User talk:Mzajac/2024

Informing of arbitration request case involving you

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Neutrality of editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You’re defending your constant reverts by championing BBC Features correspondent Amy McPherson as a reliable source on etymology.[1] This is out of line now. I ask you to cut it out. The last time I even voted in an RfC that you were invested in you cast an aspersion.[2] I see you've said the topic area does not have to be so toxic yet you are contributing to the toxicity. Mellk (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Why did you dig up a year-old edit if not to badger me? Maybe it could have been better but there’s nothing wrong with it. “And this is coming from a sysop” is just further personal criticism for its own sake. I don’t have to take your accusations when you are being toxic on top of your obstructive style of constantly reverting me. Just try to focus on improving articles instead of preventing edits.  —Michael Z. 23:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't dig up anything, you made changes to the etymology section and I remember the last time you made edits to the section, since I have done work on the section. I partially reverted your changes and asked you which source uses the spelling and then you accused me of nuking all improvements and always being obstructive. Now you try mocking me with the last comment about the BBC article. Of course, I get irritated by your false accusations and yes, you should not have sysop privileges and this has been said many times before. Mellk (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well here’s what I see. You often revert my good-faith edits, which I put work and research into, without any discussion. You restored some of what I did this time, but when I told you what else I had corrected there you didn’t seem to care. You dig up old diffs and let me know you don’t like me. You show no appreciation but apparent disdain for my work, thinking it’s okay to revert instead of cooperating or improving on it. You are unhappy that I have admin privileges; I don’t know why you should care. It feels like you prioritize obstructing me over improving the encyclopedia, and of course it’s easy to revert in 10 seconds after I’ve spent thirty minutes or two hours preparing some edit. Maybe I’m wrong. You probably don’t see it this way.

Maybe you could try to accept the idea that I will keep editing Wikipedia and that I will remain an admin, and that these things are not harmful.  —Michael Z. 00:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I have just shown you how your edit does not follow the source. It does not matter how long you have spent on the edit when it does not follow policies such as WP:V. Then you immediately resort to personal attacks. Even if I was wrong to revert the edit, you don't have the right to make personal attacks. But sure, such behavior is really enticing to people to cooperate and discuss with you. I initially did not have a problem with discussing the edit but you doubled down on the hostility. If you get pissed off so easily and cannot edit in an area without lashing out, then you should not be editing there. Since you are an admin, you should lead by example. Instead, you contribute to the toxicity in the topic area. Mellk (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"The New Orc Times" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The New Orc Times has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 8 § The New Orc Times until a consensus is reached. —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Wheel war

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mzajac and Bbb23 Wheel War and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

What is this about?  —Michael Z. 16:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I presume this is about the redirects New Orc Times and The New Orc Times. Please let me know if it’s something else.  —Michael Z. 16:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@SaintPaulOfTarsus, now you’ve deleted New Orc Times without joining the discussion, after I contested the speedy nom on the talk page. What gives?  —Michael Z. 17:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mzajac I didn't delete the page, I only nominated it for speedy deletion and wasn't online to see what steps anybody else took next. Apologies for any inaction on my part. I'm not for anything being taken down without a proper discussion. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Arb case participation

Hello Mzajac, I hope all is well. I see you haven't edited since the 9th. I'm writing this on the 26th; the evidence phase for the case will be closing soon, on the 30th. Speaking personally, I encourage you to participate. Of course, it's your choice to participate or not-- real life does come first. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Motion proposed to suspend the Mzajac case

Arbitrators have proposed a motion to suspend the Mzajac case for three months at the proposed decision page. During this period, you will be temporarily desysopped, you can see the motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac/Proposed decision#Motion to suspend for further information. Comments are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and the names of locations in Russia and Ukraine, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned because of evidence of long-term disruption in the topic area presented at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac/Evidence.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Mzajac

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

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-enwikimedia.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.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Mzajac

Some friendly advice

Hi Michael. I realize that you're probably busy with your real life and the ongoing arbitration case request, but I figured I'd reach out to you since a big recurring theme here is people not really talking to each other about their concerns. I was once part of a case request at ARC (even if I was the filing party) and it was really time consuming and trying to figure out the process itself was a bit of a head scratcher. Given what I've read of your comments there, I think you can relate to that experience a bit.

