This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

I'm not really sure there's anything else you can do. Valereee (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is frustrating, but there aren't a lot of other options if the admin refuses to participate. The lesser of two evils. Dennis Brown 2¢ 21:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP:SUPERMARIO strikes again 🤷‍♂️ RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In all fairness, they removed his admin bit and he can only get it back by coming back and proving he is up to the task, or another RfA, so I would disagree that this is treating him "better" than an average user. In some ways, this is "guilty until proven innocent", because admin are held to a higher standard, so the opposite of what you are saying. You can't force someone to log in and participate. Dennis Brown 2¢ 22:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the best outcome would be an indefinite topic ban for RUSUKR, but I fully understand why the arbs do not want to make this call. Hopefully, if they lose the bit but continue the same behaviour it will be easier to get a topic ban by usual channels.—-Ymblanter (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I believe I understand the rationale behind the proposal, as the user in question has not participated in the discussion. I do think that this temporary/condititonal desysop only addresses a part of the problem, however. Actual misuse of admin tools was just a part of the issue, perhaps even a small one (as just about any use of admin tools was infrequent at best, as pointed out by other users). The fact that the behavioural issues (including PoV-pushing, bludgeoning, incivility, etc.) highlighted by several editors including myself will simply remain unaddressed unless the reported user himself decides to reopen the case is slightly disappointing. While I sympathise with the reluctance on the part of the arbitrators to pass "sentence" on a sysop who has not participated in his own case, I will also note that Tamzin has shown how Mzajac refused to participate in not one but two previous AE cases where his conduct was being evaluated, even when this was explicitly requested of him. It is not my place to speculate as to his motives for being absent a third time, and I do not want to come across as needlessly vindictive, but this is in itself part of the pattern that led to this case being opened in the first place. Ostalgia (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed with Ostalgia. The fact that two of the AE threads declined to act against him simply because they could not enforce WP:ADMINACCT doesn't mean his editing was spotless outside of that. As a reminder, the first AE thread saw fit to topic-ban him from the Kyiv topic area for a year. I'd add an indefinite EE topic-ban on top of the standard 172-exit motion, given everything. (The reason I say EE and not RUSUKR is because EE is an Arbitration; issuing a RUSUKR ban would confirm the community sanction as an Arbitration sanction, which is pointless as it's entirely within EE's scope.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In my capacity as an uninvolved administrator I have indefinitely topic banned Mzajac from the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and the names of locations in Russia and Ukraine, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this decision. I will also endorse desysopping measures. The constant out of the blue incivility and combativeness of Mzajac that I already knew coupled with their lack of accountability despite their admin status by disappearing completely during this whole process makes me lose any will I could have had for defending them at the start of this case. It is particularly worrying to me to find out that this is apparently a strategy that they've employed before. The topic area will lose a good logical argumentator but will also become calmer now. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It would be too bold to say that this would make the topic area more pleasant and significantly less toxic, but at least this is a good step in this direction. Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the majority for doing so has been reached, the case hasn't been suspended yet, Mzajac hasn't yet been temporarily desysopped and – as Sdrqaz pointed out – the Workshop hasn't formally closed yet. I'm personally fine with this decision and it is convenient to me – but topic-banning a case party during the active case, with the content of the case's evidence page as the only justification, is... a bit bold. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The justification is the diffs on the evidence page, rather than the evidence page itself, but yeah, it was pretty bold. I did a lot of reading ahead to time to make sure I wasn't actually crossing any bright lines and seeing none I figured I'd cut the gordian knot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only procedural note to be made, I think, is that after a year, the ban becomes reversible by any other administrator (Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction) – this may be obvious to you and others, but it's relatively new. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the topic ban. I don't think I could have done it at AE in the last report on him, because I have a great deal of difficulty believing that a sitting administrator should have a topic ban, and should instead be desysopped. ie: I might have had the authority, but I disagree with doing so. Some will argue differently, that is fine. I also didn't think that Arb would have desysopped him at that time, thus the frustration with that AE close. This isn't a simple problem, but it is one that needs more discussion and guidance from the community. Having admins with active topic bans, in general, is a bad idea. Dennis Brown 2¢ 03:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not sure why the 3-month waiting period is needed in the motion. Just do it, and forget about the case. Mzajac had an ample opportunity to respond already. If Mzajac decided not to respond, this is their choice. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it's them essentially assuming good faith that a user has left not to evade the Arbitration, but due to other circumstances. If they don't engage with the Arbitration after three months, then by all means deop them; they're not interested in being scrutinised. This is basically the rationale used when they did it the first time and continue to use to the present day because it then puts all the onus on the admin to show up and defend their actions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! I see. That was a link to the case of User:172, something to take a notice here. I think it is obvious that Mzajac decided to sit out the arbitration or perhaps even stop editing in the project. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also precedent for an admin taking a while to respond to a case in good faith. They would end up having their admin rights reinstated. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the evidence provided, Mzajac does not qualify to work as an administrator in such challenging environment. As about his topic ban, I think Mzajac was a significant "net positive" in the area of Russo-Ukrainian conflict. However, after looking at his responses during this case, I suspect he might end up with very same topic ban, but imposed by Arbcom. Since the motion has passed, he might return to editing anytime, but requesting this case to be resumed would not be in his best interests, I believe. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]