Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

Statements by uninvolved parties

The following statements were posted to this case's section on Requests for Arbitration, when the case was first presented to the Arbitration Committee for consideration. The case has now been accepted, and the statements by non-parties moved to the talk page, per procedure. Please do not amend the statements by the editors below, and place any discussion threads below all the statements, rather than above or in-between.

Thank you, AGK § 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ChrisO

I'm uninvolved in this case - like JzG I've never edited anything to do with 9/11 - but having seen this sort of problem recurring many times I fully agree that there are significant issues here that need to be addressed. One of Wikipedia's most persistent problems is our inability to deal with single-purpose editors (many whom are cranks and obsessives, to put it bluntly). Their main if not sole purpose here is to raise the profile of their favourite fringe theory, dilute the mainstream view or achieve both ends at once. The problems described above with 9/11 conspiracy theories are just the tip of the iceberg. We've seen the same thing with issues as varied as Terri Schiavo, intelligent design and vaccines. The problem has got so bad, in fact, that a number of our scientist editors are discussing withdrawing en masse from Wikipedia and letting the articles they're "defending" collapse into a pile of fringe gibberish (see discussion at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal). Unfortunately, we have a systemic problem in dealing with fringe POV-pushers. Because of their obsessiveness and tenaciousness, they can simply wear down the non-fringe editors, which by the look of it is what is happening in this particular case.

This is a collective failure on our part. We need to recognise that these people are not here to improve Wikipedia - JzG is absolutely right in the way he characterises the problem - and we need to act accordingly. Note that this isn't like nationalist disputes (Israel-Palestine, Balkans, Gdanzig etc) where disputes involve two or more widely held conflicting POVs that need to be balanced. Fringe theory controversies invariably involve supporters of a small or tiny-minority POV seeking to acquire undue weight for their views or displace the largely or overwhelmingly dominant POV through the use of persistent tendentious editing over very long periods of time (compare the case of the banned User:GordonWatts for a textbook example of this sort of crankery, relating to the Terri Schiavo case). Those of us who are admins need to be much tougher with such tendentious editors, and there needs to be a lot less tolerance for bogus "free speech" arguments. We're here to build a reliable mainstream encyclopedia, not to run a bulletin board. Ultimately we as a community need to kick out the worst of the tendentious fringe POV-pushers. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Selmo

I have left Wikipedia partly because of this issue, in addition to spending more time on my schoolwork, and I do not want to get involved in this case. I have, however looked at the talk pages of the articles relating to the topic, and I have made some observations.

Stephen Colbert's "wikiality" best describe the psychology of 9/11 debunkers of the Wikipedia community; The official story is correct because we all say so. This can be illustrated using Aude's reference to WP:CON. CON has been the root as to why this has become a major issue - Wikipedia administrators for whatever reason (they all had relatives who died during that attack or they have an emotional attachment to the 9/11 commission report or they're CIA spooks, or whatever) have all agreed that the relative articles are free of bias.

Dozens of individuates have pointed out that the articles have a huge right wing spin. Those who mention this are quickly labelled "conspiracy theorists". The debate about 9/11 quickly drifts to a debate about the contributors' intentions. They are called "POV Pushers", "Vandals" and debunkers seemingly ignore their clarifications regarding good faith vs bad faith edits. It is essentially Ad hominem. Attempting to debate the issues anyway are considered "trolling" and their comments are censored.

Other methods of changing the topic include criticizing the editor for making a link to a (at least according to consensus) "attack site" or weather the source is reliable, even though it is clearly a primary source of one of the major figureheads of the 9/11 truth movement. Despite proper attribution (Mr. Smith claims...) and counterclaims (Popular Mechanics says...) editors are accused of POV pushing.

If Wikipedia does not wish to act on the feedback it has received then that is fine, but it just goes to show how it can become easily controlled.

Comparisons

I read people comparing this case with intelligent design or vaccines. I think it's a completely inappropriate comparison: in those cases we have scientific theories versus theories which are not accepted by the scientific community. In the case of 9/11 we have no scientific theory and the scientific community has no position on the possible accounts of the events. More legitimate comparisons for 9/11 are the Kennedy assassination theories or the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities or the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the claims with regards to the tower collapses are actually scientific in nature, and for those we do have scientific explanations for what happened. It's not the whole case, certainly, but there are a few scientific aspects to consider. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right, there are single limited facts for which science is relevant but they are linked to the more extreme and more fringe conspiracy claims and not, for example, to the LIHOP hypothesis.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough. In a broader sense, though, we can characterize this as a conflict between mainstream and fringe theories, which certainly fits with what's going on with ID, vaccines, etc. Remember here that it isn't just the US government which supports the mainstream theory here, but numerous experts who've studied various aspects of it. Of course, none of this means that comparisons to other cases of conspiracy theories are invalid; they also exhibit this conflict. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Who would be the experts according to whom the LIHOP hypotesy is likely to be false or there is no conver up? Nobody. This is not a "field" where experts are relevant. It's just a case like Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate. The "mainstream" here is not something authoritative like in the case of vaccines science is. "Mainstream" here are just the mainstream news services which as we know are almost always linked to political and economical interests and cannot pretend to have any special authority in their selection of the facts or the narrative.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

When comparing cases, it is, in my view, important not only to look at the general topic of the article, but on the precise formulation of the title of the article. In this regard, there is a huge difference between an article aboout a subject and an article about specific theories or viewpoints on a subject.

For example, with regard to the article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, any theory that suggests that nuclear bombs would have been used would very likely be considered a fringe theory, but not the thermitic explosives theory, which is the most prominent theory within the scope of the article.

This also applies to sources. In this particular context, there is no need to provide evidence that the conclusions reached in any conspiracy theory would likely be true. The sources must be judged according to whether they reliably and verifiably support a statement on what the theory, as described by the title of the article, is about (even if every Wikipedia editor would agree that the theory itself is false).

We need to establish a more clearly defined policy with regard to fringe theories and minority views in the context of articles explicitly devoted to them, or we run the risk that editors will continue to have very different and conflicting perception on those policies, leading, at best, to misunderstanding, but also allowing editors of both side to continue gaming the system.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (see WP:V). Yet, a recurring theme on the pages, leading to unpleasant discussions and destructive behaviour, is that people who present verifiable source are accused of presenting sources that contain claims that are themselves untrue. Attempts to prove that these claims were true, which are themselves misguided because they do not follow WP:V, are met with accusations that editors would push their POV, soapboxing etc.

These accusations, seen in isolation, are of course, often correct. However, the whole sequence of events leads to an objective lack of possibilities for constructive resolution, and a subjective unwillingness to cooperate in a constructive way, unless the underlying policy issues are being resolved. --Cs32en (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for appeal: Topic ban of Thomas Basboll

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified

Status as of May 9, 2008

On April 21, 2008, Raul654 topic banned me without warning, referring to the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions in the 9/11 area, and describing this edit as "horrendous POV-pushing" in the face of an alleged consensus that this version is the only one supported by policy (discussion at AE). I immediately appealed the ban. I believe that this is a content issue, not simply a question of implementing the NPOV policy (which I of course support). I also believe that the dispute is essentially about the style of the article (both versions make the same claims with slightly different emphasis). I had in any case discussed the edit in a civil fashion in advance, had conducted a straw poll (which supported my edit), and had indicated that I would not oppose a revert in the short term. Almost three weeks later, I am still waiting to hear the Committee's position, and Raul has not yet made a statement.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Thomas Basboll

Raul654 has imposed a topic ban as sanctioned by ArbCom's recent ruling in the case on 9/11 conspiracy theories (see discussion at at AE). I do not consider myself a POV pusher (nor, it should go without saying, a conspiracy theorist or "truther"). I have devoted my time here (increasingly narrowly) as a good-faith single-purpose editor to articles related the collapse of the WTC, which interests me both from a technical, engineering point of view and as an episode in the philosophy, history and sociology of knowledge. I consider the WTC collapse article to be mainly an article on an engineering topic, and the controlled demolition hypothesis article to be mainly an article about a fringe hypothesis (comparable to, say, memory of water and, until recently, ball lightning, a phenomenon whose status is changing). I have edited them as such, in accordance with what I know, and based on (to my mind) reasonable interpretations of reliable sources.

I have behaved civily in all discussions, and was in this case implementing what I saw as an emerging consensus (from a week-long poll) in good faith, and explicitly noted that anyone could revert it if they thought I was jumping the gun [1]. Taking a longer view, my editing on these articles has been overwhelmingly accepted by consensus. The difference between the two versions being discussed in this particular case is very small. (This, for example, gives an indication of the difference between my proposal and Jehochman's; note that the bulk of my allegedly POV-pushing edit, namely, the merger of the overview section with the lead, has been preserved.) It is certainly a far cry from the sorts of claims that are normally associated with 9/11 CT POV-pushers. Moreover, I am willing to accept either of the two possible solutions. The purpose of the poll was to clearly identify the consensus in order to make it easier to maintain the page in the face of predictable edits.

Somewhat ironically, I had already explained this to Jehochman [2] before he lodged his complaint against my "horrendous POV pushing". I now, of course, understand why he didn't contribute to the poll. He seems to believe none of this, i.e., patient, civil ongoing discussion about the scientific status of the hypothesis, should be necessary. I look forward to hearing ArbCom's view on this matter.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum

Mongo has added a number of charges to the Tango Arbitration that are probably better dealt with here. It includes a characteristically false allegation[insinuation]: "Interestingly, during Basboll's hiatus from editing, User:Aude was able to get the disruption free period she needed to get 7 World Trade Center to featured level. I was able to help her with some copywriting issues. It remains the only 9/11 related article to achieve FA status. Basboll made numerous comments regarding the article upon his return to editing. Aude was also able to get Construction of the World Trade Center (a peripheral article) to FA status as well during Basboll's hiatus." Clearly this statement can only begin to make sense if I had actually worked on the articles that he rightly praises Aude's work on. Well, until my departure in May 2007, I had not edited them. I've actually checked back through my contributions. As far as I can tell I had not made a single edit to those articles before my break. It can hardly be in my absence that Aude was able to bring the 7 WTC article up to FA; there is simply no basis for identifying my hiatus with a "disruption free period" in this case. MONGO next suggests that, upon my return, I began to disrupt her work. He cites discussion threads that begin here. Notice that these threads conclude with agreement reached between Aude and I. The article was simply improved. By contrast, during my most recent absence, MONGO had four months to deal with a POV tag issue he insisted on leaving in, thereby ensuring that the article would fail a GA review after I had fixed a series shortcomings not related to CTs that had been identified by the sweeps reviewer. Nothing was done until, upon my return, I raised that as obviously the most pressing issue to deal with. I was immediately called a POV pusher and troll (the cause of what is now the Tango arbitration) and it was suggested that the section, after sitting quietly in the article for four months with a "neutrality disputed" tag, should just be deleted. Here, too, the situation has been resolved after lengthy discussions ... this time in MONGO's absence (block and retirement).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification of the difference that made the difference

Regardless of how AC judges my appeal, it will be useful to clarify the extent to which it is against policy to edit on the wrong side of this difference.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I didn't see the debate, but there is no doubt that Thomas Basboll's presence in those articles, while generally not egregiously uncivil, has had the effect of inflaming disputes and extending debate on matters where there is clearly a strong agreement with a few prominent holdouts, Basboll being one of same. His opinions on 9/11 are definitely not mainstream, and tireless advocacy of non-mainstream positions is one of the things I consider to be a serious problem in Wikipedia right now, so I would be inclined to support Raul's call here. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Are you suggesting that he is "incivil" in a non-egregious way? On what grounds?
2. If there is "no doubt" that he inflames disputes please provide proofs about this.
3. Provide proofs also of "clearly strong agreement" where debates have been extended.
4. Personal opinions are completely irrelevant (and you would have to prove them too).
5. If "advocacy" is so big a problem why don't you provide proofs of advocacy in this case?
6. According to which policy your (unproved) description of the user would be enough for a ban?

Unless you will provide any supporting material yours is just a groundless personal attack.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOUP. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How is someone challenging your view of something you "consider to be a serious problem" and asking for concrete examples to support some fairly broad statements in any way comparable to a distraction tactic? I really don't see a problem with "extending debate" - no article is ever finished and available information always changes. Debate is necessary, and from what I've seen of this user (admittedly not a huge amount), he appears to debate in a relatively constructive manner. I know a lot of people don't agree with this, but I feel firmly that is important in any kind of collaborative project for exclusion to be the resort only when there is absolutely no other option. I have seen no evidence to suggest that this is the case. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thomas is a supporter of certain fringe theories. His continued advocacy of those fringe theories in the face of multiple rejections, constitutes disruptive behaviour. Thomas is a perfectly nice fellow, he simply has this fringe view which he cannot bring himself to drop voluntarily. That does not make him evil, but it does make for a problem. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

at the risk of being presumptuous, I'll reword this. I don't think Thomas holds the fringe view, or rather I presume he doesn't. However, he advocates its inclusion to the articles as if it were not a fringe view. This is very difficult to deal with. He is perfectly civil. There are others that advocate the fringe view that support him and make him feel as if inclusion is consensus. This is the problem in that continuous battles to include this material is not conducive to building the encyclopedia with high quality content. --DHeyward (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether Thomas rather than you is right about the correct application of WP:UNDUE in the specific cases is a matter to be discussed in the talk page of the articles as required by the Wikipedia editorial process. You can't say that people are "a problem" just because you disagree with their opinions about content issues unless they don't follow the Wikipedia editorial process, which is not the case.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What you DHeyward and others are overlooking is that the edit that led to this ban was not a fringe view. What you are in effect saying here is that because he supports a fringe view then any edit he makes regardless of legitimacy is automatically rejected. This goes to the unanswered question I posed earlier. Was it the intention of Arbcom to stabilise the article by restricting editing to the “official” mainstream viewpoint to the exclusion of other minor but significant viewpoints as well as fringe viewpoints?. Wayne (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect on all accounts. Firstly, I don't view the topic ban as the result of one edit, rather a collection of a body of work that culminated in a final edit, i.e. the "last straw". This was after the arbcom ruling. Secondly, the whole article "Controlled Demilition Hypothesis..." is an article on a notable fringe theory. NPOV does not require that Wikipedia write the article as if this theory were accepted or that it must be written as if it were possible. Rather, the overwhelming scientific consensus view is taht this is a fringe conspriacy theory that has no merit in science or engineering and that it should be treated as such. The NPOV challenge is to present these facts about the hypothesis and not get confused with neutrally advocating the position. The facts are that it's 1) fringe 2) conspiracy theory and 3) overwhelmingly refuted. That's a neutral assessment of the hypothesis. The challenge for editors is to present those facts without advocating the theory and also to present it without disparaging the holders of this view. It is not NPOV to treat it as a legitmate theory. --DHeyward (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets clarify a few points. It was not a "final edit, i.e. the "last straw" but the first edit he made after the Arbcom. The edit did not support any fringe theory but in fact added a sentence which reduced the weight of fringe theories. This sentence was later replaced in the article the day after Thomas' edit was reverted and is still there. This means that the only part of his edit disputed was removing the words "911 conspiracy" from the first sentence and moving it to the second sentence where he expanded it by explaining it is fringe and not accepted. In his edit summary he even said that if you didn't agree with the edit, revert it. Basically a single minor edit of no real importance that had general support got an editor banned. Wayne (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I filed the arbitration enforcement request. Truthers have been trying to whitewash Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center for quite some time, and a variety of editors have been attempting to restore neutral point of view. Id est: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] At some point people need to understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advancing fringe theories. The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough. Let the administrators do their work. User:Thomas Basboll's long contribution history shows three main types of contributions to Wikipedia: 1/ pushing a Truther POV, 2/ attacking MONGO, and 3/ engaging in various processes to support those agendas. We simply do not need single purpose policy violation accounts, no matter how polite they may be. Jehochman ^Talk 08:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Pokipsy76

We don't determine whether Bigfoot exists by polling Bigfoot believers. We follow what the preponderance of reliable sources say. Jehochman ^Talk 08:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do you speak abouth "truthers": can you prove anyone here is a truther?
2. Your opinion about what is the due weight to give to allegedly "fringe" theories is not relevant here, it must be decided by means of consensus.
3. Administrators have not the right to unilaterally decide what is the due weight and who did violate it. It's up to the wikipedia community by means of consensus. --Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved Ncmvocalist

It appears that the editor who has been sanctioned has made good-faith attempts to try to find common ground among two sides - one side who feels that a certain hypothesis is labelled as a conspiracy theory, and another who doesn't. It is irrespective that I am of the opinion that it should be labelled as a conspiracy theory, because this editor in conducting a straw poll, has identified it as a conspiracy theory - whether it is in the first sentence, or the second of the article - although, the second sentence did not give enough emphasis on this I feel.

Although straw polls do not determine consensus, there was some discussion. The editor who filed the Arb-enforcement request made no attempts to participate in the discussion until earlier today, despite being invited to by the editor over 5 days ago, and editing on the article during those 5 days. In his editing, he has in fact on several occasions quoted 'consensus', but because the very policy clearly outlines that consensus can change, he should have engaged in the current discussion.

I find that there is insufficient evidence (of the sanctioned user failing to adhere to the Wikipedia principles outlined) for a sanction to be imposed in this case. However, the editor should've "been counselled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" as per the the remedy imposed by the ArbCom - I see none being given by the admin who imposed this sanction.

I am therefore of the opinion that there appear to be grounds for an appeal here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Xiutwel

It seems to me an emotional decision, blocking an editor, citing one edit.

Raul654 first neglected to give any specific reasons, and later added one edit as "the reason". onetwothree

I think Raul misunderstands the ArbCom decision, and also misunderstands NPOV policy.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing he explaines why involved editors should engage in POV disputes to make sure that the commendable POV (the government does not lie) triumphs over the evil POV's. It is clear that Raul fails to understand how policy, by following its process, leads to good articles. In stead, he starts with "the truth" and sees editors who disagree with him as "the Problem".  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved Wayne

I do not edit the article and do not personally believe the CD theory. I do however participate in talk occasionally as I believe the CD theory should be treated fairly. Comparing the current version with Thomas' version shows a difference of less than half a sentence which is not particularly controversial and was made in good faith after discussion. If we compare Thomas' edit with the original version we see that the current version is now closer to his edit than was the original and in fact his is more critical of the theory than the original was.
There was no warning before banning and no reason given for the ban. The reasons eventually given were confusing and lacked substance. Jehochman says "We don't determine whether Bigfoot exists by polling Bigfoot believers." but this is a gross misrepresentation. The poll was of both supporters and opposition and was primarily a grammatical edit that implied no preference for any conclusion. If Jehochman equates his refusal to take part in the discussion as bias to Thomas' viewpoint then he has no one to blame but himself and Thomas should not be punished for his failure.
Given what I see I have to ask, why is Arbcom enforcement so strictly enforced that it equates to either a.) almost total control of the article by supporters of the official theory or b.) discourages neutral editors from participating? Was it the intention of Arbcom to stabilise the article by restricting editing to the “official” mainstream viewpoint to the exclusion of other minor but significant viewpoints as well as fringe viewpoints? Wayne (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Inclusionist

Raul654 is NOT an "uninvolved" administrator

The arbitration remedy states:

"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)"

Raul654 is NOT an "uninvolved" administrator.

• Raul654 has edited 7 World Trade Center‎, one of the 9/11 articles. Raul654 edits show that he supports the Jehochman's position. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]
• Raul654 deletes a fact tag on the sentence:

"The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11 due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage." stating "rv - well known fact" [25]

• Raul654's talk page comments on 7 World Trade Center‎ where he argues against those who support a controlled demolition. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]
• Raul654 reverts 7 World Trade Center‎ then protects the page, in violation of Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools [34]

Raul654 blocks editors he edit wars with

• This involved block is not a single incident either, Raul654 has a history of blocking editors he is edit warring with, in violation of Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes. See also this ANI.

Raul654's did not follow the arbcom guidelines

Raul654's did not follow the arbcom guidelines, the arbitration remedy states:

"...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...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. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to...amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators"

Raul654 did not warn Thomas before the block: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision".

The arbitration remedy states also:

"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"

Thomas Basboll used a "communal approach" in a straw poll. Jehochman lost the straw poll, which meant a majority of editors agreed with Thomas's POV. Instead of attempting to build consensus, Jehochman filed this Arbitration enforcement.

Jehochman's evidence

The seven edits which Jehochman uses as evidence to topic ban Thomas are as follows:

• Thomas "boldly" implementing the results of the straw poll. [35]
• Jehochman reverting Thomas, in an argument over one sentence. In both Jehochman and Thomas's revisions 9/11 conspiracy theories remains in the sentence. Jehochman is reverted by Pokipsy76. [36]
• Jehochman reverts anon 67.164.76.73, which has nothing to do with Thomas. [37]
• Jehochman reverts WillOakland, and then is reverted by 67.168.160.59. [38]
• MONGO reverts Apostle12. [39]
• Jehochman reverts Wowest who is reverted by Dscotese [40]
• Jehochman reverts Dscotese [41]

Only the first involves Thomas.

Raul based his ban on one Thomas edit which Jehochman complained about [42]

Jehochman's language shows that he is just as much a POV warrior as Thomas is:

• "Truthers"
• "tendentious group of editors"
• "horrendous POV pushing"
• "Truthers have been trying to whitewash the article for quite some time"
• "The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough."

POV warriors often:

1. label their opponents ("Truthers"),
2. use vivid adjectives ("horrendous") to describe their opponents,
3. make absolute statements ("Enough is enough").

Inclusionist (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

I can only say that the Collapse of the World Trade Center article is vastly superior since the edits of April 22. Because of the vast amount of progress in the short amount of time, I have to support the article ban. This is now a proper article without huge WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and other problems. I have tried to edit this article prior to the enforcement action and endless discussion about non-reliable, fringe theories was counterproductive. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

After comparing the differences you claim make the article "vastly superior" I notice that apart from cosmetic edits the only real changes are the deletion of a NIST reference and a reference to the engineer Cherepanov that I am disputing. This dispute is exactly what I just said in my reply to you above....Because Cherepanov supports a fringe theory you deleted a claim he made that is not fringe and tacitly supported by other reliable sources. I also notice that the current version still contains almost all of the edits Thomas Basboll made before April 22. The more I see the more I feel Thomas is being penalised for his views rather than his editing. Wayne (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. Probably it's worth being underlined that Thomas' views, expressed here on Wikipedia, are strictly on wiki-editing matters, like the one that editors should look carefully into what scientific and reliable sources say and report it accordingly, without WP:OR, or locking our heads onto mainstream media ("so that Internet not suck").

Why is this case so mostly ignored by admins? Please voice your opinions. salVNaut (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the tactics of User:DHeyward and the other deletionists for 3 years. They only one view on wikipedia: their own. The mask their POV attacks in acronyms and wikirules, but when all of their highbrow and lowbrow tactics are stripped away, you simply have a POV agenda, in which these users will do anything, and have done anything, to silence those who oppose their deletions. Inclusionist (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you almost done bandying about that 'D' word, Travis? Name-calling is name-calling, whether the words of choice are taken from an editorial in The Economist or not. Seriously. It's getting old. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Pokipsy76

Before making the edit which motivated the ban [43] Thomas discussed it and apparently had an unanimous consensus involving people having usually different views[44]. If a good faith editor can be banned without any previous warning for an edit discussed and having unanimous consensus then nobody will ever feel free to make any edit whatsoever.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Junglecat

There are certain areas I don't contribute to, or no longer contribute to on this project. The key reasons are based on several issues that I can elaborate on later if need be. To be brief, I believe I "hit the nail on the head" in regards to my response to one editor: This project was meant to be the "sum of all human knowledge." It was never meant to be a place where it becomes a soapbox for theories and ideas that someone decided use as a propaganda tool. Here's a good example that might help explain - You know, we have a Moon landing hoax article. Shall we ramrod this into the Apollo program and Moon landing articles to where we look like a website full of garbage? This is an encyclopedia. Everything has its place, and in a nutshell, that must be maintained. Anything beyond that becomes soapboxing, etc. [45] JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's worth looking at the whole exchange [46] and the article talk page discussion it was about [47]. Notice that the noble sentiment JungleCat quotes himself for was originally expressed to support an editor who had exclaimed his wonderment that someone might "believe such crap" when the editor it was directed at had politely suggested he withdraw it. While calling someone's (alleged) beliefs "crap" may not directly violate the purpose of Wikipedia, it is surely a bit off the mark to quote the founding idea of Wikipedia to justify such insults?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I made it clear that I did not endorse any insult. [48] I am familiar with Thomas' editing habits from this RfC. [49] Toward the conclusion of that RfC, Thomas was asked very politely (with additional input also from myself) to consider looking into other areas of the project that might appeal to him. [50] [51]. As an SPA, he was topic banned from a specific area, and this was not a mistake. [52] [53] JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Morton attributed a belief to me that I do not hold. He also called it crap. I approached him on his talk page to ask him to withdraw the insult, which did not add anything constructive to the discussion about the article. He refused to withdraw it. You agreed with his position, and I noted that Morton was letting the insult stand. You said that your support for Morton "was not meant to add to any insult", then added some futher speculation about my beliefs, and suggested I might be soapboxing and violating policy. Morton rounds the whole thing off as follows: "You shovel it in, we muck it out." That was the end of it. To say that you "made it clear that you did not endorse any insult" is a bit peculiar. What you made clear is that you did not think I had grounds to take offense at having my ideas called "crap" since they actually are crap. To repeat: I do not hold the views Morton attributes to me. Those views, moreover, were not relevant since the source we were discussing also does not hold those views. "Your beliefs are crap" is certainly an insult in most real intellectual communities. To "not endorse" it would have been to agree with me in the situation we are discussing, not Morton.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are dodging the statement that is the relevant one. And quote: You seem determined to evangelize on behalf of these theories, so yes, it is relevant. We're supposed to be editing a neutral encyclopedia here, not one bent on promoting pseudo-scientific ideas. - MortonDevonshire 20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC).[54] Morton's other wording I would have not used myself. I'll let the arbitration committee decide this whole issue if they choose to accept. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 15:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you should not have agreed with Morton. The thread in question was only about Morton's "other wording". I was asking him to strike it out if he didn't really mean it. He really meant it. In any case, I am not dodging that statement of his at all; I am denying it. I do not evangelize. Very little of what I "shovel in" ever gets "mucked out" because I do good work and it wins consensus. My editing seeks the neutral point of view, etc.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently you have crossed the line pertaining to a previous arbcom decision.[55] I’ll let you have the last word as I am not going to respond to you anymore here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that appearance is what this appeal is about.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tachyonbursts

I'll state it as broad as one can. We've been watching this evolving for years, at this point in time we have European and Japanese parliaments discussing the severity and disturbing background of the issue, yet we fail to recognize such facts? Why is that? Why do we let these outrageous conspiracy theories thrive in here, posed by Aude and Mongo and these new-old accounts we have today? Thomas and Peter and then PTR and Morton and then others are all allowed to sock puppet on the issue while literary hundreds of free minded editors are kept out of the discussion without valid reason whatsoever. Do say, what do we see here in cycle after cycle? We see one group of editors with a very strong POV imposing hegemony on the article which is located on free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I don't see how this is acceptable. Take what's going on at this moment, we have utterly phony, even ridiculous, completely one sided one minded discussion about good article there, we have POV pushers pushing their POV while the rest of community is watching with dismay, locked away as we are locked away from Universe itself. I'll ask you, is this pattern recognizable in our reality? That event abolished some very basic freedoms and we are about to recognize it as such, thus (whether you're willing to accept it or not) leaving ourselves without some very basic tools. Those folks said: We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. Well I don't like this war and terror reality they've failed to make, and I for one will never ever forgive the mass murder of American citizens which was made for self gain. That said, imo, and as far as I've seen in past time, Thomas repeatedly endured personal attacks; he stood firmly and didn't loose his temper even at times when he faced full barrages of Mongo's and Morton's incivility. I don't see how he deserved this ban, if he deserved anything it would be a star for dealing with vandals, who are, at last, recognized as such by a community much wider than Wikipedia. Finally, I'll point out something what should be clear to anyone by now. When it comes to 9/11 discussions, what recent years showed is the fact that so called mainstream account failed to enter mainstream some time ago, whether in here, or out there, we're facing with censorship of tremendous magnitude. Whether we recognize it or not, we are now living in 1984. You can take our own experience and you'll understand why there is no RS for whole plethora of undeniable and undeniably disturbing facts. In the end, and regardless of the decision on this particular issue, I'd like to ask the administrators one question, so we may know where will we go, Jimbo may chip in as well.

Whose project is this? Who owns the 9/11 Article? Is it the government or its people? Thanks. Tachyonbursts (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Tachyonbursts is an editor with less than 500 edits. Inclusionist (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Further note: User:Tachyonbursts has been indef blocked since 4 May 2008. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I see Raul654's actions here as being in line with the AC's decision, and support them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

* Recuse per my statements in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

---

 Clerk note: on this archiving, see arb stmt here: [56], and here [57]. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarifications: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Pokipsy76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by User:Pokipsy76

I would ask the Arbcom to clarify this points:

1. Area of conflict: According to the arbcom remedies the "discretionary sanctions" can be delivered to any editor "working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)". I think that the expression "which relates" leave the door open to some interpretations, so I will make two questions to have a clearer understanding:
   1. What if an editor is not working in any article but makes a comment about other admins/users actions (made within the the area of conflict) on a user talk page or on the AN pages? Do "discretionary sanctions" can still be made if an admin (on his or her own discretion) decide for example that the criticism is "disruptive"?
   2. Suppose that someone is editing possibly related articles like George W Bush or Conspiracy theory but is adding or discussing informations about events unrelated to 9/11. Can he/her be "discretionarily sanctioned" or just standard wikipedia rules hold?
2. Topic bans: What if a person who is "topic banned" make the first or the second kind of edit described above? Would it be a violation of the "topic ban"?
3. Retroactivity?: Can the discretionary sanctions be "retroactive" and be delivered if an admin think that a user has been "disruptive" in any time prior to the arbcom decision? If it is so how can this be reconciled with the statement "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision"?
4. Terror: Considering:
   • the fact that the motivations given to justify the "discretionary" bans include
     • edits reflecting a consensus on the talk pages but nevertheless alleged to be "tendentious" by admins: [58] [59]
     • possibly good faith arguments on the talk pages alleged to be "tendentious stonewalling" by admins [60]
   • the lack of any prior warning before heavy sanctions like topic bans [61] [62] [63]
   • threats to people accused of being "tendentious" or "wikilawyering" because they are questioning the decision of the admins [64][65] [66]

These elements all together contribute to create an atmosphere when apparently anyone can legitimately be afraid of being suddenly punished for whatever he does and whatever he says: it seems indeed that almost any action or statement could be in principle be viewed as "tendentious" according to the opinion of this or that admin (even when supported by the consensus). Personally I don't even feel free to express my opinion in talk pages devoted to discussing these sanctions. Given this situation I ask the arbcom if they consider this atmosphere to be the desired result of their remedy. If it is not the case I ask the arbcom which kind of solution can be found.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes regarding the response by Sam Blacketer:

Probably I need to be more clear about point 4: I am not actually disputing any procedure or any decision. I am asking a completely different kind of question: assuming that everything I listed above is formally correct (and therefore this atmosphere of constant danger for whatever one does/says is formally legitimated) do the arbitrators consider this atmosphere to be the desired result of the proposed remedy?

Thank you for your reply.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comments are here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment to the reply by User:Thebainer:

I have already pointed out and stressed how my question on point 4 was not considered by Sam (and possibly misinterpreted whence the clarification above) and this other reply seems to still deliberately ignore this issue. I'll try to ask this even more explicitely: dear arbitrator

1. Do you see that nobody can feel free to make any edit because even edits supported by consensus resulted in a ban just for disagreement about the content?
2. Do you like this situation?
3. Is this exactly what you wanted to achieve?

Thank you very mych for your replies (assuming there will ever be any!).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment [to JzG] - It's not honest to reply "yes" to my question and to continue describing something different from what my question was asking. If you don't want to address my question you don't have to, but please don't try to make it say what it is not saying.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC) [moved here by Jehochman ^Talk]

Statement by User:Xiutwel

• I would like to know if quoting the 9/11 Commission is to be seen as tenditious editing.

(I believe it is important to include some quotes of that Commission's work into the article. I feel that omitting these quotations is biasing the article to a pro-government viewpoint. I had thought the WP:NPOV policy was very clear on representing viewpoints, and actually, I can hardly believe we are still having these discussions. An uninvolved admin never saw why the A-gang admins were blocking such edits, but ofcourse he did not want to upset his peers.)

Yours faithfully,

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Must every remedy imposed over 9/11 Truth Movement lobbying be appealed to this board? Jehochman ^Talk 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

This request appears to be compelling evidence that the remedies of the arbitration case are sound and are being applied to good effect. The only clarification required, is to clarify that yes, the intention was indeed to control disruptive and tendentious editing of the kinds that it appears are being restricted here. Good job by the admins involved. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• My individual views rather than a response on behalf of the committee:

1.1: If comments on admin actions extend to discussions of whether individual admins or groups of them are trying to affect article content rather than acting neutrally, then those editors who make them are included within the definition of 'working in the area of conflict'. Admins should not however judge whether criticisms of their own actions are disruptive.

1.2: If the edits do not relate to 11 September 2001 then they are not covered by discretionary sanctions. Advice can be sought on the talk page, or on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, to get a consensus about whether this is the case.

2: As above, the topic bans are limited to edits relating to 11 September 2001, but advice should be sought if there is a possible dispute about it.

3: Editing behaviour prior to the final decision in the case is relevant in determining whether an editor has been disruptive, but the warning admin should allow the user a chance to demonstrate that their behaviour has changed.

4: The key phrase in the decision is that it applies to those who fail "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia", which is to provide a high-quality encyclopaedia which is neutral point of view and based on reliable sources. Consensus on talk pages cannot overrule the purpose of Wikipedia. The notification requirements were complied with in all three cases you link to. Instead of trying to dispute the procedure lying behind decisions, or attacking the admins who have imposed them, editors unhappy with restrictions should look at the aspects of their own behaviour which have provoked them, and see if they can change it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with what Sam has said, though I would add that administrators working in this area should seek advice from their fellow administrators liberally, and should work through the arbitration enforcement page as much as possible. Reviewing briefly the list of sanctions applied, there seems to be good use of the arbitration enforcement page so far. --bainer (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Sam and Bainer here; the Arbitration enforcement system seems to be working as intended. James F. (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend: September 11 conspiracy theories

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Raymond Arritt

Recent discussion at WP:AE has brought up the possibility of sockpuppetry on 9/11 related articles. In order to make enforcement more straightforward, and to improve the editing atmosphere at those articles, I propose amending the discretionary sanctions such that users would be restricted to the use of a single account when editing that general topic area. I believe that such a restriction has been applied in other arbcom decisions and think it would be useful here. One might argue that an admin already is permitted to impose such a restriction under the broad provision in the sanctions regarding "behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators," but an explicit amendment of the sanctions would be clearer and more even-handed. Admins should of course make allowance for new editors unfamiliar with the situation, simple errors (such as forgetting to log in), and so on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The provisions of the discretionary sanctions remedy allow admins to impose this, or any other, restriction as they feel appropriate. There is no need to amend the wording of the case to explicitly mention every possible restriction that might be imposed, since the whole point of the remedy was to allow the use of any restriction without the need to consult the Committee. Kirill ^(prof) 03:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Kirill, and also note that this is does not sound like it is a legitimate use of multiple accounts anyway. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Civility restriction

Is the civility restriction by Tango placed on Mongo still in effect? Not really my concern, but it didn't seem to be resolved in the Tango case. Andjam (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Proportion of 9/11 defenders restricted compared to 9/11 conspiracy theorists

RE: Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions

As I exhaustively documented above #Statement_by_User:Inclusionist at least one administrator, Raul654, is clearly not an "uninvolved" administrator, which is in direct conflict with the ruling of the arbitration, and Wikipedia policies.

My documented concerns were attacked by other veteran editors who support the administrator's own POV, and nothing happened.

Today I see the people who are banned, or restricted: Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions, the only editor who got their restrictions removed was MONGO (a 9/11 defender), it appears, when those same like mind veteran editors appealed his case.

I am wondering how many of those restrictions are by 9/11 defenders banned compared to 9/11 conspiracy theorists? I venture to guess that MONGO was the only defender who was banned, and all the rest are conspiracy theorist?

Which leads to the question, why? Are conspiracy theorist just naturally more nasty and rude?

I think the reason why more conspiracy theorists are blocked is because:

1. veteran editors, and especially administrators, tend to be conservative, so they share the same bias and are more sympathetic to defenders. Also, as mentioned above, Administrators like Raul654, who are not uninvolved, are blocking editors they disagree with
2. there has been a coordinated campaign by 9/11 defenders to ban conspiracy theorists, so there are few that are here. This means that 9/11 defenders can wikilawyer and manipulate wikipolicy more effectively than 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Please correct me if I am wrong about who has been banned, and who has not. travb (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to review: September 11 conspiracy theories

I'd like to clarify that I do not seek a revision of the specific sanction that was initiated against me recently (24 hour block).

My intent is to clarify how editors would be able to initiate the evolution of a consensus on any proposed change of the article if other editors are simply removing proposals from the talk page, however well they are defined and explained with regard to their relevance for the article according to the established policies of Wikipedia.

An example might be more helpful than a lengthy text, in order to illustrate the problem at hand.

A few hours ago, I have proposed to include a piece of information into the article on World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. This information is now part of the article on the attacks on Sept. 11 in the German Wikipedia for more than a month. (differential edit of the talk page, no changes have been made to the article page itself). This piece of information is about a point of view expressed by Michael J. Heimbach, Head of the Counterterrorism Division of the FBI.

I have proposed this text along with specific reasons for including it, all focused on why the paragraph is relevant for the Wikipedia article, and why it is verifiable. I did not make any statement on whether the views expressed by the sources I provided were true or not.

However, instead of commenting on the substance of the proposal or informing me of any objections he might have with regard to my edit, this editor simply deleted my proposal on the talk page.

As an aside, the same editor has also reverted a large edit on my talk page on April 10, 23:55, accusing me of soapboxing. He reverted his revert two minutes later, realizing that he was editing my talk page.

You can find the log of my contributions to articles on the German Wikipedia here, this is definitely not a single purpose account (the editor also accuses me of this, the German account can easily be found on my user page). The question of soapboxing can be discussed on the basis of the text of the proposal that I have submitted to the talk page (see the differential edit above). --Cs32en (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have looked again at the history page of the talk page of the article. The user I mentioned in my previous edit has collapsed six edits, including the edit of a user that has been blocked indefinitely. He deleted my edit. This does not seem to follow any established or coherent policy, but, in my view, rather indicates that this editor is pushing his own point of view by using those particular adminstrative measures that best serve his interests or his opinion with regard to the subject of the article. --Cs32en (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Cs32, once upon a time there were people editing and discussing in those pages with several conflicting views. Then someone decided to request an arbitration and the arbitrators decided that the "solution" to the problem was to allow administrators to deliver "discretionary sanctions" to any user editing these pages. Consequences: several users without a pro-government bias were discretionarily banned from the topic (with motivations like "stonewalling", "bias", "POV pushing"...) or threatened by a gruop of 3 admins. There was no possibility to appeal the "discretionary" decisions. So it was clear that nobody could really even express his own opinion in the talk pages without risking some severe sanction (for alleged "bias"). And so the other editors lived happily ever after.--pokipsy76 (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If either of you think this is about pro-government/anti-government views you've completely missed the point. RxS (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course other people would say that it is about pro-conspiracists/anti-conspiracists or pro-truthers/anti-truthers but I would like to avoid loaded language.--pokipsy76 (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms of this arbitration have been largerly ignored, which speaks volumes to how effective we have been in criticizing this arbritation thus far. If these criticisms were threatening the status quo of this arbitration there would be more comments.

Veteran editors know that "edits begat edits", and making comments on something that is going nowhere may ironically have the reverse effect and give new life to the comments.

I am not sure what the next step is in an arbitration review, do we hold a RfC, do we !vote? What usually happens? Ikip (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not a vote in a formal sense, but a section where editors can just put their usernames in subsections named "in favor" or "against" a change of current administrative practices. I doubt there are actual policies, given how arbitrary and incoherent the actual practices are. --Cs32en (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)