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

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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop

, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks.

Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Motion to close case

1) 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.

The "Neelix" arbitration case is suspended unless and until Neelix returns to active editing of the English Wikipedia. If Neelix resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. However these circumstances would be viewed as departure "under a cloud" and the tools may only be restored via a successful RfA. Neelix is instructed not to use his admin tools in any way while the case is pending; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping.

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

Support:

As Neelix has now resigned the tools, and is subject to a one-year community topic ban from making redirects, this case is probably moot. Roger Davies ^talk 22:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The re-write is fine. Thanks, Euryalus. A diff for the community ban notification would be good though, just for later ease of reference, Roger Davies ^talk 18:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to re-use this motion to close the case now that Neelix has resigned the tools. Might make sense to reword a bit to indicate that's happened. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just explicitly stating that I support this as reworded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although considering that Neelix has already resigned as an administrator, this is at this point a vote to close. L Faraone 21:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as reworded. L Faraone 19:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As revised. See comments below. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neelix has resigned adminship, resolving that issue, and the community has thoroughly discussed and handled the editorial issues. I see no benefit to dragging this out any further with our involvement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would site ban him but I think I am alone here. This should decrease the drama --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Contra Guerillero, I would not support anything further than has already been enacted. Close case. Courcelles (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~Without any indication from Neelix that he intends to be inactive, I see no reason for this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~For the reasons I outlined here and on the case request page. -- Euryalus (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

$Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~per GorillaWarfare. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Having regard for the comments here and on the mailing list, it's clear the support votes for this motion are for a case closure rather than suspension. Further, the wording of the current suspension motion is meaningless as Neelix has resigned his tools. The question of additional sanctions has been resolved by the community via a redirects topic ban, which should not be lightly interfered with by conflicting committee remedies. I appreciate many people wanted (still want) more and varied sanctions (blocks, site bans, topic bans from other things) but these were discussed at ANI and didn't get consensus. There seems no merit in having that same evidence retried by the Committee so soon after the community resolved it.

To better align the motion with the intent of its supporters I have therefore shamelessly plagiarised some suggested wording by Newyorkbrad and listed it above. Most motion revisions are minor, but this is an entire replacement. That's unusual, but I think it fits the direction the committee wants to go here. Other Arbcom members, please feel free to revert or amend if I've judged this wrong. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose the motion as currently written, but I really cannot support the wholesale replacement of open motions so I am not going to put my name in support in case someone else reverts and the intent changes again. I support the dismissing of the case, but this should have been a new motion to avoid complications and inadvertent misrepresentation. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

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.

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

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by ***ADD SIGNATURE HERE***; the last edit to this page was on 11:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC) by WOSlinkerBot.

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority): Principles: All; Findings: All; Remedies: All; Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which have passed: Principles: None, yet; Findings: None, yet; Remedies: None, yet; Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Proposals which cannot pass: Principles: None, yet; Findings: None, yet; Remedies: None, yet; Enforcement provisions: Pass by default

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support

Oppose

Comments