Case Opened on 19:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 04:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

• Licorne (talk · contribs · block log) and his non-logged-in accounts:
• 69.22.98.162 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 69.22.98.146 (talk · contribs · block log)

User:Licorne (and the other IPs he has edited from) has consistently engaged in POV-pushing, personal attacks, and incivility for the last two months. --Fastfission 13:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Licorne has been informed on his user page both of the arbitration request and the probable consequences of ignoring it.[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Most recently, an RFC was filed against Licorne: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne. It is well-documented there that the user was contacted by many editors before any formal dispute resolution was attempted. No changes as of yet. --Fastfission 13:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC documents the specific charges and the evidence for them so I will not reiterate them all here again. He is a textbook case of a POV-pusher of the worst sort. Licorne's agenda is to insert, in as many pages as possible, fringe POV's about whether Albert Einstein actually originated the theories of special and general relativity. After two months of discussion, with many editors who have been ridiculously patient with his nonsense and abuse, and being asked by numerous editors to change his behavior, Licorne has shown no sign of improvement in any of these respects. As he said in his own words, he regards dispute resolution to be beneath him. --Fastfission 13:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

I have a PhD in Physics from UCLA. Fastfission just doesn't like my criticizing his idol Einstein, but everything I say is backed with published sources. Fastfission long ago began insulting me to try to discredit and discourage me, which he has failed in doing. So now he desperately tries to ban me which is CENSORSHIP that's all it is.

WAIT FOR HARALD, he agrees with me that Einstein's Intro needs be rewritten to conform with published facts. -- Harald has more integrity than Fastfission anyday.

Fastfission and Michael Macrossan would like very much to ban me so they could then revert all of the many changes I have been successful in integrating into wikipedia articles like the Henri Poincare article for example. With me banned they believe they can then simply revert everything I have proven and defended with hard sources. --It is CENSORSHIP, that is what they are up to.

Licorne 03:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastfission You just hate what I say because it is true. You want to kill the messenger because you hate the message. Licorne 03:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (was posted in the wrong section above, moved down here by Fastfission 03:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Fastfission You Started it. -- And You set up that nasty page to insult Dr.Winterberg, the same way you insult me, you just hate what we say. --Licorne 03:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (was posted in the wrong section above, moved down here by Fastfission 03:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Fastfission You should be FIRED for insulting Dr.Winterberg ! --Licorne 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT FOR HARALD to get back, we will rewrite Einstein's Intro.. --Licorne 04:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. Charles Matthews 21:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 19:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

1) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably calmly in their dealings with other users and to observe Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

3) Users are required to participate in the give and take of Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures in good faith, especially in the earlier steps of negotiation, consulting sources, and mediation. Where users are unwilling to participate in the dispute resolution process in good faith, measures may be taken to stop the disruptive behavior without their participation.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

4) Wikipedia users are expected to cite sources for statements, and all conclusions drawn must be cited to verifiable sources. Editors should not quote material out of context in order to mislead; conclusions drawn must also be supported by verifiable sources.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

5) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues, and we should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view; views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

6) A user who disrupts editing of an article or subject area may be banned from editing that article or subject. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Licorne (talk · contribs) has been uncivil to other editors on numerous occasions ([2], [3], [4], [5]), frequently engaging in personal attacks ([6], [7]).

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

2) Licorne has refused to participate in the dispute resolution process in good faith, making only a flip response to his Request for Comment [8] and refusing to participate in Arbitration [9]. Requests to respond to his RfC [10] were met brusquely [11].

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

3) Licorne has attempted to push POVs on various articles against consensus ([12], [13], [14]), see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) For his repeated incivility, POV-pushing, and unwillingness to cooperate productively with other editors, Licorne is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

2) Licorne is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause may ban him from any article or talk page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Such bans may include all articles which deal with certain areas, such as physics. Licorne must be notified on his talk page of any ban and the ban and the basis for it logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

3) Licorne is is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked if he engages in personal attacks for up to a week in the case of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Passed 7 to 0 at 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• 1 year block per 6.3.1 enacted at 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC) —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Converted to indefinite ban on 20:05, March 25, 2006 by Fastfission for Anti-Semitic personal attacks

• Licorne sock reverted [15] and blocked (User talk:66.194.104.5) [16] for a month. Vsmith 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 69.22.98.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) edited Albert Einstein on April 7 2006.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently the one-month block didn't take. I have reblocked. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked 17.255.240.78 [17] as Licorne sock following edits to Talk:Albert Einstein. Vsmith 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked 66.194.104.5 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) for one month for block evasion.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]