Jump to content

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 GeneralNotability (talk | contribs) at 00:26, 17 March 2022 (enact motion 1). 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
Geschichte Motions 7 March 2022 9/0/0
[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: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Geschichte

Initiated by Dennis Brown - 2¢ at 00:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Dennis Brown

Sadly, I'm here about administrator Geschichte and two primary violations of policy. The first is blocking an editor, User:Jax 0677 on February 19, 2022 [4] while they were in an edit war with them. The rationale was breaking 3:RR although that wasn't the case, there were 3 reverts, not 4. The target was Template:Morgana Lefay. By itself, this is worrisome, but could have possibly been dealt with at ANI/AN.

They did show up to ANI to briefly explain their actions, which centered around their interpretation of WP:OWNERSHIP. They admit it should have been done via a discussion, which is normally a good sign, assuming they follow up. But they didn't. They did not reverse or modify their block, nor clearly admit being WP:INVOLVED. They only made the one comment at 9:30 22 Feb 2022 and went dark on enwp. Since their break from enwp, they did manage to edit the Norwegian Wikipedia, so they haven't been unable to continue the discussion, only unwilling. [5] This is clearly a blatant violation of WP:ADMINACCT.

I bring it here as a last resort, as only ArbCom can handle cases of admin abuse of tools and failure to be held accountable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One note, I don't have a specific remedy in mind. Honestly, I think it depends on Geschichte's participation. I just know the current situation is unacceptable as is, and I'm not willing to watch it be swept under the rug. When admin blow off being accountable, it lowers morale and makes it harder for all other admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  • You're absolutely right about 3RR Barkeep49, however, when you are the one edit warring with an editor, you shouldn't be blocking them. And I would disagree that ONE comment in an ongoing discussion, with no follow up after two weeks, meets WP:ADMINACCT. That would be one giant loophole. Just show up, deny it, walk away, go scot free. No, it requires a good faith effort to engage when there are legitimate concerns. I should ping 331dot, who modified the block unilaterally. Oh, and I'm not measuring against the other cases, the events here stand on their own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cabayi, perhaps you need to read the complaint better before scolding me while ill informed. The issues are INVOLVED and ADMINACCT. I never said a block wasn't warranted or appropriate, and in fact, have said exactly nothing regarding Jax 0677, nor did I list them as a party. It isn't about them. What little I said of the block was to provide background only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I started this, I genuinely believed Geschichte would show up here and cooperate, be told that when his actions were called into question, he needed to do more than make one comment, and instead follow through the discussion as long as it was good faith, then he would get a reminder/warning/admonishment depending on his participation and mood here. I didn't expect or want a desysop for what appears to be a rare mistake, but we all expect accountability. For christ's sake, as some point you have to participate, show respect for the community and engage. I wrote Wikipedia:Communication is required specifically for editors that do this, I shouldn't have to point an admin to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From my user page: "My patience is formidable.... But it is not infinite." - Scorpius (Farscape) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice a couple of Motions, but may I offer a solution? Start the proceedings. Below, people are linking to how G is currently contributing to both no.wiki but enwp as well. They are not absent, they are not "unable" to participate. They do not qualify for the extra privilege those motions grant. Those are great, useful and fair Motions, they just don't apply in this particular case. Just accept and start the case, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Floquenbeam said. At this point, I can't support suspending the case and feel we should just be desysopping. Suspension is a privilege granted to the few that can't respond, not a blank check handed out to those who simply refuse to respond, and want to run out the clock. The hubris demonstrated by Geschichte is overwhelming. I can only assume he's laughing and you and I both, thinking this will blow over, still. So yes, I'm modifying the original request to a full and permanent desysop, as now, it is warranted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geschichte

Hello everybody! I just got an email about this case. While I knew someone were looking into the situation, I haven't been active in a while, initially to cool things down but also because of some work responsibilities. I will try to reply more in-depth shortly. Geschichte (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jax 0677

I was recently blocked from all of Wikipedia by User:Geschichte. On February 19, 2022, I only did 3 reverts to Template:Morgana Lefay. WP:3R states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period". I made a mistake with one of my reverts, but the overall impact came out in essence to only 3 reverts within the 24 hour period. Additionally, I feel that it is a conflict of interest for the person who reverted my edits to institute the block. Furthermore, Geschichte who reverted my edits did so in violation of WP:BRD. The reversions that I did were "16:54, 19 February 2022", "17:00, 19 February 2022" and "17:55, 19 February 2022" [the reversions at "17:54, 19 February 2022" were in error, and "rm * Symphony of the Damned (1990) * Sanctified (1995)" was done because I added those back by mistake]. My block was reduced to restrict me from only editing Template:Morgana Lefay, which would serve the purpose of a 48 hour cooling off period involving editing that very template. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - In my life, I have been given two theories about responses from suppliers. My old apartment manager once said "maintenance work orders shall be handled within three working days" and "if something is not, then it is time to involve me personally". My old supervisor at my company said "If something is a couple of days late, that might be OK", however, "If it has been one month, it may be time to try something else". --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

I think ArbCom should wait to hear what Geschichte has to say in response to this, and then decide how to proceed from there. Maybe the fact that this is being brought to the committee's attention will be enough to spur him into reflection. A full case may not be necessary if he can show us that he's learned from what happened here. Kurtis (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fram

