Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Proposed decision

Tryptofish's section
Please let me recommend that you oppose the motion to suspend the case. By opening the case and letting Neelix know that it has been opened, you have amply met your obligation to give Neelix an opportunity to participate how he chooses. If he chooses to be absent, he can choose to come back, and the needs of the project are best dealt with by coming to a resolution in a timely manner. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I note that Neelix has resigned as an admin, but perhaps the Committee should not close out the case. By making a further decision about a possible restriction, topic ban, or ban, you could save the community the further drama of doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Having seen the community ban, I changed my mind about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, commenting on the first comment in Tryptofish's section

 * Support Neelix is de-sysop'ed but not blocked, he's still able to participate. Please allow the case to continue, let the concerns of the filers be heard and addressed.  Kosh Vorlon   20:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's section
Although the point is debatable, I think Neelix's resignation as an administrator is enough of a resolution that the case can now be closed. It is true that Neelix's behavior could give rise to other sanctions, but we've just been through an exhaustive community discussion on ANI. That discussion closed with a prohibition against Neelix's creating redirects for one year, but without consensus for any subject-specific topic-bans or a block. Unless there is new and important evidence of misconduct that wasn't considered at ANI, the Committee typically wouldn't overrule the consensus of a full community discussion.

To acknowledge the valid concerns that have been raised, the case could be closed with a motion something like this.


 * ''This case was opened to address the behavior of User:Neelix, a long-time, dedicated 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. In addition, an extensive community discussion on the incidents noticeboard has resulted in a one-year topic ban from Neelix's creating redirects, and Neelix has received extensive input regarding his editing practices in that discussion and in this arbitration case.


 * 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.

(I'm on a mobile right now, so the needed links would need to be added.)

This is just one possible path, but perhaps the most straightforward one. Incidentally, people should also be aware of the current ANI thread about related events back in January; the discussion in that thread may lead to some lessons learned, but I don't currently perceive a need to keep the case open to address those issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(@arbitrators) Please note that the currently proposed motion implies that this case will be resumed if Neelix resumes editing. Is that actually the intention? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not any more. The committee has dealt with your retirement by pretending it never happened, and seems likely to adopt your proposed wording above. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

, I think it's pretty well inherent in the motion and in the situation that if Neelix resumes any of the problematic behavior if and when he starts editing again, he's going to have serious trouble on ANI or via an amendment request in this case or both. So I don't think the Committee needs to keep this case open indefinitely to address the possibility, though I understand why you might disagree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector's section
I encourage the Committee to consider this case even though Neelix has resigned his sysop bit. There are other valid and quite serious concerns about his editing and his public face as an Ambassador, and the project would benefit from an rational, evidence-based discussion about what should happen next. What happened at ANI which led to this case being accepted (and what's happening now) more closely resembles an angry mob calling for Neelix's head, and that situation is not likely going to resolve itself without collateral damage. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown's section
I notice the motion says that if he resigns now, it will be considered "under a cloud", meaning the Crats can't give back the bit. I don't argue a cloud exists, but isn't "cloud" a decision made by Crats, not Arbs via a motion? Maybe I misunderstand, but I thought Arb can direct Crats to desysop now via case, motion, Level I or Level II, but not tell Crats how to interpret in a hypothetical future request after a voluntary surrender. A simple desysop by motion seems logical. As for a case, it seems pointless at this stage, but it's your time to spend. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A resignation in the middle of a case is "in controversial circumstances" or "under a cloud" by definition (this was agreed beginning in the PhilWelch case several years ago). Equally important, Neelix has acknowledged on BN today that he can't become an admin again without a new successful RfA. See my thoughts on a draft motion above that would capture this point. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense, although the claim might have linked to precedent, but I digress. My concern, well, is obvious.  I think your suggestion is a good workaround. I would ask clerks to make an exception and leave this threaded please. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken section

 * @Dennis: See this edit at WP:BN, in which Neelix acknowledges that "I will need to make a new request for adminship in order to have a chance at becoming an administrator again. I understand that becoming an administrator again in the future will not be automatic upon reapplication." Since that's effectively the difference between desysopping "under a cloud" and not, the issue you raised is really moot. BMK (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @ArbCom, to save some electrons, please see my comments here and here as to why I believe that Neelix turning in the bit should not be considered to be the end of this case. I urge the members of the committee to vote against the motion, and ask that those who have already voted for it take a moment and reconsider their vote. BMK (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , I don't think that the committee needs to keep the case open "indefinitely". Since Neelix has announced is disinterest in participating, I simply think that the case should continue, with people posting evidence and the Committee making a determination if any sanctions aside from desysopping and topic banning from redirects is warranted. BMK (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any evidence that could not be considered at AN/I - indeed almost all of it was considered at AN/I. If the problems resume, AN/I can look again at the matter. If that fails, or the there is evidence of something that AN/I cannot handle, then arbcom can take a look but I don't see any need at the moment. It's worth remembering that asking arbcom to do something just because you (generic) didn't get the outcome desired at AN/I is forumshopping. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, both the ArbCom motion and the ArbCom case were open before the closure of the AN/I thread, so forumshopping is not an issue at all. What is at issue is whether ArbCom -- which rejected a simple desysop motion because the complexities of the incidents were said to require a full case -- will carry through its responsibilities and actually hear the case which  it  insisted upon having.  Apparently not. BMK (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that the various sanctions considered on the AN/I thread were not instituted not because they were !voted down, but because there was no consensus for them. On all the issues, the support !votes outnumbered the oppose !votes, but not by a sufficient margin to be considered a consensus -- in other words, by the time the discussion was closed, there was no clear sentiment in the community as to what to do, with the exception of the topic ban on redirects.  It is to ArbCom that the community turns to when it is divided in that manner, to cut the Gordian knot and determine what, if anything, to do, and yet here we have ArbCom deliberately turning away from that responsibility. BMK (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)