I've only recently become an admin and the process is a bit different now compared to when you became one. If you're curious, you can read mine here. Anyways, you've been editing here forever and people only really do that for causes they're passionate about. So I wanted to take a second to thank you for all your contributions here, some mistakes don't override those. If you were interested in learning how to catch up and not accidently wade into a minefield, there are certain guides meant to help admins use their tools appropriately at Wikipedia:Administrators' guide. I'm also subscribed to the Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter as a plan to keep myself aware of ongoing changes. And there are a bunch of admins out there that you can ask if you're ever not sure what to do about any ongoing situation. I've had several questions since becoming an admin myself and it's never too late to learn something. This goes for just regular Wikipedia editing, too. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Another thing I'd recommend is listening to other's feedback and taking it to heart. I noticed the above conversation with Mellk. I get the impression they didn't leave that conversation feeling like their concerns were addressed. I agree with them that admins should lead by example. Adminship is really just some extra tools (which is why people are so concerned about your use of them) and that doesn't make you better than anyone else. It's still very much possible to be a good faith editor that contributes meaningfully without them, and everyone should be on an equal playing field when it comes to respect and following our policies and guidelines. If you wish to avoid the extra drama that can come with being an admin, you can voluntarily surrender these extra interface features at WP:BN. I noticed that some people already mentioned that at ARC but I wanted to give you some other possible alternatives like I did above. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mzajac. You know that I wish you good. Based on my experience here, I would advise you to voluntarily desysop at this point if this helps to avoid the arbitration. This is merely a practical matter. You will be desysopped any way, but avoiding the arbitration will help to save a lot of time for you and other people. I will not comment more about this here or anywhere, even if the arbitration case will be taken. Good luck. My very best wishes (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mzajac. I would strongly recommend it, although this is certainly up to you. My apology for being impolite, but based on your statement [3] and other diffs on the same page, you are possibly going down with a topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mzajac. I think your best strategy right now would be to return to editing, resign your administrative tools and ask the arbitration case be closed. Then, if you disagree with your topic ban, you might ask a clarification from the blocking admin to understand what exactly (the diffs) was the reason for the topic ban, and what you need to do to improve. Then, after editing during several months, you might consult with the same admin again about a possibility to soften the topic ban. Then, if this leads to nothing and you strongly disagree with their assessment, you might try to appeal the ban on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're wondering why people keep saying this, it's because that this is the trend for when admins who have lost the community's trust end up scrutinized over at ArbCom. I will note for your sake that at least one arb has explicitly stated that this does not necessarily have to be the outcome and that other remedies may be enacted, as a generalized opinion. People have fairly high standards for adminship and a lot of project norms have changed drastically since 2004. And as I said earlier, sometimes people accidently wade into a minefield when they don't understand and can seem a bit out of touch with what a lot of people perceive as really basic tenants around here. Since you recently expressed not knowing what extra interface features are exclusive to admins, this is what you'd be losing if you voluntarily desysopped:

• The ability to block and unblock editors
• The ability to view deleted content and undelete it
• The ability to delete pages and some other technical situations like history merging

Many userrights that were previously admin only have been "unbundled" from the tool kit. I had a bunch of these unbundled permissions before I became an admin: rollback, pending changes reviewer, new page reviewer, and page mover. I also have autopatrolled like you do, but that's a bit of an outlier because it used to come automatically with the admin toolkit but now it doesn't. Anyways, the community tends to have such high standards for adminship because the few abilities that are able to be performed exclusively by them can result in situations that are a fairly big deal if used incorrectly. Hence people's concerns. People tend to feel the same way about autopatrolled. This is the culminative impact of the previous experiences people have had running into similar situations in the past where suddenly stuff that isn't normally scrutinized (e.g. new articles that aren't seen by new page reviewers) suddenly becomes a big deal because there wasn't that oversight from other editors. My overall point here though is that basically everything except for RfA tends to be a fairly straightforward process for granting if you meet the criteria for said permission, you just hop on over to WP:PERM and ask. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)