Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Proposed decision

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators (excluding 2 who are recused), so 6 votes are a majority.

Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

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.


 * Support:
 * Kirill 03:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Neutral point of view
2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.


 * Support:
 * Kirill 03:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure that 'scholarly' is the word to use in this particular field but I will let that go by. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this standard version of the principle, though I've added the "NPOV and sourcing" wording from the current Prem Rawat proposed decision below as an alternative because I think it's worth saying something about sourcing here. --bainer (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * While I agree with the first part of the principle I believe the undue weight principle needs more clarification. Article naming disputes should be addressed as well. Please refer to 2.1. --   FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
2.1) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Oppose for now. I prefer the standard wording. This wording appears to differ from Community decisions about content on many topics. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, that is policy wording. If that is different from Community opinions or decisions then the policy needs to be updated to reflect that. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Overly detailed for this venue, as per Kirill. James F. (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC) The added material is content-related, not conduct-related.


 * Abstain:
 * I'm not convinced that it's helpful to go into such detail on the naming issue here, regardless of where the text originates. Kirill 00:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and sourcing
2.2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is unforgoable.

The neutral point of view's requirement that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source.


 * Support:
 * Equal preference with #2; proposed because I think it is worth saying something about sourcing. --bainer (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Editorial process
3) 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.


 * Support:
 * Kirill 03:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Decorum
4) 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.


 * Support:
 * Kirill 03:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
5) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Kirill 03:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), 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.
 * Appeals

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.
 * Uninvolved administrators

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories.
 * Logging


 * Support:
 * Kirill 03:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think UC has a point, however it is my view that most enforcement here ought to be conducted at arbitration enforcement rather than on an ad hoc basis, and if that's the case then it becomes less of an issue. --bainer (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC) To me, this is an unacceptably broad delegation of authority. Permitting bans of up to one year for a broad swath of general-interest articles has too great a likelihood of leading to abuse.
 * Administrators can do that long anyway or give indefinite blocks. We spell out an appeal process, define uninvolved admins, require logging on the case page. In reality, I think that this gives users a better chance that an error will be found and corrected. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Implementation notes
''Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''
 * Thus far, the following proposals pass:
 * Principles 1, 2, 3 and 4;
 * Finding of Fact 1;
 * Remedy 1, "Discretionary sanctions".
 * Hence all pass, except 2.1. There has been disagreement amongst the votes, and per common procedure, I will close this case 24 hours after such time as four net supports for a "motion to close" are cast, pending correction by the Committee. Regards, Anthøny  17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update, 2 should not have been included (my mistake)—the five votes in support are not sufficient to satisfy the six vote majority. All other sections of the notes stand as before. Anthøny  17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Principle 2 unstricken, now passes. All others stand as before. Anthøny  15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clerk Note: one party has requested that closure be delayed for one week, to allow him time to present further evidence. The relevant thread is viewable here. Anthøny  12:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Case closed. Anthøny  15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.


 * Close. Satisfied with the current ruling. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Close. Kirill 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Close. Everything needed is there. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Close. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)