Motions

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

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 Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;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 Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;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 Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;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 Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;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)[reply]
2. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
4. AGK [•] 23:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

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

Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (removal of unused sanctions)

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

• I'm going to wait for any community comments before opining here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. A clear loss of good judgement. LFaraone 05:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• I believe that this (sadly) is necessary. See my statement here. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Today's situation is a repeat of this, greatly expanded. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems like a dramatic overreaction. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• @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 ArbCom, 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 Arbitartors 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 that 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)[reply]