Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence

Motion to suspend case
Per the case request page, I have moved that the case be suspended until/if Neelix returns to editing. The text of the motion is here. I don't immediately support the motion, as Neelix is not unavoidably absent and has instead effectively chosen not to contribute and let the evidence stand on its own. But if there's a majority support for suspension we can declare the case closed for now.

The /Evidence phase is continuing in the interim, so all contributions welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Shortened evidence phase
Assuming the above motion does not pass: After some discussion we've agreed to a shorter evidence phase (from 2 weeks to 1). This reflects the large quantity of evidence already submitted in the case request and the ANI discussion. However if anyone wants to submit evidence but doesn't think they will be able to within that shortened period, please let me know either here or via email.

We have kept the two-week workshop period. Obviously there is a yes/no question on desysopping, per the original case request. There may also be opportunities for interpretations of WP:ADMINACCT, and for consideration of other sanctions relevant to this case. However as a personal view I think the ANI thread presents a comprehensive community view on topic bans and blocks in this matter. Other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI (Burecrats Noticeboard activity)
Administrator in question has voluntarily laid down adminship and appears to acknoledge that there was a contention with respect to their admining. I think it would be wise to motion dismiss noting the resignation and confirming the clouds do exisist. Hasteur (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, just discussing this now but I think that's the right way forward. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why this should be dismissed automatically? Arbcom is not merely for desyopping admins, is it? Several people have supported a topic ban for nudity/sexuality, and there is the serious concern for the advocacy in promoting the views of his church in matters of prostitution. Indef topic bans should still be on the table. Additionally, there is the issue with thousands of hours of work he has created for other editors for doing what he had been previously banned for and warned not to do, and what he specifically recognized was a violation. If a non-admin had done all of this, there would be no such easy dismissal. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What Мандичка said, plus I suggest he be removed from auto-patrolled forever. Legacypac (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because, per WP:AC, the committee exists for problems "the community has been unable to resolve," and the only issue the community couldn't address without arbcom was the administrator WP:UAL. Topic ban is already in place (User_talk:Neelix) NE Ent 23:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * His "topic ban" only applies to creating redirects. His advocacy was one of several issues not discussed at ANI, and there was hardly a consensus as to what to do. The community clearly wants Arbcom to evaluate the situation. If Arbcom dismisses the case simply because he turned in his admin badge, if/when this shows up in the news with his list of titty redirects and naked lady photo sorting the shit is going to hit the fan. I second Legacypac' recommendation on auto-patrol.   —Мандичка YO 😜 23:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

submission length

 * I've been informed my submission is too long. I'm happy to trim it, but may I please submit up to 1,000 characters? This is an unusual case in that the sheer volume of these useless redirects and naked lady categories is what is so shocking. I collapsed the list of categories but I think it's important to see these all listed this way rather than having to send people searching through his Commons edit history. Thank you.  —Мандичка YO 😜 22:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What encyclopedic purpose is served by these Spartan evidence limits. is obviously not running on at great length; they're listing a lot of evidence.  Given that the administrator who is the subject of this case has apparently abused the encyclopedia for years, and given that you wanted a case at all, it makes sense to look at all the evidence. Yes, it's a big pile: if you didn't want to see that pile of evidence, you could have handled the thing by motion last week.  Again: what are you trying to do? MarkBernstein (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The submission length restriction can be easily circumvented by any other editor posting one or two of her points. Just waive it. Legacypac (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)