Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:JzG

Proposed principles

Taken or adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article, see comment by Jimbo.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Speaks to the inclusion of fringe / conspiracy theories. Yes, we include them and discuss them. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view as applied to fringe theories

2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant debates in mainstream scholarship. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scholarly disagreement, as opposed to theories which lack academic rigour. There is no requirement to give parity of esteem to theories which lack acceptance outside the relevant professional and academic communities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The lack of "legitimate scholarly disagreement" is a point I've been making for quite some time now, it's important consideration about fringe and and otherwise non-mainstream debates. In this particular case there really isn't a debate among relevant professional and academic communities...and I think it's critical to make this clear when having NPOV and Fringe conversations. RxS (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is crucial. A large argument being used in these discussions is that the mainstream account needs to be balanced with conspiracy theories that have no academic backing because of a claim that they have backing among the general population or a few famous people. Editors have often pointed to famous people who disagree with the mainstream account of 9/11 (entertainers, authors, a few non-American politicians, results of broad opinion polls, etc.) for evidence of this. Other editors point to non-independent primary sources to claim that the mainstream view is doubted by academics. It's a large point of contention and it needs to be elaborated: It's appropriate to mention popular movements like the 9/11 conspiracy theories, the flat earth theories, and the Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories, but only in an appropriate sections or articles and not as plausible alternates to the corresponding mainstream view unless explicitly noted to be a significant minority view in relevant academic fields by independent, secondary, and reliable sources. If there are no such sources, it's to be ignored in factual context per WP:FRINGE. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about a scientific or academic field so what is the relevance of scholars in determining, for example , whether there was foreknowledge, cover-up or inaccurate investigations?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Take other historical events for example: the Apollo Moon Landings. There are conspiracy theories associated with it, but such theories don't have the backing of historians or relevant authorities or academics so we cannot write like this: "The Apollo Moon Landings are what is thought to be a series of moon landings by the U.S. government" or even " ...it is believed that they were staged by the US gov" because that would be giving undue weight. In the case of 9/11, structural engineers overwhelmingly believe the mainstream account of the buildings' collapse; meanwhile, there is no acceptance of the conspiracy theories outside of conspiracy theory circles; that is, no historians, political experts, experts on al-Qaeda, terrorism experts, foreign policy experts, domestic policy experts, government experts, espionage experts, or academic authorities, accept the 9/11 conspiracy theories in any significant minority because there are no reliable independent sources that say these theories have such acceptance. There no scholarly reviewed journals — or any reliable source — discussing anything other than the popular movement of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and there needs to be in order to meet the standards set by WP:FRINGE. Because there are independent sources discussing the social movement of believing in the conspiracy theories (such as an MSNBC article), it is notable in a separate article and we can also have a section devoted to it. However, we must be careful not to give it undue weight. Still, we cannot integrate numerous facts throughout the article that have no obvious relevance to the article simply because editors say they help further the CT viewpoint, especially against consensus. Furthermore, we cannot rewrite the article as if the conspiracy theories are notable in the factual context of the events of that day without reliable sources, and certainly not just because opinion polls show a certain minority of the public believes one way or the other. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1. You can't even write "the Pearl arboyr Attack was without a doubt a surprise attack". The situation is completely simmetric.
2. The case of Pearl Harbour is more far in time so it is indeed a subject for historian. 9/11 is not.
3. In the case of moon landing obviusly the opinion of scientists and engeneers is far more relevant than for 9/11
4. You are right about the "controlled demolition theory" but it is quite irrelevant because it's just an extreme and fringe theory, all the other allegations of cover-up have nothing to do with science and engeenering.
5. The phrase "there is no acceptance of the conspiracy theories outside of conspiracy theory circles" is false according to 9/11 opinion polls
6. You try to cite "experts" which should be supposed to be relevant in determining 9/11 truth, let's exaimine them:
   • "historians": irrelevant: it's actuality, not istory
   • "academic authorities": which kind of academic authorities since it is not an academic subject?
   • "political experts, experts on al-Qaeda, terrorism experts, foreign policy experts, domestic policy experts, government experts, espionage experts": two points:
     • terrorism and politics are not something like history or science: these people didn't learn at the university 9/11-ology and didn't learn scientific principles which could make them understand what really happened behind the scene. They just studied the history of the past politics and terrorism and this is obviously not enough to say anything certain about 9/11.
     • when did you read that these "experts" accept without a doubt all the "official account" and firmly believe that the government said all the truth?
7. You say "there are no reliable independent sources that say these theories have such acceptance" well: which source can you cite alleging "acceptance" of *all* the "official account" by your experts? Do you have any source stating that these experts have no doubt about whether the governemnt could have lied or not shown all the truth?
8. There is a simple fact that must be considered: we actually *don't know* whether the government said all the truth, we don't know if there was a cover up or if there was foreknowledge. No expert can estabilish beynd any reasonable doubt that the "official account" was "the truth and all the (relevant) truth". This simple fact shows that this subject has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to engage in a long debate here; we've been doing that for months and these are all points that have been discussed before. The bottom line is that you are trying to balance the mainstream view with a fringe theory. Per WP:FRINGE, it's the fringe theories that need to be proven notable in a factual context; the mainstream view is the default unless there are sources saying otherwise. Popular opinion is not a factor here; we do not write our articles around it. Things like polls serve to establish notability of the conspiracy theories, and so we mention them, give them a section, an article, and proper weight. But we do not give them credence as fact if no independent expert reliable sources are "buying into" such theories. And, frankly, regardless of what you say, there are experts and fields that relate to historical and political events. If the government and experts are truly covering things up, there is nothing we can do about it on Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a place to combat systemic bias,[1] and we can't engage in original research or put up unsourced conclusions. Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I have been largely arguing that WP:FRINGE has definitely no merit here. It's just for theories which have an academic field of study (i.e. not 9/11).
2. The only "default view" for wikipedia is the nautral description of facts and of the known opinions about them (see WP:NPOV), not the "mainstream opinion".
3. We don't have to give credence to nothing but known facts as they are reported by sources.
4. Nobody but you is saying that "experts" are "covering up".
5. You are just wrong: wikipedia is indeed place when systemic bias should and can be countered.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As for investigations, if you're referring to the commission report, we do mention the criticism of it both on 9/11 and it's respective article.

I'm sorry, I don't remember ever advocating that minority theories should get parity of esteem. I have been adamant that the titles of articles should not prejudge their contents, because that is wikipedia policy, but that is an entirely different matter. As far as content goes, I fully accept that minority views should generally not get as much coverage as mainstream ones.

In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. (WP:FRINGE)

Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute original research. WP:NOR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources in addition to these; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia. (ibid.)

The mere fact that Popular Mechanics, the US State Department etc have made extensive reference to 9/11 conspiracy theories in itself makes the theories notable. Needless to say, they have addressed these theories because at least some of them are widely believed. The fact many sources have covered these theories in great detail in itself justifies a lengthy treatment of them in 9/11 sub-articles and a reasonable and proportionate treatment of them in the main 9/11 article. That these theories currently get almost no coverage in the main 9/11 article, despite their notability, is blatant POV forking as per WP:CFORK#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles.

Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. (ibid.)

The implication of this, of course, is that coverage of a subject, even if it is deemed to be "fringe", must be neutral.

As for whether 9/11 conspiracy theories actually are "fringe", I used to be adamant that they were not. Now I'm not sure. Some of them certainly have some support within the academic world, albeit quite limited, and some of that support is from people with impressive credentials, such as David Ray Griffin and Michel Chossudovsky. So those ones are certainly not in the same league as the moon landing hoax theory. On the other hand I quite understand why it would be undesirable to try to phrase the whole 9/11 article in non-committal language. In a way I am quite happy for 9/11 conspiracy theories to remain "fringe" for the time being, so long as it is clearly understood that being "fringe" is no barrier to notability, nor is it a license to waive NPOV when talking about those theories. ireneshusband (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the point of this particular proposal. Editors have confused notability — and these theories are notable — with claims they also diserve to be mentioned in the factual context of the article, or that the mainstream account should be balanced out with the conspiracy theories, which they say diserve equal footing with the mainstream account. There are no independent reliable sources saying these theories have any kind of expert support or are a significant minority view within relevant fields. They are therefore notable only in a sociological context and should be mentioned in their own articles or an appropriately-weighted section on 9/11. (WP:FRINGE) Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaks to the inclusion of conspiracy theories in mainstream articles. No we do not include them, other than noting their existence, in high-level articles such as the main September 11, 2001 attacks article. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I got to hand it to JzG, he knows how to wikilawyer and use policy, even made-up policy, like a sword "to handle them to win [an argument]". I'm interested User:JzG, this is very well written "policy", but is it a policy at all? Or did you just write it? You link to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view but I can't seem to find those words anywhere in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Your Orwellian prose is deeply disturbing, you are after all, quoting policy which has the title "point of view", and yet you are aggressively advocating only one view, your own. Trav (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability

3) There must be sufficient verifiable information from reliable sources regarding a subject for there to be an article about it, Wikipedia:Notability.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't understand... Which article would you like to delete?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Some theories may be too fringe to be included at all. If Truthers think that some Truther theories are too fringe, they can invoke this. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(Who are these "truthers" here?) I don't see what's the relevance of this guideline regarding the extsience of entire articles on a subject when nobody is disputing the existence of any existing article.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the underlying point being made here, I am opposed to the inclusion of the controversial notability guideline in an arbitration decision. I think that no original research, neutral point of view, and verifiability, taken together, provide enough protection to keep fringe theories out. And those policies are much less controversial than the notability guideline (in fact, NPOV is a foundation issue). *** Crotalus *** 22:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

4) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight quotes Jimbo Wales, stating "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Following this principle, theories which have not been published in reputable sources should not be included in articles on mainstream topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Well according to 9/11 opinion polls it seems that the viewpoint under discussion is definitly not "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out more times than I care to recall, support for the idea that politicians were less than candid approaches 100% in any population, but the idea that because people agree that politicians were less than candid, that they accept mad conspiracy theories, is synthetic and unsupported by evidence. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The polls didn't ask people if they thought that "politicians are candid", please read them before making apparently pointless replies.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We may not include the controlled demolition hypothesis in Collapse of the World Trade Center, other than to note that the hypothesis exists. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that opinion polls do not reflect reality as far as what really happened on 9/11/2001...many people belief in UFO's, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster even though there is almost zero proof of them. It is undue weight to add fringe theories to articles that are based on the known evidence.--MONGO 01:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate sources

5) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ok, but 9/11 is not s scientific subject.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories are unscientific, but the analysis of the attacks and their aftermath are being undertaken by scientists, engineers and political scientists (admittedly an oxymoron). Guy (Help!) 22:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant since the finding of these scientists and engeneers are unrelated to most of the alleged anomalies, liess and cover ups.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Virtually no information about the conspiracy theories has the benefit of per-review by appropriately qualified independent neutral experts. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki process

6) As practiced on Wikipedia, the wiki process contemplates that any editor may edit any article provided they do not disrupt it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Core principle. Truthers welcome, but not welcome to soapbox. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious encyclopedias

7) Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews that are in line with academic thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There are no "academic thought" on 9/11 since it is not an academic field of study.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

False. There are reports from structural engineers, and it is the subject of scholarship by historians and students of politics. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Core principle. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Living individuals

8) Material relating to living individuals is governed by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, interpreted broadly. All material relating to named or identified living individuals must be presented in neutral terms.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Core principle. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts

9) Users who have made little or no other contributions outside a single narrow article or topic may be treated as meatpuppets and regarded as a single individual. When it becomes clear that such accounts are only concerned with advocacy or other disruptive activity, they may be banned from their area of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The implications of this are plain insulting. You just have to read through the archive of the recent 9/11 conspiracy theories medcab process, or even just the present page, to see that your "meatpuppets" really think quite differently from each other and even disagree with each other, for instance on the question of whether or not the mainstream 9/11 story is a "conspiracy theory" or not.

On the other hand, the spectacle of a whole bunch of editors charging into a request for arbitration dangling a noose looks pretty unwholesome to me. That those editors are making almost identical charges and presenting the same fabricated evidence to prove their point is a real giveaway. That they are also unanimously blind to the hypocrisy of JzG, Ice Cold Beer and even the notoriously uncivil MONGO accusing anyone else of incivility shows what their real agenda is. ireneshusband (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur completely...I strongly recommend editors demonstrate they have more to add to our website than to try and force feed us with nonsense, or they should get lost. Conspiracy theory POV pushers are taking advantage of our open editing policy, and that is a real shame.--MONGO 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really comfortable with the wording of the first sentence. It is a bit loose. For instance, it seems perfectly reasonable for an editor to edit only pages related to 9/11 if that is their area of interest. The second sentence actually defines a single-purpose account (rather than an editor with a topical interest), and could probably stand alone as the principle. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The key is in narrow I think. 9/11 generally is a broad subject encompassing areas of politics, history, structural and aeronautical engineering and human factors; 9/11 conspiracy theories is a narrow subject focused on rejecting the mainstream explanation of the events of 9/11. Narrow interest plus advocacy equals problem. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

User:Ireneshusband

1) Ireneshusband (talk · contribs) edits tendentiously and is uncivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yup. This clearly is the case, based on the evidence presented by me and JzG. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No way to deny this, even before the rant on the evidence page. [2] RxS (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

User:Ireneshusband banned

1) User:Ireneshusband is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one month.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

He's a single purpose account, here only to promote his version of the "truth".--MONGO 01:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ireneshusband restricted

2) User:Ireneshusband is placed on standard civility parole for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is the least, most lenient, possible sanction, but if nothing else, then yes. RxS (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Ice Cold Beer

Proposed principles

Civility

1) Editors are expected to engage in civil discussion on controversial issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Xiutwel has edited disruptively

1) Xiutwel has disruptively edited September 11, 2001 attacks and Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is clearly the case. RxS (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No doubt..enough is enough, even though there will be others, if they exhibit the level of disruption and agitation like Xiutwel has been doing, many articles will never be able to become featured level. Put a stop to this now and some related articles might have a better chance.--MONGO 01:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruption to MONGO and Ice Cold Beer = Disagreeing with their own narrow POV. Only their opinion should be on wikipedia. Trav (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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.

Ireneshusband banned

1) Ireneshusband (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on the evidence presented by myself and JzG. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if this was extended to permanent, based on the bizarre rant on the Evidence subpage. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ireneshusband banned

2) Ireneshusband (talk · contribs) is permanently banned from editing articles related to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Xiutwel banned

3) Xiutwel (talk · contribs) is permanently banned from editing articles related to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Harsh perhaps, but the time has come. The amount of time he spends here devoted only to this subject is shown pretty clearly in the evidence section. The endless debates, the same questions asked and asked again, then rephrased and asked once more has been an enormous time sink. At some point it has to stop, diverting so much effort from the rest of Wikipedia has become disruptive in the literal sense of the word and has done non-trivial damage to the work being done here. RxS (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I agree. A topic ban would force him to work in areas where he doesn't have such strong feelings and where, hopefully, he can contribute helpfully with a fresh start and a neutral head. Another affect it may have is to encourage him to contribute to another wiki that may be more compatible with his desires. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is definitly ridiculous. I don't understand on what grounds you could even just think to ask such a thing. The given justifications are pointless: if you dind't want to discuss with him you weren't forced to do so and to "waste your time". The view that discussing with him was "wasting time" is just your opinion and is due to the fact that you have never thought to cooperate and find compromises with people who had different opinions (and this is indeed a really bad characteristic for a wikipedia editor).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it has been made very clear on the evidence page why this is necessary in Xiutwel's case. Multiple explanations of the policies his proposed changes violate have been dismissed, ignored, or led to complaint about our core policies. Xiutwel has edited tendentiously, filling the talk page with more topics than can be addressed in a timely manner and interpreting any ensuing silence as consensus to include his material. When such changes have been reverted, he has edit warred for their inclusion, resulting in a full lock of the page on several occasions. That is to say nothing of the personal attacks and assumption of bad faith which he has displayed. His is a classic case of a single-purpose account, here for the sole purpose of promoting his personal views, and the last two years of debate have shown him unwilling to compromise and cooperate on the project in this area. He may be able to make valuable contributions elsewhere, but in this area it has gone on long enough. Given the circumstances, I think a topic ban would be wholly appropriate. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Multiple explanations of the policy that he was given were in most cases completely pointless
2. He always tried to discuss his edits while you clearly showed a tendency to "dismiss" alleging poor reasons that typically could be summarized as "I don't like this"
3. He as been often personally attacked and accused of being ignorant, time waster, disruptive, troll, like you are doing here even if he has always been far more civil then people with whom he was engaging debates
4. He has always proposed "micro-edits" for which he had plenty of reliable sources: far from being something as "personal views prmotion"
5. All this multiple attacks against him that you are building up is one of the most disonest operation I have ever seen here in wikipedia so far.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The section Jc-S0CO linked to contains only a brief selection of the explanations and quotes he recieved. Some are better than others. Rest assured, in every response to his 450+ edits on that page he recieved an explanation, quote, or at least a link to policy. This has been going with Xiutwel for the entire duration of his account (2 years) on multiple articles and a broad base of experienced editors and administrators have attempted to explain why his proposals violate policy. He has had every opportunity to learn, or at least opportunities to realize that something was wrong with his behavior. Refusal to aknowledge this is a key component of tendentious editing — one of the many his behavior fits. A ban is the most logical course of action at this point, and the accusations against him are quite justified. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1) They were absolutely not pointless. Relevant policy was indicated over and over. And even if there were legitimate policy issues, possibly being right (which is not the case here) does not give anyone the the right to edit tendentiously and disruptively.

2) Well, the "I don't like this" comment is ironic to say the least. But if that's all you get out of the reams of discussion, then there's probably not much to talk about.

3)He was and continues to be disruptive and a time waster, the evidence page clearly shows that. Anyone calling him a troll or ignorant should be cautioned about personal attacks.

4) The so called micro edits were a huge issue, kilobytes upon kilobytes spent on a passport or a German politician...all against consensus and a level of detail not appropriate for the page, no matter how well sourced. It's like the death of a thousand cuts...which brings me to:

5) What's unfair about this, what's really unfair, is how much effort he has diverted from the rest of Wikipedia. He's engaged a group of long term, general purpose editors in a literally constant barrage of talk page edits...objections, suggestions, policy interpretations...none of which had any consensus or any real basis in policy. His editing has been the very essence of disruption...he thinks that because he considers himself in the right that gives him the right to become a time sink for editors that would otherwise be working elsewhere improving Wikipedia. What's unfair is that he has done demonstrable and non-trivial damage to Wikipedia. I, personally, have never seen wikilawering performed to this degree and it absolutely positively has to stop. He does not get to right perceived injustices here by wasting everyone's time. He (nor I or you or anyone else) has a "right" to edit here, and he's crossed the line. RxS (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:AGK

Proposed findings of fact

Ireneshusband is an uncivil and tendentious editor

1) Many of Ireneshusband (talk · contribs)'s edits are tendentious, and he frequently makes comments and changes which are incivil or disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Easily demonstrated. RxS (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a neater version of #User:Ireneshusband. Essentially a derivative of that proposal. AGK § 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't see how this can be denied.--MONGO 01:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree completely. Request clarification why you bring this up: are you saying we should be a high quality encyclopedia and... not promote the official 9/11 version, or: not promote doubting it? Which? Or both?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I really need to put up the "ArbCom doesn't rule on content" boilerplate here? ;-) Kirill 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We all agree, the problem is to understand who is making ideological conflict and who is just working for a neutral article.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editorial process

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Sustained conflict

1) The various articles related to the events of September 11, 2001 have been the scene of sustained and egregious editorial conflict, which has not been resolved by the normal means available for such disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could go into more detail. Kirill 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

