Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac

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

Case clerks: MJL (Talk) & Dreamy Jazz (Talk) & Firefly (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Aoidh (Talk) & Moneytrees (Talk) & Z1720 (Talk)

Case opened on 17:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Case suspended by motion on 20:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Case closed on 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.

Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee.
Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

Case information

Involved parties

Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Mzajac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Prior dispute resolution

None needed per WW

Preliminary statements

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (9/1/1)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I think having WP:WHEEL seen as a brightline where violating is likely to result in desysop has benefitted our project. A G7 would, for me, be a reasonable exception. So I look forward to hearing where that request was placed, because I'm not seeing it in Mzajac's contribution history. I will note that Mzajac was recently here in a case that was removed because the filing party was ineligible to file it, but as I noted at that request I'm mindful of last year's AE outcome so there could be issues beyond this incident there. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: G10 - Attack Pages - makes no distinction between redirects and other kinds of pages. I have deleted redirects as attack pages. Whether this pair (which I was aware of because of this very useful script) is an attack page is a different story but I didn't want you to get the imrpession you couldn't delete redirects as attack pages; the exception is only for plausible search terms. So if there was a redirect from Worst Human Ever to some BLP that would, for me, still qualify as G10. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: thanks for that explanation and for your reflection. It strikes me as quite reasonable. I, for one, think it would still be appropriate to undelete it and let it go to RfD like the other one if an editor wishes. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac: contesting a speedy deletion with a talk page message doesn't mean that the page can't be deleted; this isn't like WP:PROD. So can you please clarify what specifically you are referring to as performed apparently against process? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac: thanks for that explanation for how you approached this. As CSD says, admin are expected to read the talk pages when considering whether or not to delete it. So it does matter and give context. But contesting deletion for an attack page doesn't mean the attack page just gets to live on (when something is an attack page). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the commentary that this incident on its does not need a case, or really any further action. Bbb23 has done, in my opinion, an excellent job of demonstrating what administrator accountability looks like through his comments at this case, reflecting on what happened, owning what mistakes happened, and making credible assurances the mistakes won't be repeated. I am, however, far more concerned about the comments Mzajac has made which do not show, for me, adequate understanding of what it means to be involved. I also take note of RoySmith's and Tamzin's comments (the latter of which I obviously previewed in my own initial comment) suggesting that there might be enough for a case focused on examining Mzajac's conduct and actions as admin. In general I think our bar to accepting such cases should be low given that we are the only body that can fully and completely act on this issue. I am curious if there is other feedback from the community about that, rather than merely responding to the incident noted in the filing request. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 am not ready to vote to desysop. I may never be ready to vote to desysop. However, I don't think accepting a case should be the same as support desysop and don't want to have to vote strategically in that way and I am hoping that there are enough people on this year's committee who feel similarly. Philosophically I think a case can be a helpful mechanism whereby ArbCom examines repeated allegations of conduct in a systematic fair manner and deliver an outcome. That can be to say "there's a lot of smoke around this admin but there's no fire", it can be to say "this person is a positive overall admin but needs some guardrails (as the 2020 committee did with GiantSnowman, and this year's committee reaffirmed in our motion to modify that which is part of the reason why I'm will to go this route). Or it can be to say "you should no longer be an admin". The evidence to suggest Mzajac's conduct needs closer examination continues to accumulate and in fact all of the editors commenting on Mzajac's conduct outside of this incident have pointed to some troubling things, with little overlap (even if those editors' conclusion is there's no case to be had). We have now received multiple editors pointing to specific evidence of use of their admin right as a way to get what they want without using the toolset, their not understanding policies and guidelines which I expect admin to understand, and general inability to edit in their main topic area in a colloborative and collegial manner which suggests an inability to abide by WP:ADMINCOND (example of editor statements to support these characterizations include Roy, Tamzin, Ymblanter, Ostalgia, and Nick). With a committee that will, I hope, not just march to an inevitable desysop I vote to accept because I worry that declining now means that if there is a problem necessitating desysop by the time someone comes back to us the problem will have festered and harmed editors and our content in a very sensitive topic in the mean time. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Mzajac's undeletion: If you disagree with a deletion and consider it wise for whichever reason to undo the action without discussion, then please at least just re-create the page like everyone else without the undeletion button would do. Same result, less drama. Or, better: Discuss the matter with the deleting administrator. Regarding Bbb23's mistake: It happens; thank you for the clarification. Decline unless this is shown to be part of a larger pattern or intentional. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, I'm not saying it was wrong to file the case, I'm just saying that occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship and this seems to be a genuine mistake on Bbb23's part, not done with the slightest intention of overruling or wheel-warring with another administrator. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac, you did not "re-create" New Orc Times, you used your administrative tools to undelete it. Do you see the problem? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac, this is not about wheel-warring on your part; the issue with your undeletion is a different one. It has been named by multiple users already and the relevant policy section is linked in Guerillero's statement; please take a moment to see and address it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac, correct – you have not been wheel warring. You have performed an involved administrative action. Which, as I had tried to explain in my first message, wasn't even needed for doing what you wanted to do. This makes the situation so absurd. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The reinstatement of a reversed action was a mistake so there's no bright-line rule violation. If there are admin conduct issues with Mzajac I'd be willing to hear those but I'd rather see those mature through discussion before coming to ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my vote for the moment while I give more thought to the issues raised. On the one hand, I agree that the committee should have a low bar for accepting admin conduct cases because ultimately we're the only body that can desysop if that's called for. On the other, the community has not had a chance to discuss this admin's performance and they have not had chance to take on board the community's feedback. The "perfect" admin conduct case would come to us after discussion at a noticeboard where it has become clear that the community has lost faith in an admin or that the admin is not taking the community's hints that there are problems with their adminning. This case request was originally about another admin who did not need our attention at this time. I'm undecided on whether referring this to AN only for it to come back here if the concerns can't be resolved there would be bureaucracy for its own sake. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept an admin conduct case centred on Mzajac given that there appear to be ongoing issues with Mzajac's adminning, that these issues have come up before but discussions have petered out before resolution, and that their comments here indicate a lack of awareness or understanding of processes and norms surrounding adminning in 2024. But I hope not to set a precedent that you can get somebody sanctioned by throwing enough mud at them during an arbitration request that resulted from something they were tangentially involved in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's where I am on the various issues discussed here:
- I believe WHEEL is a bright-line/~~strict liability~~ policy, and that has served us well. However, just because something is technically a policy violation does not mean that we need to do anything about it. It is perfectly clear that Bbb23 did not intentionally reverse another admin's action, but merely had a brain fart and didn't check things closely enough. He has said as much and I don't think there's anything more to do there.
- Mzajac's failure to understand that their actions were at best unwise concerns me greatly, and leads me to wonder whether their understanding of the policies and norms that govern the use of admin tools are out of step with the community's. This statement referred to by RoySmith is also perturbing, as is the AE thread raised by Tamzin, where Mzajac was said to have woefully failed to live up to the conduct standards expected of admins.
- On the issues presented in the original request, I would struggle to accept. However, we have a small but growing list of additional suboptimal behaviour from Mzajac. Like Barkeep49, I would appreciate any additional feedback around this specific point. firefly ( t · c ) 15:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept given that we appear to have a pattern of failures to understand and adhere to policy surrounding use of admin tools on the part of Mzajac. Like others, I want to emphasise that taking a case is no guarantee of specific sanctions (or any at all really) being levied, it merely means there is sufficient evidence to warrant further scrutiny. firefly ( t · c ) 22:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wheel warring was the reason for short cut route to ArbCom. Bbb23 acknowledged his mistake. Unless we're rushing to abandon WP:AGF there's nothing more to do or see on that point.
As for Mzajac's actions - I worry about an admin who thinks a non-admin deleted an article. I worry about an admin who thinks that contesting a CSD is a cast-iron guarantee the deletion won't happen. I worry about an admin using the tools in support of their own preferred content. I worry about an admin who cannot tell "which of the interface elements [they] have had access to for much of two decades are non-admin, admin, or add-on gadgets", with the implication that they can no longer tell which policies govern the use of each option. But none of these merit taking the short route to ArbCom. If this comes back after the intermediate steps, and after Mzajac has had the opportunity to consider their awareness of relevant policies and their future use of the tools, then there's material which is worthy of ArbCom consideration and action.
