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

This case has been suspended. Please do not edit this page. For information on the suspension of this case, see the appropriate motion here.

Scope: Conduct of Mzajac

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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks.

Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Motion to suspend

1)

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.

Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Support:

Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
firefly ( t · c ) 19:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Maxim ( talk) 19:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Z1720 ( talk) 19:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Cabayi ( talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 20:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 22:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Aoidh ( talk) 00:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The workshop hasn't formally closed yet, so this should take effect on 6 February. Given Mzajac's inactivity, there shouldn't be any rush to close this. Sdrqaz ( talk) 00:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Primefac ( talk) 08:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
No opinion on timeframe for enacting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed. I'm planning on supporting this. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I've slightly changed the wording of the ~~first~~ second sentence. Please revert if you disagree. Sdrqaz ( talk) 00:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC) – corrected at 01:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think we should be artificially delaying closures of duly enacted motions. We delay enough naturally as it is. If we are going to delay, I think waiting for the close of the workshop makes little sense and we should instead delay until Feb 9 or one month since Mzajac's last edit. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Given that the normal schedule of evidence – workshop – proposed decision was decided when the case was opened, one could say that we've artificially accelerated the timeframe already by proposing a motion now. This is, of course, an irregular situation given that we're voting to suspend, but I personally think that it would be fairer to the case participants to follow the timeline that we've announced. This is a procedural issue to me and not a substantive issue on the merits, so I haven't made my vote above a placeholder in the opposing section. Sdrqaz ( talk) 02:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Why is it fairer to ask case participants to participate in a case for potentially no reason? For me we're passing this motion so as to not take up the community's time unnecessarily and to be fair to the one editor - Mzajac - with something on the line here. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

There is no time frame mentioned in the motion, so once the 24h have elapsed this should go into effect. Primefac ( talk) 08:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

There is no benefit I can see from delaying - I do not think that anything is going to come up in the next three days that will materially affect outcomes. We would seemingly only be delaying for procedural reasons, which is never a good idea IMO. firefly ( t · c ) 10:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

+1 KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I am sympathetic to the calls on the talk page for us to not let the POV editing go potentially unaddressed. We definitely have evidence about that submitted, which I haven't examined carefully. I would ask the drafters whether it's sufficient for us to be passing some kind of topic ban in addition to this suspension? Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm a little hesitant to do so with a motion alone – if we did so, I would question whether we can credibly say that we've suspended the case instead of doing a truncated proposed decision phase in all but name. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah I'm sympathetic to that too - it's one reason I didn't just propose it. But if the case doesn't unsuspend and we had evidence which justified a TBAN I think it's actually going to be harder for one to impose through some other means. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The drafting Arbs are discussing a TBAN motion right now, although imo any Arb can propose one here. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 00:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Given that a TBAN has been imposed by SFR I'm happy enacting the motion now. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision Information

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by ~~~~ (replace after each update); the last edit to this page was on 20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC) by L235.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

Oppose

Comments