From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

September 11, 2001 attacks -- community advice sought[edit]

This topic was erroneously posted[1] at WP:ANI. Moving it here, requesting input.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Links added by: Jehochman Talk 13:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Please note that I am currently topic banned as a result of a discussion here at ANI, in which I had no chance to participate (it was concluded before I logged in). In order to determine whether and how to appeal, I am requesting community input.
  1. As I understand NPOV policy, significant minority viewpoints require treatment in articles. Regardless of the merit and truthfulness of the official version, I would expect it to be legitimate and even necessary to include mention of major minority views in some detail in any article, no matter how "foolish" or "opportunistic" such views might be, as long as they are held by prominent figures and are not confined to tiny minorities. Concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks wikipedia is not the forum to debate the validity of viewpoints, but merely to represent them, fairly, without giving any undue weight to such views. Now in the case when former ministers or current parlementarians of major countries such as the U.S.A., Great Britain, Germany, France, Japan all have expressed their doubts about the official version, would it not seem adequate that wikipedia report this?
  2. Would quoting the 9/11 Commission be allowed, even where the 9/11 Commission is contradicting its final report and conclusions?

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the anti-American biased viewpoints of foreign leaders is irrelevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Are you sure that sanction was placed here, and not at WP:AE? Perhaps you should provide a permanent link to the discussion so that other editors can actually see the basis for that sanction. Your comment above indicates a poor understanding of verifiability. Beliefs of actors, government officials and other notable people are not reliable sources of information for Wikipedia, except perhaps as primary sources for articles about those people. We prefer scholarly sources, or reliable news outlets, that conduct extensive fact checking. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Well put. Unless the opinion of foreign leaders is based on some inside information, it remains of no more relevance to wikipedia than the opinion of some random guy on the street. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It appears that this sanction is appeal-able to the administrator who placed it, or to the Arbitration Committee. I suggest you ask them directly at WP:RFAR in the appropriate section of the page. Jehochman Talk 13:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support expiration of ban in 24 hours The above user has explained his opinion coherently and in a very civil fashion. The banned person poses questions instead of proclaiming "this is the only way the edit should read". Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia so the most scholarly and referenced view is the correct version, with exception to an emphasis on controversy in articles about porn and coitus. (see above ANI discussion). Scholarly stuff, when written by multiple authors, needs discussion as this banned person is doing. Furthermore, the user says that the ban was concluded before he had the chance to respond. If true, then Wikipedia is no better than North Korea or Saddam, both of whom have show trials and give long sentences. Let's not be Kim Jong Il or Saddam. As far as quoting leaders, the leaders of the relevant entities (US, al-Qaeda) may be important. The opinion of minimally related countries, such as Andorra and Zambia are not. As far as "major minority opinions", we just need to prioritize. With article length restricted, the first priority is the facts of the event. Then comes analysis. Maybe a sub-article is appropriate, maybe not. In conclusion, I agree with the above behavior and civility of the banned person so I favor expiration of the ban by tomorrow but I don't agree with political opinion of the person. HRCC (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think that lifting the topic ban now is a good idea. I looked at the AE thread linked above which resulted in the ban. It looks like Xiutwel's behavior in the 9/11-related articles has been consistently disruptive for 2+ years. Xiutwel's post above or at the page of the admin who placed the ban do not indicate any admission on Xiutwel's part that his conduct has been problematic or that he has been at fault in any way. In view of this there is a good reason to think that his pattern of disruption will continue if the ban is lifted. Nsk92 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
In society, if the danger is high, then the amount of leeway is low. In Wikipedia, the danger is minimal. A few bad edits or even vandalism is not going to make the WTC collapse. If the guy appears civil, an unban is in order. Afterwards, if there is chaos, there are over 1,500 admin who can re-ban in 3 seconds. This is one reason why I favor expiration of the ban in 24 hours. 24 hours allows an angry person's mind to clear and a changed person something to look forward to. What harm is it if this guy is unblocked, he causes trouble and a ban resumed? Even rapist and murderers get paroled. HRCC (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hell no. Xiutwell is the archetype of the vexatious civil POV-pusher. Clearly a true believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, to the point where he asserts that they are "alternative theories" not conspiracy theories, and wore everybody out with his insistent nonsense. The last thing we need is Xiutwell returning to advocate his Truther twaddle round those articles again. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Xuitwell, this is your chance to state your plans. Plan to "Truther tawddle round" again or make the article better? HRCC (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

It should be noted that when saying that the venue is inappropriate and closing this thread User:Jehochman seems to be ignoring what was said [2] by a member of the commetee:

appeals against topic and article bans imposed as part of an arbitration finding need not, and should not (except in truly exceptional circumstances), be heard by the Arbitration Committee itself. They can be determined by consensus among administrators.

If he is aware of this then I would invite him to tell us where does he think that the "consensus among administrators" for an appeal should be found if not here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

    1. Venue: It seems I confused AN/AE with AN/I. My apologies. What would be the appropriate course of action for me now?
    2. Editing: regarding my editing behaviour just prior to the banning: the ArbCom decision made no specification as to which side of the debate was risking to be banned. I have warned several editors and admins to adhere to policy; I should have guessed it was my side which was generally seen as being at fault, and with hindsight I see it was unproductive and silly to warn editors not to violate wikipedia policy. It makes sense that that was considered as rude, and I admit fault there: my actions were harmful to wikipedia and should not have been made.
    3. Wikipedia content: As far as the articles are concerned: I fully agree that the official version is the one most referenced, and that version should ofcourse be dominant in the article. On the other hand, it is a known fact that the official version has a received an unusual amount of criticism: not just from conspiracy nuts but also from scholars and politicians. It would not seem fair and unbiased for wikipedia to ignore such criticism altogether. Worse, in the current articles all information which might (if you squeeze real hard) make the official version look a bit shaky, is being systematically omitted and deleted. That does not seem to be the spirit of NPOV, or does it? E.g. testimony to the 9/11 Commission by a Secretary of Transport, and conclusions by the 9/11 Commission itself could certainly merit inclusion, even when they are an inconvenient truth to those who hold the official version as the only plausible one. I realize I started this thread on the wrong venue, but since I asked community advice: I could refrase my question: "Is it so certain that the official version is 100% true that we can step over normal NPOV procedures and discard any and all information which might lead to criticism of the government and its account? And is it un-American to criticise a government? (I used to think it was 'unrussian' to criticise ones government)."  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

September 11, 2001 attacks -- community advice sought (2)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Link added by: ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • My questions in a nutshell:
    1. is it against wikipedia policy or editor consensus to include criticism of the official account as it appears in mainstream media?
    2. is it wikipedia policy or editor consensus to omit all and any information which is not 'benign' to the official account?
    3. if so, could the article page reflect a warning template for neutrality dissensus, or would that be in appropriate?
  • I am willing to abide the consensus which is going to be expressed here, and would like a period of probation, being able to edit in this subject area, in order to have my ban lifted indefinitely.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
These are more-or-less the same questions Xiutwel was asking when he was banned. As to the questions themselves, I note that 1 is ambiguously worded (enough that its meaning may be twisted to suit one's needs), 2 betrays zero understanding of consensus and NPOV, and 3 is flat-out WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This was a successful ArbCom case, with an excellently written resolution; this was a well-done topic ban; since its inception September 11, 2001 attacks has experienced a period of unusual calm and productivity. I am opposed to an unban of Xiutwel because I see it as a step backwards - particularly since there is no sign that he is moving forward in any way. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 02:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Any user who would argue for the reinstatement of Xiutwel's editing privileges on 9-11 articles should take a serious and objective look at his edit history. Even a cursory inspection of the evidence presented in the course of the ArbCom case which led to Xiutwel's topic ban makes very clear the kind of disruptive behavior which came to be expected from this user during the two years prior to his ban, and the wording of his argument above suggests that he has not learned much from the experience. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There are millions of Wikipedia articles available to this editor. Why focus on editing 9/11 topics? Jehochman Talk 05:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this same argument has been used by small groups of editors to own articles. I don't know if this is such an article but these groups do exist. I do not support Xiutwel because I don't know what type of edit is proposed. May I suggest Xuitwel state what he would like to add? I would suggest summarizing a short subsection or few sentences some very reliably sourced information on important areas that critics oppose in the 9/11 Commission report. The theory that the US Government called Jews who worked at the WTC and asked them to stay home on 9/11 is not creditable. If Xuitwel does this nicely and in a way worthy of a respected publication, then there is merit to ending restrictions on editing. HRCC (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My impression is that some of the controversy of the 9/11 report were factions trying to blame Bush or blame Clinton and also about the chaotic military response. I don't think there is credible controversy over who hijacked the planes. As far as
    1. is it against wikipedia policy or editor consensus to include criticism of the official account as it appears in mainstream media?
It should be commensurate with the coverage in the mainstream media. If the media is slanted, then Wikipedia should be similarly slanted. I think that's what Jimbo wants. The original research clause prevents Wikipedia from correcting the slant of articles except in a minor way.
    1. is it wikipedia policy or editor consensus to omit all and any information which is not 'benign' to the official account?
Unfortunately, with article ownership, this can happen. The amount of coverage is loosely based on what other reliable sources give the alternative ideas.
    1. if so, could the article page reflect a warning template for neutrality dissensus, or would that be in appropriate?
If others refuse to abide by #1, then a warning is appropriate. If #1 is followed, then no warning should be used.

HRCC (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • I am retracting my post. I do not want any further discussion or treatment at this time. For that purpose I archived this discussion which was undone by Jehochman, in which he also removed my explanation for wanting to do so, thus removing information from the discussion for an "independent admin" to see. I hate that.
    As it is your wish to discuss further, I will not archive the underneath. If you want to say there is no ownership, no teamwork to preserve the article status, feel free to say so. But I am retracting this post, and the topic is closed for me until I have discussed with others how to proceed, and have found a way to attract neutral editors and admins to this debate, and not just the people who think that their POV is the NPOV, and that my NPOV is a POV.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please try and look at this from our perspective. In the edit which Jehochman removed, you accused dissenting editors of locking you out of the article and collaborating to ban you. The simple fact is that your topic ban was enacted due to a long and well-documented history of disruptive editing; on many occasions paralyzing work on the entire article with your persistent attempts to incorporate pro-CT material. Posing a group of loaded questions here in the hopes that only like-minded people will respond to them is not only unrealistic, it also stands in direct contradiction with the idea of building consensus. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • There is no lack of neutrality, there is no ownership, there is no bias, there is no slant, there is no suppression, there is no censorship, there is no Santa Claus, Elvis was not abducted by aliens, the moon landings were not faked, nobody stood on a grassy knoll shooting down airliners on secret US Government orders. I am sure Xiutwell does want to return to his long-term campaign of civil POV-pushing, but I'm afraid the project simply does not need it. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Concur with GUY...we're not here to provide conspiracy theorists a sounding board for the impossible.--MONGO 22:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In fact we have 9/11 conspiracy theories and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center which provide extensive coverage of these ideas, with a brief mention of the former in the main article.--agr (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist at Template:Terrorist category definition[edit]


Martinphi editing restriction violations?[edit]


Li Hongzhi (i.e. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong) again[edit]

Please see [8], [9], and the talk page (all discussion, as far as I can tell, was moved to the bottom). The timing is odd. Usually I wouldn't revert content disputes per 1rr, but I saw the BLP page again and realised that in this case it would not just be 'okay', but expected. thx--Asdfg12345 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lokyz and his personal attacks[edit]

Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is subject since mid-December to a general civility "don't create a battleground" sanction (see the "Digwuren sanction" template and updated ArbCom ruling for details). Lokyz has already been blocked for incivility once (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive19#Lokyz), although that block was soon challenged - see report of Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars for some insights. Recently Lokyz - who certainly is aware of the need for civility - has launched a new and appalling personal attack against me: I hope you woudn't try to use AK memoirs as a source. I know the financial power of this organization veterans. Are you sponsored by them? I am highly offended with this slander of my motivations, and I hope appropriate sanctions will be used to prevent such harassment from taking place again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So says a person who last time got himself unblocked form WP:3RR via IRC (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive134#Piotrus_incident: policy corrections needed either way). A proponent of civility who, behind the back of his opponents calls them "POV trolls".
I also suggest anyone who sees it to take a look at this thread which, along with the current one, exemplifies Piotrus' resorting to seeking opponents' blocks as a prime method of DR. This has been commented upon many enough times and this is getting tiresome. This looks like exactly a repeated attempt of the same thing.
Using WP:CIV as a tool to win content disputes is not new from Piotrus. It is ironic that the same editor makes uncivil comments about the same editors behind their backs. Note that his cherry picking an admin to look at the request,[10] an admin who acted in his favor last time, and was overturned by a wide consensus shows Piotrus' primary motivation is to have an opponent blocked rather than solve a problem whatever it is
In this case Piotrus, when he fails to provide reliable sources is trying to push civility questions again. I'm disgusted by this, as it seems another attempt to shut my mouth and keyboard. This suggestion to "help me" just proves the attempt. I do wonder if anyone is monitoring irc just now and the words the certain user is putting on my reputation?
If he has a problem with my statement, he did not bother to express himself and ask me for clarification but goes directly here. This is itself suspicious. His having no courtesy to inform me about this thread (I found about it by accident) is the best proof that his intention is not to resolve the problem but achieve sanctions of his content opponent. This is what he does constantly.--Lokyz (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Comparing this thread to an earlier one, I wonder if eyebrows will be raised here also, as Lokyz was not notified on his talk about again being made subject to an AE thread? Piotrus has a history of filing requests here, which might be considered block shopping or fishing for blocks, too. He took early advantage of the Digwuren list by getting Dr. Dan and Matthead listed while managing to get himself removed from it.-- Matthead  Discuß   01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no apologies above, but since this thread started, Lokyz insinuated that I commit copyvios in a completely unrelated discussion. PS. I've asked Lokyz to be civil in the past, and I'd expect he is familiar with our civility policies. I don't see why I should ask him to be civil every time he is not, he had plenty of requests, warnings and last changes before. And Matthead, your surprise involvement in this discussion is indeed a perfect illustration of the pattern detected by the working group on edit wars I linked above: "Tag team members may also be identified with tactics such as... [they] appear at other unrelated articles where the targeted editor may be working (what brought you here, Matt?)... members immediate attack the credibility of the admin... defend each other against admin actions... continue to forum shop, challenging each of the admin's future actions... tag teamers may also make unfounded charges and uncivil comments... any negative reaction by the target is then picked up and amplified in further attacks". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
What brought me here to this unrelated article, dear Piotrus, was your likeness on the AN/AE entry of "my watchlist". I wonder who might continue to forum shop and might make unfounded charges here? -- Matthead  Discuß   09:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Speaking of (new) tag team members, and invitations [11] to use Gadu-Gadu [12] [13]: What's up? And this "confession" is quite open: I told you several times. -- Matthead  Discuß   07:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
For everyone's information, I have raised this incident at the arbitration hearing proposal I have made: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Piotrus_2. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
As I've shown above, we have plenty of policies and tools perfectly acceptable to deal with this situation (an incivil user accusing others of evil intentions) without any need for an ArbCom. PS. Still, for the record, I think the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Moreschi is quite enlightening.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)



Falun Gong again[edit]

Jewish Internet Defense Fund[edit]


Sarah Palin[edit]

Martinphi at WP:NPOV[edit]

Personal attacks by Jossi at Talk:Millennium '73[edit]

Violation of TTN's restriction?[edit]