~~At this point I vote to decline the case.~~ Cabayi (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this summary omits the 2023 AE report which closed with ADMINCOND concerns noted. At ACE you talked about needing more options and I think declining cases like this are why we end up with no options. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that declining express-lane cases would encourage the community to explore other remedies before we get involved. However, as you have drawn my attention to previous WP:INVOLVED activity by Mzajac, and this shows evidence of a pattern of ongoing behaviour, Accept. Cabayi (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to other Arbs I'm thinking on my vote and am leaning on accepting a case with Mzajac as the focus, although I'd like to see further comments on the matter. I think Bbb23 can be removed from the party list if we proceed with that. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept given concerns about Mzajac raised and to stifle the bureaucracy of kicking this back to a noticeboard. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I expect to vote to accept an ADMINCOND case primarily related to Mzajac. I do want to make a general point about wheel warring, which is that the firmness of the rule against the third action (i.e., reinstating a reversed admin action) wheel warring (even relatively minor cases) has been important in avoiding significant problems over the years, and it's appropriate for ArbCom to continue to uphold the firmness of that rule. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, scoped to Mzajac's behavior. It was reasonable to bring the wheel-warring straight to ArbCom, but I think in this case it was a simple mistake and doesn't need more than an informal "that was wrong, be more careful in the future". Under normal circumstances I'd call that sufficient and ask people to go through the normal escalation process if there are separate problems with Mzajac. However, I do feel that the evidence raised here (particularly the AE threads), coupled with Mzajac's failure to see the problem here, is sufficient for a deeper look into their admin conduct. As other arbs noted, this doesn't mean a desysop is guaranteed and I'm not there yet myself. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac, looking through your admin logs, I notice that the use of tools is infrequent. Most of the entries in your deletion log are related to over-redirect page moves which I believe can be generally done as an ordinary user, or in some cases, as a page mover. All of your entries in your protection log from the past 15 years involve moving protection settings, which can be done as an ordinary user. You've made one block since 2010, and you've made four edits to protected pages. The edits to protected pages and any move-related deletions requiring administrator access are in the general topic of Ukraine and can be reasonably construed as being part of a contentious topic. I wouldn't go as far as characterizing administrative actions, particularly routine ones, in a topic area that an administrator routinely edits and participates in related discussions as necessarily crossing the line of WP:INVOLVED, but that's something that can be close to said line, particularly in a contentious topic. I want to also highlight that the meaning of administrator involvement has changed over the past 15+ years; the undeletion that brings us here I don't think would have been as big of a deal back then. At a minimum, I would strongly suggest that you avoid administrator actions related to Ukraine, broadly construed.
But this suggestion leads me to a direct question: have you considered resigning as an administrator, particularly given the light use of the tools in general? If you voluntarily abstain from anything related to Ukraine, then it doesn't seem you'd be using the tools, either at all or almost so. On the other hand, I feel that continued, albeit sporadic, use of admin tools in that topic area is unlikely to be beneficial for either the project or yourself, and in the event that we decline a case, I fear that we will be back here sooner rather than later. You may use an additional 500 words to reply. Maxim (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - Specifically regarding the WP:ADMINCOND and WP:INVOLVED issues raised in regards to Mzajac. WP:WHEEL is a bright-line rule for a good reason, though I think the explanation that it was a mistake is a reasonable one given the atypical circumstances of the action compared to other wheel concerns that I have seen. Regarding Mzajac, I shared a similar concern as Jclemens regarding the process used here. If this case were not presented as "Mzajac and Bbb23 Wheel War" but as "Mzajac and ADMINACCT" then evidence of previous DR attempts would be needed, and has that been adequately attempted? A 2022 AE discussion was closed citing ADMINACCT concerns that would need to be handled by ArbCom, and a 2023 AE discussion was closed with the note that Concerns regarding Mzajac's conduct should be addressed with a arbitration case request. I think there is enough prior attempt at resolving the issues presented to warrant accepting a case about this matter. - Aoidh (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept a Mzajac conduct case, seeing as this is a simmering issue. And a trout to Bbb23. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept a case looking at Mzajac's conduct only, with particular (but not exclusive) focus on INVOLVED concerns within the Russia/Ukraine topic area. Reasoning outlined below:
- Concerning Bbb23's WHEELing: Bbb23 admitted their mistake, explained what they should have done, explained what they will do differently next time, and no additional evidence of misbehaviour has been presented. Therefore, I endorse CaptainEek's trout above and don't think this needs to be looked at further. If other editors have other concerns with their conduct, please post their reasoning in their statement section.
- Concerning Mzajac's conduct: Mzajac's undeletion brought INVOLVED concerns to ArbCom's attention, and other editors posted additional INVOLVED concerns, including AE reports from 2022 and 2023. This shows a concerning pattern of behaviour for an admin that should be looked at. It would be bureaucratic to insist that a new case request be filed for the committee to examine Mzajac's conduct. I also do not agree that Mzajac's conduct should go to AN/ANI/AE first for community discussion; their conduct has been discussed at AE twice with some conclusion that concerns should be presented here, and I think this is enough community discussion and information to open a case now.
- 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. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Banedon: The only thing I have decided is that a case should be opened looking at Mzajac's actions. Z1720 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to suspend

Given Mzajac (talk · contribs)'s absence from editing, the Mzajac case will be suspended for a period of three months and Mzajac will be temporarily desysopped.

Should Mzajac return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Mzajac will remain temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Mzajac resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Mzajac shall remain desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Mzajac may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

Passed 12 to 0, 20:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)