And the Academy Award for best understatement of the year goes to... Kirill Lokshin for "sustained conflict" (applause). The $64 question is, how the hell do we stop it? We've seen the exact same problem on so many articles where the mainstream view is under continual assault from believers in fringe theories, and the higher Wikipedia's profile gets the harder they work, the more they exploit editorial burnout, the more they learn to wikilawyer, the more they spit in the soup. I honestly think this is the single biggest challenge facing Wikipedia at the moment: how to defend the ever-increasing number of articles under assault from zealots. It's incredibly destructive of community, horribly demoralising for the editors concerned and yet if we don't keep up the defence the project will become a laughing stock in very short order. Enduring article parole is good, but you rapidly run out of "uninvolved" admins, because the Wikilawyers count you as involved on your first intervention. You'll excuse me, I hope, for this expression of frustration, but this has been escalating steadily since MONGO was active as a sysop on those articles; in the Pseudoscience RFAr we were able to neatly tamp down the small number of fringe cosmologists, but the promoters of fringe and pseudoscience learned a lot and have become among the most expert wikilawyers on the project. It is rapidly becoming impossible to defend any article where more than a handful of people have organised non the Internets to push an opposing view. We've got this, the parapsychology walled garden, the Balkans, Israel-Palestine, the Troubles, all subjects that not so long ago we were able to handle in remarkable harmony given the bitterness of the external disputes. And now in many if not most we have small groups of defenders of NPOV subjected to an endless barrage of such unbelievable crap that it's hardly surprising others won't step up to the plate. The Truthers, for example, have been said to engage in serious real-life harassment. I only dare get involved because I'm on a different continent, if I lived in the US I would not go near this because my RWI is known. We need to come up with some mechanism to protect our own without making them targets. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My preferred way of stopping it is just below. Kirill 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well that's worked in other cases, but that's a debate for another venue. What I'd recommend is to look at what works. The Intelligent Design article is one of the few highly-controversial and yet stable articles we have, and probation wasn't the key to getting it there. What was done was an informal policy of deleting/hiding/userfying any disruptive comments. Pretty much everything on the article has been discussed before, so all that's really needed is a link to the archives at most. It's been found that this type of action quickly drains the will of many tendentious editors to pick a fight, and so they give up. New ones will come along, but it's only a few at a time, and so it's manageable. Note that this is only applied to the more disruptive edits - more reasonable editors who have a problem with the article get their concerns listened to and are engaged calmly. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly doable under the discretionary sanctions—hence the "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary" part of the remedy. I'd prefer to give admins essentially free reign to deal with problems as they come up, rather than only allowing some specific approach which disruptive editors may be able to game. Kirill 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point in that comment is that we don't need the discretionary sanctions to enact the ID remedy. It's already working well at Intelligent Design, despite no official probation in effect. (However, it could be that the probation would make this easier to implement, so I'm not ruling it out.) I'd put this as a proposed remedy, but I don't really think it's the type of thing that needs to be imposed; it's just done. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We need it to forestall Wikilawyering and other absurdities. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Since I am one of the editors who has helped maintain intelligent design and related articles in reasonably stable shape through a variety of measures including userfication (I describe them all here, and now am one of the main editors on homeopathy which is currently under probation, I am in a unique position to compare these two. At least so far, I have been underwhelmed by probation. Granted, a few of the malcontents at homeopathy have been sanctioned. However, what also happens under probation is your standard NPOV-defending editor, your standard rationalist editor or pro-science editor, your editor in favor of trying to neutrally present the facts and include a large serving of the mainstream views, is unable to function easily in this kind of environment, since probation is easily gamed, or at least has been so far, and many of those in favor of NPOV have given up on the article rather than be sanctioned themselves or get dragged into assorted nonsense. Any reasonable suggestion is met with a firestorm of resistance by those who want to promote an uncritical exposition of FRINGE material.

Normally with a solid group of NPOV-defending editors, we would just delete the wild-eyed repetitious polemics or userfy them. However, I would be afraid to attempt anything like that in the environment that reigns on homeopathy, because those in favor of celebrating FRINGE ideas would probably mount a counterattack and under probation, might very well be able to get the upper hand. This is particularly true because CIVIL seems to have been given so much weight, that the tiniest slight or imagined slight is liable to get the editor in hot water. It might make some feel good to have an ultra CIVIL environment, where even the term "homeopathy promoter" is viewed by many as a sanctionable and unCIVIL affront, but it stifles real editing and productive activity. I dare say, in my estimation, if we had probation on intelligent design and related articles and the current zeitgeist operating 2 years ago, intelligent design and evolution never would have made it to FA status, and would be mired in a nonsense and an embarassment to WP. Probation might make some feel good, but I do not think it is a useful answer for a variety of reasons, which I can elaborate on elsewhere.--Filll (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside specific issues of incivility, one of the greatest issues we face is the cluttering up of the talk pages with pro-conspiracy arguments rehashed ad nauseum. This clearly makes it difficult to work on other articles due to time spent repeatedly answering the same questions. For those who may have been living under a rock for the past few months, there has been an ongoing kerfluffle at Talk:Muhammad over the inclusion of images of Mohammad. The issue became unusually aggravated when a web petition demanding removal of the images garnered some 300k signatures. Defenders of the article were swamped with REMOVE PICS OF THE BELOVED PROPHET (PBUH) IMMEDIATELY message and got tired of repeating WP:NOTCENSORED. So now there is a separate subpage for discussing image-related article improvements (not removal demands) and a bright red header on both pages with policy summed up. Any other demands are summarily deleted with a polite edit summary. Rather than answering the same questions about the debris field in Shanksville and why fire can indeed melt steel, might this not be a solution for managing the problem? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with comparing 9/11 with intelligent design: it's a completely different situation, science has almost nothing to do with 9/11 controversies except for very few extreme and minority claims like Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Science cannot settle the status of hypothesis about cover-ups, lies, foreknowledge or incomplete investigations. There is room for legitimate debate and for different opinions, and as showed by 9/11 opinion polls the "let it happen" hypothesis is not a minority view.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an entirely valid comparison. On the one hand we have the mainstream view supported by science, on the other a minority view portrayed with religious zeal by people who consider that their view is being suppressed because the mainstream refuses to accept it due to lack of credible supporting evidence. It's a good analogy, and also a good Wikipedia analogy due to the similar nature of the arguments on those pages and similar attempts to assert parity and downplay the legitimacy and acceptance of the mainstream view. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1. No: mainstream view is not "supported by science". Only specific facts are, and even assuming these facts as true there is a lot of room to have a legitimate doubt on the official account and there are a lot of different point of views.
2. No: minority views are not "portrayed with religious zeal" *in general*. The fact that there is somebody who do so is completely irrelevant.
3. You, in the end, have just asserted that "the comparison is valid" without being able to counter my argument about the contrary but just asserting highly disputable and improper generalizations.
4. Far more approprate comparisons are: Kennedy assassination theories, 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities or the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to re-argue the conspiracy theories, thanks. The conspiracy theories depart significantly from the mainstream and lack reliable sources to support them, and that's all we need to know about them from a content perspective, at least in relation to articles on reality-based subjects such as the attacks themselves. You may think they are there with Pearl Harbor advanced knowledge, I place them closer to Elvis-abduction fantasies, but that's content. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources typically do not take any position on the possibility of unproven coverup, yet they report the existence of allegations and debate about it "and that's all we need to know about them from a content perspective". We don't have to decide how to behave according to our belief on the truth of this or that theory based on personal opinions, taste and feelings (like you seem to be doing). However I just wanted to point out how inappropriate and biased are comparisons with intelligent design.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Only from your point of view. I bet I could find an ID proponent who would be insulted by this comparison for quite the opposite reasons. However, when you look at both from the outside, they're both the same case of mainstream v. fringe. And yes, there is a mainstream here, your protestations notwithstanding. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1. On what grounds can you say that the idea that "there was not a cover-up" and "government said all the truth" are mainstream belief?
2. In the case of Intelligent design we have mainstream=science. Obviously the weight that should be given to science in an encyclopedia is definitely more than the weight that should be given to the mainstream *opinion* about non-scientific subjects when there are controversies. This means that to say that they are "both mainstream vs fringe" is clearly an inappropiate over-semplification intended only to erroneously suggest that 9/11 look has been "settled by science", which is not the case (this even assuming you would be able to answer to my question above).

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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.

Discretionary sanctions

1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The big stick; combines the whole collection into one omnibus remedy. Kirill 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In the final decision, wouldn't something like this be pruned down to a couple of remedies and an enforcement? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In the past, it's been proposed as three separate remedies, but that's led to confusion when inconsistent sets have been applied to different areas. To avoid that, I'm actually thinking of having the entire thing as a single remedy. Kirill 12:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to break it into three subsections? That way, it's understood to be one point, but with three components. --Haemo (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Kirill 22:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Kirill is right: we need a broad based resolution that allows unequivocal action. But consider: are we actually prepared to be bastards? I think we need to be. In order to defuse the tensions we really do need to take the circular arguments away from the locus of dispute. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I like this. But is it practical? Can a single uninvolved admin make a topic ban or full ban stick without a pie fight at AN/I? I would love for this to be possible. I might prefer specific remedies aimed at specific editors, only because enforcement may be easier. RxS (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm told that discretionary sanctions have been effective in the core areas where they've been applied (Balkans, Armenia-Azerbaijan); but that's admittedly not a very large set of data points to work with. Kirill 01:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking from first-hand experience with the Homeopathy situation, no one seems to be particularly happy with how the sanctions there are working out. The basic problem seems to be that admins are reluctant to act on cases that aren't clear-cut, such as tendentious editing. Even when they do, the users banned never agree with it, and so they don't learn not to do it in the future. Of course, this is just my opinion, and it's possible this will change in time. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The sanctions imposed (by the community, not by us) on homeopathy articles are actually a type of article probation, not discretionary sanctions (which are much broader in terms of what they allow); see WP:SANCTION for more details. Kirill 06:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining that they're different. In any case, after looking through everything going on here, I'm under the opinion that this might actually be overkill. It seems to me that a few editors deserve longterm bans from this subject area (Xiutwel for tendentious editing, Ireneshusband for incivility, and possibly others). If those are implemented, I think things should improve quite a bit. Perhaps the articles should also be put on probation on top of this to handle newer editors, but discretionary sanctions seems like a bit much at this time. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Selmo

Proposed principles

Assume good faith

1) All editors are expected to remain civil and assume good faith. Making accusations of pov-pushing, or the intent to damage Wikipedia is not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The first sentence doesn't necessarily imply the second. We are asked to assume good faith when it is reasonable to do so, however, there are some people who are here to POV-push. Those who are clearly here to POV-push don't deserve the assumption of good faith. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is here — Selmo ^(talk) 04:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. — Selmo ^(talk) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Opposed. This is logically inconsistent. WP:AGF says that Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. POV-pushing is an action, as is disruption. Accusing another editor of POV-pushing or disruption are not violations of WP:AGF. Further, WP:AGF says, This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. (emphasis in original). The proposal does not take this important consideration into account. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Xiutwel, sure I agree with you. However, if you analyze the evidence I presented, as well as my comment on the talk page, you'd understand where I'm coming from. — Selmo ^(talk) 06:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

2) Where there is much debate in the mainstream media about a specific issue, it is best to approach points of view in a way similar that the editors of abortion did. — Selmo ^(talk) 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As others have said, the abortion debate and the 9/11 conspiracy theories have little in common. Apart from the religious objections, the abortion debate appears regularly in mainstream political, journalistic, heath and philosophy conversations. The 9/11 conspiracy theories appear nowhere in these conversations except, sometimes, as a cultural phenomena. RxS (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. In addition to a wide variety of polls whose results differ, several notable figures. including Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, Willie Nelson have supported the claims of the 9/11 truth movement. — Selmo ^(talk) 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you could clarify what you mean by this method, for those who aren't familiar with all that went on with the abortion situation. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Abortion is a more complex debate. We rightly cover the medical and ethical aspects separately, and reflect the fact that virtually every religious denomination has profound reservations about abortion, and more liberal people are likely to at least express respect for that position; the real world legal situation in most Western countries is a compromise between absolute permission and absolute prohibition and most people seem also to have a position somewhere between the two. With 9/11 conspiracy theories, most people simply don't believe them, even if they ave reservations about how the Government handled things or whether there has been full disclosure. This case is much more like the pseudoscience situation, where the conspiracy theories are not accepted at all outside of their own closed world and are not treated as a valid philosophy by those who hold to the mainstream view. There are very few parallels between a religious objection to abortion, and the Truther belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't like anyone who believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories mus me part of the 9/11 truth movement. As I said before predominant figures outside the 9/11 truth movement have questioned the offical story. It is fallacious to label anyone skeptical of the commission report "truthers" and then treat this group as an isolated community. — Selmo ^(talk) 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should also apply this to polls, no? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you're implying that my polls should be dismissed because those polled are truthers, they're not. They are scientific polls conducted by reputable pollsters. Selmo ^(talk) 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, you're saying that we shouldn't equate everyone who believes there's some conspiracy with the truth movement, yet on the other, you're using a poll that shows a large section of Americans believe the government is hiding something as evidence that the conspiracy theories have large support and so don't qualify as fringe. I might have to go enter this one into /Evidence. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. No, and I have said it a few times now: the article should not represent one side vs the other with no middle ground. The majority of Americans may agree with everything the 9/11 truth movement proposes, but they agree with at least some of the things they say. It isn't a black and white situation. — Selmo ^(talk) 18:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)`

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Infophile

Proposed principles

WP:FRINGE determination

1) The determination of whether a theory falls under WP:FRINGE should be made with regards to the consensus of mainstream experts in the relevant field of study. From Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Identifying fringe theories: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, but the wording might need to be tweaked — when you're talking about events like 9/11, what is the "relevant field of study"? --Haemo (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am missing the threefold distinction which is made by WP:NPOV: majority view, significant minority view, tiny minority view.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I need some clarification:

1. What does it mean "field of study" in this case. We are not speaking about something scientific, academic or historic. We are speaking about a recent event for which there is legitimate room for different opinions.
2. Who are the "experts" in this case? Who are, for example, the experts which says that there is no foreknowledge or no cover-up? I can't immagine of any expertise which could lead to such kind of conclusion
3. When there are no relevant "expert of the field" (also because it's not an academic field) what is the relevance of WP:FRINGE?

Thanks.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Important to make this clear, as already there have been many appeals to popular opinion on this matter. The public is too easily swayed by propaganda to work as a razor here; we need to use the experts. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Haemo: A situation like 9/11 requires you to split things up a bit, as the analysis of the event requires input from experts in a variety of fields. When it comes to claims of how the buildings collapsed, structural engineers are the relevant experts. Forensic analysts have looked through videos of the events, so they come into play when there are claims of the tapes being forgeries. Different theories have different claims, so different experts are relevant. Notably, only the mainstream theory has strong expert support - hence why it's "mainstream." --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but then WP:FRINGE is relevant just for very few specific sistuations. It would not be relevant, for example, when some editor suggest to add informations which are considered relevant by supporters of the cover-up hypothesis (like the finding of Suqami's passport).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable as a way of defining the fringe, references other cases and other comparable areas of interest. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Conspiracy theories are fringe

1) September 11 conspiracy theories are suitably categorized as fringe, as they depart significantly from the mainstream view among experts who have studied this event.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I naturally agree, but Chris makes a good point — it's a little bit content-y. --Haemo (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

1. We have no experts which studied 9/11 in it's totality: we have different experts for different and very specific events happened in 9/11
2. Very few "Conspiracy theories" deny what experts said abou their specific area of expertise (just the most extreme ones i.e. missile on the pentagon and controlled demolition)
3. Which experts would be relevant, for example, to determine that the government didn't "let it happen", had foreknowledge, lied or made inacomplete investigations?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Related to my principle 1 above. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Accurate enough, but I suspect this is out of scope for this arbitration; the ArbCom doesn't deal with content disputes. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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.

Proposals by RxS (talk)

Proposed principles

Tendentious editing through promoting conspiracy theories

1) Tendentious editing wastes an enormous amount of editors time that they could use improving Wikipedia in general. It's damaging and disruptive to Wikipedia and the very essence of disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Basically this sort of editing is a time sink for editors, and takes them away from work that could be done elsewhere. RxS (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The concept of "Tendentious editing through promoting conspiracy theories" is too poorly defined to be applied in a non-controversial way in this case. Everybody could in principle accuse any non-pro-ogovernative edit to be tendentious and "comnspirational".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For our purposes, Tendentious editing is defined here: WP:TE. This should really go without saying but we need to make it plain that it applies here. I believe sanctions should (at some level) come as a result of this case and they will rest to a great degree on the tendentious editing shown to be happening here. RxS (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... And what about tendetious editing on the side of people which seems to have an "anti-conspiracy" bias?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the Arbs will look at all the parties (as they always do). I am unafraid of that examination. RxS (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So I am :) But let me understand: are you suggesting that if there are user A and user B disputing because they have legitimate and different opinions about the correct application of WP:UNDUE then the Arbs have to decide who they think is right and punish the other one?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, for example, in this case they will make an examination and determine who (if anyone) has been editing tendentiously. In the case that they do find editors have been editing in this manner they will decide if that editing rises to the level of sanction, and if so what type. It's not a zero sum game...and it's not a case of deciding who's "right". Arbs (or anyone else really) feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. RxS (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok but on what grounds are you supposing an Arb to punish? According to which rules? It's *completely* a matter of opinion wheter a person is trying to give the due weigh to a POV or is trying to give undue weight (except in trivial cases when minority views get equal or greater space than majority views i.e. not our case), there are no certain rules to distinguish between due and undue weight and different opinions are completely legitimate. So I don't see why and on what grounds an Arb should be supposed to punish someone for having a good faith legitimate opinion which is different from the Arb's opinion.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But you keep bringing content policies into this. They have no place in this discussion, outside a small handful of areas (BLP, Vandal fighting), in some circumstances, no one gets to edit in a tendentious manner for any reason. They won't punish someone for having a good faith legitimate opinion, they'll punish someone for pushing that opinion in a disruptive way. In other words, it's not the opinion it's the way it's expressed. Arbcom doesn't rule on content issues. To answer your question more directly, they will sanction on behavioral grounds, not because of their opinion of WP:DUE. RxS (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Weren't you talking about tendentious editing? According to WP:TE it is

editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view.

So it is related to the content and not to the allegedly "disruptive way" of pushing a legitimate opinion.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes. See also my "single purpose accounts" above. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur.--MONGO 01:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Travb

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. I find it very Orwellian that User:JzG, who wants to viciously suppress views that don't match his own, mentions this as his first proposed principle.Trav (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant debates in scholarship and mainstream media reports. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unlike Jzg's proposal "all ideas are created equal, but some are more equal than others" which sounds like policy but isn't, this is a direct quote from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. JzG's proposal would have a devastating and wide range effect on minority views and create another rule which seasoned wikipedians such as himself can use against newer wikipedians. I cannot emphasize this enough: the "Deletionist guardians" want only there viewpoint represented, and no one else's. Trav (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View:Undue Weight

1) According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Undue weight, Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. In this case, a large minority, not a tiny minority, believe in different views about 9/11. Although these views should be given minority description, they should not be excluded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• This is super-contenty. You're making a direct content ruling here, something ArbCom does not traditionally do. --Haemo (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Based on the edit history, these "Guardian deletionist" editors not only want to prohibit alternative views in main articles, but they clearly want to completely delete any alternative views about 9/11 on Wikipedia. They are pushing for a Wikipedia that supports free speech, as long as it compliments there own narrow POVs. Trav (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

Wikipedians, especially those with the authority to sanction other wikipedians, should be wary of wikilawyering. Veteran editors often abuse their knowledge of policy acronyms to threaten and sanction novice Wikipedians. As the Economist recently wrote about Wikipedia:

The proliferation of rules, and the fact that select Wikipedians have learnt how to handle them to win arguments, now represents a danger...inclusionists worry that this deters people from contributing to Wikipedia, and that the welcoming environment of Wikipedia's early days is giving way to hostility and infighting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The absolute best example of this abuse is the slander of Ice Cold Beer and JzG against Ireneshuband for incivility. Trav (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Popular minority views should be represented on wikipedia

Minority views, with a significant number of adherents should be represented on Wikipedia. Whether these minority views should be in the main article or in a separate article is up to the community on a case by case basis. If the minority view is in a different article, a link should be provided in the main article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I suspect this will be unexceptable to the "deletionist guardians" because as their edit history shows, they only want one view on wikipedia, their own. Trav (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A small group of Wikipedians suppress views they disagree with

A small but powerful group of Wikipedians actively suppress views which contradict their own, in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Examples of suppressing different opinions includes: consistent putting articles they disagree with up for Articles for Deletion, Deleting sections of well referenced material, wikilawyering, changing Wikipedia rules to, and harassment. This behavior changes the "welcoming environment of Wikipedia's early days" to give "way to hostility and infighting".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• In other words, there is a cabal? :/ --Haemo (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Arbcom Kirill Lokshin recuses himself immediately

From: User:Kirill Lokshin's user page: (L-R) Aude, Swatjester, and me at the 3rd DC Meetup (full version)

Arbcom User:Kirill Lokshin a personal friend of Aude, recuses himself immediately from this case because of a conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nonsense. Based on a picture at a meetup? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really need to respond to this, it's silly. It's not a great picture of myself or User:Swatjester, and was not aware it was on Kirill's user page. Kirill could have picked another one, but not a big deal. :) Having been to a few meetups and Wikimania, I have met some Wikipedians including other arbcom members. If you consider me a "personal friend" of all Wikipedians I have met and demand they recuse, than not much would be left of arbcom. --Aude (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, are you saying that this photo doesn't imply any friendship or that you are actually NOT a friend of him/her?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks. Have you now, or ever have been etc...RxS (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Woo! I have a picture of me and Matt Pinsent, so obviously he's a personal friend! How cool is that? Guy (Help!) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG and Ice Cold Beer's evidence of incivility

1) User:Ireneshusband comments were civil and within the bounds of Wikipedia rules. JzG and Ice Cold Beer's lied when accusing User:Ireneshusband of incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:JzG, User:Aude, User:Ice_Cold_Beer violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Calling other editors "truthers" and "trolls" is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

User:Ice Cold Beer and User:JzG are banned

1) For general WP:NPA, harassment and repeated blatant lies against User:Ireneshusband, User:Ice Cold Beer and User:JzG are banned from Wikipedia for a period of one week.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No. Probably no need to go into specifics except to say none of the underlying assumptions here have been shown to be true (to say the least). RxS (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Ice Cold Beer and User:JzG are banned restricted

2) User:Ice Cold Beer and User:JzG are placed on standard civility parole for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No. For the same reasons as the section above. RxS (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals By Kwsn-pub (aka Kwsn)

Proposed remedies

Article probation

1) All 9/11 articles are placed on article probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Could you explain or give an explaining link?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Worked with other "hot topics" why not here? Kwsn-pub (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean exactly? Sounds interesting...RxS (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is necessary when a few particular disruptive editors are the primary problem. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: