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Support - seems fair Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Support - Kafziel gave many good years to this project, contributed to many great articles, worked to put together events like meetups, helped many editors through various issues, and was a fair, honest by-the-book administrator. We should thank him and ask him to reconsider his retirement.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Tools relinquished

2) Kazfiel's retirement is taken as a relinquishment of administrator rights. He may reapply to the community at any time should he return.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I oppose this statement for the simple reason that it does not bar the "BN request-Wait 48 hours" option to resysopping. If it is explicitly clear that the relinquishment of rights is done while under suspicion and that a new RfAdmin candidacy is the only option regaining, then I am ammeniable to this. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that this is worded NOT to imply the "under a cloud" provision, consistdnt with my proposed finding of fact of no tool abuse. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Kafziel's retirement was not explicitly intended as a relinquishment of the administrative toolset. If ArbCom sees fit, they can formally desysop Kafziel without making it sound like an "under a cloud" resignation. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Support It seems clear the retirement was the last action of someone utterly fed up not seeking to avoid sanction. Insisting this is done "under a cloud" is rubbing salt in the wound and there is no need. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Struck out my support comments following Kafziel's comments. I see no need for him to resign but respect his decision to withdraw from wikipedia. As he has made clear he has no intention to relinquish the tools I see no need to take them away but my comment about rubbing salt in I would like to stand. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Support No problems here Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I do not think we presume without a clear statement of intent. We should ask Kafziel if he intends to continue with his retirement to state clearly if that means a relinquishment of his toolset and administratorship. We should not assume. Kafziel's statement that he intends to continue editing and contributing indicates that he might not be retiring.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Tools relinquished (II)

2.a) Kazfiel's semi-retirement is taken to include a relinquishment of administrator rights. He may reapply to the community at a new RFA any time should he return.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Only with an explicit assertion that the relinquishment is under a cloud (i.e. the BN-4824 hours route is barred) could I accept a proposal in this manner, though I do not think the statement makes enough of a positive assertion that they're giving up the credentials. If Kafziel were to post on BN (or one of the case pages) saying that they give up the credentials, then we have the assertion and can move forward with our lives. Hasteur (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So I understand correctly, GWH, you are leaving the BN-24 hour route open? I note the text in Wikipedia:SYSOP#Restoration_of_adminship specifically the second paragraph. With your denial that "under a cloud" are not implied nor intended to be implied you leave this route for Kafziel to request resysoping. As such I consider it a very poor remedy if it requires the mentats of wiki-history to recall if there was concern when Kafziel relinquished the rights and to respond in the 24 hour window. Hasteur (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The words "under a cloud" do not appear in the proposal and are not implied or intended to be implied. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The words "under a cloud" do not appear in the proposal, and any implications their inclusion would bring are absent. HOwever, see below. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I added comments below but the demand this done under a cloud shows a tendency toward vindictiveness that is not helpful. It should be noted he has not retired under "a cloud" but simply because he was fed up. He has made a statement and allowed it to stand. Hasteur's need to comment on everything is bordering on the obsessive and isn't healthy. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I still oppose this. An administrator who has not abused his toolset and who has stated that he intends to continue editing/contributing (albeit we assume at a less involved state) should not be forced to relinquish a toolset just because he has reduced his contributions (semi-retired). If he states after this is all said and done that he intends to retire, we should ask Kafziel to explicitly address his administrator status in his statement regarding retirement. I would be very averse to assuming anything--since I know 2 admins who have semi-retired who edit a few times a month and are effective administrators when asked to help.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tools relinquished (III)

2.b) Kafziel's https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=589488984 semi-retirement] is taken to include a relinquishment of administrator rights. He may reapply to the community at a new RFA or at BN for rights restoration any time should he return.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Apparently 2.a) was not explicit enough. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't see a need for a new RFA, there has been no abuse of tools. The BN24 route appears a better idea if this gains traction but to be honest I don't see a need. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Agree with WCM, and my statement on 2a applies here as well.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur admonished

2) Hasteur is admonished for hyperbolic and disruptive activity on case pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Support As a minimum, I would actually suggest something stronger. The attitudes displayed here are not conducive towards a co-operative project. I would urge the consideration of an outright topic ban. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Support - but agree with Wee Curry Monster, an outright topic ban (preferably indefinite) against Hasteur is a more appropriate response and the course I would urge strongly to pursue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Wee Curry Monster

Proposed principles

1) Assume Good Faith seems to have been lacking in certain parties. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Assuming Good Faith is not a suicide pact. If one editor fails to adhere to the rules/policies/guidelines/advice of others in the community it does not permanantly bind others actions Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. Dealing with abusive editors like Hasteur would test anyone's ability to assume good faith. Kafziel attempted to AGF as seen from their early interaction, but Hasteur is intransigent, hyperbolic in his assaults on others, and engaged in a lot of combative and hubristic WP:IDHT rhetoric.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Battlefield mentality

1) I note that a number of editors have repeatedly pointed out there has been no misuse of tools (a few minor errors is not abuse). Despite this User:Hasteur is still alleging there has been tool abuse and is clearly trying to direct this examination of the facts to focus solely on Kalziel's actions. I have to say the huge amount of effort going into what I would politely describe as a wiki-lynching, not to mention the repeated intervention during the evidence phase shows a distinct WP:BATTLE mentality. He seems unable to drop the WP:STICK. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

And I would not-politely describe your actions as ignoring the patently obvious errors that Kafziel made (including failing outright when using CSD 'A' criteria outside the article space and still claiming they were right when editors like Silk Tork and EatsSootsAndLeaves find issue with Kafziel's actions. If I do not challenge every mis-perception actions like this get introduced and get incorporated as policy. Protecting the Encyclopedia and editors who seek the protection of AfC space is always a worthy goal to the end of ensuring that future damage is not caused (i.e. PROTECTION). Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree Hasteur's behaviour throughout this case has been combative which showed a lot of battlefield and WP:IDHT mentality. Hasteur cannot see the wrongness of his actions and beliefs on the matter and will not abide to let other editors disagree with his position. He seems to display a compulsion to fight anyone who disagrees--recent evidence of this is that he has recently accused me of conspiring against him throughout this case.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ownership Issues

2) WP:WPAFC is not wikipedia, it doesn't define policy. As a group it can set guidelines but it cannot impose these on other editors. Other editors do not have to do it their way. Kalziel's actions didn't damage the encyclopedia, they weren't disruptive and all the wikidrama that ensued because he refused to follow AFC guidelines shows there are serious WP:OWN issues here. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Amended to correct Wikilink. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to Hasteur's comments below. You make a comment about WP:SUPERVOTE, what you ironically fail to realise is that you seem to perceive the guidelines written by your project as rigid rules that no one can challenge; effectively a legislative fiat that cannot and must never be challenged. What Kafziel did was not outside of any policy, it just wasn't the way you wanted it done. Multiple editors have told you it was not wrong, it was not admin abuse but you display a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and continue to allege it was. A few minor errors in a CSD is not admin abuse. And he did give a reason for his actions, he just refused to kowtow to what you were noisily demanding. You can possibly make a case for his not being terribly civil about it but I saw his comments as more direct speech. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, precisely they are guidelines and are neither rules nor policy. WPAFC does not get to set rules and insist that they must be followed slavishly or you don't get to play in their playground, which is what you appear to think. Kafziel's action were not outside of policy, they just weren't done the way you prescribe. There was no damage done. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

To add, though this clearly isn't the place, it is very much apparent to me that AFC is stifling new editors, its certainly not creating an environment to promote and encourage new editors. I have seen a number of articles stuck in limbo, which were well beyond the standard where they could have been transferred to mainspace but the authors simply gave up. WPAFC is failing in its declared mission and its the strangle-hold of rigid rules and glacial pace of progress that is responsible. IMHO. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Ritchie. Look at the edit history. [1] Nothing happened from 12 November till 18 December, when just after I pointed out in the evidence page that a number of articles were sitting in limbo, they were all magically promoted into mainspace (1 by Ritchie [2],[3]). Of the 3 examples I gave, only one editor has edited since promotion - the other 2 have not [4], [5]. There are still articles sitting in limbo example. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

AFC is a protected policy/Procedure just as WP:AFD is just as WP:NPP is just as WP:FFD is just as WP:BLP is just as...

