This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stifle (talk | contribs) at 10:07, 10 April 2008 (adding new request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:07, 10 April 2008 by Stifle (talk | contribs) (adding new request)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
ArbitrationCommittee
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
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.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
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.
Categories: