Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Copernican Principle		10 April 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

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: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	31 July 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	21 July 2024

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 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 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, 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Copernican Principle

Initiated by Wyattmj (talk) at 17:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Wyattmj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Drbogdan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lithopsian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Talk:Copernican_principle#CMB_Anisotropies

Statement by Wyattmj

I am requesting arbitration on this case. On the talk page I have attempted discussion, but gotten very little if any. The jist is the following:

These editors (materialscientist, Drbogdan, and Lithopsian especially) keep reverting my edits; though well thought out and documented. They keep telling me to go to talk, and weeks go by, and no one discusses this. I will take this further. These guys are basically trying to sweep the truth under the rug and use Wikipedia to lie to the public. Let them ban me. They are liars at best, and probably much worse, and are making a fool of Wikipedia. Every cosmologist knows that what I am saying is true, but the establishment cosmologist who want to protect billions in funding wants to whitewash the truth. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Call any cosmologist you know, and ask if the CMB anisotropies and correlation to the ecliptic are an issue for LCDM, big bang, or inflation, and if they have an ounce of integrity they will tell you yes. Read the references I supplied. The truth is breaking out, but apparently not on Wikipedia- the last ditch defense for the establishment. Wyattmj (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Looie496: Do not impute what I have not stated in the article to my edits. Nowhere in the article do I state this. This is a frivolous comment. Whether I believe this or not is my personal business, and please stick to the edits in question. Please talk to a qualified cosmologist. The evidence is stacking up, and the Coperncian Principle is in trouble, regardless of whether the earth is in the center of the universe or not. Read the Krauss quote in the article. Even the most venomous anti-creationist alive admits it. Who the heck are you? Stephen Hawking? I cannot believe that Wikipedia is trampled on so easily and used to hide the truth. Most amazing and eye opening. I will try and refrain from commenting to others comments, but this is a frivolous comment.Wyattmj (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drbogdan

FWIW - my usual "edit summary" re the Copernican principle article urged a discussion on the article's talk page - to reach WP:CONSENSUS among interested (& knowledgeable) editors per WP:BRD - as follows => "rv edit - text doesn't seem well settled - please discuss on talk page - and reach "WP:CONSENSUS" first - per "WP:BRD" & related." - afaik this seemed appropriate at the time for the text/refs involved - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Looie496

I have not been involved here, but the gist of this is easy to summarize. The filing editor believes that scientific evidence supports the view that the Earth is the center of the universe, and is frustrated that his edits advocating that view are systematically reverted by the editors named. This is the very epitome of WP:FRINGE, and I think that the community can handle it. Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Hasty reject...suggest filer find a new playground.--MONGO 18:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Following the filing on this page I've had a look at the topic for the first time and I concur with Looie496 above. The filer doesn't appear to understand that Wikipedia content is written from the neutral point of view and that this is determined by what is found in mainstream reliable sources. The view of most other editors seems to be that the POV held by the filer is so fringe] that even mentioning it in the main article is bordering on WP:UNDUE. Whether this is the case or not I don't know, but neither is it something that arbitration can determine. Wider community input does not appear to have been sought. The filer would also do well to avoid personal attacks. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Wyattmj has just been blocked 72 hours by User:Vsmith, per what looks like a routine application of the edit warring policy. By coincidence I had also opened a 3RR complaint that can be seen at WP:AN3#User:Wyattmj reported by User:EdJohnston (Result: 72h). Since Vsmith had already acted, my report turned out not to be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Bishonen

Wyattmj's block was restarted some 12 hours ago by Bencherlite for block evasion with the IP 74.100.71.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Note that Wyattmj didn't make any attempt to hide that he was editing through his block. See this edit by 74.100.71.90, artlessly signed "wyattmj (can't edit while signed in)". Is he not aware of the point of blocks? I'm not sure. This is not a new user, he's been editing since 2007 (even though not very copiously), and not new to blocks either.[1] It's a little unusual. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Copernican Principle: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0/0>

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

This request is extremely premature. The dispute at Copernican Principle can be resolved without arbitration, which is a lengthy and difficult process that is only used when all other methods fail. I suggest the filing party read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which specifies several methods of resolving the dispute in question, and that he follow the advice given by that page. As for the disputed content, I would suggest using the dispute resolution noticeboard (or if there are further problems, request for comment on content or formal mediation). I would also counsel the filing party to adopt a less heated, confrontational tone when dealing with editors whose opinions differ from his own. Disputes are at the heart of Wikipedia and all collaborative projects, but getting oneself upset or annoyed when one is challenged does everybody, and the encyclopedia, a disservice. I would also remind him that, if he does not in future adopt a less heated manner when editing this article this article, he is likely to find himself subject to sanctions by the community (or blocking by an administrator) for disruptive conduct. He should try harder to put forward his points using appropriate methods of dispute resolution and in a reasonable, clear, and professional way. As for the request for arbitration, my vote is firmly Decline. AGK [•] " class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">19:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. T. Canens (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. NW (Talk) 21:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. AGK makes some good points which are worth reading carefully. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Courcelles 22:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]