Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

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-llists.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.

Copernican Principle

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

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 Misplaced Pages to lie to the public. Let them ban me. They are liars at best, and probably much worse, and are making a fool of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages- the last ditch defense for the establishment. Wyattmj (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

@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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

Statement by MONGO

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Clerk notes

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

Copernican Principle: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/0/0>-Copernican_Principle-2013-04-10T19:35:00.000Z">

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 19:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)"> ">
Decline. T. Canens (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Decline. NW (Talk) 21:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Decline. AGK makes some good points which are worth reading carefully. SilkTork 09:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Decline. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)