WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

recent changes
purge this page
view or discuss this template

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Nableezy		27 January 2022	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	18 June 2024

Shortcuts

WP:ARC
WP:A/R/C

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Nableezy

Initiated by AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) at 15:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

diff of notification Nableezy

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Link 1
Link 2

Statement by AllOtherNamesWereTaken

Nableezy has twice insinuated that I am a sock of a banned editor. I am not and have clearly stated this to him.

I have asked him to withdraw his allegation but he has declined.

Nableezy has already been warned at AN/I over his tone and was again warned about this last October at AE by two admins.

He was specifically warned regarding accusing other editors of being socks of banned users and reminded of the appropriate way to handle his concerns about this.AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

There is no insinuation that this user is a sock of a banned editor in either of those comments. There is the statement of fact that he or she is not qualified to comment in discussions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. There is the statement of fact that their 9th ever edit and third in two years was to an RFC in a project page that saw 6 Icewhiz socks, a NoCal100 sock and Yaniv mass-emailing for votes. And that their prior edits showed what their interest in that discussion was. But no, there is no insinuation that this specific editor is a sock, only that they do not have the required number of edits to participate in that discussion. But since we are here, can somebody please say whether or not the CP RFC is covered under ARBPIA's restrictions? This crap with editors showing up for the first time in years to vote in an RSN RFC is more than a little disruptive for finding out what the consensus actually is. Also, I am extremely impressed that an editor that up until their CP RFC edit had 8 edits was able to find El C's warning to me. Curiosities are my fav. Oh, thanks for bringing that one back, where I said "the socks of banned users who regularly return to spare with their former adversaries" in an enforcement request that was opened by an Icewhiz sock, had two other Icewhiz socks commenting, and a NoCal100 sock. Absolutely shocking development. nableezy - 15:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

A check-user would quickly put this matter to rest. One way or the other. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

I urge a quick decline. Asking an editor to strike their comments is a good first step in conduct dispute resolution, but filing an ArbCom case request an hour later is not. On procedure alone, this is not a valid case request. Substantively, the context of the diffs provided is nableezy's long-standing pursuit of protection for the CounterPunch RfC, due to the history of disruption and socking. In context, I read neither of the diffs as accusations that AONWT is a sock. Firefangledfeathers 15:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Nableezy: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Nableezy: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)