Trichome

thcscience_admin
Shortcut

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Everyking 3

Involved parties

Concern over Everyking's conduct on WP:AN and its subpages, particularly WP:AN/I

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

It's on his talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Mediation was attempted at WP:TINMC. It worked briefly, but fell apart rapidly. Wikipedia:Wikimediation was tried, with minimal comment.

Statement by Snowspinner

Everyking's actions on AN/I amount to one thing and one thing only - attacking admins he doesn't personally like. The only thing that can be said for his conduct is that it has improved to the point where he at least seems to read into disputes before commenting. Regardless, his comments show a disregard for consensus, policy, and civility in favor of his own views. Adding to this are a tendency towards personal attacks as in [1], [2], [3], and [4].

Immediately prior to bringing this RFAr, I asked him to cool it, reminding him of our past discussions. [5]. He flatly refused. [6].

The following users have, in the past two weeks, asked EK to look into what he's talking about more, provide evidence, use a form of dispute resolution, or otherwise lay off. Bishonen [7], Radiant [8] [9], Ta bu shi da yu [10], TenofAllTrades [11], Jwrosenzweig [12], Carnildo [13], Jayjg [14], JRM [15], Mel Etitis [16], me (Snowspinner) [17], Calton [18], UninvitedCompany [19], David Gerard [20], Raul654 [21], and Kbdank71 [22]. More or less without exception, Everyking's responses to these complaints, questions, or comments is to ignore them, or to make further accusations.

I also find it telling that Everyking's immediate response to this case, rather than being to defend or explain his actions, has been to make accusations against the first arbitrator to accept it.

I would also like to note, I certainyl hope this doesn't end in Everyking's banning. I wasn't going to ask for it, at least.

Statement by EK

Gerard accepted this case almost immediately. He has a stated animosity towards me and a personal alliance with Snowspinner, so I strongly believe he should recuse. Everyking 18:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My response was not a flat refusal. It was conditional: I told him if he moderated his actions, I would moderate my words. Everyking 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard knows perfectly well why he should recuse and I am not going to dig up evidence to prove to him what he already knows. That's an exercise in absurdity. I may not get to pick and choose my arbitrators but I should certainly have the right to expect that people who have made themselves my personal enemies don't get a vote on my banning. Everyking 18:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0)

  • Accept. This has gone on long enough - David Gerard 18:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding recusal: We went through this in Everyking 2. You didn't supply substantiation then either, despite repeated requests. You don't get to pick and choose arbitrators on a case against you, particularly when you've racked up three - David Gerard 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should also note that when the case against you centres on accusations of mudslinging and refusal to substantiate ... then slinging further mud and refusing to substantiate it doesn't really help demonstrate the falsity of the allegations - David Gerard 19:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. →Raul654 18:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

User:Joke137

involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Party 1: User talk:Joke137 notified on July 23, 2005
  • Party 2: 216.112.42.61 initiated this request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Other methods of conflict resolution are fruitless, the reason being that Joke137 has demonstrated absolutely no desire to make the article in question objective and/or non-selectively informative. He/she has constantly removed such information.

Statement by party 1

Statement by Joke137

I am perplexed by this request. The Talk:Cosmology page contains the full details of this. My response to the points raised:

  • the fact that Georges LeMaître was a priest — I initially edited this to use the more specific term Jesuit. After checking, I now realize this is an error (he went to Jesuit school, but was a generic Catholic priest) and will change it back to "priest."
  • the fact that Edwin Hubble was a devout Christian — Irrelevant to the brief article.
  • the big bang hypothesis was claimed to have been proven by the red shift — The little controversy that exists about the interpretation of the red shift (there is almost none in the scientific community) is discussed at the redshift page, as well as several of the other physical cosmology pages. The cosmology page is meant to be a succinct description of the various uses of the word in physics, philosophy and religion.
  • act that big-bang believers attribute the red shift to the doppler effect or to cumulative intergalactic anti-gravity — The anonymous user is misinformed. I explained on Talk:Cosmology that "anti-gravity" (perhaps the user means dark energy?) is not the explanation of the redshift, and that gravitational redshift and the Doppler redshift have a complementary interpretation in cosmology.
  • The fact that Einstein's theory is not amenable to a stable universe is perfectly well known.
  • The fact that physicists', particularly Einstein's, philisophical prejudices caused them to expect a static universe is well known. (I'm sure Singh's book, cited in the big bang article, discusses the above two points.)

I did not remove the NPOV tag.

I should also point out that another contentious issue has been whether Einstein was a practicing Jew. Per the Albert Einstein page, I contend that he is not. In any case, it is perfectly irrelevant.

