Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Notice for all editors contributing Evidence.

All discussion on this talk page must be in accordance with the Wikipedia policies, WP:Civility and WP:No Personal Attacks. Any disruption will be met with an escalating system of bans from this case's pages and discussion pages, enforceable with blocks. This is a blanket warning to all editing this page: incivility helps nobody, especially you, and will not be tolerated under any circumstances. — Anthøny 22:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Query: how can editors assess each others behaviour, condemn it, and not be making a personal attack? I am needing some clarity on what would be, and not be, allowed here.  —  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

It's my view that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience provides a decent precedent for this case, as do recent cases which imposed enduring editing restrictions on groups or classes of articles. As a largely uninvolved observer, and not from the USA, it seems to me that admins and long-standing editors in good standing need better tools to swiftly close down the never-ending attempts to revisit the same issues. There may e some merit in creation of a FAQ detailing such recurrent issues as why renaming of 9/11 conspiracy theories isn't going to happen.

The approach to the 9/11 articles by Truthers has been characterised by forum shopping.

• Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 16#Requested move
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12 9/11 conspiracy theories
• Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#neutrality dispute on 9/11

etc.

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines on the presentation of topics as fringe, questionable and pseudo- science in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The ruling set forth the following guideance:

• Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
• Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
• Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
• Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

9/11 conspiracy theories are fringe theories. Truther sites are reliable only as sources for what Truthers think, the mainstream reception of truther theories is skeptical and the consensus outside the Truth Movement is that these are conspiracy theories byt he commonly understood meaning of the term. Some examples: [1], [2], [3]

Much of the friction over these articles comes from tension between WP:TRUTH and WP:V/ WP:RS/ WP:NPOV, e.g. [4].

There is some public support for the idea that the official story leaves questions unanswered (in respect of the air defense stand-down, for example). Evidence of such public support originates mainly in polls run by Truthers, who extrapolate from this to the idea that there is significant public support for their theories overall, or that disbelieving some elements of the official version indicates a lack of acceptance of the official version in its entirety. These arguments are evident in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12 9/11 conspiracy theories. In Wikipedia terms, to draw such an inference from the poll results is synthetic, since it is not supported by reliable sources. Truther sources are not reliable other than for information about what Truthers believe.

A perfect example is shown in Selmo's evidence below: Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks does not mean that any meaningful number of them accept the Truther theories, only that the Truthers happen to share that view as well. You'd probably struggle to find an intelligent human being on the planet who did not consider that politicians lie at least some of the time, but to extend that to the conclusion that such people are therefore likely to give any kind of credence to the idea that the US Government deliberately killed US citizens and engineered massive destruction - and nobody on the inside has breathed a word - that is crazy talk. And how long did it take Woodward and Bernstein to blow Watergate apart? The idea of a leak-free conspiracy in any kind of bureaucracy is utterly implausible.

I suspect the degree of venom in Travb's various statements says all we need to know about how important it is to the supporters of conspiracy theorists, to have the conspiracy theories given more credibility through Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Wikipedia reflects the real word, rather than influencing it. Or at least that's the idea.

I also reviewed Xiutwel's edits, following comments below. It appears, on the face of it, that Xiutwel is a fan of Alex Jones and simply believes without critical thoguht what Jones says. I on't know how Wikipedia can deal with those who tenaciously advance the views of off-site advocates.

A friend recommended http://xkcd.com/386/ which I think sums it up just nicely.

Per WP:NPOV, we don't promote the official story, we accurately reflect that it is the dominant view in the mainstream, albeit with some dissent at the margins and a small group of conspiracy theorists who assert completely different explanations.

Wikipedia actually does this rather well.

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and is not the place to proselytise. Some editors, such as Ireneshusband ( talk · contribs), have apparently decided to take up cudgels on behalf of the Truther POV, and have strayed well over the line in the process - [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] (refactored: [29]), [30], [31], [32] etc. (see also report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive382#Incivility, trolling by User:Ireneshusband).

See VRTS ticket #  2008020610000416 and Philip D. Zelikow (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is not just a matter of Truther theory versus real world, living individuals are involved. And yes that also includes Jones.

A comparable example is Alan Feraday (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), VRTS ticket #  2008032410008052, an article created by Patrick Haseldine under two sockpuppet accounts, Phase1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Phase4 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This editor is a proponent of conspiracy theories in respect of Pan Am Flight 103, and it is clear that he abused Wikipedia to the detriment of a living individual in order to promote his external agenda.

I have not seen any evidence that the "9/11 truth petition" is considered by independent sources to be a significant cultural or historical issue, thoguh of course I could be wrong. It is noticeable that "x was a signatory of the 9/11 Truth Statement" has been linked from a large number of biographies of living individuals, sourced to the 911truth.org website. This may well violate WP:UNDUE and also WP:RS since it seems to be reliant on the primary source, a website which is not itself reliable. Guy ( Help!) 16:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Editors who promote the official story appear to believe anyone who disagrees with them are here to cause disruption. "under attack""We need to recognise [sic] that [anyone who rejects the official story] are not here to improve Wikipedia. [33] [34]

Some editors will go as far as to making threats to block editors for what they perceive is POV Pushing. [35]

Debunkers claim that 9/11 conspiracy theories are fringle theories, despite that opinion polls have a variety of results, not alway resulting in conspiracy theories being the least popular view. In responce to the above, the article should net be so black and white and represent only what mainstream newspapers say and what truthers say. There is always a middle ground.

[36] [ ^{deprecated source?} CNN.com Screenshot]

Note: This is copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive382#Incivility, trolling by User:Ireneshusband

Ireneshusband ( talk · contribs) has recently been active in discussing name and content changes in 9/11-related articles. Without a doubt, these changes are being pushed by him to advance a pro-9/11 conspiracy agenda. Those who oppose ththis user's attempts to add conspiracy POV language to articles have been met with incivility and trolling on both article talk pages and user talk pages. [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Ireneshusband also started a MedCab case, which was full of assumptions of bad faith and incivility. [55]

After these two edits, [56] [57] I gave Ireneshusband a warning for trolling. [58], which he described as a "ridiculous threat" and suggested that I brush up on Wikipedia policy. [59] [60]

Shortly thereafter, Ireneshusband made this edit [61], which, to his credit, he refactored [62] (although he should not have made a comment that he needed to refactor). However, today there has been more incivility and trolling. [63] [64] [65] He has also posted to the talk page of a new user, encouraging him/her not to accept the "indignity" coming his/her way. [66]

Often, Xiutwel will create sections on topics discussed in the recent past. Xiutwel's favorite issue is NPOV. On 29 January 2008, an anonymous user started a discussion on NPOV. [67] Six days later, Xiutwel started a new discussion. [68] Twelve days later, Xiutwel started another section [69], and another four days later [70], and another two weeks later [71], and another nine days later [72]. Replying over and over again to the same arguments is tiring, and it wastes the time of productive editors. I must conclude that Xiutwel's use of the talk page is disruptive.

Another example is a recent dispute over the addition of a link to Farenheit 9/11 in the main article. An anonymous editor questioned why the link was removed. [73] After that discussion revealed no consensus to add the link, Xiutwel started a new discussion on the same day. [74]

Xiutwel repeatedly adds POV tags to articles. [75] [76] [77] [78] There was no consensus to add those tags (see many of the discussions linked in the above section). Xiutwel's frequent addition of those tags, without consensus, is a major reason that the article is now fully-protected.

The evidence presented by Trav below amounts to: if you take away all of Ice Cold Beer's edits that are unrelated to conspiracy theories, he only edits articles related to conspiracy theories and is therefore a SPA.

Quite frankly, the evidence presented below by Travb is ridiculous and is probably meant to bait me. I do, however, feel the responsibility to defend myself against absurd accusations. One of Travb's main contentions is that I only have ~2500 edits, but I understand policy better than most users (including Travb), even though he has 26000+ edits. If Travb has that many edits and fails to understand policy as well as I do, then that's his problem. Indeed, all one has to do to understand policy is read the policy pages. I am unsure as to why Travb considers this to be a problem.

Furthermore, Travb considers my use of edit summaries to be a problem. It is true that from the beginning of my time on Wikipedia, I have, with few exceptions, always used edit summaries. Before I began editing, I familiarized myself with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, etc. Help:Edit summary recommends that we always fill in the edit summary field. I used edit summaries at the beginning of my time on Wikipedia and still do because I believe that it is essential that I follow instructions. Indeed, you will see that much of Travb's evidence below relies upon my astounding ability to follow directions. Travb also provides several instances where I used edit summaries with the name of the particular template which I had used in the edit. I'm not sure how that shows sockpuppetry.

Travb has shown below that when I was a new user I correctly formatted an AfD page while nominating an article for deletion. WP:AFD and {{ afd1}} give step-by-step instructions for nominating an article for deletion. Additionally, Travb alleges that my formatting of this request for arbitration is also evidence of sockpuppetry. I formatted the RFAR correctly because WP:RFAR has instructions for doing so.

Travb also asserts that I must be a sockpuppet because I have properly formatted a checkuser request. This is not true. I have never filed a checkuser request.

As of now, Travb has not accused me of being a sockppuppet of any specific user. If he does, then I will eagerly await the checkuser results, which will show my innocence.

User:Xiutwel has been on Wikipedia for over two years now. From the outset, he was strongly interested in conspiracy theories touted by Alex Jones (radio), including theories pertaining to the Oklahoma City bombing. Xiutwel then moved on to promoting greater inclusion of 9/11 conspiracy theories in the main September 11, 2001 attacks article.

A message left on March 27, 2007 by Xiutwel on Jimbo's talk page - Alternative Paradigm Wikipedia indicates what Xiutwel's intentions are or what kind of site he is looking for to edit. He suggested "How would it be for you to have something like: alt.wikipedia.org Or, if we do not even use the wikipedia name, something else, e.g. alt.fringepedia.org or something like that." Seems he wants rules to be different, where WP:NOR does not apply (opinions allowed) and WP:RS/ WP:V do not apply, and is not here to write a NPOV, factual, RS-based encyclopedia.

In November-December 2006, User:Cplot and sockpuppets were posting accusations of Federal "clowns" editing the 9/11 article [79] [80] all over the Village pump pages and elsewhere, see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Cplot and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Cplot for the dozens of socks.

Then, this from Xiutwel "How about giving Cplot another try?" - Read more of the comments from Xiutwel regarding Cplot [81]

Also, this message from Xiutwel on Ireneshusband's talk page [82]

Wikipedia editors, and even moderators, may be

    * psychopaths
    * government agents
    * stubborn people in denial

Considering there are about 1 million editors, I am absolutely 
sure some of us are either agents or psychopaths (or both, hihi).

Xiutwel goes on talking about assuming good faith, but says "I won't be able to tell for certain."

Accusing Wikipedians of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks (as part of a government conspiracy) to kill thousands of people and cover it up is the most extreme lack of good faith and attacks on us. It is offensive, WP:LIBEL, and if WP:BLP applies to Wikipedians, then these accusations violate that too. It becomes difficult for Wikipedians on these pages to in turn, keep assuming good faith, that "truthers" are here for the same purpose of building an encyclopedia. Also, at times, some of us may have lost our cool, and in the long run, editing under these accusations, the tendentious editing, etc. wears people out. User:Tom harrison is one such editor who was on Wikipedia for several years, helping with 9/11 pages. He has given up. [83]

He quotes from here - please read the whole statement, including the links, and understand that it was in context or response to User:MONGO (who endured offsite harassment) was desysopped after an arbcom case. If my real name and information was readily available and known, I wouldn't be touching the 9/11 pages, out of real concerns of harassment.

Example of harassment and attacks on Wikipedians:

• Last July, Alex Jones (radio)'s prison planet site attacked Wikipedians, as "disinfo agents and trolls" - Time To Fight Back Against Online Disinfo Agents and Trolls (link to google cache page)

Remember that real people (see WP:BLP) are involved with some of the conspiracy theories, which is one reason why using only reliable sources is so important for Wikipedia articles. Some of the conspiracy theory sites and people behind them have engaged in harassment tactics and libel against individuals. See responses from these individuals: [84] [85] [86] Also, try a google search of Larry Silverstein's name: [87] and see the material that comes up that. Such sites that are non-reliable, that libel people with accusations have no place on Wikipedia as sources.

Recently, some editors have wanted to use patriotsquestions911.com as a source to support the statement on the number of "professional engineers and architects" who question 9/11 in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.

• [88] - Wowest
• [89] - Xiutwel
• [90] - Wowest
• [91] - Xiutwel
• [92] - Apostle12
• [93] - Apostle12

The individuals on the patriotsquestions list get added to the list, whether or not they really question 9/11 or want to be on the list. There are two Pentagon police officers (who saw Flight 77 crash) that were "interviewed" by conspiracy theorists, and questioned on the final flight path. They still saw the plane crash and don't question 9/11, yet they are on the patriotsquestions list. Wikipedia needs to be real careful and make sure we respect WP:BLP and WP:RS, and a site like patriotsquestions911.com has no place on Wikipedia.

Note that editors do deserve some credit that they stopped inserting this reference after I took it completely out of the page [94] and cited BLP in my edit summary and on the talk page.

User:Wowest and User:Oneismany canvass offsite, on 911blogger.com, for "help" with Wikipedia articles:

Wowest - Note: These are from late August/September 2007, when Wowest was a newer user, so it could be that he just did not understand about Wikipedia.

• Proposed Wikipedia replacement entry for Kevin Ryan - [95]
• 9/11 entries in Wikipedia - [96]
• Wikipedia help requested - [97]

Oneismany - The posts by Oneismany are more recent than Wowest's postings on 911blogger:

• PSST! Over Here! - posted on 911blogger [98] - February 2008
• Reforming Wikipedia [99] - November 2007
• Systematic bias against 9/11 Truth Movement on Wikipedia - [100] - May 2007

Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

Wowest accuses others of "censorship" and "vandalism"

• Wowest repeatedly accuses other editors of "POV-based censorship" [101] [102] [103], "Corrected deliberate misdirection and censorship" [104], "Reverted undiscussed deletion/censorship" and "official propaganda" [105] [106]
• Repeatedly undos the "vandalism" of others - e.g. "Undid revision 166243395 by Weregerbil (talk) Reverting vandalism by weregerbil" [107], [108], and on AFD page [109] and response from "the vandal" [110]

Repeatedly bring the same arguments and edits in a tendentious manner

• Repeatedly asserts that Osama videos are fake and adds "allegedlyly": [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] - "especially the size and shape of the nose", adds images "Image:Fakeosama.jpg <--December 13 "Osama" | Real Osama--> Image:Realosama.jpg" [116] [117] (this continued through much of November 2007 and beyond
• Repeatedly adds Christopher Bollyn to the Hoffman Estates, Illinois page: [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]
• "Official Conspiracy Theory" - adds it to articles [124]and even created an article on it, and keeps readding it to the disambiguation page - OCT. [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131]
• See more examples and diffs at User:Aude/Sandbox9

Articles and AFD discussion

• August 27, 2007 - Wowest creates article, entitled Kevin ryan (whistleblower and folk hero), which was later deleted.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Architects_and_engineers_for_9/11_truth

While Xiutwel has repeatedly claimed that his/her intent is to achieve neutrality in the articles on 9/11 and the associated 9/11 conspiracy theories article, a quick look through this user's statements further in the past [132] or more recently on the talk page [133] of a user who had been rebuked for repeated soapboxing further suggests that this claim is purely superficial. ~ S0CO^{( talk| contribs)} 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify. I myself support the official theory. I do not support the conspiracy theories and will not until suffient evidence is found for them. The only conspiracies I support are government incompetence and the coverup to hide that incompetence. However, I support the treatment of the conspiracy theories as legitimate theories attempting to explain unanswered questions. I see this subject as no different to the different theories of the origin of the universe. One account has mainstream support while, though “fringe”, the alternatives are treated respectfully until completely disproved. This does not happen for this subject. I support some of the CT edits and revert others as I do also for the "other" side. For example in August 2007 an editor posted "Who pays you to block 911 truth?" after I reverted him. I take no side yet, apparently because I don't support the official theorists 100%, I get accused of being a conspiracy theorist and treated with contempt by some editors.

It is undeniable that many questions remain unanswered. While single purpose accounts can be annoying, their edits are reverted promptly so I can’t see that they are as a big a problem as many claim. A larger problem is established editors attempts at wording the article to trivialise conspiracy theories which incites the "truthers" to editwar. While I have no problem with the reversion of the more blatant POV edits, attempts at making the article more “truthful” are constantly thwarted by supporters of the official account amd therin lies the problem.

Editors accusing other editors of being shills is understandable considering some of the rediculous comments made for suspect reverts. xiutwel said: "Considering there are about 1 million editors, I am absolutely sure some of us are either agents or psychopaths" and probably there is some truth in it. It is only offensive when specific editors are targeted. However, targeting editors as "loony" for supporting conspiracy theories is over the top and far too common. Both sides need to calm down.

Undue weight is a problem, an example is the weight given to theories debunked by the “truth” movement that implies that they are supported by them. In some cases reliable sources are removed and later replaced with fact tags. Fact tags have several times been placed inappropriately, for example a tag was placed by the statement “600mph, which was faster than the 440mph”, the numbers were supported by reliable sources and the argument (by a former admin) was that the use of the word “faster” was OR. Mention that NIST did not investigate controlled demolition has several times been deleted. Instead the article states NIST did not find evidence of explosives (which they did claim) despite the fact they did not look for any or consider evidence offered them. Debunking is often mentioned yet critism of the debunking is opposed despite many significant falsifications used by the otherwise reliable sources involved. Polls for CT’s are always presented as unreliable when commisioned by “truthers” yet the polling companies themselves are reliable sources who have a financial incentive to be neutral. Facts supporting conspiracy theories do not make the theory true so this should not be a criteria for exclusion.

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines on the presentation of topics as fringe, questionable and pseudo- science in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

• Several 911 conspiracy theories do not qualify as as fringe, questionable or pseudo- science. For example the conspiracy theory that the government is covering up “something” has majority public support and a few theories are supported by some experts in the relevant fields backed up by legitimate scientific research such as this example. Attempts at separating theories based on legitimacy have been continually blocked by supporters of the official account who seem to want them all labeled, to use a term they often use themselves, “loony”.
• There is majority public support for the idea that the official story leaves questions unanswered. Several board members of the 911 commision have gone public that information was withheld and that the investigation was flawed. NIST admitted it’s initial computer simulations did not lead to collapse so the investigators adjusted the input, “until collapse was achieved” (NIST, 2005, p. 142). According to the October 2005 issue of New Civil Engineer “This led to the computer simulations deviating beyond what the photographic evidence and eyewitness reports indicated” and despite requests “NIST refuses to release the computer visualizations to allow validation by the engineering community”. This is an example of the type of information reverted. Can it fail to result in claims of bias?
• Quote:”and nobody on the inside has breathed a word - that is crazy talk.” A study into the number of people required for the most labour intensive CT (the Controlled Demolition theory) found that a “need to know” based CD conspiracy required a minimum of seven people (with an optimal number of 15). That seven people have not breathed a word is not “crazy”. Official theory supporters claims of “too many people involved to keep silent” is based on the numbers required for ALL conspiracy theories together which is unreasonable as the majority of “truthers” do not support all the theories.

Since being involved with this page it has improved considerably but more needs to be done, though I don’t think it is as bad as either the pro and con camps claim.

The following claims of incivility by me were listed:
* User:WLRoss — [134] [135] [136] [137]
Ignoring that the last one was not me, if that is all that can be found I'm very happy but also very confused. If this is considered incivility, then what is continually calling other editors beliefs "crazy" or "loony" almost every time they try to make a good faith edit? Is this indicative of how easily offended some editors are? If so how can this article ever stabilise or any arbitration be successful?

I am extremely offended at being accused of being a single purpose account. The table posted to prove it is POV in that it includes topics not related to 911 such as the Iraq war. I was editing Iraq war long before I ever visited the 911 page. I reproduce the table here to include ONLY 911 related topics and have added RxS's own count for comparison. None of these accounts appear to be single purpose as none have a majority of mainspace edits in the topic.

Editor	Total mainspace edits	9/11 conspiracy theory related Mainspace edits	9/11 conspiracy theory related Mainspace talk	9/11 edits to Mainspace as a Percentage of total edits	9/11 edits to Talk as a Percentage of total edits
Xiutwel [138]	1038	107	549	32.2%	77.0%
Wowest [139]	542	127	148	41.8%	58.8%
Pokipsy76 [140]	835	56	378	26.2%	60.8%
WLRoss [141]	1488	116	186	14.2%	27.5%
RxS [142]	5495	233	374	4.4%	56.9%
Okiefromokla [143]	422	0	102	0%	31.1%
Ice Cold Beer [144]	922	62	95	6.7%	67.5%
Haemo [145]	5053	124	542	2.5%	32.9%

RxS states it is clear from the percentage of Talk page edits that “they” are here for little more than to push conspiracy theory related content. What percentage exactly constitutes a single purpose account?
Instead of misleading edit percentages (ie:half my 911 talk edits were over the last 3 months while my last mainspace edit was 3 months ago). I'll go with the Wikipedia definition. An account that largely edits a single article or group of articles to the exclusion of other articles which none of these editors do.

Many editors would have you believe that all the edits by the 911 theorists are "demands that unreliable sourcing and opinions be given equal time". I have no problem with reverting those but it doesn't stop there. Some editors also revert reliably sourced and scientifically correct information if it in any way supports a conspiracy theory. It often takes months of argument to get some info added. This attitude makes it very difficult for editors like Xiutwel to tell the difference between good and bad conspiracy edits so they naturally assume opposition to all their edits is due to POV. Some of the lengths some go to is ridiculous. There was a case where a RS mentioned the controversy over use of the phrase "pull it" by Silverstein. An editor immediately went to the unrelated Building implosion article and edited to remove any mention of the word and an edit war later ensued to keep it out. Exact quotes by leaders in the field that used the phrase were not even allowed with one reason given being: "I prefer the active verb ("collapses") to the passive phrase ("pulled down" that was used by the source)". You can find the discussion here. Editors often give undue weight to people according to which side their expertise supports, a good example is in the collapse of the World Trade Center article where an architect wrote a now lost essay in his own time and this was, and is still, given considerably more weight than the WTC architects own 20,000 page report on the same subject. My edits were deleted, according to the comment, for "not being in the source" yet I copy pasted them from the source! You can read the Talk page dicussion about this here.This resulted in a minor edit war which the official account supporters won by weight of numbers. The same undue weight issue applies to conspiracy proponents and this is a big problem. A major physics paper (that contradicted NIST) was submitted last year to the Journal of Physics for peer review. It was rejected not because it had errors but because "it was outside the purview of the Journal" so it had to be self published. Reliable sources refuse to treat "truthers" seriously no matter how reliable they are. Ignoring the more extreme media (such as Bill O'Reilly), this is shown by "reliable sources" such as Fox news' Geraldo Rivera stating on air that the New York Times Square bombing was likely carried out by 9/11 truthers and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough stating on air "I hope there a secret prison for all 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists in Eastern Europe somewhere".
While conspiracy pushers do need to tone down a little, official theory supporters need to do a lot more to accommodate the more reliable edits they make.

