Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence

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.

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.

This evidence was presented by Blue Tie on a Sandbox page belonging to Lawrence Cohen. I'm just cutting and pasting it. For your information, I'm located in eastern Michigan but all of our company's Internet traffic is routed through our server, which is located in South Bend, Indiana. The location Lawrence Cohen has mentioned in Elmhurst, Illinois is not one of our company facilities. That is a dealer who has a contract to sell our products. He is not connected to our Internet network in any way. One look at the bottom of his web page will confirm that fact, even though he is authorized to use our company logo and brand names.

In response to BenBurch's statement, he claims to be "privy to" certain info but does not present any evidence. I'm not BryanFromPalatine. I'm not DeanHinnen. I'm not ClemsonTiger, or any of the other people who have been conveniently lumped together and tagged as sockpuppets. I very calmly, politely and rationally discussed proposed changes on the Talk:Waterboarding page, with all due respect to people who disagreed with me, despite being labeled as an SPA and a sockpuppet. I finally blew my cool on one occasion at ANI after being tagged, once again, as an SPA; but my conduct on the Talk page has been exemplary.

And I would never go near the Free Republic article. Free Republic also has thousands of users (I have no idea how many, but there are evidently a lot of them) and they're all obsessed lunatics who own guns. I want nothing to do with them, but they're political junkies and it shouldn't surprise you to find a few of them hanging around a politically explosive current topic like Waterboarding. I will also add that the hostility, the accusations, and the constant baiting and badgering with which newcomers are met at Wikipedia are driving off people who could be making positive contributions. I, for one, will no longer be participating here. If you see this IP address again, it will be one of the many thousands of other employees who use this IP address.

The remainder of this evidence was written by Blue Tie.

---

I searched 209.221.240.193 and several of the other names. By chance I came upon something that indicates Neutral Good is right about the IP Address being a port for Bosch world-wide.

Here is what I found: This cache from Google shows some sort of query return on requests for some sort of service. Information was recorded on the sender. One of the sources was:

YourCompany: 
Name: Kbo Cppof Blue Tie note:(Name coded for privacy)
Phone: I Prefer to be contacted by email
FAX: 
Email: kboffo.cppof@boschrexroth-us.com  Blue Tie note:(email coded for privacy)
ServiceDate: 6/3/06 - 6/9/06
Preferred Bus Type: Shuttle Bus
ServiceTime: straight through
Quote: Submit Request
Remote Name: 209.221.240.193
Date: 05 Dec 2006
Time: 15:21:00

Then I looked up boschrexroth. This is a German company. However, it was Boschrexroth-us. Website is here. This company is located in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Per information above, the IP address is in South Bend, Indiana, which is, per Google Maps 124 miles away. This website says that Bosch Rexroth has 3200 employees in America, divided among 6 locations, 2 of which are close to this IP address.

Here are some other links of interest:

• This google cache identifies this with not just Boschrexroth but with all Bosch North America, a larger entity.
• Here we see that the address in question is not just attached to boschrexroth-us.com, but to: http-v.us.bosch.com, substantially widening the domain of potential users of that address.
• here we see that the address is attached to Novi, Michigan a location not associated with Bosch Rexroth, but with the larger Bosch organization.

Conclusion If the whole German company accesses the US through this port, hundreds of thousands of users would use that IP address.

If only US employees use that address -- the most likely scenario -- then over 18,000 people would use that port.

If only the employees of that Bosch Rexroth use it, there could be 3200 people who might use that address.

If only the employees of the two divisions of Bosch Rexroth use it, it might be about 1/3 of the total or between 1000 and 1100 people who might use that address.

No matter how you cut it, the address is not probative with regard to any particular editor's identity. -- Signed by Blue Tie

This is why Wikipedia doesn't allow the accusers to have access to Checkuser tools. They can't be trusted.

74.94.99.17 geolocates to Hoffman Estates, Illinois. (Comcast Business Communications, Inc., providing Internet services directly or indirectly to seven million subscribers across the United States.)

76.209.226.118 geolocates to Chicago, Illinois. (AT&T Internet Services, "the largest direct Internet service provider in the United States, serving more than 1.2 million subscribers" across the United States.)

209.221.240.193 geolocates to South Bend, Indiana. (Robert Bosch Corporation, the North American subsidiary of Robert Bosch GmbH, with "nearly 24,750 associates" across the continent.)

68.29.174.61 geolocates to Reston, Virginia. (Sprint PCS, with three million wireless Internet subscribers across the United States.)

As you know, an IP address can geolocate to a city several hundred miles, or even more than 1,000 miles from the place where the Internet user is actually located.

If Lawrence Cohen (God forbid, I'd never wish this on anyone) found himself having emergency surgery in a hospital in Baltimore, Maryland and three of the six surgeons operating on him went to medical school at Johns Hopkins University, he'd swear that it was a conspiracy. There's been a lot of chatter about this alleged "Bosch location" in Elmhurst, Illinois. It's actually a licensed distributor of Bosch products. There's been a lot of chatter about an alleged "Free Republic connection." As you can see from the "209" IP editor's User Talk page, he loathes the Freepers as much as I do. They're homophobic Neanderthals. They're a scourge on the Internet. I have never edited the Free Republic article or its Talk page, and never will. The "209" edits to other User pages occurred on May 4, more than eight months ago. The "209" edits to Free Republic or its Talk page ended on February 2, nearly a year ago. It was clearly a different user at the same IP address.

For Shibumi2, he was quietly and very constructively editing Japanese navy articles for nearly a year before all of this blew up. He was baited into archiving the Talk:Waterboarding page, then blocked 24 hours for it, when Lawrence Cohen explained that he was talking "tongue in cheek"[1] and put a smiley face in one of his posts.[2] Shibumi2's explanation on his User Talk page plausibly explains how he shared an IP address with newly created accounts. We have no idea about any additional evidence he might have e-mailed to Alison, but it produced an unblock within five days, and an apology from the admin who blocked him. He has tried to be a peace maker on the Talk:Waterboarding page.

For the conduct of all of these alleged BryanFromPalatine sockpuppets, it has been nothing but nice on the Talk:Waterboarding page. Even Lawrence Cohen can't provide a diff of even one edit by the "209" IP editor or Shibumi2 on that page that was less than perfectly civil. The "Bob" IP editor used a little sarcasm on a couple of occasions, but if that's worthy of a block, all of Lawrence Cohen's meatpuppets should be blocked for the same offense. That page has been spray-painted with their sarcasm, particularly by Inertia Tensor and Hypnosadist.

I'll admit that when I get pushed around by a gang of meatpuppets, I can get a little testy. My political beliefs are irrelevant, but the fact is that to a large extent, I share theirs. George W. Bush is the greatest disaster in the history of the United States. But I've managed to control my POV, and insist on Wikipedia articles that do not reflect my loathing for the man. I only wish these people could do the same. Wikipedia articles should simply present the facts in a strictly neutral manner, and let the facts speak for themselves. This duty becomes even more important on political hot topics that are in the news, but it's to these very articles that a mob of POV pushers come running. They got Haizum indefinitely blocked for disagreeing with them, and it gave Lawrence Cohen an idea. Now you see that idea in full bloom: "Win the content dispute, and WP:OWN the article, by delegitimizing the people who disagree with you and getting them indef blocked." "Bob" has coined a wonderful new term to describe it: "Wikiweaseling," for those who go beyond Wikilawyering.

In response to those who are looking at editing periods, it's not hard to find spots where Samurai Commuter's edits have overlapped, or interleaved if you prefer that term, with my edits and the edits of Shibumi2 and the "209" editor. However, all of these accused editors post in a sporadic fashion, not 16 hours a day. I've just reviewed them again and they're scattered all over the clock.

Lawrence Cohen's dishonest presentation of evidence

Throughout this ArbCom proceeding, Lawrence Cohen and his two new friends from Free Republic, BenBurch and Eschoir, have been dishonest in the presentation and discussion of evidence. Lawrence says below, for example, that "Neutral Good's evidence that 68.29.174.61 geolocates to Virginia is factually incorrect. Traceroute to it. The last identifiable hop is just over the Illinois border from where he is, as I demonstrated below." But we're talking about the Chicago area as Lawrence's claim of "where he is," and the "last identifiable hop" he's mapped out is in the St. Louis area. That's "just over the Illinois border" in much the same sense that Tbilisi is just over the Russian border from Moscow.

