Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte

Case opened on 00:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Case suspended by motion on 00:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Case closed on 16:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch Front], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch Ev.], [/index.php?title=/Workshop&action=watch Wshp.], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch PD.]

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed, however lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Involved parties

 * , filing party

Prior dispute resolution

 * 

Preliminary statements
Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

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, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * In terms of the willingness to wait expressed recently by and, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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., 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)
 * Accept for paperwork purposes, see motions below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * I concur with @Cabayi below but more firmly. we should accept this case. WormTT(talk) 12:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @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. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , I made no mention of you directly or indirectly. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We're approaching 48 hours since 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)
 * 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)
 * I'll agree with Primefac that "I see little more happening here than an admonishment for their actions" '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)


 * 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)
 * Still waiting. I figure we got time. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Accept. The AfD vote is brazen. Enterprisey (talk!) 15:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * In reply to '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)
 * 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)
 * 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 . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * Accept. Accountability is important. --Izno (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Not completely sure where I stand on the motions yet. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 13:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

Motion: Open and suspend case (1)

 * Support
 * Support as proposed and comments in discussion section. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Cabayi (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Per my comments elsewhere on this request. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * A sad outcome on several levels. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Circumstances have changed and I no longer feel that there is any incentive to offer here. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 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)


 * 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)


 * Abstain

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. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Agreed that a case without the primary party is rather a waste of effort. Primefac (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 (, 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)
 * I'm happy with that suggestion. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 15:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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? <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am. Cabayi (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

Motion: Open and suspend case (2)

 * Support
 * Per my comments in the first motion. Primefac (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved to oppose. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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,, 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. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Seen and recognised. Primefac (talk)
 * 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)


 * Oppose
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Per Barkeep, "we shouldn't be reaching this point anyway." — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * BDD (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Discussion

Geschichte: open case (indicative vote)
The clerks are directed to open the case.


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * I oppose opening an actual case if the subject is not interested in participating. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Motion: Open and suspend case (1)

 * Passed 10 to 1 by motion on 00:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

=Final decision (none yet) = All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase are also available.

Remedies
All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.