Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed.

Statement by Guerillero

Arbs, I present to you a wheel war over at New Orc Times ( log). The page was created by Mzajac, deleted by 331dot ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as an G10, undeleted by Mzajac out of process (as an involved action at both the page and topic level), and then deleted by Bbb23. All of this was done without a substantive discussion on the merits being closed.

I ask the rest of the committee to explore if both of the admins that I listed as parties should retain their tools in light of the tool misuse. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Either WHEEL is a bright line prohibition or it isn't and I am shocked, ToBeFree, that you don't see it as one -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This new take on wheel waring strikes me as a short term benefit that will shoot us in the foot long-term. The bright line of "don't reverse a reversed admin action" has served us well. I hope that Bbb23 is more careful in the future when performing deletions.

If we put the wheel waring issue aside, this latest action shows that Mzajac should not be an administrator on the English Wikipedia. He should not be performing admin actions on a page that he created. This is particularly true of controversial actions such as out of process reversals of the actions of other admins. Further, after sanctions at AE, Mzajac should not be using his admin tools anywhere near Ukraine and Russia. The fact that he can't see this is alarming. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 08:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Mzajac

I was informed twice that I had created an “attack page” by SaintPaulOfTarsus ( talk · contribs), with no indication which page they referred to. [1] [2] I responded there [3] but received no reply. I surmised that it was probably New Orc Times and The New Orc Times (not New Ork Times with a K, as stated above), and saw that both were nominated for speedy deletion. I followed the “contest deletion” button/link on both pages, and spelled out the reason for not deleting at talk:New Orc Times#Contested deletion and talk:The New Orc Times#Contested deletion, with identical text on both pages.

After this, one of the pages was deleted – I thought by the speedy nominator – and apparently out of process after I had contested the speedy. At no time did they engage me in meaningful discussion, respond to my posts, or acknowledge any of my edits. So I re-created it, and redirected it to a better target where I had in the meantime cited references directly related to the subject (an internet meme) and tagging it as {{ R from non-neutral name}} for clarity.

The other page was taken to RFD, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 8#The New Orc Times, where it is currently under discussion.

The accusation of creating an “attack page” and the seeming urgency of other editors’ actions surrounding these redirects have been undue. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, “Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion.” I created naked redirects thinking that they would be automatically tagged and cleaned up by maintenance, and never suspecting that editors would react so aggressively against a name that made fun of a media corporation.

Now I have been taken to arbitration. This seems over the top. — Michael  Z. 20:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The timeline by user:Blablubbs omits that I contested the nomination for speedy deletion.  — Michael  Z. 20:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I left the speedy tag in place because that was the state of the page after I contested the speedy deletion. I am not familiar with the SD process, and I assumed the way it worked was the way it is supposed to work.  — Michael  Z. 20:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

User:ToBeFree, I used the undelete tool specifically to restore the previous state of the page without error. I also would have assumed using admin tools was appropriate since the deletion was performed apparently against process, without any discussion, and after I had contested the speedy deletion nomination.

Yes I guess see where it violates the rule now that I have untangled these arbitration allegations and reviewed what wheel warring means. But to be honest, I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about which of the interface elements I have had access to for much of two decades are non-admin, admin, or add-on gadgets. I try to follow the rules as I know them and only take actions that seem warranted. As this did. — Michael  Z. 20:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

User:ToBeFree, I can’t make sense of that. [4] The policy I see linked in their statement is wheel warring.  — Michael  Z. 21:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

ToBeFree, Are you saying that I am not accused of wheel-warring but Bbb23 is? Okay. I do wish they had made note of the talk page and engaged before deleting. But the apparently normal speedy-deletion-contestation process looks opaque to me (and completely different from other processes with the same “speedy” name). The big important-looking “contest” button prompts one to start a discussion, but leaves a giant red template with a big un-pressed-looking “contest” button in the middle of it, just begging for eager admins to delete, and not encouraging anyone to actually check whether this is an “attack page” or not.

Maybe a takeaway is to improve the workflow, and not burn arbitration energy on users with merely human capacity for trying to use confusing tools.  — Michael  Z. 21:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

please clarify what specifically you are referring to as performed apparently against process?

User:Barkeep49, I am familiar with the speedy processes for categories: they are nominated, and if contested, then the nomination goes to discussion. I never assumed this would be different. But if nominating and contesting speedy deletion means nothing here, then I wonder what’s the purpose of the big button in the middle of the template? I did try to engage in discussion at two places and was overridden without any response or engagement at any point by any of the other editors involved (at least some of whom turned out to be admins). This did not seem right to me. So I tried to reset the state of the contested page to the point where discussion would be appropriate, by the method that seemed least subject to error, and apparently inadvertently misused an admin tool in the process. — Michael  Z. 21:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

And I never thought the page can’t be deleted, but as I had contested the speedy nomination with I thought a clear and referenced explanation of why it was a reasonable redirect and not an “attack page” (and IMO it has no relation to BLP, risk of lawsuits, or other urgency), I expected that any discussion at all would have been reasonable.  — Michael  Z. 21:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Does anyone here believe the redirect in question is an attack page?  — Michael  Z. 21:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, I’ve nearly doubled my allowed 500 words, mainly just to discover who’s accused of what. This process and the language used in it is as Byzantine, Rube Goldbergian, and opaque as the one that led to it. Bbb23 made an honest mistake, and it was only because I happened to click a certain link to make an edit while trying to navigate another opaque process. This certainly shouldn’t lead to wasting more people’s time in an arbitration process. We cogs have more important things to do. User:Bbb23, I’m sorry for my role in this. — Michael  Z. 22:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Bbb23

I'm lost. I saw a page that was tagged for deletion as WP:G10 by another editor. Honestly, I misread who had tagged it for deletion and thought that the creator of the page had done so in their last edit, which is why I deleted it per G7, even though there was an intervening edit. I did not notice the deleted history showing that 331dot had deleted the page as a G10 earlier. If I had, I probably would have just left it alone, although I'm not sure how my repeat of a delete, even if with a different rationale, constitutes wheel-warring. Frankly, I think the whole thing is silly and certainly doesn't merit an arbitration request, but this is, after all, Wikipedia. In any event, at worst I screwed up.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

After posting the above, I thought about it some more and I believe I now understand how my delete was - or at least could be construed as - wheel-warring. That doesn't change my conclusion, which is I screwed up. I do try to be careful in my administrative actions, but I'm a long ways from infallible. If someone had pointed out that what I'd done was wrong, I would have undone my deletion.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

If I understand what others are saying, in particular ToBeFree, who has apparently analyzed this the most thoroughly, I'm the only one who's wheel-warred...and I didn't even know I was. I feel so much better now.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I probably shouldn't be adding to my error log, but regarding EggRoll97's point about my not looking at the Talk page, you can add that omission to my tragedy of errors. I normally always look at the Talk page of a page that has been tagged for speedy deletion. In this case I didn't because of my misreading of the page history. Too bad, had I read the comments, I would have realized that deletion per G7 was incorrect...and saved myself a lot of grief.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by RoySmith

I know arbcom is where admin behavior problems get heard, but I can't help but feel this needed at least some time for discussion in other forums before finding its way here. All of this happened over the past couple of hours. I see the beginnings of a conversation on User talk:Mzajac started earlier today, but it seems to me more time could have been spent trying to work things out there before playing the arbcom card.

On the other hand, I also see a thread from 4 days ago started by Mellk which concerns me a bit more. This doesn't appear to be about any specific admin actions taken by Mzajac, but Melik does mention a concern about Mzajac holding a mop, which gets me paying a bit more attention. Then we get to Maybe you could try to accept the idea that I will keep editing Wikipedia and that I will remain an admin which doesn't quite get to the level of a threat, but it's certainly not a shining example of an admin exhibiting the best qualities we hope to see.

TLDR: yeah, I think arbcom needs to take a look. RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify my statement above:

• As everybody else has pointed out, the whole WP:WHEEL thing is a non-issue that could (and should) have been handled on talk pages. Dragging it to arbcom was absurd, and that part of the case should be declined.
• The thing that really concerns me is Mzajac's statement which I quoted above. That sure sounds like trying to use their mop to intimidate other editors in a content dispute. That's what arbcom needs to look at.

RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Note that the definition of WP:WHEEL includes the requirement that the tools are "used in a combative fashion" ( Special:Diff/308354306). This is contrary to the assertion of Strict liability stated by a number of arbs in this and previous cases. RoySmith (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by 331dot

I just wanted to say that I am not totally familiar with policy on redirects, and deleted it as G10 because the redirect seemed like an attack(even knowing that it was based on a meme). I see that was likely an error and not a clear-cut case. I didn't know anything else happened after my deletion until being pinged here. 331dot ( talk) 20:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Barkeep49 Thanks for your comments, it seems I wasn't too far outside the ballpark. 331dot ( talk) 21:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Blablubbs

For the benefit of those without undelete goggles, the history here goes:

• 04:25, 7 January 2024: Mzajac creates the page
• 15:58, 8 January 2024: Someone tags it for G10
• 16:33, 8 January 2024-16:36, 8 January 2024: Mzajac makes three edits to the talk page contesting the deletion
• 16:47, 8 January 2024: 331dot deletes per G10, and talk page per G8
• 19:09, 8 January 2024: Mzajac undeletes 2 revisions of the page and 3 revisions of the talk page (in both cases, this is the entire page history)
• 19:11, 8 January 2024: Mzajac modifies the undeleted page, leaving the speedy tag in place
• 19:13, 8 January 2024: Mzajac adds and immediately removes an empty section header, describing this as a null edit in the edit summary
• 19:20, 8 January 2024: Bbb23 deletes per G7, and talk page per G8

I'm slightly confused, but not too concerned, by the G7; given the still-present G10 tag in the last revision, I could easily see how a "bad" delete might happen here without ill intent. I don't think this really meets the spirit of WP:WHEEL, even if it might meet the letter – at least not to the extent that it would constitute the immediate-desysop sort of offence we usually make it out to be. WHEEL is concerned with not having admins combatively use reinstatements in lieu of dispute resolution, but what happened here doesn't strike me as that.

