| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
| Track related changes |
Case Opened on 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Case Closed on 15:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Case Amended bymotion on 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Case Amended bymotion on 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Case amended bymotion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Case amended bymotion on 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided atarbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the/Evidence subpage.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at/Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at/Proposed decision.
Once the case is closed, editors may add to the#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions atWikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.
This case centers around the prospects of adding of pro-conspiracy theory language to articles related to theSeptember 11, 2001 attacks. It is my belief that adding such language to these articles brings Wikipedia into disrepute and that users who continually attempt to add pro-conspiracy language into the encyclopedia are disruptive. Recently, the main article was fully protected as a result of the continual addition (and removal) of POV tags to the page. A mediation case was closed recently in which the prospects of changing the title of9/11 conspiracy theories to what was perceived by some as a more conspiracy theory-friendly title. Many of those who wish to add conspiracy POV to these articles have constantly posted toTalk:9/11 conspiracy theories andTalk:September 11, 2001 attacks, often times ignoring previously developed consensus.
While this debate has mostly remained civil, there are a few users with behavioral problems (I documented the behavior of one such userhere). I urge the arbitration committee to accept this case to consider the harm brought onto the project by conspiracy theory POV-pushing and to consider the behavior of all involved parties.Ice Cold Beer (talk)21:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This dispute seems to be at an impasse. One one side, there are the editors who feel that the term "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative and implies that the theories are false. On the other hand, there are the editors who think that the term isn't necessarily derogatory and is simply descriptive. Neither group seems willing to back down any time soon, so I think arbitration is the only solution remaining. --clpo13(talk)21:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a party to this, I have no significant edits to any 9/11 articles as far as I can remember, all I did was take part in yetanother long-winded explanation by long-standing users of why policy means we don't change the titles of articles to avoid offending Truthers. The mediation case was dead in the water from the outset - two main reasons were raised for wanting to change the title of9/11 conspiracy theories, one was that because some sources identify the terrorist attacks as a conspiracy, then that makes the official version a conspiracytheory, anovel synthesis not made by a single reliable source; the other being that calling them conspiracy theories prejudges the content. It doesn't. It accurately reflects how Truther theories are viewed outside the Truther walled garden. Short of banning all Truthers on sight, which would make Wikipedia a far better place but probably play badly with one or two of our free speech advocates, I don't see anything ArbCom can do here.Guy(Help!)22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the role of ArbCom here is supposed to, or should, be — the most serious issue here that reflects behavior isincivility,edit warring, using Wikipedia as asoapbox andtendentious editing practices. However, the core of the dispute is aroundneutral point of view,reliable sources,fringe theories, and their relationship to articles and subjects surrounding9/11 conspiracy theories — i.e. a content dispute, compounded by the strong opinions, and almost exclusively carried forward bysingle-issue editors with a strong POV on the subject. In this sense, it is very similar toWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The behaviorial issues are, however, not as severe as they were in that case — foreseeable outcomes from this case (unless the ArbCom takes an unprecedented step) are largely cautions and clarifications of Wikipedia's underlying policies with respect to this issue, as in the Pseudoscience case.
In the Pseudoscience case, ArbCom took a step towards ruling on content disputes, by spelling out interpretations of guidelines and policies. This is, primarily, the most substantial possible outcome from this case — but I'm not sure that ArbCom wants to take that step again. Is there an issue here? Yes. However, is it an issue for ArbCom to decide — I'm really not sure. --Haemo (talk)23:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first participation in an arbitration case, although I have participated in a successful mediation. I was really hoping to see a more dispassionate and rational discourse. Unfortunately, from the barely-concealed vitriol of some of the preceeding statements, we can clearly see why we have ended up at this stage. Potential new editors are forced to deal with a handful of self-appointed wardens of the site who have summarized the events of 9-11 in their minds, and refuse to consider anything outside of those summaries. Any attempt to add content to the article outside of the government-prescribed record of events is met with scorn and ridicule. Editors who attempt to add such are called, (as noted above), "Truthers" or "Conspiracy Theorists" at best, and more commonly "morons" and similar. The attempt to rename "9-11 Conspiracy Theories" to "9-11 Alternative Theories" was defeated by editors entrenched in their beliefs, despite the obvious logical fact that a non-mainstream theory is NOT necessarily a conspiracy theory, and the attempt to portray it as such is obvious bad faith.
Having said that, I (like others above) am also not sure what the goal of arbitration would be in this case.Bulbous (talk)23:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd like to see an end to the continuous tendentious editing patterns and soapboxing on these pages, I'm not sure what Arbcom would be willing to do here. Having said that, I would love to see them examine everyone's editing here. If the result was only cautions to the editors most responsible for making a mess of these pages and wasting endless cycles we'd at least have a paper trail in case those same editors grow more disruptive. I don't expect this to be accepted, I'm not even sure they should given workloads etc. But there is a problem here and something will have to be done at some point. There are several editors here that have a long history of disruptive POV pushing, this may best be split into multiple editor RFCs for now.
9/11 related articles have been under constant attack by those who want to include more conspiracy theories. Efforts to do so have been disruptive and I have all but vacated the impossible to keep up with talk pages related to these articles. There isn't anything I can see that is accurate about retitling the article9/11 conspiracy theories to 9/11 alternative theories. The use of the wordalternative would indicate that their theories really are alternate, or have some credence of factuality, when they don't. Sure, there are a very few questions that may seem to be not fully addressed, but the vast majority of 9/11 conspiracy theories are centered around the preposterous notions of "let it happen" and or "make it happen" and some even believe the U.S. government was the sole reason if did happen. Regardless, this is a content dispute, so what the committee would need to see defined is if individual editors have violated policies of course.--MONGO07:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly dispute the presentation of the case byIce Cold Beer. The point is not wheter we should add "pro-conspiracy" language but a wheter we should accept
I thinkWP:NPOV states clearly that all these points are not acceptable.--Pokipsy76 (talk)07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just a content dispute, but behavior from some editors on 9/11 pages has beendisruptive with edit warring against consensus andtendentious editing. For example, edit warring byUser:Xiutwel in the latest round led to full protection of theSeptember 11, 2001 attacks article:[1][2] (here he recognizes "no consensus" but edits anyway)[3][4][5]. This was aWP:3RR violation, but he was not blocked or reported at the time. He reverted one more time after he saw a warning left on the article talk page.User:Wowest has also been involved, withtendentious editing behavior.[6][7] It would help if ArbCom could look at behavior of individual editors. Not all have been disruptive, but with Xiutwel, this has been going on for 2+ years (starting out withOklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories). It gets very tiresome to stay involved on the 9/11 talk pages and wears people out. I like to do other things on Wikipedia with what time I have, and the 9/11 talk pages take away from that. Some of these other editors are here for asingle purpose on 9/11 pages. Also, where does Wikipedia stand when it comes totendentious editing andWP:FRINGE? --Aude(talk)12:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this has become just as much of an editor dispute as a content dispute. The year-long(+) debate has centered around incessant and repetitious proposals fromUser:Xiutwel, who haspersisted in pushing his POV using disruptively long proposals on a near daily basis, in which he has evoked similar arguments for the same requests. He's done this in spite of detailed explanations and quotes of policy from experienced editors and administrators. Over the past two years, he has pushed for conspiracy theories onOklahoma City bombing andSeptember 11th, 2001 attacks while rejecting explanations ofWP:FRINGE,WP:OR,WP:RS, andWP:NOR from several dozen editors. When warned oftendentious editing by myself last month, he accused the article's editors of censorship:[8]. Asked why he has continued, he responded withthis comment denouncing Wikipedia's use of reliable sources. The user has spend 95% of his/her time over the last year on 9/11-related talk pages, mostly repeating arguments disruptively atTalk:9/11 and, on several occasions, editing the article directly after failed attempts to gather consensus.
Recently, a pair of IP addresses and one or two other accounts have begun arguing in favor of Xiutwel's proposals. That has given these few editors traction for demanding a NPOV tag and creating edit wars over the issue, claiming there to be no consensus on the current state of the article. These editors have been disruptive by disregarding the definition of "consensus": "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'".
Let me clarify: Not everyone has been disruptive. However, there is a serious issue here with one or two editors. There has been precedence for dealing with tendentioussingle purpose accounts in similar arbitrations (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience) and I hope some form of related action will be taken here.Okiefromoklaquestions?03:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is a simple one: Shall the article be called "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" or "9/11 Alternative Theories"? Likewise the choice should be a simple one, based on our answer to the question, "Which title is more neutral, yet still descriptive of the topic at hand?"
While the term "conspiracy theory" was originally (1909) neutral, since at least the late 1960s it has acquired a pejorative meaning similar to "urban legend." At the very least the use of such a moniker implies that whatever follows is "farfetched." Even more definitive is the term "conspiracy theorist," which isalways pejorative and is synonomous with labeling someone a "crank" or a "paranoid, imbalanced person."
Given this historical context, there can be no pretense that the title "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" is neutral. In fact proponents of this title have repeatedly ceded this point; they want to retain the titlebecause they consider bogus any and all alternative theories relating to 9/11, and they wish to prejudice readers accordingly.
Theonly NPOV title that has been suggested thus far is "9/11 Alternative Theories," which allows readers to decide for themselves the relative merits of whatever theories appear in the article.
I favor a change in title to "9/11 Alternative Theories."Apostle12 (talk)22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All numbering based on/Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.
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 forother purposes, such asadvocacy or propaganda,furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promotingoriginal research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.
2) Article content must be presented from aneutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not giveundue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.
3) Wikipedia works by buildingconsensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—anddispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into anedit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether byreversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a fewexceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith,trolling,harassment,disruptive point-making, andgaming the system, is prohibited.
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.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) 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 toassume good faith andavoid 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 andverifiability) 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.
; AppealsSanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currentlyWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
; Uninvolved administratorsFor 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.
; LoggingAll sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged atWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.
Superseded version |
|---|
Former title: "Standard discretionary sanctions". 2)
Amended to change "articles" to "pages" |
Rescinded bymotion |
|---|
2) Theevents of September 11, broadly construed, are designated as acontentious topic. |
21) Each reference to the priordiscretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to thecontentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.
Remedy 2 ofSeptember 11 conspiracy theories ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded due to the topic area being covered by thepost-1992 American Politics contentious topic. All actions taken under the rescinded authorization remain in force and are governed by theprocedures.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged atWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.
| old |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
|