On the Evidence discussion page, Lawrence claims that "Shibumi2 edited a few Japanese related articles." [3] At the time I saw this, I counted them. Shibumi2 had edited 45 Japanese related articles at that time, which is far more than "a few."[4] Forty-five Japanese related articles edited (rather than just "a few"), with several created or expanded from stubs to "Did you know?" recognition, tends to support the conclusion that Shibumi2 is not a sockpuppet.

This is called "spin-doctoring," which is consistent with what Lawrence and his tribe of meatpuppets have done to both Waterboarding and Blackwater Worldwide. I'm limited to 1,000 words and 100 diffs, so I will just offer these two examples and caution the Arbitrators to never accept anything these three editors say about the evidence at face value. If you're going to use their claims to ban people, check out their claims first. The more you check them out, the more dishonesty you'll find.

Lawrence Cohen has coordinated the edit war

It's reasonable to conclude that Lawrence Cohen has been canvassing off-wiki, probably using e-mail to gather like-minded partisans together in his campaign to affect article content. This exchange was right out in the open on his Talk page: [5][6] (notice the "I despise edit warring" red herring) [7] (cyber back-slapping by BenBurch). They got the Free Republic article the way they wanted it and then got it protected, in much the same way that Lawrence got Waterboarding the way he wanted it and then got it protected.

Lawrence Cohen [8], Remember [9], Nescio [10] and Hypnosadist [11] worked together on the Blackwater Worldwide article. There's a common theme of their POV-pushing: holding the Bush Administration accountable for its war crimes by removing material that might support a verdict of "not guilty" in the court of world opinion, and packing articles instead with material that might support a verdict of "guilty." Notice Nescio's edit adding a link to the Wikipedia article on Command responsibility, and Hypnosadist's careful removal of a sentence (with RS) stating, "[U]nder international law, Americans working for Blackwater are not considered mercenaries while assisting the U.S. military." This is called "spin-doctoring," and is the opposite of what a Wikipedia article should do. Inertia Tensor is an SPA created less than four months ago, who mysteriously agrees with them about everything but really goes over the top with it. (Diffs coming.) They were easily gathered at Waterboarding through off-Wiki contacts such as e-mail.

The Waterboarding article is routinely protected for warring

The Waterboarding has been protected by admins many times for wild edit warring. To quote User:Alison from the logs: "Sheer mayhem by anon editors". This began roughly around November 1st 2007, the approximate time frame that waterboarding first really became a hot news topic in America.[12]

Decline of civility

The discussions to unlock the page afterwards were quite civil and very collaborative, as seen here in Archive #3 and Talk archive #4, through the end of November 2007. Archive 5, from 23 Nov 2007 - 26 Dec 2007, is when things went South in terms in civility. It was in this section on the legal definition of torture in archive 5 that things began to shift in tone, as far as I can tell. Even when there were disagreements before, such as the "Foreign opinion is irrelevant" comment by Randy2063, things were still hashed out amicably, for the most part. Randy and myself, for example, debated some NPOV points tooth and nail a few times, but conversations on our respective talk pages were quite pleasant. I had compared it to Sam Sheepdog and Ralph Wolf, from the old Looney Tunes. They fought tooth and claw when on-the-clock, but were fine outside of "work", and friends. Even our fighting was just debate, barring the odd unpleasantness, and it was like this across the Waterboarding page, as people just hammered out solutions together. However, Neutral Good's very first significant contribution after making his account was:

Here's the edit summary for the revert: "rv expert opinion is not split on if its torture just if its legal to do it in america." John Yoo was expressing an opinion on whether enhanced interrogation techniques, which included waterboarding in 2002, were legal UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. [20] The naked partisanship of the politically motivated editors who are trying to own this article is painfully obvious.

Shibumi2's version of the lead paragraphs was superbly crafted. It accommodated everyone's concerns and accurately reflected the divided state of expert opinion. It is unevenly divided: more of the experts believe waterboarding is torture. Shibumi2 reflected that fact by listing them first and acknowledging that they are in the majority. It's obvious from his hasty edits on this Talk page that Shibumi2 is not a native speaker of English, which means that he invested a lot of time and effort into makeing his mainspace edit a perfect one.

Respect that effort, people.

Now that I've created an account, I'll be able to edit this article in four days. Let's invest those four days trying to reach an amicable agreement about the lead sentence of the article, that doesn't completely ignore Shibumi2's position and mine, for the sake of your partisan agenda. Neutral is good. Pretending that one side of the argument doesn't even exist, and that the other side of the argument is the only one that exists, is not good. It is a deliberate defiance of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Those principles are not negotiable. Neutral Good (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hostility, nastiness, and an immediate defense of confirmed sockpuppeteer "Shibumi2", who based on provided evidence is likely (as is Neutral Good) either a sock or meatpuppet of User:BryanFromPalatine. This began to soon set the tone for the ever-growing fiasco that spread all over Wikipedia.

Internal dispute resolution and mediation have failed

On the article, internal dispute resolution has failed, as every attempt to negotiate anything since early December 2007 has deteriorated into mud slinging and political nastiness. What began as a good natured "bipartisan" I suppose, conversation, became intractable warring and nastiness. An RFC was started by User:Jehochman, located at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, which quickly revealed that sources supported, plainly, saying that "Waterboarding is a form of torture" based on various factors, including the fact that there were 144+ noted and sourced opinions that waterboarding was torture, and 4-6 that said it wasn't. The more clear it became that the RFC was in favor of the "is torture" per NPOV and WEIGHT, the nastier the civility got, compounded with it going, as they say, "batshit crazy" once the Iowa and New Hampshire election primaries took place (the completely lunacy on these issues in the corresponding time frame). I think the timing for people to really put on a push to get torture taken out of or downplayed in the article lead, in opposition to perceived Wikipedia policy, consensus, and the RFC, happening to correspond with the timing of these major political events is unfortunately not a coincidence.

Mediation attempts outside of the standard Mediation groups was attempted, as well as bringing in various people over a prolonged period of time via the Reliable Sources noticeboard, Fringe Theories noticeboard, NPOV talk page, Reliable sources talk page, AN, ANI, and I've lost track of where else. None have worked out.

I also freely admit that in the past few weeks I have lost my head somewhat on this matter, after ongoing provocative edits by Neutral Good such as this, referring to my "body cavity searches", and this, accusing me of leading some anti-waterboarding cabal of Blackwater Worldwide editors, which is farcical. I found the waterboarding page from doing RC patrol, and while all this nonsense has happened, found the time to contribute all over Wikipedia, write a featured article, start on another, and try to start a project, unlike some likely bad-hand SPAs or puppets. My apologies for any unbecoming or snippy comments I've made in the past few weeks over this.

NPOV was considered acceptable to violate

Editors proposed violating NPOV, a core Foundation level policy, by devalueing non-United States sourcing, or sourcing of certain alleged political viewpoints: "Foreign opinion is irrelevant because they haven't necessarily been under the same pressures,"[13] "You mean politically motivated, POV fringe opinions like Human Rights Watch? Or politically motivated, fringe opinions from 100 law professors whose previously published writings indicate membership in the lunatic left-wing fringe? You mean politically motivated, POV fringe opinions like those?"[14]

Neutral Good is disruptive and incivil

General disruption, POINT

• Violation of new rules on Waterboarding.

BLP violations

• Here, calling a living person and BLP subject "a BAD PERSON and, in fact, a thoroughly evil and irredeemable person." Emphasis his.

Ad hominem arguments

• "lunatic left-wing fringe"

Assumptions of bad faith

• "You're lying"

False implication of consensus

• "13-9 in favor"
• "we have a consensus"

Non sequiturs

• "Little Timmy wasn't tortured"

Personal attacks

• "America bashers"
• "America haters"
• Calling Wikipedia editors "fanatics".
• "body cavity searches"

Poisoning the well

• "your misrepresentations"
• "body cavity searches"
• "just take your word for it, after your multiple, provably false accusations?"

Straw men

• "filet mignon"
• "proof...absolutely sure"

Harassment

• Attacking me, after warned to not.
• Filed a RFCU where a Checkuser said, "this smacks of retaliation, based on many of the talk page comments you have made recently."

Warnings from admins

• Here, "Going around to many different pages shopping this same complaint is disruption pure and simple. Please stop now or you will be blocked."
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• "Stop this now, Neutral Good."

"This is the absolutely positively last warning you will get not to disrupt this page. You are welcome to constructively discuss the article, and suggest improvements to it. You are welcome to civilly express your opinion. You are not welcome to question the motivation of editors with other views, assuming their bad faith, impede progress and accusing others of misconduct. If you wish to lodge a complaint about the actions of other editors, there are other venues. This is a page for discussing the article, nothing else. Any further disruption will result in a lengthy block. henrik•talk 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

"Bob" the Sprint user is disruptive and incivil

• Here. "Block Black Kite immediately. Don't even try to Wikiweasel your way out of it. Block him immediately for a meaningful length of time, or all of your little rules aren't worth a pile of beans. This Wikiweaseling is really getting on my last nerve. I refuse to insult and demean lawyers, or dignify this conduct, with the word "Wikilawyering." It is a disgrace. Love and Kisses, Bobby"

• User:68.31.89.157: "loathe the Bush administration"
• User:68.31.210.220: "it's an understatement"

BryanFromPalatine sockpuppetry connection

Based on information from Black Kite's research in his opening statement. There is an extensive history of disruptive sockpuppetry related to conservative issues, and Free Republic happening here. User:BryanFromPalatine is still active on Wikipedia. Please review:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek

Consider:

• The 209 IP edits are being done from some location(s) controlled by this Bosch company in the Palatine/Elmhurst area. By editing "anonymously" this user can claim to be someone else, or multiple people, and then no one can realistically counter this without contacting Bosch.
• Neutral Good's declared IP is some other very close by location, in the immediate geographic area as BryanFromPalatine. Either BryanFromPalatine himself or a meatpuppet.
• The Bob Sprint Wireless IPs (which includes Shibumi2 and CU confirmed sockpuppets) are being done from some mobile device like a laptop or smart phone, by the same person, given the constant tone of voice, and intense focus on these conservative issues and Waterboarding. All from the same approximate geographic location.

Evidence that 209.221.240.193 is User:BryanFromPalatine

• BryanFromPalatine's Checkuser confirmed IP address of 209.221.240.193 is in South Bend, Indiana. That 209.221.240.193 user has stated that "all" global employees of Bosch Corporation use that as their "gateway" IP address. Bosch has offices in Elmhurst, Illinois. If you Google around for DeanHinnen and BryanFromPalatine, and this IP address, and Bosch, further evidence on a news site can be found, but that I will not link to here for privacy reasons, that apparently spawned off the previous Free Republic RFAR in news coverage. It clearly demonstrates the link between DeanHinnen, Bosch, Elmhurst, and this IP address.
• Note the editing history of User:208.250.137.2's talk page. Similar edits happened on other usernames here, here, and here. If 209.221.240.193 were not BryanFromPalatine, why go to the trouble of removing a false notice from some random IP or user pages that said that they belonged to BryanFromPalatine? 209.221.240.193 takes up a similar advocacy role as Bryan/Dean Hinnen did in regards to American conservative causes, and from looking seems to have a very similar voice to this "Dino".
• * Removing references to "User:DeanHinnen", a username registered in public, citing personal information.

Evidence that Neutral Good is BryanFromPalatine or his meatpuppet

• Neutral Good's IP (disclosed by himself willingly) is or was 76.209.226.118. This IP from using http://www.hostip.info doesn't appear to geolocate. The IP right before it though (last hop on a trace route) does happen to be 68.22.72.82, which geolocates to Elmhurst, IL, which is a 20 minute drive from Palatine, IL, where BryanFromPalatine operated from. Elmhurst as mentioned is where Bosch is, which has a demonstrated strong connection to BryanFromPalatine. Neutral Good takes up a similar advocacy role as Bryan/Dean Hinnen did in regards to American conservative causes, and from looking seems to have a very similar voice to this "Dino".

Evidence that the Cloud of Sprint called "Bob" and related accounts are BryanFromPalatine or his meatpuppets

• 68.29.174.61 was confirmed by Checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/GooseCreek as being User:PennState21, User:Harry Lives!, and User:Shibumi2, who was began editing right after User:BryanFromPalatine was blocked. User:Shibumi2's contributions show an interest in Free Republic, BryanFromPalatine's main focus. 68.29.174.61 does not directly geolocate on hostip.info, but the IP right before it, 144.232.23.86, is from a nearby Sprint regional service it appears, located just over the Illinois border. Might be a coincidence, but the geographic closeness here is alarming. This contradicts claims that this IP address belonged to Pennsylvania State University, which is clear across the country. 68.29.174.61, 70.9.150.106, and 68.31.220.221, all detailed in Black Kite's opening statement and evidence, also come back to this Sprint geographical region. Bob takes up a similar advocacy role as Bryan/Dean Hinnen did in regards to American conservative causes, and from looking seems to have a very similar voice to this "Dino".

• Additional edits from the same "Bob" IP range can be found here on the Free Republic talk page, all from the same IPs, all going to back to the same location as "Bob" when checked on hostip.info and the hop before. Even more interesting: Bob on the Free Republic page is praising User:Shibumi2 with the same glowing tone and wording as User:Neutral Good, such as he used in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shibumi2, now deleted. Admins can review it. I suspect that User:Shibumi2 is a proverbial "ripened sock" of BryanFromPalatine.

• There are more scattered throughout on the Free Republic talk history, all randomly changing Sprint Wirless IP ranges from the same geographic region, all "Bob's"/"BryanFromPalatine's" voice. The same legal tone of voice as BryanFromPalatine, and the same aims. He never left Wikipedia.

• At some point, the number of bald "coincidences" here passes by coincidence into fact. How is it so many random users, with similar political stances as BryanFromPalatine, similar legal tone of voice, and all from the same geographic region (if not the same neighborhood and corporate IPs) all arrive nearly at once to build up each other on both Free Republic and Waterboarding?

• 70.9.13.143 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) another. Doesn't sign as Bob, same IP range and location and ISP. If this wasn't the same person, why do ONLY Sprint Wireless IPs from this area contribute? Wouldn't we see IP editors from all over the place, country, and from different ISPs. Lawrence Cohen 16:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that Samurai Commuter is BryanFromPalatine

• Note the Unblock request on this version of his talk page, where he says he is editing from 70.9.11.188. That is another Sprint Wireless IP address that traces back to the same geographical region as all the rest here, using the same methodology. It's even in the same subnet as one of the ones listed above. Samurai Commuter's sole contributions are Free Republic edits, and attacking Wikipedia editor User:Eschoir, in line with BFP actions of the past. Lawrence Cohen 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that The Friendly Ghost (talk · contribs) is BFP

• Blocked by David Gerard as BFP; first edit was to User:BryanFromPalatine. Checkusering this name may be helpful to work this all out. Lawrence Cohen 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional proof that Shibumi2 is tied in as Bryan Hinnen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Friendly_Ghost Note his contributions to the Japanese naval article. Lawrence Cohen 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence they're all BFP

• here going after this "archenemy" Eschoir. This is all a horrendous waste on WP's resources and people dealing with this guy. Neutral Good has NOTHING to do with that situation. He has no relationship with Eschoir, Commuter, and doesn't care about Free Republic he claims. Yet here he rides to SC's defense. Please. Lawrence Cohen 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Samurai Commuter is very worked up about WP:SELFPUB allowing for using forum posts on Free Republic as sources (note the talk page there). The 209 editor, suddenly and inexplicably, is pushing similar things on Talk:Rachel Marsden#WP:SELFPUB. Why is this user who is "not" BryanFromPalatine or Samurai Communter suddenly pushing the same thing to allow inclusion of a right-wing Conservative pundits' columns in this article? Lawrence § t/e 14:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Randy2063

Randy wrote, "So, the question really is, should Wikipedia as a matter of policy pick a side in a political and legal matter?"

It (this content issue) is a political fight in one nation, and only an alleged legal one. For Wikipedia to take into consideration such factors for article content, on behalf of any nation, or to allow such nationalism to guide an article or the nature of content on this site is incompatible with NPOV at its most base level. This aspect of it isn't a content matter, but there isn't an easy to frame it without using a content example. In this case, waterboarding.

1. Current US administration won't say a word on status of waterboarding in public.
2. Lots and lots and lots of notable, WP:RS compliant individuals (149~) say its torture.
3. Some individuals (4-8~) say it may or may not be, and in several cases say its not.
4. The opinion that its not waterboarding by all our standards and conventions is a Minority Opinion. The handful of advocates of this position are individually quite notable, but that doesn't trump all our precedent and history for dealing with this. A fringe view is a fringe view, regardless of who says it. I suspect this is distressing to some, but that is unfortunate.
5. Its a massive political hot potato in the United States because of the War, the war on terror, and the elections.
6. For Wikipedia to treat this article for NPOV as any different than how any other article handles NPOV for contentious fringe views would be a violation of NPOV policy.
7. For Wikipedia to treat this with any special consideration for external legal or political ramification in a lone nation (the United States) would be a possible endorsement of nationalism.
8. Previous arbitration cases have dealt with individuals pushing POVs that are "pro" their nations. In this case, it's a case of pro-US, which is bizarre.

Response to Neutral Good

Note that User:Haizum was blocked by community consensus here on this thread on ANI archives for issuing threats and a years-long history of massive personal attacks and incivility. Neutral Good's evidence that 68.29.174.61 geolocates to Virginia is factually incorrect. Traceroute to it. The last identifiable hop is just over the Illinois border from where he is, as I demonstrated below.

Please note also the incivility and personal attacks in his presentation of evidence.

Response to Neutral Good's "dishonest presentation of evidence" allegation

In regards to Shibumi2's edits, it's all there. Sockpuppets could well edit some other articles to cover their tracks, but ultimately, this person inexplicably is pushing the exact same agenda on Free Republic as BryanFromPalatine. Why is this innocent user, who was proven to be sockpuppeting by Alison on the waterboarding article, pushing and fighting on the behalf of a notorious banned editor on another article, who also socked it up extensively (this is a non-debatable fact, BFP is a socking troll as proven by CU and RFARs)?

Additionally, re the IP "last hop". Next to last hop on a traceroute of St. Louis to Palatine is frighteningly close. Wikipedia.org's IP is 66.230.200.100 it looks like. According to http://www.hostip.info that is in Tampa, Florida, which is public knowledge. The next IP up the line is 66.193.50.242 which is Clearwater, Florida and looks like about 20 miles away. That appears to be another Wikipedia server, so probably another hosting center for us. But... the next hop before that? It's 192.205.34.6, owned by ATT.net and in Lake Mary, Florida, which it looks like is 2+ hours from Tampa. This is directly comparable to the jump from just over the Missouri border for the sockpuppetry by the "Bob" IPs as I demonstrated. Next hops are a geographic region, not expected to be down the literal physical block. Neutral Good doesn't seem to know how IPs work, which is fine. This took a significant amount of research time for me, and I don't expect people who have to split their time through multiples to be able to dig in as much. All this information is for Checkusers, anyway, and not everyone else. Lawrence § t/e 16:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shibumi2 is a sockpuppeteer

A number of accounts were identified in the GooseCreek checkuser case, and blocked. The sockmaster Shibumi2 was initially blocked for two weeks, but unblocked 5 days later by User:Alison with "forgiveness and understanding but not vindication" [19].

Shibumi2 is located near BryanFromPalatine/Neutral Good

Shibumi2 posted an auto-unblock request [20] where the user states that their IP is 74.94.99.17. 74.94.99.17 geolocates to Hoffman Estates, IL, 10km (6 mi) from Palatine, Illinois. This is in the immediate geographic area as BryanFromPalatine/Neutral Good edits from. Combined with other evidence of the Shibumi2/Neutral Good connection above I put forward a strong likelihood that Shibumi2 is another meat- or sockpuppet of BryanFromPalatine/Neutral Good. henrik•talk 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shibumi2

Shibumi2 comes to peaceful FR article on Dec 11 after six months of quiet. He unilaterally edits the cokehead felon quote, the Julie Reedick info and the Jenna information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=177331978

On Dec 23rd he reappeared posting new well-prepared material on "Hillary Staffer" and separately, without announcement, the "Leftists agents provocateurs" mentioning the account WyldCard, which he stated "Freepers" suspected of being a sleeper troll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic&diff=next&oldid=179899441

Here is the only online reference to WyldCard:

---

To: Hacksaw WyldCard has been banned for the Mia Lawrence incident. Try to pull up his homepage, you'll get "No current Freeper by that name." But like Philo said, it was festooned with Bush caricatures and left-wing slogans.

123 Posted on 08/03/2001 13:37:14 PDT by Bryan [ Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | Top | Last ]

So Shibumi2 is quoting Bryan as his Reliable Source.

"Leftists . . . agents provocateurs"

BryanFromPalatine first posted the "leftists - agents provocateur" Chronicles quote here a year ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic&diff=next&oldid=98625454

The verbatim Shibumi2 December WyldCard reference was previously placed by Justin88 on March 15 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=115426946

At the same time a section on Gathering of Eagles was placed by justin88, Revision as of 02:21, 20 March 2007 (edit) (undo)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic&diff=next&oldid=116425050

Simiultaneously Bryan announces the addition on FR

A Gathering of Eagles - These Colors Don't Run, Pro Troop Rally Live Thread

Posted by Bryan to Thunder90; mcmuffin; tgslTakoma; Dutchie; Lukasz; Matchett-PI; x; Kurt_Hectic; jpl; retMD; ... On News/Activism 03/19/2007 7:34:45 PM PDT · 1,390 of 1,421

Hey, check it out! There's a report about the Gathering of Eagles in the Wikipedia article about Free Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic#.27Gathering_of_Eagles.27

Some lunatic from the left-wing fringe is bound to delete it because it doesn't make the Freepers look bad. But for as long as it lasts, there it is.

Shibumi2 spent most of his other FR time editing 'Giuliani supporters.'

Samurai Commuter

Samurai Commuter (hereafter SC) came into this world at 8 minutes after New Years, Illinois time. He was unregistered at first, but knew all about arbitration and probation.

His first four posts were "Giuliani supporters" edits. After a good nnights sleep, he starts attacking me at post six.

"I've explained how he attracted my attention: an edit containing the word "penis" "

He posted a 'final warning' on my talk page on Jan 1, 2008. In his sixth post at one ini the afternoon. Said I was 'well known"

In his last post before permanent bannage, Bryan (as FreedomAintFree) wrote

The Jewish World Review source indicates that Drudge removed his link to FR because of racist posts surrounding the "Clinton love child" story. But you've ignored a statement by Drudge one paragraph later in the same JWR story, saying that he restored the link. The history is that Drudge briefly removed the link for racist posts, quickly restored the link, and then removed the link again for unknown reasons. As it stood, the paragraph here in the Wiki article was misleading; and the brief removal of the link for a few racist posts isn't notable. FreedomAintFree 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Six months later, the edit stealthily reappeared!

Drudge later restored the link from his site to Free Republlc, but dropped it again for unknown reasons, and currently does not link.

(cur) (last) 00:02, January 6, 2008 70.9.56.94 (Talk) (36,474 bytes) (→1996-2000 - Anti-Clinton - Improving layout. Changing some awkward wording ... nothing substantive.) (undo)

SC calls sandbox refactor a poison pen letter to Robinson.

BryanFromPalatine motivation to be the wiki Übertroll

First of all, apologies for the length of this section, but is seemed better to quote than link.

His FR homepage

I'm a member of the Free Republic legal team. In the summer of 2001, I flew out to California to help Attorney Brian Buckley ("Clarity") appeal a judgment of $1 million against Free Republic in the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post copyright lawsuit. In addition to $1 million in damages, Federal Judge Margaret Morrow (a Clinton appointee -- imagine that) awarded the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post over $1 million in attorney fees from their high-priced Beverly Hills law firm. It would have bankrupted Free Republic. JimRob could have run Freepathons for ten years and never would have paid that off.

Brian and I researched the law and drafted aggressive and thorough appellate briefs, based on the fair use exception to copyright law. The lawyers for the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post were afraid they were going to lose everything, and settled for $10,000 and no attorney fees.

You're welcome. Any time JimRob needs me, I'll be there.

---

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies

U.S. Senator [Ted "Tubes" Stevens, R-AK]: It's time to ban Wikipedia in schools, libraries

Posted by Bryan to discostu; Valin; muawiyah; Victoria Delsoul On News/Activism 02/17/2007 4:49:56 PM PST · 75 of 102

I only look up pop culture stuff on Wiki. Band histories, movie stuff, junk like that. Maybe the occasional ultra-quick reference stuff. I don't give a crap what they say about anything political, actually when push comes to shove I don't give a crap what anybody on the planet says about anything political. The problem is that Wikipedia is the premier online information source. Google searches list it first. Yahoo searches list it first.

When any high school or college student in the English-speaking world hears the name of "Free Republic" for the first time (and you can substitute the name of any conservative organization or politician here), they will look on Wikipedia first.

And then they will read a hit piece that was written by a nasty little group of left-wing moonbats. Free Republic has been honored with an article written by a couple of the worst left-wing moonbats on the Internet.

If you think it looks bad now, you should have seen it on January 6, before my brother started working on it:

January 6 version of Wikipedia article about Free Republic

---

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies

U.S. Senator [Ted "Tubes" Stevens, R-AK]: It's time to ban Wikipedia in schools, libraries

Posted by Bryan to Cheapskate On News/Activism 02/17/2007 3:58:32 PM PST · 64 of 102

There are two DU moonbats who are camping out on the Free Republic article at Wikipedia. Would you believe that they gutted the part of the article that deals with Rathergate?

Would you believe that the moonbat from the "White Rose Society" has denied that the "Killian memos" are forgeries and claims that they could be easily duplicated with 1973-era typesetting equipment?

Do you need a link?

---

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies

U.S. Senator [Ted "Tubes" Stevens, R-AK]: It's time to ban Wikipedia in schools, libraries

Posted by Bryan to Strategerist; republican; rboatman; tame; Alamo-Girl; zappo; backhoe; goseminoles; Balding_Eagle; .. On News/Activism 02/17/2007 3:49:31 PM PST · 62 of 102

Most of the science stuff on Wiki and some of the history stuff is fine - people on FR tend to obsessively focus on current events or politics stuff which obviously will have biases and such - but it's a small part of Wiki. The Wikipedia article about Free Republic is a hit piece -- written by a pair of Democratic Underground moonbats. One of them is the Webmaster for WhiteRoseSociety.org, whose slogan is "Fighting The Rise of the New Fascism." He's an evangelist for the "Bush=Hitler" brigade.

The funny thing is that anybody can go over there, open an account and start editing articles. You just click on the tabs across the top of each page. One of them says, "Edit This Page." Another says "Discussion", which is basically a discussion thread about the article and can be edited just like the article.

My brother is over there right now, trying to remove a libelous statement about Free Republic from the article, and these two DUmmies are trying to get him banned. Check it out. He's fighting back like Jet Li.

---

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies

On attacking me:

Eschoir Is Editing Wikipedia Article About Free Republic Wikipedia article about Free Republic | March 5, 2007 | Bryan

Posted on 03/05/2007 4:20:28 AM PST by Bryan

You can look up the editing history of the Wikipedia article about Free Republic, starting with the most recent edit. On the 11th line, at 3:28 GMT, you will notice an edit by our old friend Eschoir, his name conveniently highlighted in red. Does anyone here need a better reason to open an account at Wikipedia?

If you choose to do so, please remain calm, rational and completely civil or they will ban you on sight.

During the past few months, the Wikipedia article about Free Republic has been a "hit piece" thanks to the work of a couple of DUmmie fanatics, BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A. They posted libelous statements, and packed the article with every criticism they could find on the Internet by anti-Freepers, Clown Posse, Salon, etc.

In addition, I was banned and my full name was posted there by an administrator I thought I could trust with personal information. He betrayed that trust and after that, I was pretty easy to find. A link to my home address and home phone number were posted on my Wikipedia homepage. Since I was banned, I couldn't take it down; and the harassment that occurred after the LA Times lawsuit was settled has started up again. We started receiving nasty phone calls late at night.

Thanks to the hard work (and tolerance for personal attacks) of a few brave people, including my brother and a couple of other Freepers, it has been transformed into something approaching a fair and balanced article.

Now Eschoir has appeared.

Recruiting a mob:

---

To: republican; rboatman; tame; Alamo-Girl; zappo; backhoe; goseminoles; Balding_Eagle; ... A shout to all my old friends at Free Republic. Feel like doing something to improve Free Republic's image in the eyes of the world? Or would you just like to say hello to our old friend Eschoir?

He's editing the Wikipedia article about Free Republic. Maybe you'd like to give him a little help. After all, Wikipedia gets about 2 million hits a day. It's one of the biggest heavy traffic websites on the Internet.

3 posted on 03/05/2007 4:27:35 AM PST by Bryan [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Full Circle

Finally, USER:The Friendly Ghost, a suspected Bryan Sockpuppet, after starting off with Bryan as his first post, then spends most of his two day career making corrections to and promoting a Shibumi2 article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Ry%C5%ABh%C5%8D&diff=prev&oldid=102032136

Checking his contributions shows The Friendly Ghost seems to have beenn created solely to promote Shibumi2.

I don't know, but his command of Japanese is corrected here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Ry%C5%ABh%C5%8D&diff=next&oldid=102915663

Finally, banning is practically useless, as Bryan has amply demonstrated. Heavy moderation, a la FR, is not a solution, unless you wish to become an armed encampment of partisans.

Fitting in 209.221.240.193

• BryanFromPalatine 07:27, January 5, 2007

• 209.221.240.193 12:57, January 5 2007

• Justin88 17:56, March 15 2007

• Shibumi2 23:24, Dec 23 2007

Note the failures to make descriptive edit summaries. Eschoir (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Linkage between Samurai Commuter and banned Bryan

SC previously used a link to FreeRepublic poster Bryan.

Now he is posting as a reliable source a link to a freerepublic poster named Clemson Tiger, a handle banned here as a BryanFromPalatine sockpuppet.

In August 2000, a "self-described office liberal" at the South Carolina Department of Transportation was forced to resign after using a department computer to disrupt the Free Republic forum, and then send an e-mail to Robinson taunting him about it. ^[1]

And that Freerepublic poster also posted this showing knnowledge of remote computer operation:

(Vainty)Connecting a remote computer thru ISP to a home network LAN help

Posted by The Clemson Tiger to JerseyHighlander On Bloggers & Personal 03/18/2005 5:33:46 PM PST · 21 of 25

Remote Desktop is the way to go...if XPHome doesn't come with it, you can download it for free from Microsoft.com...

New Linkage between Shibumi2 and Bryan

Shibumi2 posts a link today here to what he tries to sell as a new article. His problem is that the source of the article is [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b742a3c317b.htm Bryan]'s archives.

The chances that that he stumbled upon "Leftists . . . agents provocateurs", Wyldcard and Flak Magazine all first published by Bryan in succession independantly of Bryan - negligible.

It was first acknowledged here in 2005 by the son of FreeRepublic's founder who agreed that organized parties of "freepers" were "Directing people here to wear down editors . . ."

Perhaps the remedy for that organized trolling is not banning, or letters to employers but consensus.. But consensuss with who? JohnRob agrees that it makes FreeRepublic look bad. If your organization wants to nip this in the bud, it should contact the sysop, James Robinson, with the offending IPs and confirm who the offending handles are, maintaining privacy, and urge them to 'knock it off' or be zotted. Eschoir (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I point out the "Evidence by Shibumi2" below, which acknowleges a connection between Shibumi2 and banned user BFP, and which mostly consists of reposted material from banned user Samurai Commuter.Eschoir (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shibumi said below

I am not a sockpuppet. One year ago I saw Free Republic article being edited by person called BryanFromPalatine. Since Palatine is near my home I became interested. I returned in December and found good material for this article that was deleted.

BFP's last edit to Free Republic was Jan 5 2007. Shibumi2 was created January 7, 2007. But for one minor edit on 1/10, Shibumi2 didn't appear in the FR article until 2/17. Eschoir (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am wholly unsurprised that Hinnen has been sock puppeteering here since his banning. He had a regular procession of puppets going on for months. After all the hassle of the RFA, I gave up and stopped tracking him here because I was fed up. I almost left Wikipedia entirely. But looking at the references to the current crop of alleged socks, I am absolutely convinced that He is here even if all of the addresses are not him. Many of them seem to originate near Robert Bosch Corporation sites in the USA. As Hinnen has claimed a few times now that he is a lawyer for said firm, business travel would appear to cover the geographic movement well.

Sockpuppetry by NeutralGood pointing at banned user Bryan Dean Hinnen

I place 76.209.226.118, the IP associated with NeutralGood in the Chicago area in an AT&T IP pool. As a pool IP it probably does not have a single fixed point. One geo-location service puts it in Carol Steam, IL, in the immediate area of the 545 W Lake Street, Elmhurst, IL address for Chief Enterprises, a Robert Bosch location only 2 mies from Carol stream, and a 19.13 mile, 24 minute drive from Hinnen's home address which is just a few blocks off Rand Rd in Palatine, IL. I suspect that either 76.209.226.118 is an illegally-used open WiFi in that area or represents a WiFi cafe or the Carol Stream public library which has free WiFi. In addition, NeutralGood is a name I would expect from Hinnen who has a history of professionally-designing D&D modules.

Other matters

208.250.137.2, mentioned in other evidence geolocates to Palatine, IL.

209.221.240.193, mentioned in other evidence geolocates to South Bend, IN, and is ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATION - NORTH AMERICA BOSCH-BRAKES.COM

For more on Hinnen and our doleful experience with him here last year, see; http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=206&pop=1&page=0

I was privy to some email headers and log file contents at the time when Hinnen was trying to get APJ to take down their article about him, and they originated all over the planet, including 139.15.237.6 which was from Robert Bosch GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany, so it appears that travel or no, he has the run of the networking assets of Bosch Corporation.

As noted in talk, it is trivial to change proxies on a regular basis using the list of open proxies provided by http://www.samair.ru/ and I strongly recommend that all of these be blocked on an ongoing basis. So, if there are apparent BFP socks editing at the same time codes, this list or another like it could easily defeat that alibi.

My opinion on remedies; Bryan Dean Hinnen needs to be served with a C&D from the Wikimedia Foundation. At work. By a uniformed peace officer. And a copy needs to be sent to Bosch detailing his abuse of their corporate network. If he persists after that he should be hauled into court.

Also please see commentary on the Discussion side of this page.

As the arbiters have said they will comment on how policy should be applied, I have included some of the most severely disputed points. In these points both sides argue that they are "NPOV" and it is the other side that is misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. I understand that this ruling will not be about specific content, but ask that the following issues of interpreting policy can be decided upon.

Foreign sources are not irrelevant; Wikipedia articles should be written from a global perspective

It has been argued that non-U.S. sources should be dismissed; "the fact that "Wikipedia is global" doesn't change the fact that most of the other opinions and examples are irrelevant".[21]

Over 500 years of historic sources aren't irrelevant

It has been argued that Wikipedia articles should consider sources that pre-date current controversy.[22] The counter to this argument has been that what sources have said for hundreds of years is irrelevant to this article.[23]

Historic sources can't be dismissed because they don't use modern terminology

It has been argued that historic sources (such as books published hundreds of years ago) can't be cited because they don't use the modern term "waterboarding", and so citing them here is Original Research.[24] It has been argued that modern sources have referred to these historic cases as "waterboarding". The argument against this is that the modern sources are "confused" about exactly what "waterboarding" is.[25]

Prominently weighting recent politics is against Wikipedia policy

It has been argued that changing the definition of a physical act because of a political issue of the United States in the last few years is an example of WP:RECENTISM.[26] It is also a violation of WP:WEIGHT - the Khmer Rouge carried out waterboarding on tens of thousands of victims, and it was always described as an act of torture. Allowing the waterboarding of fewer than five people in the last couple of years to affect the definition of an act that has been carried out on tens of thousands of people, and described in accounts dating back over 500 years, is a clear violation of policies against recentism and undue weight.

Other controversial articles have set precedents on the use of expert sources that are appropriate here

It has been argued that global warming, the Holocaust, intelligent design, and others represent similarly disputed concepts, and are good examples of how these disputes should be treated by Wikipedia.[27][28] This has been repeatedly dismissed, arguing that these articles are POV-pushing and "not a precedent, but rather a cancer in the system.".[29][30][31][32]

Professors of law are legal experts, and should be given sufficient weight on legal issues, not dismissed as "extremist"

One key citation is the legal opinion of over one hundred professors of law at U.S. universities. It has been argued that this source should be either dismissed entirely, or given little weight, because they are "extremist" and "left-wing ideologues" who "believe that if a captured terrorist commander on enemy soil refuses to answer questions, we're supposed to ask him what kind of wine he would like to be served with his filet mignon".[33][34][35]

Wikipedia should rely on reliable sources citing experts: The general public is not an expert source

It has been repeatedly claimed that evidence of a dispute can be established by citing a poll of the general public.[36][37] This goes against other established articles in which public opinion is disregarded as an expert source.[38][39] Instead of accepting that the approach of other articles is relevant, they are dismissed.[40]

There are experts on torture, such as Judges and doctors

It has been argued that the question of torture can't be reliably sourced on Wikipedia, since "there is no such thing as an 'expert' on torture".[41] The counter to this has been that there are indeed experts on torture, both legally (judges who have heard such cases, experts writing in academic journals), and medically (eg. senior doctors heading torture treatment centres).[42]

Politicians and pundits are not experts

It has been argued that the opinion of politicians and politicial commentators is relevant.[43]. It has been pointed out that these sources are not experts on this issue.[44][45] It is claimed that these kinds of citations are okay by policy.[46] Politicians and pundits would not be cited as experts on global warming, or the Holocaust, so why would they be considered experts on this issue?

Dispute wasn't described properly

Whereas it's been called "Waterboarding is/is not torture," I think it's really whether "waterboarding is torture" or whether it's "widely considered torture."

Most (or perhaps all) of those who don't want it called "always torture" would have been perfectly happy if "widely considered" had been inserted.

Opinions of 140+ legal experts isn't enough

Most of the oft-noted "140+ legal experts" who say it's always torture seem to be ideologues. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but you cannot say it's conclusive based on their word, whether it's individually or collectively. Others disagree. Opinions aren't facts.

Wikipedia should not become a political tool

One might have called waterboarding "torture" sixty years ago when the word's use was more fluid, but "torture" has more precise legal implications today. It amounts to a political statement.

So, the question really is, should Wikipedia as a matter of policy pick a side in a political and legal matter? That's what this is.

Wikipedia already has a policy for this

I've suggested WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves numerous times. One would think we could simply describe waterboarding as a process and as a legal issue and then let readers draw their own conclusions. Yet many editors insist that the word "torture" must be used without reservations. The phrase "widely considered" isn't strong enough for them. Ask yourselves why this is.

May I suggest that no matter how this works out, someone should clarify those guidelines.

Response to Neutral Good

If I understand his/her assertion correctly the only edit I ever made to the Blackwater article, creating a link to another article, means that I am working on that article. Second, he apparently claims that my edits are part of a sofisticated scheme (meatpuppery?) to insert POV into articles. Both propositions I refute, and expect because of insufficient support for that lucirous claim that he/she apologises and acknowledges this is a pure fabrication on his/her part.

The dispute revolves around legalities

Part 1

(Work in progress, will add accordingly the coming days)

People have suggested that the definition of torture is not merely a legal matter. Although I agree that many, if not all, words, concepts,ideas, et cetera, are open to philosophical, sociological, historical, etymological, political, religious, et cetera, debate, there is ample evidence this alleged widespread dispute is solely based upon the legal implications.

Some facts:

1. In 1996 the US adopted the War Crimes Act (WCA). This defined a violation of the Geneva Conventions (GC) as a war crime.
2. In 2002 Gonzales wrote a memo outlining the possibility that certain individuals could be prosecuted under the WCA, for actions taken in the War on Terror (WoT).
3. The same memo specifies that by eliminating the GC from the equation the likelihood of point 2 happening will be significantly reduced. This effectively is a description of a legal loophole involving war crimes.
4. Almost directly after that the Bush administration advocated the GC do not apply in the WoT.
5. In 2006 the US Supreme Court ruled that the all detainees in the WoT are protected by the GC, and specifically article 3 regarding the treatment of detainees.
6. Immediately follwing this decision the Bush administration aggressively pushed for the adoption of the Military Commissions Act (MCA).
7. Part of the MCA is a retroactive rewrite of the WCA, which effectively makes those individuals outlined by Gonzales no longer punishable under US law. In other words, certain actions that were considered war crimes in the original WCA no longer are after the MCA was adopted.
8. Mukasey specifically declined to say whether waterboarding is torture because it could open criminal liability for the individuals involved.

The above strongly revolves around possible litigation and how to prevent that, as evidenced by the fact that even high officials explicitly discuss the legal ramifications. Surely this illustrates that legal considerations, and not socio-political ones, are behind the sudden "widespread debate."

Part 2

Wikipedia has several articles detailing controversial topics. These fall within the scope of philosophical, sociological, historical, etymological, political, religious, et cetera, debate. For some reason WP, when confronted with a widespread dispute, chooses to describe the topic from the perspective of experts and not from all the other possible viewpoints.

Several examples exist where we mention the fact certain individuals oppose what essentially is consensus among experts without acknowledging a widespread dispute:

1. Evolution is not considered disputed despite opposition in the form of Intelligent Design.
2. The Holocaust is not presented as disputed despite the fact there is opposition to the mainstream view.
3. AIDS is presented as being caused by HIV despite the fact people oppose the mainstream view.
4. The form of our planet is not presented as disputed despite the existence of opposition to the mainstream view.

If these articles use expert opinion to determine what the topic stands for it is difficult to understand why suddenly in this case we should incorporate public opinion and pundits when confronted with the same philosophical, sociological, historical, etymological, political, religious, et cetera, debate.

Based on sources there WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT apply

(working on the numbers, not finished, so may amend accordingly)

People advance the notion there is an actual debate on whether waterboarding is a form of torture.

To establish the quantity of that debate an RFC was started and can be found here. The result as of this moment is:

1. 148 sources state it is torture
2. 4 sources state it is not torture.
3. 8 sources are either unable or unwilling to make any determination.

These figures lead to the following conclusion: 92% says it is torture, 3% says it is not torture, while 5% make no determination.

In addition, an opinion poll says that 29% of the US population believe it is not torture. Although invoking popular opinion is a logical fallacy we, for sake of argument, may see what that may bring. If the vox populi is looked at we should determine what percentage we are talking about. Since Wikipedia purports to be a global encyclopedia we should take a global approach.

1. On July 1, 2007 the US population was 301,621,157.[47]
2. 29% of the US population is 87,470,136
3. Our planet has 6 billion people

This means that of the entire planet Y% believes it is torture.

Consistency within Wikipedia

Within Wikipedia several activities are described as torture. Few, if any, are as extensively sourced as the waterboarding article.

• Bastinado was originally a German word for the act of dieing, in the literal sense of is specifically used to refer to a form of torture or corporal punishment which consists of beating the soles of the offender's bare feet with a hard object, like a cane or rod, a club, a piece of wood, or a whip.(unsourced statement[48])

• Denailing is a form of torture that consists of the removal of the toe nails or finger nails.(unsourced statement[49])

• A mock execution is a method of psychological torture, whereby the subject is made to believe that they are being led to their execution.(unsourced statement[50])

• Rat excitation is a form of torture.(unsourced statement[51])

• Sensory deprivation is the deliberate reduction or removal of stimuli from one or more of the senses. Simple devices such as blindfolds or hoods and earmuffs can cut off sight and hearing respectively, while more complex devices can also cut off the sense of smell, touch, taste, thermoception (heat-sense), and 'gravity'. Sensory deprivation has been used in various alternative medicines and in psychological experiments (e.g., see Isolation tank), and for torture or punishment.(unsourced statement[52])

• Sleep deprivation is a general lack of the necessary amount of sleep. This may occur as a result of sleep disorders, active choice or deliberate inducement such as in interrogation or for torture.(one source[53])

• Solitary confinement, colloquially referred to in American English as "the hole" or "the pound" (or in British English "the block"), is a punishment or special form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is denied contact with any other persons, excluding members of prison staff. Usually cited as an additional measure of protection (of society) from the criminal, it has also been called a form of torture.(unsourced statement [54])

• Strappado is a form of torture in which a victim is suspended in the air by means of a rope attached to his hands which are tied behind his back, in which the arms are most likely dislocated.(unsourced statement [55])

The above is a sample of articles that specifically state "is a form of torture." Most of them lack the sources to support such a statement. Nevertheless, using common sense it would be silly if somebody advanced the notion that is a form of torture regarding these techniques is disputed. Here WP should be consistent, either we accept that these articles can make such a statement, which would make the extensivley sourced statement in the waterboarding article acceptable, or we disallow that statement in waterboarding which effectively means we would need to remove is a form of torture from all those other articles. The latter seems to be a very unreasonable request.

{Write your assertion here}

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.

{Write your assertion here}

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.

{Write your assertion here}

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.

Bosch.com IP address corporate proxy

I'm inclined to err on the side of the IP in this case. It resolves to http-v.us.bosch.com. Googling for 'http-v' finds many, many references to bosch.com hosts, broken out in to several countries, i.e. http-v.de.bosch.com. Searching for published weblogs containing this string typically have this string as the highest or only bosch.com hostname. It is strongly questioned in /Workshop that 'we only have this users word that [there are more than one legitimate users of this IP address]'. I would AGF that this IP address is a corporate proxy, or by far, the single biggest web surfer in Bosch's US offices. The former seems far more plausible, and the latter seems rife with bad faith and disingenuity. Achromatic (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I made previous unimportant comments that can be viewed in this diff)

I have spent more than 25 hours reviewing every edit (over 1600) ever made to this article. The data I will present are found in an Excel spreadsheet. If someone will tell me how to load a Spreadsheet up to my User Subpage, I will put a link to it here. However, here are results:

• Most Editors, including those who are accused of bad acts, have (to my eye) acted in good faith.
• Only a very few editors over the years have behaved very badly... and usually they were new.
• The article has been "owned" or "protected" by someone -- but different people at different times -- during its life.
• The article has been the subject of stress, tension and edit wars over exactly the same issue for several years. The issues of torture /not torture are not new.
• Having said that, the article has not actually been the edit war disaster that it has been made out to be.
• Those who want it to say it is torture have been more persistent than those who do not.
• Activity on this page correlates very highly with interest in waterboarding as indicated by Google Trends, but this is not always related to the political races going on.

Recently:

• Lawrence Cohen has done a huge work of fixing many references and deserves commendation.
• Remember has tried hard to be neutral.
• One editor has held a position that has been instrumental in preventing a compromise. This editor is NOT one of the editors named as a bad actor (and is probably acting in good faith).
• Several specific editors have generated unhelpful edits that increased the heat.

Long Term Dispute (not just recent)

• The first edit creating the article declared that waterboarding is torture. This was June 2004.
• In December 2005, the first edit appeared challenging the statement that Waterboarding is torture.
• That version of the lead remained until May 2006 when it again said that waterboarding is torture.

Torture vs Interrogation Technique - 28% vs 43%

• It appears that about 30% of the editors who edited the article lead over the life of the article have wanted the article lead to actively affirm that waterboarding is torture while 70% want it to use other wording. Of 102 editors who have made a distinct edit to the first paragraph and expressed a clear opinion of how it should read, 28 clearly unique editors want the article to declare that waterboarding is torture. 43 said that it should be described as an interrogation technique or a information gathering technique. 18 editors proposed a paragraph that did not declare it by intention (torture or interrogation) but rather described it in terms of what actions comprised waterboarding. There were also other suggestions, including labeling it as a neologism and some of these other paragraphs were downright bizarre ("It is a form of a technique.") Here is the breakdown:

	How the Lead Paragraph Should Start and Read
	Torture / Regarded as Torture	Interrogation / Information	Descriptive	Other	Total
Registered Editors	11	11	8	2	32
Anon Editors	17	32	10	6	65
Subtotal	28	43	18	8	97
Possible Double Counts	4	0	0	1	5
Total	32	43	18	9	102

Details of which editors were included and how they edited can be found in this presentation.

'More data and evidence to be presented below, as I am able but certainly more tomorrow

A few editors have taken caretaker / ownership of the article

• About 638 editors have edited this article.
• About 445 editors (70%) have only one edit to the article.
• 1/3 of all edits on the article are the work of 12 editors (2%):

(more coming)

A consensus version of the lead was determined

Place holder for evidence

Effort to seek unanimity undermined consensus

Placeholder for evidence

Some named editors have reverted notably more often than others

Placeholder for evidence

Policy defines fact vs opinion

Placeholder for evidence

Whether waterboarding is torture is seriously disputed

Placeholder for evidence

Excessive concern over sockpuppets causes disruption

Placeholder for evidence

Some editors refuse to assume good faith

Placeholder for evidence

--Blue Tie (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Neutral Good

The accusation i removed sourced infromation

[56] This edit presented as evidence by neutral good will clearly show me remove a comment "supported" by a primary source, when we need an RS secondary source to say what the UNHCR says. So i removed it, if that was wrong then just revert me. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last 30 days, Neutral Good and Shibumi2 have no interleaving edits

Two editors who are active at the same times of day inevitably show interleaving edits given enough days. Interleaving edits occur when both accounts perform sequences of edits with short intervals, and the sequences overlap in time. Here we have a situation where these two editors are never logged in to Wikipedia at the same moment in time over the course of 30 days, though they are both active on different days during the same times of day. This is highly improbable, unless there is coordination between the two accounts, such as two people sharing one computer, or one person controlling two accounts.

Both have edited during the same times of day, for instance 20:00 - 02:00, but they never do so on the same day. I have only checked backwards 30 days, but we can go back further if necessary. Jehochman ^Talk 06:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sage tinted cells show interleaving between Neutral Good and Samurai Commuter. Lavender tited cells show interleaving between Shibumi2 and Samurai Commuter. Jehochman ^Talk 04:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date	Neutral Good (talk · contribs · count)	Shibumi2 (talk · contribs · count)	Samurai Commuter (talk · contribs · count)
27-Jan	12:18-12:35, 16:54-17:07	20:01-21:10	inactive
26-Jan	16:54-17:12, 21:15-21:25	inactive	inactive
25-Jan	11:30 one edit	21:48-22:19	inactive
24-Jan	05:09, 12:28-13:12	23:16-23:44	inactive
23-Jan	inactive	22:55-23:24	01:43, 3:08-5:08
22-Jan	inactive	17:55-18:38	14:25, 16:48, 19:36-22:40
21-Jan	01:31-01:50, 06:34-07:24	inactive	02:14-04:21, 06:26
20-Jan	00:31-00:37, 01:13-02:34	20:10-20:25	0:52 one edit
19-Jan	13:33-13:34, 17:22-18:40, 22:15-22:21	inactive	01:52-01:59
18-Jan	03:22-03:49, 11:17-13:34	23:28-23:39	11:39, 14:40-22:49
17-Jan	inactive	00:07-01:28, 23:04-23:12	13:58-23:05
16-Jan	00:49-01:50	23:30-23:49	00:07-00:15, 11:14-12:46, 19:25
15-Jan	03:21-03:28	inactive	01:50-03:01, 13:56-20:30
14-Jan	inactive	23:12-23:22	00:34-00:38, 02:32-04:05, 11:51-17:03
13-Jan	02:07, 04:54-05:58, 16:59-23:26	inactive	02:01, 17:53, 20:27-20:50
12-Jan	02:44, 18:18-18:23	inactive	03:30-04:09
11-Jan	inactive	inactive	inactive
10-Jan	02:33-03:40, 11:42-12:06	22:42-22:43, 23:47-23:51 (deleted)	03:54-04:25
9-Jan	00:59-03:31, 10:07-11:11	23:08-23:45	11:41-13:56 (first edits)
8-Jan	inactive	23:21-23:36
7-Jan	00:20-01:15	inactive
6-Jan	01:57-04:20, 23:23-23:45	22:00-22:34
5-Jan	00:28-04:23, 16:13-16:56	inactive
4-Jan	02:51-04:43, 12:11-12:14	18:41-18:57 talk page edit, (unblocked at 20:20) 22:37-23:07
3-Jan	03:31-04:08	blocked
2-Jan	00:43, 11:46-12:19	blocked, 23:16 talk page edit
1-Jan	00:48-05:50, 14:32-23:46	blocked
31-Dec	05:00 one edit	blocked
30-Dec	00:10-03:29 (deleted), 05:11-06:33, 15:06-23:10	blocked at 19:43
29-Dec	02:25-04:29, 13:30-15:15 (deleted), 20:04-23:53	inactive
28-Dec	01:01-03:13, 12:16	inactive
27-Dec	01:36-03:44, 12:33	23:17-23:50
26-Dec	03:04-03:39,12:23-12:43	inactive
25-Dec	inactive	inactive
24-Dec	inactive	00:05-04:24, 14:33-21:05
23-Dec	inactive	15:54, 18:08-23:59
22-Dec	05:34-07:18, 12:44-13:20 (first edits)	inactive

{Write your assertion here}

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.

I am not a sockpuppet. One year ago I saw Free Republic article being edited by person called BryanFromPalatine. Since Palatine is near my home I became interested. I returned in December and found good material for this article that was deleted.

I request that Arbitration Committee consider and take action on WP:COI concerns regarding Eschoir. Previous Arbitration finding was that he was "previously involved in serious external conflict with Free Republic." All of his edits seek to remove evidence that people who do not agree with Free Republic are vandalizing and disrupting their forum, or seek to introduce more and more criticism of Free Republic into article. This violates NPOV. There is more criticism in Free Republic article than in Stormfront article.

This evidence was first written by Samurai Commuter.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic#Free_Republic_placed_on_article_probation

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

The article is about a conservative Internet forum founded by Jim Robinson. User:Eschoir is a former member of that forum who was permanently banned in 1998 for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts for purposes of disruption. He has been called "the ubertroll Eschoir," and the person using this descriptive term was clearly not biased against him by any sympathies with Free Republic. Eschoir was so disruptive that Robinson found it necessary to spend $110,000 on a federal lawsuit to obtain a permanent [www.freerepublic.com/aldridgeinjunction.htm injunction] against him. If he ever starts another account at Free Republic, he can be jailed for contempt of court. This is the mother of all WP:COI problems. Eschoir never should have been allowed to edit the Free Republic article.

Nevertheless, Fred Bauder was willing to AGF, as seen on Eschoir's User talk page. From that moment forward, Eschoir steadily transformed the Free Republic article into his own bitter little personal blog. It was an inventory of every petty little feud that occurred between Free Republic members, and every nutball statement that was ever said in a ten-year history of about 2 million posts in their forum. The article gradually moved farther and farther away from compliance with WP:NPOV.

At one point, he added an edit containing the word "penis", describing an alleged event involving two real people: Kristinn Taylor, a prominent participant at Free Republic, and another participant using the alias "Dr. Raoul." Since the article isn't about a topic dealing with sexuality or medicine, this immediately attracted my attention regarding a possible WP:BLP violation. (Since then, Eschoir has admitted that the alleged event never occurred.)

I placed a final warning for vandalism on Eschoir's Talk page and started actively editing the article to bring it into NPOV compliance. Ever since that moment, he has been making false WP:SOCK accusations, [57] see edit summary see edit summary see edit summary [58] [59] [60] see edit summary [61] [62] see edit summary [63] [64] and occupied territory that's best described as a continuous violation of WP:NPOV, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:DBAD.[65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] Eschoir expanded a quotation from Robinson into a blockquote, continuing his campaign of cherry-picking quotations that make Free Republic look like a collection of nutballs and criminals. He chopped up a Talk page post into an incomprehensible mess by inserting a contentious and contemptuous response between its lines.

Eschoir then began to engage in a full-fledged edit war to revert edits that were supported by consensus, and clearly intended to restore NPOV.[71] [72] [73] [74] [75] see edit summary

When User:BenBurch offered to do a complete rewrite, or “refactoring” of the article in an effort to end the edit war, at first it seemed like a good idea. Eschoir offered several recommendations, including using a reverse chronology format, but couldn't resist making another jab at FR regarding "volunteer shock troops" and "holy war." (See also here regarding reverse chronology format.)

Rather than wait for BenBurch to do it, Eschoir did the refactoring himself on a "sandbox" page. Now it's obvious why Eschoir wants to go with a reverse chronology. It enables him to stuff all of the following epithets, from recent critics describing Free Republic, into the first 161 words of the article:

• vile
• hateful
• besmirching Christian values
• some pretty sick people posting
• inciting the murder of Hillary Clinton
• racist and homophobic
• poor moderation
• victimized by a wave of purges

Eschoir’s continued efforts to demean anyone on the Talk:Free Republic page who doesn’t share his position: [76] [77] Said efforts have been recognized as demeaning by others: [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] This is a perfect example of why COI editors need to be watched closely. Please take the necessary action.

I previously brought this up for enforcement at WP:ANI Arbitration Enforcement. I was told that your ruling was so vague that it's unenforceable, and that I should bring this issue to WP:RFAR Clarification. The ruling from the previous arbitration must be modified so that no administrator could possibly misunderstand that he has the authority, and the duty, to ban editors from editing the Free Republic article and related pages for being disruptive, failing to assume good faith, or making personal attacks. Specifically, please ban Eschoir from editing the article. It's been 10 years since he was banned from Free Republic for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts. His refactoring of the Free Republic article demonstrates that even after 10 years, he can't resist the temptation to turn a Wikipedia article into a Poison pen letter to Jim Robinson. Samurai Commuter (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly disruptive editing on any article can be dealt with by any uninvolved administrator, following consultation on WP:ANI where appropriate. Arbitration (or arbitration clarification) is not always necessary, and may not be needed here if administrators conclude that the problem is serious enough. With specific respect to Eschoir, the editing history described above is very troubling, although I would welcome comment here by Eschoir before reaching a further conclusion. (I see that Eschoir was apparently not notified of this request for clarification, and have left him a talkpage note asking him to respond.) It is also noteworthy that a proposed finding of fact during last year's case, though not ultimately adopted, stated that "Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site." If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision, then it might indeed be suitable for him to discontinue editing this particular article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since that request by Newyorkbrad on 14 January Eschoir has ignored his request. Instead he chooses to continue his edit war on Free Republic. He has ridiculed my struggles with the English language since it is not my native language. [83] I encourage Arbitration Committee members to take this opportunity to remove Eschoir from the Free Republic article and all related pages. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{Write your assertion here}

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.

{Write your assertion here}

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.