I'm more concerned by the initial undeletion, which seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of INVOLVED, regardless of the whether or not the initial deletion was correct on the merits. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 20:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Mzajac: I've amended the timeline (amendments marked with <ins>, i.e. underlines). -- Blablubbs ( talk) 20:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Serial

Mzajac, I suspect that I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about which of the interface elements I have had access to is at the root of your current situation. It implies unawarenes or uncertainty as to the policies that guide your access to those "interface elements". ——Serial 21:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Floquenbeam: Given your cloaking device, editing policy by fiat is a pretty spectacular way of spiking arbcom's guns :D viva IAR! ——Serial 00:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Kusma

I am somewhat involved because I declined the speedy deletion of The New Orc Times (as a redirect to The New York Times) and nominated it for RFD because it seemed clearly questionable, but not so harmful as to merit immediate deletion. I did notice that there was a second similar redirect that had been deleted, but did not do anything about it (perhaps I should have mentioned it at the RFD and suggested that whatever happens to one of the redirects should happen to both). In my opinion, all of this can be resolved at the RFD. The undeletions and redeletions were fairly trivial, and I don't think this should be discussed by ArbCom. Please decline, let everyone calm down and let the RFD run its course. — Kusma ( talk) 21:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Helpful. constructive statement by Floq

Oh good grief. /*sighs, sadly re-engages cloaking device*/-- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Ivanvector (Wheel)

I don't think there's a case here - the incident is so minor as to boggle the mind, and redirects are cheap. It's pretty clear there was no intentional wheel-warring, and while WP:WHEEL is a bright-line policy, WP:IAR is also a policy - as in if it doesn't serve any meaningful purpose to punish someone for what's clearly a slip-up, then don't do it.

Also, the original G10 deletion was invalid on its face, as despite the intricacies of US corporate law, the New York Times is not a living person. Mzajac shouldn't have restored the page per WP:INVOLVED but that's really the only misconduct that's occurred here, and again it's so minor as to cause one to wonder why we're spending so much time on it.

Trouts all around, and let's move on. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 22:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Since it looks like this is now barreling towards acceptance, it would be a good opportunity to remind admins that the "speedy" in the criteria for speedy deletion doesn't mean "delete as fast as possible"; maybe we should use some word other than "speedy" in the policy. Even though anyone can tag a page for speedy deletion, admins remain solely responsible for taking the time to check that a page actually meets the criteria defined in the policy. We likely wouldn't be here if either 331dot or Bbb23 had checked that the page met the tagged criteria: it was not an attack on a living person ( WP:G10) and has since been shown to be a plausible redirect (which also invalidates it for G10), and it was not tagged by its creator ( WP:G7) who also obviously objected to its deletion (which invalidates most CSDs). I don't patrol CSDs often but when I do I find (guessing roughly) that about one in three are tagged inappropriately, especially those tagged WP:A7 and WP:G11, but I often find that they are deleted anyway while I am writing a decline rationale. This isn't worth Arbcom examination and is outside Arbcom's authority anyway, but I hope that the admins reading this slow down and pay better attention to the policy. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Noting here (because I said I would) that Bbb23 suggested that my narrow interpretation of G10 might be too narrow, and after a bit of review I agree. The criterion as written is framed in the context of BLP information, but it also links to Wikipedia:Attack page which also defines pages attacking non-living entities, so 311dot's deletion was probably within admin discretion. We can all use to refamiliarize ourselves with polices from time to time.

@ Ritchie333: I've previously argued that any CSD based on WP:CCS should be abolished since that's open to a very wide range of interpretation. But we're getting off-topic here (I know, I started it). Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 17:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by EggRoll97

I'm not convinced that the titling was exactly an attack page, but deleting as an attack page originally wasn't entirely out of line. However, the use of the undelete tool is an action which cannot be performed by someone lacking the sysop tool, and implies that the deletion was clearly erroneous, which I don't think was correct. Re-creation was possible, yet Mzajac chose not to do that, instead choosing to undelete. Similarly, Bbb23, seeing the deletion was contested, should not have re-deleted, but instead have taken it to RFD or just had some good old fashioned discussion on a talk page. However, the use of the administrator toolset was unwarranted for both admins. I do not believe this rises to the level of more than a simple wheel war, but it is clear that two administrators have at the very least utilized their administrator tools for actions that were not uncontroversial or backed by consensus, and that is highly concerning. I therefore think that while the actions of both are minor in severity, the Committee should at the least take a look here. EggRoll97 ^{( talk)} 22:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Dennis Brown

