Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mzajac (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 8 January 2024 (→‎Statement by Mzajac: edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Mzajac and Bbb23 Wheel War   8 January 2024 0/0/1
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing Motion (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 29 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Mzajac and Bbb23 Wheel War

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

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
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]

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]
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. 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 punish 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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1194412161"