Another problem is misquoting or leaving a critical part of the sentence out. This is a good example of this type of POV editing common to this page and many other controversial articles. The addition of a South Park episode to the Criticism section started an edit war as it stated that Conspiracy Theorists were "retarded". While the source does say that I feel using the word or even the inference was not appropriate.
To his credit Haemo eventually changed the paragraph to remove the disputed language but he replaced it with

"the ridiculous nature of conspiracy theories", the willingness of the American people to believe anything, and opportunism of government officials in this respect."

The original text in the source (which i didn't read until 3 weeks later) said:

"the ridiculous nature of both our government and the easily influenced members of our society."

While some conspiracy pushing editors do similar misquoting to reinforce their view it is rarely done by established editors as they know they can't get away with it. Unfortunately it is all too common for even established supporters of the government version of events. When it is picked up and fixed it is often reverted back (it wasn't in this case) as the editors have trouble understanding (or maybe don't want to understand) that a misquote or even leaving the end of a sentence off can give a different meaning.

Although i don't approve of the wording, perfectly understandable considering it is a reply to incivility, lies and personal attacks on Irene himself. As such it is borderline justified and hopefully a wakeup call to Wikipedia that the problems are largely with the WP environment rather than the "truthers". It is interesting that the above was itself posted as a personal attack as it did not also condemn the incivility and personal attacks that prompted it.

Apparantly RxS saw fit to reply here. As I only have a 28.8 kbps dialup I can't check all the diffs so I picked 3 diffs at random and the first thing I notice is how they are taken out of context. If the entire edit is read they are no longer quite so uncivil. for example this: "accompanied by the kind of childish and arrogant attempts at character assassination that we routinely witness" sounds a little sinister until you read the rest and find it is in reply to being accused of being a fanatic. Granted Irene tends to get hot under the collar and is outspoken but these pathetic attempts at railroading the guy need to end. Spend the time to find real instances not prompted by disrespect towards him but rather are uncivil replies to good faith comments on your part.

I'm going to evidence some general problems I see in collaborating with a group of editors including User:Ice Cold Beer, User:Haemo, User:JzG, User:Aude, User:Rx_StrangeLove, User:Okiefromokla.

Discussion with this group of people is a bit problematic.

A discussion should consists of argument, counterarguments, agreement on when an argument has been countered or not, elaborations, looking for common principles for a compromise. Arguments and counterarguments to be acceptable by both sides should rely on logic, policy and common principles i.e. they cannot be "I like this way". I see instead people just expressing arguments which are equivalent to "I don't like it", not replying when their argument have been succesfully countered or repeating arguments completely ignoring the counterpart without any elaboration.

This can be checked in all discussions and in the mediation page.

This group also apparently opposes to any change which could carry any slight shift from the actual POV/weight distribution of the page with weak arguments which can be summarized as "I don't like this change". Some examples of motivation which are given to prevent some little edits:

• Fahrenheit 9/11 couldn't be added in the list of 9/11 related movies because according to them:
  • it's not only about 9/11
  • there is no consensus
  • it's not notable enough
  • it's not really a documentary
  • it's not really "useful"
  • there is controversy on its factual accuracy
  • it's basically a attack/op-ed film

• Michael Meacher's allegations of foreknowledge couldn't be added to deweasel the Conspiracy theory section because according to them:
  • not a notable opinion because "not a scientist" and lack expertise on 9/11
  • we can't include all ministers' opinion
  • it could be notable in principle if a minister say such things, but not an environment minister
  • it's not notable even for the conspiracy theory article
  • he didn't come to these conclusions while serving in the role of minister
  • his view isn't representative of any political viewpoint on the matter

• The finding of Suqami passport couldn't be cited because:
  • if it was really so relevant there should then be some reliable sources that discuss the finding of the passport in more depth than just that it was found
  • is an info often cited by the CT crowd to make their fantasy story more plausible
  • We don't need factoids about passports
  • does not seem notable enough
  • How does it improve the article?
  • Why should we include this fact above thousands of other facts that are not in the article?
  • only 46 hits in the Google News archive
  • reliable sources don't say it's notable
  • At best, it shows an individual was at the crime scene

It happens also to see people trying to stop any rational discussion claiming that there is no consensus and apparently implying there will be no compromise, or that the matter has been already discussed and it is a waste of time to discuss it now:

• User:Aude:
  • "Please stop with this. There is no consensus for the change to include the factoid about the hijacker's passport".

• User:Rx StrangeLove:
  • "There's clearly no consensus for it's inclusion and it's just disrupting this page."

• User:Okiefromokla:
  • "there has been no consensus again for this rename, with a majority actually opposing it. We need to close this discussion and let consensus speak for itself"

One of the main argument presented repeatedly for example here to reject some proposed changes was basically something like this:

Wikipedia not only must write fact relying on reliable sources, it also has to decide notability according to what is considered notable by mainstream reliable sources (which in this case are news services).

So if we have a systemic bias on our mainstream news services so that they decide to ignore a fact we are not allowed, according to this interpretation of policies, to say it on wikipedia. I think it's clearly a complete misinterpretation of the policy on reliable source, but it has been repeated in many forms.

In some cases this position has been justified identifying the narrative of the media as the one accepted by "experts" or "scientific comunity" (check here), for example:

• User:Okiefromokla:
  • "there is a difference between a minority view where some people believe something and having a reliable source directly stating that there is some consensus within the scientific community that the minority view is correct (see WP:OR)"

I think it is clear that science is relevant only for very few specific issues of 9/11 (like the dynamics of the collpase), certainly it is not relevant to rule out the LIHOP hypothesis and foreknowledge. When I asked who are the the "experts" according to whom it would be irrelevant to report the passport findings or the Norman Mineta testimony I received no response.

It has also been claimed that allegations cannot be reported unless they are "supported" by the reliable sources:

• User:Okiefromokla:
  • "it makes no difference how big the group is. If what they believe is not supported by reliable sources, it cannot be included. Prevalence of the belief does not translate to plausibility of the belief."

It' has never been clarified what "supported" stand for.

Not only the mainstream RS have been given by these editor the power do decide notability of facts and relevant narrative of the events. It has also been claimed that wikipedia must express as a fact even a disputable opinion when mainstream RS do so.

Now to say that a controversial claim is a "conspiracy theory" i.e. a folkloristic theory is clearly an opinion unless it has been undisputably proved to be false (which is not our case, at least not for nontrivial claims). But it has been argued that if a journalist write such a claim as a fact then we can do the same in wikipedia. As an example we had User:Haemo (see also here) claiming this:

"The statement (X is a conspiracy theory) is a factual one, not an opinion, and when a journalist reports it as a fact, they are acting as a reliable source for that fact."

I think this is a complete misinterpretation of policies (as I explained in the discussion above). This is also highly disputable because a journalist can possibly mix facts with editorial opinions or take advantage of the ambiguity of the term (which can mean both "theory about conspiracy" and "unreasonable folkloristic theory typical of conspiracism") to be derogative without really assuming the responsability of saying the false. I'll not elaborate this issue here, you can read the related discussions in more depth here.

On these articles, civility and good faith are at a low point, relative to my experience on these articles. I'm going to divide editors into two camps — "mainstream" and "alternative", since I understand that many editors find the conspiracy theorist label to be either incorrect, insulting, or both. It should be apparent whom I refer to in each. Rather than document it individually for each editor, I'm going to give a more general overview, highlighting particular cases when necessary to illustrate my point.

As Selmo has documented, there is something of a siege mentality developing among "mainstream" editors — an incessant series of arguments necessitates a continual response. However, many of these arguments are highly repetitive, and the explanations are substantially similar — leading to burnout, frustration, and short tempers. Personal testimonials are readily forthcoming, but actions demonstrate this as well. For example: [146] [147] [148] [149]

This is fatigue is seriously compounded by incivility from a wide variety of editors on the "alternative" side. As a selection, in addition to specific documentation elsewhere:

• User:Quantumentanglement — [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] RFC
• User:Ireneshusband — [155] [156]* [157] [158] [159] [160]
• User:WLRoss — [161] [162] [163]
• User:Wowest — [164] [165] [166] [167]

By far the most serious problem are the continual personal attacks against "mainstream" editors accusing them of being "government shills", members of the CIA, engaged in paid censorship, and otherwise complicit in covering up the truth being the September 11 terrorist attacks. I complied several examples before, but these stick out in my mind: [168] [169] [170] [171]

These are not innocuous statements — at their worst, they directly allege that the editor, or editors, being attacked are complicit in the worst act of domestic terrorism in US history. They accuse the editors under attacks of aiding and abetting, if not directly participating in, the murder of literally thousands of innocent people. These kind of accusations have no place in a civilized discourse, and have corroded the tone on these article. Worse, they demonstrate a total lack of good faith in the intentions or actions of other editors. At best, they are blind dupes — at worst, literal mass murderers.

I think the issue is that he was not shrugging it off — he was not called a crank, and not only does he have a wide variety of other personal attacks [172], but he was not making that statement as a means of comparison — insinuating that others [173] [174] have a "remarkable amount of free time" (compared to who? "Regular" editors?) and "believe in ways and the means of higher agenda". Indeed, his repeated assertions of the editors he disagrees with being a "wolf pack" (deleted rev.) do not show any desire to engage or be civil. Indeed, I would wager based on his terminology and wording ("fire and debris" theory) [175] [176] that he's still here. [177]

I would further suggest that accusing other editors (even as a group) of being complicit in mass murder is demonstrably worse than asserting they are supporting crank theories. As far as I know, crank-ish theories about 9/11 have not killed anyone. -- Haemo ( talk) 01:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No one can, or should, discuss anything in an environment where they are viewed like this by their opponents. It is the hallmark of Truth™ that editors who oppose it are either foolish, or are actively crusading to censor or cover-up opposing views. This is clearly the case here, and many of the named parties show a maintained attitude of outright combat for their preferred view — in the teeth of what this project is designed to do.

To put it another way, there is a concerted attempt here to use Wikipedia as a promotional venue for their personal opinion and beliefs [178], and that policies and guidelines are obstacles which must be circumvented and avoided to do so — that is, when we are not actively being encouraged to disregard them entirely. Aude compiles some evidence with respect to this, but the same editing pattern is displayed by many editors if you check their contributions. It is, overwhelmingly, a desire to change the fundamental basis of Wikipedia to support their theories. When this does not work, the compromise is not to work within that basis to build a solid project, but instead to try and find a way around it. This is totally corrosive to the project we are trying to build, and the guidelines that have been laid down for it.

The problem many of these editors have is a fundamental disconnect on two levels — what the purpose of Wikipedia is, and how our policies relate to this. These views are shared by many of the editors working in this area [179] [180] [181] — but, I'll focus on one particular example. Witness, for example, Pokispy's evidence section "Opinions as facts". In it, he argues that a statement of the form:

"The statement (X is a conspiracy theory) is a factual one, not an opinion, and when a journalist reports it as a fact, they are acting as a reliable source for that fact."

Is an opinion, because it is "highly disputable [and] a journalist can possibly mix facts with editorial opinions or take advantage of the ambiguity of the term". This sense of what it means to be a "fact" and an "opinion" is very mutable — it ascribes a mutability to the "truth", holding that all assertions of what is, and is not, true are equally valid.

Our core policies say that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". If I make a factual assertion in an article, the standard of evidence that is required to support the inclusion of my assertion is a reliable source discussing it as a fact in in the context presented. If it is "highly disputable" as a fact, the reliable sources should be presentable which state that it is not a fact.

The argument which is being made here, and indeed by many other editors, is that the " mainstream media" are not reliable sources for these facts — that is, that they "have a systemic bias [...] so that they decide to ignore a fact we are not allowed, according to this interpretation of policies, to say it on Wikipedia". This is absolutely contrary to our policies here — Wikipedia is not meant to present facts overlooked by the mainstream media. It is, as the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience stated "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.". I think the parallel here is clear.

I did not request a checkuser on those individuals — I merely suggested that if they needed to run further checks, these were the subjects to be considered. I left it to the discretion of the checkuser to compare editing histories and determine whether or not a checkuser request was warranted — in this case, apparently no comparison was run, since both the original subjects of the checkuser editing were editing from distinct IP addresses in the same geographic location. -- Haemo ( talk) 06:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thatcher has clarified the results — and I believe this supports my contention. I urge Ireneshusband to strike this evidence on that basis. -- Haemo ( talk) 17:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

It is not clear to me what the scope of this arbitration is. The title suggests: the article 9/11 conspiracy theories, or more widely, the theories themselves, whereever they surface in Wikipedia. I myself am primarily interested in neutrally presenting agreed-upon observables, in stead of theories, because theories are endless and observables are much more informative than fiction, which theories always are by definition.
Is this covered in the current arbitration? I would like to include the various disputes on the 9/11 article into this. Who can answer me? Where do I ask?  —  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I believe in wikipedia. When I surf the web for information, I almost always start at wikipedia. I know its information is imperfect, but I also believe all other information is imperfect as well. The great thing about Wikipedia is: the information is constantly improving. 02:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe in harmony between human beings. Being hot-tempered, I sometimes make a personal attack or a bitter remark, which I later regret. I try to keep myself disciplined. I believe that stimulating the joy of giving is the most beneficial thing we can accomplish; contrary to forcing people to do or not do certain things. (Please do not interpret this as me opposing wikipedia policies.) Everyone has an innate desire to enrich life, and to contribute to the whole. It may get momentarily overshadowed, but it is always there. 02:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe all the commotion stems from varying interpretations of the same policies. I am beginning to notice that quite often those who are at odds with me are in the habit of paraphrasing policy, or referring to it, in stead of quoting it ad verbatim. This behaviour opens the door for endless mis-interpretations and mis-understandings. There seems even to have evolved a shadow-policy, which resembles the real policy, which uses the same words (but in different contexts and interdependency) and which, at first hearing, sounds rather impressive and truth-like, but on closer examination seems to miss the mark. It covers all terrains, is internally consistent, but it is at odds with the real policy of wikipedia. I find it very hard to get clear where the exact differences lie, and have been involved in discussing this for almost two months now. 02:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not inclined to investigate diffs of editors who were uncivil, violated policy, misrepresented policy etc. I am interested in solving the conflicts, not in placing blame. When I started editing Wikipedia, I was inclined to assume bad faith on the part of some editors, but as I have become more and more experienced, I think they genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, and punishment is not in order.
I believe there are two timings most excellent for providing feedback: the first is "right away" and the second is "after 48 hours of cooling down". I do not see how wikipedia would gain when I list endless past uncivilty, spanning years; the biting of newcomers; reverting good-faith edits without even a comment (or worse, a pejorative one); Fighting a joint revert war against an inexperienced single editor, without even opening a Talk page section, and then blaming the newby for 3RR-violation; The sarcasm, the scorn etc.etc.
What would be the point?
I am well aware these past discussions may have induced quite some wikistress, and it is only human when editors lose their otherwise good manners in the process. 02:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the attacks against me will have merit. Others do not. I am not happy to start wasting my time on such legal debates, so unless the ArbCom is considering to ban me from editing, I would like to ignore the attacks and focus on how to improve wikipedia, and how to resolve the conflicts which have originated in misunderstanding of policies. We need make clear which side is mis-interpreting, above all else. 02:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

When writing an article, we should investigate what opinions are around, which matter, and which do not. Tiny Minority views should not be mentioned in articles except in articles devoted to themselves (optionally). Significant Minority views should be mentioned in related articles , but not more than proportional to their significance. (No undue weight).

This balance seems difficult to find for wikipedians. Some push for Tiny Minority views, which they should not do (1); others want to remove Significant Minority views altogether, which they should not do (2).

In the articles of the 9/11 family, both styles of editing are continuously presenting problems. It is not surprising that in reaction to the first form of POV-pushing (correcting it), the second form of POV-pushing is stimulated (exaggeration), which in turn stimulates the first form.

To make discussing the viewpoint problems easier, I would like to define four possible viewpoints which wikipedia can take:

• Viewpoint A: "the official government-endorsed account, as accepted by most (American) publications", is correct and complete (D1).
• Viewpoint B: "Viewpoint A has failed to address certain issues, and may be (or is) a distortion of the truth."
• Viewpoint C: "describing the undisputed events, plus viewpoint A, and viewpoint B in a neutral fashion" (not taking sides)
• Viewpoint D: "the same as C, plus assessing which viewpoint, A or B, is the most correct." There are in fact three possible D's: D1, D2, D3, since various assessments are thinkable.

In a diagram:

D       D               D
        C
A +-----+-------------+ B

Xiutwel's analysis of the situation

The editors involved are supporting the A and the C perspectives, respectively, let's for brevity's sake call them the "A-gang" and the "C-gang". No disrespect or accusation is implied!

In order to move an article from point A to point C, we have to move a little towards the direction of B. Can't avoid that, logically.

Xiutwel believes: The A-gang is accusing the C-gang of being a B-gang, and calling itself the D-gang: the D-gang has the pretence to know where neutrality lies, where the C-gang is only claiming to follow a process which leads to neutrality. The D-gang has an opinion on content, the C-gang does not.

We currently have the situation that the A-gang is creating a five step problem:

1. They are absolutely 100% certain that their view, the dominant view, is not only dominant but "factual", "correct", The "Truth". (See also.............)
2. As a consequence, any other view is "a remarkable phychological/sociological phenomenon", which deserves treatment the same way Anorexia does, in special articles about it, but not in general articles on 9/11. It is not a view to be presented as a viewpoint. (See also.............)
3. Because view A is "correct" and should 100% dominate the content of "neutral" articles, it follows that the guidelines must be prescribing to write articles this way (or else the guidelines would be no good, wouldn't they?)
4. That means that any fact which does not fit the mainstream theory which is Absolute Truth, will always in the end be explainable some other way, if we only knew everything. "There are thousands of factoids". Mentioning such (temporary!) anomalies could confuse our not-so-intelligent readers, so mentioning such must be avoided at all cost.
5. This means we have to show "the POV pushers" that policy does not allow the inclusion of such facts!

The first thing to be tried when someone wants to include a view is: undue weight.

Then, when Xiutwel wants to insert plain facts, without the views which are "undue", they need another argument: It's synthesis! (synthesis is defined as joining material, altering its meaning)

Then, when it's clear that synthesis does not apply, it is OR!! Because no Reliable Source has drawn such a conclusion (only dozens of prominent spokespersons of the Significant Minority have done so — and no RS is willing to quote them), wikipedia cannot mention even the simplest insights in an article.

Then, when Xiutwel removes all the reasoning and only the bare observables remain as published by RS, e.g. the 9/11 Commission, it's "irrelevant" and adding "irrelevant" facts would not be a waste of space, but it would be "giving undue weight to conspiracy theories". (We are talking about quoting the 9/11 Commission: we cannot quote that Commission without risking to be Conspiracy Theory Pushers!) And then we move back to UNDUE weight, and the debate can start all over again.

But now we have to claim "there is NO significant minority", because it is clear that ZERO coverage is a bit underweight for "proportionate treatment".

(In this entire process it is important NOT to use quotations of guidelines, but as much vague references or very small quotoids which take the guidelines out of context.)

—  Xiut (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Below are several quotes, most of which reveal a 100% certainty that one's own POV is in fact factual, and therefore WP:TRUTH and therefore...... the neutral viewpoint.

It is my conjecture that these convictions lie at the heart of the endless edit warring, and debating of policy in manners which almost seem to go against the better judgement of these editors.

1225 words extra... I could have provided the diffs, and still can, if necessary, but it is my judgement that quoting is more quickly accessible than diffs. But I offer to provide the diffs, which can easily be found from the user contribs or page histories...  —  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

911CT/#15

• Weregerbil 09:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC): Are conspiracy theories dismissed as conspiracy theories, or are they simply called conspiracy theories because they are conspiracy theories in the truest sense and definition of the term? Ducks are dismissed by evil Illuminati-controlled media as birds that quack...

• Carthago delenda est 04:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC): I'm not really interested in what excuses you allow yourself for attempting to heavily invest POV on a topic you have absolutely zero business editing or contributing to; this is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, not your personal online plaything. The very use of the phrase "Project for The New American Century" indicates that you have about as much business editing and/or contributing to this Wiki entry as Karl Rove does on the entry regarding George W. Bush. But, if you persist, I'd be delighted to see this taken to arbitration.

• RxS 04:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC): I think all these conspiracy theories have been pretty thoroughly debunked...not a lot separates them in that regard. I would think they would rise or fall together.

• Pablo 00:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC): Oppose. I agree with Zubdub. By calling them alternative theories we would be giving them credibility, which an encyclopedia simply can't do.

• Tom Harrison 19:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC): It's inaccurate, because what you describe as the 'mainstream theory' is not a conspiracy theory, and it sets up a false dichotomy by implying there are two explanations about which reasonable men disagree. This is not the case. The reliable sources say al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center by crashing planes into them. Please do not take my reply as an invitation discuss conspiracy theory, in general or particular, either on my talk page or elsewhere.

• Peter Grey 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC): The term is unflattering, but that is unavoidably required by accuracy and NPOV, since these "theories" are objectively weaker than mainstream accounts.

---

[182]

• [...]Some people choose to believe otherwise. Most of them turn out to be kooks.[...]
  • Guy 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC): Oh don't be silly. Have you looked through the sites? A very substantial number of the conspiracy promoters are from the tinfoil hat brigade. That's one of the reasons it's so hard to take the theories seriously.
  • (Wayne quoting another user, yet to be identified with certainty): anyone so ignorant (meaning uneducated) that they would believe that these conspiracy theories are in any way "alternate" possibilities, then that is about as kooky as believing in Reptilian humanoids

---

[183]

• MONGO 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC): [...] Changing the titles of these fringe beliefs won't make them any less fringe, and will only make wikipedia look less factually reliable.

• MONGO 17:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC): No, the "official story" is the only one that has been proven to be factual. The rest are simply conspiracy theories. (emphasis added, xiutwel)

---

comment Haemo arguing that the term "conspiracy theories" would be intended as "neutral":

• [is the mainstream account a conspiracy theory?] In the sense that it is a "theory" about a "conspiracy" yes. In the sense that, as literally everyone has argued, that "conspiracy theory" has a particular, and distinct academic meaning, no. Conspiracy theories are not just theories about a conspiracy; the term refers to a very particular sociological phenomenon which has been explicitly documented in academic, and journalistic, writing. Chris' point about the "theory" versus "fact" argument has something important to say — considering that reliable sources report the "official theory" as fact. [estimated: --Haemo,22:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)]

• Yes. The academic use is indeed neutral and is used neutrally in both journalism and academia; the pejorative use is colloquial, and is derived from the fact that most conspiracy theories are nuts. --Haemo 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The theories themselves are a sociological phenomenon, in the same way that any meme is. --Haemo 02:07-22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• The transmission of a meme is virus-like, in that it spreads via person-to-person contact. To quote Richard Dawkins, "a meme should be regarded as a unit of information residing in a brain". There is nothing "non-neutral" about this characterization. The term meme encompasses many things. The "mainstream account" is a meme. Catholicism is a meme. The scientific method is a meme. Rationalism is a meme. Calling them a meme does not imply anything negative or bad about them. Memetics studies how information is propagated in human societies — all information. To put it another way, our interactions here are viewed, by memetics, as two incompatible meme-clusters trying to outcompete one another a la natural selection. --Haemo 06:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• Haemo 02:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC): [...] The theories themselves refer are a sociological phenomenon, in the same way that any meme is. It most certainly does not mean "9/11 delusional theories". (typo struckthrough, xiutwel)

---

Talk:9/11

• Okiefromokla 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC): We already have reliable sources that "Narrative A" is true.

• Xiutwel, 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC): I am not aware of that. I am only aware of reliable sources presuming the narrative "A", based on other reliable sources, which also presume it.

• Igor21, 18:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC): Your line of reasoning (painfully correct) jeopardizes any certainty about the very existence of anything.

• 05:13, 17 February 2008 Ice Cold Beer (Talk | contribs) (185,122 bytes) (revert. there is no legitimate dispute here) 9/11

• Ice Cold Beer 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC): Narrative A = Factual.

• Okiefromokla 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC): Exactly.

• MONGO 02:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC): This article is written as the known evidence and facts can be determined. I haven't seen any new additions that are needed in well over a year. If anything, several sections need to be streamlined to make the article more of a summary of the events of that day. There certainly isn't any reason to expand on conspiracy theories, especially since we already have several articles that already expand on these silly notions.

• Haemo 04:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC) : No, what's noise is the hundreds of thousands of bytes of policy-violations you have tried to pass off as a reasonable interpretation of our guidelines — which plain English, and numerous other editors have told is wrong. You take the facile, and telling, opinion that if there are two viewpoints on an issue, that both have "half the relevant evidence" and should be given equal weight — once again merely demonstrating that you still don't understand what undue weight means. But, then again, you've never balked before at displaying classically tendentious editing practices. In the light of this, you might reflect on the notion that purpose of policy is to prevent people from pushing their POV on Wikipedia — which might explain why you're having such problems inserting the Truth™ into articles. #39

• Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC): *I know no reliable source, apart from dozens of books and "journal of 911 studies", which assert the official version is wrong. But I also know no RS which assert it is correct, independently. [...] reply

• Frankly, since I find the conspiracy theories to be ridiculous, anyone who is here spending their time on this website promoting such things is a troll, but that's the way it goes.-- MONGO 11:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC) [ArbCom 911 Proposed decision/talk] reply

Editors here for a single purpose Many of the editors are here solely to push conspiracy theory into 9/11 related topics. Below is a summary of the percentages of total mainspace and mainspace talk edits devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theory (including the 9/11 page itself) and directly related subjects.

Editor	Total mainspace edits with talk	9/11 conspiracy theory related Mainspace edits	9/11 conspiracy theory related Mainspace talk	Total 9/11 conspiracy theory related Mainspace/Talk edits	Percentage of 9/11 conspiracy theory edits to mainspace/mainspace talk
Xiutwel [184]	1038	163	795	958	92.2%
Wowest [185]	542	164	167	331	61%
Pokipsy76 [186]	835	63	400	463	55.4%
WLRoss [187]	1488	148	291	439	29.5%

These percentages reflect their entire mainspace/mainspace talk editing history during their time at Wikipedia. Moreover, the vast majority of the edits represented in the last column occur in a small handful of articles, September 11, 2001 attacks, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, 9/11 Truth Movement etc and their talk pages. It's clear that they are here for little more than to push conspiracy theory related content.

Xiutwel alone has made 459 (and counting) edits to September 11, 2001 attacks's talk page. Clearly there's no way to keep up with that constant barrage of objections and suggestions repeated over and over. That amount of activity alone is disruptive. He has single handedly made that page difficult to read/use and has wasted an enormous amount of time by making the same objections time and time again. As a practical matter he's made it nearly impossible to track any discussion that that page because of his formatting habits. [188]

Selected other editors in this dispute

Editor	Total mainspace edits with talk	9/11 conspiracy theory related Mainspace edits	9/11 conspiracy theory related Mainspace talk	Total 9/11 conspiracy theory related Mainspace/Talk edits	Percentage of 9/11 conspiracy theory edits to mainspace/mainspace talk
Okiefromokla [189] [190]	3002	0	102	102	3.3%
Ice Cold Beer [191]	1047	70	95	165	15.7%
Rx StrangeLove [192]	5954	219	294	513	8.2%
Haemo [193]	6699	124	576	700	10.4%

_______________________
Additional evidence of ireneshusband's incivility - a sampling of edit summarys

refuting this and that spurious argument [194]

the "reliable sources" pod people [195]

new hymnal needed) [196]

If Arthur Rubin can't remember why he opposes this, that's his problem.) [197]

Yet again Haemo repeats arguments that have been soundly refuted) [198]

eliable sources... you are getting sleepy [199]

refuting rx strangelove's latest appeal to "policy" [200]

why on earth are you here?) [201]

told icecoldbeer to take his irrelevant comments elsewhere) [202]

refuting Peter Grey's reiteration of thoroughly discredited arguments) [203]

---

Additional note on Xiutwel and his focus on 9/11 related subjects

In February 2008 Xiutwel had 582 edits. Of those, 572 were related to 9/11 topics or policies related to NPOV issues on 9/11 topics (mostly to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view). Of these, 183 edits were done on the Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks page.

---

JzG and Ice Cold Beer are not lying

Ireneshusband clearly has a long history of incivility. He also has a clear POV he's promoting and assumes bad faith very quickly. The formatting here might be a little hard to scan but I only had time for a quick run through his contribs...I'm sure I missed plenty of examples but these will give you a flavor. There maybe over lap between these and other diffs given in other parts of the evidence page.

His Statement of POV:

[204]

[205]

Incivility:

accompanied by the kind of childish and arrogant attempts at character assassination that we routinely witness [206]

Please sort this out between you instead of trotting out whichever half-baked definition suits the purpose of the moment. [207]

Why is this so hard for so many of you? [208]

their claim that "conspiracy theory" is not a derogatory term is no more than a sick joke. [209]

isn't it rather strange that you feel so confident in your knowledge of the policies and politics of Wikipedia that you are able to make your threats so brazenly, even though you have only been a Wikipedia editor for 3 weeks [210]

you will immediately return to your old strategy of dodging and ducking the issues while trying to derail the proceedings with personal attacks and threats [211]

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. [212]Please don't be so ridiculously pedantic.

[213]

Is it reasonable to expect someone to wade through pages of such garbage [214]

Wikipedia being taken over by pod people. Don't we deserve better than this? [215]

You lot will need to change your hymnal. [216]

I was wondering when the troops would turn up [217]

flagrant and reckless misrepresentation of wikipedia policy or guidelines [218]

you will be knowingly misrepresenting wikipedia policy [219]

You, with your endless WP:this and WP:that, which are very often based on highly idiosyncratic interpretations of policy [220]

Your friend Haemo seems to think very highly of Thomas Eagar's credentials as a reliable source, so no doubt you do too. [221]

Please do not repeat this ridiculous claim again. [222]

You are not welcome on my talk. Do not troll me again. Do I make myself clear? [223]

And of course this from this very case:

There is a name that the gang that wishes to fuck me up the arse has given itself

[224]

---

Xiutwel has created 58% of the talk page sections in the current page and most recent archive of the 9/11 Talk page. (The next most prolific editor has created 5% of the sections.)

Of course there's nothing wrong, in itself, in initiating discussion. However, after a certain point there is the issue of signal-to-noise ratio. My perception is that Xiutwel makes massive numbers of suggestions in the hope of some of them getting through - after all, if no one opposes, then one can claim consensus.

Xiutwel has repeatedly suggested making conspiracy-theory-related additions to various sections of the main article (for examples, see the vast majority of the Talk page and archives). After the last page protection expired, the first edits to the page were Xiutwel adding to the Conspiracy Theories section and elsewhere in violation of consensus and WP:SUMMARY. He has also edit warred to include a {{ POV_section}} tag in the "Conspiracy theories" section because his additions to it were reverted. In all, Xiutwel performed a significant number of the flurry of reverts that caused the page to be re-protected less than a day after the previous protection expired.

The good faith interpretation of this campaign is that he has consistently been unable to understand, despite repeated wikilinks and explanations, that summary style tells us how the 9/11 conspiracy theories sub-article, and corresponding section of September 11, 2001 attacks should be written.

• "The section I'm inserting it in is very small, it can be a little bigger. This fact is important to people. It should not be burried in some sub-article."

• "Why not add this to 9/11 conspiracy theories instead?" --Haemo (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Because WP:NPOV says this article should be balanced. Of course, it can/should also be included over there."

• "the tiny little paragraph assigned to "conspiracy theories" in the main article, as opposed to the much lengthier treatment given to other aspects of the topic, is completely inadequate and unacceptable."

User:JzG and User:Ice Cold Beer attacks on Ireneshusand are very questionable.

A lazy admin or arbcom would take User:Ice Cold Beer assertion that ireneshusband was uncivil at face value, without even examining the links which User:Ice Cold Beer presents and User:JzG cuts and pastes.

But I started to examine the links that User:Ice Cold Beer complains about, here is the terrible incivility that ireneshusband is guilty of, based on all the links:

Please at least try to pretend that you have been paying attention to what other people have to say. [225] Well there's a conspiracy theory for you! Wikipedia being taken over by pod people. Don't we deserve better than this? [226] I cannot believe that he is not intelligent enough to understand this. [227] Not only is your assertion nothing more than a personal opinion, but it is clearly nonsensical considering eleland's view on the subject. [228] So perhaps you will forgive me if I no longer have any patience for obfuscations, red herrings, gross misrepresentations of wikipedia policy and so on. [229] Please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy and guidelines in this way because it causes a lot of confusion. [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] While the occasional mistake can be forgiven, flagrant and reckless misrepresentation of wikipedia policy or guidelines is not acceptable. [237] Basically you want the title to endorse your own opinion on the matter. [238] Please acquaint yourself with WP:NC because that will enable us to have a more constructive discussion about the renaming issue. [239] You are an admin. It is utterly beyond belief that you could have failed to be aware of this. Now you have repeated the offense yet again. There is no excuse for this. And please don't try throwing the Wikipedia:Incivility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks at me again. [240]

These are civil, peppered with "please", if anyone has been uncivil it has been User:JzG and User:Ice Cold Beer. User:Ice Cold Beer for calling ireneshusband a "troll" and User:JzG for telling other editors to f*** off.

User:JzG and User:Ice Cold Beer owe Ireneshusband an apology.

• Partially from the 2 March 2008 RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2#Incivility.2C_personal_attacks.2C_and_general_rudeness

My personal favorites of the 162 edit differences (emphasis my own):

1. " Fuck off back to Wikipedia Review." 07:53, 25 January 2008 [241]
2. "Fuck off and never ever post here ever again, period." 25 January 2008 [242]
3. Fuck off. Fuck right off. 21 May 2007 [243]
4. Perhaps I was a little too subtle above. The message I was trying to convey is this: edit some articles or shut the fuck up you whining twat. 11 July 2007 [244]
5. You are not welcome here. Now fuck off [245] Then JzG rollback the "fuck off" edit when it was removed. [246]
6. Well 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... 14 May 2007 [247]
7. And I want you to fuck off. 3 December 2006 [248]
8. You have been rude, arrogant, snide, patronising, obnoxious, uncooperative and in every possible way unconstructive - and above all stupid ...Your insistence that people treat you as a valued contributor demonstrates extreme hubris. Your value as a contributor is adequately summed up in the ArbCom ruling...You are an idiot and a time-waster and I fart in your general direction. 1 December 2006 [249]
9. Fys is an idiot, and I have told him so in as many words. 1 December 2006 [250]
10. ...told Jeff to fuck right off and would cheerfully have said the same to his face. 21 May 2007 [251]
11. Fuck off, Bradles01 [252]
12. Are you this much of a cunt in real life? 10 August 2006 [253]
13. Having given this the consideration it merits, fuck off. 1 January 2007 [254]
14. Thanks, but it's not just this idiocy with Baby 81, it's the whole culture...People seem to delight in process and bending over backwards to give self-evident idiots the benefit of the doubt...In short there are too many idiots and too few people prepared to tell them to fuck off. And yes, that is precisely what we should tell them, because anything less encourages endless debates and Wikilawyering...Wikipedia will be a better place when Jonathan Barber grows up, to name but one persistent offender. 25 July 2007 [255]
15. If you have come here to troll, then kindly ever so nicely pretty please fuck off. 11 July 2007 [256]
16. [WikiEN-l] No, I think you should shut the fuck up...Your wilful ignorance is, by this point, functionally indistinguishable from deliberate trolling. 6 Dec 2007 [257] JzG is reprimanded by another editor

How many times does a wikipedia editor get to tell other editors to fuck off until they get banned? How many editors have been perma-banned for saying much less? Is this the model behavior of an admin? If the Arbcom gives JzG a free pass on this behavior, it is basically telling the entire wikipedia community one of two things:

1. It is "okay" to tell other editors to "fuck off", that it is okay to call other editors contributions shit and feces, that it is okay to call other editors stupid, idiots, and time wasters, or
2. That all editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others. That some editors, because of their connections to those in power, can say whatever they want and get away with it, whereas other editors are severely punished for the same behavior.

I think this arrogant statement by JzG sums up his attitude to how the rules apply to him and how the apply to everyone else:

I think you'll find we can: experience indicates that in a fight between editors and admins, the admins hold all the cards. All of them. We can block you indefinitely, and we can block your IP address, and we can lock the articles, and we can prevent you editing your talk page, and we can moderate you off the mailing list. [258] Trav ( talk) 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Arbcom member User:Kirill Lokshin said it best in the recent RfC:

JzG has, unfortunately, fallen far short of what I would consider to be minimally acceptable conduct in this regard; the habitual, pointless profanity, threats, and insults which he levels at other editors are, to put it simply, utterly unacceptable.

JzG's contributions to the project are not in doubt. He may well be tolerated—as many other surly editors are—on their basis alone. But administrators must be held to a higher standard of conduct; and if JzG is unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to meet this standard, then he should step down and carry on in a less prominent role.

• Of course you disagree, because you are on a holy crusade to protect the sacred right to link to crap. 15:33, 25 March 2008 [259]

• To User:Mista-X The days when you could troll article subjects are long gone, if there ever were such days. 21:00, 25 March 2008 [260]
• Quite the opposite. I am striving very hard indeed not to let Dan troll me. I have a long history of rising to the bait when trolled, especially when someone is as good at getting my goat as Dan is. 18:15, 25 March 2008 [261]
• ...nothing was removed except the letters "http://", which is hardly an issue of such magnitude as to require you to come trolling the noticeboards, I'd have said. 13:44, 25 March 2008 [262]

• Of course, but you don't get to do that and then accuse other people of ad-hominem, because that's hypocrisy. 19:13, 25 March 2008 [263]

Although JzG hates "truthers" who believe in "conspiracies", based on JzG's own edit history, it appears like he subscribes to the idea that there is a vast troll conspiracy on Wikipedia: that anyone who disagrees with him is a "troll". JzG calls other editors trolls almost as much as he tells them to fuck off.

• The user I was responding to had been trolling for ages in numerous thread son my talk, the noticeboards and other venues. 3 June 2007 [264] To User:Fys, defending telling the editor to shut the fuck up.
• To User:Cla68: remove trolling [265]
• To User:Cla68: How silly of me not to realise that only Cla68 can troll with impunity. [266]
• remove thread using Troll-B-Gon Professional 1.0 24 July 2007 [267] RE: Viridae thread.
• To User:Rfwoolf: Mistakes are forgivable, but wilfully perpetuating a falsehood after its been pointed out to you numerous times looks a great deal like trolling. 24 January 2007 [268]
• RE User:Kohs: Oh bollocks, I got trolled by a Kohs sockpuppet yet again. When will I learn? Sigh. 14 February 2008 [269]
• User:Mckaysalisbury: Removing comment with Troll-B-Gon 1.0 Professional. 6 June 2007 [270]
• User:Rockstar915: Removing comment with Troll-B-Gon 1.0 Professional. 28 June 2007 [271] [272]
• User:Viridae: Remove thread using Troll-B-Gon Professional 1.0. 24 July 2007 [273]
• User:Anthon01 And another of the fringe pushers crawls out of the woodwork. 19 January 2008 [274]

• Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories Deletes Xiutwel's table stated reason: removing useless table that only mucks up page
• rv. pathetic "journal" [275]
• Ice Removed edits of Ireneshusband on his own talk page. [276] [277]
• Accused Ireneshusband of being a troll. [278] ANI
• "Ireneshusband, quit harassing Haemo. It's evident by now that when it comes to Wikipedia policy, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about." [279] Note: The harassment in this case? Ireneshusband was discussing the article on the talk page.
• Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive382#Incivility.2C_trolling_by_User:Ireneshusband
• ""Should a man who makes pronouncements about things he obviously doesn't really understand be taken seriously..." I must admit, I had a chuckle at that little bit of irony." [280]

User:Ice Cold Beer is a sockpuppet of an experienced user. User:Ice Cold Beer, an editor who started editing in on the 20:23, 30 October 2007, and only has 2448 edits, and yet knows wikipolicy better than the majority of wikipedians. Many of the acronyms he freely uses I have never heard of, and I have 26,000 edits, and have been actively editing for 3 years.

• Edit 25 uses "rvv", a common abbreviation for revert used by experienced editors.
• Edit 26 he redirects a page using #REDIRECT[[ ]]
• Edit 27 he is using the {{fact}} tag
• Edit 32 adds a template [281]
• Created his first deletion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are Change in edit 34.
  • Adds deletion page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 21 in edit 35
  • Contacts User talk:Stewie69 about the deletion in edit 36, explanation: "Fair use rationale for Image:ERICBERNE555.JPG: We Are Change nominated for deletion"‎ using Template:adw
• Edit 43 mentions his understanding of wikipolicy by writing "wiktionary is not a reliable source"
• Edit 45 uses the <ref>{{cite news }}</ref> template to add a reference.
• Edit 50 uses the a wiki term "fancruft", to explain deletion.
• Edit 51-52 uses the {{coi}} conflict of interest template on MakeMusic
• Edit 67 adds {{unsigned|}} tag.
• Edit 76 adds [[Template:uw-vandalism2]] to anons page
• Edit 77 removed section, reason "...remove "iraq" section, WP:SYNT violation..."
• Edit 79 "Speedy Delete A7, tagged as such." [282]
• Edit 80 uses the {{nn-warn}} tag to warn another user.
• Edit 86 "{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|G}}" reason given: "change afd topic" [283] Note: I have no idea what this means.
• Edit 87 adds the code:

<includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mechscape|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 9#{{anchorencode:Mechscape}}|View log]])</noinclude> in AfD.

Note: Again I have no idea what this means, and yet an editor with less than 100 edits is familar with this code.

• Edit 121 "prodwarning" in edit summary
• Edit 125' "nn-warn, coi" in edit summary
• Edit 129 "db-typo" in edit summary
• Edit 132 "fixing double redirect" in edit summary

etc....

Ice Cold Beer uses all of these acronyms, many which are arcane and not familiar to 99% of the editors in Wikipedia:

"db-typo" "blatant pov" "uw-coi" [284] "prodwarning" [285] "db-nocontext" [286] "nn-warn" [287] "db-nonsense" [288] "uw-vand1" [289] "npov4" [290] "add cats" Added categories [291] "uw-speedy3" [292]

"defaultsort" [293] "nocontent-warn" [294] Matt cheung: empty-warn [295] original research [296] "dab" [297] "create3" [298] "uw-vandalism1" [299] "WP:MOS" restore dab page create4im report to WP:AN3RR "uw-repost" "uw-npov" [300]

In addition, since his first dozen edits, Ice Cold beer uses several dozen templates regularly, especially on user talk pages. He flawlessly created this Arbitration with no assistance, despite never being in arbitration before. He also flawlessly created several check users with no assistance. Ice Cold Beer is a sockpuppet.

As verbatim from:

Characteristics of sock puppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppets:

Verbatim quote of Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Characteristics of sock puppets	Examples from Ice Cold Beer's damming behavior
Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts:
1. usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers.	Incredible familiarity with the editing process.
2. They are more likely to use edit summaries,	Always
3. immediately join in existing edit wars, or	Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, September 11, 2001
4. participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits.	Edits 34, 35, 36.
5. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.	(See below)

Through all of these 2448 edits Ice Cold Beer from the very beginning nows wikipedia policy better than 99% of Wikipedians, he uses obscure policy acronyms that most newbies, let alone most wikipedians don't know. He never asks a question common with newbies, never makes a formating mistake common with newbies.

In edit 34 he creates his first AfD flawlessly, he uses the templates correctly (34), he notifies the creator of the page in (36), he posts the AfD on on the AfD page (35). Ice Cold Beer is a sockpuppet of a more experienced user. Trav ( talk) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Ice Cold Beer's articles which he edits comprises entirely of conspiracy theories. The other edits are administrative edits. As a sockpuppet, Ice Cold Beer uses his knowledge of wikipolicy to delete articles, with an occasional clean up.

As per WP:SPA:

The term WP:SPA should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a specific non-neutral agenda is clearly established.

• See User:Travb/compare

Many experienced editors such as JzG and the sockpuppet Ice Cold Beer argues that these editors are WP:SPA, including Ireneshsband who only made 718 edits, and only started to edit 9/11 after 313 edits.

Please keep in mind that SPA appears to be nothing more than an essay, whereas WP:BITE is an important and central guideline.

As per WP:SPA:

If a new user immediately participates in a discussion without an edit history in the area, he or she may be an illegitimate sock puppet...

Ice Cold Beer is a sockpuppet, but despite repeated checkusers by Ice Cold Beer, no sockpuppet accounts were found among these users. See: #Evidence_presented_by_ireneshusband#Malicious checkuser_requests

SPA continues:

If a new user immediately participates in a discussion without an edit history in the area, he or she may be...or a user who has seen something of interest and wishes to contribute.

No one will deny that Ireneshusband, with less than 800 edits is a new user ( 718), Pokipsy76: 1302 edits, WLRoss: 1760 edits. Xiutwel has only 2041 edits. Many of the other users here who are being attacked by JzG and the sockpuppet Ice Cold Beer are also new users.

SPA continues:

The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a specific non-neutral agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment.

New users acting in good-faith will often begin to edit topics in which they have an interest. Such accounts will warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines.

Ice Cold beer, an experienced sockpuppet and other editors continued to WP:BITE and be uncivil to these new editors, this Arbcom is only the continuation of this harassment.

No one would ever doubt that User:JzG. Knows wikipolicy. From The battle for Wikipedia's soul The Economist March 6th 2008.

The behaviour of Wikipedia's self-appointed deletionist guardians, who excise anything that does not meet their standards, justifying their actions with a blizzard of acronyms, is now known as “wiki-lawyering”. [N]ovices can quickly get lost in Wikipedia's Kafkaesque bureaucracy. 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...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.

User:JzG a well respected editor, knows who to "handle [rules] to win arguments" and him, along with ice cold beer, are "excis[ing] anything that does not meet their standards, justifying their actions with a blizzard of acronyms".

Instead of wasting my time getting in an acronym fight, and tearing down the dubious evidence that User:JzG uses, I simply ask, if the Arbcom bothered to read this far, that the Arbcom:

Please ignore all the pointless acronyms and even sillier graphs, and simply ask: what is this argument about?

The bottom line behind all these acronyms and graphs is this: User:JzG and User:Ice Cold Beer and the other "deletionist guardians" simply don't want material anywhere on Wikipedia they personally don't agree with. Never mind how sound or unsound these views are, because we are dealing with ideologies, and ideologies can't be reasoned with, and there is no amount of evidence that can persuade an ideology.

For example the ideological intolerance of User:Aude:

"truthers" like to use Wikipedia as a tool in their truth spreading...lately I've seen the "truthers" even go after 9/11 victims and their families. This shows how despicable their tactics are...Here's one of their blogs, which talks about their "interviews" with other Pentagon witnesses...Who knows, some of this could be lies, but some of it is real and disgusting.

This ideological intolerance is the norm among those who attempt to silence those who have alternative views about 9/11.

"Deletionist guardians" refuse to even allow POV tags on the September 11 page or even the talk page:

• MONGO reverted
• Haemo reverted
• Ice Cold Beer

Is ireneshusband an ideologue too? Hell yes. But the stark difference is that he is attempting to add material to wikipedia, whereas User:JzG and User:Ice Cold Beer are attempting to delete it.

I feel like 99% of ireneshusband's views on 9/11 are complete bullshit. But if he presents well researched material, I feel like he should have a voice here on Wikipedia to. User:JzG and User:Ice Cold Beer simply don't.

MONGO wrote: IceColdBeer and JzG aren't guilty of trying to remove content as expressed by TravB above...they are only trying to ensure that fringe theories don't get equal footing with known facts. Their efforts are a benefit to the reliability issue that troubles this website...an issue that is being undermined by those who take advantage of our open editing policies.

The behavior of MONGO and others here is the elephant in the room, that everyone sees, but that no one wants to talk about: Wikipedians ruthlessly using wikipolicy and wikilawyering to push there own narrow POV. If anyone needs a solid example, it would be JzGs and Icecoldbeers lies about Irene's edit history, above.

As other editors mentioned, Icecoldbeer has consistently deleted sections of articles which he disagrees with, so has MONGO.

MONGO is at the forefront of deleting every single article that mentions alternative views of 9/11. MONGO has worked in tandem allegedly off wiki with several editors for years to push his view of wikipedia. Those that oppose MONGOs these deletions are called vicious names and harassed. MONGO has been involved with countless AfDs and edit wars to remove material he personally disagrees with. The majority of the Arbcoms that MONGO has been involved with was involving him pushing editors he personally disagrees with about 9/11 out of wikipedia.

MONGOs track record is consistent. Recently MONGO was at the center of pushing for WP:BADSITES, another attempt to limit what can and can't be said on Wikipedia.

Based on MONGO's and IceColdBeer's edit history, MONGO's and IceColdBeer's Wikipedia, the Wikipedia they are pushing for, would have no alternative views to 9/11 and virtually no criticisms of the United States: An Orwellian Wikipedia.

I am asking for equal time, MONGOs group wants all the time is.

Trav ( talk) 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I honestly don't have a lot to add at this point that hasn't already been said; Guy and Haemo have, I believe, best summed up the situation. The September 11, 2001 attacks archives are filled with attempts to add conspiracy theory elements to the main article; often discussions there devolve into debates on topics such as physics and whether or not there were any Arabs on American flight 77 ( here, here and here).

Occasionally, as happened at the recent Mediation Cabal case, the argument actually revolved around interpretations of policy. Specifically, the debate was on whether the title of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories was a violation of WP:POV, and there was a determined effort to change the title to 9/11 Alternative Theories. The debate also spilled over into policy discussion pages, leaving the impression that the "non-mainstream account adherents" were trying to bend policy to accommodate their views (see here).

I have very limited time to present diffs and I apologize for that. For the record, in case anyone doesn't know, I have been an active participant in editing and contributing to discussions with various editors regarding articles related to 9/11, with 338 edits to the September 11, 2001 attacks article (603 to the associated talkpage), 276 to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article (458 to that article talkpage) and 149 edits to 7 World Trade Center (155 to the talkpage for that article). I have almost 41,000 edits total, so edits to those articles and the associated talkpages for me are about 5% of my total contribution history. Interestingly, they occupied an outrageous amount of my energy in terms of frustration because the arguments presented by the non-mainstream "alternative hypothesis" (oftentimes referred to as conspiracy theorists) advocates have been the same arguments, over and over and over, like a broken record. Their arguments have been dealt with repeatedly. Now of course, we have new contributors all the time, so these new contributors are surely unaware that these same arguments have already been discussed. Nevertheless, when we link them to archives saying, look here for further review that this issue was already discussed, they tend to ignore it, and proceed to present the same old tired "evidence" that is not based on reliable sourcing, not based on the known evidence and not based on major news sources widely recognized around the world for their ability to present factual accounts of the events. Instead they cite non peer reviewed papers, websites and books that are oftentimes little more than an effort to make a buck.

Is there tenacious editing...surely...when editors continue to demand that unreliable sourcing and opinions be given equal time with known quantifiable evidence, and they repeatedly ignore both consensus and policy, then yes they are editing tenaciously. If they are trying to add non-science to the articles repeatedly when we have well referenced and verifiable evidence in them, then they are POV pushing. How does one POV push facts? I can't see how ensuring articles follow the undue weight criteria of NPOV that anyone can be in violation of POV pushing. We give the correct weight to what can be reliably referenced. IF what the non mainstream advocates claim is true, then they need to present reliable references about what really happened...and they never can. All they seem able to present are quotes taken out of context, websites that are oftentimes ludicrously naive or silly and books that have been written to capitalize on the social phenomenon of government complicity. Its akin to the same sort of problem one encounters when dealing with those that assume that surely the U.S. Government was behind the Oklahoma City bombing and never sponsored a real landing on the moon as discussed in the article about Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories.

IceColdBeer and JzG aren't guilty of trying to remove content as expressed by TravB above...they are only trying to ensure that fringe theories don't get equal footing with known facts. Their efforts are a benefit to the reliablity issue that troubles this website...an issue that is being undermined by those who take advantage of our open editing policies.-- MONGO 06:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The year-long(+) debate has centered around tendentious proposals from a group of editors who have launched a crusade to include the beliefs of 9/11 conspiracy theorists on the same footing as the mainstream account. This has occurred at September 11th, 2001 attacks as well as 9/11 Conspiracy theories, but my evidence focuses entirely on the former.

As has been pointed by others above, this group of editors includes User:Xiutwel, User:Ireneshusband, and User:pokipsy76, who have been avid, tendentious, and uncivil in their pushing. As has been presented in above sections, Ireneshusband has been particularly uncivil, and Xiutwel has been particularly tendentious with an account devoted almost entirely to pushing policy-violating proposals disruptively and repeatedly. My evidence will focus on User:Xiutwel, unless more free time presents itself in the coming days.

In his latest period of active editing, Xiutwel has persisted in pushing a POV using disruptively long proposals and evoking similar arguments to back the same requests while ignoring consensus and editing the article on several occasions. That has given several administrators reason to fully protect the article several times, disrupting normal operations on the article's mainspace. He's done this in spite of detailed explanations and quotes of policy from experienced editors and administrators and while showing strong personal beliefs and lack of respect for Wikipedia's core policies. Over the past two years, he's pushed for conspiracy theories on Oklahoma City bombing and September 11th, 2001 attacks (including in his very first edits [301]) while rejecting explanations of WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NOR from several dozen editors on both pages. He's accumulated 773 conspiracy-related edits out of 1052 mainspace edits during his 2 years here (including 643 out of 720 talk edits) [302]. When warned of tendentious editing by myself last month, he accused the article's editors of censorship: [303]. Asked why he has continued, he responded with this comment denouncing Wikipedia's use of reliable sources.

I've compiled a small selection of the most notable of Xiutwel's proposals — While I apologize that I cannot sift through months of tedious arguments to provide all relevant diffs, do keep in mind that Xiutwel has all but dominated discussion on Talk:9/11, accumulating 466 edits there. These proposals have usually been spaced out roughly 1/2—3 days apart for several months, containing repeated arguments after failed attempts at gathering consensus as well as overt statements of bias, some containing incivility: [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319], [320], [321].

In the above proposals, Xiutwel made his requests clear: He said that he believes the mainstream account of 9/11 is false and that Wikipedia should rewrite the article to include more prominently his alternate view. A repeated consensus of editors has explained that such views must be extensively sourced by independent reliable sources, per WP:FRINGE. Nevertheless, common themes in his proposals include discussing the fallibility and systemic bias of academic reliable sources and the need to stop basing our articles on them [322] (violations of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE). He's often argued for the inclusion of a certain assortment of facts that help "prove" his belief that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the U.S. government ( WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE). When asked repeatedly to explain why particular minor facts are relevant, he's responded by saying that they should be included to represent the conspiracy theory viewpoint because conspiracy theorists use them in their arguments. [323]

Because Xiutwel has, on many occasions, based the reasoning for repeating these arguments on the claim that policy and reasoning has not been explained to him, or that he does not agree with policy, I've compiled a very small selection of the explanations and quotes of policy he has received: [324], [325], [326], [327], [328], [329], [330], [331], [332], [333], [334], [335], [336], [337], [338], [339], [340].

While Xiutwel has made more than one attempt to edit the article in spite of no consensus, the following edits involved particular content that had been specifically rejected during months of arguments: [341], [342]. He stated on the talk page that his reason for doing this was that he decided the article needed the "improving": [343]. He then reverted attempts to remove the additions, breaking the three revert rule: [344] Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

To the issue of editor conduct, it's relevant to summarize the underlying content dispute that has driven the tendentious editing. Here I've made an attempt, adapted from a comment I made at this discussion:

As some editors have argued for balancing the 9/11 aritcle with views of conspiracy theorists, one thing has always been lacking: Independent reliable sources saying that at least one of the 9/11 conspiracy theories is considered viable by a significant minority of relevant experts in relevant fields. We have only polls to indicate there may be a certain percentage of the public that believes there is some kind of government cover up. This does not indicate the former: it indicates only sociological notability of the theories, like pseudoscience. We also have independent academics who debunk the theories, and this indicates sociological notability as well, per WP:FRINGE. What some editors have continued to ask others to do is assume that the conspiracy theories are valid not only in a sociological context, but on equal footing with the mainstream theory. They advocate doing this without independent sources to cite that a significant minority of people who "know what they are talking about" also consider them valid. That's original research. And that sums up most of the resistance to their requests. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with MONGO that this issue defines a battleground on Wikipedia. I left Wikipedia early this year after finally giving up the hope that things would change. Two recent examples of the sort of thing I had to put up with, both of which I, like MONGO, would sort under tendentious editing leaning to POV-pushing, involve my attempts to clarify the "consensus" about the progressive collapse of the WTC and the anticipation of aircraft impact by designers of the WTC. While both issues are of interest to so-called "conspiracy theorists", neither of these examples actually involve statements by or about conspiracy theorists. In both cases, my reading of mainstream sources were interpreted on the presumption that I was trying to push a conspiracist POV.

1. Progressive Collapse While the progressive collapse theory is the generally accepted one in the peer-reviewed literature, it is not without its critics. One critic, Grenady Cherepanov, has published his views in a mainstream engineering journal. His paper is cited in the article on the collapse of the WTC. When I pointed this out in discussion about the engineering consensus [345], Morton Devonshire asked how I "could believe such crap". I asked him to withdraw the statement, which led to a number of additional jabs from his side, with others jumping in. The unsupported assertion that I was expounding "crap" (actually a complete non-sequitor, as other editors pointed out) was presented as a perfectly legitimate way things are done around here. See this diff [346].

2. Anticipation of Aircraft Impact More recently (just before I left), I tried to clarify the issue of whether the WTC had been designed to survive a 9/11-type event. The discussion can be read here: [347], proceeding through several sections. While I offered full edit summaries and plenty of reasons for my edits, they were tersely and summarily dismissed as soapboxing. As I recall, this episode was brought to a head when MONGO brought my actions before ArbCom. I withdrew at that time. I note that the neutrality tag that MONGO put in still has not been removed, nor has the discussion advanced after my "disruption" ended.

Morton Devonshire has since declared that his "work here is done" and has left the project, receiving a warm round of applause on the way out (not, it should be noted, for his content contributions, but for his tirelessness in calling crap "crap" when he sees it). An RFC on MONGO and his approach closed just as warmly with support for him by a majority of commenters. I was a bit taken aback, however, to see him being awarded barnstars for his stance to boot [348]. Note that Morton is one of the "guys" that MONGO thinks is "great" in this regard. Note also the language: MONGO is here being praised for his toughness in "fighting" other editors, for "withstanding" their efforts, and for his service "in the endless war to rid Wikipedia" of them. Regardless of who is right about the content, this sort of comrades-in-arms-ship does not seem in line with WP:NOT.

I add this to the discussion for balance. I no longer have the desire to settle for myself whether the accused CT-POV-pushers are actually that. (The evidence seems, on the face of it a bit flimsy though, and I would suggest that the accusers identify two or three clear cases, just to set the bar.) I left when it became clear to me that the entrenched battleground atmposphere on these articles keeps moderate spirits away. I still think this is true.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

With a few exceptions, WP has no restrictions on contributors based on their actual points of view (i.e., the opinions they hold in private.) It always has to come down to editing behaviour. One of the problems here is that those who "defend" WP against "attack" obviously (I hope uncontroversially) believe that there is an enemy (in some sense) "out there" (the conspiracy mongers). They also, to my mind rightly, believe that this enemy consists of people who believe that WP has an equal and opposite "enemy within" (the shills). It is the symmetry of this situation that is disturbing. Neither side should assume that (or at least act like) anyone has anything but improved articles in mind.

[Clarification: we disagree about whether the "enemy" is dangerous. I think those who "take advantage" of WP's open wiki platform are, as the founders of WP predicted they would be, harmless. The damage they do to the articles is easily fixed. The damage that self-appointed "defenders" of the wiki (pre-emptive attackers of the "enemies" of WP) do to the community is less easily repaired.]

When people say they are not shills but, on the contrary, "defenders of the wiki" little has been gained. They should say, simply, "huh?" or "don't be silly", and calmly revert inappropriate edits. When Aude justifies her intolerance by saying she finds a particular group of people "distasteful" (for what they do off-WP, I should add) we should get even more worried. I was accused of believing "the gov't did it" very early on, simply for trying to clarify an article's statement on the relevant conspiracy theories. It was then explained to me that I should take these provocations in stride because they're probably just waiting for me to say something "nutty". If I don't, I'll be okay. Now, that's no way to treat a particular kind of content contribution even if the contributor turns out to be nutty.

The obvious reason for this is that it creates the problem it is trying to solve. It is a pre-emptive strike. I hope ArbCom will take into consideration the atmosphere of mistrust that the group of editors who have brought this case before them have, if not created, then certainly fostered. (ArbCom would not, of course, thereby be approving of the continuous flow of fresh "truth"-pushers, which I don't imagine will ever stop.) There is, today, no room for moderate skepticism (garden variety revisionism) of the history of 9/11 at WP because this group of editors has their guard up on WP's behalf. The invective starts flying from both sides too soon. Some suggestions for real improvements to articles are simply not taken seriously. Most of my work here (which remains in the articles to this day) has been done under such hostile conditions, for example. AGF simply isn't applied in practice.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Okie is half right about the content issue. Over the last two years (while I have been following developments) the claims made by conspiracy theorists have increasingly been made by reliable sources. It is true, however, that conspiracy theoretical claims are often introduced using poor sources like blogs, websites run by individuals, and, of course, YouTube. In some cases, better sources can be found. In other cases not. But if that really was the problem, ArbCom would have nothing to do here.

There is a difference, however, between fixing a reference (replacing a poor source with a good one), reverting it with the edit summary "removing unreliably sourced claims", and, finally, reverting with the summary "rv nonsense" (or "removing CT cruft" or similar turns of phrase). The battleground feel of working on these articles results from too much of the latter.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 11:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I think there are personal attacks on both sides. But it is is interesting to see Haemo use this as an example of an attack on a "mainstream" editor for being a "shill". Note that it is a response to this. Let me try to explain what I think is happening here. Q is not calling R a "shill". On the contrary, R just called Q a "crank". Q responds by saying that that would be like Q calling R a "shill". It's actually a very civil response to a direct insult; Q sort of shrugs it off, actually. In essence, Q is saying, "Yeah, funny: that's as pointless as it would be if I called you a shill." But then RxS jumps in here completely ignoring the subjunctive. He "answers" Q's completely hypothetical question as though Q really was claiming that R is working for the government. Q was saying that he didn't want to get into the "crank" vs. "shill" discussion, even adding a "let's not get off on the wrong foot". But Haemo and RxS insist on pursuing exactly that course, i.e., proceding on the wrong footing, suggesting that Q "discuss his edits first" (odd because the article is protected at this point, it seems, and Q was already discussing possible changes), and demanding that someone who just politely shrugged off being called a "crank" remain civil. I think this is great example of the problem we're dealing with here.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I've just looked at the other three examples that "stick out" for Haemo. I'm not sure what to say. These are obviously statements made by people who are just very aware (painfully aware in at least one case) that their views are marginalized, even likely to be seen as "crazy". I find it a bit odd that anyone would find someone who writes a long confessional, but wholly composed, reflection about his own mental health threatening. He is just saying that he knows how it sounds and to take his "paranoia" with a grain of clinical salt. As far as I can tell, not one "mainstream" editor is mentioned by name as a shill or CIA plant. (The only time names are named it is to identify members of the two factions we are discussing here. Neither group is accused of formal ties to some shadowy paymaster off-WP.) The "shill" idea, when explicitly suggested, is offered in line with a what I think is a common view in the 9/11 Truth movement, namely, that of course there will be shills in any forum where these issues are discussed. (If they are right about 9/11 then they are no doubt right about that too; it's sort of implicit in inside job thesis.) Until an individual editor is specifically accused of intentionally sabotaging a discussion under instructions from some puppet-master, it is as harmless as all that talk about "nuts" and "cranks" and "wackjobs". Even then, it's as harmless as "You sound like a crank. Why don't you edit the 9/11 Crank Theories article." Which, I would venture, is said more often than "You sound like shill."-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 20:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Given the diff, I think Haemo needs to do more than insist that Quantum was not called a crank. You're not saying Rklawton only said he sounded like a crank, are you? Because then we'd have to start nitpicking about accusations of merely "silent" complicity is mass murder. I think Quantum's rhetoric is completely unacceptable. I've said this before: I'm not defending Quantum or others like him; there are many unconstructive accusations in these discussions; I am trying to show that they are taking their cue from these "established editors". That's an interesting phrase in its own right. Why is it less okay to call established editors (who are, it seems, by definition "editors in good faith") vandals than anyone else? Policy cautions against calling people vandals in all cases. And that's simply because it notches up the rhetoric.

Reading the exchange you link to is, again, interesting. It looks to me like what starts as a content dispute about sourcing a claim about hijackers gets notched up into crank vs. shill dispute when RxS, in exasperation, fails to "restrain himself" and exclaims: "Oh, and a CT'er criticizing a web site because of bias is ironic enough to spin the Earth out of it's orbit!" [349] It's only at that point that the "silent complicity in mass murder" type arguments begin to fly (yes, yes, this time around; but let's not get into a "who started it?" discussion.) Many of those who defend WP against CT openly declare their lack of desire to be civil with cranks. That's what leads to this sarcasm and condescension, the "it won't be tolerated, period" tone, "the article is currently 100% in line with policy", and the brow-beating. What some of us are trying to show in this arbitration is that tough talk, terseness, hyperbole, suspicion, etc. are deemed acceptable when "established editors" engage in it. But editors (often newbies) who hold marginalized POVs have to "restrain themselves", "calm down", etc., etc.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Diatribe elided by clerk; please remain on-topic and remember to maintain civility and eschew personal attacks at all times.

You are welcome to refactor your comments into civil evidence and repost here. —  Coren  ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee. 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Haemo asked for and got checkusers against ireneshusband, Mcintireallen, Gindo, Apostle12, Pokipsy76, Bulbous, WLRoss, Oneismany Belinrahs and Wowest, but he provided absolutely no evidence to justify these requests, which were casually made on the back of a checkuser request on Dscotese and Deminizer. [350] This is a brazen case of fishing for dirt. ireneshusband (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

His entire argument here consists of violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, Travb has defined this issue very accurately. He correctly points out that standards for content submissions and behaviour are completely different depending on the name of the editor. I think Travb's comments should be given an honest, hard look at by everyone involved here. I'm sorry, I am completely out of time, but if I am allowed, I would would like to add a few more words in the next day or so. SkeenaR ( talk) 23:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

And I don't edit 9/11 topics... they are out there on all kinds of different subjects, but I felt a need to post this because I have zero doubt that it is a problem on WP- and I can only imagine how bad it gets on the 9/11 pages.

In my personal experience many shills rely on antagonizing good-faith editors and pushing buttons with eventual goal of ridiculing or "chasing away" editors. An accurate page is a secondary concern to control of this discourse- many any examples of AGF vios and flame wars can without a doubt be traced back to the activities of some "shills" (I usually just call them psy ops). Again this is my interpretation from editing other WP pages, and from using similar other websites; as you can see from my history I am not "involved" in this argument...

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.