Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

I have twice attempted to add an alternative perspective on a claim made by the Ba 'Alawi on the Ba 'Alawi sada page. I added this alternative view in accordance with all Wikipedia policies (it had clear references, and was written in neutral, unbiased, and impartial language). The alternative perspective unfortunately happened to touch on the identity of Ba 'Alawi worldwide, as their claim of patrilineal descent from Muhammad and 'Ali ibn Abi Talib was questioned. As we know, Ba 'Alawi descendants are spread all over the world , and one of the editors claimed to have Ba'alawi ancestors ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Abo_Yemen-20250821202000-Nil_Einne-20250821201500 ). In my first attempt, the dispute led to an RFC, and I complied with the RFC's outcome. In my second attempt, when editing a different section and in a different context within the article, my edit was immediately considered a violation of the previously decided RFC. The discussion should have been about whether my latest edit was in line with Wikipedia's policies, but instead, I was banned from the Ba 'Alawi sada page while the proposal was still ongoing and not yet concluded. Usually, in a conflict or dispute, there are at least two defined and conflicting parties. Strangely, in this conflict, I was alone, fighting against a group of people simultaneously. This is too extreme and too good to be true.

My presence here is not to debate whether my edits are right or wrong (content dispute), but rather to question when a group of people collectively rejects an alternative viewpoint on a claim, even when it's presented in accordance with all Wikipedia policies.

I question whether the aforementioned slighting of ba 'alwi identity caused this exceptional situation. Are all users involved in that discussion truly applying all of Wikipedia's policy rules? I invite the arbitration forum to see for themselves what happened there.

This is the first diff that lead to RFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba_%27Alawi_sada This is the second diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba_%27Alawi_sada

This is the first RFC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ba_%27Alawi_sada#c-Robert_McClenon-20250807150600-RFC_on_Questions_About_Lineage

This is the aforementioned discussion at WP:AN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Abo_Yemen-20250820152800-IDHT_and_OR_issues_from_Kabul_madras

References that i've been used https://archive.org/details/kyai-imaduddin-utsman-banten-ppsnu-2024-unraveling-the-scientific-scandal-of-baa

https://rminubanten.or.id/debat-dna-padasuka-tv-dr-sugeng-sugiharto/

https://utas.me/sugeng_sugiharto/nasab-klan-baalwi-dalam-perspektif-genealogi-genetik-8l4zpos0/1

As the highest forum, I will abide by whatever decision you make. Thank you.

Statement by Abo Yemen

I won't be entertaining this WP:FORUMSHOPPING attempt. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Kabul madras request)

As Ivanvector has noted, this is primarily a content dispute, and ArbCom does not adjudicate content disputes. My involvement in the dispute began with a dispute at DRN about the article on the Yemeni and Indonesian family Ba 'Alawi sada. The dispute was filed by User:Abo Yemen because they disagreed with User:Kabul madras, the filing party. The filing party wanted to add a statement to the article that there are challenges to their claim of descent from the Prophet Muhammad. I concluded that compromise was not feasible. Either the statement should be in the article, or it should not be in the article. I developed a Request for Comments and ran it for the usual thirty days. After that time, I was asked if I would close the RFC. I had not voted in the RFC and had taken no part other than as mediator, and closed the RFC, and found that consensus was against including the statement about a challenge to their claim of ancestry. Kabul madras was the only editor who wanted to include the statement.

I then became aware of the conduct dispute at WP:ANI. Another editor had reported Kabul madras for edit-warring to insert a differently written statement in a different part of the article with the same substance, that the claim of descent was being disputed. I proposed that Kabul madras be topic-banned from Ba 'Alawi sada and partially blocked. As Left guide noted, User:Star Mississippi then imposed a partial block. The proposed topic-ban is still being discussed, but is trending to approval of the topic-ban.

If Kabul madras disagrees with my closure of the RFC, or thinks that the RFC should only apply to the specific wording that was originally in dispute, they can challenge my close at WP:AN. An exception to any topic-ban should be recognized to allow them to discuss my closure of the RFC.

I don't think that the filing party has alleged any conduct violations by me or by Abo Yemen or by Star Mississippi, in which case there isn't a case for arbitration. This appears to be a content dispute in which one editor is in the minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Star Mississippi

(I have never been a named party, so apologies if anything here is incorrect or needs moved. Please ping me or feel free to do so on my behalf.) I enacted a partial block on Kabul madras for DE related to Ba'Alawi sada in my capacity as an uninvolved admin at ANI. I left the discussion open in case others felt a p-block was insufficient. I take no position on the content dispute at the heart of Kabul madras' edit warring, and do not think I'm or should be a party to this case if accepted. I of course will not take any further admin action on Kabul, but I was not intending to anyway as I considered my role in the discussion complete. Star Mississippi 03:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC) Edit and so it's clear, I have not edited the article in any capacity nor did I intend to so I'm not sure how I'm rejecting alternative views. Star Mississippi 03:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChildrenWillListen

This is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING and should be speedily declined. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector (uninvolved)

This is pretty clearly a content dispute. The part that may be within Arbcom's scope is the filer's conduct, which is already being handled by the community at the ANI discussion they linked. This should be a speedy decline. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Left guide

Star Mississippi is a long-term admin who patrols ANI on a somewhat regular basis and makes sound judgments with the tools while doing so; this block appears to be no different. As echoed by many in the ANI, I see Kabul madras unwilling and/or unable to accept the results of a community consensus against their position. They even say in the filing Usually, in a conflict or dispute, there are at least two defined and conflicting parties. Strangely, in this conflict, I was alone, fighting against a group of people simultaneously. which means it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK; the block should've sent that message already since words alone were not enough the first time. I request that the Committee decline this case and defer it back to the community at ANI where it can be (and is being) handled. Left guide (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2025 (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.

Editors of the Ba 'Alawi sada page are rejecting alternative views on the claims within it.: Clerk notes

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

Editors of the Ba 'Alawi sada page are rejecting alternative views on the claims within it.: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

decline, content dispute and premature. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy decline, out of scope, content dispute, premature. Daniel (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]