I always thought I would be more likely accused of being anti-creationist before I was accused of being creationist. Those are the breaks, I guess, and I really don't know what to make of any of this. Best, Joke137 22:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Incidentally, Arbitration policy states that cases will generally be rejected when the dispute relates mostly to content and not to disputants' behaviour or earlier steps in dispute resolution have not been tried, and the Arbitration Committee feels they will help. On these grounds, this is spurious. I should say that I encouraged the anonymous user on Talk Cosmology to see dispute resolution, and the user chose to submit a request for arbitration. (added Joke137 22:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by party 2

Statement by 216.112.42.61

Joke137 has vandalized the article cosmology with an extremely biased POV, most likely creationist, that big bang hypothesis is correct (as opposed to a self-regulating universe). The vandalism occurred specificly in the section 'Physical cosmology'. Joke137 has deleted numerous facts that relate to the big bang hypothesis. It is difficult to try to remember and list ALL of them, but I will try. The following are facts that Joke137 has suppressed from the physical cosmology section, and truthful statements that he/she has replaced with false statements:

  • the fact that Georges LeMaitre was a priest (meaning that he is biased to believe in a universe with a beginning)
  • the fact that Edwin Hubble was a devout christian (meaning that he is biased to believe in a universe with a beginning)
  • the fact that the big bang hypothesis was CLAIMED to have been proven by the red shift (Joke137 said that it was absolutely proven (paraphrased) )
  • the fact that a red shift may be caused EITHER by the doppler effect or by gravity
  • the fact that big-bang believers attribute the red shift to the doppler effect or to cumulative intergalactic anti-gravity, as opposed to cumulative real/classical gravity
  • the fact that Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts a big bang because it makes the assumption that the stability of the universe requires a precise balance between gravity/mass and energy (ignoring the regulatory mechanisms of quasars and particle-pair creation from photons)
  • the fact that physicists originally believed that the universe was stable and infinite due to a-priori logic (Joke137 said that it was a 'prejudice')

Also someone (possibly Joke137) has suppressed the fact that objectivity of the cosmology article is disputed by deceptively removing the NPOV tag (which I added). That constitutes a gross violation of wikipedia policy.

That's all that I can think of now, but still, that's SEVEN (or possibly eight) facts suppressed right there. The fact that Joke137 has deleted all of those facts shows that it is clearly his/her intent to make people blindly believe in the big bang hypothesis as he/she does. I have talked to Joke137 a great deal in the cosmology discussion page. There WAS progress made in the discussion, as I learned more about the details of what the big-bang believers believe (It is all based on grossly flawed logic that even a child can see, as I have pointed out). However, despite my explanations of why the big bang hypothesis is flawed, Joke137 has not only remained adamant in his/her faith in the big bang belief, but he/she has continued to suppress facts, though the suppression of important facts can not be justified by anything anyway, so that distinction is trivial. I therefore recommend that Joke137 be banned from wikipedia.

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

  • Reject. This is clearly a content dispute. Put the cosmology article on the rfc page to get the views of the wikipedia community. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject ➥the Epopt 23:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Sorry, but the Committee is not a forum for content disuputes, as Theresa says. James F. (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, and reject. Ridiculous - David Gerard 13:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Content dispute. Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. It is the arbitration committee's (self-imposed) policy to avoid dictating what an article should or should-not say. →Raul654 16:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • A quick look at Mr. Simon's talk page will make it clear that I (UninvitedCompany), Ed Poor, and many others have done our best to work with him and deal with him leniently. There is presently an Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon, and I find the ruleslawyering reponse to be particularly illuminative. I believe that mediation is unlikely to be helpful, see my comments below for rationale.

Statement by party 1

Mr. Simon has been blocked for 3RR violations on no fewer than six instances in the past three months, in addition to duplicate blocks and reblocks by admins fiddling with the block durations. These blocks have been placed by eight different administrators (when duplicate blocks are included), making it clear this is not anyone's personal vendetta.

Mr. Simon's past edit wars have been fuelled by his unique views on capitalization, punctuation, and animal rights. His most recent edit war has been on September 11, 2001 attacks (history), where he has become the most recent in a long list of those who simultaneously espouse conspiracy theories and relabel the attacks as something other than terrorism. I can find no contributions of brilliant prose in his editing history that would serve to mitigate these problems.

While Mr. Simon does appear to mean well, he has not responded well to several patient attempts [24][25] [26][27] [28] to help him contribute in a constructive fashion in accordance with project norms. It is for this reason that I believe that mediation would be unhelpful; Wikipedia is not therapy and past efforts attempting it have been notably ineffective.

Respectfully, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

ive been trying to adapt how i do things to more constructive methods, the aforementioned edits on the 9/.11 page were me trying to remove the word terrorist, becasue i thougth that it was a word to avoid , according to policey. people tend to misinterpret what i say, partly because of not so great choices in how i say things, this happens irl as well, so i simply got used to it. some times people even get mad at me for my spelling mistakes, which i do try not to make, but a combination of nerve damamge and a low attention span becasue of ADHD doesnt makle this the easiest thjing in the world. i personal;ly think that the uninvited compay person is over reacting, but thats just me.

its not like im not putting effort into trying to do things better. Gabrielsimon 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i havnt vandalized, and i havnt doe an thing even remotely simmilar, id say that should lend me some credibillity Gabrielsimon 21:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

most of the blocks are the result of me not being carefull, and accidentally ovweerdoing things, with respect to 3rr. its a part of the qttention span thing... its not as if i am unrepentant, but if your going to look at mty talk page, why not check the archives as well. Gabrielsimon 21:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/5/0/0)

  • Reject, let's give this guy some time to learn and grow. Gabrielsimon, please do all you can to listen to the advice others are giving you. These are experienced editors - learn from them -- sannse (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject along the same lines as sannse. James F. (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, concur with sannse. Neutralitytalk 07:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject ➥the Epopt 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Hopefully Gabrielsimon will learn and grow, and we will not be seing this request again. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Gabrielsimon has been editing Wikipedia for 4.5 months now, and has 1,500 edits. This is no newbie, and hopes for improved editing should be tempered with acknowledgement of the complete lack of progress so far, even at recognizing that there is a problem. Jayjg (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, see typical unsourced POV edit [29], see also [[30]] Fred Bauder 02:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:Sumnakay

Involved parties

Statement by User:Pavel Vozenilek

  • Contributor to Roma people article doesn't agree with my edits on Talk page, rewrites them and calls me Nazi and sectarian [31].
Some quotes: I would recommend to protect the page from Pavel Vozenilek's Nazi-like declarations against Romany scholars. or A sectarian analysis of recent edits, a Nazi-like suggestion how to deal with them.
I prefere not to be insulted and my edits staying intact. Pavel Vozenilek 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Statement by User:Sumnakay

  • Contributor to Roma people Mr. Pavel Vozenilek has refused to give any reasonable answer to the proposed questions, deleting other editors additions and links to Romany websites. He has refused to show his knowledge on Romany culture, but simply insisted in reproducing speculative assertions of other people of doubtful authority on the subject. His requests to "delete whatever he dislikes" is quite un-democratic. He demonstrated to assert anything without having the slightest certainty, as he said that I am the author of the websites which I linked, which is false. He MUST show a proof before saying anything about other people. I didn't qualify him as a person, but his statements - that is, I didn't say he is a Nazi, but his statements are (Nazi-like suggestions). To conclude, he has shown complete lack of respect for Roma people.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/3/0/0)

  • Accept Fred Bauder June 30, 2005 13:19 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 23:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, please get more input from other editors via a Request for comment -- sannse (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, further discussion as sannse suggests would be helpful, I feel. James F. (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject for now, as User:Sumnakay does not appear to have edited in almost a month. However, throwing around epithets like "Nazi", even in somewhat indirect way, and editing of Talk: page comments, should be strongly discouraged, and would in my view be grounds for arbitration if they continued. Jayjg (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Clarification

If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.

Iasson and User:Bank of Wikipedia (and reincarnations)

Iasson is currently subject to a ban of 1 year or 1 year and 3 months following an arbitration case, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson. At WP:AN/I it has apparently been confirmed that User:Bank of Wikipedia and associated reincarnations are Iasson, if this is true then it is clearly in violation of the ban.

There is no mention in the arbitration pages of whether the ban should be reset (as it does in other arbcom judgments) if it is violated. It is also unclear whether the two bans imposed were to run consecutively or concurrently. Please could you therefore answer the following questions:

  • What is the length of Iasson's ban? 12 months (bans run concurrently) or 15 months (bans run consecutively).
  • If it is proven that he is in violation of the ban, can it be reset or should some other action be taken?

Thanks, Thryduulf 19:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • One year is our usual maximum ban. In this case I would say the bans run concurrently to the maximum year. If Iasson is evading the ban by editing under another account the ban is reset. I don't think we have a specific page for noting this, I would suggest doing so on his user page. -- sannse (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=19733250

Leave a Reply