While the policy on Wheel doesn't explicitly state so, it is assumed that to violate it, there has to be some intent to do so. Accidentally doing so isn't a violation of the spirit of the policy, which seems to be what we have here. The real question is why did Mzajac first create the redirect, then use his tools to restore it? To me, that is the bigger issue. It is worthy of a trout, not an Arb case and/or removal of tools. Bbb23's explanation seems very plausible to me. I get why it was brought here, but I'm hoping it dies here soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Now that we all know about the 2023 AE report, a limited case does make sense. I'm not about to say that a desysop is expected, but a closer look does seem warranted. Dennis Brown 2¢ 11:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Tamzin

This is a bad creation of a redirect, followed by a bad use of CSD G10, followed by an extremely bad use of undeletion, followed by a mildly bad re-deletion.

• Redirects from terms not mentioned in the target article are rarely appropriate, especially when the term is non-neutral.
• Admins are taught to err on the side of deletion when it comes to BLP enforcement, but 331dot's deletion still exceeded that discretion. That said, a single bad deletion is not ArbCom business, and if someone is going to go too far on deletion, BLP is one of the most forgivable reasons.
• The only time an admin should be restoring their own creations are for no-fault CSDs like U1, G7, and G13. This is a matter of both WP:INVOLVED and WP:RAAA, arguably the two most important policies for admins to be familiar with. It utterly boggles the mind that Mzajac does not know this, and his attempt to blow this off as "over the top" strongly calls into question his suitability to continue as an administrator. If someone sincerely thinks that the appropriate response to another admin incorrectly applying a policy against their page is to revert that action using admin tools, they need to greatly re-familiarize themselves with current admin expectations. For some this might be a wake-up call. However, when an admin has previously been AE-TBANned for a year from their main topic area and later been called out AE for "extremely subpar" behavior, surely that wake-up call has already come. Adminship is not a right, and people who scoff at core admin policies should not have those tools.
• I agree that all conduct policies, including WHEEL, are assumed to require intent unless stated otherwise, and Bbb23 has made a plausible case for this being accidental. Accidental wheel wars do happen from time to time, and are usually resolved without drama. For what it's worth, re-deleting BLP-violating material is a canonical exception to WHEEL, although that argument is weakened by the original deletion not having a solid BLP basis.

-- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (they|xe|she) 23:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Levivich

What happened to talking to each other? Michael, if you saw an admin delete a contested speedy, why not go to the admin's talk page and be like, "yo, I contested that speedy." I bet 331 would have self-undeleted. Similarly, Guerillero, if you saw Bbb wheel-warring, why not go to his talk page and be like, "yo, that was a wheel war violation." I bet Bbb would have self-undeleted. Sometimes it seems that some of you old timers think you're above talking to each other... instead, just go straight to pushing buttons (and I count filing a complaint as "pushing buttons"). I agree this whole thing is "so minor as to boggle the mind." It comes across as a "gotcha" moment rather than a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. This should be declined, it's not worth the time. (And Kusma had it right sending the redirect to RFD, where the alternate spelling redirect should be bundled in.) Levivich ( talk) 23:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Alanscottwalker statement

It's perfectly understandable why this is here. When something this odd/confusing is going on with tools and given the policy, a reasonable thing to do is throw down the flag so no one pushes another button and bring everyone in to go over it. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 00:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

This is where people take admin tools way too seriously. As a new user I found the way people talk about admins so over the top that any discussion of admin actions read like a conclave on the fine points of religious ceremonies or sacred relics; I didn't get it then, and I get it even less now that I've been an admin for about 12 years. It's a couple extra software functions, good god. I get where wheel warring of any kind would've been a much bigger technical issue circa 2005, when it was fleshed out, but the tools for fixing minor issues like this now are vastly more efficient and don't create a gigantic mess. It was a couple erroneous clicks from a couple highly experienced admins, no one accidentally launched nuclear bombs that needed to be shot out of the sky. What is with people freaking out over a couple of clicks? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 00:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by voorts

TROUT Guerillero for bringing this case without having a discussion first, TROUT Mzajac for using the undelete button, and decline this case. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Cullen328

At the top of this page, it says in bold Arbitration is a last resort. Perhaps we should add Don't make mountains out of molehills. If there is anything for ArbCom to look at here, (and I think there is), it is not this specific fresh and minor incident, which both parties are doing their best to resolve. Cullen328 ( talk) 03:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Aquillion

Every single party here has behaved suboptimally to some degree, but most of it doesn't require ArbCom's attention.

• The initial tagging and speedy delete were perhaps a slight stretch (though I think it was an unnecessary redirect that should never have been created for other reasons); but it's not such a big problem that it would require anything beyond our usual WP:DRV process.
• The undelete is the most serious problem presented here, in that it was an unambiguous and deliberate violation of WP:INVOLVED, and the fact that Mzajac still somehow doesn't seem to understand what they did wrong is the most alarming thing here. This is ironic because what the undelete actually accomplished could have been done without using the tools - but while the impact of the undelete itself was incredibly minor, the fact that Mzajac still doesn't seem to understand something that should be absolutely basic Admin 101 stuff is a bit alarming. I can understand getting a bit overwhelmed by a sudden ArbCom case and getting one's wires crossed, but they should have realized not immediately use the tools for something they were blatantly involved in, and certainly have had enough time to realize their error since then.
• Bbb23 screwed up in several ways, as they acknowledged above, but as red-line as WP:WHEEL is, it does say: Intentional wheel warring usually results in an immediate request for arbitration (emphasis mine.) Unless someone wants to argue that Bbb23 is lying (which makes no sense, it was an obvious mistake and they had no reason to delete the page maliciously) there's nothing to do here.
• This also means that this case shouldn't have been opened so quickly. Yes, if someone assumed that Bbb23 was wheel-warring intentionally, leaping straight to ArbCom is normal - but it would have taken just a few moments to verify that and save everyone a bunch of trouble.

More generally, the fact that WP:WHEEL suggests going straight to ArbCom for wheel-wars without wasting time with prior dispute resolution isn't, I think, meant to encourage rushing here with no discussion at all. At the very least I feel that the "intentional" there is meant to indicate that a brief "hey, you're wheel-warring, stop and self-revert!" is expected in cases where intentionality isn't obvious; and it seems likely that that word was inserted specifically with this sort of situation in mind (since it is not that unlikely for someone to fail to realize what actions have been performed previously, especially for something that seems clear-cut at first glance.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

FYI: the word intentional was added after this case was filed. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Well that I didn't notice! But I think it's a good addition for the reasons mentioned at the end. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Usedtobecool

Yes, decline the original case request but it's clear that Mzajac has not kept up with policies, important ones, if they ever knew them. I would suggest Mzajac voluntarily request retirement from admin duties at WP:BN. The project is too big and too complex for common sense to be enough anymore. And it is better for all parties that this end with a voluntary desysop than going through potentially cumbersome and unpleasant arbitration process only to end up with the same inevitable outcome. In light of another recent case, I suggest that arbcom should make it clear to Mzajac post-haste, that what is going on right now is, arbcom is considering desysopping them, whether by motion or by case, so they are not caught offguard. Regards! Usedtobecool  ☎️ 04:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Wugapodes

I think Blablubbs says it well: WHEEL is concerned with not having admins combatively use reinstatements in lieu of dispute resolution, but what happened here doesn't strike me as that. This doesn't look like a wheel war; it looks like a comedy of errors that happened to involve the delete button. Aquillon lays out the plot of the farce well, and I come to the same conclusion even ignoring the fact that WHEEL changed in the middle of this discussion. I think, as Barkeep points out, the WHEEL aspect is really a non-starter, and the core issue is Michael's lack of familiarity with CSD and INVOLVED (good thing we have a bright line rule that brought this to your attention before it became a serious issue, but I digress). What to do about that? Depends on the committee's appetite, I guess. If anyone has any good "remedial admin training remedy" ideas sitting in their drafts, now's your time to shine, otherwise I'd say I doubt the outcome is going to be worth the time and effort. — Wug· a·po·des 06:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Ymblanter

Well, I really did not want to make any statements here, since I try to avoid all discussions where Mzajac is present, where possible. I will respond to the Barkeep49's call and will try to be as concise as I can. Mzajac almost does not use the admin tools. I do not know how to count properly, but if one excludes redirect deletions which accompany the page moves, they probably have of the order of 10 admin actions since 2010 or so. In this sense, it does not matter whether they have the tools or not. The problem is their participation in the Ukrainian-related discussions. Their position is often well outside the editor's consensus, and they BLUDGEON discussions to explain it, to the point that people stop responding. They have been warned a couple of times on WP:BLUDGEON, but this happened in the discussions, not on their talk page. This would be a recent example of a discussion which they bludgeoned and in the meanwhile made a statement that "All Russian sources on Russian history are potentially problematic" which is, well, a strong POV beyond borderlines. At the same time they have no problem going to contentious article and writing "born in Ukraine, Russian Empire" without any discussion even though it is at the very least contentious, at most goes against established consensus. (To give them due though when I reverted they did not try to reinstate). I am however sceptical concerning further actions. I am not willing to spend a lot of time collecting diffs demonstrating that this behavior has been ongoing for years. I do not think ArbCom can do anything here, at least not before someone tried all stages of community resolution and failed. I do not think the admin flag is in any way entangled with this behavior. I personally avoid any interaction where possible, and avoid Ukrainian-related topics which are in any way contentious, and will continue to do so for the time being, since the topic area became toxic a long time ago, and my knowledge of Russian, which could have been an advantage, is often considered at least a sign of involvement.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Cryptic

@ Ymblanter:: The proper count is 25, of which 22 are 2020 or later. — Cryptic 09:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Ritchie333

Oh my word, what a tempest in a teapot. Decline the case and tell everyone, in the words of John Bercow to calm down and take up yoga. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Ivanvector: There's a recent conversation here disputing a WP:A7 deletion of Ajja Jhala, which Bbb23 deleted, describing it as "It was an unreferenced piece of nothing." which might not be what A7 was designed for. Anyway, this is a moot point as the article was re-created, and there seems to be all sorts of confusion over what exactly is the A7 CSD criteria for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by QEDK

I have to state clearly that I think what has happened here is a non-issue, particularly Bbb23's wheel-warring. I do see WP:WHEEL as a brightline but if the action itself was an honest mistake, it makes no sense to hold it against them, especially if they also understand it was a wheel-warring violation. The case should be declined. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 10:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Black Kite

I don't see anything here rising to the level of a case, but I am mildly perturbed that Mzajac, after a number of postings in his section, still doesn't appear to understand that using your tools to undelete your own article is, to say the least, suboptimal. Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Ostalgia

Having been involved in several disputes with Mzajac, I was somewhat surprised to see him here over this trifle. Nevertheless, seeing as Barkeep49 asked for more instances of subpar behaviour, that Ymblanter mentioned a discussion in which I participated (his quote from Mzajac was a reply to me), and that Tamzin brought up previous issues involving him in an area in which I have clashed with him in the past, I feel compelled to mention a few episodes in which I was involved and that I found troubling. The list is non-exhaustive.

• Incivility and aspersions:

After I argued for using historical placenames in historical articles (by MOS:PLACE), and mentioned that when we list the place of birth of a person we list not only a set of geographical coordinates but a distinct legal/political entity (i.e. a city, province/state, country), Mzajac not only accused me of using this argument in order to justify ignoring reliable sources and wiping out Ukrainian identity, which is a pretty strong accusation in itself, but also of posting offensive colonial nonsense, echoing Putin’s essay and speeches inciting genocide in Ukraine. I do not believe that I have, at any point, echoed anything even vaguely inciting genocide, and this accusation I found to be far beyond the pale. [5]

In the RSN discussion mentioned by Ymblanter, Boynamedsue referred to Ukraine as “the Ukraine” accidentally (he previously referred to it as Ukraine in the discussion). Mzajac challenged this, and Boynamedsue rectified immediately, commenting that “the Ukraine” had been standard for most of his life and old habits die hard. Mzajac responded with a tirade that included do you also write “Eskimo” and “Negro” when you’re not being condescending to national and racial groups, with the excuse that you’re old enough that casual prejudice feels normal? Wake up. It’s the 2020s now. [6]

• Quote manipulation to get another editor sanctioned:

Mzajac opened an ANI case against user Paul Siebert [7], accusing him of sharing their personal theories on the existence of national groups, in particular “Clearly, no Ukrainian [. . .] nation existed in XIX century”, stressing that it’s particularly unacceptable to voice personal conspiracy theories about the non-existence of a nation precisely when such conspiracy theories are being used to incite genocide in Ukraine. This was accompanied by a couple of news articles on Putin and the following text: Analysis: Saying ‘another nation doesn’t exist is something we need to pay attention to because it usually precedes atrocious actions,’ one historian said. One would assume from this that Siebert was a genocidal maniac, but his actual comment was a general argument against Primordialism, as well as a recognition of the multiethnic character of the Russian Empire. [8] Furthermore, Mzajac intentionally omitted a crucial bit from the quotation he provided, Siebert's comment being that Clearly, no Ukrainian (as well as Russian) nation existed in XIX century (bolding mine), which far from revealing anti-Ukrainian bias on the part of the reported editor indicates a historical perspective on the development of modern nations in general, which is very much legitimate. This dishonest framing was also noted by Ealdgyth. [9] The ANI thread was soon after closed by Salvio Giuliano as a “storm in a teacup”.

None of these incidents involve misuse of administrative tools, but this conduct by an administrator, along with a tendency to bludgeon discussions, is problematic. EE (not to mention RUSUKR, which I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole) is an area that is already volatile, and it certainly doesn't need someone with an admin badge fanning the flames. Ostalgia ( talk) 13:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Nick

It would be useful, I feel, for the committee to examine whether Mzajac should retain the toolset in light of their failure to understand the principles of involvement and recusal. It might be worth a very light discussion by the committee on the idea of wheel warring when it's an issue like this, where the undeletion is undertaken by the original author (against the principles of WP:INVOLVED) and there is only a technical reversal because of an inappropriate administrative action, and when the same outcome from the administrative action being undertaken is possible without an administrative action (i.e this wouldn't be a technical wheel war if Mzajac had simply recreated their content). I wouldn't like to see a naughty administrator be able to use the issue around wheel warring to undelete an article and make it trickier for it to be deleted than it should be, so a few words around that, even if it's a simple motion just to straighten things up (whether policy, procedure for reporting to ArbCom, or some other) would be welcome. Nick ( talk) 14:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Further comments

I understand the viewpoint that Jclemens and Levivich are taking and agree with the principle - that discussion is good, however we know that too many editors see an administrator do something contrary to policy and decide it's not worth taking them to task, sometimes out of fear of retalliation, sometimes because they're worried it's the wrong place to report issues and they'll be penalised, or more often out of an (incorrect) understanding that administrators are pretty much untouchable and even if they're found to be doing something contrary to policy, it'll be swept under the carpet. I occasionally find (very occasionally, as I don't edit all that much these days) that if I take a fellow administrator to task, other editors then join in such discussions and flesh out those discussions when they see they're not going alone and have some support. I therefore have to respectfully disagree that the case should be rejected because of a lack of meaningful discussion first, as it's not always possible to have those meaningful discussions.

I do like the suggestion that we're now finding out about some editing issues with Mzajac because of the controlled circumstances of a Request for Arbitration, where good quality clerking and the enforcement of sensible rules around where people can post and what they can post gives focus and clarity to what is being said. I would very much endorse the view of Robert McClenon that bringing some sort of structure to ANI could be useful for the community. Nick ( talk) 09:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Toadette

FYI, I have restored the redirect to another target, as I am sure that the RfD would end up with a retarget. Toadette ^{( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 17:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by kashmiri

Some people clearly have too much free time on their hands to spend on trivia. Folks, we're here to work on an encyclopaedia, not to sit a conclave as Blade has aptly called this non-case.

As far as I can see, everything is normal: MZajac edits aggressively, 331dot reliably follows prompts, Bbb23 clicks faster than lightning... People are themselves, thanks goodness :)

Take a deep breath, smile and carry on! — kashmīrī  ^TALK 18:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oh, if the discussion is now about MZajac's editing, then my observations are similar to those of other colleagues. MZajac has been editing quite aggressively; say, an anti-Russian POV on steroids. I had a doubtful pleasure of crossing paths with them multiple times, which has essentially driven me away from working on Ukraine articles. But – all this has nothing to do with MZajac's admin role! Like Ymblanter noted, MZajac does almost no admin work. Actually, it was only last month that I spotted that MZajac has a mop, which surprised me greatly because such a battleship attitude simply doesn't befit an admin to me. So, I'm not really sure there is much point in discussing their editing here – ANI sounds like a more appropriate venue. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 19:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Jclemens

While I don't often agree with Levivich, I entirely endorse the sentiments this user expressed above.
I am concerned that the net effect of discussion so far is using an error on Bbb23's part to elevate the level of scrutiny on Mzajac that would otherwise need to proceed through several levels of prior dispute resolution. Regardless of whether that was intentional, is the committee's intent to use an inadvertent WW complaint against a different admin to enable community-wide scrutiny of a non-WW'ing admin? Jclemens ( talk) 20:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by North8000

Most of this looks like mistakes and confusion, with some failure to communicate. Except the undelete was a clearcut violation of wp:involved, an important, central and admin-101 admin rule. Failure to acknowledge/understand this makes it more concerning. North8000 ( talk) 21:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Robert McClenon (Wheel War)

Written on 9 January 2024

On the one hand, most editors agree that this conflict never needed to go to ArbCom, and could have been handled by ordinary discussion. On the other hand, there is a possible side benefit to the side trip to ArbCom, and that is formal procedures for discussion. Sometimes originally trivial cases at WP:ANI grow tentacles and become great monsters. By opening a case for arbitration with an evidence phase, ArbCom will ensure that the data is collected in an orderly fashion. If, as is likely, ArbCom finds no serious infractions, then ArbCom can proceed to an accelerated preliminary decision with warnings. Maybe the structure of an ArbCom evidentiary phase may be the way to keep a discussion of admin conduct civil.

Freedom of the press includes the mirror image right to insult the press (and the original redirect was a stupid insult to the press).

Now that this case is pending at ArbCom, ArbCom should probably accept it in order to provide structured discussion rather than an unstructured shouting match.

Written on 10 January 2024

It appears that this dispute is evolving into an inquiry into the editing and administrative conduct of Mzajac. The filing of this case as a Request for Arbitration may have been useful because the discussion has been orderly, as it probably would not have at WP:ANI. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned, either having to do with imposing some sort of discipline or structure on WP:ANI, or about that seemingly premature disputes may occasionally be usefully brought to ArbCom.

The structured discussion of a Request for Arbitration has been useful in a way that unstructured discussion at WP:ANI would have been useless. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Written on 15 January 2024

I would like to comment on what User:Barkeep49 has written:

Accept a case to examine Mzajac's conduct and adherenece to the administrator policy. I do this with some trepidation because most committees in recent years have treated accepting a case has been tantamount to voting to desysop.

I agree that too often in the recent past both arbitrators and commenting editors have appeared to prejudge cases, by arguing in the pre-acceptance phase over whether sanctions were in order. That should not be the issue at that stage except in a few blatant cases, and this is not such a case. I am pleased to see an arbitrator state that a vote to accept is not a vote to desysop, only to hold a full evidentiary case. Thank you for making a statement that apparently still sometimes needs to be made. A case needs to be heard. (Sometimes great monsters at WP:ANI need evidentiary hearings, but that it is a hobby-horse for another day.)

Statement by Jéské Couriano

It's worth noting that Mzajac's tool use with respect to the EE area has been called into question at WP:AE repeatedly.

• On Dec. 16, 2020, Mzajac was topic-banned from the Kyiv topic area for a year, and it was commented even then that Mzajac's tool use here was problematic enough to warrant ArbCom intervention.
• On Feb. 19, 2022, a thread with Mzajac as subject was closed without action as out of Enforcement's remit. While the edits couldn't justify sanctions, the administrators responding to it were all of the opinion Mzajac's behaviour was unacceptable for his status, and so punted on it since there was nothing they could realistically do.
• On Feb. 05, 2023, another thread with Mzajac as a subject was closed without action as out of Enforcement's remit again. The report was that Mzajac and the other two editors were tag-teaming to push a POV, and while this claim was declared frivolous, several users came into the thread to complain about Mzajac's tool use. Again, Enforcement punted, telling the commenters and filer point-blank to file an Arbitration case if they wanted the issue of Mzajac's tool use dealt with.

The running thread in all three requests is pretty obvious, since the people hatting them have made it crystal clear: "This is a matter that needs addressed by ArbCom, as we do not have the ability to deal with unfit administrators at AE." I would consider this to be that case. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 09:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Red-tailed hawk

As correctly noted above, Mzajac very rarely uses the administrative toolset. I also note that Mzajac was, in December 2020, topic banned from Kyiv, broadly construed, for one year. The user's administrative actions at Battle of Kyiv, therefore, cause me concern.

In September 2020, Mzajac engaged in move-warring in an attempt to move the then- Battle of Kiev page to Battle of Kyiv. This involved twice moving the former to the latter ( 1, 2), each time overwriting an existing redirect, and even after a user had reverted the admin's bold move. After the admin boldly moved the page a second time, a user reverted the admin's move-over-redirect again, telling the admin to use RM. A few months later, the user was topic banned from Kyiv, broadly construed, after an AE discussion in which evidence was presented related to the administrator's general warring over the name of the Ukrainian capital.

One might think that all of this would be enough to change behavior, and to get the administrator to uphold the heightened standards of behavior that are expected of administrators. Alas, one would be wrong.

In February 2022, a mere three months after Mzajac's topic ban from Kyiv was lifted, the user used his deletion tool in order to free up the page for a page move, despite knowing that the page move would be contested. And, even though the page move was contested, and the result was no consensus, the administrator did not so much as lift a finger to self-revert their third bold move of the page. Rather than attempting to gain consensus at any point during this multi-year process, the administrator has used advanced tools to get the page moved as a fait accompli. This is plainly unacceptable.

It is not clear to me if the deletion preceding the third bold move of the page was made by using the deletion tool as available to administrators (via the ordinary deletion interface), or if this was something that a mere page mover could have done (via delete-redirect). In any case, however, this sort of move warring is inconsistent with the heightened behavioral standards that administrators are held to. One arbitrator has indicated support for declining the case on the basis that the behavior does not warrant a look from ArbCom unless this is shown to be part of a larger pattern, but there is a larger pattern afoot regarding the administrator's use of advanced permissions in areas relating to Ukrainian national identity and Ukrainian politics. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 03:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Banedon

@ Z1720: Noting here that a case does not mean that "desysop" and "admonishment" are the only options available; if a case is opened I will be looking at all the evidence first before contemplating the appropriate resolution.

Am I reading you right that you've already made up your mind that sanctions are appropriate, and the remaining question is how strong they should be? (Especially given point 2 in your accept vote.) Banedon ( talk) 04:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by Ad Orientem

This is the admin version of failing to come to a complete halt and looking both ways at a stop sign before driving through the intersection. It is a series of errors based on poor communication and failure to look closely at the situation and applicable logs prior to using the tools. We've all had WTF did I just do moments. It seems everybody involved gets it and are (justifiably) embarrassed. There is no mens rea here. IMHO this belongs in traffic court, not ArbCom. They should both be bound over and ordered to dine on sea food. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply