Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. 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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

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 (0/1/0/0)

• 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)

---

IZAK 2

Initiated by Bstone (talk) at 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Bstone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• IZAK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques

• IZAK notified [1]
• I am already notifed. Bstone (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1 [2]
• Link 2 [3]

Statement by Bstone

IZAK has made my recent editing on Wikipedia very difficult. He very clearly has violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:OWN and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND among others. He has been demanding in how I edit and has crossed the line in so many ways and so many times that I am feeling harassed and wondering if my continued participation in Wikipedia can continue. I would point out that many of the above issues have previously been addressed in IZAK's previous ArbCom case. The evidence phase will demonstrate over a dozen violations which are egregious. Many other individual editors have complained about IZAK's behavior on various boards, including two on AN/I and a very lengthy one on Wikiquette alerts, two previous RFCUs and a previous ArbCom case (see above) in which he was convicted on several counts.

Statement by IZAK

(1) No direct dispute resolution was initiated by Bstone with me directly. (2) I am a long-standing highly pro-active editor of over five years and retained my positive outlook and faith in Wikipedia and its goals. (3) See User Bstone (talk · contribs)’s RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 on 23 February, 2008 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IZAK not assuming good faith . (4) Instead of answering my call for a "meeting of the minds" as at User talk:IZAK#Administrators noticeboard he moves to "arbitration" not trying Wikipedia:Mediation or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. (5) He insists on mentioning a previous arbitration case that involved me a few years ago which involved other highly controversial issues relating to antisemitism and Israel and involving a number of other parties many now long banned from Wikipedia. (6) Bstone cannot seem to grasp and it's a point that I have repeatedly tried to get across to him which he refuses to accept, see User talk:Bstone/Archives/03/2008#REQUEST x 3, again. and User talk:IZAK#Re: REQUEST x 3, again. is his tendency to be simplistically DELETIONIST and by refusing to let a wider circle of editors know that he is nominating articles/stubs for deletion as a common courtesy, such as at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, is counter-productive and not condusive to WP:CONSENSUS. (7) His response to challenges is by running to complain at WP:ANI or to open WP:RFC and now here at WP:RFAR. (8) After Bstone had nominated a number of articles for deletion relating to Jewish synagogues and schools, I personally spent many hours improving many of those article bringing them up to par and saving them from deletion:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 14 and makes excuses to me at User talk:IZAK#Beyt Tikkun1.
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adath Jeshurun Congregation saved by me [4] as Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka, Minnesota).
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adas Israel Congregation saved by me [5] as Adas Israel Congregation (Duluth, Minnesota).
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'nai Emet Synagogue saved by me [6] as B'nai Emet Synagogue (St. Louis Park, Minnesota)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yavneh Day School saved and DABed by me [7] [8] as Yavneh Day School (Los Gatos, California) and Yavneh Day School (Cincinnati, Ohio)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Stern, most Judaic users disagree with his reasons.
7. I improve articles that Bstone had edited, like Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas [9] and try to mediate and advise Bstone to avoid WP:BITE, see Talk:Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas#Reverts, and I improved JIMENA. No thanks from Bstone.
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subconscious (band): I was not the creator of article, only WP:DABed it FIVE years ago, and requested of Bstone that he let general music editors know of his nomination.

(9) Rather than my hard work to improve articles impressing Bstone, showing him by example that INCLUSIONISM works given a chance, and him learning from it, it has only hardened his attitude towards me. (10) I request that this motion be dropped until the earlier motion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 is ended and request that Bstone prove WP:AGF and avoid WP:DICK. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

I'm not sure this is ripe for the committee. To the extent it is ripe, I think the evidence indicates that the behavior of both parties has been suboptimal. See also this current ANI thread. Perhaps Bstone could use some mentoring by a more experienced hand and IZAK some changes to his vocabulary as some of the troubles have been kicked off by Bstone not understanding some of the word choices that IZAK used. GRBerry 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Avi

Firstly, from a procedural perspective, I believe this is premature while Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 is still open. Secondly, and more disturbing to me, is that there were specific recommendations made to both parties at the RfC, specifically at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#RfC Status update, and escalating this to an RfAR is an inappropriate response before significant effort was expended by both parties to work together. -- Avi (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by John Carter

More or less agreed with Avi above. So far, only an RfC has taken place, and, as previously noted, it isn't even closed yet. The other intervening steps, including Mediation, have yet to be taken. Based on that, without addressing the validity of the points from either side, I think that it may well still be premature to bring the case to ArbCom, given the active state of the first step and no attempt at mediation yet. I do think that someone who knows more about it than I do, which includes, oh, pretty much everybody, might want to see whether the RfC should be closed, though. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by MPerel

Chiming in with what GRBerry, Avi, and John Carter have already said above, this is not ready for Arbcom. The (still open) RFC recommended trying Mediation. That would be one of many available options to pursue first. --MPerel 19:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Response by Bstone

Hi, folks. I see that this request may be denied based on procedural grounds, which I am fine with. However, I am confused about something regarding mediation. I am being urged, it seems, to request mediation between IZAK and I. I have done this informally with an admin before and it didn't progress[10]. I just checked WP:MEDIATION and it says "The Mediation Committee only deals with content disputes. Due to limitations of the mediation model and our general scope, we will refuse to intervene in user conduct disputes." [11] So, it seems formal mediation is not part of the equation, tho I wish it was. As far as the RFCU, I am a bit surprised it is still open as it has been largely dormant for a while. As well, I have viewed it and I see that there are some editors who support IZAK without really looking at some of the more egregious statements he has made. Of course I am biased but some don't even find a problem with his Kristalnacht reference[12] (which is absolutely horrifying as I lost many relatives in that horrible night of anti-semitism). So, based on what I see as formal mediation not being available and the RFCU being all but closed I thought it best to bring this matter to the ArbCom so they may once again review IZAK's behavior. Bstone (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you brought the Kristalnacht reference during the RfC. Have you read the responses there, in specific, proposed remedies 2, 3, and 3.1? May I ask in what way you have tried and failed that required you to skip Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and jump right here? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Avi, regarding mediation, the Mediation Committee has specifically stated they will not intervene in user conduct issues. I went to file the case and the Guild to Filing said in no uncertain terms that they will immediately remove any case which has a user conduct issue in it. As such, it seems that formal mediation is not available. I have tried informal mediation with an administrator, who did get involved, but it did not work out the issues. Both of the links are in my response, above. As far as the proposed remedies, I did sign on to one of them some time ago. It was IZAK's most recent accusation that I edit Wikipedia in order to do harm that was the proverbial tipping point and made me think bring this matter to the attention of the ArbCom. Bstone (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone: This entire matter is not, as you would like to spin it, about "conduct issues" because you are again overlooking the core fact that it is your uninhibited deletionism that is the source of my objections and request to you that you modify your desire to delete articles, or at least involve a wider spectrum of editors when you take aim at articles, about Judaic topics. IZAK (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Per Avi and several others, I would point out that the RfC has not been closed and other avenues of dispute resolution have not been exhausted. I would refer Bstone to WP:DR#Last resort: Arbitration, which indicates that an editor should "have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute" before requesting arbitration and that the editor "be prepared to show that [she or he] tried to resolve the dispute by other means". It isn't clear to me that Bstone has tried the first, and most basic, approach to dispute resolution: approaching IZAK one-on-one to discuss their differences. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Malik. Thank you for your feedback. I believe I have chatted with IZAK in several informal ways however I am very willing to enter into mediation with him. It seems, tho, that the Mediation Committee is entirely unwilling to help works this out. I did approach an admin (link above) about informal mediation, tho that did not work as IZAK did not respond favorably to me or the admin. I opened the RFCU, which seemed to be the next appropriate venue. It is still open but I am truly not sure why as I signed onto a proposed decision some time ago and it's been sitting largely dormant for some time. Since I feel that IZAK is continuing his uncivil statements toward me and since I have exhausted what seems to be every venue for dispute resolution I thought it best to bring this to the attention of the ArbCom. However, I am very very willing to go forth with mediation between IZAK and I provided it is done in good faith, by an uninvolved administrator who is known for helping to mediate these sorts of things. Bstone (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bstone: What real "chatting" have we ever done? when all you do is run to admins to launch time-wasting tribunals to try get your way when you keep losing almost all the AfD votes you have tried so far with Judaic articles/stubs. Anyone who would mediate needs to prove that they have edited articles relating to Jews and Judaism topics in good faith for a substantial period of time and that they are familiar with the content matter of articles you have nominated for deletion and that I have saved from your actions that lies at the core of this ongoing dispute. You cannot hide your pattern of nominating Judaic articles/stubs for deletion, as you have about synagogues and schools, by attacking me as "continuing his uncivil statements toward" you when I object directly without pulling punches, which you then choose to misconstrue rather than answer me directly. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I shall not respond to the above and allow for the ArbCom board to be turned into yet another battleground. Instead, I shall ask if anyone knows of an uninvolved administrator who is skilled at the type of mediation that IZAK and I are in need of? Bstone (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone: No need to be condescending and there is no "battleground" going on beyond your dragging anything I try to say to you to admins with no knowledge of Judaism talk pages, WP:ANI, WP:CFD and now to here as you make a "federal case" out of every serious word you refuse to respond to and reason with beyond "sighs" or "nos" rather than a real meeting of the minds which you run from consistently. IZAK (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Shirahadasha

As other editors have explained better than I can, other steps short of arbitration are still possible, including the both the RFC and informal mediation. Perhaps the parties could try and find a more mutually acceptable mediator. The parties represent opposite ends of the classic deletionist/inclusionist debate, perspectives that have a long and legitimate history in Wikipedia. Since outcomes tend to fall somewhere in between, adherents of both views can find themselves disappointed and even frustrated. It would be helpful if the parties could perhaps not take these disputes and their respective views on them so personally. User:Bstone is not wrong to seek the deletion of various articles, and User:IZAK is not wrong to seek to keep them. Perhaps they could accept this situation and their differences and develop a working relationship. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As above, I am very much looking forward to finding an uninvolved administrator who is skilled at informal mediation. Do you have any suggestions? Bstone (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I have asked IZAK to reduce his statement which, at 1300+ words, is far in excess of the 500 word guideline. Daniel (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Daniel: Done. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much. Daniel (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

• Decline at this time. The RFC is progressing and I hope IZAK will take note of the opinions expressed there, which seem to me to be nuanced and sensitive to his position. I don't think it would be right to accept an arbitration case now, before IZAK has had the chance to demonstrate that he can edit without giving rise to problems. If, after a suitable interval, there are continuing problems, then we should reconsider what can be done. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. I urge all involved parties to work hard toward resolution of this dispute. This is not a procedural issue. The Arbitration Committee supports the idea that arbitration cases should be the last step in dispute resolution. It is in the best interest of the involved parties and the Community for the involved users to work together and with other Community members to find ways to resolve concerns rather than subjecting themselves to Committee enforced sanctions. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Decline at this time per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. Paul August ☎ 05:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

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