Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban	none	none	12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort	Motion	(orig. case)	13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions	13 September 2015
Motion: Neelix desysoped	6 November 2015

Motions

Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,

1. Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;
4. Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;
5. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
6. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.

Support

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Per Yunshi's comment below, I think the small risk that this will flare up without the threat of sanctions is small enough and easily countered enough (cf our recent motion regarding Longevity) that we can take it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
4. AGK [•] 23:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support recision except for Mantanmoreland. It's very old, but let's do nothing to encourage its return. Editor misconduct in the other three areas can be more easily responded to via usual dispute resolution mechanisms. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
6. Support since point 6 makes it possible to restore sanctions without having to go through a full case. Doug Weller (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Enough of these have the potential to flare up that I think this is a bad idea. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

1. LFaraone 17:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (removal of unused sanctions)

Proposed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to wait for any community comments before opining here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• These are all pretty old, and a review of the relevant article histories suggests that they may no longer be needed; however I'm mindful of the fact that the sanctions may be the reason that the articles have been so quiet recently. I'm leaning towards supporting this motion, but like Thryduulf would be happier to wait until a few more opinions are in. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sod it, I think the benefits outweigh the risks. The option of reinstatement by request at ARCA does, as Harry points out, make this a reasonably safe gamble. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Community comments (removal of unused sanctions)

• Noting Courcelles' objection, but I would have thought that point 6 (allowing the sanctions to be reinstated by request at ARCA if necessary) covers everyone in the event that disruption returns. Some topic areas won't quieten down until real-world events do (the obvious example being Israel-Palestine), but we shouldn't keep discretionary sanctions lingering around where they're no longer necessary or useful. The alerts and warning notices that editors see whenever they edit an affected article potentially deter valuable contributions and give an impression of a dispute that is no longer there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Given the state of the US and its jaunts into the middle-east (as well as its treatment of Muslims at home) object to the waterboarding being lifted (no comment on the others). 'Closely related pages' effectively means anything involving state-sanctioned torture. Totally cant see how THAT might flare up... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • But the last sanction imposed pursuant to a remedy in that case was nearly five years ago (by strange coincidence, I was the admin imposing it), and the sanctions can always be re-imposed if necessary. Besides, most subjects to do with waterboarding as it relates to the United States' foreign policy would probably be covered by the discretionary sanctions on American politics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Well I would generally follow the school of thought that states 'Its calm because of the sanctions'. However you are right American Politics would (probably, someone will argue otherwise no doubt) cover any US based torture problems. Sadly the US does not have a monopoly in torture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• I hate to keep bringing up essentially the same thing every time, but once again we have a problem (a minor one this time, but entirely avoidable) this time caused by someone referring to the "last" item on a list that is still having items added and removed. This small issue and a number of large issues to come can be avoided by the simple idea of designing procedures and sticking to them instead of winging it every time. To be specific, in this particular situation, anyone commenting on a list item should refer to "item number 6" instead of "the last item. Anyone removing an item should replace it with "6. (removed) instead of deleting it and letting a new item take the #6 slot. Please Arbom, there are members of the community who are experts at designing these sorts of procedures. Let us help. We won't step on your authority and you will get to approve all procedures. Whether because of lack of skills, lack of time, or lack of interest, you really suck at this. Just give the word and I will start recruiting experts and drafting procedures (on-wiki, so you can comment and veto at any point in the process). --Guy Macon (talk)

Re "easily corrected"; it was corrected while I composed the above. My point about procedures still stands though. If anyone wants to dispute this, I can document previous problems that weren't so easy to fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: What are you talking about? You are the first person to edit this page in over two days --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops. When I went back to look at the page I looked at "Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions" (which doesn't have the problem) instead of "Motion: Overlap of Sanctions" (which does have the problem -- in the oppose section) and assumed it had been fixed. Sorry for the error. Does anyone wish to comment on my offer? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think so. See you next time the lack of procedures causes a problem, and I hope it is a minor problem like this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Even after your post above, I still do not understand what your comment relates to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the numbering in this motion, you'd like us to comment on your view that Arbcoms (now and in the past) kind of suck at concise and accurate wording. You're completely correct. At risk of sounding like the tedious bureaucrat that I actually am, there is a reason for administrative writing and this is it - for precision, and to avoid doubt when the material is read later by people other than those who drafted it. Whenever there is a badly worded motion, please feel free to offer suggested changes. If they're good, the Committee should adopt them (or explain why not). -- Euryalus (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Neelix desysoped

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely the mass creation of inappropriate redirects, Neelix (talk · contribs) is desysoped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support

1. As proposer. There is currently an ANI discussion about this, and I'm confident that the community can place any blocks, topic bans, or other restrictions if they decide they are necessary. However, it is the Arbitration Committee's responsibility to examine whether this behavior rises to the level where a desysop is needed. In my opinion, it clearly does. Redirects like "Run-or-rape video game" (to Sex and nudity in video games) and "Titty tumour" (to Breast cancer) are useless and downright offensive. Redirects like "Booby magnetic resonance imaging" (to Breast MRI), "Tittoos" (to Nipple tattoo), and "Boobypumper" (to Breast pump) are useless and just immature. Any editor should know better than to create multitudes of useless and offensive redirects, and this is nowhere near the level of good judgment and maturity I would expect of an administrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
2. While I would not support a block without further creations, this is such a sustained pattern of bad judgment a new RFA needs to happen if Neelix wants to keep the tools. Courcelles (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
3. A clear loss of good judgement. LFaraone 05:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
4. It's clear that Neelix has lost the community's trust in his good judgement as an administrator, and (whatever the merits of a community desysopping procedure) we are at present the only people who can deal with this issue. Neelix has responded at ANI and the issues are clear, so a case would be a waste of everyone's time. This motion is without prejudice to the ongoing community discussion about editing or other restrictions on Neelix or on any action that results from that discussion, and that Neelix can regain his adminship by passing RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I appreciate this will be an unpopular vote - a virtue of retiring in two months is the chance to occasionally take a more contrary view. Many of Neelix's redirects are stupid, some are offensive, most are unnecessary. It's conduct unbecoming an editor, and it should be addressed with respect to editing rights: Neelix should go back and delete almost all of his redirects, if he fails to do so or creates more he should be blocked for disruption, and there should be community consideration of a topic ban from redirect creation given he seems unable to understand why there's a problem with the ones he made. But on balance I'm not seeing how this relates to his ability to do admin janitorial tasks. He has not abused admin tools; nor has he attempted to abuse admin "status" to win disputes or irritate others. He has made an embarrassing series of edits; let him undo those, and lets indefinitely remove him from that editing area. And then let's move on. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

   Note that the above relates to a desysop for the reasons outlined in the motion. If there's additional allegations against Neelix, they should be written up and/or included in the motion itself, and considered as a case request instead of summary decision. As is/was standard practice with similar claims of admin unsuitability over this year. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

   In case it is not clear in the above, there is enough evidence of other conduct questions that I support a full case. But I remain opposed to a desysop by motion on solely the redirect grounds. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

2. I do not oppose the idea of desysoping, but I would like to have a full case. I was apprehensive about doing this on the list when I marked myself as inactive last night. (I don't have internet in my apartment yet.) This morning when I have internet and can look everything over, I am still apprehensive of taking up some of the methods of WP:PITCHFORKS. We are the Senate of Wikipedia; at tiny bit away from the sways of popular opinion on the drama boards on a given day and more deliberative. I beg my colleagues to do the right thing and to examine this fully with our process; maybe another restriction is in order as well. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (Neelix desysoped)

Noting that I am including AGK, Roger Davies, and DeltaQuad in the inactive count (as they are marked inactive at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Members) and Guerillero per a mailing list comment. Please adjust this if you're active on this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@BeyondMyKen: I agree with you re blocks and bans being in the community's power; I also think this is what the community should impose. And I agree there is strong (but not unanimous) community support for a desysop. I predict there will be strong (but not unanimous) Arbcom support for it too. But as you say, Arbcom is elected to offer its own judgement on desysops, in addition to considering community consensus. Otherwise we could dispense with the committee entirely and just have desysop votes on ANI. In my judgement a desysop is not the appropriate penalty for the creation of stupid redirects. Its a minority view, but one made having had regard for community comments both for and against the idea. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix is technically not inactive as an Admin, but he's virtually inactive. I'd like to give him time to decide if he will resign his tools before we vote further. Or to explain why it's important to the communityh for him to keep them. Doug Weller (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: This is a Level 2 desysop. He's been notified on his talk page and hopefully by email (I'm checking that). There's no emergency here and I've made it clear to my colleagues he should be given time to respond. A desysop may be appropriate but I agree we need to follow procedure. We aren't always good at that. As an aside, I think that Admins should have some sort of activity requirement similar to those who have CU and OS - maybe a minimum number of Admin actions each year combined with a minimum in any 2 quarters, which is slightly different from the OS and CU requirements. Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As soon as I get GMO done and posted I'll comment here. I do want to wait for comment, this isn't a super urgent issue. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Community comments (Neelix desysoped)

• Yes. Conduct completely unbecoming of an admin, and by that I also mean the non-answer answers in the ANI thread and the refusal to make even the slightest effort to clean up the mess: Neelix had plenty of opportunity to make a token effort. I've deleted well over 300 of these offensive terms tonight; looking at the list is like looking at a list of phrases Google would block in a SafeSearch. But worse than the conduct is the complete lack of judgment and common sense, which is even more important for an administrator. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • GorillaWarfare, the redirects for Breast pump have been culled from eighty mostly offensive ones to sixteen mostly moderately dumb ones. I do not have any more deletions in me tonight. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It just gets worse and worse. An admin creates this? Please look at the sourcing for the "Barechestedness" section, which includes a reference by Charlie from a prank collective. How can this person judge behavior and edits based on our guidelines? I note that the article wasn't created on 1 April. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Aside from the bad references, the Putin photo is a little too much for my stomach at this time of the day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• I believe that this (sadly) is necessary. See my statement here. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Today's situation is a repeat of this, greatly expanded. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• This seems like a dramatic overreaction. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This type of behavior indicates a user not worthy of the mop. If this behavior had been brought up during an RFA discussion, Neelix would never have been made an admin in the first place. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This behavior is just stratosphericly incomprehensible (except to possibly obscure his substantive edits) and disruptive. Should also face a topic ban or indef block. In addition, Neelix has for years been abusing his privileges as an admin to promote his Salvationist ideology by writing and promoting (often to FA) excessively long and largely unwarranted screeds against prostitution, on Wikipedia. (There's a WO article on it somewhere that can be Googled [I have now posted it a few posts below].) Softlavender (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC); edited 05:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• I have suggested in the ANI thread that this could be an honest mistake on Neelix' part, and that desysopping (particularly emergency desysopping) is unwarranted. Neelix has expressed a rationale for creation of these redirects in the ANI thread; his rationale is clearly not compatible with WP:POFR but it seems like good-faith misinterpretation, and clearly not intended to be disruptive. He has not abused the admin tools. Indeed, had Neelix stepped in to eliminate these redirects after the ANI thread opened, we might just as well be proposing desysopping for violation of WP:INVOLVED and trying to bury his transgressions. Aside from the creation of a massive number of inappropriate redirects, Neelix has been a valuable contributor for many years. Removing his admin bit will not stop the flood of redirects - any confirmed user can create them. These creations have been going on for years with nobody raising any objection at all, prior to crossing into the territory of human female anatomy roughly two months ago. I would like the Committee to consider whether desysopping is really of any benefit to the project in this case. However, I recognize (and the Committee should also consider) that my opinion is deeply in the minority here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • A minor point, but this is not an emergency desysop. I don't believe a full case is necessary here, so I proposed a desysop by motion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If I may, Ivanvector's glowing encomium prompted me to actually find the article which details Neelix's agenda: [1]. I don't think he should have been made an admin in the first place, but somehow he was, and now his unsuitability for the post is becoming increasingly obvious with this latest redirect scandal. Softlavender (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Now, this provides context. I thought the creation of these redirects might've been pure SEO silliness, but this is serious. Alakzi (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) All I get from that article is that someone's got a hate on for Neelix and HJ Mitchell. Don't mistake my comments for an endorsement of his actions, what he's done here is obviously wrong. But I don't see how desysopping is the solution, or anything more than just retribution. From hanging out at WP:RFD I see good-faith misunderstandings of the usefulness of redirects all the time from users who should know better; this looks like an extremely bad case of that, but nothing more. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(after ec) But if we're going to allege a serious pattern of intentional biased editing and advocacy on Neelix' part, then nothing short of a full case is warranted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• The permalink provided by NeilN above is of great concern, but more worrying is that I can only see two responses to that situation: ANI on profanity-related redirects and removal of block discussion and Neelix's contributions at that time. It does not matter whether a mistake is "honest" as noted above—the point is that an admin must be known to have generally good judgment, whereas evidence seems to show the reverse. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• A quick Google search for "tittoos" shows a number of hits including to a NSFW article in a UK tabloid; So I think that was a valid and plausible redirect. Most of the others I looked at weren't needed, many slight variations on themes are things that search would probably now pick up. But Pink trumpet tree redirects from a common name to a plant article that mentions that common name in the lead - unless there are other trees called "Pink trumpet tree" then that seems a perfectly plausible redirect to me. It seems we have two issues here, creation of puerile redirects and mass creation of minor permutations that search should now pick up. I'd be happy to see Neelix restrict himself to only creating redirects where an alternate name is already mentioned in an article. ϢereSpielChequers 06:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  (ec)I agree on this. Tittoo is clearly a thing. It might not be a valid WP:NEO (though, evidence might be growing), but that's why there are redirects. Similarly for "Run-or-rape," which does have google hits in the context specified, would be difficult to say is truly an intentionally malicious redirect. Anyway, I have an issue with the idea of "offensive" even being used in conjunction with these—especially when it comes to anatomy. Our job is to report the facts and get people to them, so there's a modicum of translation involved when it comes to things that, let's face it, people learn as jargon and slang before they learn the proper name for them. I think most people learned "pee pee" before "urine" or "penis," for example, and that's just one thing. Our job is not to filter things out that we find offensive. "Useless" versus "useful" should be where the discussion is, but realistically that's more for WP:RFD. --slakr^\ talk / 06:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  Shows what I know about "tittoos" I guess... Either way, my concern is with the massive number of completely implausible redirects—I have no issue with mass-creation of redirects (even if they're distasteful) if they are likely to be useful, but I worded the motion specifically to indicate that it was the inappropriate redirects that are an issue. I realize this is a bit of an overloaded term; I did not mean "inappropriate" in the sense that they are vulgar, but rather that they are not suitable for the project. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know about "tittoos" (I'm even more innocent than GorrilaW, because I'm older and predate the internet), but "run or rape", Slakr, does not strike me as a very valid redirect: I browsed around some and found nothing reliable, as I noted elsewhere. Anyone is free to restart that discussion or recreate them, of course. But I do object to us choosing the lowest possible terminology to construct our redirects. Having selected and deleted almost 400 of those redirects yesterday (I stopped at over 300, but then I think I did another batch), I have lost all respect for the editor. And I agree with GW's phrasing. Many were offensive and inappropriate for that reason, but many others were simply inappropriate in terms of suitability.

  The more general point, as far as I'm concerned, is the blatant sexism on display in the sheer overwhelming number of them. It is very, very hard for me not to see this is publicizing a fetish and using Wikipedia as a platform. I am not saying that Neelix is of the same caliber, but I am reminded of the guy who kept posting pictures of his cock all over Commons and inserted them in articles here: at some point the amount of material so outranks usefulness that it becomes ...what's the word... pathological. Spoke the amateur psychologist. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Pink trumpet tree is a common name for multiple plants. There are problems with Neelix's organism related redirects and dabs. The fact that he created I. maxima as a redirect on the same day he created L. maxima as a dab makes me seriously question his judgement. There are multiple I. maximas in the universe of scientific names, so that will eventually need to be a dab page, even if we have only one I. maxima on Wikipedia at present. Other editors have created a lot of abbreviated scientific name redirects that need disambiguation (or, as I would prefer, deletion), and Neelix has done some work making these into dab pages. I don't understand why he would create the I. maxima redirect, when it should be obvious from the work he's done that these abbreviations are almost always going to need disambiguation, not redirection. Plantdrew (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• For me, the core of this is the question of judgment. As WP:ADMIN says, good judgment is expected from admins, and repeated incidents of bad judgment can lead to sanctions. In this case, the poor judgment shown by Neelix has been going on for years, and has resulted in, I am told, 80K of inappropriate redirects, some of which could be profoundly disturbing and insulting to Wikipedia editors, and the general public, and others of which are simply high-schoolish disruption that we would not tolerate in an IP or an unknown account. Such egegiously poor judgment is not commensurate with being an admin, and if Neelix doesn't resign the bit himself -- under a cloud -- then ArbCom needs to act. BMK (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Euryalus: The community does not require ArbCom to block or topic ban Neelix - those discussions are ongoing on AN/I, and I'm sure a consensus, one way or the other, will develop; if not, it may bounce back to ArbCom. But at this moment the question before ArbCom is the one that the community cannot deal with, because it does not have the power to do so, and that is whether Neelix should be desysopped.
  In the normal case dealt with by ArbCom, the community has not been able to come to a consensus, and it's ArbCom's remit to find the solution to the problem. That's not the case here. The community cannot desysop Neelix, only ArbCom, but the community nonetheless has strong opinions concerning whether Neelix should be desysopped or not, and in that situation, it behooves the Arbs, as our elected representative, to pay close attention to the views of the community, and not only to their own opinions. That is not to say that Arbs shouldn't bring their own intelligence and experience to the table, but it needs to be acknowledged that this question has come before ArbCom not because the community is divided, but simply because the community doesn't have the necessary authority. In this circumstances, I think you, and the other Arbitrators, would be better advised to give more weight to the community's opinion than might perhaps normally be the case. BMK (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Euryalus: Of course Arbs must bring their own judgment to the table when considering this, what I'm suggesting is that they not overthink it. Admins are supposed to show good judgment, Neelix has not, writ large; admins are supposed to have the trust of the community, the consensus is clearly that he no longer does; therefore Neelix needs to be desysopped, and the community cannot do it, so ArbCom must. It's pretty cut-and-dried, and the process issue are entirely beside the point: just invoke WP:IAR and fix the procedures before the next time -- that's what IAR is there for, so the correct result doesn't get swamped under procedural minutia. BMK (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'd draw something of a parallel between the community's relationship to ArbCom in this instance, and ArbCom's relationship to bureaucrats in desysopping cases. ArbCom determines that an admin should be desysopped, but turns matters over to the bureaucrats for the actual removal of the bit. The bureaucrats bring their own judgment to the table, but in the absence of an extremely compelling reason not to do so, will follow ArbCom's decision. In this case, I believe that the community consensus (no, not unanimity, consensus) is that Nelix should be sysopped, but we have to turn to ArbCom for the final decision, because there is no community-based desysopping procedure (as there should be). In my opinion, if ArbCom reviews the community discussion, and finds -- as I think they will -- that there is a consensus for taking the bit away from Neelix, then, just like the bureaucrats considering an ArbCom desysop, in the absence of an extremely compelling reason not do so, the Committee should formalize the community's decision.
  I realize that such a relationship is very different from how ArbCom normally operates, because, normally, there is no community consensus, which is why the case it at ArbCom in the first place. In spite of that, I think this is the correct way for the Committee to perceive its role in the potential desysopping of Neelix. BMK (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support desysops; allow for an immediate re-RfA – let the community decide on Admin suitability in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• In response to Euryalus' comments: If we were just talking about stupid redirects - like the many minor variations on titles - this would be an annoying non-issue. The problem is the subset of stupid redirects that are offensive. I don't want to "punish" Neelix and would be happy to see an explanation, but the comments at ANI were insufficient to provide insight into how anyone might sincerely believe boobymilked and sucking situation would be plausible searches for breast milk and breastfeeding by people legitimately looking for information. Or look at the ones for medical terms, which are really the worst of the lot: has any actual human looking for information about abnormal breast development ever searched for hypoplastic boobies→‎micromastia? Looking for age-related breast atrophy, you'd try shrunk tit? I just can't get into the head of someone who doesn't see that these look like mockery of the conditions they link to. It makes the project look insensitive and unserious. Most of the time we take ourselves too seriously around here, but we can take ourselves a little more seriously than tumorous titty. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh. It dawns upon my thick head to at least ask, was the editor, in some bored then eager loop, hoping to snare Google searches of "another kind" for such words and "helpfully" mislead them to "more staid" en.WP articles? Meanwhile, have there been meaningful botches with the bit itself? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• What we need is a community method of desysoping... I'd much prefer that Arbcom were desysopping with a case than by straight motion. Hearing from Neelix before desysopping. For heaven's sake Arbcom is meant to be a slow process where cooler heads prevail! Worm^TT(talk) 08:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Although I don't oppose the creation of a mechanism for community desysopping, I see no reason why this needs to be a full case, and the community can't currently desysop on its own. What would a case look like - him trying to explain why on earth he thought tumorous titty and thousands of others were appropriate redirects, an evidence page consisting of a ton of people saying what the hell, and an eventual decision to desysop him and a finding of fact that "tumorous titty is not an apppropriate redirect"? Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If that's all it ends up as, yes. More importantly the time period between action and desysopping for a non-emergency should allow cooler heads to prevail. We're at the end of the year, Arbcom is a lame duck, many arbs are leaving and so less active. Forcing through a desysop in a non-emergency in those circumstances is just not the right way of doing things. Worm^TT(talk) 08:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix has responded at the ANI request. I'm not sure what further input is needed here, and I disagree that a full case is necessary (or prudent). GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the best thing to do would have been to email Neelix and talk to him about whether or not he needs the admin bit and recommending that he resign it. Pulling a desysop motion out in public when he hadn't publicly commented on being desysopped - for actions which were non admin actions, so it's basically a "lost community faith desysop" shouldn't be a something that happens by simple motion of 11 people. Worm^TT(talk) 08:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not, and maybe this will be an impetus for a community-based desysop procedure, but this is all we have right now, and I'm not particularly willing to allow Neelix to slide between the cracks because we don't have a community-desysop protocol in place, The easiest thing would be for Neelix to give up the bit voluntarily (under a cloud), but a number of people have suggested that and we've had no response from him, so proceeding with the only other desysyoping mechanism we have in place, via ArbCom, seems a reasonable response tp his extended bad judgment and misbehavior. BMK (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying a desysop for loss of community trust is wrong. I'm saying a desysop for loss of community trust by motion is wrong. There's a large number of reasons this should be a case, even if it's a simple one. Worm^TT(talk) 10:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that a private conversation preceding a public motion would have been a good idea. (Or maybe there was communication we're not aware of.) But if the eventual aim is to put down the torches and pitchforks and encourage a long-term volunteer to stick to his areas of competence, leave the (ahem) titillating redirects alone, and ideally quietly resign the bit he's barely using in any case, I don't think a month-long arb case in which all and sundry can post "evidence" in which they speculate about his motivations, off-wiki affiliations, religious beliefs, mental health (see ANI), etc etc etc. is an improvement on what we're currently doing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• He created redirect a trip down mammary lane!? (LOL! An Administrator! An Ambassador! Such good vetting! Hilarious!) Desysop him. If he does again, even once, indef him. DUH. IHTS (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Having been heavily involved in the ANI discussion, including mass deletion of a number of these redirects and issuing a final warning, I initially called for de-sysop when I thought the account was compromised. Turns out it isn't. It seems like Neelix has been doing this for a number of years, and was previously blocked for it in 2010. Now the matter has been brought to the community's wider attention I doubt it will happen again, and there has been no abuse of tools. Therefore I oppose any de-sysop. GiantSnowman 10:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Missing the point The issue here isn't the "admin" block - protect - revdel - et. al. tool set, it's autopatrolled (bundled with admin). Had Neelix's contributions been appearing on the patrol list the problem would have been detected and addressed much sooner. That said, per WTT this motion is out of order -- and desysoping is not an IAR circumstance and I encourage the committee to decline for that reason. This is not an emergency, someone will file a case later if the committee's services are required. NE Ent 12:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

He has performed a WP:INVOLVED block. In his second to last block [2]Neelix made was a clearly involved block of Xxxxxf to protect articles he created.

• Neelix reverts Xxxxxf's edit on Bangkok Girl which he had created.
• Xxxxxf also edited [3] Let Me Be a Woman which Neelix reverts [4]. Neelix created this article as well. So his tool use is not clean either. Jbh^Talk 13:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• More misuse of admin tools. Neelix places full page protection on Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant [5], an article he has created, [6]. It was later reverted [7] by KTC as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Jbh^Talk 15:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, good point. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe desysop is appropriate here considering the amount of disruption caused, If he wants the tools again he should go to RFA. –Davey2010^Talk 14:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes to de-sysopping. The sheer number of ridiculous and offensive redirects is mind boggling but that an Admin has done this for so long is beyond comprehension. What else has he been doing that is very unbecoming of a mop-bearer? The disruption alone is de-sysop worthy, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• There are problems with Neelix's organism related redirects (and dabs). The fact that he created the redirect I. maxima and the dab page L. maxima on the same day

Bypassing Arbcom's own procedures

@GorillaWarfare, Courcelles, LFaraone, and Thryduulf: I've got to say, I'm really uncomfortable with this motion. Arbcom has procedures set in place for removal of permissions, and this motion appears to be bypassing them. As far as I'm concerned, removal of permissions can happen through 3 methods:

• Level 1 procedures - emergency for example due to compromised accounts, as we had a few days ago.
• Level 2 procedures - Loss of trust with no satisfactory explanation.
• As a result of a case.

Now, this desysop doesn't fit with any of those - but it's very close to the criteria for Arbcom's Level 2 procedures. So why in the hell are you not following Level 2 procedures? Have you contacted Neelix to discuss the matter - with the understanding that his administrator userright is on the line? And given him a reasonable chance to respond? He's been asked at ANI why he created a number of redirects as an editor not as an admin. There's a big difference and if Arbcom are considering a desysop, they owe the admin the courtesy of following their own procedures. It's not hard. Most importantly is the line "If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances." Straight desysop by motion is not appropriate here. Worm^TT(talk) 10:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As an armchair Arbcom observer since 2012, I agree that this will set an interesting precedent. --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel that this escalation to ArbCom is appropriate. The community clearly has concerns, consensus is our most powerful tool and it can override guidelines in good faith, and if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Worm that Turned, this isn't deserving of a desysop. Rephrasing to make it clearer: I agree with Worm that turned said. I further believe that Neelix doesn't deserve to have his bit removed over this. Sorry for the mis-wording, I realize you weren't saying Neelix didn't deserve to be desysoped!KoshVorlon 12:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not what I said KoshVorlon. I've not made up my mind on whether there should be a desysop in this case. I'm saying that the way that the committee is going about the desysop is not right. Worm^TT(talk) 12:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree; feeling very uneasy with how this is being handled. Sam Walton (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Fully agree with much of the original concept Dave (WTT) had expressed here. — Ched :  ?  12:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC) (edited) aside: Perhaps the next time there are oppose votes at RfA over maturity concerns, they will be given more consideration. — Ched :  ?  21:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• I oppose all of this as an absurd level of over-reach. There is a process for these things: first we warn. So far as I can tell, Neelix stopped after the first warning, so punitive measures should end there. bd2412 T 13:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: Neelix was warned in 2010 for exactly this kind of creation of redirect and blocked. Despite the warning that a subsequent creation might result in a block I do not advocate a block in this case. I would be troubled about discussion of the sysop if there were no evidence of prior warning, but there is. The strongly worded warning in the block didn't seem to send the message. While he appears to have stopped after the current warning it was not the first warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of that, although it is five years old and somewhat distinguishable. I still think moving to desysop is jumping the gun by a mile, here. bd2412 T 16:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Query: Has anyone noticed the "new" 2601 account being so quick to notify everyone about the sins involved? I am far from certain about who was the actual culprit, though since the account is no longer misbehaving, I wonder if we are barking at the wrong tree? Proper course would be to email a known account for Neelix, and to lock this account until this is sorted out. "Desysopping" here seems a bit like locking the barn door. Collect (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Drmies: since I think, based on their conversation, that he knows who the IP is and that they have been editing for 'years'. The original report was on Drmies talk page [8]. Jbh^Talk 13:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Collect, the IP is a notorious hopper--he just can't settle down. He's been here for years, slumming as an IP, and his edits are above board. You can go through my talk page archives looking for "99", which is how he has come to be known (before he got a smartphone, I suppose). Others can vouch for him as well but I want to respect their privacy. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• In short he or she either is or is not a person with a registered username on Wikipedia? If so they have no reasonable expectation that the registered username will not be revealed. Collect (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Surely if the IP-to-account correspondence is only known by a few people, they have every reasonable expectation not to be outed. LjL (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• If ,for an example, an IP was repeatedly harassing (2600:1000:b010:3bff:f9c5:d8f1:2a36:d8c5) an editor - any admin would be acting properly in denying that anyone might know who the IP really was? Or if an IP whose identity was specifically known to an admin decides to weigh in on a controversial topic - that the IP should be protected from being "outed" as a known editor? We are not talking "real life identities" here - we would be talking about a registered editor using an IP in order to hide who he is, in such a case. Collect (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's clear that Neelix has lost the community's trust in his good judgement as an administrator ... No, Neelix has not lost the community's trust; he might've lost yours, but you don't represent the community. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing a community supermajority WP:CONSENSUS of 2:1, so I'd say that Thryduulf's statement is correct. Softlavender (talk)

This alleged supermajority is of the self-selected group of people who post to the hell-hole that is AN/I, right? I strongly agree with Worm That Turned, Sam Walton, bd2412, et al. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree totally. Worm That Turned, BD2412, Sam Walton, et al. are right, and people who want Neelix's head based on an editing issue—rather than an admin issue—are suggesting solutions that are not supported by any policy whatsoever. A topic ban, a block, or even a warning? Fine. A desysopping? "His unacceptable conduct as an administrator" does not have to be punished based on a silly editing rampage about [censored]. It must be prevented. The way we can prevent that is by a topic ban. epic genius (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with WTT in part. This is an entirely new process, one which, as far as I can see, is nowhere to be found in policy or precedent; then again, this process certainly has advatages over level 1 and 2 desysops, in that we allow the community to voice their opinions before the fact, rather than after. On the other hand, as far as I can see, we haven't heard from Neelix yet (except for his comments on ANI) and, so, I'm not going to cast my vote at this time. At the same time, had this case been filed at RFAR, we could have dealt with it by motion and that would have been perfectly fine procedure-wise; so, in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO, I'm not sure there would be much point in closing this discussion, only to move everything to RFAR... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  Except that if it was at RFAR, things would have played differently. Statements would have been heard. Holding comments requesting more statements would appear from arbs. No arb (I hope) would have proposed a motion to desysop, let alone voted on said motion, without a statement from Neelix in a reasonable time frame. Arbcom is set up to act in a certain manner for good reason. I would certainly agree to changing to L2 desysop procedure to include community comments before the desysop happens, but not on the fly during a L2 procedure! Worm^TT(talk) 14:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  As I said, I agree in part; this should have been filed as a case as RFAR from the beginning, that would have been the proper way to go about it. However, my point is, now that we have a bunch of statements anyway, is there really the need to move this discussion over to RFAR all the same? Or can we adapt this procedure, just for this once, for instance holding off on voting until we hear from Neelix? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  That's got to be your choice as a committee. However, I will point out that things have changed since the motion was first posted. GW has already stated that her issue was with the implausibility of the redirects, rather than the puerility of the terms - yet the motion sticks with the word "inappropriate", which is distinctly vague and overreaching. There's a statement above that Neelix may have used tools while involved in the past. However, in this arena, we're stuck between "desysop or not", we don't get to consider other options, we don't get to look into the facts of the case. Are the facts quite so clear cut? I'm afraid I'm seeing mob rule here and it's getting my back up. Worm^TT(talk) 14:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  If I may, "inappropriate" applies both to implausible redirects and to puerile ones. Neither are appropriate, though of course for different reasons. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't really see how this is any different to a motion that was proposed at RFAR in lieu of a case, and a case isn't necessary—there's only one party, and the facts have been established. I would, though, emphasise that there is no rush; unless Neelix resumes his activities, we can wait to hear from him and have a "cool-down period"—there's no need to have this open and shut immediately. Nonetheless, an explanation for some of these redirects would have to be compelling. I expect administrators to have the judgement to know that "a trip down mammary lane" is not an appropriate redirect, and administrators serve as ambassadors and representatives of this project and should therefore not be party to juvenile nonsense like this which embarrasses themselves and the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  Why is "a trip down mammary lane" an inappropriate redirect in a WP:NOTCENSORED encyclopedia where it is reported in the article (and not by the editor under review) that this is a synonym for the sex act to which the article pertains? bd2412 T 15:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Frankly it's not inappropriate in terms of censorship, but probably inappropriate as something readers are unlikely to search for. Does including that information in the article actually add anything other than trivia, or is it merely added for shock value? Either way, Neelix did not add it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Admins should not behave like this. Sometimes when editor becomes very experienced that time he/she thinks that no one will oppose them whatever they do. Though we have some liberty for choosing name of redirects still creation these kind of redirects does not suit admins. These are not search terms. I don't know deep history of Neelix, but I saw this matter is going on ANI and elsewhere so wanted to comment here. As I see on his userpage, Neelix has done good work too, I wonder how such experienced editor and admin can do such things? Maybe his/her account is operated by 2 people, other person who operates his account is very immature.--Human3015^TALK  15:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I am finding at least some misuse of tools, see above. There are also a lot of lists where he has "moved protection" - maybe moved the article and protected, I really do not understand the notation so I do not know is this is protecting a favored name or is within policy. Someone who is more familiar than I should look at his protection log.

