Revision as of 10:12, 2 January 2011

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
8mm caliber: 7.92mm calibre designation		29 December 2010	{{{votes}}}

[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)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

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. 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

8mm caliber: 7.92mm calibre designation

Initiated by Dingo (talk) at 19:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Dingo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
MFIreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Dingo (talk)

In Talk:8x57_IS#German_military_designation.3F and before in the Request to Move, I discovered that there seem to be NO references in German literature about the 8mil-calibres as 7.92mm. No sources could be cited otherwise until now. The calibre designation is either 8mm (civil) or 7.9mm (Wehrmacht, Reichswehr and users before). Sources have been cited that it's either "cartridge 7.9mm" or "8x57 IS".

Therefore, after the movement of 8x57 IS, I began to correct other articles in category:7.92 mm firearms, as well as the category itself. User:MFIreland began reverting. With references on above talk, I reverted again (2nd revert) and wrote to User:MFIreland. He reverted again (3rd revert), and reverted without comment my comments on his talk page. So, I don't think this is going to be resolved communicatively. --Dingo (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MFIreland

Any edits I reverted made by user:Dingo was because they where unsourced and/or original research.--MFIreland • ^Talk 20:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Noting that according to the deletion log of the filing party's userpage, this user has exercised the right to vanish. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

Decline as premature and suggest other methods of DR first, such as Dispute Resolution and/or a RfC SirFozzie (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Arbitration is the last step in resolving disputes. Please try to discuss the matter with other editors (if you can't work it out amongst yourselves) perhaps by asking for a third opinion or creating a request for comment. This and other ideas to resolve issues are described at WP:Dispute Resolution. Shell ^babelfish 14:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and suggest you try other dispute resolution methods. For example, you could obtain a third opinion or informal mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per all preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per my colleagues. Risker (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. In the light of the solid wall of declines, and the opening party's RTV, this can probably now be closed. Roger ^talk 10:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 :Noting that according to the deletion log of the filing party's userpage, this user has exercised the right to vanish. [[User:AlexandrDmitri|Alexandr Dmitri]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 09:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
-=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0) ===
+=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0) ===
 *'''Decline''' as premature and suggest other methods of DR first, such as Dispute Resolution and/or a RfC [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Decline'''.  Arbitration is the last step in resolving disputes.  Please try to discuss the matter with other editors (if you can't work it out amongst yourselves) perhaps by asking for a third opinion or creating a request for comment.  This and other ideas to resolve issues are described at [[WP:Dispute Resolution]]. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]]   <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 14:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 *'''Decline''' per all preceding. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 14:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Decline''' per my colleagues. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
+* '''Decline'''. In the light of the solid wall of declines, and the opening party's RTV, this can probably now be closed. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 10:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)