Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte/Preliminary statements

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

Preliminary statements

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 [1] 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. [2] 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)

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)
• 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)

• 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)

  From my user page: "My patience is formidable.... But it is not infinite." - Scorpius (Farscape) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

@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[3], Jax replied very reasonably[4], and then the block by Geschichte[5]. 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)

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)

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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
• (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)
• Wot Cabayi sed, I'd expect better of both of them. (Geschichte and Jax) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• They had time to partake of an AfD yesterday, but not to partake here? Maddening. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps they are waiting for ya'll to open the case before responding? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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' [6]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Calidum

Just noting Geschichte participated in an RM [7] and an AFD [8] 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)

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)

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)