  It looks like there might be a lot of POV pushing going on but that is based on the above linked WO article. If that is true we need to move this to a full case because he needs to be banned outright and he deserves the chance to explain himself that a full case would give. Jbh^Talk 16:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have a question. How are the creation of these redirects in any way related to misuse of administrator tools? Does the creation of female body part redirects somehow require admin tools only? I am not saying that Neelix is wrong, but I think desysopping is punitive because if an admin wanted to get Neelix to stop, he/she could just have blocked him. This does not fit under any desysopping procedures, whether Level 1 or Level 2. epic genius (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Desysopping does not require a misuse of the tools. It can also take place in response to a long-term pattern of poor judgement or other (mis)behavior, sufficient to bring into question the presumption that an admin retains the trust of the community. Neelix's behavior here likely clears that bar.
    That said, NE Ent correctly notes above that as part of the admin user rights bundle Neelix gets the autopatrolled user right. For editors with this right, any new articles – including redirects – they create are automatically identified as "reviewed" or "patrolled" on Special:NewPagesFeed and Special:NewPages. There's a fair argument to be made that if Neelix hadn't enjoyed autopatrolled rights, his history of creating thousands of useless and offensive redirects would have come to the community's attention much sooner. There's no way to remove the autopatrolled right from Neelix without desysopping him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, if he didn't have the "autopatrolled" bit, which is implicitly part of the "admin" bit, all these thousands redirects would have been reviewed by someone in the, you know, years they've been happening. LjL (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades and LjL: Oh, I see now. These comments make a lot more sense (basically, behavior unbecoming an admin, rather than explicit admin misuse). Thanks for the clarifications, guys. epic genius (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL Autopatrolled does mean his redirects were automatically marked as patrolled, but even if they weren't both Special:NewPagesFeed and Special:NewPages default to not showing redirects. On the basis that redirects are cheap and usually harmless we focus our newpage patrolling at articles. So I'm not sure being autopatrolled will have made that much difference. ϢereSpielChequers 19:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Separately from all of this, though, it does make me wonder if "Autopatrolled" should be part of the "rights bundle" granted to Admins – I think I could make a pretty good argument that Autopatrolled should be a completely distinct right, granted separately, and not included in the Admin bundle. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has 4,802 users with the autopatrolled explicitly granted. WP:Autopatrolled is one of those rights (along with rollbacker, reviewer and template editor) that's been unbundled so the bar for trusting editors to have this right is lower than administrator... Wbm1058 (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

But that's not the point, the point is that if you are administrator, conversely, then you automatically have that right. In this case, Neelix being an administrator automatically grants him something that (as an editor) he probably should not have. In fact, there are people who argue against desysopping because the "crime" was committed as an editor, not as an admin and not by using admin tools, and yet, being an admin may well have been what ultimately allowed him to continue doing this for so long, unnoticed and/or unstopped. LjL (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Except as Liz pointed out, it's irrelevant. Redirects don't show up in WP:NPP anyway, so whether or not Neelix had that right wouldn't have mattered. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about that bit, I'm talking about being an administrator in general. Because if Wikipedia can collectively miss 80000 "troll" redirects by an administrator, that's pretty bad, but at least we'd have the excuse that we didn't check because we assumed an administrator wouldn't be doing smoething like that. And they were blocked for it before. LjL (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

As I said over at ANI, Neelix is level-headed in person, and I never imagined that I'd see this. However, I didn't know about the 2010 block for pretty much the same thing—and a response that is eerily similar to those he's giving today. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Worth noting, for the record, that Neelix has been deleting some of the inappropriate redirects since this conversation began. Most of the offensive ones were already cleaned up yesterday, but the ones he's chosen to delete are certainly in the category of "useless". Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec)On the plus side, Neelix is cleaning up old redirects. On the negative side, it looks like the problem goes beyond breast-related redirects.

I know I've said this already but this is the fourth case of excessive redirects ANI saw within a week. I think that the page creation of redirects is not overseen by the new page patrol and there is nothing preventing an editor from creating 40 or 50 or 100 implausible redirects to the same article. Perhaps redirect guidelines should be tightened up? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I posted earlier today a proposal to add a "what not to create" section at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Proliferation of redirects. It needs work and could use the input of editors here. This was something I had been thinking about for a while and wasn't motivated by this case in particular, though obviously it helped. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)