Kafziel's actions initially violated CSD and Deletion Policy. When they refused to respond to inquiries about their admin actions, they violated WP:ADMINACCT. When they refused to take advice from editors outside WP:WPAFC (pay attention to the difference as opposed to WP:AFC) (i.e. SilkTork, ES&L, etc) they failed to follow WP:CONSENSUS. When Kafziel steadfastly claimed that the policy supported his interpertation in the face of opposing consensus without building a consensus supporting his view he failed WP:CONSENSUS again. When they promptly retired in the middle of an Arbitration proceeding they invoked the precedents lad down in WP:CLOUD. WP:OWN is not at task here. The Deletion Policy is owned by the community at large, the CSD policy is owned by the community at large. All it took was for Kafziel to say "I disagree with this interpertation of policy and will open a RFC/Vilage Pump (Policy)/Talk page thread discussion to clarify how the policy is applicable" to difuse the situation. Kafziel substitutited his own interpertation for established consensus it constitutes a WP:SUPERVOTE, which I'm sure Wee Curry Monster would be happy to decry as against the idea of consensus. Hasteur (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply following ammendment: Ok, so you wish to pivot around that petard. WP:WPAFC does not define the policy, however they do provide the subject space guidelines for working with the subjects. Many project (such as WP:TV, WP:USROADS, and so on) define a Manual of Style and basic requirements for how they want articles that are associated with them to read/look/feel. How is WPAFC's insistence on a set of requirements for AfC submissions different? If the new page gets submitted to AfC's workflow then WPAFC's standard operating procedure is the first that can be applied. Perhaps once the page gets submitted to the Draft namespace (and other projects banners can be applied to the Draft talk page) the content focused wikiprojects can also help guide and craft the development of the page into something that can be accepted. Hasteur (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

For someone who does not do review AFC submissions, you claim to know a great deal about the AfC actions. Have you considered walking a mile in my shoes looking at the 90% garbage rate that gets submitted to AfC? AfC's remit is to give editors an environment to work at improving an article. Most of the time we decline it's a "No, but keep trying" not a "No, and never". Only when an article is submitted repeatedly without improvement or is patently not going to work for wikipedia do we say "No, and don't re-submit". Kafziel's actions were outside of policy. Speeding a AfC submission directly under any A series CSD rule is out of order. Moving a AfC submission to mainspace only to turn around and apply a A series CSD rule is gaming the system. Both of these Kafziel did, which makes the entire collection of AfC motivated actions suspect.

Take a look at Category:AfC submissions by date/04 January 2014 or even at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent to see the articles that ARE being promoted out of AfC space. We are passing articles out, but it does the editor who submits this page no good if we Accept the article only to have New Page Patrol or zealous deletionists come around a day later and start the deletion rights on it. Hasteur (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

With respect to ColonelHenry, I ask the following question: Would you let any random editor come in and start evaluating Possibly Unfree Files/Good Article Reviews/Featured Article Reviews/Did you Know nominations? Competence is required in certain sections of Wikipedia. From time to time the WPAFC volunteers have to tell a enthusiastic volunteer "Please don't do any more reviews until you know the procedures and policy better". We were plagued with a series of editors who would quid-pro-quo review each other's submissions and get them into article space while significantly deficent with respect to the content ruberic. As such we are gun shy about any editor who wanders in from the cold and starts taking bulk actions that are inconsistent with the current consensus. The Featured Article Delegate, the DYK clique, the GAR clique, and many other "cliques" would guard their spaces just as zealously for the simple reason that if their "department" started churning out sub-standard output, others would come in and start having to clamp down on the rules. I suggest that ColonelHenry take some time and actually observe the day to day workings before he starts branding AFC volunteers with a C on their foreheads (for Clique). Hasteur (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Above, Wee Curry Monster wrote "I have seen a number of articles stuck in limbo, which were well beyond the standard where they could have been transferred to mainspace but the authors simply gave up". In the Evidence section, he cited Fort Wayne Railroad Historical Society as an example of this, yet when I checked the article's history, I noticed it was accepted into mainspace on first pass, and the article's creator last edited it on 5 January 2014, which would seem to contradict that assertion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree - Hasteur and the AfC clique have displayed horrible ownership behaviour that has excluded many good contributors from improving the AfC project. AfC can only be fixed without Hasteur poisoning the well with his ownership attitude.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• FAC, TFA, DYK, and GAR don't bully newcomers, people who have ideas or solutions to make the process work better, people who do things correctly but take a different view of things. They also don't insist on a set of internal homemade rules that they insist operate outside of the intervening power of the community's standards and policies. None of those projects are plagued with a hostile editor with an ownership attitude. You, and a few of your ilk at AfC, have an ownership attitude, and a long record of editors you've chased away. You need to go. AfC delenda est.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Personalisation of the dispute

