Contents

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:42, 9 January 2024

Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} at 19:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

• Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Mzajac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Mzajac
• diff of notification Bbb23

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

None needed per WW

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]

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 spiritofWP: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

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:IARisalso 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]

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]

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 My very best wishes

I think this is much ado about nothing. The redirect is currently under discussion. Everyone is cool and a good admin. Mistakes do occasionally happen. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 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. 06:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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]

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 {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Mzajac and Bbb23 Wheel War: Clerk notes

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

Mzajac and Bbb23 Wheel War: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1>

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]

• 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]