Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:26, 2 July 2013 view sourceHCPUNXKID (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,603 edits →Statement by HCPUNXKID← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:17, 21 January 2025 view source Primefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators210,142 edits →IBAN Request: remove case, has been cross-posted to WP:AE in Special:Diff/1270861907 as the proper venueTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}}
<noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}}

</noinclude>
=<includeonly>]</includeonly> = <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude>
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{NOINDEX}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}

<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
== Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 22:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|HCPUNXKID}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|FunkMonk}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:FunkMonk#Arbitration_request

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Syrian_civil_war_spillover_in_Lebanon#Infobox_belligerent_changes
=== Statement by HCPUNXKID ===
Im involved in an escalating dispute with ] in the ] article. The problem is the infobox, wich was a 3-combatants infobox and I have reduced it to a 2-combatant one, something that ] furiously oppose. Why I have done this? Simply because we all know that Anti-Syrian gov. forces (Combatant 1 in old infobox) had clashed repeatedly with Lebanese gov. forces (Combatant 3 in old infobox), but until now there's no proof of clashes between Pro-Syrian gov. forces (Combatant 2 in old infobox) and Lebanese gov. forces (Combatant 3 in old infobox). As far as I know, the 3-belligerents infobox is normally used when 3 or more forces are all clashing between them (1 against 2, 2 against 3 and 1 against 3), wich is not the case here. Does it means that being on the same belligerent row imply being allies? Of course not, there are several examples of combatants on the same row wich are not allies, but even enemies. Take for example the ] or ] infoboxes. I had tried to make ] make aware of that, but he repeats again and again that the Lebanese Army and the Pro-Syrian gov. forces are not allies, when no one is suggesting that (Because they're not allies, they had a clear separation between them, although being on the same row). I had also asked him to add sources (if he had them) about Pro-Syrian gov. forces clashing with Lebanese Army to back his claims, and he had answered that its not important who had shot who! Finally, what had annoy me the most was some arrogant behaviour towards me, suggesting that Im totally ignorant on the issue. Perhaps Im not an expert on Lebanon, but I dont think that dismissing other editors is a good way to approach any article discussion in WP.--] (]) 22:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
:P.D. I had to note that ] keeps reverting instead of waiting for the dispute resolution. Should I do the same or I'll had to swallow that? As for the allegations that he had provided sources about fighting between Pro-Syrian gov. groups and Lebanese gov. forces, that is simply false. He had simply provided vague short articles about clashes between Pro-Syrian gov. forces and Anti-Syrian gov. forces, never between Pro-Syrian gov. forces and Lebanese gov. forces. And as you can see, he still talks about Lebanese Army aligning with Pro-Syrian gov. forces, something that, I repeat again (and can be verified, as all what I said in the articles talk page), I had never suggested. Finally, I apologize if I made a mistake by taking the issue here as this is the final stage for a discussion, and ask for redirection of this arbitration to the corresponding section.--] (]) 15:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by FunkMonk ===
This conflict is mainly between pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian forces in Lebanon. The Lebanese army is acting as a buffer between these, but has clashed with both on several occasions. For a similar situation, see ], where though the Sunni factions clashed more with the US and Iraqi armies than the Shia factions did , the latter are not aligned with the US or Iraqi army in the infobox. See also ]. No reliable sources claim the army is aligned with either faction, yet HCPUNXKID keeps removing the third row of the infobox, thereby aligning the army with the pro-Syrian forces. The army has recently been attacked by a ''specific'' anti-Syrian group, but this has no bearing on their alignment in relation to the ''overall conflict''. It is, however in accordance with the fringe POV of anti-Syrian forces to say the army is aligned with the pro-Syrians, and this is the POV that HCPUNXKID keeps pushing. Since HCPUNXKID does not provide sources to support his claims, the third row should be kept for the army and security forces. These are officially unaligned, and the reliable sources support this. HCPUNXKID is ignoring the sources in favour of his personal interpretation, but he needs to find reliable sources that specifically state the army is aligned with pro-Syrian forces before his change can be implemented. As for "who shot at who", I've shown HCPUNXKID several sources that stated the pro-Syrian Alawite forces in Tripoli have repeatedly shot at the Lebanese army, and that the army has shot back and ransacked their positions. Even then, fighting one side in a conflict does not automatically put you on the same side as their main opponents. That is at least the reasoning that has kept Israel out of the ] infobox so far, though they are officially antagonistic towards only one side in the conflict. ] (]) 22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by Lothar von Richthofen ===
ArbCom does not settle content disputes, nor is it the next step in ] after a ''single talkpage thread''. The committee issues decisions primarily relating to editor conduct and is the ''']''' in dispute resolution. Recommend speedy decline and redirection of HCPUNXKID to ] ] ] ]. ~~ ] (]) 22:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*'''Decline'''. As Lothar von Richthofen correctly states, the Arbitration Committee does not resolve content disputes of this nature. Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution and primarily addresses serious user-conduct problems. This does not mean that your dispute is not important, just that a formal arbitration case is not the best way to resolve it. Please use one of the other methods of ] to address this issue; someone from a relevant wikiproject might also be able to provide guidance. (As a personal aside, and this is not the first time I find myself saying this, I find protracted editing disputes about infobox contents to be unfortunate. Though this is not necessarily what has happened here, I find it ironic when editors with differing backgrounds and points of view are able to agree on mutually agreeable wording to a contentious article itself, only to bicker about how the contents of the article can best be summarized in the format of a few sentence fragments.) ] (]) 23:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. What NYB said. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 01:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. We don't do content, and there's plenty of avenues to try before it ends up in our bed. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 12:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. I can't put it better than NYB. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 12:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:17, 21 January 2025

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

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
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions Add topic