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&mdash;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.

Postpone closure
1) Due to the complexity of the case, the large number of editors involved and the enormous amount of talk page evidence I need to compile and reduce to 1000 words, I need more time. Will the arbitrators agree not to close the case for at least a week from now?  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not been able to decide, which evidence to select. There is so many. I do not know what the Arbitrators are deliberating, what they want to see evidence about. It is impossible for me to blindly present evidence about a 2-year, dozens-of-editors conflict in 1000 words or 100 diffs. Here is most of my evidence in one diff, if you are interested in the total of it... Could you please let everybody know what you are pondering? &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide, before closure, a possible solution for the endless conflicts, either in a ruling, or in mediation. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories/Evidence. I expect I will leave it at this, for the time being...  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I just noticed that several hours after I had added some more proposals, on April 2, three Arbitrators moved to close the Arbitration. I am feeling sad now, because I need a solution for these prolongued disputes. The editors involved on Talk:9/11 cannot solve this without outside help. I did not see the purpose of Arbitration before we had tried mediation, but the ArbCom has accepted the case. Despite reallife-pressures I invested a lot in contributing in this case. And now I see the Commission almost closing the case without addressing the vast majority of proposals. All there is in the proposed decision is some general principles we all know exist. What we need help with is: how are they to be applied in this case? I am feeling very confused and dispare when I think these discussions will go on for ever and ever.  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am needing a solution very much! My suggestion would be the ArbCom discusses my proposals 1-9 made at . Perhaps mediation is the better solution. The only consolation I have, is that archives 37-39 can be used as a FAQ to avoid repeating the same endless discussions. In stead of having discussions, we can now cite them. Progress... &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC) (logging off)
 * Comment by others:
 * I honestly don't think this is going to go anywhere in a week &mdash; also, if I were you I would just go ahead and use the evidence you removed before. Yeah, it's a little long, but TravB's evidence is already voluminous, and I'm not sure brevity is really wit in this circumstances. --Haemo (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Haemo, why aren't you responding in the "parties" section? I appreciate your advice, but I am under the impression that the ArbCom is a bit overwhelmed and understaffed for this case. I am hoping they will address my proposed principles. I can prove, using the evidence, that these proposed principles are relevant to the case, but they might as well rule on those principles without being certain they are relevant to this case; they are useful principles to rule pro or against in any case.  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the proposed decision accomplishes quite a lot. I, for one, will seriously consider returning to editing if this arbitration closes as now suggested.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this accomplishes much, but we can disagree about that. The basic remedy is a "big stick" and if it's used effectively then this will have been worth it but personally I don't think it'll be effective. I'd be glad to be wrong. Funny thing though, the lack of involvement by Arbcom members and the outcome has made me less motivated to edit here. Nothing will change...let's just get this over with. It's been nearly a week since this request for a weeks delay was presented, I don't see any progress. RxS (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see the point of adding evidence when I see no deliberations or questions from the ArbCom. I could get my PhD on examining what happened, but I'm interested in solving the dispute, not dwell in it, so I've used my time pondering the evidence and proposing solutions (principles) in stead. Hope it turns out for the good of us all. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediate!
2) As I already stated below I think there are various content issues which have not been addressed in mediation (which was on the name of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article) at all. Would the arbitrators agree to enforce mediation on these three issues, and awaiting the outcome before passing final judgement:
 * 1) a significant minority view regarding 9/11 exists, and it should be reckoned with in accordance with WP:NPOV
 * 2) to include facts in an article, we do not need double reliable sources: we do not need one RS to establish a verifiable fact, and another one to make sure it is relevant to include. (All editors agree that we should not SYNTHESIZE facts into conclusions which are unwarrented from the facts themselves, or make unattributed claims that no RS is making)
 * 3) we cannot omit facts because we hold one view to be TRUE and the other view wrong: that would be engaging in the debate. All agreed upon facts should be consistent with the final article text, not just the facts we like or the RS seem to like.

&mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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
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:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Proposed principles
Taken or adapted from Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Neutral point of view
1) 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) 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 &mdash; or any reliable source &mdash; 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)


 * You can't even write "the Pearl arboyr Attack was without a doubt a surprise attack". The situation is completely simmetric.
 * The case of Pearl Harbour is more far in time so it is indeed a subject for historian. 9/11 is not.
 * In the case of moon landing obviusly the opinion of scientists and engeneers is far more relevant than for 9/11
 * 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.
 * The phrase "there is no acceptance of the conspiracy theories outside of conspiracy theory circles" is false according to 9/11 opinion polls
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 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, and we can't engage in original research or put up unsourced conclusions. Okiefromokla questions? 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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).
 * 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".
 * We don't have to give credence to nothing but known facts as they are reported by sources.
 * Nobody but you is saying that "experts" are "covering up".
 * 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.


 * 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 &mdash; and these theories are notable &mdash; 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)


 * scholarly: this word is misleading, since it is not in WP:NPOV (apart from a small subparagraph). Second: 9/11 is not a scholarly discipline, and hardly any of the 200 references in the 9/11 article are scientific. Thirdly, there is no accepted reliable source which has thoroughly compared views (hypothesis) and falsified one to endorse the other. The only thorough scientific studies are those that conclude a government conspiracy, but those are not accepted by the "A-gang" editors.  PS I needed more time to condense the years of discussion into a neat overview, but I will provide what I have till now, since arbitrators are already discussing the outcome! &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:54, 31 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 Neutral point of view but I can't seem to find those words anywhere in 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)
 * This is an interesting assertion given that the proposal comes form another arbitration case in which I was only peripherally involved. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it deeply troubling that you are quoting Neutral point of view, while at the same arguing that Wikipedia should have only one view, your own.
 * The above suggestion is NOT policy:
 * My alternative suggestion: Neutral point of view: Fair representation is official policy. JzG suggestion ignores most of Neutral Point of View.
 * In addition, the case Jzg mentions I assume, was Psedoscience. We are not talking about Psedoscience. We are talking about politics. Since JzG did not state which case this was, I will assume JzG wrote it himself, ignoring the fundamental tenants of Neutral point of view.
 * PLEASE NOTE: My alternative suggestions #2, which is actual policy.
 * Also note, two editors have stated that my suggestions are about a content dispute, and that Arbitors do not rule on content disputes. JzG's suggestion is a ruling on a content dispute, which will be used aggressively by JzG and others to erase any political view which they feel is not "mainstream". JzG, MONGO, Aude and the others here have aggressively fought to delete any article which is critical of the official view of 9/11 and critical of the United States. JzG, MONGO, Aude don't want equal time, or even minority time for criticism of the official 9/11 account or the United States, they want all the time there is. Only their own view should be on wikipedia, and no one elses. I will gladly provide any edit diffs of this behavior.
 * This is terrible policy which will have far reaching negative repercussions well beyond the 9/11 articles. Trav (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are straying ever further from the point. 9/11 conspiracy theories are notable, and documented as such, but they have only peripheral relevance to the factual account of what happened on 9/11.  The official report, supported by a substantial body of evidence, is that the attacks were perpetrated by terrorists, without detailed or significant foreknowledge of the government, and were the sole cause of the damage and destruction observed.  And that's what we say.  We also say, because it is true and verifiable, that some people consider there is evidence of incompetence and lack of candor on the part of the government.  We also say, because it is true and verifiable, that some people go beyond that and believe that the government orchestrated or executed the attacks.  But since this last position lacks any credible peer-reviewed evidence and has no obvious basis in fact, we don't assert anything like parity between it and the work of the scientists, engineers and other experts whose work underpins the official and mainstream view.  In the same way that we do not give flat earth more than a passing mention in earth, we do not give 9/11 conspiracy theories more than a passing mention in the articles on the 9/11 attacks.  It is noticeable that most arguments to increase the priofile of the conspiracy theory articles within articles ont he factual content are, like the arguments we see above, essentially synthetic, and promoting WP:TRUTH not WP:NPOV and WP:RS; they reverse the proper perspective: some people believe the government orchestrated the attacks, lots of people believe the government was incompetent or lacked candour; therefore we must give some kind of parity to the conspiracy theories in mainsream articles.  Sorry, no, that's wrong. No reliable sources that I have seen claim that the government carried out or orchestrated the attacks.   Guy (Help!) 14:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a response to the arguments made above that by User:Pokipsy76 that "academic experts" are irrelevant, because, after all, 9/11 is not an academic field. I admit that there are no departments of 9/11 Studies in most universities, but there are dozens and dozens of relevant peer-reviewed articles written, read and reviewed by academics in the field of structural engineering, intelligence studies, and so on. The revered and no-doubt exceedingly well-paid editorial boards of publications such as the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Fire Safety Journal and Indoor and Built Environment would be deeply shocked to discover that academics have not considered the questions raised by the collapse of the WTC. The advisors and contributors to International Security, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Current History and Studies in Conflict and Terrorism would no doubt weep, rend their clothing, and triple their advertising budget. All the various academics who have been busy studying the material in order to participate in mind-numbingly boring symposia on the subject would presumably be relieved.
 * You, however, are quite wrong. This is a WP:FRINGE issue. If no academic sources can be found, given the scale and extraordinary coverage of the events, it is, indeed, the very definition of a fringe view. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It cannot give in to fringe views. Relata refero (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are specific issues of 9/11 which are inside academic fields of study. This is however not really relevant to support the position that wikipedia should consider any hypothesis which contradict the government account to be ruled by WP:FRINGE unless the hypotesis "depart significantly" from the view of experts in a relevant field of study, and this is not true for any such hypothesis.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:37, 30 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, 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) Neutral point of view 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)
 * I have read them. They show that people believe that the government was less than candid and not in every way competent.  What they do not show is any evidence that such views, which are entirely normal and extend to virtually every area of business of virtually every government in the West, indicate any meaningful degree of support for the conspiracy theories themselves.  The only polls which suggest such support are those commissioned by the Truthers, a form of confirmation bias observed in many opinion polls. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a page 9/11 opinion polls and everybody can read what they do show. Example: according to NY Times poll 53% said the government is hiding something on 9/11 and 28% that it is molstly lieing. Even this fact alone is enough to prove how inappropriate is the survey of the polls that you just wrote above.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:30, 27 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)
 * JzG, you quote Jimbo, which is not really policy, but you leave out the first paragraph of Undue weight:
 * NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: 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.
 * There is indeed a Flat Earth page. There should be a 9/11 conspiracy theory page, because a significant number of people support those views. Trav (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Plate tectonics and ball lightning would both have been fringe science within my lifetime. We must remain open to the idea that in the scientific world as in Wikipedia consensus can change. --John (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, consensus can change. The thing is, in the scientific world, it has not changed in this case; and it's not our job to write up such a change preemptively. The fact is, there is no recent widespread debate in academic circles surrounding 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is not receiving mainstream attention, and no new arguments have surfaced which have been given notable credence from reliable sources.
 * There is already an article for 9/11 conspiracy theories, but to discuss them in depth on the main article alongside the most widely-accepted and reliably cited account would be giving fringe theories a degree of notability and legitimacy which they have not earned. And again, Arbcom does not rule on content disputes. ~ S0CO  ( talk 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate sources
5) Verifiability and 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)
 * "Nonsense is nonsense, but the study of nonsense is scholarship" - Gershom Scholem. We are here to study nonsense such as your statement above. To study it, to describe it, to attribute it to its proponents, but absolutely not to be persuaded that it is anything other than nonsense, because Wikipedia is not for advocacy. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What???--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:32, 27 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)
 * The same can be said of most conspiracy theories, and yet, they all have wikipedia pages. The moon landing, flat earth, the JFK assassination. What you are proposing is that only one theory, the official theory, be allowed on wikipedia.  There will be no alternative pages for 9/11, but by your same reasoning, there will be no pages on the moon landing, flat earth, the JFK assassination, which, like the 9/11 conspiracy theories have a large following and although untrue and bizarre, deserve a page on wikipedia. Trav (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They all have Wikipedia pages, yes, because they are notable as social phenomena. What they do not have, and per WP:NPOV do not merit, is to be represented on their respective main articles as being on the same level of credibility as the position which is supported by reputable sources. ~ S0CO  ( talk 01:22, 27 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)
 * Specific sub-issues can indeed be related to academic fields but is there any "academic thought" about the likelyhood of a cover up? I don't think so.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not, political scientists, historical academics even journalists can all claim political "cover ups" within their expertise and academic purview. RxS (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Core principle. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. To claim that there is no academic thought on the subject is to assume that all academics are ivory-tower idiots who won't get round to 9/11 until after that book on eighteenth-century snuffboxes is done. This is not the case. Relata refero (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Living individuals
8) Material relating to living individuals is governed by 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:
 * From Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * "little or no other contributions outside a single narrow article or topic"? How little? Try to be more specific please.
 * "When it becomes clear that such accounts are only concerned with advocacy or other disruptive activity" ok, now you have to prove that there was actually and clearly disruption (and you didn't yet).
 * Why don't you cite the policies which should support what you say? How the policies (if they really exist) say exactly?
 * When you will have solved this 3 problem maybe it will make sense to consider seriously what you are saying here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * 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)
 * I agree with your last sentence, but this principle says that narrow interest without advocacy (or any other POV/OR issues) is a problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another bad policy. EVERY SINGLE WIKIPEDIAN starts out editing the same articles, this will give JzG and other admins permission to ban anyone who simply has a particular interest. On one level, every person is a single person account, My focus has been predominantly on politics, along with thousands of other wikipedians. JzG seems focused on deleting material. Mongo's focus has been on Politics and National Parks.
 * In addition, the sockpuppet policy ALLOWS single purpose accounts.
 * Regarding JzG's comments: As Haemo points out, arbitrations are not supposed to rule on conflict disputes. It is obvious that by your own explanation:
 * 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.
 * That you are attempting to get the arbcoms to rule on a content dispute. Trav (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To reply to the above, what is being discussed is users who are disproportionately focused on pushing a single point or point of view within the confines of a single topic or article. Xuitwel, for instance, has archived hundreds of edits on 9/11 and created nearly 60% of the talk threads on the 9/11 article (with the next most prolific editor creating a mere 5% of the discussion threads). But I can see the point you are making -- there is no provision offered defining how "mature" an account must be before it can be considered WP:SPA, and defining one would be difficult (100 edits? 1000?). ~ S0CO  ( talk 01:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. We need to find a form of words, though, that accurately reflects the important difference in character between editors whose narrow interest lies in the content itself, and those whose narrow interest is in disputing or even rejecting the mainstream view of the significance and merit of the subject. The case pages here show much evidence of arguing the truth of the conspiracy theories, when actually the dispute surrounds the perspective that the real world has on the theories. We don't actually care if they are true or not, the mainstream view, as established from many reliable sources, is clearly that they are somewhere between nonsense and ignorable. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ireneshusband
1) 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. RxS (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The rant makes a lie of all the arguments to the contrary. --Haemo (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I make no excuses for the rant. I was frustrated and exhausted and I had completely lost confidence in the ability or willingness of the wikipedia bureaucracy to address imbalances in and abuses of power. I no longer cared whether I got banned, I had decided to throw in the towel and so I let my hair down. And to be honest, I still don't care whether I get banned, but I do care when my actual or alleged behaviour is used to distract attention from much more serious wrongs.


 * The fact remains that at the time this proposal was made, I was not guilty of the things it accuses me of, as per travb below. Furthermore, even my rant, which was very clearly a one-off—there is nothing approaching it elsewhere in my edit history—is still no worse than the habitual incivility of my accuser, JzG (also as per travb below). ireneshusband (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This proposal is a joke. IRENESHUSBAND SAID NOTHING UNCIVIL IN THE EDIT HISTORY which Ice Cold created and JzG cut and pasted.
 * I have asked editors over 10 times on this page to explain which edits in Ireneshusbands edit history which JzG and Ice Cold posted and I have been ignored.
 * I have asked JzG and Ice Cold to remove this section and I have been ignored.
 * I have asked JzG and Ice Cold to apologize for these untrue accusations and I have been ignored.
 * Why? Because the accusations are all untrue. There is nothing in that edit history which is uncivil.
 * What is so appalling, is that these accusations are coming from JzG, an editor who regularly calls other editors idiots, trolls, and truthers. JzG has called editors c***ts and told numerous editors to f*** off. JzG has said other editors contributions are feces and sh**. And yet he considers Irenehusbands edits, which use "please" and "thank you" uncivil.
 * THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE EDIT HISTORY OF INCIVILITY BY IRENESHUSBAND. Trav (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I keep pointing out (repeating myself, see below), I have plenty of evidence of incivility in my section. Not sure why you insist that it must come from JzG and Ice Cold Beer's evidence section, though there is plenty of evidence of it there as well. For example, but there's no reason why we have to explain each one to you. And please, stop yelling. If you have issues with another editor, you can propose another finding, start another Arbcom case etc. This section is about Ireneshusband. RxS (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The context for the remark cited above is that a number of editors, Rx StrangeLove and Haemo being by far the worst offenders, persistently refused to acknowledge that WP:NC says absolutely nothing to justify the assertion that what "reliable sources" call something is a criterion for the naming of articles. Instead they continued to use the "It's what reliable sources call them" argument in the 9/11 conspiracy theories renaming debate again and again and again. As it is inconceivable that an admin such as Haemo or Rx StrangeLove should be unable to understand such an elementary aspect of a policy, the only possible conclusion to be drawn is that they were deliberately misrepresenting policy in order to obfuscate the issue. My remark about pod people was an attempt to communicate what the behaviour of the editors involved looked like without accusing anyone of lying. Here are my exact words:
 * What is it with this "It's what reliable sources call it"? It could not have been made clearer in this debate that this argument has absolutely no legs whatsoever. It is nothing more than a self-serving confabulation. No one has challenged the reasoning behind this rebuttal. Yet the opposers keep coming back with this old canard again and again and again. Even when someone puts out an RfC and editors come from other parts of wikipedia, where you would expect the culture to be at least a little different, many of them trot out exactly the same line without any sign that they have bothered to read the debate they purport to be commenting on. What is even stranger is that a year ago on this page, when there was a different lot of core editors in place, you would still here the same mantra over and over again. Well there's a conspiracy theory for you! Wikipedia being taken over by pod people. Don't we deserve better than this?
 * I would have been within my rights according to WP:AGF to state openly that these editors' behaviour was dishonest and malicious. Instead of doing so I used a joke to try to communicate how how their behaviour appeared from the outside, and to appeal to them to behave better. ireneshusband (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's not even the only time you've called editors pod people, are you going to explain the "context" behind all the numerous times you've been incivil? Remember, this section is about you being tendentious and uncivil, not an opportunity for you to attack the honesty of other editors. RxS (talk) 11:01, 27 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.

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * After the rant on the evidence page, this is justified. I haven't had such hateful language directed at me the entire time I've been here. The hate that was spewed out has absolutely no place here. RxS (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ireneshusband's recent comments are not acceptable and a one month ban is not long enough. An editor with a long history of incivility who displays such disrespectful hostility in something as serious as an arbcom is showing a sustained and flagrant disregard for Wikipedia's standards of conduct. A one year, or longer, ban should be considered seriously. Okiefromokla questions? 21:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have already said above, I make no excuse for the rant. However your allegation that I have a long history of incivility is not supported by the evidence you have presented, as per travb's evidence and by his comments on this page. And why do you pick on me when your allies JzG and MONGO have a history of gross incivility as long as your arm? Why do different standards apply to editors who do or don't share your point of view? ireneshusband (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * This is quite untrue. The reason I have edited virtually nothing apart from 9/11-related stuff in the past couple of months has been that this dispute has been so time consuming and exhausting. The same for the dispute I got involved in in 2006. You can see from my edit history that I have had periods of editing other stuff. My earliest edits of course were really about getting to know the ropes. I had no intention of getting involved in 9/11 stuff at that point. This year I have put some work into articles related to Buddhist schools. I would actually have liked to get much more involved in Project Buddhism, and maybe I will still do that when my ban is over, but I certainly don't feel like it now. Here is what I wrote on my user page a couple of months back:
 * This is the first time I have logged into Wikipedia for almost a year... Given my previous experience, I'm not planning to get involved again with editing anything to do with 9/11 or anything like that anytime soon... For the time being shall stick to editing tasks I actually find enjoyable....
 * I actually came to wikipedia because I am interested in all kinds of things and I find writing about them enjoyable. But I certainly don't find anything to do with 9/11 articles enjoyable in the least. Hence my recent meltdown and rant. ireneshusband (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You should prove that his edits violates WP:NPOV in order to claim that he is here to promote a POV. So, come on, prove what you are claiming if you are able to.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposal is a joke. IRENESHUSBAND SAID NOTHING UNCIVIL IN THE EDIT HISTORY which Ice Cold created and JzG cut and pasted.
 * I have asked editors over 10 times on this page to explain which edits in Ireneshusbands edit history which JzG and Ice Cold posted and I have been ignored.
 * I have asked JzG and Ice Cold to remove this section and I have been ignored.
 * I have asked JzG and Ice Cold to apologize for these untrue accusations and I have been ignored.
 * Why? Because the accusations are all untrue. There is nothing in that edit history which is uncivil.
 * What is so appalling, is that these accusations are coming from JzG, an editor who regularly calls other editors idiots, trolls, and truthers. JzG has called editors c***ts and told numerous editors to f*** off. JzG has said other editors contributions are feces and sh**. And yet he considers Irenehusbands edits, which use "please" and "thank you" uncivil.
 * THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE EDIT HISTORY OF INCIVILITY BY IRENESHUSBAND. Trav (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I keep pointing out, I have plenty of evidence of incivility in my section. Not sure why you insist that it must come from JzG and Ice Cold Beer's evidence section, though there is plenty of evidence of it there as well. For example, but there's no reason why we have to explain each one to you. And please, stop yelling. RxS (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The incident Rx Strangelove has cited here is the one in which I made the remark about "pod people". I have addressed it above. ireneshusband (talk) 06:41, 27 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:
 * Same as above, there is no evidence of incivility by Ireneshusband. Trav (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, Trav? You are beginning to sound as if you are channeling Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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:

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)
 * Even if Xiutwel's editing were disruptive, what on earth has this got to do with civility? There is nothing uncivil about Xiutwel's talk page contributions. ireneshusband (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See the evidence subpage. I'm arguing that Xiutwel has been disruptive, not uncivil. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:59, 27 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)
 * Baloney, Travb...disruption is continued efforts to present fringe thories as facts and or demand they get more coverage than what is necessary. I can't see how mine or Icecoldbeer's POV could be narrow when it is supported by virtually every single reliable reference that is available!--MONGO 22:29, 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) 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)
 * To be honest, I don't really care anymore. ireneshusband (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ireneshusband banned
2) 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)
 * Agreed. I'm utterly sick of the whole business. ireneshusband (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Xiutwel banned
3) 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 15:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Multiple explanations of the policy that he was given were in most cases completely pointless
 * 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"
 * 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
 * He has always proposed "micro-edits" for which he had plenty of reliable sources: far from being something as "personal views prmotion"
 * 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 &mdash; 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)


 * All of you are now making incredibly strong request (permanent ban) based on very few and apparently inconsistent evidences. But the most incredible thing for me is how you *all* agree on this at least disputable line of thought. No one of you seems to have a moderate or reasonable thought. This makes me feel very pessimist about the possibility to ever have a reasonable discussion on the article's talk page.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a topic ban, not a Wikipedia Ban, so he's free to pursue other interests here, encouraged to in fact. I don't see that as incredibly strong. And with all due respect, if you look at the evidence provided and see it as very few and inconsistent then I don't know what to tell you. I would never ever try and get someone banned/blocked/whatever just because I disagree with them about something. There are other editors here that I'm in strong disagreement with that I wouldn't propose and wouldn't support sanctions against. I do in this case because of what I said in #5 just above. I wish everyone would read it, I feel very strongly about that. It's not dishonest and it's not arbitrary. It's the truth. When you talk about apparently inconsistent evidence, I think you should specifically point to what pieces of evidence that are inconsistent. RxS (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thank Pokipsky for his defense above, and would like to note that I am already banned from editing 9/11, de facto. I have not been able to make any improvements to this biased article in three months. And I am grateful for the efforts to discuss policy with me on the talk page, but I feel it is unfair to call my contributions disruptive. You needn't have responded, you could have just reverted my edits to the article as you did. I believe the discussions were so lengthy because your reasoning was (and is) flawed. I predict you will meet with a lot of more of this type of "disruption" even when I'm not around. I sincerely hope we will get some result soon which will lift my de facto ban. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Another one? How many good willing, well rounded, valuable editors Wikipedia lost on this one? This hegemony needs to stop.
 * Sorry, but the evidence suggests that Xiutwel is not a "good willing, well rounded, valuable editor" but a warrior for WP:TRUTH who refuses to take no for an answer. As tot he necessary restriction, I've not made up my mind, but it is futile to deny that there is a problem here. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ireneshusband is an uncivil and tendentious editor
1) Many of '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)


 * My "tendentious" edits
 * I have, not counting minor ones, made a total of 11 edits to 9/11 or conspiracy theory-related articles in the past few months.conspiracy theory 5 of these have been respected and still stand today AFAIK. That leaves 6.


 * I reverted John Nevard's reversion of one of my edits because he had appeared from nowhere and reverted based on "failed rationale". Because he had never taken part in the discussion surrounding the edit it was completely inappropriate for him to trundle in and make judgements of that sort. If someone who had taken part in the discussion had reverted, then I would have gone back to the talk page. That leaves 5.


 * Since my first deletion of a paragraph in which South Park characters were quoted as if they were reliable sources, the paragraph has been completely rewritten. This is a pretty good indicator that the validity of that deletion has been accepted. So that leaves 4. Let's look at them.


 * I added a few sentences to the paragraph about Thomas Eagar.[] This was reverted and so I went to the talk page and discussed it.


 * I deleted the rewritten paragraph about South Park because it was based solely on the views of a very minor TV critic.


 * I deleted references to a newspaper article and a TV program because there was no information given about them. Other TV programs etc. were listed that were critical of conspiracy theories, but because they were accompanied by summaries of their main points, I left them be.


 * I deleted a paragraph concerning Thomas Eagar's views on 9/11 conspiracy theorists. This had been preceded by a very lengthy discussion. There is much that needs to be said about how the discussion was conducted, but the long and the short of it is that I laid out a number of bullet-pointed arguments which were never answered except by mere assertions that my arguments had been refuted, or by changing the subject to a different point entirely. I made it very clear that if a more credible source could be provided to say exactly what Thomas Eagar was saying, I would accept it, but this never happened. Then the people I was arguing with fell silent for three days. I took this to mean that they weren't contesting the change any more and so I deleted.


 * This is my entire history of "tendentious" editing. ireneshusband (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that you've left out all your talk page edits. Tendentious and uncivil edits on talk pages often are just as (or more) disruptive as edits to article pages themselves. RxS (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to WP:TE:
 * ''Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors.
 * so it is completely meaningless to have a "tententious editing" on his own user talk page.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Who's talking about user talk pages? I'm referring to the article talk pages he's edited. RxS (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Civilty can only come from within. It's no point forcing others to be civil: then the uncivilty will find less obvious ways to surface. I myself become uncivil when I am feeling angry or frustrated; all it takes is some time off and understanding (not assuming) the other's Good faith. These here claims of uncivilty I find tragic, and ironic. Please consider this Evidence presented by Travb. Can you clarify, AGK, is there any reason for you not to take note of the uncivilty by other editors? Let's just forget the whole uncivilty show; resolving the disputes is what counts! This trolling/uncivilty claim was already at ANI, where it was largely ignored as far as I am aware. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, as a neater version of . 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)

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? &mdash; 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)
 * Indeed Kirill, you do not need to. But if you are not ruling on content, we will need to find some general principle we can apply to this case, and work out consensus ourselves. As it is, both "gangs" of editors will claim that this Principle is on their side: I would say the current article amounts to government propaganda; others say that changing it would amount to pushing "Truther" propaganda. I have a strong feeling you are on the mark with this proposed Principle, but we need a way to clarify or discuss it. Any ideas? &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:17, 2 April 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:
 * Question: The help page recommends not reverting good faith edits. When an edit is problematic, maybe it can be partially reverted, partially corrected. How must we proceed when editors feel that the very information which is contained in the edit is disruptive (not just the wording), by either UNDUE weight of SYNTHESIS ? There is no alternative for them than to revert the entire edit, is there?  The only reason I can think of for them not to revert, is that their whole analysis is flawed, but naturally that is not known to them. Got any ideas how to solve this?  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, examples: Haemo reverting two paragraphs MONGO reverting two flags Rx StrangeLove reverting an inline link to another wikipedia article Aude reverting a paragraph We need solutions: how could these reverts have been avoided? Should the edits never have been made? Should other solutions have been found? How? &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * Would like to add specifially: accusations of bad faith, accusations of trolling, accusations of disruptive or tenditious editing, accusations of vandalism. Such accusations have been rampant. These strong words should be reserved for users who want to be annoying, not for good faith edits, however clumsy or misplaced they might be. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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)

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)


 * 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.
 * No: minority views are not "portrayed with religious zeal" *in general*. The fact that there is somebody who do so is completely irrelevant.
 * 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.
 * 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)


 * 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?
 * 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.

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.
 * 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


 * 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)
 * It's not completely clear to me what you are proposing. I mean: when a wikipedian "violates the rules" he can indeed be sanctioned by any administrator, even without this proposal. But it seems you are suggesting that admins could sanction even editor who wouldn't normally be sanctioned. So what does it mean? Admins will be free to sanction even user who didn't made any clear violation of policies?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a little late for me to comment on this, since a proposed final ruling has already been passed concerning this proposal. I am very concerned that JzG/Guy, as a party, is showing what I interpret as an "old boys network attitude" below with Kirill, and that JzG is using the "others" section where he is in fact a party to the dispute. And the bottom line is: there is no point talking about sanctions when you have not first analysed past behaviour; ruled on which behaviour was desired, and which was undesired, and first have ruled on how policy should have been applied in these cases. I call on the ArbCom to withdraw this ruling, until the preceding issues have been ruled upon. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:34, 5 April 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)

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 &mdash; Selmo  (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. &mdash; 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 talkstalk 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; Selmo  (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)`
 * I also agree with Travis' proposals, and I encourage anyone who agrees with me to look at his ideas as well. &mdash; Selmo  (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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:

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:

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 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 &mdash; 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. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I need some clarification:
 * 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.
 * 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
 * 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)
 * I'd replace "field of study" with "relevant academic community". Otherwise this is about right. Anything to do with just about anything is a subject of academic study. Besides the obvious scientific aspects, there are academic political experts, historic academics, forensic academics etc...I suppose Pokemon may not have academic study (I bet I'm wrong about that unfortunately), but a subject like 9/11 broad as it is surely is extremely well covered by academia. But apart from a specific topic, there are academic communities studying nearly everything. RxS (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if some aspects of 9/11 have been considered by academics certainly not *everything* about 9/11 has an academic study. For example: which academics express about the possibility of a cover up?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:18, 29 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)

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 &mdash; it's a little bit content-y. --Haemo (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I suggest rewording this to something like "no instances have been presented of any user successfully finding or even attempting to find references from mainstream experts attesting to the fact that the views expressed in September 11 conspiracy theories are held by a significant minority of experts." This fits in with the attitude, expressed above, that no such experts could exist. (This is untrue. It is like saying that no Cold War experts could exist, because you would need to know about nuclear technology, about weapons delivery systems, about internal political pressures, about counter-intelligence...) Relata refero (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are completely misrepresenting the arguments. The point is that there are no experts and no proofs which could unobjectionably settle the question whether the government lied or covered up, even if there could be experts on other issues about 9/11. Experts just express on their field of expertise: which kind of experts should on your opinion have asserted to hold the idea that the government lied, in order to be relevant?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody disagrees that the expert doesn't exist that can "settle the question". The problem is that no experts have so much as raised the question. And as for experts on the government lying, the public affairs schools are filled with them, people who teach lectures and write papers on transparency, instance and case studies of government obfuscation and so on. I don't know what you could possibly mean. Relata refero (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course the government "lies". Everyone knows that, and it is well-documented, and as Relata refero states, we have legions of experts in all kinds of areas that study this, including investigative journalism (remember Watergate?). And we even have some evidence of coverups etc associated with 911, and quite a bit came out in the 911 Commission testimony if you listened to it. Any time you have groups of people that make mistakes and they are put in the spotlight, you will see them make assorted excuses for those mistakes. This is a surprise? And of course we have "experts" in this; in academia, in the media, in the legal profession, etc. Just because these things are true, does not mean that the most outrageous speculations you can imagine are true, and we should report them as true, or discuss them at all in some cases (since there are so many and only some are notable enough to include). For example, I have run into large groups of people who believe all politicians are secretly shape-shifting reptiles from outer space. There are literally thousands of websites and videos on the internet about it, and they claim it is all "true". Should we just go along with that here on Wikipedia?--Filll (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not speaking about covering up known mistakes, I was speaking about covering up more compromising responsabilities.
 * I don't think the bilief in reptilians can be considered a relevant minority view and I don't see how it could be compared to our case. Are you suggesting that the belief in reptilian should have the same space as the belief in a government responsability for 9/11?
 * --Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, some of the claims of 911 Conspiracy theorists are not much more likely than the existence of extraterrestrial shape-shifting reptiles in government leadership positions. And deserve the same sort of treatment on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course there are very creazy ones (take the pod theory for istance) and they indeed deserve very few space compared with the more reasonable ones.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:22, 29 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.

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)
 * You left off the next sentence:
 * On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. A single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed.
 * A small amount of editing is not likely to be a problem. It reaches the level of sanction (the very unwelcome part) when it's repeated. In other words, tendentious editing activates the need for sanctions not the bias. In practical terms, tendentious editing rarely comes without a POV pushing component but I wouldn't have to I suppose, for example someone editing policy pages to promote some policy ideal could do it tendentiously and not have content involved at all. But the bottom line is that repeated disruptive editing will get you sanctioned long before small scale POV pushing. RxS (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, according to what you cite it seems that content is definitly very important in indentifying a TE: you must have repeated biased edits, and to decide if an edit is biased rather than a legitimate interpretation of WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV you need to express a judgement on the content. I don't see on what grounds the Arbcom should be supposed to make such a judgement apart from their personal opinions on what is the due weight and what is not (just as I was saying long before) and I find completely absurd to ask that a sanction should be given on such grounds. In fact you are implying that if there is an edit war between user A and user B (wich can have both legitimate different opinions) then if the Arbs endorse the POV of user A they are legitimate to punish user B and vice versa.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because tendentious editing is sanctionable regardless (and independent) of any bias. If there is a edit war between two people and one is being disruptive, that editor can be sanctioned. If they are both being disruptive they can both be sanctioned. It doesn't matter what they are arguing about. There is no distinction between a legitimate interpretation of policy and bias when it comes to disruptive editing. Edit warring, disruptive editing or tendentious editing are all sanctionable. Edit war, Disruptive editing and WP:TE all come into play here. In fact, in the first 2 links there is very little discussion of bias at all. The second link (Disruptive editing) includes this sentence ...Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Note that there is no talk of "biased edits" at all....just pursuit of a certain point. Any point can be pushed too far. And as such no "judgment" need be made by Arbcom in order to enforce sanctions. RxS (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tendentious editing cannot be sanctionable regardless of any bias since it is defined as an editing which is also ''biased.
 * I don't see what is the relation between what you say and WP:TE. The only place in this guideline when we read something about "disruption" is:
 * ''There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.
 * which is more close to your behaviour rathar than the behaviour of the people you are accusing.
 * In WP:DE we read that a "diruptive edit" is a way of editing which
 * carry *bias*
 * violates WP:V or WP:NOR
 * resists moderation/RfC and consensus by *impartial* editors or moderators.
 * You definitely cannot accuse Xiutwel or anybody of the second thing and the other two can only be decided according to one's personal opinion about what is neutral and what is biased.
 * Edit war applyes equally to people of both parties which were edit warring.
 * --Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:TE is an essay. It doesn't carry any force of policy/guideline. It refers editors to Disruptive editing when reference is needed on how to handle tendentious and disruptive editors. There you will find tendentious editing defined as I indicated above, that is: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. No mention of bias, no attitude toward content or who is editing in a biased way. Just the pursuit of a point, any point, that's it. It's also a perfect description of the behavior of several editors, including (but not limited to) Xiutwel and Inreneshusband. Bottom line is that no matter how much you want to cherry pick sentences and words, you are never going to get Arbcom to decide content matters.
 * And by the way, no where in WP:DE does it mention bias.
 * Given the amount of time spent on this, I'm not going to waste any more of it. Arbcom will decide these matters, you can ask them for anything you're not clear about. RxS (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are cherry picking little pieces of policies. You were at first accusing of just Tendetious editing, and you linked WP:TE. Now you are saying that WP:TE has no value and what counts is WP:DE which btw links his definition of "tendentious" to WP:TE: this means that the author of WP:DE is considering "tendetiousness" to be better described in WP:TE. Moreover: tendentious editing according to WP:DE is just 1 of 3 carachteristics of "disruption". Last but not least in WP:DE we read:
 * This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.
 * So WP:DE has definitely no merit in the case of Xiutwel where you cannot prove any "obvious" violation of any foundamental policy.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you're not even making sense, but you keep thinking that. Remember, you're the one misrepresenting policies (carry bias at WP:DE??) and selecting sentence fragments. I'm done here, anyone reading this can come to their own conclusion. RxS (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I feel that there is still a lot of confusion about this proposal:
 * you started making accusations of tendentious editing and citing WP:TE and ended claiming that WP:TE "doesn't carry any force"
 * you made the accusation of "promoting conspiracy theories" thus focusing on the content issue and later you claimed that "content policies [...] have no place in this discussion", and "it's not the opinion it's the way it's expressed".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Someone asked what it was, I answered. The page WP:TE is a essay and as such doesn't carry any force of policy/guideline. However, the concept of tendentious editing is defined in and is a part of WP:DISRUPT which is a guideline.
 * 2) promoting conspiracy theories isn't in the text of the proposal at all. It's just in the section header which isn't part of the proposal itself. If it bothers you it can be taken off, it doesn't have any value except as a name of a section. Again, promoting conspiracy theories is not a part of the proposal. I would not expect them (and am not asking) to rule on a specific topic like this. In fact, I never once used the term in this whole discussion. RxS (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be more clear when you would cite policy, RxS, in stead of essays. PS: I think that MONGO and JzG/Guy should have replied over here, since they are parties, not others. Please rectify. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tendentious editing is a part of, and defined in WP:DISRUPT. Perfectly acceptable to cite a guideline in this context. RxS (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize, RxS, you are correct as it turns out. Here is the quotation (again, it turns out that quoting could have saved time):
 * This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who: [...] (emphasis added, xiutwel)
 * From the number of editors in this debate, on both sides, it follows that you should either call all the editors tendentious or "not belonging to reasonable people", and not single one out (me). I hope you can agree that the term does not apply here. We have a legitimate dispute, and this personal attack is not warrented imo. I would appreciate it when you would withdraw the accusation, (but no hard feelings when you decline). &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point out this personal attack for me? Otherwise I'm going to assume there is none. Because pointing out tendentious editing is not a personal attack. RxS (talk) 15:43, 6 April 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)

Neutral point of view
1) 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:


 * Could you please refrain from making comments like this? It's incivil and doesn't help. --Haemo (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I removed the comment. Although it does not excuse my comments, where is your outrage about JzG telling editors to fuck off? Trav (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Guy knows my opinion of his behavior, as I've expressed it to him before. --Haemo (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view: Fair representation
2) 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:
 * This is a pillar-policy of wikipedia. It is being violated by editors (the A-gang) who are so totally convinced that their bias is "the truth" and therefore "neutral", that they probably never realized they were violating it, not even when they were told so. I will provide evidence to that affect, if needed: that they are 100% sure their bias is instead "the truth". That's the core of the dispute, and I think it's a good faith dispute, and it will never be resolved as long as these editors continue to defend their " truth" as the "neutral" point. The amount of less biased editors who will discuss this is litterally endless. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 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)
 * I fail to see what name-calling will accomplish in this arbitration case, or how parroting an editorial column on The Economist makes such a personal attack acceptable. But to address your point, "significant debates in scholarship and mainstream media reports" are key to the meaning of the policy you have cited. The problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories, as others have repeatedly pointed out, is that such debate does not exist in either of those fields. Still, this is besides the point: ArbCom does not rule on content disputes. ~ S0CO  ( talk 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View:Undue Weight
1) According to 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. Although these views should be given minority description, they should not be excluded from Wikipedia.


 * 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)
 * The version I'm looking at now, seems to be quoting a guideline, which is not contenty at all. And I agree. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:58, 5 April 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)
 * User:Haemo: This entire case revolves around content. Is JzG's comments "super-contenty" (sic)? He is advancing strict new rules on minority ideas.
 * Editors are hiding behind policy and wikilawyering, but content is the very essence of this dispute.
 * Then again, I probably haven't been in as many arguments as you have to know all the archaic and varies arbcom rules and acronyms. Trav (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Principles should be general &mdash; they should not say "Fringe theories should not be given undue weight. Oh, and by the way, theory X is a fringe theory."  That's a content ruling, and it's not what ArbCom is supposed to be doing.  Rulings on principles may clarify principles in such a way that can effect a content discussion &mdash; but not directly.  For instance, JzG's principles would almost certainly have a direct effect on content &mdash; but not because they say "9/11 conspiracy theories are not fringe".  --Haemo (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, so as long as I write my section vague enough, then I can suggest and the Arbcom can rule on content diputes, despite Requests for arbitration:
 * It is important to note that while the committee will sanction users or place subject areas under restrictions, it will not rule on the content of articles. Please do not request decisions from the committee on content, as these requests will not be accepted.
 * You are creating a distinction that is non-existent. JzG and Ice Cold Beer and the other editors plan to use this ruling of the Arbcom as a club against others in content disputes. Although the Arbcom won't say "theory X is a fringe theory" by adopting JzG's suggestions that is exactly what they are doing.  How is my suggestion any different than JzG's. JzGs simply uses more wikilawyering terms in a vague way.
 * I deleted one sentence from my paragraph. I get so tired of this Orwellian legal doublespeak.Trav (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I myself grow tired of the word "Orwellian" being bandied about, but do not expect it to cease in the near future... ~ S0CO  ( talk 23:30, 26 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:
 * (responding to the comment below) I have 2 whole sections devoted to Ireneshuband's incivility. There's all the evidence anyone would need to see the multiple times he has violated WP:NPA. Not to mention this: RxS (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whenever I see editors who are occasionally rude themselves, complain about WP:NPA, WP:AGF etcetera, I feel worried because apart from the initial alleged incivilty this only bolsters the conflict. Complaining about other people's properties or character is a perhaps a tragic expression of your own unfulfilled needs to wiki-edit in harmony. I myself am complaining about editors who revert my edits, based on wikilawyering, because that actually prevents my "happy editing". I try not to complain too much about people being rude, or stupid for that matter. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * If we're going to be accusing others of slander, perhaps you might refactor your evidence where you repeatedly stated that JzG and Icecoldbeer were "lying". However, I do concur that patience with newbies is improtant...but one wonders when dealing essentially with SPA's and all they do is "wikilawyer" conspiracy theory dogma, how much tolerance should be provided.--MONGO 22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * MONGO Please point out where ireneshusband violated WP:NPA. I see a lot of name calling by Ice Cold Beer and JzG, but all I see in the edit diffs provide are a lot of please and thank yous by ireneshusband. To call ireneshusband's edits uncivil is a lie and very offensive. If ireneshusband is going to be banned for please and thank yous, Ice Cold Beer and JzG are going down with him, for actual incivility.  JzG has a habit of calling people trolls who edit war with him. Just today he called someones information crap. Where does Ireneshusband's call anyone elses contributed information crap? Trav (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If noting else, the (now-refactored) rant on the evidence page should point itself out. --Haemo (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Rx StrangeLove and User:Haemo both point to what Ireneshusband's wrote on the evidence page, which he has now removed without anyone's prompting. What exactly is so terrible in this posting? [ redacted &mdash; Coren (talk)] Trav (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Ireneshusband's rant was removed by a clerk. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies, Ice Cold Beer.
 * Now that you are online Ice Cold Beer, let me ask you, Haemo, and Rx a question, which I have asked you all repeatedly :
 * WHAT DID IRENESHUSBAND SAY IN ICE COLD BEER's AND JzG's EVIDENCE SECTION THAT WAS UNCIVIL?
 * Rephrasing what I wrote,
 * No one has asked Ice Cold Beer and JzG to remove the false accusations of incivility. You both are aghast that Ireneshusband did nothing uncivil at all, but I don't hear one peep from both of you about JzG outrageous incivility. Noone can answer my question because you are all defending an untrue accusation. Your blatant contradictions are deeply troubling. Trav (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the evidence section, I provided over 25 diffs documenting incivility by Ireneshusband. I feel that they stand alone, so I'm not going to waste my time by explaining, one by one, why they show incivility. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:58, 27 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:
 * I strongly disagree, in part: SigMinViews deserve a place in the main article as well. The only minority views which are to be excluded from the main articles are Tiny minority views. These may have an article on their own, though, when they meet the notability criterion. They are then not included because the view is important enough, but because the existance is notable enough. Otherwise, these TinyMinViews should be omitted from wikipedia alltogether, such as my theory that there exists a steady-state ether, in which time-dilation gives rise to relativity effects. It's self-published, and completely unnoted, and does not belong on wikipedia anywhere. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Wrong...we want facts to be presented as facts and fringe theories to be relegated to fringe theory articles that detail those fringe theories, not presented as alternative when they aren't alternate at all.--MONGO 22:22, 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 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)
 * Do you think that if you call it "cabal" people would more probably think that it is impossible?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think anyone here is "actively suppress[ing] views which contradict their own"? --Haemo (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is not whether I believe it or not. The point is that it can actually happen and even if it is not the case to say "Ehi, he is speaking of a cabal!! He is paranoid!!" is not a valid argument to prove anything. It's rather a dirty rethoric trick.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * There's not necessarily a single all-powerful cabal, but there are definitely cliques that band together to get their way and to gang up on opponents. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. If there were a powerful group "actively suppressing views", we wouldn't be seeing so many of these views which are allegedly suppressed.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence against User:Ireneshusband for incivility
Ice's provided edit diffs which were cut and pasted by JzG, have no uncivil remarks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * No, there's lot's of evidence for Ireneshusband's for incivility here. RxS (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this what you are getting at? (below)

refuting this and that spurious argument[192] the "reliable sources" pod people[193] new hymnal needed)[194]   If Arthur Rubin can't remember why he opposes this, that's his problem.)[195] Yet again Haemo repeats arguments that have been soundly refuted)[196]   eliable sources... you are getting sleepy[197]    refuting rx strangelove's latest appeal to "policy"[198]    why on earth are you here?)[199] told icecoldbeer to take his irrelevant comments elsewhere)[200]   refuting Peter Grey's reiteration of thoroughly discredited arguments)[201]


 * I agree with you I can interpret anger in some of his posts above, and he could have been more polite, but is this what you call uncivil????????? And are you actually complaining about this? Or did you mean something else? &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Please note that Ice's and JzG's incivility is far greater than the imagined offenses of Ice. It would be completely unfair and unjust to punish Ireneshusband for imaged offenses and allow Ice and JzG actual incivility to go completely unpunished. Trav (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No diffs have been provided suggesting that I am uncivil. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See brand new section, Merry Christmas. Trav (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

An editors entire edit history can be used to help Arbitrors establish a pattern of good or bad behavior
An editors entire edit history can be discussed in a Arbitration to establish a pattern of good or bad behavior. Edits which: will especially be scrutinized. See Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan, where both users' behavior as administrators was scrutinized for years, and both were desysopped.
 * 1) happen within a couple of months as the arbcom,
 * 2) and help establish a users' own behavior which is a central issue in the Arbitration,


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * JzG told other editors to fuck off several times, as early as January, the same period that these disputes were taking place. He then helped launch this Arbcoms against other editors here, "opening the door" to his own incivility, by charging these editors with incivility. Trav (talk) 21:01, 30 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:
 * No, the evidence page shows clearly that Ireneshusband has been incivil over and over throughout his editing career here. Including this on the evidence page (which I hope everyone has read by now . I have 2 sections devoted to this subject as well. Haemo and Rx StrangeLove behave as if they have come from the same batch of clones indeed (edit summary from one of the edits to the link just above). Ireneshusband comments were civil and within the bounds of Wikipedia rules???? No, not now, not ever. RxS (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Two nights ago I let rip because I had absolutely had enough and had decided to ditch wikipedia. However, as travb has pointed out over and over again, and as you have chosen to ignore over and over again but you well know, the other "evidence" that you claim shows gross incivility on my part shows absolutely nothing of the sort. One incident does not constitute a pattern of behaviour. ireneshusband (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that you also called us psychopaths in another edit, and I've provided a whole list of examples of incivility on your part. It does show a pattern, no matter how much you want to dent it. RxS (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the context in which I used the word psychopath. It was in a reply I posted Wildnox's talk page. Wildnox was one of those who opposed me when I proposed to change the name of 9/11 conspiracy theories in 2006, but as as a person he won my trust. I am very sorry that he appears to have retired from wikipedia:
 * ''re: Just a question


 * ''Thank you for setting up that redirect. I've no problem with 9/11 alternative theories or any other version or wording for that matter, just so long as it doesn't come with the kind of baggage that conspiracy theory carries. Ireneshusband 01:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ''I have just been taking a look at my own talk page, now that I have managed to disentangle myself somewhat from that appalling excuse for a debate. You didn't like the way I called you a "debunker" and I think you had good reason to take me to task for that. I am sorry. I had other people in mind, but because I was sloppy in my language, you got caught in the crossfire. It is quite obvious to me that you acted in good faith throughout.


 * ''I have no excuse. Simply an explanation. During that debate my assumption of good faith was tested to breaking point. After you dropped out of things it degenerated to unwarranted threats against me and all kinds of other dirty tricks. I suspect sock-puppetry was involved. I have little doubt that one of the things they were trying to do was to provoke me into saying things that could be used as evidence in proceedings against me at some point in the future. To be honest, I had expected to find people with ulterior motives operating in certain areas of Wikipedia. Nevertheless I was truly shocked by the ferocity and shamelessness of the tactics used. Once you, Snorkel etc had dropped out of things I felt as if I was dealing not with honest editors (such as you and Snorkel) who were, by and large, committed to the principles upon which Wikipedia was founded, but with psychopaths. It has been, as they say, a "learning experience".


 * I often say to people that investigating big conspiracies is like sticking your head down a toilet. I'm very sorry that I dragged you down there with me. Ireneshusband 05:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can see, what I was actually trying to do was to apologise to someone else for treating them unfairly. Explaining the stress I felt under was a necessary part of that apology. However it should also be noted that I didn't say that various editors were psychopaths. I simply said that I felt like I had been dealing with psychopaths. Certainly the kind of behaviour I encountered then needs explanation. ireneshusband (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we include the actual quote:
 * It is also important to understand the weaknesses of psychopaths. One is that many of them have very poor impulse control, which is one of the reasons why there are so many of them in prison. However this may not be true in all cases. Nevertheless, if you prod them the right way (or at least as far as is possible within the guidelines of Wikipedia) they might, once in a blue moon, do something to give themselves away.
 * Dress it up anyway you want it's still a vicious inexcusable insult. RxS (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to make clear that, with an estimated 2-6% of the general population being psychopaths, some of them are bound to be on wikipedia as well. I've also tried to make clear that whatever behaviour one encounters, it can never be considered proof that someone is a psychopath. There are always alterior explanations thinkable. Not that being a psychopath would amount to being "bad faith", I recommended to assume good faith and ignore this possibility, because speculating on it would not help.As far as I am aware Ireneshusband never named names in this context, and certainly did not personally attack someone on any talk page. He just voiced his suspicions that there were psychopaths involved in discussions with him. Which is, statistically, not a bad guess. I wish he had let it rest, because now some people have taken insult. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * No, it's quite the other way around. --DHeyward (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Repeatedly telling editors to fuck off, and other uncivil remarks is a violation of No personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have yet to see JzG personally attack anyone with regard to this case. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Truther is a term of art applied to members and supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movement (a case for scare quotes if ever there was one). To describe one who advocates 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "truther" is not, as far as I'm aware, a problem, as I've been told some even self-identify as such. Truther may be defined thus: One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11. Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself.
 * Please note also the essential difference between trolls and trolling. One may engage in trolling without being a troll.  The term trolling is a a readily-understood informal shortcut for the making of self-consciously inflammatory or provocative remarks in debate, and one can undoubtedly engage in trolling without being a troll (I'm sure I do so with embarassing regularity).  A troll is one whose input is solely to inflame or provoke; there are relatively few outright trolls and we are fairly good at rapidly banning them.
 * We have much more of a problem with those who spit in the soup, Wikilawyer and in sundry other ways try the community's patience until it breaks, at :which point they can cry to mummy that the nasty man swore at them. It is this behaviour which is causing a problem: intransigent and persistent promotion of content which is forbidden by policy.  It's not even malicious, it's often quite sincere: many such people sincerely believe in the mad theories they promote.  But they remain mad theories and impermissible by policy.  I reject absolutely the idea that telling someone to go away after the tenthj (or twentieth or thirtieth) time they've advanced the same invalid argument, is in some way more of a problem than the repetition of the invalid argument itself.
 * And what we are here for, in the end, is to work out what to do about it in this particular dispute. As such, Kirill has made a workable suggestion and the idea of excluding him on the basis of a picture would seem to be an attempt to kick that suggestion into touch, so I suggest that said proposal is removed. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets make the definitions really simple: Truthers are anyone who doesn't believe the way you do and trolls are people who edit war with you. I have found that is a pretty consistent way that many wiki-editors losely apply this definition.
 * QUESTION: What exactly did Irenehusband say that was uncivil, and was it any more uncivil than telling editors repeatedly to fuck off? If ireneshusband gets banned for incivility for his "please" and "thank yous" which you provided in the edit diffs, you should most definitely be banned for ten times the amount of time for your flagrant incivility. "Of course, but you don't get to do that and then accuse other people of [incivility], because that's hypocrisy". Trav (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree with Travb here. JzG's past behavior has been addressed in a recent RfC that has put him on notice that further such behavior won't be tolerated.  Although he has crossed the line since with those "trolling" remarks directed at Dan, those don't have any relation to this case, as far as I can tell.  So, I don't think this sanction is warranted as applied to this particular case. Cla68 (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * JzG "opened the door" by attacking Ireneshusband's own civility. If a person calls an Arbcom, that means that all of their behavior is up for scrutity. There are several cases which clearly show this. One that readily comes to mind is Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan, where both users' behavior as administrators was scrutinized for years, and both were desoped.
 * How does this make wikipedia look, if veteran editor JzG is allowed to tell other editors to f*** off repeatedly, and yet Ireneshusband gets punished for mild or non-existent incivility? It makes wikipedia once again look like a good 'ole boys club, where veteran admins are treated differently than new wikipedians.
 * No one here has defended JzG's behavior, except to say fallaciously, that it is irrelevant to this arbcom. Why, because it is impossible to defend comments like this from a veteran editor and administrator:
 * screw you. I saw the deleted content, and it was shit. Pure, unmitigated, unrelieved, venomous, worthless, POV-pushing shit...Why the fuck would we want to undelete this festering heap of faeces'...
 * Trav (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual, context is everything. Here is the context for that particular remark: . You'll note the deletion in question was upheld, largely because the deleted article,, was pure, unmitigated, unrelieved, venomous, worthless, POV-pushing shit. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is not whether you were correct in your judgement, but whether you voiced it in a civil manner. If you were correct, I could call any President who condones torture a m*****f*****, but would that be civil? &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes people need to be told to 'fuck off'. Nothing personal.  Evidence doesn't support this as a simple finding of fact.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * May I enquire what age you are, DH? &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ice Cold Beer violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks and WP:BITE
User:Ice Cold Beer, an experienced user, violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks and WP:BITE.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Tendentious editing and tedious editing
Tedious, definition: long and tiresome, wordy so as to cause weariness.

Tendentious, definition: having or showing a definite tendency, bias, or purpose.

In many arguments on Wikipedia, tedious editors are the editors who win arguments. These editors are usually veteran editors who already have the time to spend on wikipedia, and have learned through time how to effective use Wikipedia's complex rule bureaucracy.

On Wikipedia, tendentious editing carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. It is important to recognise that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. As Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic states, don't marginalize others - If you dismiss other points of view, or attempt to marginalize the people who hold them, your position may actually be the marginal one. Instead, ask sincere questions to see where the differences are and which editors are on solid ground.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * These "deletionist guardians" refuse to allow any criticism of their beliefs, the have continued to "delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors". The only opinion that these editors want on Wikipedia is their own--none of the "deletionist guardians" have denied this. As Tendentious editing, states "problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral", it is ironic, Orwellian, and deeply troubling that JzG first section is about WP:NPOV, this is from an editor who only wants one opinion on Wikipedia--his own. These "deletionist guardians" The continue to fanatically delete and "dismiss other points of view". Trav (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference here is that these editors you are referring to have been consistently responding to tendentious editors; not doing so themselves. This has been demonstrated time and time again on the evidence page. Once again, accusing other editors of "Orwellian" censorship and calling them names achieves nothing. And for future reference, lifting the words of choice ("deletionist guardians") from an external editorial does not excuse using them here time and again. ~ S0CO  ( talk 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

BITE

 * In most Arbcom's the newer editor, the editor with less experience is the editor who is more harshly punished.

According to BITE:
 * new contributors are our most valuable resource We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility...it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia (i.e. substantive edits). While insiders and administrators are responsible for a large bulk of total edits, these often involve tweaking, reverting, and rearranging content.
 * "According to one estimate from 2006, entries about governance and editorial policies are one of the fastest-growing areas of the site and represent around one-quarter of its content. The proliferation of rules, and the fact that select Wikipedians have learnt how to handle them to win arguments, now represents a danger...[there is a] 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." :Please gently let newcomers know that their work is never lost and can always be retrieved from the history. Teach them that they can negotiate on talk pages and that if all else fails they can always revisit the article a few months later to negotiate with a new set of editors. Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "[truther]" or "[troll]".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * These "deletionist guardians" are incredibly vicious to editors who disagree with their point of view. The hypocrisy of JzG supporters here in criticizing Ireneshusband for mild or nonexistent WP:NPOV attacks and ignoring JzG's continued messages telling other editors to f*** off, is only one example. Dozens of editors have been pushed off of Wikipedia because veteran editors like JzG know wikipedia policy better than they do, who use wikipolicy as a sword to win content disputes. ::Ireneshusband is simply the latest casuality in these vicious attacks. Tired of the incivility and brutal attacks on his views and beliefs, User:Ireneshusband, an editor with less than 1000 edits is now retired.

With the vicious and coordinated policy attacks of veteran editors like JzG, is it any wonder that as the Economist states:
 * "There is already some evidence that the growth rate of Wikipedia's article-base is slowing. Unofficial data from October 2007 suggests that users' activity on the site is falling, when measured by the number of times an article is edited and the number of edits per month. The official figures have not been gathered and made public for almost a year, perhaps because they reveal some unpleasant truths about Wikipedia's health."
 * Trav (talk) 16:31, 30 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.

User:JzG is banned
1) For flagrant personal attacks, Abuse of admin privileges, disruption, harassment and repeated blatant lies of incivility against User:Ireneshusband, User:JzG is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one month.
 * 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:
 * Rx, I have updated my evidence, JzG repeatedly tells other people to shut the fuck up, and to fuck off, is this appropriate behavior of a wikipedian? Let alone an admin? In addition look at his abuse of admin powers and generally bullying. Good luck explaining this away, especially when their is no basis for calling ireneshusand's edits uncivil. Again the same question, which one of ireneshusband's edits where uncivil. Trav (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's the time he called us psychopaths. That's pretty uncivil, no? Like I said the diffs are in my evidence section, take a look sometime. RxS (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your evidence comes largely from an RfC which is still open. There is some evidence that JzG is responding to the concerns raised in the RfC, so it seems an inappropriate abuse of dispute resolution to reproduce the same evidence here, while the RfC is still running, with the intent of having him sanctioned. MastCell Talk 16:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I may not have been clear who I was talking about, I was answering his questions about ireneshusband and the mistaken idea that he has not been incivil. RxS (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. A barnstar would be more appropriate.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG is restricted
2) User:JzG is 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:
 * No. Same as above.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG is desysopped
3) For repeated and egregious incivility, abuse of administrative powers, and disruption User:JzG is desopyed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is a completely separate issue from this arbitration case. Also, I think you mean desysopped. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * proposal's title tweaked accordingly. Anthøny  19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This appears to have nothing to do with this Arbitration Case. --Haemo (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that JzG should keep the honor to himself, and hand in the adminship for a while. I will comment accordingly at the RfC. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * User Ice Cold Beer: See

for precedence.
 * User:Jc-S0CO struck my above proposal
 * Stating:
 * (Note: Proposal was stricken by the contributor)
 * Trav (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, you deleted it. And what threats have I made against you? I just reposted this section to the page with a note which I thought accurately depicted your intentions when you deleted it. ~ S0CO  ( talk 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. My mistake, I am sorry. Trav (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. For the record, I think the language JzG has employed at times is completely unbecoming of an admin; but at the same time, I think it's neither here nor there. Each editor must be held accountable for their own actions; we cannot condemn one for incivility and concurrently defend another for the same offense. This debate has become very heated, and I think we would all do well to assume good faith while interacting with each other here. Let's just lay out the diffs and let ArbCom draw their own conclusions. ~ S0CO  ( talk 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No.  I propose he be granted Checkuser access.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree...then next time Trav socks to POV push, we'll be able to get someone on it even quicker.--MONGO 03:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ice Cold Beer is banned
3) For incivility and violating WP:BITE User:Ice Cold Beer is banned for one week.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:


 * Comment by parties:

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)
 * Short attention span, probably... ;) Quoting from Article probation:
 * ''Article probation
 *  Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. See Category:Articles on probation.   // end quote // I do not see how this can help unless we first agree (or are told by ArbCom) what the cited policies mean...!  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:46, 5 April 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)

Interpretation of policies
1) The Arbcom should express on some specific interpretation of policies which have been matter of dispute in order to stop endless and recurring debates, such as:
 * possibly biased terminology: as a result of the discussion here we had this conflict betwen two views:
 * A: "conspiracy theory" is generally interpreted as "folkloristic theory belonging to conspiracism" even if it can be also interpreted as just "theory involving a conspiracy". So when we use the term we are suggesting that the theory we are speaking about is folkloristic i.e. it has no real value. Since most cover up allegations about 9/11 have never been proven to be unobjectionably false and it is a metter of opinion to think they are more or less probable, we cannot suggest *as a fact* that the theory are folkloristic and wikipedia must not assert an opinion on the subject per WP:NPOV. This means that we should avoid to use the term "conspiracy theories" in this case.
 * B: conspiracy theory is the common name and mainstream media use this name, therefore we must do the same per WP:COMMONNAMES.
 * For a more detailed discussion you can see here. So which of the two position is the right one and why?


 * notability of facts: should notability of a fact be decided according to the percentage of sources or medias who report it? Can a fact be deleted because too few reliable sources report it?


 * choice of narrative: should the narrative of an event be decided according to the "average" narrative of the event which is made by the majority of reliable sources? That means: if mainstream sources don't go into some details do these detail have to be omitted by wikipedia?


 * primary sources: when we are talking about a person or a group who has a website can we reference what we say about his thought linking to his website? Or can we link just what other reliable sources say about him?


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * While I agree with the principle, some of these questions are too "contenty" for ArbCom to decide. Ultimately, questions like "which name is right" are content issue, and are not within the purview of the ArbCom to decide.--Haemo (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case I can't understand what is the Arbcom supposed to do since nobody has himself been violating any rule and the only problem of the disputes were about the content and the possible violation of of the policies involving the cntent.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Common tactic by conspiracy theories is that we have to prove a negative...this ploy is one of their most commonly used methods to force feed fringe evidence. It's the same thing as saying that we need to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist...we can't, but the evidence certainly indicates that the creature's existence is extremely unlikely...mainly because there is no evidence that has been scientifically peer reviewed to support his existence. I think pokipsy76 feels that calling the fringe theories regarding the events of 9/11 "conspiracy theories" is in violation of NPOV. I can see the point, but a conspiracy by definition is an act committed by two or more individuals...well, surely 9/11 wasn't an act of God, so surely it must have taken more than 1 person to "pull off". One can twist it anyway they want, but calling 9// conspiracy theories "alternate theories" doesn't work...alternate would mean that there is some rational or even potential reason to believe that the known evidence is incorrect...and the scientific community, the governments of most nations and the world's media do not reflect anything that would lend credence to the fringe theories about any of the widely known facts about the event.--MONGO 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument "conspiracy theory Vs NPOV" has been longly discussed here, I don't think we should re-open the discussion also in this page. Btw I was not suggesting to replace it by "alternative theories", the alternative language to be used would be a secondary problem after we would have finally decided whether "conspiracy theory" is against NPOV. The scientific community is not really relevant to estabilis wheter there were cover ups, lies or anomalies (apart from very super-specific and extreem hypothesis like controlled demolition).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
1)Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject. If there is controversy regarding the subject, all sides of the controversy should be fairly represented.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Shamelessly stolen from Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. --Haemo (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Paranormal has completely nothing to do with 9/11 and hypothesis of lies, cover ups or incompetence--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But the principles applied in that case surely have relevance here. Indeed, paranormal research is rife with accusations of "lies, cover ups [and] incompetence".  --Haemo (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But against paranormal we have the authority of science. Against 9/11 cover up hypothesis we haven't any comparable authority. THis make a strong qualitative difference.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Does history not have at least as strong an academic tradition as hard science? --Haemo (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are serious the answer is (obviously): no!! If you are kidding I don't understand the joke.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Shamelessly modified from Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. --Haemo (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience also has completely nothing to do with cover up allegations.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Re: Pokipsy76: The source of the principle is irrelevant. There's no mention of pseudoscience in the principle itself, so where it comes from has no relevance. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you are dealing with content disputes--you can't have it both ways--you can't criticize other people's suggestions because they are "content dipsutes" then make your own suggestions to resolve content disputes. Trav (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, did you place this comment in the wrong section by some chance? I really fail to see the relevance of that to what I said. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There was actually no need to write the source unless Haemo wanted to suggest that he found similarities in the cases that would justify the fact of having copied something from that source. Therefore I feel the need to specify that there are not such similarities.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. This is done all the time in arbitration cases. The point is to simply show that ArbCom has already accepted this as a principle in a past case. That's all. There don't have to be any similarities. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight
3) Neutral point of view also contemplates that Wikipedia should not portray a given viewpoint as more important or credible than it is generally held to be. Not, another policy, further enjoins us to recognize that Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy or promotion of ideas, theories, or discoveries.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * My own concoction. --Haemo (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "generally"? Obviously you don't mean the "mainstream media" because there are lots of example where mainstream media generally believe of misconception. Just an example: people generally believe that Schizophrenia is equal to Dissociative identity disorder, and this miscinception is also widely endorsed by the mainstream media (there is also the famous joke "you are never alone with Schizophrenia"): do we have to make it credible in wikipedia that the two are the same thing just because it is generally believed? Of course we don't. So what do you mean by "generally" if you don't mean the mainstream media?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm being deliberately vague, since this is to be a principle that needs to be applied broadly. In different contexts, there are different standards. --Haemo (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A so vague principle can be used and interpreted in completely arbitrary way by anybody according to their personal POV. For example "generally" can of course mean "by the majority of people" and according to 9/11 opinion polls we should describe the 9/11 cover up allegation as more credible than thegovernment version.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Vague principles are better, because they allow the room for consensus to emerge around them, rather than ramming them through by fiat. --Haemo (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is very controversial and disputable because to have such vague principles is almost equal to have no principle at all. And for "consensus" note that also without principles we can "allow the room for consensus": indeed there would be even more room without principles at all than with vague principles, wouldn't it?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view also contemplates that Wikipedia should not portray a given viewpoint as more important or credible than it is generally held to be. Wikipedia:Not, another policy, further enjoins us to recognize that Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy or promotion of ideas, theories, or discoveries.


 * A theory which is generally held to be credible is still a theory, thus the above summaries of WP:NOT and WP:NPOV are apparently at odds. I hold that neither applies in this case.  There are facts which are clearly and demonstrably factual, when such facts are presented in a neutral manner they accord with NPOV.  For editors to decide to present a 'generally held theory' in a format which makes it appear as if it is being stated as a fact is in violation of WP:SYNTH.

Reliable sources
4) Verifiability contemplates that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Factual assertions made within an article must be attributable to "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and be presented in the same context &mdash; see WP:SYNTH.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * My own concoction. --Haemo (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, but the problem begins when we have to decide when an assertion is "factual" or is just an expression of an editorial opinin.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an issue for discussion in specific cases; I'm trying to avoid this being "contenty". --Haemo (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case your principle seems to be useless to help us in solving our disputes.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I thought that arbcom doesn't deal with content disputes? Just like JzG, you are asking the arbcom to mediate content. I have no doubt that you will then use this Arbcom ruling against others in content disputes. Trav (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If a factual assertion is an assertion of something which is impossible to be known by the source which asserts it, it should be attributed to the source, and not presented as fact. Example "When he was a boy, young Christopher Columbus dreamed of becoming a great explorer." This is an assertion of fact, which occurs in a history text which is either currently in use in the United States, or which was in recent use. The text was published by a publisher with a good reputation in the textbook industry, a publisher which for argument's sake I am assuming has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In my understanding of wikipedia policies, and more importantly the intent of the policies it would be irresponsible (and against Wikipedia policy) to state in the article Christopher Columbus that "Christopher Columbus fulfilled his boyhood dream of becoming a great explorer." However, we could say without fear of censure that Textbook X, says "When he was a boy, young Christopher Columbus dreamed of becoming a great explorer." It is my opinion that this principle could be applied to this case. User:Pedant (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ArbCom does not rule on content disputes. This is not the place. ~ S0CO  ( talk 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pedant that questionable claims, made by reliable sources, should be attributed, not presented as facts. For readibility, I would prefer to only attribute when the claims are disputed, or else articles would become unreadable. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Factual disputes
5) When factual assertions are disputed, such disputes should be interpreted in light of Neutral point of view.  The validity of a given factual assertion should be weighted in the same way as viewpoints about any subject &mdash; this includes the context of a given assertion &mdash; and in terms of the article as a whole.  Disagreements, when appropriate for inclusion, should be attributable to reliable sources, in accordance with Verifiability.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * My own concoction. --Haemo (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The dispute is not about wheter a factual assertion is valid, the dispute is about wheter it is "factual" rather that an expression of an editorial opinion. There are no disputes about "validity of facts". Disputes about opinions also shouldn't belong to wikipedia because we have to report them in the attributed form.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I would point out that this only covers factual assertions. You draw a stark line between "fact" and "opinion" which is both unwarranted, and something Wikipedia explicitly recognizes as difficult to determine. --Haemo (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An easy way out can be: when there is a dispute between "fact" and "opinion" we just attribute the quote.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But what about undue weight? If everyone says X and I say Y, should how do we deal with that? --Haemo (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of undue weight now? We were discussing the possibility of a dispute between users about whether a quotation express a fact rather than an opinion. I said: no problem: we attribute the quotation and everyone is happy.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * See my comment in the above section (Columbus dreamed of becoming a great explorer) and my essay: Pillars of the Community. User:Pedant (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
6) Continual use of Wikipedia pages to further a given argument can become disruptive.  Editors are implored to seek consensus in a honest and productive manner &mdash; if your suggestions are repeatedly rejected, seek an outside view through dispute resolution.  The onus is never on an individual editor to carry forward an argument singlehandedly &mdash; if your suggestion has merit, other individuals will carry it forward.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * My own concoction. Kind of bleh, but it gets to the heart of what I feel. --Haemo (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Continual use of wikipedia to discuss the reply to our argumente, clarify the policies involved and the interpretations of them given by the other and providing new counterargument is completely legitimate. And this was actually what happened. People like to suggest it was instead just "repetition of arguments against consensus" just because they were unconfortable in providing motivation for their claims.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is fantasy. "If your suggestion has merit, other individuals will carry it forward" – if only!


 * The line about repeating the same arguments over and over is a popular strategy among those who seek to defend "the consensus". For instance during both the 9/11 conspiracy theories renaming debates I have been involved with, it was often stated that no new arguments had been presented since the previous run of the debate. The second time round this was plainly untrue because the argument that WP:NC says absolutely nothing about "reliable sources" had never been introduced before. Yet even when you pointed it out, the same claim was made: no new arguments had been presented. On the other hand Haemo, Rx StrangeLove and others relentlessly regurgitated this bankrupt argument, causing a lot of confusion and forced me to spend a lot time and a lot of words refuting it. ireneshusband (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Common sense
7) Common sense, and the related policy Ignore all rules, should be used reasonably by all editors to improve Wikipedia.  Ignoring rules, especially when applied to content issues over which there is dispute, should be done only when it is unambiguous that your actions are beneficial or helpful..
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Common sense is not common clause. --Haemo (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Common sense is not Common knowledge User:Pedant (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

pp-1 (Xiutwel) Do the best you possibly can.
1) Try all avenues before going to ArbCom 04:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

pp-2a judge only edits
2) Judge article edits, not editors. &mdash; 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

pp-2b SPA's are not illegal

 * Single-purpose_accounts are not illegal. They may be signs that a(nother) user is...
 * sockpuppeting
 * editing in a POV manner
 * advocating beliefs in stead of abiding to policy
 * and thus it makes no sense to claim a user to "be" a SPA and therefore to be in violation of policy. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

pp-3 Significant Minority (Xiutwel)
3) A significant minority view (SigMinView) exists when the view under discussion is held by a large group of actors and when we can easily name prominent adherents. For non-scientific topics this does not mean we need a significant proportion of reliable publications either defending or even mentioning such a view. It is more than enough when:
 * the view is treated at length at least once in a reliable source (and)
 * the view is held widely among the relevant community (in this case: world citizens, especially Americans) (and)
 * the view is held by several prominent adherents

Specifically for 9/11: reducing a SigMinView to a remarkable/crazy social phenomenon  in stead of a view to be reckoned with in the context of WP:NPOV ... In my opinion this is not what is intended by policy.

&mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

pp-4 POV tags (Xiutwel)
4) POV tags exist to express to the reader that there is no consensus among wikipedia editors. This does not provide for one half of editors calling the other half of editors "confused" and removing the tag because "they themselves have policy on their side". POV tags are not there to point to dissensus amongst reliable sources, but dissensus among wikipedia editors.

&mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

pp-5: When editing is NOT synthesis (Xiutwel)
5) Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment A policy quotation. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

pp-6 Citing vs quoting policy when objecting to edits (Xiutwel)

 * 6a) It is a best practice to present all valid arguments for objecting to an edit at once.
 * 6b) It is a best practice to provide full relevant quotations of policy, in stead of paraphrasing or merely citing it.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * comment: Policy shopping (essay) describes:
 * "...the problem is not necessary that somebody is constantly coming up with new reasons why they should be right, but that they keep jumping from policy to policy hoping they'll land on something that in some way supports what they are trying to do. It's like they're just pushing button after button hoping they'll finally find the one that opens the door (or in this case, presenting policy after policy until one of them finally mentions something of relevance)."

- AuburnPilot


 * This holds not only for changing an article, but also for not changing an article. If an edit dispute is showing signs of getting long, it pays off to list the policy issues as stake as complete as possible. This can avoid long-dragging discussions over ever changing aspects of policy. Also, to avoid misunderstandings, it is a good idea to use quotations of policy pages: this is less vague then merely citing the title or paraphrasing. It can be helpful to paraphrase the guidelines when instructing new editors how to edit. However, when a dispute is emerging, it is not helpful. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

pp-7 Neutrality applies to each separate article. (Xiutwel)
7) Each article should be neutral on its own. We are not to compensate for and accept the bias in one article, by means of another article of opposite bias. Each article should be unbiased with respect to the topic at hand. The topic is defined by the title of the article.

13:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

pp-8 UNDUE not to be used for reverting of undisputed information (Xiutwel)
8) UNDUE weight applies to viewpoints, but not to evidence (observable, undisputed facts).

11:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * In the 9/11 editor debates, those editors who object to the inclusion of certain information have often cited WP:UNDUE as basis to revert an edit. However, WP:NPOV says we should not give undue weight to a minority viewpoint: its coverage should be proportionate. This is no carte blanche to remove verifiable information from an article, whenever this information would be supportive to a minority view. If editors feel that including such information would distort the balance of an article, they are free to add other information which balances it out. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

pp-9 do not revert (Xiutwel)
9) Do not revert good faith edits, not even when you assume bad faith, except for obious vandalism. And if you do revert, always offer an alternative solution on the talk page. Reverting in combination with not altering the article, is never an option unless all editors come to agreement. Edit warring to preserve a version is "not done".

11:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * See the Workshop and the Proposed decision &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

pp-10 neutralising is not to be confused with POV pushing (Xiutwel)
10) Editing an article from a biased version towards a neutral version is not POV pushing, it is good editing.

18:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Logical, but often not acknowledged by those with a strong bias. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 18:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

pp-11 WP:FRINGE is not to undo WP:NPOV (Xiutwel)
11) WP:FRINGE describes the coverage that scientific theories deserve in main articles about the scientific subjects. This policy content guideline was developed for science topics, and cannot supersede a policy, such as WP:NPOV, which is applicable to all articles.

20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Makes sense, but very unconvenient for some... &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

pp-tpl (Xiutwel)
12) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

ff-1 (Xiutwel)
1) The only mediation has been around the name of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, and was sort of closed abruptly. 04:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The mediation was closed when it became apparent that mediation was not going to solve the issue; a point which was largely agreed upon by those discussing and the mediators. --Haemo (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For content disputes, mediation is the preferred solution. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a content dispute anymore though. RxS (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What then do you say it is? A content dispute is certainly at the heart. You think repeating the opinion of RS into an article makes that article neutral; I say repeating the facts those same RS reported could make it neutral. Then we had a guideline debate. Then, when people could not find quotations to prove their interpretation, several people started to call for bans. But the heart is a content dispute, and that will not disappear by banning either you or me. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, so by it's very nature content is at the heart of everything. But we're not here because we disagree about content, we're here because of how some editors are behaving during those content discussions. Now, we may disagree on how people should act during those content debates (and we very clearly do) but that doesn't mean that Arbcom will start making content decisions in order to reduce friction between editors or pick a winner in content disagreements. Or if they do it will be a significant shift in the way they do business. Arbcom is about behavior and sometimes, with a light hand, about general policy. RxS (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template ff-2 (Xiutwel)
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template ff-3 (Xiutwel)
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies (Xiutwel)
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.

pr-1 (Xiutwel): Mediation?
1) Consider whether mediation can be helpful; perhaps giving some guidance frame. 04:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

pr-2 (Xiutwel) Judging and evaluating
2) Editors should discuss the quality of article edits, not the intentions that the editor might or might not have. Intentions can be shared to further mutual understanding, but should not be decisive in assessing the merit of any article edit. It's the result that counts. &mdash; 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * comment: If an editor is "evil", special care should be taken that this "evil" is not present in the edits he makes, but valid edits should not be blocked for the intentions of the one making them. Only policy objections are valid. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

pr-6b (Xiutwel)
6b) It can be helpful to paraphrase the guidelines when instructing new editors how to edit. However, when a dispute is emerging, it is strongly recommended that editors quote guidelines ad verbatim, in stead of merely referring to the title or paraphrasing policy and guidelines.

&mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

pr-7 (Xiutwel)
7) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template pe-1 (Xiutwel)
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template pe-2 (Xiutwel)
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template pe-3 (Xiutwel)
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Dishonesty
1) Dishonesty is vastly more damaging to wikipedia than incivility. Dishonesty posing as civility is even worse. Quite apart from anything else, it is guaranteed to provoke incivility on the part of others. As WP:HONESTY makes clear, the assumption of good faith is impossible if there is not honesty on both sides. There should be absolutely no tolerance for persistent and relentless dishonesty with the intention of manipulating other editors or of corrupting Wikipedia.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't think this priniple really applies to this arbitration case. I have yet to see one diff documenting reckless dishonesty by anyone. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dishonesty is for example when you (impersonal pronoun) personally attack someone, he reply attacking and later accuse him of personal attack or incivilty for his reply.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "hypocrisy" would be the appropriate descriptor in this case, but yes. In any case, I think "dishonesty" in this context refers to misrepresenting one's motives, such as (in this case) claiming neutrality as an excuse to incorporate fringe views into the main body of an article. ~ S0CO  ( talk 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also calling "fringe" what actually does not fit with the definition of WP:FRINGE or refusing to insert a sourced facts because it could possibly cast doubt a certain POV and claiming that it is not "notable", or expressing an opinion as a fact claiming to be respecting WP:RS.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Or giving undue weight to a particular fact because it reinforces a particular POV, or claiming an RS to be an opinion because it is not in line with one's POV, etc. From our brief exchange here, I think the ArbComs can get some picture of what this debate typically degrades into. We could go back and forth on this all day, Pokipsy, but I'd rather we didn't; least of all here. ~ S0CO  ( talk 21:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Haemo has been relentlessly dishonest in the way he has represented wikipedia policies and guidelines to others
1) Haemo has flagrantly misrepresented facts and misrepresented wikipedia policies and guidelines to further his own agenda. His almost relentless insistence that what "reliable sources" call something is a criterion for naming articles under WP:NC, even after the falsity of this position was pointed out to him innumerable times, is a particularly telling example. Not even a very blunt and explicit notice on his user talk has been able to deter him from this.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Where's the evidence? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly replied to this bland assertion of nebulous wrongdoing on my part, and it has never made an impact. I refer you to the (three?) times I have responded to this assertion for a rejoinder.  --Haemo (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Rx StrangeLove has been relentlessly dishonest in the way he has represented wikipedia policies and guidelines to others
1) Rx StrangeLove has flagrantly misrepresented facts and misrepresented wikipedia policies and guidelines to further his own agenda. His almost relentless insistence that what "reliable sources" call something is a criterion for naming articles under WP:NC, even after the falsity of this position was pointed out to him innumerable times, is a particularly telling example. Not even a very blunt and explicit notice on his user talk has been able to deter him from this.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Where's the evidence? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:46, 27 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.

Haemo banned for one month
1) Haemo is to be banned from editing wikipedia for one month.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Absolutely not. Not one iota of evidence has been presented that suggests Haemo has been disruptive, and there's a reason for that; he has not been disruptive. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Rx StrangeLove banned for one month
2) Rx Strangelove is to be banned from editing wikipedia for one month.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * No way, for the same reason that Haemo shouldn't be banned. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Haemo gets one year probation
3) Haemo shall be put on probation for one year. Any dishonest activity, including wikilawyering with intent to deceive, shall be considered a violation of this probation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * There is no evidence of wikilawyering by Haemo. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Rx StrangeLove gets one year probation
4) Rx StrangeLove shall be put on probation for one year. Any dishonest activity, including wikilawyering with intent to deceive, shall be considered a violation of this probation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * There is no evidence of wikilawyering by Rx Strangelove. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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:

No original research
1) The policy on no original research expressly prohibits inclusion of unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas. The policy also prohibits novel syntheses of other sources, including unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * irrelevant: nobody involved in the dispute seems to be doing that. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Public opinion polls
2) Public opinion poll data is a primary source of information, which needs to be handled with extra diligence. Public opinion polls cited in Wikipedia should be sponsored and run by reputable organizations.  Polls sponsored by advocacy organizations may have worded questions or used methodology in a way to solicit the kind of answers the poll sponsors seek.  Self-selected polls such as CNN online polls are not reliable.  Also, public opinion changes, especially in regards to politics and fads.  Numbers from polls taken some time ago should not be presented as current measure of opinion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Half-agree: Secondary sources are indeed better than primary ones, and if you have any RS secondary sources which discredit primary poll sources, such could be a reason to omit such a poll from an article.  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree: the problem of the reputability of sources arises only when we are reporting sourced facts - without attribution - wich could possibly be false or incorrectly reported. When we report the existence of a poll it is completely irrelevant the reputability of the organization who made the poll if the poll has an enciclopedic notability for any reason, regardless of who sponsor the polls. For istance in the page Italian general election, 2006 we cite all the relevant polls and you will find also polls which were made by organizations which were directly connected to Silvio Berlusconi or sponsored by him. Is it a problem? No it isn't, obviously.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree: I strongly believe that online opinion polls, which are prone to manipulation by individuals who are so motivated, can never be cited as a source, regardless of who organized the poll. ~ S0CO  ( talk 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Did anybody try to cite online polls?
 * What would be the problem if some day an online poll should become enciclopedic for any reason?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here? Not that I know of. But if we're talking about changing policy, then yes, that is my belief. Online opinion polls are too easy to manipulate by people with the motivation (political or otherwise) to do so. I for one seriously doubt that 89% of the American populace really wants George Bush to be impeached.
 * Honestly, I can't envision such a scenario -- unless it were in an article about criticism of online polling. ~ S0CO  ( talk 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Undue weight
3) The NPOV policy prohibits giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, if they are held by a small minority. Wikipedia can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. Furthermore, Wikipedia uses summary style for articles, with sections of long articles spun off into their own subarticles, leaving a summary in its place.  For fringe theories or theories that have limited coverage in reputable sources, a brief summary (at most) and link to the subarticle is appropriate for main articles on the topic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Appropriate sources
4) Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires that material included in an article has been published in a reliable source. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but Wikipedia favors use of reputable textbooks, peer-reviewed journals, and for historic topics reputable sources may include others with reputation for scholarship, quality journalism, or factchecking. Newspapers, which may be regarded as reliable, do publish editorials which are not factchecked and thus are normally not appropriate sources for Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think I actually agree on this one. But I would propose to only refrain from using a newspaper as a source, when the actual claim made is indeed disputed. This seems to have not been the case in the current conflict under arbitration? &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Sources for news events
5) With breaking news events, reliable sources including media outlets are bound to get some facts wrong in the chaos, confusion, and uncertainty of the immediate situation. These anomalies often form the basis for conspiracy theories.  However, these confusions or anomalies are usually later cleared up, and the earlier, contradictory or erroneous reports should not be regarded on Wikipedia as appropriate sources or reported as fact.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * When such "confusion" is later "cleared up" then it would be no problem to mention both the confusion and the clearing up, since confusion can also mean: "lie", covered by another "lie". For instance: the BBC reporting that WTC7 collapsed, 25 minutes before it did, can be interpreted as "confusion", later "cleared up" but also as reporters being fed a lie, and troubleshooters fixing the lie. When we provide the complete picture, there is no problem.  &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That in itself is original research. We cannot write a neutral encyclopedia if we choose to assume malice in such a situation. ~ S0CO  ( talk 17:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention it's at odds with reliable sourcing &mdash; if a reliable sources reports X, then retracts it, we are not then to state X since a reliable source states that it's false. Now, if we had another source reporting X as fact, we could go somewhere.  Wikipedia is not a collection of errors which no reliable sources report as notable or important. --Haemo (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

User:Wowest is a tendentious editor
1) edits in a tendentious manner, including accusations of "censorship" and "vandalism" against other editors and repeating the same arguments and edits time and again.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Would point out personal attacks. --Haemo (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What about editors who accuse of POV pushing and inserting crap? Are they tendentious? There are several ones, why don't you accuse them too?
 * Actually almost all editors have been repeating the same arguments and edits time and again, why are you focusing on Wowest?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Evidence provided by Aude clearly shows that Wowest is pulling on one side of a rope, and others are pulling on the other end. In my opinion, the evidence presented is more in Wowest's favour. Please compare my Proposed principle number 10, on POV-pushing. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Pretty hard to disagree with this simple fact. Note SPA as well.--MONGO 04:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility
1) "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." (WP:CIV) While the neutral point of view is formally ranked higher in the hierarchy of core values, there is no reason to treat editors who violate NPOV in a less than civil manner. Indeed, where NPOV has not been observed (whether intentionally or unintentionally) increased civility is more likely to resolve a dispute than personal insults.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I really like this insight, and hope the ArbCom will copy the increased civilty advice! &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Struggle for NPOV has compromised civility
1) There is evidence of incivility on both sides and the 9/11 articles are too often the site of battles. Personally targetted insults are deployed on both sides. Editors who are taken to favour alternative theories (so-called "conspiracy theories") are called "cranks" and "nuts", while editors who are taken to favour mainstream accounts are described as "shills" and "cowards". The atmposphere created by such characterizations is not conducive to resolving the content issues that the discussions begin with. The articles are therefore too often locked, or identified with dispute tags.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Topic-specific civility parole
1) All parties to this dispute are placed on civility parole in regard to the 9/11 articles. New editors, or editors not involved in the current dispute, will be quickly warned if they engage in personally targeted behavior. 24 hr topic-specific blocks will follow any violation, any attempt to personalize disputes. This includes airing speculations about editors' motives for participating in WP. Suspicions of wrong doing should be dealt with through dispute resolution channels outside the disputed articles and their talk pages (where this remedy does not apply).

This is a kind of zero-tolerance policy. It is to be taken as a temporary measure, lasting 6 months, during which the usual "shill" vs. "crank" arguments will not be able to get started since any instance of personally targetted behaviour will result in a 24-hr block. The hope is that regular contributors to the article will be able to see the benefits of maintaining a civil tone.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Admin monitoring
1) ArbCom select a number of admins to monitor 9/11-pages, enforcing a hard line on civility. Any personally targetted remarks will result in a warning (for users not already warned in this decision) and then a 24-hr block from editing the 9/11 pages. The decisions of these admins cannot be overturned by others. (The only remedy for consistent poor judgment on the part of the assigned admins is to take them off the assignment.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Reporting
2) Instead responding to personal insults, editors are encouraged to report them to the assigned admins who will immediately block offenders for 24 hrs. Threatening to make such reports will be considered a violation of civility and will also result in a block.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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:

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:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: