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
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Case Opened on 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 15:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Clpo13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rx StrangeLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Okiefromokla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Haemo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peter Grey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dchall1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jc-S0CO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ireneshusband (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gindo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Apostle12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pokipsy76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bulbous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WLRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Oneismany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xiutwel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wowest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior attempts at dispute resolution[edit]

• Mediation Cabal case
• Request for Comment
• Discussion—Requested move
• Editor assistance thread
• Discussions at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

This case centers around the prospects of adding of pro-conspiracy theory language to articles related to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is my belief that adding such language to these articles brings Wikipedia into disrepute and that users who continually attempt to add pro-conspiracy language into the encyclopedia are disruptive. Recently, the main article was fully protected as a result of the continual addition (and removal) of POV tags to the page. A mediation case was closed recently in which the prospects of changing the title of 9/11 conspiracy theories to what was perceived by some as a more conspiracy theory-friendly title. Many of those who wish to add conspiracy POV to these articles have constantly posted to Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories and Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, often times ignoring previously developed consensus.

While this debate has mostly remained civil, there are a few users with behavioral problems (I documented the behavior of one such user here). I urge the arbitration committee to accept this case to consider the harm brought onto the project by conspiracy theory POV-pushing and to consider the behavior of all involved parties. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute seems to be at an impasse. One one side, there are the editors who feel that the term "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative and implies that the theories are false. On the other hand, there are the editors who think that the term isn't necessarily derogatory and is simply descriptive. Neither group seems willing to back down any time soon, so I think arbitration is the only solution remaining. --clpo13_(talk) 21:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a party to this, I have no significant edits to any 9/11 articles as far as I can remember, all I did was take part in yet another long-winded explanation by long-standing users of why policy means we don't change the titles of articles to avoid offending Truthers. The mediation case was dead in the water from the outset - two main reasons were raised for wanting to change the title of 9/11 conspiracy theories, one was that because some sources identify the terrorist attacks as a conspiracy, then that makes the official version a conspiracy theory, a novel synthesis not made by a single reliable source; the other being that calling them conspiracy theories prejudges the content. It doesn't. It accurately reflects how Truther theories are viewed outside the Truther walled garden. Short of banning all Truthers on sight, which would make Wikipedia a far better place but probably play badly with one or two of our free speech advocates, I don't see anything ArbCom can do here. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• FT2: noble sentiments, but the dispute here is not between zealots on one side and zealots on the other, it's between supporters of the mainstream and supporters of mad fringe theories. A large part of the problem is that they keep coming back and trying to draw a new "neutral" consensus as a "compromise" between what we currently have and their extreme POV, an insidious ratchet effect. Consensus is not when everyone agrees, but when everyone agrees to abide by the decision. I do not think the Truthers will ever accept anything less than parity between their mad theories and the official version, and some of them want more than parity. These people are here with only one purpose, and it is not building a neutral, verifiable, reliable encyclopaedia as we would stand it. Their best bet is to set up Truthopedia, as the neocons did with Conservapedia, and tell it their way on their own site. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the role of ArbCom here is supposed to, or should, be — the most serious issue here that reflects behavior is incivility, edit warring, using Wikipedia as a soapbox and tendentious editing practices. However, the core of the dispute is around neutral point of view, reliable sources, fringe theories, and their relationship to articles and subjects surrounding 9/11 conspiracy theories — i.e. a content dispute, compounded by the strong opinions, and almost exclusively carried forward by single-issue editors with a strong POV on the subject. In this sense, it is very similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The behaviorial issues are, however, not as severe as they were in that case — foreseeable outcomes from this case (unless the ArbCom takes an unprecedented step) are largely cautions and clarifications of Wikipedia's underlying policies with respect to this issue, as in the Pseudoscience case.

In the Pseudoscience case, ArbCom took a step towards ruling on content disputes, by spelling out interpretations of guidelines and policies. This is, primarily, the most substantial possible outcome from this case — but I'm not sure that ArbCom wants to take that step again. Is there an issue here? Yes. However, is it an issue for ArbCom to decide — I'm really not sure. --Haemo (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first participation in an arbitration case, although I have participated in a successful mediation. I was really hoping to see a more dispassionate and rational discourse. Unfortunately, from the barely-concealed vitriol of some of the preceeding statements, we can clearly see why we have ended up at this stage. Potential new editors are forced to deal with a handful of self-appointed wardens of the site who have summarized the events of 9-11 in their minds, and refuse to consider anything outside of those summaries. Any attempt to add content to the article outside of the government-prescribed record of events is met with scorn and ridicule. Editors who attempt to add such are called, (as noted above), "Truthers" or "Conspiracy Theorists" at best, and more commonly "morons" and similar. The attempt to rename "9-11 Conspiracy Theories" to "9-11 Alternative Theories" was defeated by editors entrenched in their beliefs, despite the obvious logical fact that a non-mainstream theory is NOT necessarily a conspiracy theory, and the attempt to portray it as such is obvious bad faith.

Having said that, I (like others above) am also not sure what the goal of arbitration would be in this case. Bulbous (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like to see an end to the continuous tendentious editing patterns and soapboxing on these pages, I'm not sure what Arbcom would be willing to do here. Having said that, I would love to see them examine everyone's editing here. If the result was only cautions to the editors most responsible for making a mess of these pages and wasting endless cycles we'd at least have a paper trail in case those same editors grow more disruptive. I don't expect this to be accepted, I'm not even sure they should given workloads etc. But there is a problem here and something will have to be done at some point. There are several editors here that have a long history of disruptive POV pushing, this may best be split into multiple editor RFCs for now.

9/11 related articles have been under constant attack by those who want to include more conspiracy theories. Efforts to do so have been disruptive and I have all but vacated the impossible to keep up with talk pages related to these articles. There isn't anything I can see that is accurate about retitling the article 9/11 conspiracy theories to 9/11 alternative theories. The use of the word alternative would indicate that their theories really are alternate, or have some credence of factuality, when they don't. Sure, there are a very few questions that may seem to be not fully addressed, but the vast majority of 9/11 conspiracy theories are centered around the preposterous notions of "let it happen" and or "make it happen" and some even believe the U.S. government was the sole reason if did happen. Regardless, this is a content dispute, so what the committee would need to see defined is if individual editors have violated policies of course.--MONGO 07:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly dispute the presentation of the case by Ice Cold Beer. The point is not wheter we should add "pro-conspiracy" language but a wheter we should accept

1. the current language which take advantage of possibly derogative terms in oredr to dirtly cast doubts on POVs without explicitly expressing it
2. the minimal weight that is given to people disputing the mainstream account of the fact (being relegated in the main article in a super short summary in a subsection called "conspiracy theories")
3. the actual impossibility (due to revert warring) to add true and sourced facts in the main article when these facts could seem strange with respect to the mainstream account.

I think WP:NPOV states clearly that all these points are not acceptable.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just a content dispute, but behavior from some editors on 9/11 pages has been disruptive with edit warring against consensus and tendentious editing. For example, edit warring by User:Xiutwel in the latest round led to full protection of the September 11, 2001 attacks article: [1] [2] (here he recognizes "no consensus" but edits anyway) [3] [4] [5]. This was a WP:3RR violation, but he was not blocked or reported at the time. He reverted one more time after he saw a warning left on the article talk page. User:Wowest has also been involved, with tendentious editing behavior. [6] [7] It would help if ArbCom could look at behavior of individual editors. Not all have been disruptive, but with Xiutwel, this has been going on for 2+ years (starting out with Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories). It gets very tiresome to stay involved on the 9/11 talk pages and wears people out. I like to do other things on Wikipedia with what time I have, and the 9/11 talk pages take away from that. Some of these other editors are here for a single purpose on 9/11 pages. Also, where does Wikipedia stand when it comes to tendentious editing and WP:FRINGE? --Aude (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, this has become just as much of an editor dispute as a content dispute. The year-long(+) debate has centered around incessant and repetitious proposals from User:Xiutwel, who has persisted in pushing his POV using disruptively long proposals on a near daily basis, in which he has evoked similar arguments for the same requests. He's done this in spite of detailed explanations and quotes of policy from experienced editors and administrators. Over the past two years, he has pushed for conspiracy theories on Oklahoma City bombing and September 11th, 2001 attacks while rejecting explanations of WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NOR from several dozen editors. When warned of tendentious editing by myself last month, he accused the article's editors of censorship: [8]. Asked why he has continued, he responded with this comment denouncing Wikipedia's use of reliable sources. The user has spend 95% of his/her time over the last year on 9/11-related talk pages, mostly repeating arguments disruptively at Talk:9/11 and, on several occasions, editing the article directly after failed attempts to gather consensus.

Recently, a pair of IP addresses and one or two other accounts have begun arguing in favor of Xiutwel's proposals. That has given these few editors traction for demanding a NPOV tag and creating edit wars over the issue, claiming there to be no consensus on the current state of the article. These editors have been disruptive by disregarding the definition of "consensus": "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'".

Let me clarify: Not everyone has been disruptive. However, there is a serious issue here with one or two editors. There has been precedence for dealing with tendentious single purpose accounts in similar arbitrations (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience) and I hope some form of related action will be taken here. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• General position: I am and have been trying (with little succes) to let our terrorism articles be NPOV, although other editors claim they already are.
• Arbitration: I am rather surprised that the subject chosen for Arbitration is the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, which is being mediated for name change.
  Most of the conflict seems to be around another article, September 11, 2001 attacks. For that article, I agree with Ice Cold Beer that we do need outside help. I've requested editor assistance, to little avail. We will most likely not reach consensus ourselves. An independent admin, User:Master of Puppets, has helped a bit in the past week in trying to get us to reach consensus.
  In my opinion, the various conflicts are more about the General Issue of the possibility of state sponsored terrorism, than any particular article. I believe that informal or formal mediation might help, which has not been tried yet, and I think it was too early to go to ArbCom for this, especially since it is largely a content matter.
• Conflict: Live and let live, that's what I would say about different viewpoints. I believe that wikipedia policy allows us to display parallel viewpoints neutrally, and I see beauty in that. (I am aware of limitations agreed from the guidelines, such as: "tiny views may get no coverage at all", and: UNDUE weight.)

  • Edits which are relying on reliable sources, which do not sollicit unwarrented conclusions, which are not a Synthesis (destorting the meaning of those facts), have nonetheless been reverted and called to be in violation of policy. The debate about this is ongoing.
    My opponents seem to claim that it is mandatory to follow a systemic bias which exists outside of Wikipedia, and are prescribing the disregarding of observables (in themselves undisputed) whenever mainstream chooses to ignore these observables, which had been noted/published by RS in the past.
  • I cannot speak for those who disagree with me, but in my perception the dispute has revolved around two issues:
    1. The mainstream account is the only truth, versus (me): in balancing the article the minority views merit mentioning (held by half a dozen Foreign politicians, some US-politicians, half a dozen Retired senior military officials, several scientists and other experts, and millions of people, estimated between 10 and 60 percent of the general population).
    2. Policy prescribes omission of facts/observables (which do not support the mainstream account), versus (me): Policy allows more than one viewpoint to be shown in an article, including the RS-reported observables that go with it.
  • I think I can imagine the point of view of those who revert my edits: when an article describes The Truth, including any doubt only confuses things and diminishes its quality. Wikipedia is not a propaganda vehicle, for crying out loud!
    In my fantasy, the opposing editors have 100,0000000% certainty about the correctness of their own view, and start reasoning about Wikipedia policy interpretations from that starting position. I am holding an opposite view myself, but I am nowhere near certain about it. Large parts of my personal view would fall into the catagory "tiny minority", and I am not "pushing" those aspects onto wikipedia, nor would I wish to. I think I am well able to seperate my own views from prevailing Significant Minority Views which do merit fair treatment.
  • Common ground seems to be: - the existence of the wikipedia policies (but not their interpretation), - the wish to uphold and apply them; - the observables, - and the existence of RS reporting on those observables (but not the interpretation of the observables).

• A large portion of my edits on wikipedia have been in 9/11 and Oklahoma City bombing, but most of my (unreverted) contributions have been in other non-terrorism articles, since my contributions to these two articles have been systematically reverted. Wrongly, i.m.o., because I feel my edits are in compliance with Policy, and their reverts were in violation of Policy. We have been discussing such edits at length, the most recent discussion interval starting in January 2008 on Talk:9/11.
• I have a lot to say about the accusations uttered against me, above, but I will do so only upon request by Clerks, in order to be brief here.
• I am running into a rather busy period in "RealLife" now, so I may not be able to contribute much. Please contact me via e-mail when a response is needed and I do not react to here, or my talk page. I live in The Netherlands and I am not a native English speaker.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is a simple one: Shall the article be called "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" or "9/11 Alternative Theories"? Likewise the choice should be a simple one, based on our answer to the question, "Which title is more neutral, yet still descriptive of the topic at hand?"

While the term "conspiracy theory" was originally (1909) neutral, since at least the late 1960s it has acquired a pejorative meaning similar to "urban legend." At the very least the use of such a moniker implies that whatever follows is "farfetched." Even more definitive is the term "conspiracy theorist," which is always pejorative and is synonomous with labeling someone a "crank" or a "paranoid, imbalanced person."

Given this historical context, there can be no pretense that the title "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" is neutral. In fact proponents of this title have repeatedly ceded this point; they want to retain the title because they consider bogus any and all alternative theories relating to 9/11, and they wish to prejudice readers accordingly.

The only NPOV title that has been suggested thus far is "9/11 Alternative Theories," which allows readers to decide for themselves the relative merits of whatever theories appear in the article.

I favor a change in title to "9/11 Alternative Theories." Apostle12 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/2/0)[edit]

• Recuse. The World Trade Center site is located approximately four miles from my home, and the events of September 11, 2001 affected every aspect of my life. My personal feelings regarding various "conspiracy theories" surrounding those events leave me without sufficient confidence that I can evaluate editing in this area impartially. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. Similar reasons to Brad. Also, on general principle, any case with this many "parties" needs to be honed down and focussed to exclude kitchen sinks and general plumbing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. I think we'll be able to help here via some of the newer approaches to similar cases that we've developed. Kirill 04:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per Kirill. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, per Kirill. FloNight ^♣♣♣ 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. That said, I can see one way it may well go, and if the community would use that first it would probably save much time. This is what I'm thinking about: -
  In other major "point of principle" disputes, such as WP:SRNC, the issue has gone via dispute resolution to arbitration, but in the end it's gone to a very thorough and comprehensive type of consensus seeking on the matter, and it was that which actually resolved the dispute. Another example was the vote on Gdańsk naming^1 2. Further examples of consensus-seeking in heavily deadlocked and heated areas include WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation and WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. What is important in each of these four, and what they all have in common, is that the underlying content issues were not resolved in fact by Arbcom action; rather, Arbcom action helped editors to realize they needed to engage in more measured than usual approaches to consensus seeking on the dispute. I would accept, but (without prejudging the case) would urge the community and interested users to also begin looking at these examples that were every bit as difficult in some ways, and maybe begin to discuss them together with a view to a formal consensus seeking approach in parallel with Arbitration to save time. A case like this has too many users and often reflects a genuine difference of view more than wilful breach of editing norms. In Arbitration cases like this the "remedy" on a first hearing has tended to be twofold: - 1/ to urge better more detailed consensus seeking as an initiative, and 2/ to deal with specific users who impede it. (If needed, more general restrictions have also been applied if there is widespread disruptive editing.) The former can be begun already to save time, the latter can be handled by administrators being slightly more forceful about conduct on the consensus seeking pages than usual. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. This has been a rumbling dispute causing disruption for some time now, and in light of the repeated failure of all other dispute resolution methods up to mediation, it is important that the boil is lanced through Arbitration. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 9 to 0 at 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Editorial process[edit]

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Passed 9 to 0 at 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Decorum[edit]

4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 9 to 0 at 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sustained conflict[edit]

1) The various articles related to the events of September 11, 2001 have been the scene of sustained and egregious editorial conflict, which has not been resolved by the normal means available for such disputes.

Passed 9 to 0 at 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Passed 8 to 1 at 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Superseded by an alternate sanction, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Contentious topic designation[edit]

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion at 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)[edit]

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, September 11 conspiracy theories (October 2023)[edit]

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.