Revision as of 19:46, 2 July 2013

Requests for arbitration

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

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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

linking to Wikipediocracy

Initiated by Beeblebrox (talk) at 19:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• username2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• username3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• username4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by {Party 1}

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

linking to Wikipediocracy: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>-linking_to_Wikipediocracy">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon

Initiated by HCPUNXKID (talk) at 22:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• HCPUNXKID (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• FunkMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:FunkMonk#Arbitration_request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Syrian_civil_war_spillover_in_Lebanon#Infobox_belligerent_changes

Statement by HCPUNXKID

Im involved in an escalating dispute with User:FunkMonk in the Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon article. The problem is the infobox, wich was a 3-combatants infobox and I have reduced it to a 2-combatant one, something that User:FunkMonk 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 Lebanese Civil War or Sinai insurgency infoboxes. I had tried to make User:FunkMonk 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.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

P.D. I had to note that User:FunkMonk 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.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 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 Civil war in Iraq, 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 Lebanese civil war. 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 Syrian civil war infobox so far, though they are officially antagonistic towards only one side in the conflict. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Lothar von Richthofen

ArbCom does not settle content disputes, nor is it the next step in WP:DR after a single talkpage thread. The committee issues decisions primarily relating to editor conduct and is the last step in dispute resolution. Recommend speedy decline and redirection of HCPUNXKID to a more appropriate venue. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 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>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• 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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution 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.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. What NYB said. Salvio 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. I can't put it better than NYB. Worm(talk) 12:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)