@Wugapodes, how could this "have been handled effectively by the community"? We (well, admins) can block them (which seems an overreaction) or remove their autopatrolled right (which has no bearing on this situation at all), or we can ask them to explain themselves per ADMINACCT. It is clear from the ANI section that their response was unsatisfactory (basically, admitting a minor error wrt 3RR while completely igoring the actual issue, involved admin tool abuse). With their long history and as an active admin, they could have easily resolved this rapidly with something like "sorry, I got carried away there and indeed crossed the involved line in the heat of the moment, apologies, won't happen again": the whole thing would be long gone and forgotten by now. Instead, they tried to get away with their evasive answer: you can see on their contributions list how they first remained silent for a day, then only appeared at ANI when explicitly summoned by Ritchie333, then immediately started editing again, only to stop again when their response was criticized at ANI. This is a blatant and rather extreme case of ANI flu, and looks like an attempt to get the thing archived and forgotten by remaining silent, which is the exact opposite of what ADMINACCT asks. So please, tell us how the community should deal with this apart from starting an Arb Case after waiting two weeks and seeing them edit elsewhere? Fram (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: "there was clearly edit warring, so I think it unlikely that anyone would have blinked an eye were it not for INVOLVED. " If I had noticed the block, I would have done more than blink an eye. Template:Morgana Lefay was created by Jax 0677 on 16 January 2022. On 19 January Geschichte started editing it, and then both editors started edit warring. Neither used the template talk page, Geschichte left this incredibly cryptic message[6], Jax replied very reasonably[7], and then the block by Geschichte[8]. Now, if that block would then have been done by an uninvolved admin, without a warning and without taking the same action towards Geschichte, then yes, there would be a problem, and that would be an unwarranted and one-sided block. Fram (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's not the flu, it's "work responsabilities" which never stopped him from editing every day in the past (last time they missed a single day here was somewhere in November), and which suddenly happen twice here (first when the ANI section was opened, and then again when they finally responded, got back to happy editing, and stopped completely the very minute their response turned out to be completely inadequate). Some people will probably laud Geschichte for engaging with the case: for me, this response here only further cements the impression that they can't be trusted at all and shouldn't remain a sysop. Fram (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FormalDude

  • I just want to second Fram's comments here. The very reason I closed the ANI was because there was effectively nothing the community could have done in this case. That's not to say the ANI was meaningless though, it shows a clear need for reconciliation from an administrator. This needs to be followed through with if Geschichte is unwilling to sufficiently explain themselves. ––FormalDude talk 09:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echoing both Fram and Robert McClenon. This response from Geschichte is completely insouciant. A case should be opened. Continuing to wait is harmful to both ArbCom and the community. ––FormalDude talk 09:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nosebagbear

This is, somewhat openly, a case of using the sledgehammer of an ARBCOM case request to force an admin to the table to meet their ADMINACCT obligations. 331 has done what XRV would do/have done, so we are left just with the admin side of the issue. And I can't really blame the usage - functionally everyone paying attention would rather Geschichte engaged and didn't need to progress any further. I would like their ultimate engagement to now consider both the tools use involved aspect and the adminacct aspect. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

As I mentioned at ANI, I would like an answer for the following questions to Geschichte:

  1. Why did you block a user you were edit-warring with?
  2. If you thought you could voluntarily step back from edit-warring, why didn't you think Jax 0677 could?
  3. If you think Jax 0677 was trying to take ownership, do you think Jax 0677 would have reasonable grounds to think you were too?
  4. Why did you block Jax 0677 from the entire site, preventing him from editing several million articles he has never been disruptive on?

I agree with Fram that we need a satisfactory response to these questions per WP:ADMINACCT but I also agree with WTT that the response is not urgent and we can sit on it for a bit, provided Geschichte is not disruptive elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

This definitely can't be ignored. Waiting at least a little longer for Geschichte to respond would be the logical next step. North8000 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

On the topic on Barkeep49's question as to whether Geschichte responded "promptly and fully": they may have responded promptly, but Jax's initial statement noted that "I feel that it is a conflict of interest for the person who reverted my edits to institute the block", and both Fram and Ritchie explicitly cited WP:INVOLVED before their response. After their response, but before Geschichte's most recent edits at no.wiki, Fram called them out on avoiding the involved concerns. I don't see that any response which completely ignores the involved concerns can be considered "full". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

The intention of this case filing, it seems, is to produce a more salient and explanatory response from Geschichte for his ADMINACCT actions (and possibly an apology). It is to that end that the determination of a need for a case should be subordinated.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As nearly everyone else has said, all Geschichte needs to do is apologize for his actions, promise not to do them again, and poof -- this all goes away. --WaltCip-(talk) 19:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

As multiple people have noted, this case is similar to the last two case requests involving administrator conduct, followed by inactivity by the administrator and failure by the administrator to provide an explanation of their use of administrative capabilities. During the preliminary consideration of the last case, I criticized the Arbitration Committee for its delay in accepting the case because they were waiting for a statement by the subject administrator. This statement is partly a response to pushback that I received from the Arbitration Committee. (The arbitrators were acting reasonably in pushing back, and I am acting reasonably in further explaining my criticism.) I will try to explain further my thinking, and to continue to explain why the ArbCom should not wait for a further statement from Geschichte. I have previously stated, for instance, in this essay, that ArbCom acceptance of a case should not require a decision on the merits of the case, but only on whether a judgment on the merits of the case is needed. Some arbitrators have stressed the need to be deliberative, but the time to be deliberative is in considering the case, not in waiting to take the case. Avoiding taking a case is avoiding deliberation.

As I previously commented, the "optics" of waiting for an extended period of time for a statement by an administrator who has gone silent are very bad. It looks to many non-admin editors as if the administrators on the ArbCom are circling the wagons to protect another administrator, and are more concerned with protecting their own than with ensuring the integrity of the encyclopedia. An arbitrator said that I should have noticed that the ArbCom always waits for a statement from the defendant administrator. I have noticed, and I strongly disagree, and I think that ArbCom should consider the signal that it is (unintentionally) sending to non-admin editors, that the ArbCom is trying to protect administrators.

ArbCom should accept a case involving administrator conduct based on a concept similar to probable cause, and the time for a defendant to make a statement or provide a defense is in the trial, not in deciding whether a trial is in order. ArbCom is making an error in waiting for the defendant to decide whether to hear the case.

In this case, the defendant has already had two weeks to respond, and has not respondedand their response has been inadequate (and has made a few edits to another Wikipedia), but ArbCom should not be waiting for a further response as a precondition to opening a case. In this case, there is sufficient evidence of a misuse of administrative capabilities for ArbCom to open a case, and then to decide whether to wait for a statement, and to decide what remedy to implement, either without or with a full evidentiary proceeding. It is time to accept this case, and delays in opening cases on administrative conduct are a self-inflicted injury to ArbCom.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

  • I'm growing tired of the "circling the wagons" mantra. It is in no way reflective of reality, especially when there are admins complaining about the behavior of an admin. It is, in fact, becoming tedious and disruptive. ArbCom is a deliberative body, so let them deliberate without what amounts to heckling and badgering.
  • Once again, the subject of an ADMINACCT complaint has absented themselves from a proceeding. I expect more of a response from an admin than they have given, but the Arbs get to decide. Yes, we all make mistakes, and I've made some really stupid ones. When I make a mistake, I do my best to fix it, to root cause it, and to take steps to reduce the likelihood of further stupidity. The Arbs are smarter than I, so I doubt I need to state the (to me) obvious to them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (But I will anyway. It's what I do.) I think @Geschichte: should have absolutely not blocked Jax 0677, Jax 0677's block record not withstanding. Geschichte should have stopped reverting, reminded Jax of WP:3RR, and then reported to WP:3RRN, just like any other user in a content dispute after trying to engage them in discussion on the talk page unsuccessfully. If Geschichte had just stopped and discussed, there would have been no edit war. Of course, with a full block in place, discussion was impossible. (Who knows, maybe in a discussion. they might have decided they were wrong.) What I would need would be 1) an admission of doing it wrong, 2) an understanding of what they should have done, 3) an expression of familiarity with partial blocking, and 4) an assurance that there will not be a recurrence. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wot Cabayi sed, I'd expect better of both of them. (Geschichte and Jax) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They had time to partake of an AfD yesterday, but not to partake here? Maddening. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps they are waiting for ya'll to open the case before responding? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darth Mike

By their own admission, even though Geschichte knew that there were inquiries into their actions, they chose to disappear 'to cool things down' [9]. Geschicte wasn't completely absent from all projects, per their edits on Norwegian Wikipedia. Their lack of communication was a choice.

The question that I have for Geschichte is very simple: How can the community have trust in an administrator who chooses to disappear when they know that their controversial actions are being questioned? -- Mike 🗩 14:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

I like telling aviation stories, and there's one that's particularly germane to the question of how fast or slow arbcom moves.

An old grizzled pilot and his brand-new copilot are flying along when a warning light starts flashing on the control panel. The old pilot takes out his stopwatch and calmly starts winding it. The new guy looks at him in shock and says, "What are you doing! We've got an emergency! Why are you winding your watch?" You need to do something NOW! The old guy looks back and says, "Well, kid, I've never killed anybody while winding a clock". -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lugnuts

Geschichte has been an admin since January 2006 (!) (RfA). I don't see anything obvious jumping out in the ANI history of issues about them, so pretty much a clean record for the best part of 16 years. Using ANI as a guide, it states "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Did the original issue count as urgent, chronic or intractable? I don't think so. If their conduct had long-term issues around civility, or invovled blocks, etc, then we'd have a problem. But making one (bad) block? I don't see a net positive for the project as a whole for further action, as long as Geschichte simply states they were wrong in this one-off incident. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amakuru

I don't have much to say about this, other than that obviously the action of Geschichte in using the tools when INVOLVED fall well short of what's expected of an admin. This is a one-off incident that needs to not occur again. However, I'm bemused by Worm That Turned's decision to "accept" the case today. Yesterday, you made the very sensible observation that "we take reasonable steps to allow the subject to make a statement before considering whether we open a case" and "Arbitration is glacially slow by design - we aim for "right" decided by cooler heads not "fast"". That doesn't seem consistent with a decision to suddenly throw the book at Geschichte and launch into a full case, less than 24 hours after the previous comment. This has only been open for 3 days, and I urge that we give Geschichte the time to respond and hopefully apologise and promise not to repeat the offence, after which perhaps a case can be avoided.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: fair enough, thanks for the explanation and that seems reasonable.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QEDK

This seems to be a clear-cut violation of WP:INVOLVED (in the meantime, let's throw 3RR and BRR out of the window). The question essentially comes down to whether Geschichte understands what exactly they did wrong and hold themselves accountable, if yes, we can probably be on our way and otherwise (if unresponsive, assume no) issue them an admonishment and close this by motion. To conclude, it's important to distinguish between singular incidents of tool misuse and egregious administrator conduct (which might or might not involve the admin toolset). --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a response does feel very WP:IDHT to me, if it were up to me, I would prefer higher levels of admin accountability but from where we are at now, does the case really go above the level of admonishment? That is the primary question at this point (and the later the response comes is where I feel that it should be). --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I am loathe to add to the volume of text here, but there are some aspects of this no one is talking about. This is more than just one bad block. Here are some (not all) relevant edits, all from Feb 19 except the last two:

  1. 16:36 - G makes a WP:BOLD addition of items to the template with an unhelpful edit summary
  2. 16:54 - J reverts it via "undo" with edit summary "WP:WTAF"
  3. 16:56 - G misuses rollback to reinstate the bold addition
  4. 17:00 - J reverts again via "undo" with edit summary "WP:BRD"
  5. 17:04 - G's second misuse of rollback to reinstate the bold addition
  6. 17:04 (2) - G posts a cryptic and unhelpful message at J's user talk page linking to WP:BEFORE
  7. 17:10 - J responds to the message asking for an explanation
  8. 17:11 - G posts a message at Talk:Morgana Lefay (note: article talk, not template talk)
  9. 17:50 - J posts a {{uw-brd}} message at G's user talk page
  10. 17:55 - J reverts again, with edit summary quoting WP:NAV and linking to WP:BRD
  11. 17:56 - blocks Jax for "Violation of the three-revert rule" (although Jax did not violate the three-revert rule)
  12. 18:03 - G responds to the uw-brd notice, saying "...Three reverts, now that is a block, so the situation will now cool down for 48 hours, and I will also not edit the template further during that time", which is a serious misstatement of both WP:3RR and WP:COOLDOWN
  13. Three days later, Feb 22, posts a message at ANI that doubles down on G's misstatement of policy, and ends with, "That the block was instituted after three reverts and not more than three reverts can be considered an error on my part ... In hindsight, though, it is crystal clear that this should have been solved through a discussion.", which is the only statement from G admitting error that I'm aware of to date; it does not actually encompass all the errors that were made.
  14. Mar 8 - G's statement here at ARC asking for more time to respond
  15. Today is March 12. Here are G's global contribs and enwiki log showing activity between Feb 19 and today.

G was edit warring to reinstate their bold edits, misused rollback twice to do it, made no real meaningful attempts at communication, misused their admin tools to block the editor they were edit warring with (after that editor posted a uw-brd warning on G's user talk page), and then misstated policy in defense of their actions.

G did not provide a follow-up explanation when asked by J, and did not unblock, did not apologize, has not shown they fully understand what they did wrong, and has not said they won't do it again. G needs to follow WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:ROLLBACK, WP:INVOLVED, WP:COOLDOWN, WP:ADMINACCT, WP:ADMINCOND, and understand WP:3RR and our other policies.

G did not wait weeks for J to respond at a time that was convenient for J prior to removing all of J's editing privileges site-wide. G just "flipped the switch" and shut off J's editing privileges site-wide, expecting J to then ask for them back. I think it's unfair that G gets to respond at their leisure, a courtesy that they did not extend to J. Arbcom should do the same: resolve this by motion now, "flip the switch" and turn off G's admin privileges, and let G ask for them back if they want to, which they can do at their convenience.

One other thing while I'm here: on Feb 20, 331dot downgraded the block on J from a full block to a partial block of just the template page. Why was J partially blocked but G was not partially blocked? In this story, I see G receiving markedly different treatment than J. Admins are, in fact, treated differently by other admins than regular editors; this is a pretty clear-cut example of it, IMO. Levivich 18:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: it's nice you are worried that "a summary desysop gives Geschichte absolutely zero motivation to participate in a case to defend what amounts to a inappropriate reaction to a singular set of events".
Are you worried about how this incident, and your response to it, gives Jax zero motivation to continue editing, or anyone else? 100% of your comments are worried about the accused, G. You haven't said anything about the victim, J. That's your bias: you only seem to care about the admin, how the admin feels, what effect this will have on the admin. Don't forget the rest of us, ok? Levivich 13:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:力 (powera)

If there isn't an additional statement from Geschichte (expanding on I will try to reply more in-depth shortly.), the committee will have to do something. I agree with the comments that there is no rush. I also agree that, while this doesn't look good, the comment In hindsight, though, it is crystal clear that this should have been solved through a discussion. is probably sufficient to meet the obligations under ADMINACCT for a one-off mistake. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 331dot

I reduced the block that prompted this case because it seemed excessive for the incident; I didn't remove it completely in order to encourage talk page discussion of the underlying dispute. In hindsight perhaps I should have. I was not aware of any larger concerns with G. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Celestina007

I agree with Dennis Brown. My thinking is every alternate approach has been “used up” and this is literally the last resort. The unfortunate reality for any system operator is (if not careful) overtime, the line between acceptable editing and unacceptable editing becomes thin/borderline and overtime it becomes very blurred. G hasn’t acted or behaved as an administrator should or ought to and that is the long and short of it. Celestina007 (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calidum

Just noting Geschichte participated in an RM [10] and an AFD [11] yesterday but has still not responded here with anything other than his initial threadbare statement. This is a blatant flouting of WP:ADMINACCOUNT and I don't see how any member of this committee can view his refusal to participate as "justifiable" at this point. And remember, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings" (emphasis mine). It's been three weeks since the initial block in question and a week since this case request has been open. Calidum 14:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NightWolf1223

The fact that Geshicte has been editing and doing admin stuff while avoiding this case is a blatant violation of ADMINACCT. A case should be opened imediatly to examine his conduct. Also, thank you to Levivich for your great analysis of the situation. NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 15:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

Time to wrap this up. I won't object to just accepting Motion: Open and suspend case (1). At this point, a new motion that just desysops them without all the suspend-related clutter would be more appropriate. Or, for precision, at least removing the part about "if they return to active editing" from the motion; they have returned, they're just choosing to not participate. But I wouldn't support doing either of those more appropriate things if it would add more than about 3 minutes to the time that this case can be closed. I can imagine an active admin ignoring a clearly bad faith arbcom case until the arbs reject it. I can imagine postponing a case if an admin is not active. But an active admin ignoring an arbcom case that the arbs have accepted? Seems like that's grounds for a simple procedural permanent desysop, with no postponements. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2022 (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.

Geschichte: Clerk notes

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

Geschichte: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Noting that I am watching this case request. On first read, it's not clear to me that Geschichte failed in his ADMINACCT responsibilities, unlike in the last 2 administrator conduct cases. I will continue to think about that and hope that they will respond to this request with further thoughts about this incident. I also await to see if editors have evidence of other administrator tool use contra to policy. Finally I would be remiss in noting my strong belief, to quote WP:Edit warring, The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown except Geschichte didn't deny everything. My response would be different if there wasn't an admission that it should have been solved through discussion (and also the admission that 3RR wasn't violated). I can understand why that would be less than satisfying for Jax and other editors. But if this was a one off incident? Then I need to think about whether they responded "promptly and fully" to pull the standard linked to at ADMINACCT. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert (and others who might share his thoughts) I can't speak for all my fellow arbs, but from my perspective, and from what I've seen them write in other situations, we should provide reasonable waiting for parties, especially in cases with only 1 or 2 parties as with Admin conduct cases, to respond. This is why when we added parties to the IRANPOL case mid-case we started the time period for the evidence phase over, to give all those non-admins a fair amount of time to participate. This is why we communicated several times with Tenebrae before issuing our topic ban. So I disagree with your assertion that I am contributing to the circling the wagons around another admin, as opposed to acting on a principle for how I think ArbCom should act. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So after thinking things over, I've settled on a metric for judging whether ADMINACCT has been satisfied: the expectation is to respond to reasonable topics of concern but there is no expectation to respond to specific questions. In this case there were/are two major concerns: whether the block itself was appropriate under policy and procedure and whether Geschichte was INVOLVED. I think Geschichte has satisfactorily addressed the first topic, but has failed to address the second topic and as Cabayi points out has chosen to invest energies elsewhere. That is a choice he can make but it's not a cost free choice, so I am an accept as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of the willingness to wait expressed recently by Amakuru and Enterprisey, I have defended the idea of waiting above. But by policy there is an obligation to for them participate here. If an admin, or some other named party, is just inactive I can can AGF and say that they're fairly prioritizing other things (work, family, health, etc). But it becomes harder for me to say that is the case when they're editing on other wikis (even if just minorily). Further, as WTT notes below the request for Geschichte to comment on INVOLVED waited for a few weeks at ANI, again during which they were active on another wiki. There's a balance to be had here and as WTT also notes, we're at least 24 hours away from opening a case and a response may still be enough to make that unnecessary. But if no response comes now that too is fine - Geschichte would be given a couple of weeks to respond during the Evidence phase of the case (and time beyond that even after a PD is posted). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I largely agree with Barkeep. Seems pretty different from recent cases and like it could have been handled effectively by the community. I'll wait to see what's to be said though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fram: I appreciate the course of events and understand that it was frustrating especially given recent context. I think it's important to point out that the community is not powerless. What do we do with editors who edit war? We block them. What do we do with editors who do not respond to community concerns? We block them until they explain themselves. Why is this suddenly off the table as a community tool? Unlike the last two cases, it's not clear that we're even being asked to desysop, and that is really the only unique power we have that the community does not. If the desire is for a strong warning or restriction, the community can do that. Now that it's here, I'll consider it because this is a valid place to raise the concern, but I do think it's worth pointing out that the community could have used its tools as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robert McClenon: An important distinction from me is that Geschichte did reply. Editors weren't satisfied with the reply and wanted more engagement, but that's meaningfully different from not replying at all. If the goal of this case is to "encourage" Geschicte to respond more, I think it's reasonable to give some time for that to work, especially since we haven't even met the 48-hour minimum before a case can be opened, and Geschichte has already signaled they'll engage. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also waiting for input from Geschichte. In addition, I'm curious about the background to the edit war; is there some past context to the dispute? This seems like a really lame thing to edit war over. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revisiting this, I'm really not convinced of the need for a case here. This appears to be an isolated incident of poor judgment. Despite the pixels spilled on general topics of admin accountability, no one has really attempted to a) explain why this particular, extremely minor dispute escalated the way it did, or b) demonstrate a pattern of questionable behavior on Geschichte's part. While this would not be the first time someone's hurt pride turned a repairable situation into a desysop case, I really don't think we need a six-week investigation into a two-hour edit war about - and I keep saying this - a ridiculously trivial issue. Geschichte, you may already have run out your time; bluntly, the move here is to swallow your ego and credibly explain on this page what you did wrong and how you'll avoid it going forward. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept for paperwork purposes, see motions below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to wait for Geschichte. As I see it there's a few issues here. 1) Was the block proper if done by another admin? 2) Was the block in violation of INVOLVED? 3) Did Geschichte meet the requirements of ADMINACCT?
    Well, as to the first question, a partial block was an option per 331dot, but they aren't always used, there was clearly edit warring, so I think it unlikely that anyone would have blinked an eye were it not for INVOLVED. That leads to 2) WP:INVOLVED specifically states that In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. The question becomes "was it straightforward enough"? Would any reasonable admin have blocked... without warning? Was it so urgent that it needed to be dealt with by Geschichte? And that leads us to 3) because the questions are still hanging. I appreciate that Geschichte responded in a reasonable period, with an explanation - but was it enough? I'd like to hear more statements, but I am minded to accept yet another admin case, depending on Geschichte's response. WormTT(talk) 10:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram the fact that the block is one sided is indeed a fair point, though I see Geschichte made 2 reverts, while Jax made 3. We can debate the hypotheticals, but I accept that there is potential for the block to be considered poor, even aside from the INVOLVED aspect. WormTT(talk) 11:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There does appear to be a tendency of certain community members baying for blood when administrators appear at Arbcom. As far as I'm concerned, the current status quo is as follows:
    • Arbcom is the only place where administrators can be removed "for cause", this is by firm community consensus, although I disagree with said consensus, it it the state of play.
    • There are many reasons that Arbcom will remove the sysop userright, egregious misuse or a pattern of behaviour that falls short of expectations. Generally, we won't for a single incident that falls short of expectations, especially where the administrator shows contrition and we believe they are unlikely to carry on the behaviour.
    • The case process is stressful and unpleasant for all parties, especially subjects, and so we do not open cases lightly. As a corollary, cases that are opened more often than not lead to sanctions. This is not a requirement of a case, but it is something that happens.
    Based on these factors, and the fact that there is no urgency - we are not seeing the administrator carrying on using the the tool while we deliberate - it is quintessentially fair that we take reasonable steps to allow the subject to make a statement before considering whether we open a case. Let's not be making the assumption that there is nothing that can be said by the party that would stop a case from being opened. Let's not paint ourselves into the corner that we don't even need to think about things. Arbitration is glacially slow by design - we aim for "right" decided by cooler heads not "fast". WormTT(talk) 13:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with @Cabayi below but more firmly. we should accept this case. WormTT(talk) 12:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru I'm a patient man, but there are limits. This case is 3 days open, yes, but we're 36 hours since Geschichte said he'd reply soon, and weeks since the issue was first raised. My accept vote doesn't start the case, but it starts the ball rolling on one. We'd still need at least net 4 and probably more (other conversations to be had) plus 24 hours, all of which gives Geschichte time to appear, and comment. I've changed my vote to open a case in the past and I would have no qualms about doing so again.
    In other words, yes, I'm still willing to wait for his response, but a bit of pressure of a count down timer is also a reasonable requirement. WormTT(talk) 16:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two editors, each with >14 years tenure & >120,000 edits, should be well aware that edit-warring doesn't need to exceed 3RR. 3RR is merely the bright-line indicator. I'd expect better of both of them. Waiting for the response... Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown, I made no mention of you directly or indirectly. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're approaching 48 hours since Geschichte made a promise of a fuller response during which time he's edited on nowiki. The waiting time is nearing its end. Cabayi (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, elsewhere, we're all considering the fine details of m:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines to which one of the guiding notions is that WMF should support, nurture, & work collaboratively with local Arbcoms, not undermine them. How do we hold up our end of that understanding if Geschichte prioritises day-to-day editing on nowiki over his WP:ADMINACCT responsibilities on an ArbCom case here. Don't read me wrong, it's a choice he's free to make, but it's not a choice without implications.
TL;DR - Accept - Cabayi (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with Primefac that "I see little more happening here than an admonishment for their actions" "as long as Geschichte simply states they were wrong in this one-off incident." (Lugnuts) 'Til Geschichte makes his promised response there's a building ADMINACCT issue at ArbCom to add to the lesser ADMINACCT at ANI and the INVOLVED. An outright decline seems premature (unless it's just to hold off a net 4 situation?). Cabayi (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unimpressed with Geschichte's understanding of INVOLVED. Broadly agree with Fram's reading of the "ANI flu" part of the situation. Although the justification is poor, I don't see that it clearly violates ADMINACCT; I think there's sort of an implicit invocation of the INVOLVED clause that WTT quoted above, even if that invocation is at odds with community views. I'm taking a particular interest in the justification at the time I considered the removal of material from the template as being clearly disruptive. Anyway, waiting for a statement. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still waiting. I figure we got time. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept. The AfD vote is brazen. Enterprisey (talk!) 15:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I believe the comments left by Lugnuts most accurately reflect my thoughts at this point in time; this appears to be a one-time incident of improper use of the tools, followed by some barely-justifiable "I just want this to go away" disappearing. While I know we (as a community) want to reach a point where adminship is "no big deal", I cannot reconcile that viewpoint with bringing a case before ArbCom for every admin that makes a dumb mistake without immediately apologising for it in the correct and precise manner. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, but at the moment I see little more happening here than an admonishment for their actions. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am headed to bed but I know that a lot has happened in the last six hours and will happen in the next six hours, so I am striking my decline. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In reply to Levivich's comment from yesterday - my motion and comments were about finding out how best to get a party to participate in the discussion and the process. I have no doubt that if and when a case is opened, Jax will be participating, and I would of course encourage that. In an admin conduct case, however, the subject is the admin involved. If the question everyone knows is going to be asked is "should this user stay an admin?" and we open the case with them already desysopped, there is little incentive for said admin to participate, as "doing nothing" results in exactly the same outcome as participating in what we all know is a mentally draining process. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been on a break the last two weeks, so I'm just getting up to speed on this request, but at first glance I'm inclined to agree with Primefac's statement above. To accept an admin conduct case, I expect to see either evidence of a pattern of misusing the tools combined with a lack of apparent willingness to correct the problem, or violations so egregious that we could reasonably consider a desysop based on even a single incident. While there obviously was some poor admin behavior here, I do not believe this meets either of those criteria. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit I'm a bit amazed to find myself accepting an ADMINACCT case you're inclined to decline given your regular writing on this topic. You seem to be suggesting that we only accept cases where there is enough evidence for a sanction rather than finding out through a case if there's pattern of problems. This seems slightly at odds with what you wrote at ACE last year ([12] [13]). I struggled with the idea that you and Primefac laid out about Geschichte simply failing to apologize in the correct manner before settling on my framework that addressing major topics of concern - and I'm sure we both agree INVOLVED is an important piece of policy - is what ADMINACCT requires. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm kind of surprised myself, I do believe examining admin conduct is one of the most important functions of the committee and that the bar should be fairly low for accepting such cases. What seems different to me here is that I'm not seeing even the accusation that there is a pattern of misuse. That being said, I'm still weighing the other aspect, accountability. It's my belief, both here and in in my daily life, that it is what we do after making a mistake that is the true test of a person's character. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I was kind of telling myself that I just wasn't up to speed on this yet, but really, there's not much material in need of review. this is exactly what was making me hesitant to accept but after looking it over again I see it a little differently. Geschichte, in their only comment that actually adresssed this issue in any real way [14] seems to be saying that the block was an error, but only in so much as they shouldn't have cited 3RR when making it, and that it did not give them advantage in the dispute because they decided on their own not to edit the template further. That's such a ridiculous explanation that ignores the actual objection to their actions that, were they actually engaging with this process, I'd probably ask if they'd care to look at the facts again and consider if that is really the reasoning they want to go with, but that's the other problem, I really do not feel the basic bar of WP:ADMINACCT was in any way met by the sinlge substantive remark they've made about this block, which was itself a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED. I therefore vote to accept and if the subject does not return in a reasonable amount of time, to resolve it by motion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Calidum: Thanks for pointing out the recent activity. I feel like this makes it fairly obvious that the case subject doesn't really care about this proceeding and the concerns that led to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Accountability is important. --Izno (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Geschichte: I completely understand being busy and/or overwhelmed with Wikipedia. If there are any particular circumstances that make it difficult to respond, you should also feel free to email ArbCom directly with relevant information. Absent that, it would be helpful to have an estimate for when a more full response will be available. Without a more comprehensive statement, this request will have to proceed to a full case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not completely sure where I stand on the motions yet. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 13:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Levivich's analysis is exactly the sort of useful information I would hope to see in a full case. Like Kevin, I'm still considering the motions. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Open and suspend case (1)

The "Geschichte" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months.

If Geschichte (talk · contribs) should 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-en@wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Geschichte is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case while the case is suspended, and will be resysopped for the duration of the case when the case is unsuspended.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Geschichte resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Geschichte shall be permanently desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Geschichte may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

Enacted. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support as proposed and comments in discussion section. WormTT(talk) 10:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cabayi (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I kind of liked the ammended version but this works for me also. A further discussion of incentives might be a good idea to have at some point when there is not a pending case request. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this is a reasonable next step. I don't think accepting a case is tantamount to a desysop, and depending on the outcome of the case I would be open to returning tools if the circumstances warrant it. As it stands now, however, a case is warranted and a temporary desysop is practically more effective. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. To be honest, I think we need to have a larger conversation separate from any single incident about the growing pattern of admins choosing not to engage with admin-conduct cases. Frankly, that calls for some self-examination by commenters in those cases, whether or not you were "right". But here we are, and in this specific incident, we have to do something with this non-trivial case request with a non-responding primary party. I'm fairly indifferent to the two versions of the motion - I think last time around I said there was a psychological if not a practical difference in desysopping vs just being asked not to use the tools, and I get the counterpoint that it might actually be harder to keep the tools but avoid using them. I suspect which one "feels right" depends on the person, more than the details of the circumstances. I support either option. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my comments elsewhere on this request. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Apologies for the delay, missed signing this (per all of my other statements made today and last night). Primefac (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Admins are expected to provide explanations of their actions and be introspective when they make mistakes. This provides an extended opportunity for G to see reason. But if he is unwilling to engage, then he is apparently unwilling to provide explanation or introspection, and thus unfit for adminship. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. We cannot know why the user has declined to participate in the past two weeks even with activity elsewhere (could be one of many human conditions), so I prefer to retain the 3 months suspension. --Izno (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. A sad outcome on several levels. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
As I mentioned both above and in the case request for Jonathunder, I find that a summary desysop gives Geschichte absolutely zero motivation to participate in a case to defend what amounts to a inappropriate reaction to a singular set of events. My first choice would be a motion to admonish, but as I am seemingly in the minority in that viewpoint I could find a suspended case without a temporary desysop acceptable. Primefac (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Circumstances have changed and I no longer feel that there is any incentive to offer here. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather incentivize admin to participate before we get to ArbCom - this case never needed have reached us. Then my choice would be for them to participate once it reaches ArbCom. I would define participation to include a request to suspend the case until they have time to participate fully, even one sent privately if there's personal information they would rather not share. I would be open to such requests, that's participating in my view. But to say I will try to reply more in-depth shortly. 6 days ago and then come back to participate in other parts of the project is, for me, its own violation of the administrator policy. So in terms of incentivizing participation from Geschichte at this point, saying "Your options are to participate now, and keep sysop, or lose sysop until the end of a case with-in the next 6 months" does incentivize Geschichte to participate and to do so now. That feels like the right incentive all around to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. On reflection, I can't justify a suspension. Lack of awareness & lack of opportunity are (imho) the two scenarios for which accept-and-suspend was intended. Geschichte has shown he's aware of the case, and shown that he's been able to respond, but has chosen not to do so. Cabayi (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion

This case is fast headed towards being opened, and yes, I do think that everything could have been smoothed over with some meaningful input from Geschichte, but that hasn't happened, and it keeps not happening. We could have a case without Geschichte participating, but I don't see the benefit of that for the individual or the wider community. Absent a steer from Geschichte, I think we should temporarily desysop upfront, while a case is open - and suspend the case until such time that Geschichte is available to participate. WormTT(talk) 10:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that a case without the primary party is rather a waste of effort. Primefac (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned and Primefac: Amended the motion to provide that Geschichte will be desysopped for the duration of a suspended case but is resysopped if they request that the case be unsuspended. I think this was someone's preference at last motion (Wugapodes, perhaps?). I don't feel very strongly about it, but this motion has the advantage of (a) not prejudicing a final decision but (b) incentivizing a return – I know most arbs care about one or the ohter of these considerations. I know this motion is getting a bit labyrinth-y and we can tighten the language for the next ADMINACCT case if the committee decides this is the best form of the motion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that suggestion. WormTT(talk) 12:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we're using a different motion than the one we used for Jonathunder. If anything Geschichte has made more of a choice to not participate and the reward for that is to get sysop back if he asks for the case to be opened? As I noted below the incentive I would like to create for admin is to participate earlier rather than later. So I think I'm an oppose on this motion - preferring to open a full case with Geschichte retaining sysop as he's clearly around and could choose to participate. I might also be OK if we used the same language we used with Jonathunder by going the motion route. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I believe that Kevin's change is an improvement, in that it incentivises the participation of the administrator and removes the appearance of prejudging the case. I thought so when it was suggested in previous cases but did not want to disrupt the voting at the time. I don't want the community's (and committee's) time wasted if Geschichte refuses to particpate. WormTT(talk) 15:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think ideally this is the motion we would've used in prior cases but in those cases this idea was raised late and it wasn't worth it to propose one anew. No such considerations apply here. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Barkeep49's comments, I've reverted the motion to it's original form. Again, there are wider conversations we need to have here, but for the sake of this case - I'd rather we stuck with what works. Cabayi are you ok with that change? WormTT(talk) 17:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am. Cabayi (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me (at least, I don't remember it), but I don't hate the idea. It seems more bureaucratic than it's worth, but it's a clever attempt to balance the incentives. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Open and suspend case (2)

The "Geschichte" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months.

If Geschichte (talk · contribs) should 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-en@wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Geschichte is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for immediate removal of his administrator userrights.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Geschichte resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Geschichte shall be desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Geschichte may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

Support
Per my comments in the first motion. Primefac (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to oppose. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support as equal first choice, with a slight preference that we adopt (1). Normally, I prefer this method, but given the length of time the issue has remained open, and Geschichte's editing on other wikis, I felt that the temporary desysop route was appropriate. One point though, Primefac, I've added a note that Geschichte should not use his administrator tools while the case is suspended, I hope you have no issue with that. WormTT(talk) 10:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. Seen and recognised. Primefac (talk)
  2. Per above, I don't have a strong preference on which version of the motion passes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. In this case I challenge the idea that Geschichte is not active on English Wikipedia. Beyond that, as a general thought I don't think this kind of motion serves either Geschichte or the community well. It doesn't serve Geschichte well because it just invites a situation where they accidentally use an administrator tool and now we have drama where there wouldn't be any. I don't think it serves the community well because it doesn't create the right expectations of participation. This case could have been - and perhaps still could be - have been headed off by earlier more complete involvement by Geschichte. That's when we should be incentivizing participation. So I don't disagree with Primefac that the first motion doesn't incentivize participation as much as this for the point we're at, but I would suggest we shouldn't be reaching this point anyway. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's been enough comment showing the case's probable outcome if Geschichte responds. Dragging this out for 3 months does nobody any favours. This version of the accept-and-suspend motion does little to prompt a more timely response. Cabayi (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I haven't decided if I support the idea of suspending yet, but I don't care for this version of the process, I prefer the temporary desysop route for reasons already stated in the last such case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per "haven't decided on motion or case but not this one", though as before I would prefer the now un-amended version of the above motion. Izno (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Barkeep, "we shouldn't be reaching this point anyway." — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I made this motion in an attempt to encourage Geschichte to participate, but that is apparently not going to have any affect. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BDD (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion

Geschichte: open case (indicative vote)

The clerks are directed to open the case.

Support
Oppose
  1. I oppose opening an actual case if the subject is not interested in participating. WormTT(talk) 16:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Discussion
  • Some arbs have expressed a preference for an actual case over any of the motions, and this is a space to so indicate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we really need a motion on it? If neither of the other two passes, the case gets opened. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1077567560"