Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Wikipedia. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.

This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist.

Please click here to file an arbitration case Please click here for a guide to arbitration
WT:RFAR subpages

WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009):
123456789
1011121314151617
181920212223END

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration subpages

Various archives (2004–2011):
122.12.22.32.43
4AE1AE2ARM1ARM2


Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–):
1233A45789
10111213

Archive of prior proceedings

CasesMotionsDeclined case requests

Clarification request: NadirAli unblock conditions (August 2018)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Ivanvector at 16:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Nadirali unblocked

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Ivanvector[edit]

I'm requesting clarification of NadirAli's unblock conditions, which included a topic ban which was later suspended and then presumably rescinded as part of the suspension motion. The first bullet of the unblock conditions describes the topic ban and also the remedies for enforcement of the topic ban. The second bullet specifies that NadirAli may not edit from an alternate account nor "anonymously" (which I have taken to mean editing while logged out) but does not separately specify enforcement remedies. I have two questions:

  1. Are the enforcement provisions given with the first bullet meant to apply only to violations of the topic ban or to violations of the entire set of unblock conditions?
  2. Is the suspension of the topic ban meant to apply specifically exclusively to the topic ban, or to all of the unblock conditions as a whole? i.e. do any of the unblock conditions remain in effect?

Thanks for your time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by NadirAli[edit]

Statement by RaviC[edit]

I appreciate that Ivanvector has brought this to Arbcom for clarification. As per the standards of blocking policy for sockpuppetry, the sockmaster with his socks is indeffed for repeated offences. An indefinite block is completely justified in this case since this is not the first time that NadirAli is guilty of sock puppetry, but many many times.[1]

Furthermore, we must not forget that NadirAli evaded his siteban, topic ban, one-account restriction and image upload ban throughout these 10 years. --RaviC (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  • @KrakatoaKatie, RickinBaltimore, BU Rob13, and Worm That Turned: Since we already came this far, I was hoping Arbcom would pass a motion to siteban NadirAli. Given that he was evading his siteban before he was unbanned,[2] then after getting unblocked he created Boxman88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[3] to evade the Arbcom topic ban, and since Arbcom removed the topic ban, he got himself indefinitely topic banned uploading any images,[4] which he violated by creating a new sock. [5]  He is indefinitely topic banned from India-Pakistan conflict,[6] and he already violated that topic ban this month.[7] A siteban is probably overdue for someone who is currently topic banned from several areas for an indefinite period and has been socking this rigorously. --RaviC (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

NadirAli unblock conditions: Clerk notes[edit]

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

NadirAli unblock conditions: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • I obviously wasn't on the committee then, but I read it as only the topic ban being lifted, not the single account restriction, and that he is specifically prohibited from editing while logged out. If he didn't violate the topic ban suspension conditions for that one-year period, then the topic ban is no longer in effect. If he's socking, he gets treated like we'd treat anyone else with a repeated history of sockpuppetry. Katietalk 00:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Katie. ~ Rob13Talk 00:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Katie summed it up perfectly. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I was on the committee at the time, indeed I believe I enacted the unblock, and I too agree with Katie. The single account restriction is still in force, the topic ban is not. WormTT(talk) 09:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    RaviC, you make a strong argument for a site ban, but I'm not comfortable with a siteban by motion as many of the members of the current committee were not on the committee for the original case. Were there a subsequent case, we may well agree with you, but there are places to deal with each of the behaviours, from AE to SPI to ANI. If you still strongly feel that the site ban should be put in place, why not suggest it at AN with your explanation. There's no reason that the community cannot pass a ban based on past behaviour. WormTT(talk) 08:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • My esteemed colleagues are all correct. Including the suggestion that AN, not ArbCom, would be the appropriate place to ask for a site ban. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I am comfortable with the advice given above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

#Amendment request: post-1932 American politics, broadly construed[edit]

I just posted an amendment request, and am asking for an exception to the word length since it involves 2 editors in the same case, therefore each would receive 700+/- words. I sent an email request to Kevin. Thank you in advance. Atsme📞📧 18:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)