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

Case clerk: Amortias (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Euryalus (Talk) & Doug Weller (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration

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

Track related changes
v t e

Case opened on 19:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 23:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties

Neelix (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Ched (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words.

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words.

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes

I'm recusing myself from this case request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also recused from this, as I commented on the thread at ANI. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (10/0/0/0)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

~~Provisional~~ accept on the basis of the various other allegations made in the proposed motion, in addition to this redirects issue. Hopefully these other allegations will be presented as evidence (including diffs). A case would also be a potential opportunity for Neelix to present their side of the story in an evidence-based setting -- Euryalus (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ched: Commons is out of our jurisdiction, but a flick through recent contributions doesn't immediately raise alarm bells. Looks more like shifting images from a uselessly general category (Men) to a series of more specific subcats. But if I've missed an obvious reason why this is inappropriate, please let me know. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Various: doing this as a case requires people to submit evidence with diffs, and gives Neelix a formal chance to respond. Whether Neelix does or doesn't contribute is a matter for them - the case (if accepted) proceeds anyway. Considering desysop requests via cases is also the usual process, with emergency desysops reserved for instances where there is an ongoing risk of disruption using admin tools. As this is not the case here, there seems no reason to IAR the policy.

On a related issue I do agree with comments on other pages that the Committee should take into account the strong (but not unanimous) view of the community in considering this matter. I don't agree that the Committee is just here to rubber stamp that view - that would be a valid approach if that's what ARBPOL provided but it isn't. It may be worth asking ACE2016 candidates whether they support an ARBPOL clause requiring the committee to determine desysop requests by judging community consensus rather than by hearing a case. Until then it seems a reasonable approach for the committee to follow the procedures we currently have.

Other views welcome, just thought I'd explain some of mine. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roger Davies: Respectfully disagree. Neelix isn't travelling, or ill, or unable to access the internet. He has chosen to stop editing for a while to let this issue play out. That's entirely his right, but we shouldn't suspend the case to wait him out. Let's open the case and give him the opportunity to have a say in an evidence-based environment. If he chooses not to, then we can proceed on the evidence before us as was done in the cases of DangerousPanda and Collect. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tryptofish WormThatTurned and others: if the case gets accepted and the committee agrees, I will suggest on the case page that we have the usual evidence phase followed by a one-week workshop and then immediately to PD. If there's a rough consensus among case contributors, this would then become these timing and the entire thing would be resolved in a couple,of weeks. I appreciate some would like it resolved immediately, but I reiterate the arguments above about the importance of evidence-based assessment, some regard for existing procedure, and some element of procedural fairness. It's also possible a shortened workshop might still throw up some interesting ideas on the application of ADMINACCT and/or whether Arbcom procedures should require adherence to community consensus on desysop requests, or be left to the committee's judgement. Or perhaps it will remain entirely focused in Neelix. Either way, fairness and due process can't be served by abandoning the case for a snap judgement via motion, but they can be served if there's a consensus for a somewhat shorter process than the full six week debate. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Worm That Turned: suggest if case accepted etc etc, will propose a motion to that effect. I don't support it, but if the majority does then fine. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Softlavender: the case will be called "Neelix" as that is what it is principally about. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NE Ent: per previous comments here, as soon as the case opens I will move a motion that it be suspended until Neelix returns to editing, with an automatic desysop in three months if he has not returned by then. I don't personally support this concept, as Neelix' decision to stop editing is an avoidable personal choice (and not, for example, related to travel, illness or no internet). But let's have a vote on it. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, desysops for "loss of trust" are not a thing. I disagree (and have said that I support a community-driven desysop process), but, right now, admins can only be desysopped for abuse or repeated misuse of tools, and for conduct unbecoming. I agree, however, that Neelix' actions, in this case, bear investigation, so I vote to accept. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Iridescent: you're quite right. I didn't remember that part and didn't check... In that case, I'll slightly amend my vote to accept and deal with by motion. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept L Faraone 18:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept, though I have no real clue why we have to go this route, if we had (and we should have) a functional community desysop procedure, it would surely be being used right now. But, the simple motion has failed (I still consider a motion superior to a case here.) Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept. As is probably obvious, I'd prefer to handle this by motion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept if only to give him a full chance to present his case.One of the reasons for the existence of this committee is to avoid doing serious things as pure reaction to first thoughts about something DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As this is already past a amajority I am going to vote Accept but deal with by motion. Yes, I opposed a motion. I think we've rushed through desyops too quickly this year and I really wanted to get this one right. But I've read Neelix's email and don't think he's going to try to defend himself. I also agree with the comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Not desysopping Neelix here is a pretty severe mistake. As others have said, we don't need a full case. My desire to not do this by motion was to be fair to him, to recognise the comments by editors and Admins I respect, and because I was told it wasn't a Level II desysop so I couldn't figure out what it was under our procedures (and have said so to my colleagues). Being an Arb can be frustrating. As an aside, I think Euryalus's suggestion above is worth further thought. Doug Weller (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Is Neelix likely to/going to participate? I'd like to hear on that point ... If not, the best way forward, as others point out above, is to accept the case, then suspend it pending Neelix's return to editing, with a provision that if this doesn't happen within, say, three months he'll be automatically desysopped. Roger Davies ^talk 08:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept I would deal with this via a normal case or like the Toddst1 case. I am opposed to a simple motion to desysop here. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Motion to close case

This case was opened to address the behavior of Neelix (talk · contribs), a long-time editor and administrator. Neelix has subsequently resigned as an administrator and acknowledged that he may not regain administrator status without a new, successful request for adminship.[1]. In addition, an extensive community discussion on the incidents noticeboard has resulted in a one-year topic ban from Neelix's creating redirects.

Under these circumstances, this case is closed without further action. The restriction already imposed at ANI remains in force. Neelix is strongly counseled to take the concerns expressed by the community into account in his future editing, and cautioned that he may be subject to additional sanctions if problems recur.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Principles[edit]

Findings of fact[edit]

Remedies[edit]

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.

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

0) Appeals and modifications

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

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

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

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.