(3) User:Hasteur has needlessly made this dispute highly personal and has behaved in a manner that is vindictive toward User:Kafziel. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree 100% Hasteur's behaviour has been frankly despicable and vindictive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

Topic ban on AFC for User:Hasteur

1) User:Hasteur is topic banned for 1 year from any aspect of WP:AFC. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My actions are not warranted for this, but I would like to also not that should this take effect the tasks performed by HasteurBot will have to ceace immediately which do provide a positive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talk • contribs)

Completely unsupported by evidence and vindictive. My conduct is nowhere rising to the level of a topic ban Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

ColonelHenry: Where was the evidence entered that my conduct rises to the level of a topic ban? Why is my responding to a user who is attempting to get in contact with a retired admin grave dancing? WCM and CH are, In my view, conducting a behind the scenes campaign to discredit me without presenting any evidence to support their exagerated claims. Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

For evidence, I would cite Hasteur's proposals in the workshop, which are (ironically) extremely vindictive. The conduct at WP:ANI and in this case are more than adequate to demonstrate serious WP:OWN issues and a WP:BATTLE mentality. The obsessive need to comment on every point made by contributors to the case is very much indicative of WP:BATTLE. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think one year is too lenient. Indefinitely would be preferred. Somewhere in between would be acceptable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Hasteur: You want evidence? ...have you read every vile and combative comment you've written to respond to everyone who has had the gall to disagree with you? They're appalling. Have you really seen how you push people away from AfC? The serious ownership issues. The Battlefield mentality. The vindictiveness here. Now accusing me and WCM of a paranoid conspiracy against you? Seriously, look in the mirror. You need to go. You are the problem. Not Kafziel. No one on Wikipedia should have to put up with the bullshit you've subjected others to. You need to go. And a one-year topic ban against you, IMHO, isn't enough to fix it. You need to go.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

1 Way Interaction Ban

2) I am not a fan of 1 way interaction bans by any means but it is apparent that it may be appropriate in this case. There seems to be an obsession by Hasteur to "get" Kafziel and it is also clearly not reciprocated; it has been very much one way. Hence, I propose a 1 way interaction ban, whereby Hasteur is banned from commenting upon any action by Kafziel broady construed. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

When this case was originally filed, I think I would have laughed this off as petty and not needed. However, Hateur's seemingly increasingly hostile behavior while the case has been underway has led to seriously consider this possibility. The objection below that it is not germane to the topic at hand I explicitly reject. The committee is permitted and indeed expected to examine the behavior of all parties involved in a dispute, regardless of who filed it or what the case is named. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose as not germane to the topic at hand. Responding to an anonymous editor who is attempting to get the admin to explain themselves is always in order. Please enumerate where in that diff I adressed Kafziel. You can't because it's not there. I addressed the user who asked the question. Since Kafziel has not banned me from his user talk page, I consider it perfectly appropriate that I answer the question and try to help the user. What part of my statement was against policy? I gave information on why her inital argument is a bad idea (WP:OTHERSTUFF), my attempt to have the page restored or the advertising level described (which I observe was fufilled at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anchor Managed Hosting and JohnCD agreed that it was not yet ready for mainspace), and warned the user that they really should read the COI guidelines as the way they self signed the post. I have been monitoring Kafziel's talk page to assist users who are attempting to get in contact with the Administrator who did an action to a page they have interest in. Helping new editors learn the buttons/valves/switches of wikipedia is always a good action. I'll be happy to leave Kafziel's talk page alone iff there is a gaurntee by ColonelHenry and 2 administrators to monitor in perpetuity Kafziel's talk page for the express purpose of responding and assisting any users who complain about the actions. The attempt to curtail my scrutiny of Administrator actions makes this proposal a gag order of a authoritarian police state. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to remind Beeblebrox that Remedies must stem from findings, which in turn must stem from evidence. Introducing such a remedy late in the game without any findings backed up by evidenced diffs is, as I understand, out of process and convention of Arbitration procedure. I would point at other cases when editors have had to defend themselves against a peanut gallery when taking a principled stand with respect to administrative privilege (Racepacket, Rodhullandemu, Civility Enforcement) and ask what actions I have made in presenting the case go beyond the actions in those cases? Hasteur (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support - Considering that Hasteur has commented on comments left for Kafziel on Kafziel's talk page,[6] (an edit which, while it might have been with good intentions (AGF), I advised Hasteur was in extremely poor taste for him to be commenting as such given the circumstances[7] -- which has been responded to indirectly with passive-aggressiveness scoffing in his comments to others [8] with the edit summary of giving a "backhanded slap" to "annother user" (sic)--i.e. me) and seeing the same obsessive vendetta behaviour, I agree with this.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

reply to Hasteur...."a gag order of a authoritarian police state" (sic)... Seriously? And you disagreed with the characterization of your comments as "hyperbolic"?--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal by ColonelHenry

Proposed remedies

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

3-month Block against Hasteur

1) A three-month (90-day) block against User:Hasteur for his personal attacks, ownership behaviour, battlefield mentality, vindictiveness, forum-shopping, wikilawyering, harassment, and his abuse.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I observe a immaculate generation of a block proposal, so let's pick apart every claim

Personal Attacks: Initially I rattled the scabard to show what could be in Kafziel's future should he not see that there was concern with his actions. When the attacks came to be on myself, I showed how the instigators have a personal vendetta. Result: Not proven, no diffs

Ownership behavior: Show where I claimed ownership of a single page. You can't because it never occured. I talk about protecting newbie editors, about protecting WP Policy/Guidelines/Consensus/Best practices, about administrators overreaching their remit. Result: Not proven

Battlefield mentality: If someone levels accusations at you, are you going to not say anything (ala [9])? No, you're going to be vocal and defend why you thing your actions are correct and why the accusations are specious at best.

Vindictiveness: Is persuing the route of appeal when you (and others) feel clearly the issue has not been resolved vindictive? In that case prepare to pass a Vindictive finding of fact on almost every future ArbCom case. ArbCom normally takes cases where the community cannot resolve the conduct dispute on it's own.

Forum Shoping: So which forums have I shopped around to. Let's see. Kafziel's talk page, on the DR checklist. AN/I, not officially on the DR talk list but because it was about administrative actions definitely need to try and make an effort even though I did not post the thread there. ArbCom, peak of the Content DR authority. Yep definitely forum shoping around the Dispute Resolution tree when not satisfied with the result, Guilty as charged.

Harrassment: Please demonstrate when a user asked me to stop and they stopped interacting with me. Kafziel's actions are public record and are discussed as so. It's like the US "Do not call list" you can't claim an infraction of the list if you've done business with the company in the recent past.

Abuse: Such a broad term. If only there were some concrete examples

In short the only charge that sticks is the Forum Shoping, but that is not a crime. Hasteur (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I consider this a necessity, and concede that I think this would be a very lenient sanction given the gravity his actions.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I did consider suggesting a block as a remedy but discarded it as an idea in favour of proposing a topic ban to allow for productive editing elsewhere. Since then I have observed that Hasteur seems to be completely unable to grasp how his behaviour is inappropriate. Whilst I'm not prepared to outright support a 3 month block at this time, I do wonder if a block may well be appropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by 74

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia... WP:NOTPROMOTION

1) Policy. Applies to all pages at all times, albeit tempered by WP:NICE in the case of honest mistakes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note that this principle holds true, whether the page in question is indexed by the WP:GOOG or not; there are some ways around noindex, especially for very niche products/companies. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

...and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals... WP:NICE

2) Policy. Applies to all interactions at all times. No exceptions for frustration. No exceptions for anger. No redacted exceptions. Pillar four is not made of rubber, but of stone.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Honest disagreements, and good-faith dispute-resolution thereof, ought be the cornerstone of wikipedia, not an idealized imaginary wikiverse. Defending against spammers requires individuals who care about stopping spam; encouraging content-contributors requires individuals who care about creating content. Fighting is directly albeit temporarily harmful. Grudges are fatal to the long-term success of wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

...interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia... WP:NOTREQUIRED

3) Policy. See also, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, and in particular WP:CHOICE, which trumps essays (and also methinks vague undefined 2012 additions to ADMINACCT) concerning clouds. "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

...in a spirit of mutual respect. WP:NOTBUREAU

4) Policy. See also, WP:NOTFACTIONS and of course WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. WikiProjects should never be a means of exclusion, or of stealthy WP:BURO-building. They are not controlling. They are voluntary clubs, and their documented processes are of the same standing as any other "essay by one or more wikipedians" ... which is to say, good advice sometimes, but never binding on anyone, for anything.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

*Undocumented* traditions, and wikiProject cultural taboos, have absolutely zero standing; they aren't even essays. Elder (or at least senior) members of the WikiProjects are not high-caste brahmins, appointed by deities to rule the roost. They ought to command (mutual) respect, but never obediance. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:IAR means exactly what it says

5) Policy. Made of stone. Not to be rubberized. Applies to any tradition, essay, process, standard, method, procedure, way, guideline, policy, and even (to some degree) the other pillars. The word "ignore" means, ignore. The word "any" means, any. Apply same logic to all other words: they mean exactly what they say.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As discussed the umpteen times before when you keep trying to care annother exception exception, IAR only authorizes breaking the rules when it improves Wikipedia. See File:Diagram of IGNORE.svg and Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Please explain how deleting potential articles because they would not pass muster if they were in articlespace is improving wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There can be disagreement about whether a particular rule truly *prevents* one from improving the encyclopedia. There can be the opinion, justified methinks, that following the "usual way things are done around here" is itself a way to improve the encyclopedia (see "mutual respect" above). But there can be no disagreement with the core freedom to ignore all rules, and follow the path of beboldo, in pursuit of an improved encyclopedia. The results will speak for themselves, and (if there is serious disagreement only!) then AN/I or perhaps RFC/U will be the correct venue to decide whether the particular path of beboldo chosen, *is* in fact improving the encyclopedia, overall. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue for an exception-exception. The essay and diagram you point at, I agree with. Using common sense absolutely is the "zeroth pillar" of sorts. As for your request for an explanation about deletions-from-the-AfC-queue, that is the most troubling aspect of Kafziel's approach; keeping beginners from having all their work deleted, while still having *some* opportunity to get reviewed by more experienced wikipedians, is the reason we have AfC (and now Drafts). But it is possible to justify what Kafziel decided, both in theory and in practice.

why *nigh-error-free* deletion of blatant BLPTALK/COPYVIO/NOTPROMOTION is a net improvement

We'd have to go case by case for the full guacamole; if I was detailed it would take 10k words, and I'm happy to go into that detail on my talkpage if you wish. But I think it can be boiled down to this. There were tens of thousands of G13s. There were thousands of awaiting-review articles in the backlog. These are inherently bad for the encyclopedia. For three reasons: 1) good articles are stuck in the queue where they cannot serve the readership. 2) good editors are stuck in the queue, waiting for some reviewer, who is too busy to *really* help much anyways, gotta move on to the next in the backlog. 3) bad articles by bad editors waste the time of everybody! When I speak of 'bad' here I really mean bad-to-the-bone: I'm not talking about poor grammar, I'm not talking about beginner-mistakes, and I'm not even talking about extreme COI.   I'm talking about blatant spammers only here to spam, and I'm talking about unrepentant COPYVIO, and I'm talking about evil anti-BLPTALK attack-pages. Having those in the queue AT ALL is not merely pretty pointless, in some cases it becomes legally dangerous to the entire project. Attack pages must be deleted, and the people behind them told in no uncertain terms that wikipedia is not the place. We do not need *that* kind of 'contributor', who is a danger to the project. Does deleting the page of a good-faith contributor, who then gets discouraged and quits, improve wikipedia? Nope. But does deleting the page of a blatant-spammer, who is only using AfC so they can approve their own spam with a sockpuppet next week, to slip past the NPP vigilance, improving wikipedia? Yes. If the spammer is driven away permanently, even better. I might not want every wikipedian to use Kafziel's approach, because not every wikipedian would be able to tell the good but relatively WP:NOCLUE-about-wiki-rulz beginner, from the sly spammer.   But from my review, in practice Kafziel's personal instincts were pretty good; I caught one mistake (did not result in the contributor leaving -- they are a disclosed-COI paid-employee and will stay while the money keeps them here), and one questionable/borderline call. All told, a net benefit: some good articles moved to mainspace where they belong (pleasing both the readership and also the authors that got into mainspace ahead of schedule), plus some WP:NOTHERE ejected from clogging up the backlog. What about the surrounding drama, shouldn't that count against Kafziel? Well... nope. Not if WP:IAR means exactly what it says. Kafziel was acting as if WP:IAR was still the fifth pillar, not to be rubberized, and acting as if AfC traditions were WP:NOTSTATUTE. Was this okay? Yes... as long as Kafziel's actions really *were* improving the encyclopedia. WP:IAR is a good thing. Booting spam is a good thing. De-clogging, good. Quicker to mainspace, good. That said....

Kafziel's Methodology™ — now in new&improved de-snarkified plaintext-flowchart-format

As it turned out, it's hard to say 100% whether Kafziel's methodology would have kept on being a net improvement. Here's my slight rewrite, cutting out the snark. "All editors can (and should) ignore the bureaucracy, to get the job done." 1. article good? if Y, mainspace optionally, leave feedback 2. article < N weeks old? if Y, leave in queue optionally, leave feedback 3. attack? if Y, delete optionally, leave feedback 4. infringing? if Y, delete optionally, leave feedback 5. spam? if Y, delete optionally, leave feedback 6. indicates WP:N? if Y, mainspace optionally, leave feedback 7. can you edit to do so? if Y, mainspace optionally, leave feedback 8. and well, otherwise... thus, delete optionally, leave feedback Kafziel was using N==4, and not using WP:Drafts at all, but of course, it wasn't live in early December anyways methinks. The AN/I and Arbcom stuff cut the empirical testing of this approach a bit short. But I'm reminded of the quote from the Wikipedia article: "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." This looks kinda like one of those flowcharts that could "never work"... but in practice, perhaps the uncorrectable mistakes would be few and far between.

So, did Kafziel make the right *overall* decision(s)? Well... it depends on what the arbs decide, I guess. But the AN/I decision was that, despite some definite 'tude, and some cavalier WP:IAR-she-is-my-guiding-star methodology, that Kafziel wasn't yet across the line into causing harm. Because deleting spam, and giving spammers the boot, is NOT harming the encyclopedia, nor the community of "people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia" aka contributors. It is helping experienced contributors: they don't have to waste time declining the blatant spam for the sixth time, worried about whether User:DarthSpamster might still have some glimmer of good deep inside. It is helping beginners who *are* actual good-faith contributors: less spam in the queue, and less spammers to coddle, means the beginners have more (and more frequent) feedback. Double-win. Triple-win, if you count the readership-related-benefits.

  Last, but by no means least, Kafziel wants wikipedia to remain "free and open" as they told Silktork.[10] AfC was becoming a bottleneck, in more ways than one: it was becoming a walled garden, where consensus WP:GNG was by arbitrary fiat no longer steep enough for Lady Gaga,[11] where stub-creation was never allowed, where a few paragraphs with WP:TONE issues could prevent the readership from knowing *anything* about the topic, while it moldered away in the permanently-backlogged queue (in mainspace the advert-paragraphs would simply be deleted on sight... or collaboratively edited into correct form). Wikipedia is not meant to be Citizendium, with many layers of 'protection', where expert review is mandatory, and lack of experts causes article-creation to average about 1 per month (the Nupedia rate if memory serves); wikipedia is meant to massively multi-editor collaborative encyclopedia-building, and AfC was staying too aloof, both in terms of recruiting experienced reviewers, and in terms of the 500M pairs of watchful eyeballs the readership offers. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTCOURT applies

6) Policy. ArbCom has the authority to impose general and discretionary sanctions to govern the conduct of individual editors or groups of editors. Emphasis added; there seems to be some *question* as to whether ArbCom is in fact able to clarify the meaning of pillars/policies/etc (which I'll note is distinct from setting the meaning of pillars/policies/etc). WikiProjects are groups of editors; ArbCom can therefore govern the conduct of same, via general sanctions. Individual editors (whether within a wikiProject or not) are expected to behave according to the dictates of the five pillars, and to a lesser extent, following the guidance of WP:PG. Absolutely then, ArbCom *can* therefore clarify the role of wikiProjects, and clarify the meaning of pillars, if such clarifications will generally help govern conduct, and thereby improve the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Banhammering is not the only sort of arbitration that is conceivable.  :-)   Sometimes, speaking softly is more effective. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

No abuse of tools

1) Per Georgewilliamherbert, but of course, also per my own reasonably deep analysis of Kafziel's actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The only actual *mistake* by Kafziel I caught was OrderUp, which I'll note, Hasteur themselves also declined. Both were wrong; the sources seem solid, the article needs to get into mainspace. One mistake by Kafziel, due to misreading the edit-history of the contributor, does not abuse make (ditto for a similar mistake by Hasteur). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Support If nothing comes out of this case other than a clear statement there was no abuse of tools, then at least it will have achieved something. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel does not act WP:NICEly enough

2) Kafziel need not *be* nicer ... but needs to *behave* a bit nicer, in their on-wiki interactions. In particular, deletion is a slap in the face. Their behavior was within the norms for our current wikiCulture, however, where valued long-term contributors are involved. Kafziel is a good wikipedian, and cares deeply about this project, and I thank them for that; so ought ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

On my own talk page, I have a header reminding editors that text is inherently an unreliable means of communicating. We as human beings do not realise in general just how much of our communication is non-verbal. Text is unreliable as it loses nuance and it is all to easy to read into text an unintended meaning that was never there. Never mind the cultural differences in the way that words can be used and cultural differences in the directness of addressing each other. I can remember an English colleague alarmed at a normal conversation in a Glasgow pub, fearing that a pub brawl was about to break out. A direct approach to communication is not inherently uncivil and Kafziel was direct. It is a mode of speech that as a Glaswegian I appreciate but I know others can find it difficult interpreting it wrongly as brusque. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur does not act WP:NICEly enough

3) Hasteur, I truly believe, is acting in good faith... but I just as truly believe, does not take pillar five literally, by the plain meaning. This misunderstanding of policy leads to conflict, which leads to frustration... which is no excuse for failing to be WP:NICE. Much like Kafziel, the norms for valued long-term contributors are Hasteur's saving grace. Hasteur is a good wikipedian, and cares deeply about this project, and I thank them for that; so ought ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The IAR pilar is meant to be invoked only "when a rule prevents you from improving wikipedia, ignore it". As refuted above, I consider the attempt to invoke pillar 5 not appropriate with respect to trying to explain Kafziel's actions. IAR should not be a common defense to actions taken outside the generally accepted consensus. Hasteur (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

My position is that WP:IAR is a pillar, because wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and vice versa. Including those who only operate by that pillar. (How could anyone edit... if only people who have memorized the five bazillion rules are allowed to improve the encyclopedia?) Now of course, if they *think* they are improving the encyclopedia, but they actually are not, we have the revert-button. If they continue to *think* they are improving the encyclopedia, but are REALLY not, we have the article-talkpage, the user-talkpage, the level-N-warning-templates, 3O, RfC, DRN, AN/I, RfC/U, ArbCom, appeal to the Great Jimbo, plus of course the banhammer (slash 'blockhammer' but that sounds less cool by far).

  Operating purely on WP:IAR is not a "defense" for some shortcoming; doing so *is* the generally accepted consensus. That's what I mean by "exactly what it says". Anybody who goes around improving the encyclopedia, without following any rules, has just done something fundamentally right. WP:IAR is not the "fallback rule" for when the other bazillion policies/guidelines/procedures/essays/traditions fail to work. WP:IAR is the primordial rule, the keystone which permits the very concept of the-encyclopedia-anyone-can-edit to even make sense. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of sense in your contributions to this case. The one exception I would make is that whilst I had a similar view to yours at the outset, the conduct of Hasteur since caused me to change my mind. He seems to have a win at all costs attitude and seems bent on "getting" Kafziel. I really don't know how to call this, I think it was a mistake this case was ever accepted, there are a number of routes to dispute resolution that should have been tried first. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree to any assertion that Hasteur was acting in good faith. Vindictiveness and battleground mentality is not evidence of good faith and inclines me to consider his actions are excessively spiteful and in bad faith.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

Kafziel thanked for service, welcomed back in any capacity, per his WP:CHOICE

1) Desysop may be possible, if future serious problems so demand.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kafziel's ability to type the letters "WP:GRIEF" relinquished

2) Kazfiel's taunting is admonished. Truth is not an excuse.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hasteur sentenced to write WP:OWN on the blackboard one hundred times

2) Hasteur's holier-than-thou attitude is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: