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

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 Arbitration Committee/Procedures.''

Motion to close case
1) This case was opened to address the behavior of, 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.. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Just explicitly stating that I support this as reworded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support as reworded. L Faraone  19:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As revised. See comments below. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 05:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would site ban him but I think I am alone here. This should decrease the drama --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  15:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Contra Guerillero, I would not support anything further than has already been enacted. Close case. Courcelles (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * For the reasons I outlined here and on the case request page. -- Euryalus (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * per GorillaWarfare. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 05:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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 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)


 * 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)

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 Arbitration Committee/Procedures.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
2) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
3) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
4) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
5) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
6) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
7) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
8) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
9) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
10) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
9) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
10) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
11) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
10) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
11) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
12) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
13) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Proposed enforcement

 * 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:

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 by User:.


 * 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