Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:07, 10 April 2008

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Appeal of commuity ban of Iantresman

Initiated by Stifle (talk) at 10:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Stifle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques

• Notified Iantresman here
• I will soon leave talk page messages for other users who participated in the CSN discussion. They can then drop by here and add themselves if they wish.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Not applicable as the matter is an appeal of a community ban. There was no RFC or other prior dispute resolution before the matter was landed at WP:CSN.

Statement by User:Stifle

At the Community Sanction Noticeboard around nine months ago, User:Iantresman was banned with just over 5 hours' discussion. He has indicated a desire to appeal this ban and I am opening it here on his behalf. I feel that while Iantresman was disruptive at the time, the punishment was excessive and the ban should be reduced to time served, perhaps with probation or an editing supervision. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Iantresman

As Iantresman is indefinitely blocked he cannot make a statement here. I have asked him to place his statement on his talk page and a clerk or other user should transfer it here when entered.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

--

Egyptians

Initiated by User:Funkynusayri at 07:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Funkynusayri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Zerida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques

• I'm aware. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Zerida was not notified as required but has commented here, rendering any late notification moot. Daniel (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Egyptians/Archive_2#Ethnic_group?
• Talk:Egyptians/Archive_2#Modern_Egyptians_vs._Ancient_Egyptians

Statement by User:Funkynusayri

The premise of the Egyptians article is that modern day citizens of the Arab Republic of Egypt consitute an ethnic group on their own rather than simply a nationality, and that all Egyptians consider themselves "ethnic Egyptians", and not as Arabs. This is incorrect, controversial, and POV, but the main editors of the article, who tend to remove critical comments on the talk page of the article, base their view on one single source, a CIA site which states that 94% of Egyptian citizens are Egyptians by ethnicity.

Also, the Arab World Wiki Project tag is repeatedly removed from the talk page, in spite of the obivous fact that Egyptians are a part of the Arab world.

So the two main problems are: Modern day Egyptians do not exist as a distinct ethnic group today, but are presented as such in the article, and it is completely denied that any Egyptians could identify as Arabs, or that there are even Arabs in Egypt, other than a handful Bedouins. I have presented this problem to an admin once, FayssalF, but with no further answers.

See above links for arguments. Funkynusayri (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That is an unrelated page/incident (on the Arab page). This is about the Egyptians page. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Zerida

AN/I. — Zerida ☥ 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by slightly involved admin Stifle

I am involved in this insofar as I closed a 3RR report and warned Funkynusayri about edit warring. I would urge rejection by ArbCom due to failure to pursue prior steps of dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Reject, premature content dispute; please make use of the preliminary methods of dispute resolution instead of bringing this here. Kirill 01:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Decline at this time, as I agree that other means of dispute resolution have not been exhausted. Please note that this doesn't mean we don't think there is a dispute that needs to be resolved—simply that an arbitration case is not the necessary way to resolve them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, and further arbitration is not a method for resolving content disputes. I would recommend seeking the input of more editors, perhaps via a request for comment. --bainer (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reject, per above comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reject per all the above. -- FayssalF - 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

For clarifications and motions in prior cases, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions.

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee